Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Muslims in the US, correct?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
16 hours ago, iCambrian said:

This seems kind of silly. For the sake of argument "oh my country only killed 10 innocent people, not 20, so it's reasonable for me to live here."

Do you know whats the difference between 20 innocent dead people and 10 innocent dead people?

Bring me 20 of your family members and I will demonstrate if you want.

Now, although I appreciate your engagement in general, your moral judgement or any other judgement as a "christian humanist" holds absolutely zero value to me.

Oh, and FYI:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Fluoridated-water-extent-world.svg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Salam, The US is not a singularly awful country, the government even as bad as it can get, still helps tons of people. And the American people are very charitable people.  And Hollywood only affe

You guys speak as if you are actively working against the current US government but we both know you are just living your day to day life dealing with your own day to day problems with not the slighte

Back to the original topic.  Like others have said, although the US Government is more responsible, more than any other single country in the world, for the current world order which serves the c

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

Do you know whats the difference between 20 innocent dead people and 10 innocent dead people?

Bring me 20 of your family members and I will demonstrate if you want.

Now, although I appreciate your engagement in general, your moral judgement or any other judgement as a "christian humanist" holds absolutely zero value to me.

Oh, and FYI:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Fluoridated-water-extent-world.svg

Here, What I am saying is, there is no difference between 10 and 20.  Because even if it were just 1 innocent family member, it would be too many.  And this idea of moving to a "less evil" country that may have only killed 5 innocent people verses 10, is pointless, because even that 5 is just too many.  You pack your bags and you move to norway, only to find out that norway is also guilty.  Then what do you do? Move again? Or just say...well, I guess because they only killed X amount of innocent people and not Y, I guess that makes this a good spot to live.

And what does that map have to do with anything? Fluoride added to water at small concentrations is not a bad thing. Ask any dental professional.  And look at the concentrations actually being added.  It is several orders of magnitude less than any regulatory limit of...so far as I am aware, any country on earth that has such regulatory limits.

Edited by iCambrian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Here, What I am saying is, there is no difference between 10 and 20.  Because even if it were just 1 innocent family member, it would be too many.  And this idea of moving to a "less evil" country that may have only killed 5 innocent people verses 10, is pointless, because even that 5 is just too many.  You pack your bags and you move to norway, only to find out that norway is also guilty.  Then what do you do? Move again? Or just say...well, I guess because they only killed X amount of innocent people and not Y, I guess that makes this a good spot to live.

It makes it a better place to live. You do not understand this simple logic?

Looks like you will have no family members left.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, iCambrian said:

It doesnt make it better. No more than is it better to kill 1 innocent child over 2. 

It makes it less bad, I never said there was a perfect ideal country on earth.

But you go ahead and pay the people killing 2 innocent children and i'll pay the ones killing 1. The difference might be your child but you refuse to understand because you dont want to understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Another thing, take into account how countries work together. Even if the country of your choice say, was less involved in war, perhaps they send less war planes.  Many countries still work together in other ways, such as trade and sharing research. The country you could be considering "better", often would be supporting the US in many other ways. And this goes for many other countries.  Like in the EU, you may say well this EU country is better than that one.  But in reality theyre all under a similar regulated body, working together in countless ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, IbnSina said:

It makes it less bad, I never said there was a perfect ideal country on earth.

But you go ahead and pay the people killing 2 innocent children and i'll pay the ones killing 1. The difference might be your child but you refuse to understand because you dont want to understand.

In the eyes of God, funding the killing of 1 innocent child, is no less of a sin than funding the killing of two. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, iCambrian said:

In the eyes of God, funding the killing of 1 innocent child, is no less of a sin than funding the killing of two. 

You speak as if there is no choice.

I am saying, if you have to make a decision between two or one, which means there is a choice, why would you then choose the killing of two?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

It makes it less bad, I never said there was a perfect ideal country on earth.

But you go ahead and pay the people killing 2 innocent children and i'll pay the ones killing 1. The difference might be your child but you refuse to understand because you dont want to understand.

You cannot quantify the value of even just 1 human life.  You go ahead and try to argue that 2 peoples lives were more valuable than the one. And that this choice is somehow respectable.

Edited by iCambrian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
16 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

You cannot quantify the value of even just 1 human life.  You go ahead and try to argue that 2 peoples lives were more valuable than the one. And that this choice is somehow respectable.

Ok, I will give you one scenario and one question, then you will answer it and that will be the end of me and yours conversation:

 

You are in a seat where there is no other choice but to kill a human, anything ells is completely out of the question.

Now you have two choices, and it is completely up to you, you either kill one or you kill two.

Which one do you choose?

Answer the question and nothing more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

This question is not analogous to reality. However,

Quran 5:32. Whoever kills a person unjustly, it is as though he has killed all of mankind.

no matter my choice, choosing to kill one is no better than choosing to kill 2. Who am I to judge the value of any human beings life?

to answer the question, I do not know what I'd do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, iCambrian said:

to answer the question, I do not know what I'd do.

Then you have not answered my question but I already know, unless you are insane, the answer you would give and my point has indirectly and directly been proven and this conversation between us is over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

Then you have not answered my question but I already know, unless you are insane, the answer you would give and my point has indirectly and directly been proven and this conversation between us is over.

As if anyone knows how they would respond if they were being forced to kill even 1 individual.

 

The truth is, a person would be no less guilty by moving to another country if that other country simply killed less innocent people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Lets take your hypothetical.  Imagine there are 10 people in front of the two of us. You choose to have 1 killed and for whatever reason I choose 2. Who is to say that your 1 is any less valuable than my 2? What if in choosing 2, in some complex series of events, I saved the other 8, while in choosing 1 I would have lost the other 9?

The topic is just too complex.

Beyond that, I dont see you living in iceland or antarctica, or some no name Island that is politically uninvolved in the world. At some point, you too are guilty of the very sin youre trying to accuse others of being a part of, and you cannot escape this.

 

Sorry to drag this on if youre trying to end it, we can agree to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, iCambrian said:

Lets take your hypothetical.  Imagine there are 10 people in front of the two of us. You choose to have 1 killed and for whatever reason I choose 2. Who is to say that your 1 is any less valuable than my 2? What if in choosing 2, in some complex series of events, I saved the other 8, while in choosing 1 I would have lost the other 9?

The topic is just too complex.

Beyond that, I dont see you living in iceland or antarctica, or some no name Island that is politically uninvolved in the world. At some point, you too are guilty of the very sin youre trying to accuse others of being a part of, and you cannot escape this.

 

Sorry to drag this on if youre trying to end it, we can agree to disagree.

going along with this, doesnt it matter who is being killed?

@IbnSina's is saying it is better to kill 1 person than killing 2 people. What if the one person is a great humanitarian (Edhi, Mother Teresa, Malala) and the other 2 belong to ISIS. In that case, wouldnt killing two be better than killing one?

@yasahebalzaman.313 - you have been watching too many Simpsons episodes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@shiaman14 If it comfort you i only watched like two simpson episodes in my life. I dont watch it it upsets me, i dont find it funny at all. Just get your facts right and search a bit about this subject, im not inventing this information from my imagination. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 9/16/2016 at 2:11 PM, yasahebalzaman.313 said:

@shiaman14 If it comfort you i only watched like two simpson episodes in my life. I dont watch it it upsets me, i dont find it funny at all. Just get your facts right and search a bit about this subject, im not inventing this information from my imagination. 

Mind control...fluoride... come on brother. Hard to take you seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

going along with this, doesnt it matter who is being killed?

@IbnSina's is saying it is better to kill 1 person than killing 2 people. What if the one person is a great humanitarian (Edhi, Mother Teresa, Malala) and the other 2 belong to ISIS. In that case, wouldnt killing two be better than killing one?

@yasahebalzaman.313 - you have been watching too many Simpsons episodes.

Did the reasoning of a confused person make you confused?

You seem to have totally lost parable?

If in every country you live in does something bad, which in the parable amount to the killing of a human, then it would be better to live in the country that kills less if there are no options of a perfect country, which there is not.

Who they kill are totally irrelevant to the parable and such things cannot be controlled in reality either, as the concept of "doing bad" has been equated to your government killing of humans. And even if you want to split every case of killing of humans into a single event and judge it by individuals involved and background, then america still looses.

But what our christian humanist friend, and your americano brother, here is trying to do is to make a simple question that is not complicated, complicated, so as to avoid answering it.

Now ask yourself the same question that I asked him, I will even clarify what you failed to see on your own:

 

You are in a seat where there is no other choice but to kill a human (living in any country on earth paying tax to a government), anything ells is completely out of the question.

Now you have two choices (choosing where to live), and it is completely up to you, you either kill one(live in a country that is less evil) or you kill two (live in a country that is more evil).

Which one do you choose?

 

Then use that answer and conclusion and back peddle in the debate and then you will finally understand what I mean, unless you do not want to understand because that would make you feel uncomfortable. And if you do not wish to understand because you do not want to, then please stop wasting time.

 

Also, please try and be more respectful to your brothers and sisters in faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, IbnSina said:

You are in a seat where there is no other choice but to kill a human (living in any country on earth paying tax to a government), anything ells is completely out of the question.

Now you have two choices (choosing where to live), and it is completely up to you, you either kill one(live in a country that is less evil) or you kill two (live in a country that is more evil).

Which one do you choose?

 

 

1) Youre guilty of your own criticism, because you likely live in a country that according to your own terms, is "more evil" than other countries that you could live in. I highly doubt you live in iceland, or as a monk of the mountains of tibet, isolated from the world, or in Antarctica, isolated from the world.

2) "more evil" is not a thing.  Either you are evil or you are not.  If you were sitting in a room with the devil, and you choose to give the devil 5 dollars, and said "I am a better human being because I did not give the devil 10 dollars", then youre gravely mistaken.

3) You cannot give any individual life a quantitative value over another.  You killing 1 innocent person, as it even says in the Quran, is as though you have killed all of mankind.  The killing of even 1, could be just as bad or even worse as the killing of 2. And you are incapable of objectively defining the value of any human life. With that, incapable of demonstrating that the killing of 1 innocent, is more or less evil than the killing of 2. So, there is no glory or honor in living in a country that has killed 10 innocent people as opposed to 11. Because it 10 could very well be just as bad as 11 or even worse.

To drive this point home, I even added the hypothetical, what if we both had 10 people in front of us.  You chose to have 1 killed and I chose 2, well what hypothetically, what if your choice lead to the killing of the others, whereas my choice had saved them?

The world is so complex that you could not even begin to try to gauge something like this.

4) Packing your bags and moving to a "less evil" country, isnt a viable solution.  Because, generally speaking, the alternative country of your choice is also guilty of the same sins youre seeking to move away from. Unless you move to Antarctica (which you certainly can do if you so choose).

So to conclude, you are in a position, just like the rest of us here in this chat.  In this position, your country is guilty of various sins and youre most likely funding your governments operations as we speak.   In an attempt to justify your current living conditions and the country you currently live in, you seek to quantify sin.  Make another country sound worse, so that maybe you can feel better about your own sins.

 

 

Edited by iCambrian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

" If in every country you live in does something bad, which in the parable amount to the killing of a human, then it would be better to live in the country that kills less if there are no options of a perfect country, which there is not. "

 

I am willing to bet that there are countries that "kill less" than your current country of residence.

And as a pure hypothetical...even if you were living in unclaimed territory in antarctica, living off of fish and seal blubber,  you still could not justify that everyone ought to pack their bags and move to where you lived.  Even if we were referring to the most sinless lands, it is not practical for the vast majority of people to pack up and move to these places. People have family, they have productive lives doing good things for humanity, even within countries that in other ways, sin.  They could even be doing better things for humanity in reshaping the minds of those that sin around them, rather than packing bags and trying to escape the reality of the world we live in.

 

Edited by iCambrian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@iCambrian

Hmm, I thought I was very clear when I said that our conversation was over, yet you keep coming back for more, if you are so sure that you are right, why do you then keep coming back?

Your constant tries to involve my personal life into the discussion further clarifies that your core argument is crumbling. Because you do not realize (or you do but you wont allow yourself to confess) that my personal life and personal life choices have absolutely zero relevance to the discussion or the arguments put forward. I have said this earlier as well, yet you brought it up again.

As if to say: If he is doing wrong, then he has no right to discuss what is actually right.

But what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong, regardless of what you and I might in reality chose to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
25 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Alright. if youre finished, youre finished.  We can let the audience be the judge.

Its not a competition friend, its a discussion but as I initially stated:

"Now although I appreciate your engagement in general, your moral judgement or any other judgement as a "christian humanist" holds absolutely zero value to me."

It is not the christian part I have a problem with but the humanist part, which in a nutshell is: Whatever I as an individual human with my own limited brain think and feel is right, is right.

Anyways, that is a different discussion, iA we will all make the right decisions and be sincere in our hearts and thoughts and even when we dont, we can be honest about it. 

Thank you for the discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, IbnSina said:

Its not a competition friend, its a discussion but as I initially stated:

"Now although I appreciate your engagement in general, your moral judgement or any other judgement as a "christian humanist" holds absolutely zero value to me."

It is not the christian part I have a problem with but the humanist part, which in a nutshell is: Whatever I as an individual human with my own limited brain think and feel is right, is right.

Anyways, that is a different discussion, iA we will all make the right decisions and be sincere in our hearts and thoughts and even when we dont, we can be honest about it. 

Thank you for the discussion.

Always a pleasure.  Ill be on the lookout for a topic on humanism. Thank you as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

MashaAllah, look at first and read this:

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/09/15/484752/US-Israel-military-aid

"The US signs its largest-ever military aid deal with Israel under which Washington will give Tel Aviv38 billion dollars of tax payer money to spend on weapons.

Then look and read this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/colin-powell-leaked-emails-nuclear-weapons-israel-iran-obama-deal-a7311626.html

Allahu Akbar, I love when their emails get hacked and their lies leaked.

Keep paying american tax my muslim brothers and sisters living in america :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
17 hours ago, IbnSina said:

Now ask yourself the same question that I asked him, I will even clarify what you failed to see on your own:

You are in a seat where there is no other choice but to kill a human (living in any country on earth paying tax to a government), anything ells is completely out of the question.

Now you have two choices (choosing where to live), and it is completely up to you, you either kill one(live in a country that is less evil) or you kill two (live in a country that is more evil).

Which one do you choose?

All else being equal, obviously everyone will choose the country with 1 killing. Unfortunately, live is not as simple and clear cut as your parable. 

I will reverse the parable and ask you the same question. All else being equal, would you prefer to live in a country that provides enough for you so you can donate $100 to a charity of your choice each year or live in a country that provides you enough so you can donate only $50 to a charity of your choice?

Now you have two choices (choosing where to live), and it is completely up to you, you either donate $100(live in a country that is more benevolent) or you donate $50 (live in a country that is less benevolent).

Which one do you choose?

17 hours ago, IbnSina said:

Also, please try and be more respectful to your brothers and sisters in faith.

I apologize to @yasahebalzaman.313 if he minded the Simpsons comment. I love the Simpons. 

But I have to point out in your interactions with @iCambrian that respect is for all must just brothers in faith. After all, Imam Ali said "man is either your brother in faith or brother in humanity".

8 hours ago, IbnSina said:

MashaAllah, look at first and read this:

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/09/15/484752/US-Israel-military-aid

"The US signs its largest-ever military aid deal with Israel under which Washington will give Tel Aviv38 billion dollars of tax payer money to spend on weapons.

Then look and read this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/colin-powell-leaked-emails-nuclear-weapons-israel-iran-obama-deal-a7311626.html

Allahu Akbar, I love when their emails get hacked and their lies leaked.

Keep paying american tax my muslim brothers and sisters living in america :)

You are focused on everything you think is bad with America. You are entitled to your narrow-minded opinion. I say narrow because it seems like presstv is your only source and you can hardly call it neutral. I am not denying the US Aid to Israel.

The other side of the coin is that the US gives more aid to all the countries and most of the other countries combined give to each other. That is the US government and it usually comes with strings.

I live and love America because it allows me to practice my faith more independently than any other country. It has given me a source of income to where if $5 of my income goes to Israel, I have enough remaining to spend $10 dollars on my ummah. And American people are the most giving people in the world. I will move to any country in the world that you can prove gives more than the American people. No matter what crises hits the world, the first country and people to open their wallets are Americans and if you can say that about another country, then by all means you and I should move there.

I am going to leave this topic now as there is nothing more left to add for me. 

American Giving.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any Iranians answered your question so far ? or simply prefered to specifically ignore this thread. lol

Are there no Iranians living in the US on this site willing to answer this question ?

Considering the fact it would be like choosing to live in an " evil " country in comparison to a country they consider "good" not lesser evil...

Religious Iranians who support the system in Iran have the least excuse to give ...

Oh well it is always easier to support someone from far ... Good from far but far from good ! lol.

The only thing stopping them from returning would be comfort, their jobs and the money they make ...

Edited by certainclarity
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

@certainclarity Surely, there are many civilized people, Iranians and non-Iranians, living in the US who dislike being under such a government and in a culture wherein you should face people whose prides are marrying their same gender, eating pig and frog, and wearing just a piece of cloth in the public area, while they are happy for having freedom!

Some of our brothers and sisters living in the US don't leave it, since they are born and raised there and have grown accustomed to it. This is natural. There are also some others who want to leave, but they don't have any means, or as the holy Quran says, are unable to devise a plan.

https://quran.com/4:98

Moreover, maybe leaving America is an option, but I think it's the last option. First ignorant people, regardless of their nationality and religion, should be woken up and also vigilant people should be organized to fight oppression. And, this needs a wiser approach than ever before.

Dear @IbnSina, I told you, you are going to have a very tough job to change the mentality preserved for decades. Insha'Allah step by step, and your topic, the point you raised and realizing the fact that US regime should be confronted (on the top of the list by American people themselves) is the first step, which is good and necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@kamyar

Probably. But none of the Muslim Iranians living in the US who support the government in Iran, responded to this post with their own reason, and chose to ignore it.

It sounds rather weird when you live in a country you deem The great Satan, and don't make arrangements to move from that country to the country you support full heartedly, and have no issues to move in terms of passport.

There are plenty of Iranians struggling in Iran worse than those who live in the US, with no sanctions, yet due to their loyalty don't leave the country, and prefer not to go from good to evil!

For those Muslim Iranians who can, it is choice between evil and good, not evil and lesser evil.

 

 

 

Edited by certainclarity
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16.9.2016 at 1:30 PM, iCambrian said:

Here, What I am saying is, there is no difference between 10 and 20.  Because even if it were just 1 innocent family member, it would be too many.  And this idea of moving to a "less evil" country that may have only killed 5 innocent people verses 10, is pointless, because even that 5 is just too many.  You pack your bags and you move to norway, only to find out that norway is also guilty.  Then what do you do? Move again? Or just say...well, I guess because they only killed X amount of innocent people and not Y, I guess that makes this a good spot to live.

And what does that map have to do with anything? Fluoride added to water at small concentrations is not a bad thing. Ask any dental professional.  And look at the concentrations actually being added.  It is several orders of magnitude less than any regulatory limit of...so far as I am aware, any country on earth that has such regulatory limits.

Why are you insulting Norway? Leave Norway alone, I live here and they are nice simple people. Much better than America.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2016 at 4:25 PM, iCambrian said:

Concentrations of fluoride are only added to public drinking water at a small fraction, orders of magnitude, less that concentrations that would begin to harm you.

Oh really? 

It doesn't take a genius to figure out the mess that water fluoridation in the US has become. All you need is basic mathematical skills and access to your local government's datasheet on what they mix in the public water. You can even go to any certified dentist, regardless of his/her position on water fluoridation and inquire about how much water has equal amounts of fluoride compared to a peck of toothpaste. I did so several years ago, and what I discovered made my jaws drop.

One of the first things to look at is a tube of toothpaste clearly carrying the warning: "Do not swallow," and "in case of accidental ingestion, contact the poison control center."

The amount of fluoride they're talking about is a quarter milligram of fluoride, contained in a pea size amount of toothpaste.

But here is the kicker, This is the same amount of fluoride you find in 8 oz of water (in some cities and/or states, the concentration is much, MUCH higher). Yet toothpaste carries a "Do not swallow" warning, whereas you're typically told to drink eight 8oz glasses of water each day, without any concern for the amount of fluoride you will ingest.

And then there's the ever-so recognizable pattern of vested corporate interest when one examines history surrounding the official policy of water fluoridation. Here's a crash course for you:-

Quote

Around 1945, local water treatment facilities began to add sodium fluoride to our water supply.

The first thing you should know is that the fluoride they put in our drinking water is not a pharmaceutical grade additive.

It is an industrial waste byproduct.

As aluminum production increased in the first half of the twentieth century, it became necessary to find somewhere to put the fluoride. Manufacturers could no longer dump it into rivers or landfills, because it was poisoning crops and making livestock sick. Francis Frary, chief scientist for ALCOA, had an idea. He commissioned Gerald Cox at the Mellon Institute, to conduct research regarding the benefits of adding fluoride to the water supply. The Mellon Institute was frequently hired by big business to produce research that supported their industries, and for several decades they produced research showing that asbestos was safe and did not cause cancer. Hmmm.

They also produced reports assuring everyone that fluoride was not toxic and would be beneficial to add to our drinking water for healthy teeth.

Another proponent of the safety of fluoride at that time was scientist Harold Hodge, who was later revealed to to have been part of the the Human Radiation Experiment; injecting test subjects with plutonium and uranium in 1945-46. This was documented by pulitzer prize winning reporterEileen Welsonne in The Plutonium Files.

Hodge was also chief toxicologist of The Manhattan Project and fluoride was a key component in the production of the atom bomb. His studies were conducted with a bias toward proving fluoride safe, which would protect the government and industry from lawsuits.

fluoridate_your_water_with_confidence.jp

The “research science” done to support water fluoridation was underwritten by these massive companies:

Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA)
Aluminum Company of Canada

American Petroleum Institute
Dupont

Kaiser Aluminum
Reynolds Steel
US Steel
National Institute of Dental Research

Convincing the general public that we need to add fluoride to our water supply was one of the most sophisticated cons of all time. It created a multi-billion dollar industry and enabled manufacturers to sell this worthless toxic byproduct of aluminum to local municipalities for a profit.

luckystrikecigarettead.jpg?resize=252%2C

PR master Edward Bernays also known as “The Father of Spin” created the PR campaign to sell fluoride to the nation as an additive “recommended by your doctor and dentist for healthy teeth”. He was a pioneer of modern propaganda and used the theories of mass psychology and persuasion to suit the needs of corporate and political organizations.

Bernays even created marketing campaigns for tobacco companies using the doctor and dentist endorsement, like the one on the right.

He even wrote a book called Propaganda and another one called Public Relations. For you trivia buffs, he was also Sigmund Freud’s nephew.

In 1950 the public health service endorsed water fluoridation and almost immediately there was a national movement against it led by Dr. George Walbott, who was also the first physician to warn against fatal allergic reactions to penicillin, and that smoking causes emphysema.

Walbott discovered that low dose fluoride was causing allergic reactions in some of his patients who displayed a variety of symptoms such as headaches, back pain, gastric problems, muscle fatigue, etc.

He conducted a series of double blind tests further proving his fluoride allergy theory, and published several papers about it.

Walbott was criticized and marginalized for his research and for speaking out against fluoride, tobacco, and penicillin, which is why you’ve never heard of him.

The main fluoride chemical added to water today is hydrofluorosilicic acid an industrial by-product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.

Fluoride given to rats has been proven to cause bone cancer, liver cancer, and a host of other physical ailments.

Dr. William Marcus, Senior Science Advisor to the EPA Office of Water, was fired because of his outspoken opposition to water fluoridation in the early 1990’s. He even claimed that they rigged their test results to show that fluoride did not cause cancer when in fact it did.

Researcher Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was asked to study fluoride and was surprised to find and prove that fluoride is a neurotoxin and causes effects like hyper activity, memory problems, and IQ problems similar to ADD/ADHD in laboratory rats. After submitting her findings, she was promptly fired from the Forsyth Dental Research Center. She went from being a leading neurotoxicologist at a Harvard affiliated research institute to an industry pariah. This assignment and her findings ruined her career as a grant-funded research scientist.

Not only does fluoride in water not help your teeth, too much of it causes permanent damage in young children’s teeth between 3 months and 8 years old. This is called dental fluorosis. Fluoridealso accumulates in the bones eventually causing a bone disease called skeletal fluorosis in adults.

Welcome to Opposite Land where right is wrong, and up is down:

It is illegal to dump fluoride into our lakes and rivers, but it is perfectly fine to put in our drinking water and toothpaste... Let that sink in for a minute please...

Cities with fluoridated water have higher cavity rates and higher cancer death rates when compared to cities with unfluoridated water. As of 2010, 66% of US water supplies are currently fluoridated, but the good new is that since 1999 over 60 U.S. communities have rejected fluoridation.

Hidden sources of fluoride:  Most commercial crops are watered with fluoridated water. These crops absorb the fluoride. Fruit juices from concentrate are reconstituted with fluoridated water, and bottled water, even if it’s filtered, usually has fluoride in it.

Fluoride is still defended today for two reasons:  The massive profit produced by selling it to local municipalities, and the massive liability and lawsuits that would follow an admission that it is in fact toxic and harmful.

The Fluoride Deception is a book based on ten years of research by BBC reporter Christopher Bryson on the history and dangers of water fluoridation, and is some of the source material for this post. His research is so in-depth and well documented, it is virtually irrefutable.

There is also a ton of information and independent research from all over the world atwww.FluorideAlert.org

Fluoride Film Fest!
Two great documentaries you can watch free online are An Inconvenient Tooth  (best name ever) and Fluoridegate.

Despite all the evidence, proponents of water fluoridation are still calling scientific research that shows fluoride to be toxic “conspiracy theories”, but the world is waking up.

Fun fact #1  98% of Western Europe has now rejected Water Fluoridation…
and their children’s teeth are just as healthy as children’s teeth in the US.

Fun fact #2  Since 1997 the FDA requires all fluoride toothpaste sold in the U.S. carry this warning:

WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or call a poison control center immediately.

This is because a tube of toothpaste contains enough fluoride to kill a small child, and most young children swallow some toothpaste while brushing. But even if you don’t swallow your toothpaste, unhealthy levels of fluoride are still absorbed sublingually through the capillaries under your tongue and go directly into your bloodstream.

tl;dr - if I cannot bury my trash in my neighbor's garden, then I can get around that by funding some bogus research titled "burying trash underneath gardens provides fertilization of the soil" and paying off all the right people. That's how water fluoridation came about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^Had a busy week, so here's my delayed reply.

Guess what cupcake, the same "countless research documents" are continuously referred to by defecting doctors and dentists, who repeatedly remind us that such research was done under severe conflict of interest. Again:-

tl;dr - if I cannot bury my trash in my neighbor's garden, then I can get around that by funding some bogus research titled "burying trash underneath gardens provides fertilization of the soil" and paying off all the right people. That's how water fluoridation came about.

Reduced the size of the letters. Legible now? Or you prefer to suck up to government officials? The same ones who were fired exposing the massive cover-up of data at the CDC? 

If you're such an "expert", genius, please explain to me why there's a huge warning label in all fluoridated toothpastes against swallowing, but zilch when it comes to drinking water which contains the same, sometimes higher, concentration of hydrofluorisilic acid? Also, you do realize that it's mainly the US that actively fluoridates its water supply right? Majority of Europe has banned fluoridation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...