Obama Mentor to Host Farrakhan Protest Against Facebook Ban

@pipette calling for genocide of whites??

not sure what parallel universe this exists in, maybe just fantasy on your behalf...not sure why you want to imagine this but okay, to each his own lol

 

I agree. Plus we need to know what these people believe.

 

My beef with Louis Farrakhan dates back to the 1990s. In 1989 Muslim fundamentalists violently seized control of Khartoum, Sudan's capital, from its democratically elected government. These, led
by General Omar Hussan Ahmad el Bashir, at once began trying to impose strict Islamic practices on the Christians and animists (spirit worshipping) groups. Sudan's population was 70% Muslim,
which lived in the northern two-thirds of the country, concentrated along the Nile, and 30% Christian and animist who lived in the wetter, subtropical one third of the country in the southern region known as
the Bahr el Ghazel (River of the Gazelles). To force compliance and conversion on the southerners the Muslims bombed and burned peaceful villages, re-instated chattel slavery, murdered, raped and
tortured non-Muslims.

According to NEWSWEEK, May 3, 1999, "The victims are black Christians and animists: the slave traders who raid the southern villages are Muslim Arabs, whose racial and religious kin control the
central government in Khartoum. Journalists and human-rights groups have documented the resurgence of slavery in Sudan, but that has done nothing to reverse the trend."

In roughly a dozen years, over one million people were killed and over 250,000 - mostly women and children - were taken as slaves and sold in northern Sudan, Libya, Chad, Maritania, and
possibly other Muslim countries. Up to four million people were forced to flee the country temporarily and had to live in refugee camps under the most appalling conditions. All thiis from a population
of only 9 million. The west was very slow to see the situation in Sudan, and when it began to understand, el Bashir invited Louis Farrakhan to Khartoum. Farrakhan returned from visiting his
fellow Muslim and immediately declared all reports of slavery were lies. This was enough to send the Liberal press scurrying for cover. Farrakhan was a 'black leader' which meant that Liberals
couldn't criticise him (with a few honorable exceptions). Neither would other black leaders criticise Farrakhan, meaning el Bashir was free to continue his genocide.

Only a few news outlets would touch the Sudan story after this. One, the Daily Gazette of Schnectady, NY, wrote on March 23, 1997, "Sudan is waging Jihad, or holy war, against its Christian and non-Muslim
populations. Government troops raze villages, massacring the men and selling the women and children into slavery." Such honesty was rare, however. And I blame that on Farrakhan. He is a racist,
an anti-Semite, the betrayer of the Sudanese people, and an all-around lying sack of s---. But, he is a 'black leader' and so Liberals have their lips firmly attached to his posterior.

 

Are you aware that you didn't say who?

 

What does Obama have to do with this??

 

Free speech does not mean others owe you their property. Try again.

 

Owe them my property?

What are you talking about?

 

Private citizens do not have to use their private property to publicize your views or anyone else's. Refusing to do so has nothing to do with your right to free speech.

 

Thats totally different from liberal attitudes about Christian baker and homosexual weddibg cakes

 

Take it up with a liberal. Don't use any hypocrisy on their end to try to justify the hypocrisy of the right.

 

Hypocracy is not the worst thing possible

Being a lib who is totally clueless about the basic truth of life is far worse

 

Do you also believe that right-wing groups shouldn't be banned either? Honest question.

 

The answer to free speech we disagree with is more free speech.

In the old days, a statement clarifying that the views and beliefs held by a content creator are not necessarily the views and beliefs held by management was sufficient.

 

Liberals, back in the day, strongly believed in free speech. Now, though, they say "Hate speech is not protected speech." They use this credo to try to stifle any ideas they disagree with. You see
it all the time on college campuses, where Conservative speakers are routinely harassed and prevented from speaking. ("Hate Speech" of course being anything that disagrees with them.)