I personally see zero difference between Farrakhan and David Duke. Farrakhan hates jews, and white people. Duke hates jews, and black people. The message and hatred is the same.

Getting back to the original topic, there is a difference between arguing about the morality of executing cold-blooded murderers and arguing about the circumstances under which the death penalty is given.

One can condone the execution of cold-blooded murderers while insisting that the death penalty be given under strict conditions. As I see it, the flaw is in the conditions under which the death penalty has been given.

The big difference between the two are huge to anyone knowledgable in American history. David Duke speaks forvand represents a terrorist group with a well documented history of murder, rape, castrations, burnings of human beings and destroying property of unprotected men, women and children. The Min. Farrakhan has and continue to expose current injustice domestic and abroad. Both condemn the Jews. The Minister exposes the Jews past and present criminal ectivities including the hugevrole they played during slavery. David Duke and so called nationalist whites and racists condemn Jews for their robbing them of the billions in booty during the same era as well as present control of Media, Hollywood, banking, and the Federal Reserve, the differences are monumental.

Simply put. The whites have done it and now the blacks want to do it.

that makes no sence whatsoever.

I guess in the pursuit of the lesser of 2 evils. One should choose the radical islamist. However in the pursuit of goodness I could name a great man like Mahatma Gandhi, Who never had to slander any races nor exhibit violence to make a change. Then again you might not want to mention Gandhi since he was murdered by a radical islamist just like Minister Farrakhan.

I agree.

Im afraid you are wrong, There is evil, and then there is its responce. First of all evil is the ones who terrerized men women and children during not only slavery and the Jim Crow era, but also, white terrorists racists openly bombed many churches during the civil rights era as well, the 6th st. Baptist church was one of many targets of sanctioned terrorism of the 50s and 60s. Many were carried out by hooded law enforcment and other goverment officials. No white churches or other places of worship was ever terrorized by by groups. Whites were not victims of murder, rape, castrations nor public burnings by Black groups. Whites did not have their schools, property, homes or farms destroyed by Black kkk. So you see, your sence of right is not only missplaced, its distorted in way of facts. Secondly Min. Farrakhan can not possibly be an Islamist because, 1.there is no such thing, 2. Most Muslims around the world are Sunni, and other sects. They dont agree with him because he uas called strapping on bombs and killing innocent people is wrong and that Muslims around the world are not practicing nor are properly practicing Islam. So that point you make is bogus to say the least. Finally, you are also mislead on Ghandi, he did in fact preach to resist British occupation and criminalityin India. In fact not all of his many speeches peacefull. Many of his speeches inspired more extreme elements to indeed rebel against British rule through armed resistence. He was a peacefull man, however, his commitment to becoming an independent nation did inspire violence. As for the Muslim who killed him, in India at the time, the conflict between Muslims and Hindus was inspired by British spies that created distrust among the two to insure continued divide and conquer tactics that further prolonged British rule. Muslims at the time were recruited to bid for the British. You obviousely know little of your own Akerican history, let alone Indian. This thread was originally regarding the flaws of the death penelty, not Islam nor rrligion.

Im afraid you are wrong, There is evil, and then there is its responce. First of all evil is the ones who terrerized men women and children during not only slavery and the Jim Crow era, but also, white terrorists racists openly bombed many churches during the civil rights era as well, the 6th st. Baptist church was one of many targets of sanctioned terrorism of the 50s and 60s. Many were carried out by hooded law enforcment and other goverment officials. No white churches or other places of worship was ever terrorized by by groups. Whites were not victims of murder, rape, castrations nor public burnings by Black groups. Whites did not have their schools, property, homes or farms destroyed by Black kkk. So you see, your sence of right is not only missplaced, its distorted in way of facts. Secondly Min. Farrakhan can not possibly be an Islamist because, 1.there is no such thing, 2. Most Muslims around the world are Sunni, and other sects. They dont agree with him because he uas called strapping on bombs and killing innocent people is wrong and that Muslims around the world are not practicing nor are properly practicing Islam. So that point you make is bogus to say the least. Finally, you are also mislead on Ghandi, he did in fact preach to resist British occupation and criminalityin India. In fact not all of his many speeches peacefull. Many of his speeches inspired more extreme elements to indeed rebel against British rule through armed resistence. He was a peacefull man, however, his commitment to becoming an independent nation did inspire violence. As for the Muslim who killed him, in India at the time, the conflict between Muslims and Hindus was inspired by British spies that created distrust among the two to insure continued divide and conquer tactics that further prolonged British rule. Muslims at the time were recruited to bid for the British. You obviousely know little of your own Akerican history, let alone Indian. This thread was originally regarding the flaws of the death penelty, not Islam nor rrligion.

Most people who no longer have anything to offer in way of construtive debate will often revert to imature inuendo to deflect from lack of constructive input leaving then in the sake place they started from, with nothing.

Isn't that something people say. When they have been proven wrong? Kind of like Ugly people saying "beauty is only skin deep" or Fat people saying "Love me for my mind"

Isn't that something people say. When they have been proven wrong? Kind of like Ugly people saying "beauty is only skin deep" or Fat people saying "Love me for my mind"

Wow!! You did not know Ghandi was fighting for the independence of India from British colonial rule? Id love to continue this little war of words with you, however, you are obviousely unarmed. Wow!! Amazing.

Im afraid you are wrong, There is evil, and then there is its responce. First of all evil is the ones who terrerized men women and children during not only slavery and the Jim Crow era, but also, white terrorists racists openly bombed many churches during the civil rights era as well, the 6th st. Baptist church was one of many targets of sanctioned terrorism of the 50s and 60s. Many were carried out by hooded law enforcment and other goverment officials. No white churches or other places of worship was ever terrorized by by groups. Whites were not victims of murder, rape, castrations nor public burnings by Black groups. Whites did not have their schools, property, homes or farms destroyed by Black kkk. So you see, your sence of right is not only missplaced, its distorted in way of facts. Secondly Min. Farrakhan can not possibly be an Islamist because, 1.there is no such thing, 2. Most Muslims around the world are Sunni, and other sects. They dont agree with him because he uas called strapping on bombs and killing innocent people is wrong and that Muslims around the world are not practicing nor are properly practicing Islam. So that point you make is bogus to say the least. Finally, you are also mislead on Ghandi, he did in fact preach to resist British occupation and criminalityin India. In fact not all of his many speeches peacefull. Many of his speeches inspired more extreme elements to indeed rebel against British rule through armed resistence. He was a peacefull man, however, his commitment to becoming an independent nation did inspire violence. As for the Muslim who killed him, in India at the time, the conflict between Muslims and Hindus was inspired by British spies that created distrust among the two to insure continued divide and conquer tactics that further prolonged British rule. Muslims at the time were recruited to bid for the British. You obviousely know little of your own Akerican history, let alone Indian. This thread was originally regarding the flaws of the death penelty, not Islam nor rrligion.

Not only do I know all about Gandhi's non violent fight against the british empire. I also know the real reason he was assassinated was because the muslim population of India. Decided Gandhi's interest in liberating India was more inclined toward the Hindus than toward the muslim's thus the creation of Pakistan in 1948. Now just like all muslims it seems anything against or in this case (not giving enough attention) to the muslim population should be murdered. As they say in Islam kill the unbeliever. So yes my argument is well prepared. How is yours?

I believe I covered that already, but the topic is still about the death penalty and its historical injustice towards people of color. Finally, British operatives had much to do with keeping India instable. So your original claim of Ghandie is incorrect. His committement to Indias independence from British colonial rule did in fact inspire violence and resistance. Your obssession with Muslims has its roots on fox news. Ill return tovthe topic at hand considering you prefer a war of words wity no means.