Scene After IDF Attack In Gaza 1/1/09

[worldbro]

Violence was here long before religion just look at this chart of Human History; I like to think its pretty accurate

[Niccolo]

How many Japanese did we kill in World War 2 compared to Americans killed? How many Arabs got killed in Iraq and Afghanistan compared to Americans in the Trade Centers? If some one punches me in the face I am only suppose to hit them once back???

War is nasty business, civilians always get hurt and killed. These countries declared war on Israel not the other way around. Should they wait until Hamas gets some better weapons from Iran like a dirty bomb before they hit back hard.

Just remember they are fighting over the Promise Land that was given to them by God in the Bible. This is more humane then what the Americans did to the native people here or any other Europeans did to any area they went to. I know its disturbing see this on Utube. Imagine watching everything that happened in the past on Utube and not just reading about it. Or imagining it through movies and books.

Americans need to grow up and understand that we are a country at War with people we do not know to much about. If Iran was are neighbor think of the fun we would be having.

Funnily enough I'm currently reading Max Hastings' book "Nemesis (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article2583903.ece)" on the battle for Japan during WWII. The similarities between the Japanese and Islamists right throughout history are striking. We (mainly the Americans) kicked the living shit out of the Japanese, because that's what it took to end that conflict on top. Same with the many battles with Islamic forces throughout history, and there have been plenty of those by the way. The American forces used flamethrowers in the Pacific theatre, the Knights of St. John built great fiery hoops and threw them on top of advancing Janissaries - using that kind of weapon is what it took to prevail against a fanatical, murderous, absolutely ruthless enemy. Malta in 1565 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Malta_(1565)) - a small island which stood up, alone, to the forces of Islam, which sought to destroy it, and to impose their ideology throughout Europe. We're all glad they did, too. Should we not be thinking of Israel in a similar way?

[El Nino]

Niccolo, what have I said that is illegal? Nothing at all actually. I have not made any threats or advocated violence or anything at all. I expressed personal opinions that are within the boundaries of the USA 1rst Amendment; have I not? Just because a viewpoint is contrary to yours, does not mean it is true, false or anything in between. Furthermore, a person is not antisemitic if they take issue with political agendas of colonial imperialism etc... Being antisemitic is an inherently racist concept, not political. I am not racist and believe all men are created equal, regardless of class, creed or race. Political opinion is a completely different beast. Geesh

[curious4TS07]

TS Curious writes:
[quote]I've met many non-religious people that did something immoral to--more or less--prove the point that God doesn't exist…My point is just that it goes both ways.


My point is that religion justifies immorality far more often. It inhibits people, forces them into molds, isolates, justifies cruelty, torture, expansionism, wars and even justifies the destruction of planet as some joyously await the “end times”.

Religion doesn't readily "justify" any of those things. Many religions "speak" about those things but it's the one who interprets the teachings that attempts to justify it, which frankly, is bullshit. My problem with religion is congregation and community. An individual is intelligent. A collective are sheep. My interpretation of certain parables and stories are far different than someone else's of the same or different beliefs. When you have someone teaching a lesson based on something he or she concluded and that conclusion leads to the spread of hate and discontent, I don't think it's fair to say "oh, it's the religion's fault". Religion actually justifying these things and someone hiding behind some interpretation are often completely different things, which is why it's important for the individual, not the collective, to interpret. At least, that is what I believe. For example, there was a series on Showtime a few years ago, "Sleeper Cell". One of the most fascinating aspects about it was the massive dichotomy between how the main character interpreted the book of Qur'an and how the main antagonist interpreted it. The entire show centered on these two interpretations, one which taught intolerance, torture and vengeance, the other which taught tolerance, compassion and faith. It may've been a tv show, but the realism based on conversations I've had with people of the Islamic faith was truly astounding.


First of all, that last is not an example of critical thinking and openly verifiable testing. Secondly, what you’re talking about here is trust, not faith.

And one definition of faith (not MY definition, but the actual definition I apply to my own life) is confidence. A synonym for confidence is trust. Several of these words can often, but not always, be interchanged based on how we define them. I could be wrong, but I'm gathering from this and the following statements as you defining faith strictly as a religious belief, in which case, absolutely, faith is untestable. But faith, as defined by confidence, as defined by trust, IS testable. I still believe and will always believe compassion and tolerance should overshadow everything, including religion. It's just not often taught, again, in congregation.


Utter nonsense. Religions teach one to follow the rules, in spite of the consequences. Faith is belief in spite of reason. Religion is the bane of civilization because it is the very expression of intolerance. How can one, for example, celebrate a god who flooded the entire Earth and saved only one family as a god of compassion? How can one, for example, claim that a God who wiped out a city of sodomites (their children and families included) is a God of tolerance? How can we say such a religion teaches love?

You're lumping everyone into the exact same category of apparently being "intolerant" since, as you put, religion teaches said intolerance. I'm religious (more spiritual than subscribing to a specific religion but you get the point). By your definition, I should absolutely loathe someone who is not me because...well...he or she is not me. Not even close. Not even a little bit.

I'm not sure what religion you speak of that tells you to "follow the rules, don't worry about the consequences", but I assure you that's not mine. At least, that is not what I subscribe to. I follow the rules because it's the right thing to do. The same reason a non-religious person should follow the rules. Because it's the right thing to do. Not because one is told to. But what I gather from your posts is, religion and therefore, religious people are generally bad. I'm sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. I don't like very many religious people because (and this is where I do agree with you), they "can" be intolerant. Exceptionally. And I'm not attempting to say I'm better than anyone else, because I know I'm not, but I know not all religious people are intolerant people. For example, my pastor once commented about children out of wedlock, saying "whenever you look at that child, you'll always see that mistake". As you can imagine, that pissed quite a few of us "out-of-wedlock children" off. But I just went through the whole interpretation bit, there's no need for me to interpret it.

You believe in good and bad. I believe in good until it's bad, the only difference being, you choose to be realistic and I choose to be optimistic. Neither approach is necessarily right 100% of the time, and quite frankly, somedays I wish to be more realistic than optimistic, but that's just not who I am. Call me naive, call me whatever. Maybe I am. But is that not "intolerance"? I'm not talking about you specifically, I am speaking in general. Growing up a young black male, I'm not new to the bullshit, but I don't sit around crying about how unfair it is either. It is what it is. My "faith" is that, if I continue to do what I believe I was meant to do, I will change someone's opinion about young black males (which I've thankfully done on a couple of occasions). I'm not out to change the world, but I want my future children and future nieces and nephews to grow up in a far less "black and white" world. Those who subscribe to testable science and realism believe that's not possible because humans are infinitely flawed as evidenced by numerous examples throughout our history. Those who subscribe to testable faith and optimism believe it is possible as evidenced by numerous examples throughout our history. Again, neither approach is right 100% of the time, but I don't fault someone for choosing one or the other.

That has absolutely nothing to do with me being religious. It has everything to do with me doing what I feel is right for me, regardless of what anybody else thinks. I'd "hope" more people would do the same, and I "trust" many people will. Not everyone, but at least some. That is the faith I choose to subscribe and if these things make me "bad" for being religious, then hey...so be it. I'm comfortable being the "religious person whom doesn't believe in 'religion'".


No, there is no room for anyone to question the tenants of religion. It’s too fucking dangerous. Religion tolerates no tolerance. And so one religion battles another and the work of the gods is done by man.

So is our legal system. And it doesn't seem to matter whether one is religious or not, we all know how our justice system all-too-often works out.

We'll likely never see eye-to-eye on everything and that's fine, and this may sound a bit disingenuous because you don't know me. But I do sincerely appreciate you sharing your point of view. No, I'm not kissing your rear nor am I trying to sound cynical, it's just given me some things to think about and reflect on.

I apologize. I realize I jumped around a lot so I may've not addressed certain things at the correct points, but I'm multitasking and apparently not very good at it...

[transmaven]

most people who attack Israel don't even have the courage to admit

that they *are* anti-semites

they sleazily pretend to make nice distinctions

but what does all this chatter matter

the reality is that the IDF continues to *destroy* Hamas

good

[casca82]

praetor you piece of filthy brazilian shit, I hope you catch HIV and die slow painful death. To all the fags on this forum who are supporting the muslims. Keep in mind that under shariah law, you'd be killed.
I'm latino and non-jewish but, I will always support Israel, LONG LIVE ZION. Self-defense is never a crime. :evil: BURN GAZA TO THE GRAOUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[El Nino]

Some of my best friends are Jewish... I am not antisemitic! However, my claim that Israeli weaponry and violence is excessive, is becoming more and more clear into view and is substantiated by Gazan casualties. It is over 1000 now and many are kids, babies, women and common civilians. This is not right, is it?

[El Nino]

Furthermore, just because I denounce the violence that is being implemented by Israel does not mean I support Hamas, I don't!

[Niccolo]

El Nino,

It was mainly what the other poster said that ticked me off. Can I suggest though, that you go to the CFCA website and read their working definition of antisemitism, then use the link on their site to read the words of our old friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the subject of Israel, then come back and read through this thread again.

See any similarities? My own opinion is that some of the things that have been said here are just a little too close to Ahmadinejad's thoughts on Israel for comfort.

And I don't know about you, but I think it's quite alarming when comments on a transexual porno website can be legitimately be compared to the ravings of the President of Iran!

[Niccolo]

praetor you piece of filthy brazilian shit, I hope you catch HIV and die slow painful death. To all the fags on this forum who are supporting the muslims. Keep in mind that under shariah law, you'd be killed.

Yeah those cartoons of his are appalling. He's the stupid bastard who showed a video of Hamas gunmen blowing up a lorryload of explosives in the middle of a bunch of kids, and touted it around as being something the Israelis did.

As to your second point - it made me think of something Bruce Bawer once wrote:

"The main reason I'd been glad to leave America was Protestant fundamentalism. But Europe, I eventually saw, was falling prey to an even more alarming fundamentalism whose leaders made their American Protestant counterparts look like amateurs. Falwell was an unsavory creep, but he didn't issue fatwas. James Dobson's parenting advice was appalling, but he wasn't telling people to murder their daughters. American liberals had been fighting the Religious Right for decades; Western Europeans had yet to even acknowledge that they had a Religious Right. How could they ignore it? Certainly as a gay man, I couldn't close my eyes to this grim reality. Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me. I wasn't fond of the hypocritical conservative-Christian line about hating the sin and loving the sinner, but it was preferable to the forthright fundamantalist Muslim view that homosexuals merited death. [...]

The situation was alarming. The very things I most loved about the Netherlands - and about Europe - were the things most threatened by the rise of fundamentalist Islam. Yet the Dutch did nothing. Why did they refuse to deal with something that obviously endangered their freedom? Didn't they see what I did? Didn't they notice the look of rage in the eyes of many Muslim men at the sight of that ultimate spectacle of dishonor - a Dutch woman bicycling to work? Or did they assume that such men, simply by inhaling the damp Dutch air, would somehow magically become open-minded and secular?" (Bruce Bawer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Bawer), While Europe Slept, Broadway, pp. 33-34.)

[curious4TS07]

I'm not sure what to make of this statement of yours. You seem to be reaching for something, but I don't think you quite got your hands around it. One can certainly think about the consequences of one's actions without being a practicing Christian, that's just beyond question. Perhaps an argument could be made that thinking about the consequences of one's actions is part of what it is to make moral choices?

I did not flesh that particular statement out. It was like 3am, and instead of coming here because I was feeling frisky, like I was, I wound up posting in this thread. And I'm still feeling frisky, albeit far more tired. Ugh.


What is one to think, though, of the many theists who insist that the thought of a deity inflicting punishment on them in the afterlife is what stops people from being serial murderers and serial raptists? As in: if their deity wasn't going to punish them for doing it, thern that's what they would be doing all day and every night?

Whereas you will find many nonbelievers who would never even consider commiting such appalling crimes, and they don't need to have the pants scared off them by an imaginary all-powerful being to live as they do either!

You mentioned that there have been people who have committed immoral acts in order to demonstrate that God does not exist. I'm not sure if I've ever come across any record of people behaving in that way simply to prove that particular point. If you could give some examples of that, I'd be interested to read about it. (If God existed, why would he let them do that?)

One in particular comes to mind. I knew a gentleman who actually reminds me of Lawrence Fishburne's character in the film "Assault on Precinct 13". A colleague and I had a conversation about him from when my colleague was researching something for his previous job (the guy is a "lifer" in prison) and my colleague asked this man if he'd "found" religion in his incarceration. The man explained, no he had not. He'd killed a number of men and women for his country, but he after he continued killing, which he felt was his "affliction". Anyway, he said he'd watched men and women beg for their lives and ask God to save them and only one, the victim that testified against him, actually survived. The man said watching their pleas go unanswered completely turned him away from the notion of religion. His last two victims he'd shot just to see show them God was not coming to their rescue.

I had to shower after our conversation. It was truly disturbing, just knowing someone would even go that far.

You have brought up what's usually called "the problem of evil" (as I'm sure you know) which asks the theist to explain why, if his deity is in fact all powerful and desires what is good, there is so much evil in the world. Not only acts committed by human beings, but also events such as tsunamis, cancer, etc. I've yet to read a decent response to that particular problem.[/quote]

Honestly, neither have I. But I've often wondered--and this is "completely" left field here--why didn't those who could've done something to prevent some of these things from happening to other people, choose not to? Why did the government turn a blind eye to the levees in Louisiana? Why did my uncle, knowingly choose to not take care of his body, which ultimately led to his heart attack and subsequently his passing? Why didn't those folks in the government who knew about the potential attacks of 911, choose to ignore the intel they were given, leading to many lives being lost? It's difficult to answer these question because on the one side, one would argue, it was "destiny", but on the other, someone could argue it was irresponsibility in the hands of those who could've done more and then didn't. It's also difficult to answer that question because I dunno how each and every person was affected. How did they're life change from before the incident? How did others lives change? How were those who weren't as directly involved affected? I watched 20/20 I believe, a few nights ago and they had a segment about this little girl who's sister was murdered. She tried to protect her sister by covering her body from the assailants, but the girl wound up paralyzed from having her spinal cord severed while she was constantly being stabbed. The girls' mother had gone to a casino to gamble and left them in their trailer when, apparently two teens looking for retribution against the mother, forced their way in. The mother wound up in prison, as well as the two teens, who weren't remorseful in the least bit. I wish I could remember her name, but it honestly escapes me at the moment.

One could argued, how could a God, who's supposed to be so loving and so tolerant, have let that happen to those poor little girls? But the girl survived and though she misses her sister and was neglected by her mother, she was eventually adopted by an exceptionally loving family. At the end of the segment, the girl said she was sad about her sister, but the incident gave her a better life. Again, someone could look at this situation and say "how could this have happened? Her and her sister were innocent bystanders?" But this girl feels she has a truly wonderful life because of it.

So it's extremely difficult to answer that question definitively from the religious or non-religious side without knowing how each and every person copes, reacts and adjusts. That's about as honest an assessment I humbly feel I can make without trying to make it sound like a cop-out.

And I've asked plenty theists over the years. I even engaged my local reverend in a little debate in the local press a while back, and all he had to say is that sometimes we are left with "puzzles and perplexities" as we consider God's work. Which obviously, is not an adequate answer. (Rather, it's an admission that he doesn't have one.)

You also don't address the issue of people committing immoral acts because they believe there is a God, and He wants them to do it. Some terrible crimes have been committed by the most religious of people.[/quote]

I just addressed it in my last post, to a degree, but I do concur, some of the most heinous acts against humanity have been committed by religious people. Again, I believe it is an issue of interpretation of the text rather than--for the most part--the actual text or the religion itself. It's the same as religious people feeling because they believe in God, they're on the same level as God in the respect that they feel it okay to judge someone else. I do not agree with this at all, but I cannot speak for someone else nor even begin to explain another person's actions.

Again, I do not claim to know all there is to know about a subject but this is a truly fascinating discussion for me.

[trish]

As our conversation, TS Curious, is more about religion in general than about what’s happening in Gaza, [so] I’ll try to make my final reply brief. So [I] will just address a couple of turns in your last post to me.

I could be wrong, but I'm gathering from this and the following statements as you defining faith strictly as a religious belief, in which case, absolutely, faith is untestable. But faith, as defined by confidence, as defined by trust, IS testable.
Isn’t this what I said? But let’s stay on point. We’re discussing religious faith; not the intimate trust we have in our lovers, husbands and wives which is tested by daily experience.

I follow the rules because it's the right thing to do. The same reason a non-religious person should follow the rules.

What rules? How do you know following them is the right thing to do? Prayer? Because they were handed down by the prophets? By God Himself, perhaps? If you follow those rules only because you reasoned them out from first principles and subjected them to repeated testing, then in what way are you religious?

Why SHOULD I follow the rules? Would I be persuaded by your reasoned analysis alone or is faith in the gods also required? If the former, then again in what way are you religious? If the latter, how dare you suggest that I should be compelled to follow the rules? It’s interesting that you so fluently make the move from “I follow the rules” to others “should follow the rules” too. Isn’t this a perfect illustration of how innocent but fallaciously reasoned beliefs based on faith have a will of their own, to spread, displace and thereby oppress?

[Edited for grammar and spelling]

[El Nino]

Wow, Trish... you smoked his ass

[fred41]

Well...I'm not trying to put words into anyones mouth (and I'm definitely not particularly religious)..but if you separate Jesus' teachings from the rest of the Bible, then a lot of his teachings (especially his parables) are almost philisophical ..and many of them even seem rooted in common sense...and i don't think anyone can really call his teachings violent. Buddhism also seems largely philisophical ,from the limited amount of knowledge I posses on that subject..and can in fact be used to expand reason and thinking ..instead of blind worship. So i'm not absolutely sure that i agree that all forms of religion are necessarily bad..or repress thought and expression. I suppose some could use religious texts more as a guide (or tool) to help steer a direction for them to take in their lives. I think some people do need that. I think it might help to take from the texts what you can and discard the more odious , author inspired hate messages that you may find...and try to avoid falling into the- my religion says I'm better than you,so you need to disappear type jargon.

[El Nino]

Buddhism kicks ass, imo.

[trish]

Except the part where children aren't innocent, and the wrongs that visit them are justified by what they did in a prior life.

[Angel17TS]

Angel17TS and El Nino,

I feel obliged to tell you that if you make any remarks similar to those in your previous posts, I will send a report containing screen captures of your comments, links, dates etc. to the CFCA (http://www.antisemitism.org.il/eng/), and well, we'll see what happens after that. Apart from anything else, I somehow don't think the board's owners will want to get into any kind of trouble, or have to explain themselves to anyone else, for something that you have said.

yours,

Niccolo.

Umm ok so youre going to report an Arab girl in UAE to the CFCA? Wow, well Im sure they are super concerned with what I have said. Could you please proceed with that. Maybe you get some Points for that? Comparing the Israeli attacks to the Nazi attacks is illegal? Its illegal to believe that one country is trying to exterminate another? Well get busy, you have a big job ahead of you, reporting the many people around the world who feel the same. Can I say they have committed war crimes? Oh and you'll have to the get the names of the Red Cross staff, Red Crescent staff, European Parliament Members and UN Officials who have said the same.

Im surprised how any negativity towards Jews is Antisemitism, however, a huge amount of posts in here, refer to Muslims and Arabs, as ragheads, pedophiles, rapists, terrorists, kill them all, wish they were gone, rid the world of them, etc etc etc. Not one word in return.

Attention everyone, Niccolo is the master of the forum, and is now filtering content. Only positive comments toward Isreal is accepted.

Feel free to continue outright racism toward Arabs and Muslims.

[Angel17TS]

And just so its clear, I have no issue with Isreal. I dont support Hamas. I support the people who are dieing in this war. That means, Palestinian kids, moms, dads, anyone caught in the crossfire. I even feel sad for the Isreali soldiers, or Isrealis who die. I feel sorry if a hamas man dies. Why? Because Im human. Why do so many wish people death? Instead, I wish these people corrected there views so accept one another, not kill one another. Neither one will leave the land, so accept and find a way.

[Angel17TS]

Actually so much more to say but I'll leave with words of the Great Seanchai.... he said it better than I can



Let's get one thing straight: there are no "innocent Palestinian civilians". Each Palestinian man, woman and child is a suicide terrorist waiting to to blow up on a bus/in a crowded market/in a busy street full of people shopping and relaxing in cafés. Palestinian parents are proud to dress their little toddlers up with military uniforms and suicide belts.

I've seen Americans dress their kids up in Ku Klux Klan outfits. Does that mean all Americans think the same way?

So much hate in this post. It's really pathetic although I was taken in by the original post and didn't realize where that was an old video and not from the current situation, so I'm irritated at that - although my original points stand. Niccolo your hate doesn't isn't even worthy of a response. In fact the only appropriate post on here ...


This is really a dumb topic that belongs in the Politics and Religion forum. Argue all you want, but nobody is suddenly going to have an epiphany and find enlightenment. This is not what a transsexual porn forum is about.

... apart from showing me how many hateful, un-insightful people there are on this board. I'm realistic, I know innocent people are going to get hurt in any war, but one side committing atrocities doesn't justify another - or the rest of the world condoning it.

Im done here.

[Coroner]

Damn, this is creepy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjw8U0AcH4Q

[Niccolo]

Buddhism kicks ass, imo.

Amen brother. I spent a lot of years studying Buddhism, I got into it funnily enough after reading Jack Kerouac. Dharma Bums and all that. In fact at one point, I wanted to be a dharma bum when I grew up. :wink:

[Niccolo]

And just so its clear, I have no issue with Isreal. I dont support Hamas. I support the people who are dieing in this war. That means, Palestinian kids, moms, dads, anyone caught in the crossfire. I even feel sad for the Isreali soldiers, or Isrealis who die. I feel sorry if a hamas man dies. Why? Because Im human. Why do so many wish people death? Instead, I wish these people corrected there views so accept one another, not kill one another. Neither one will leave the land, so accept and find a way.

Could you not have expressed yourself in this way earlier? Rather than attempt to make a joke about Jews learning how to gas people to death in the camps?

As Silvio said in "The Sopranos" when Artie's wife made a crack about the FBI - "Since when is that funny?"

And don't try to make this about me. That just won't wash. Those were your words earlier, not mine. The best anyone could say about your comment was that it was in appallingly bad taste. At worst, well ... let's not even go there, eh?




Im done here.

Goodbye.

[Niccolo]

Violence was here long before religion just look at this chart of Human History; I like to think its pretty accurate

Deep anal in picture 2? Definitely a threesome in picture 7. :lol:

[Angel17TS]

Again I state, its ok to make any racist comments about Arabs, but heaven forbid any negativity towards Israel.

Do I believe the goal is extermination? Yes

Does this mean Im Anti Semetic? No

Simply means I disagree with the Politics of Israel.

[tsmandy]

Edit: Got back home again & thought I'd add something to this post. I notice you mentioned earlier that there were loads of Christians who wanted to turn their countries into theocratic states, but I would have to say that isn't an issue so far as European countries are concerned. America I'm not so sure about! (Could one not turn your original argument around, and say that it is folly to scream about the "wackos" in the US who would like to turn your country into a theocracy, while ignoring the very real dangers posed by Islam in the world today?)

Not at all. The wackos in the Islamic states don't command the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, they don't have a military budget that exceeds every other nation on earth, they don't have a record of bombing the shit out of any nation that might pose a threat (the Orwellian nature of US foreign policy has certainly reached new heights these last 8 years). What's more, those who have occupied key positions in the Bush administration and the US congress are committed Christian Zionists who support Israel because they believe that an ethnically cleansed Jewish state is necessary for Armageddon to occur.




I'm not clear about your position on Islam: you agree that if one looks back through history, one will find plenty bad things to be said about Islam, as bad as anything that could be said about Christianity, and you argue that "going off the deep end with religion" leads to people carrying out acts of "religious fanaticism." Or as we tend to say, terrorism. Well, ok then.

Wouldn't it be correct to say "going off the deep end" of Islam? And to talk of "Islamic fanaticism"? After all, the people you are talking about don't become (for example) Buddhists, and like many of the Tibetan monks who have been jailed by the Chinese, try to find compassion for others, no matter what their behaviour is like.

We've all seen plenty examples in recent years of people going off the deep end of Islam. We all know what that can lead to. Again I'll say that there might have been one big terrorist attack in America seven years ago, but there have been many more around the world since, and one can only imagine what it would be like having to deal with terrorist attacks every day.

On one hand then, you seem to be arguing that Islam can be as cruel and evil as any other religion has ever been, and that Israelis have had to deal with people "going off the deep end" of Islam, which leads to "fanatical" Muslims committing terrorist attacks upon Israeli citizens.

On the other you seem terribly reluctant to acknowledge that Islam has anything to do with the whole situation.

Isn't it possible that it just might be a factor here? And how can one say for sure until one looks at what Islam actually teaches? And at what it's followers have said, and done, in the past?

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I believe that religion is what people turn to when their aspirations for self-determination, democracy, and prosperity are crushed. Not just in Palestine, but all over the world. The older generation of (defeated) secular nationalists have utterly failed to stop Israeli settlements, effect checkpoints, curtail Israeli brutality, reduce the drastic and horrifying poverty of the occupied territories etc....Arafat and Fatah were seen as corrupt and innefective, and the one group that seemed to have an effect on things during the last intifada was Hamas.

This conflict does not exist in a vaccuum. Israel was not just peacefully going about its business while Palestinians were firing rockets. Israel had turned Gaza into the worlds largest prison camp, blocking food and water, shutting off power etc...all with the specific intent to rile up Hamas and create a pretext for invasion. Of course the media reports it as if that had nothing to do with it (because thats the purpose of propaganda, to garner support not educate) and the Palestinians are just angry religious wackos, but its far from the truth. How long do you think it would be before Manhattan started firing rockets at the boroughs if the State of New York decided to cut off all food, water, medicine, and power?

Whats more, throughout the occupation the deaths and maiming of Palestinian children and civiliians has vastly outnumbered those of Israelis, and if you or someone you knew took the time to spend some time in Ramallah or Gaza city you wouldn't wonder why younger generations are becoming increasingly fanatic. What else is there to do in such a brutally senseless existence?

I'm sorry, I just don't have the energy to keep up on this conversation, nor the heart. What's more, I believe there is a divide when it comes to knowledge of the situation that would take far too much work on my behalf to overcome, and I just don't see the point (after all guys come here to jack off, not make a better world).

[kittyKaiti]

Israel will never learn.

Dont they know gas chambers are far more efficient to exterminate a race, than bullets? The Nazi's in their all consuming search for efficiency learned this early on.

Ohh Jews, look to the past, and you will find such good ways to get rid of them, Didnt you learn anything in the camps?


Keep your retarded comments to yourself. If Israel's goal was extermination, there would be a radioactive mushroom cloud over Gaza City. Israel is only hitting Hamas targets. In any war, there are civilian casualities. Hamas hides and launches their attacks from civilian locations. What do you expect to have happen? Hamas is the problem, not Israel. There is no genocide or extermination. You're just a fucking idiot.

[zaron]

And don't try to make this about me. That just won't wash. Those were your words earlier, not mine. The best anyone could say about your comment was that it was in appallingly bad taste. At worst, well ... let's not even go there, eh?

[quote=Angel17TS]Im done here.

Goodbye.

Frankly, I have been reading your posts and I think your commentary has been misinformed at best but more likely disingenuous. You seem to completely miss or choose to ignore the point that Israel's actions are completely appalling and unjustified. A campaign, that inflicts the amount of civilian casualties that this campaign has, is nothing but an arbitrary punitive measure against a people as a whole. In this regard the comparison of Israel's modern day actions and dare I say attitudes are most definitely comparable to those of the Holocaust and Nazis. The only difference is that the Palestinians don't have an effective voice to tell their story via movies and other popular media outlets.

Moreover, your assertion that Palestinians, I would guess you extend that logic to all muslims as I have seen some rather uneducated remarks stereotyping muslims as a whole, are terrorists bent on the destruction of Jews is rather simplistic, untrue and in no way acknowledges the history of this conflict. Let's remember that the Palestinians are the indigenous peoples of Israel and Palestine. Before the Palestinians were displaced by force of arms, there were no mass conflicts between arabs and jews or muslims or jews. In fact the vast majority of Sephardic Jews were refugees from European persecution (such as the Inquisition, Dreyfus Affair, etc.) seeking safety among the same evil muslim peoples that you so easily lambast today.

Finally, the unpleasant reality is that the Israeli state, most western governments and pro-Israeli lobbyists resent the Palestinians because they do not go gentle into that good night. Who would if they were in the Palestinians' shoes?

[zaron]

Israel will never learn.

Dont they know gas chambers are far more efficient to exterminate a race, than bullets? The Nazi's in their all consuming search for efficiency learned this early on.

Ohh Jews, look to the past, and you will find such good ways to get rid of them, Didnt you learn anything in the camps?

Keep your retarded comments to yourself. If Israel's goal was extermination, there would be a radioactive mushroom cloud over Gaza City. Israel is only hitting Hamas targets. In any war, there are civilian casualities. Hamas hides and launches their attacks from civilian locations. What do you expect to have happen? Hamas is the problem, not Israel. There is no genocide or extermination. You're just a fucking idiot.

Very impressive. You just lowered the level of discourse on this board to new depths, I did not think that was possible. Why don't you try reading a book or making a poignant comment as opposed to resorting to vulgar personal attacks.

[Niccolo]

Guess away! Or you could actually read what's been said. Your choice, of course.

So let me get this straight: you want to talk about the history behind this current situation, and you also want to say that up until 1948, Muslims (and arabs) were peaceloving folk, who didn't bother anybody?



Funnily enough I'm currently reading Max Hastings' book "Nemesis" on the battle for Japan during WWII. The similarities between the Japanese and Islamists right throughout history are striking. (Death cults, suicidal warriors, beheading their enemies, indoctrination of children, thinking that the "materialist" West wouldn't stand up to them, dishing out absolutely appalling treatment of people who were not members of their little "group" - try reading Pierre Boulle then Giles Milton, one after the other - on and on it goes.)

We (mainly the Americans) kicked the living shit out of the Japanese, because that's what it took to end that conflict on top. Same with the many battles with Islamic forces throughout history, and there have been plenty of those by the way. The American forces used flamethrowers in the Pacific theatre, the Knights of St. John built great fiery hoops and threw them on top of advancing Janissaries. To give just one example. Using that kind of weapon is what it took to prevail against a fanatical, murderous, absolutely ruthless enemy. And I don't believe that things have changed that much in 60-odd years. Think of Malta in 1565 - a small island which stood up, alone, to the forces of Islam, which sought to destroy it, and to impose their ideology throughout Europe. We're all glad they did, too. Should we not be thinking of Israel in a similar way? Niccolo

Perhaps you believe the world would be a better place now if Islam had extended its rule into Europe? I don't. Should we not frame the current situation by looking back through history and considering ... well let's see .. The Battle of Tours (732) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours), The Siege of Malta (1565) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Malta_(1565)), The Battle of Lepanto (1571) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto_(1571)), Vienna (1683) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna) ... and right now, here at the beginning of the 21st Century ... Israel?

Couldn't one turn around your final comment, and say that there are a lot of people (and let's be honest here, especially in the Muslim world) who resent Israel because they do not go gentle into that good night? That appears to be an unpleasant reality too.

But the Israelis are going nowhere.

[Niccolo]

Israel will never learn.

Dont they know gas chambers are far more efficient to exterminate a race, than bullets? The Nazi's in their all consuming search for efficiency learned this early on.

Ohh Jews, look to the past, and you will find such good ways to get rid of them, Didnt you learn anything in the camps?

Keep your retarded comments to yourself. If Israel's goal was extermination, there would be a radioactive mushroom cloud over Gaza City. Israel is only hitting Hamas targets. In any war, there are civilian casualities. Hamas hides and launches their attacks from civilian locations. What do you expect to have happen? Hamas is the problem, not Israel. There is no genocide or extermination. You're just a fucking idiot.

Very impressive. You just lowered the level of discourse on this board to new depths, I did not think that was possible. Why don't you try reading a book or making a poignant comment as opposed to resorting to vulgar personal attacks.

I suggest you go back through this thread and comment on some of the vulgar personal attacks that were aimed at this poster earlier on. Put these comments in context. I'm surprised too that despite talking about vulgarity and the level of discourse (issues which apparently concern you) you have nothing to say about someone cracking jokes about Jews learning how to gas people when they were in the camps. Well, maybe I'm not that surprised .. apparently a lot of people think it's acceptable to make vulgar comments like that, so long as it's about, you know .. them ..

Just try to criticise Islam though, by pointing out that in the Sahih Al-Bukhari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_al-Bukhari) hadith we are clearly told, by the Islamic holy texts themselves no less, that Muhammad married Aisha when she was six, and that he had sex with her when she was nine years old. Or try mentioning that Muhammad had the (Jewish) Beni Qoreiga tribe massacred in Medina, then "had" one of the Jewish widows (Reihana) before selling the rest of the women and children into slavery .. just try mentioning those events .. then point out that so far as devout Muslims are concerned, Muhammad is "the ideal man" .. then just watch what happens.

[sugdaddie69]

Baby killers---they will rot in hell.

[El Nino]

Photo Gallery of Gaza's Martyred Children

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/phopto-gallery-of-gazas-martyred-children/

[zaron]

Israel will never learn.

Dont they know gas chambers are far more efficient to exterminate a race, than bullets? The Nazi's in their all consuming search for efficiency learned this early on.

Ohh Jews, look to the past, and you will find such good ways to get rid of them, Didnt you learn anything in the camps?

Keep your retarded comments to yourself. If Israel's goal was extermination, there would be a radioactive mushroom cloud over Gaza City. Israel is only hitting Hamas targets. In any war, there are civilian casualities. Hamas hides and launches their attacks from civilian locations. What do you expect to have happen? Hamas is the problem, not Israel. There is no genocide or extermination. You're just a fucking idiot.

Very impressive. You just lowered the level of discourse on this board to new depths, I did not think that was possible. Why don't you try reading a book or making a poignant comment as opposed to resorting to vulgar personal attacks.

I suggest you go back through this thread and comment on some of the vulgar personal attacks that were aimed at this poster earlier on. Put these comments in context. I'm surprised too that despite talking about vulgarity and the level of discourse (issues which apparently concern you) you have nothing to say about someone cracking jokes about Jews learning how to gas people when they were in the camps. Well, maybe I'm not that surprised .. apparently a lot of people think it's acceptable to make vulgar comments like that, so long as it's about, you know .. them ..

Just try to criticise Islam though, by pointing out that in the Sahih Al-Bukhari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_al-Bukhari) hadith we are clearly told, by the Islamic holy texts themselves no less, that Muhammad married Aisha when she was six, and that he had sex with her when she was nine years old. Or try mentioning that Muhammad had the (Jewish) Beni Qoreiga tribe massacred in Medina, then "had" one of the Jewish widows (Reihana) before selling the rest of the women and children into slavery .. just try mentioning those events .. then point out that so far as devout Muslims are concerned, Muhammad is "the ideal man" .. then just watch what happens.

I did not see Angel getting personal with her, so I don't think it is appropriate to put a personal attack on her. As for the gas chamber comment, it is not particularly vulgar as it does not say that this was a positive event but rather that the policy which Israel has chosen to execute is comparable to those very same events. As I have highlighted in my previous post this is in my opinion a valid comparison as this is nothing but an arbitrary punitive measure against a people as a whole. The Holocaust was a horrific event in human history but this does not provide a moral carte blanche for Israel to do anything and everything it wishes.

Now if you want to get biblical, you are only providing half the story and that out of context. The Beni Qoreiga tribe had allied with the Meccans and made war on Muhammed and his group in their infancy. They lost and this was the normal outcome of warfare circa 600 AD. To talk about this event as a factual driver for today's events would be similar to me trying to justify wholesale discrimination and persecution against Jews because they killed Jesus 2000 years ago, rubbish.

[Niccolo]

Well if you genuinely believe that kittyKaiti's comment was vulgar but it's just fine and dandy to try to crack a joke about Jews learning how to gas people in the camps, and you seriously are of the opinion that people in Gaza are as we speak being ferried away to secret camps where they will all have their fillings removed, their hair shaved off, and then murdered on an industrial scale in order to wipe every inhabitant of Gaza from the face of the earth, then there's not much anyone can say to you on that score. Except: wait a while. I can absolutely 100% guarantee you that in a couple of weeks or so, you will be able to look back and say, whoops, that didn't happen after all. Look, Gaza's still there and there are still people living there. Maybe Israel wasn't trying to exterminate every last one of them after all .. maybe I was wrong.

Again though - if you read the original posts made by kittyKaiti, you'll see vulgar personal attacks aplenty in response to them - but no attempts to discuss the assertions she actually made, namely that Muhammad was a paedophile (as she put it) and that during his military career he had committed acts which today we would consider acts of terrorism.


To this one can add that Muhammad is understood by Muslims to be "the ideal man" - the one person who devout Muslims can look to for guidance on how to conduct themselves as they make their way through life.

Isn't that correct? Do you want to claim that this is not the case?


So the context in which you ought to take my quoting the hadith regarding Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, and the slaughter of that particular Jewish tribe, is right in front of you. People were so mad, after all she'd criticised Islam which is not on, they were jumping up and down and saying she was ignorant, needed to read a book, get an education, stuff like that. When in my opinion the reason she said what she did was probably that she had read more, and was better educated on this topic, than the people who were engaging in those personal attacks. I thought I'd try to show why someone could hold kittyKaiti's views. If only instead of guessing (again) you had bothered to do as I suggested last time, and read kittyKaiti's original posts, and seen the reaction to them.



And saying oh don't worry about Muhammad beheading a tribe of Jews and enslaving their woman, it was normal for the time is a pretty poor argument, don't you think? If you want to adopt some form of moral relativism here, then lay out your argument properly, and when you do, remember to factor in your use now of whatever standards you believe you are using to judge the Israeli people, who are living in a different situation altogether, and who are dealing with a completely different set of problems, compared to anything you've experienced. Then explain why you think your criticism of Israel is valid, but it's not acceptable for kittyKaiti to criticise someone who lived in the 7th Century for shagging a nine year old girl, and murdering a tribe of Jews who had already surrendered. Yes, I noticed that you neglected to mention that little detail, in your attempt to tell the whole story and put their eventual murder in the proper context.


Edit: here's a dilemma for you: Do tell everyone your opinion of the atrocities carried out by the Japanese in WWII - the beheading of prisoners, their seeing non-Japanese people as beneath contempt, even as less than fully human, the use of "comfort women" - all of which have parallels in Islam - explain that you think that hey, it was just "normal" - just how the Japanese behaved at that point in history, and there's no reason for anyone to think badly of such behaviour today. Make that argument, if you can.

Or choose the second horn: If you in fact condemn the behaviour of the Japanese, and are glad that the Americans managed to defeat them in WWII then please explain how it is that when the Japanese beheaded other Asian people and Allied POWs, carried out medical experiments on Allied POWs, and forced women to go on death marches, you act as any morally sane person would and condemn such acts - yet seek to give Islam a pass when it comes to beheading surrendered prisoners and having sex with children. I'd be very interested in reading that argument.

This is a porno board at the end of the day, and you might be feeling a little horny while you're here.

Choose one.



Second edit: And again: you want to "acknowledge the history of this conflict" and try to criticise me for "providing only half the story and that was out of context" and yet you have yet to respond to what I said in my earlier post:

So let me get this straight: you want to talk about the history behind this current situation, and you also want to say that up until 1948, Muslims (and arabs) were peaceloving folk, who didn't bother anybody?

Funnily enough I'm currently reading Max Hastings' book "Nemesis" on the battle for Japan during WWII. The similarities between the Japanese and Islamists right throughout history are striking. (Death cults, suicidal warriors, beheading their enemies, indoctrination of children, thinking that the "materialist" West wouldn't stand up to them, dishing out absolutely appalling treatment of people who were not members of their little "group" - try reading Pierre Boulle then Giles Milton, one after the other - on and on it goes.)

We (mainly the Americans) kicked the living shit out of the Japanese, because that's what it took to end that conflict on top. Same with the many battles with Islamic forces throughout history, and there have been plenty of those by the way. The American forces used flamethrowers in the Pacific theatre, the Knights of St. John built great fiery hoops and threw them on top of advancing Janissaries. To give just one example. Using that kind of weapon is what it took to prevail against a fanatical, murderous, absolutely ruthless enemy. And I don't believe that things have changed that much in 60-odd years. If that's what it takes, then that's what it takes. Think of Malta in 1565 - a small island which stood up, alone, to the forces of Islam, which sought to destroy it, and to impose their ideology throughout Europe. We're all glad they did, too. Should we not be thinking of Israel in a similar way?

Perhaps you believe the world would be a better place now if Islam had extended its rule into Europe? I don't. Should we not frame the current situation by looking back through history and considering ... well let's see .. The Battle of Tours (732), The Siege of Malta (1565), The Battle of Lepanto (1571), Vienna (1683) ... and right now, here at the beginning of the 21st Century ... Israel? (See links in previous post.)



Couldn't one turn around your (earlier) comment, and say that there are a lot of people (and let's be honest here, especially in the Muslim world) who resent Israel because they do not go gentle into that good night? That appears to be an unpleasant reality too.

But the Israelis are going nowhere.

[El Nino]

Gazans seek new places to bury the dead

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090113/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_palestinians_the_dead

[Tepres]

Dirty Bastards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k

[El Nino]

The Five Dancing Israelis
Arrested On 9-11

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

[Tepres]

Palestinian girl: Hamas responsible for war

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLIdxF-GHWw

[Tepres]

Children of Hamas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTGbP55HGi8

[Tepres]

Palestinian child becomes Jihad fighter in Hamas clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FvXefcvXCM&feature=related

[uber_nerd]

sweet christ tepres the picture in your signature is terrible

[Angel17TS]

It was obviously said tongue in cheek as they say. And again, 90% of the posts in here is outright racism towards Arabs/Muslims, yet the silence is deafening. People shouldn't get angry just becuase the view is different than their own.

I don't think this is really the appropriate place to discuss religion, so I wont get involved in that side of it. And, I don't even have an issue if people feel I am wrong or should die some horrible death for my beliefs. At least they come out and say it. Niccolo, you guise your hate in book quotes, which never seem to end for some reason. Have you any opinions based on personal experience with Muslims, Gazans, or Jews in Israel? I think those opinions are far more valuable, even if I were to disagree. Actually I find your comments far worse than all others on here, becuase you dance around what you want to say by directing people to others writings. Just becuase its in a book, it doesn't make it right. It just makes it another mans opinion.

I dont know why people get so angry over this. The people who are angry over this are the same who cant come to any peace terms becuase of the irrational views of the other side. Hamas wants to exterminate the Jews, the Jews want the same. Now that is the view of some of the people at the top I feel, not that of the average Palestinian hiding in their homes, or the Jews in Southern Israel worried to get hit by a rocket. The way some of you talk is the same as these leaders, well look at what you did 300 years ago, and look what they did in 1948, etc. Its totally irrelevant now, the war is now, and peace can be now. Sadly the solution is so simple. But your anger blinds you to the facts. So go on calling Muslims this, or Im an Idiot, or anything else. Its a silly discussion your having, not based on any events happening today, and sadly its seems the majority of the views don't want to find any peaceful solution, but rather to "just kill em all", and be done with it.

Posting videos of what Hamas does, or views of some people is pointless. Its the same as if someone where to invade America, so the videos of the Ku Klux Klan, and Christian Extremists come out, and the world will say, "ohh well see, look they deserve it, look what they do". The situation is not Black & White, its not Good Vs Evil, like in the movies. The propaganda you gobble up has you believe that. But its so far from the truth. Its a complicated situation, some people hate, some people just want to live a normal life. Your country had you in total fear of the Communists in the 50's, and 60's. Discussions like this would have been the same. Arabs are just the new fear of our times. Fear is power, and all governments use it. So you can choose to accept the fear, and believe everything you read and see. Or you can choose to experience life, and come to your own conclusions.

If I were Israel I would do the total opposite of what Ive done for 50 or 60 years. Build hospitals, schools, fix the cities, give them land. I wonder what would happen if someone actually showed kindness to another in the world? Would perhaps the young generation of Palestinians grow up admiring Israel? Sure there would be those who resist, and don't want this. But the majority of people see the benefits and they will remove Hamas themselves. The only way to remove terrorism is to give the people around the terrorists the power to do so. The current approach only breeds more hate.

But really what do I know, Im just a poor illiterate terrorist.

[fred41]

Israel will never learn.

Dont they know gas chambers are far more efficient to exterminate a race, than bullets? The Nazi's in their all consuming search for efficiency learned this early on.

Ohh Jews, look to the past, and you will find such good ways to get rid of them, Didnt you learn anything in the camps?

Keep your retarded comments to yourself. If Israel's goal was extermination, there would be a radioactive mushroom cloud over Gaza City. Israel is only hitting Hamas targets. In any war, there are civilian casualities. Hamas hides and launches their attacks from civilian locations. What do you expect to have happen? Hamas is the problem, not Israel. There is no genocide or extermination. You're just a fucking idiot.

Very impressive. You just lowered the level of discourse on this board to new depths, I did not think that was possible. Why don't you try reading a book or making a poignant comment as opposed to resorting to vulgar personal attacks.

Actually..if you remove her first sentence from the quote - it is a poignant comment.

...o.k. ..might have to remove the last one too..lol

[sugdaddie69]

It was obviously said tongue in cheek as they say. And again, 90% of the posts in here is outright racism towards Arabs/Muslims, yet the silence is deafening. People shouldn't get angry just becuase the view is different than their own.

I don't think this is really the appropriate place to discuss religion, so I wont get involved in that side of it. And, I don't even have an issue if people feel I am wrong or should die some horrible death for my beliefs. At least they come out and say it. Niccolo, you guise your hate in book quotes, which never seem to end for some reason. Have you any opinions based on personal experience with Muslims, Gazans, or Jews in Israel? I think those opinions are far more valuable, even if I were to disagree. Actually I find your comments far worse than all others on here, becuase you dance around what you want to say by directing people to others writings. Just becuase its in a book, it doesn't make it right. It just makes it another mans opinion.

I dont know why people get so angry over this. The people who are angry over this are the same who cant come to any peace terms becuase of the irrational views of the other side. Hamas wants to exterminate the Jews, the Jews want the same. Now that is the view of some of the people at the top I feel, not that of the average Palestinian hiding in their homes, or the Jews in Southern Israel worried to get hit by a rocket. The way some of you talk is the same as these leaders, well look at what you did 300 years ago, and look what they did in 1948, etc. Its totally irrelevant now, the war is now, and peace can be now. Sadly the solution is so simple. But your anger blinds you to the facts. So go on calling Muslims this, or Im an Idiot, or anything else. Its a silly discussion your having, not based on any events happening today, and sadly its seems the majority of the views don't want to find any peaceful solution, but rather to "just kill em all", and be done with it.

Posting videos of what Hamas does, or views of some people is pointless. Its the same as if someone where to invade America, so the videos of the Ku Klux Klan, and Christian Extremists come out, and the world will say, "ohh well see, look they deserve it, look what they do". The situation is not Black & White, its not Good Vs Evil, like in the movies. The propaganda you gobble up has you believe that. But its so far from the truth. Its a complicated situation, some people hate, some people just want to live a normal life. Your country had you in total fear of the Communists in the 50's, and 60's. Discussions like this would have been the same. Arabs are just the new fear of our times. Fear is power, and all governments use it. So you can choose to accept the fear, and believe everything you read and see. Or you can choose to experience life, and come to your own conclusions.

If I were Israel I would do the total opposite of what Ive done for 50 or 60 years. Build hospitals, schools, fix the cities, give them land. I wonder what would happen if someone actually showed kindness to another in the world? Would perhaps the young generation of Palestinians grow up admiring Israel? Sure there would be those who resist, and don't want this. But the majority of people see the benefits and they will remove Hamas themselves. The only way to remove terrorism is to give the people around the terrorists the power to do so. The current approach only breeds more hate.

But really what do I know, Im just a poor illiterate terrorist.

Very good statement!

[russtafa]

islam is a religion of peace =just dont mention the armenians,dont mention what is done to the christians in muslim countrys,dont mention the bombings and murders in the philippines,dont mention bali and just make excuses for the twin towers .what a pack of bastards.oh i forgot the murders in india but we should ignor them becawse islam is a religion of peace

[Tepres]

These videos are exactly "the point". Because Nothing will ever change so long as Hamas is in charge. They teach and spread this hatred from from an early age. They cleverly manipulate children in a similar way that pedophiles do. As someone already noted, if Hamas were to put down their weapons, there would be peace. If Israel were to put down their weapons, there would be a slaughter.

Another example of early indoctrination into hate.

11-year-old Palestinians: Martyrdom better than this world

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dPb1bF-s4M&NR=1

[Niccolo]

It was obviously said tongue in cheek as they say. And again, 90% of the posts in here is outright racism towards Arabs/Muslims, yet the silence is deafening. People shouldn't get angry just becuase the view is different than their own.

I don't think this is really the appropriate place to discuss religion, so I wont get involved in that side of it. And, I don't even have an issue if people feel I am wrong or should die some horrible death for my beliefs. At least they come out and say it. Niccolo, you guise your hate in book quotes, which never seem to end for some reason. Have you any opinions based on personal experience with Muslims, Gazans, or Jews in Israel? I think those opinions are far more valuable, even if I were to disagree. Actually I find your comments far worse than all others on here, becuase you dance around what you want to say by directing people to others writings. Just becuase its in a book, it doesn't make it right. It just makes it another mans opinion. Angel17TS

Once again: Islam is an ideology, not a race. It's that simple.

And according to you, nonexistent comments which I haven't actually made anywhere are - in your opinion - the worst comments on this thread. This coming from someone who thinks that their own comment about Jews learning how to gas people in the camps is funny.

Sweet! :lol:

[yosi]

If I were Israel I would do the total opposite of what Ive done for 50 or 60 years. Build hospitals, schools, fix the cities, give them land. I wonder what would happen if someone actually showed kindness to another in the world? Would perhaps the young generation of Palestinians grow up admiring Israel? Sure there would be those who resist, and don't want this. But the majority of people see the benefits and they will remove Hamas themselves. The only way to remove terrorism is to give the people around the terrorists the power to do so. The current approach only breeds more hate.

But really what do I know, Im just a poor illiterate terrorist.

as I write these lines , I don't know if I'll have to go again to the shelter because of another Hamas misile.
I do it for the past 8 years...................non stop.

don't I deserve normal life just like you have?

I can't blame you for being naive , but that's what you are.

the Hamas leaders are in Damascus these days , staying in high class hotels , driving on limosines , with the same money that was actualy sent to help the common palestinians who want only to survive but are kept as hostages by extreme muslims.

if YOU lived under misiles attacks wouldn't you want your goverment to DO something about it instead of just TALKING?

[zaron]

Well if you genuinely believe that kittyKaiti's comment was vulgar but it's just fine and dandy to try to crack a joke about Jews learning how to gas people in the camps, and you seriously are of the opinion that people in Gaza are as we speak being ferried away to secret camps where they will all have their fillings removed, their hair shaved off, and then murdered on an industrial scale in order to wipe every inhabitant of Gaza from the face of the earth, then there's not much anyone can say to you on that score. Except: wait a while. I can absolutely 100% guarantee you that in a couple of weeks or so, you will be able to look back and say, whoops, that didn't happen after all. Look, Gaza's still there and there are still people living there. Maybe Israel wasn't trying to exterminate every last one of them after all .. maybe I was wrong.

Again though - if you read the original posts made by kittyKaiti, you'll see vulgar personal attacks aplenty in response to them - but no attempts to discuss the assertions she actually made, namely that Muhammad was a paedophile (as she put it) and that during his military career he had committed acts which today we would consider acts of terrorism.


To this one can add that Muhammad is understood by Muslims to be "the ideal man" - the one person who devout Muslims can look to for guidance on how to conduct themselves as they make their way through life.

Isn't that correct? Do you want to claim that this is not the case?


So the context in which you ought to take my quoting the hadith regarding Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, and the slaughter of that particular Jewish tribe, is right in front of you. People were so mad, after all she'd criticised Islam which is not on, they were jumping up and down and saying she was ignorant, needed to read a book, get an education, stuff like that. When in my opinion the reason she said what she did was probably that she had read more, and was better educated on this topic, than the people who were engaging in those personal attacks. I thought I'd try to show why someone could hold kittyKaiti's views. If only instead of guessing (again) you had bothered to do as I suggested last time, and read kittyKaiti's original posts, and seen the reaction to them.



And saying oh don't worry about Muhammad beheading a tribe of Jews and enslaving their woman, it was normal for the time is a pretty poor argument, don't you think? If you want to adopt some form of cultural relativism here, then lay out your argument properly, and when you do, remember to factor in your use now of whatever standards you believe you are using to judge the Israeli people, who are living in a different situation altogether, and who are dealing with a completely different set of problems, compared to anything you've experienced. Then explain why you think your criticism of Israel is valid, but it's not acceptable for kittyKaiti to criticise someone who lived in the 7th Century for shagging a nine year old girl, and murdering a tribe of Jews who had already surrendered. Yes, I noticed that you neglected to mention that little detail, in your attempt to tell the whole story and put their eventual murder in the proper context.


Edit: here's a dilemma for you: Do tell everyone your opinion of the atrocities carried out by the Japanese in WWII - the beheading of prisoners, their seeing non-Japanese people as beneath contempt, even as less than fully human, the use of "comfort women" - all of which have parallels in Islam - explain that you think that hey, it was just "normal" - just how the Japanese behaved at that point in history, and there's no reason for anyone to think badly of such behaviour today. Make that argument, if you can.

Or choose the second horn: If you in fact condemn the behaviour of the Japanese, and are glad that the Americans managed to defeat them in WWII then please explain how it is that when the Japanese beheaded other Asian people and Allied POWs, carried out medical experiments on Allied POWs, and forced women to go on death marches, you act as any morally sane person would and condemn such acts - yet seek to give Islam a pass when it comes to beheading surrendered prisoners and having sex with children. I'd be very interested in reading that argument.

This is a porno board at the end of the day, and you might be feeling a little horny while you're here.

Choose one.



Second edit: And again: you want to "acknowledge the history of this conflict" and try to criticise me for "providing only half the story and that was out of context" and yet you have yet to respond to what I said in my earlier post:

So let me get this straight: you want to talk about the history behind this current situation, and you also want to say that up until 1948, Muslims (and arabs) were peaceloving folk, who didn't bother anybody?

Funnily enough I'm currently reading Max Hastings' book "Nemesis" on the battle for Japan during WWII. The similarities between the Japanese and Islamists right throughout history are striking. (Death cults, suicidal warriors, beheading their enemies, indoctrination of children, thinking that the "materialist" West wouldn't stand up to them, dishing out absolutely appalling treatment of people who were not members of their little "group" - try reading Pierre Boulle then Giles Milton, one after the other - on and on it goes.)

We (mainly the Americans) kicked the living shit out of the Japanese, because that's what it took to end that conflict on top. Same with the many battles with Islamic forces throughout history, and there have been plenty of those by the way. The American forces used flamethrowers in the Pacific theatre, the Knights of St. John built great fiery hoops and threw them on top of advancing Janissaries. To give just one example. Using that kind of weapon is what it took to prevail against a fanatical, murderous, absolutely ruthless enemy. And I don't believe that things have changed that much in 60-odd years. If that's what it takes, then that's what it takes. Think of Malta in 1565 - a small island which stood up, alone, to the forces of Islam, which sought to destroy it, and to impose their ideology throughout Europe. We're all glad they did, too. Should we not be thinking of Israel in a similar way?

Perhaps you believe the world would be a better place now if Islam had extended its rule into Europe? I don't. Should we not frame the current situation by looking back through history and considering ... well let's see .. The Battle of Tours (732), The Siege of Malta (1565), The Battle of Lepanto (1571), Vienna (1683) ... and right now, here at the beginning of the 21st Century ... Israel? (See links in previous post.)



Couldn't one turn around your (earlier) comment, and say that there are a lot of people (and let's be honest here, especially in the Muslim world) who resent Israel because they do not go gentle into that good night? That appears to be an unpleasant reality too.

But the Israelis are going nowhere.

We can meander around the points as much as you like but the reality is that IDF is executing a military campaign which will is killing mostly innocent people. To hide this fact they have instituted a media blockade to hide the true severity of the casualties inflicted on civilians. You may also demonize the Palestinian however much you want but they are the ones who have had their homeland stolen through the use of violence. They are right to be angry.

A couple of tidbits for you:

- The Palestinians have already been relocated to camps and ghettos walled in by Israel, what more relocation can you ask for. For someone who seems to enjoy history as much as you do, I am surprised you don't see any similarities between the Gaza operation and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. You don't need to kill everyone to destroy a people nor do you have to do it over the course of a year; you could do it slowly over the course of say 50 or 100 years.

- Mohammed's role in Islam I can't speak to with certainty; I think religion being a personal matter is a personal interpretation for individual muslims.

- Where do you get your facts, from Fox News?
The hadith that you refer to says nothing of having sex with Aisha at the age of 9, that is a mistranslation. The translation says he took her into his home at the age of 9. I highly doubt any religion anywhere would comment on the sexual behavior of a prominent figure within said religion. As for comparing something that happened 60 years ago and 1400 years ago, no they are not comparable, there most definitely is a difference in context.

- Conflict is a part of human nature so I wouldn't assert anyone was peace loving but the fact remains that there was no major conflict in the area between arabs / muslims and jews before the movement to displace Palestinians.

- You reference to Knights of St. John as a bulwark against religious fanaticism is rather funny as their forerunners were religious fanatics who traveled thousands of miles from their home to conquer Jerusalem and indiscriminately slaughter the jewish and muslim inhabitants of the city. Or maybe you feel a certain kinship towards them. Either way they were dispelled from Jerusalem some 90 years later, then fled to Rhodes where they were again dispersed, finally landing in Malta where they achieved some modicum of sustainable success.

- Finally, muslims were already in Europe via Spain and South Eastern Europe, so I doubt Malta or any of the other conflicts you mentioned had any real relevance historically outside of the sentimental. The sustained ascent and decline of empires and cultures generally has substantially higher correlation with demographic and economic trends as opposed to military strength which is ephemeral and generally driven by the aforementioned trends.

You are right about the fact that the same can be said about the Israelis too but that doesn't change the Palestinians reality either. For all the back and forth we are having on this board, I probably have more close Jewish friends than the vast majority of the people on here. I don't generally wish ill on anyone but when I see injustice to the extreme degree I see when I look at the Palestinian’s plight it makes my blood boil. To me it is the equivalent of being raped and then being vilified for being raped.

Anyway, thanks for the time sink.

[El Nino]

Hey you better look out, Niccolo might report you to some kind of antisemitic foundation, just for exercising your 1rst amendment... And then they will come after you and illegally prosecute you with a roll of duct tape...

[El Nino]

Hey you better look out, Niccolo might report you to some kind of antisemitic foundation, just for exercising your 1rst amendment... And then they will come after you and illegally prosecute you with a roll of duct tape...

[Niccolo]

El Nino,

Come on man, let's try to move forward here. I did try to lighten the mood a little after you posted about that, and made your own position clear. And we seem to be in agreement about the superiority of Buddhism, in some imporant ways, compared to some other religions. We seem to have a fair bit of common ground there then. I mean, two people agreeing about religion - that's not something you see every day now, is it? Know what I mean?

Maybe the two of us can't achieve a cease fire between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but surely we can make one happen between two individual people, namely you and me? That seems do-able. What do you think?

What's the saying again, a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step?

Niccolo

[Angel17TS]

If I were Israel I would do the total opposite of what Ive done for 50 or 60 years. Build hospitals, schools, fix the cities, give them land. I wonder what would happen if someone actually showed kindness to another in the world? Would perhaps the young generation of Palestinians grow up admiring Israel? Sure there would be those who resist, and don't want this. But the majority of people see the benefits and they will remove Hamas themselves. The only way to remove terrorism is to give the people around the terrorists the power to do so. The current approach only breeds more hate.

But really what do I know, Im just a poor illiterate terrorist.

as I write these lines , I don't know if I'll have to go again to the shelter because of another Hamas misile.
I do it for the past 8 years...................non stop.

don't I deserve normal life just like you have?

I can't blame you for being naive , but that's what you are.

the Hamas leaders are in Damascus these days , staying in high class hotels , driving on limosines , with the same money that was actualy sent to help the common palestinians who want only to survive but are kept as hostages by extreme muslims.

if YOU lived under misiles attacks wouldn't you want your goverment to DO something about it instead of just TALKING?

Hi Yosi,

Thats a shame if that is your plight. You are in Southern Israel? It seems you have knowledge of the situation, and I would look forward to a conversation about recent events and what led up to it. Majority on here have no idea really of the regions history as it not taught in schools, and gets only a few minutes in the news. So they revert to comment on the religion as a whole. But I think you would agree, the situation has much to do with land, and religion has been used perhaps as an excuse for their actions. I know that many Israelis feel there is no talking, I disagree. And of course when a war has started, yes its difficult to start talking. I think what I meant more of a long term, and could only be used during times of the cease fire.

Im happy you said extreme muslims. That indicates to me, you recognize they are taking it to the extreme and it is not part of any teachings.

Anyway, a few things I would like to see what you think.

Do you think that, while yes there is Hamas being targeted, the families of those who get innocently killed, would naturally not blame Hamas, but instead would turn their anger towards Israel? Perhaps joining the fight now, and could they really be called a terrorist or would these be reacting in self defense? It seems like both sides just react to each other, but really make no efforts to solve the problem. Each side also seems to try to provoke one another in to the next battle.

Also, what about in general, I mean starting back in 1948. You know of course, Gaza is not the home of these people, and many places they fire rockets into used to be the lands they lived on. Can i ask how this is handled in schools or generally culturally. Is it viewed religiously as Israelis rights, as in the "Promise Land" or is it viewed as the past mistakes or triumphs of other governments? Or something else, I dont want to put words in your mouth.

Stay safe.

[Angel17TS]

It was obviously said tongue in cheek as they say. And again, 90% of the posts in here is outright racism towards Arabs/Muslims, yet the silence is deafening. People shouldn't get angry just becuase the view is different than their own.

I don't think this is really the appropriate place to discuss religion, so I wont get involved in that side of it. And, I don't even have an issue if people feel I am wrong or should die some horrible death for my beliefs. At least they come out and say it. Niccolo, you guise your hate in book quotes, which never seem to end for some reason. Have you any opinions based on personal experience with Muslims, Gazans, or Jews in Israel? I think those opinions are far more valuable, even if I were to disagree. Actually I find your comments far worse than all others on here, becuase you dance around what you want to say by directing people to others writings. Just becuase its in a book, it doesn't make it right. It just makes it another mans opinion. Angel17TS

Once again: Islam is an ideology, not a race. It's that simple.

And according to you, nonexistent comments which I haven't actually made anywhere are - in your opinion - the worst comments on this thread. This coming from someone who thinks that their own comment about Jews learning how to gas people in the camps is funny.

Sweet! :lol:

The dance continues. No books quotes, Im shocked.

Have you reported the UN Officials who have made the same comparison?

[yosi]

If I were Israel I would do the total opposite of what Ive done for 50 or 60 years. Build hospitals, schools, fix the cities, give them land. I wonder what would happen if someone actually showed kindness to another in the world? Would perhaps the young generation of Palestinians grow up admiring Israel? Sure there would be those who resist, and don't want this. But the majority of people see the benefits and they will remove Hamas themselves. The only way to remove terrorism is to give the people around the terrorists the power to do so. The current approach only breeds more hate.

But really what do I know, Im just a poor illiterate terrorist.

as I write these lines , I don't know if I'll have to go again to the shelter because of another Hamas misile.
I do it for the past 8 years...................non stop.

don't I deserve normal life just like you have?

I can't blame you for being naive , but that's what you are.

the Hamas leaders are in Damascus these days , staying in high class hotels , driving on limosines , with the same money that was actualy sent to help the common palestinians who want only to survive but are kept as hostages by extreme muslims.

if YOU lived under misiles attacks wouldn't you want your goverment to DO something about it instead of just TALKING?

Hi Yosi,

Thats a shame if that is your plight. You are in Southern Israel? It seems you have knowledge of the situation, and I would look forward to a conversation about recent events and what led up to it. Majority on here have no idea really of the regions history as it not taught in schools, and gets only a few minutes in the news. So they revert to comment on the religion as a whole. But I think you would agree, the situation has much to do with land, and religion has been used perhaps as an excuse for their actions. I know that many Israelis feel there is no talking, I disagree. And of course when a war has started, yes its difficult to start talking. I think what I meant more of a long term, and could only be used during times of the cease fire.

Im happy you said extreme muslims. That indicates to me, you recognize they are taking it to the extreme and it is not part of any teachings.

Anyway, a few things I would like to see what you think.

Do you think that, while yes there is Hamas being targeted, the families of those who get innocently killed, would naturally not blame Hamas, but instead would turn their anger towards Israel? Perhaps joining the fight now, and could they really be called a terrorist or would these be reacting in self defense? It seems like both sides just react to each other, but really make no efforts to solve the problem. Each side also seems to try to provoke one another in to the next battle.

Also, what about in general, I mean starting back in 1948. You know of course, Gaza is not the home of these people, and many places they fire rockets into used to be the lands they lived on. Can i ask how this is handled in schools or generally culturally. Is it viewed religiously as Israelis rights, as in the "Promise Land" or is it viewed as the past mistakes or triumphs of other governments? Or something else, I dont want to put words in your mouth.

Stay safe.

the true tragedy in the middle east are the palestinians , sad but true.

you probably know the middle east history better than others here
and you probably know about "The black september" in the 70's , the palestinians were butchered in Jordan , a violence of muslims against muslims , nobody saw or heard anything , far away from the press......

up to these days , this kind of violence is never showed.
the common palestinians went out to celebrate the 11/9 because they were FORCED to do it , do you think that they realy cared about it with so many mouths to feed in this harsh reality?

the Hamas forces , when they feel hungry , go and rob a store or a restaurant , I know it happens , I've seen it with my own eyes , not on television.
the palestinian population are terified by the Hamas, some of them are even made to believe that if they will commit suicide killing as many innocent non-muslims , no matter if it is as a human bomb or flying airplanes to crash on some tall building , promising them afterwards 72 female virgins that will be his in heaven...........

do you think that the Hamas leaders will go and commit a suicide?

is the Islam realy says so? I doubt it............
the silence of the arab world about it is screaming in my ears.....realy.

it is the Hamas interest to keep the palestinians as they are , poor , ignorant , and easy to dominate , just like Saddam Hussein did in Iraq.
ever wondered why there are no democracies in the arab world? ok , maybe almost none.

in democratic countries , poeple like the Hamas , will find themselves in jail , where they belong.

[Niccolo]

Niccolo wrote:
Quote:
It was obviously said tongue in cheek as they say. And again, 90% of the posts in here is outright racism towards Arabs/Muslims, yet the silence is deafening. People shouldn't get angry just becuase the view is different than their own.

I don't think this is really the appropriate place to discuss religion, so I wont get involved in that side of it. And, I don't even have an issue if people feel I am wrong or should die some horrible death for my beliefs. At least they come out and say it. Niccolo, you guise your hate in book quotes, which never seem to end for some reason. Have you any opinions based on personal experience with Muslims, Gazans, or Jews in Israel? I think those opinions are far more valuable, even if I were to disagree. Actually I find your comments far worse than all others on here, becuase you dance around what you want to say by directing people to others writings. Just becuase its in a book, it doesn't make it right. It just makes it another mans opinion. Angel17TS


Once again: Islam is an ideology, not a race. It's that simple.

And according to you, nonexistent comments which I haven't actually made anywhere are - in your opinion - the worst comments on this thread. This coming from someone who thinks that their own comment about Jews learning how to gas people in the camps is funny.

Sweet!


The dance continues. No books quotes, Im shocked.

If you have difficulty understanding the simple statement: "Islam is an ideology, not a race" then that's your problem, not mine. If you genuinely think that criticism of one has anything at all to do with the other, then go ahead and argue for that. Start by defining your terms. Good luck!

You know, there is no need for you to carry on like a silly little girl. I don't know who you are trying to impress with such childish behaviour. You have shown that you can engage in a real discussion on this extremely thorny topic, in a thoughtful and mature manner. Anyone reading your posts can see that this is a better approach.

Don't you think?

[Niccolo]

zaron,

1) It’s you who’s meandering around the points I raised. Try addressing them instead.


2) You will find the translation of the Sahih Al-Bukhari hadith (http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/), recognised as reliable by all schools of Islamic scholarship, on the website of the Centre for Muslim-Jewish Engagement (http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/about/) - the translation is by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Muhsin_Khan), and from the hadith dealing with wedlock, book 62 (http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/062.sbt.html), we find the following:

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:
Narrated 'Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65:
Narrated 'Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88:
Narrated 'Ursa:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).


3) Rest assured, I’m well aware of the history of the Knights of St. John. I can say with some authority that your “nutshell version” is a very poor effort. Since you brought it up though, I'll mention that the Knights’ “forerunner” was in fact a fellow called Brother Gerard, who was the head of a hospice for pilgrims in Jerusalem around 1080. The historian Ernle Bradford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernle_Bradford), who served in the Royal Navy during WWII, wrote:

“The Order that Gerard founded anticipated by many centuries all subsequent organisations devoted to the care of the poor and the sick throughout the world. In his ideals he echoed the Founder of Christianity. Members of the Order were enjoined to consider the poor as “our lords, whose servants we acknowledge ourselves to be”. They were also to dress as humbly as did the poor. The nobility of Gerard’s aims and life would be hard to equal at any time, but in the twelfth century, when the western world was based on the feudal concept of lord and serf, they were exceptional. His epitaph is hardly an exaggeration: “Here lies Gerard, the most humble man in the East and the servant of the poor. He was hospitable to all strangers, a gentle man with a courageous heart. One can judge within these walls just how good he was. Provident and active in every kind of way, he stretched out his arms to many lands in order to obtain whatever he needed to feed his people.” (Bradford, “The Shield and The Sword (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0141391103/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=),” Penguin, pp. 24 – 25.)

The Order of Malta (http://www.orderofmalta.org/english) is still with us today, and carries out humanitarian and medical work throughout the world. Their relief organisations and ambulance corps operate in over thirty countries. Their latest projects include the inauguration of a children's home and playground in Sri Lanka; running an information campaign about bird flu in refugee camps, and providing business training for indigent women in Thailand; providing support for earthquake victims in Pakistan; and vaccinating children and providing assistance to pregnant women in Darfur, Sudan.

I don’t know if you have been misinformed, or if you are being disingenuous, but so far as your biased portrayal of the Knights of St. John goes, well how can I put this ... you are providing less than half the story, and that out of context.

Your “meandering” around the plain fact that the Knights of St. John successfully defended Malta - and Europe - against an Islamic empire (not some unknown and un-named form of “religious extremism”) is just laughable, and your supposed “doubt” about the significance of the Knights’ sacrifice, and that of the Maltese people too, as they stopped the Ottoman Empire in its tracks in 1565, is irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves. And if we ever need someone to speak for them, we have writers such as Ernle Bradford and Roger Crowley (Please do read “Empires of The Sea (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0571232302/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=)”).


4) I have to comment on your use of the concept of doubt in order to make your argument. If someone said to you that they doubted whether any of the events from the last 60 yrs regarding the Palestinians had “any real relevance historically outside of the sentimental”, would you regard that as a convincing argument, and throw aside your “kinship” with the Palestinians? No? You wouldn’t? Well, your argument is equally unimpressive.


5) If you want to deal with women being raped and then being vilified (and worse) for being raped, then I suggest you look into “honour killing”- an absolutely appalling practice. As it happens, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society (CIVITAS) recently prepared a report on this, and if you’re at all interested, it is worth reading. (Here’s the link.) (http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/CrimesOfTheCommunity.pdf)

Niccolo.

[zaron]

zaron,

1) It’s you who’s meandering around the points I raised. Try addressing them instead.


2) You will find the translation of the Sahih Al-Bukhari hadith (http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/), recognised as reliable by all schools of Islamic scholarship, on the website of the Centre for Muslim-Jewish Engagement (http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/about/) - the translation is by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Muhsin_Khan), and from the hadith dealing with wedlock, book 62 (http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/062.sbt.html), we find the following:

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:
Narrated 'Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65:
Narrated 'Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88:
Narrated 'Ursa:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).


3) Rest assured, I’m well aware of the history of the Knights of St. John. I can say with some authority that your “nutshell version” is a very poor effort. Since you brought it up though, I'll mention that the Knights’ “forerunner” was in fact a fellow called Brother Gerard, who was the head of a hospice for pilgrims in Jerusalem around 1080. The historian Ernle Bradford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernle_Bradford), who served in the Royal Navy during WWII, wrote:

“The Order that Gerard founded anticipated by many centuries all subsequent organisations devoted to the care of the poor and the sick throughout the world. In his ideals he echoed the Founder of Christianity. Members of the Order were enjoined to consider the poor as “our lords, whose servants we acknowledge ourselves to be”. They were also to dress as humbly as did the poor. The nobility of Gerard’s aims and life would be hard to equal at any time, but in the twelfth century, when the western world was based on the feudal concept of lord and serf, they were exceptional. His epitaph is hardly an exaggeration: “Here lies Gerard, the most humble man in the East and the servant of the poor. He was hospitable to all strangers, a gentle man with a courageous heart. One can judge within these walls just how good he was. Provident and active in every kind of way, he stretched out his arms to many lands in order to obtain whatever he needed to feed his people.” (Bradford, “The Shield and The Sword (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0141391103/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=),” Penguin, pp. 24 – 25.)

The Order of Malta (http://www.orderofmalta.org/english) is still with us today, and carries out humanitarian and medical work throughout the world. Their relief organisations and ambulance corps operate in over thirty countries. Their latest projects include the inauguration of a children's home and playground in Sri Lanka; running an information campaign about bird flu in refugee camps, and providing business training for indigent women in Thailand; providing support for earthquake victims in Pakistan; and vaccinating children and providing assistance to pregnant women in Darfur, Sudan.

I don’t know if you have been misinformed, or if you are being disingenuous, but so far as your biased portrayal of the Knights of St. John goes, well how can I put this ... you are providing less than half the story, and that out of context.

Your “meandering” around the plain fact that the Knights of St. John successfully defended Malta - and Europe - against an Islamic empire (not some unknown and un-named form of “religious extremism”) is just laughable, and your supposed “doubt” about the significance of the Knights’ sacrifice, and that of the Maltese people too, as they stopped the Ottoman Empire in its tracks in 1565, is irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves. And if we ever need someone to speak for them, we have writers such as Ernle Bradford and Roger Crowley (Please do read “Empires of The Sea (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0571232302/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=)”).


4) I have to comment on your use of the concept of doubt in order to make your argument. If someone said to you that they doubted whether any of the events from the last 60 yrs regarding the Palestinians had “any real relevance historically outside of the sentimental”, would you regard that as a convincing argument, and throw aside your “kinship” with the Palestinians? No? You wouldn’t? Well, your argument is equally unimpressive.


5) If you want to deal with women being raped and then being vilified (and worse) for being raped, then I suggest you look into “honour killing”- an absolutely appalling practice. As it happens, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society (CIVITAS) recently prepared a report on this, and if you’re at all interested, it is worth reading. (Here’s the link.) (http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/CrimesOfTheCommunity.pdf)

Niccolo.

Niccolo,

Look up at the topic title. It says "Scene After IDF Attack In Gaza 1/1/09". It does not say "Muslims why they are evil people who should be dehumanized and persecuted". Let me slow it down and s-p-e-l-l i-t o-u-t f-o-r y-o-u: the topic is current events of innocent Palestinians being killed.

Though I understand that distracting people by changing the subject to one where you get to dehumanize muslims and Palestinians and in effect justifying their persecution is useful to your personal interests, it does not have anything to do with the topic, "Scene After IDF Attack In Gaza 1/1/09". So to say I am meandering by sticking on topic is a complete bold face lie. I have addressed all of your nonsense even though the vast majority of it is about bullshit from 1000 years ago.

FYI: The words used are nikah and dukah for the events that occur at 6 and 9 respectively. Now, nikah which is the equivalent of an engagement or in Islam a legal binding promise to be in state of marriage and dukah is when the woman moves into the man's house and becomes his wife. Intercourse may or may not happen but it is rarely documented in religious texts.

Furthermore, even if he was a pedophile and the worst person in the history of the world, it does not matter. It still does not justify killing innocent Palestinians and if you think it does why don't you just say that outright?

None of the things you say about the Knights of St. John changes the fact that the knights who transformed the group from a hospital to a military order, were the very same ruthless knights who participated in the crusades which concluded with the slaughter of Jerusalem's people. Nor does it change the fact that after they were expelled from Jerusalem they conducted a military campaign against fellow Christians in Rhodes which led to their eventual "acquisition" of Rhodes. Over time this order may have evolved into a force for good but its role in history (as long as it is not written by the pope) is not as saintly as you would make it out to be. Again, who cares about this? What is the relevance of the Knights of St. John to the topic of "Scene After IDF Attack In Gaza 1/1/09"?

The events of the last 60 years have a direct causal link to what happens today and you can see the continuous thread of events that have led to what happens today that is why these events are relevant. There is no causal link or apparent chain of events between what happened over a 1000 years ago and today, except maybe in your convoluted logic.

Yes, honour killings are appalling. Does this mean that it is ok to essentially do the same to Palestinians? Why not say so outright if that is what you mean?

It is starting to strike me that you are the only person here at this point who is making negative stereotyping remarks about a people and their core values. Nobody has come out and said that all Jews are evil because of the actions of the Israeli state or even because of ridiculous sweeping remarks that individuals like you throw out in the guise of discourse. It leads me to believe that you as an individual are just a bitter little man, you want empathy for yourself but have none for others. I think the best thing for you to do is to go out and actually meet, get to know and make friends with someone who is muslim so that you can grow out of this bitter hate filled cocoon you seem to have woven yourself into. The internet and books are not adequate substitutes for the perspective gained through human contact.

Best of luck.

[Niccolo]

Look up at the topic title. It says "Scene After IDF Attack In Gaza 1/1/09". It does not say "Muslims why they are evil people who should be dehumanized and persecuted". Let me slow it down and s-p-e-l-l i-t o-u-t f-o-r y-o-u: the topic is current events of innocent Palestinians being killed.

And look at the video given in support of that topic title. It does not show a scene after an IDF attack in Gaza, on 1/1/09 or any other time. It shows how Hamas gunmen allowed a crowd of children to gather round a lorryload of explosives and then one of the incompetent bastards had an ND and set the whole lot off.

Isn't that right? Watch the video.

Though I understand that distracting people by putting that title above a video showing people dying because of something that Hamas did, or changing the subject whenever anyone points that out to one where people get to attack Israel, or trying to justify the persecution of anyone criticising Islam (which is an ideology, not a race), will prevent some people from realising that the scene the video shows is one of people dying because Hamas likes their kiddies to learn all about guns, oh yes - read the article accompanying the video - and because some stupid incompetent Hamas gunman had an ND, and ended up blowing a heap of people to bits.


A second front to the conflict in the Gaza Strip has opened up in Europe, where a wave of reprisal attacks against Jewish targets is stoking fears of a wider resurgence of anti-Semitism on the continent. Far from simply being a spate of isolated incidents, as many Europeans claim, anti-Semitic violence is becoming more commonplace in every country in Europe. At the same time, anti-Israel demonstrations, which have strong anti-Semitic overtones, are being held with alarming frequency in cities across Europe.

In France, the National Bureau of Vigilance Against Anti-Semitism says it has received more than 100 reports of anti-Semitic violence since the start of Israel’s military operation in Gaza on December 27. Recent incidents include arson attacks against synagogues and Jewish community centers in several French cities, as well as physical assaults of Jews in Paris and elsewhere.

[...]

Many European newspaper commentators are saying that concerns about anti-Semitism in Europe are overblown. They argue that the Jew haters are a tiny minority on the extreme political right who are given far more attention than they deserve. They also say that those concerned about the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe are confusing legitimate criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism.

But myriad polling data show that all across Europe, the fine line between valid criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism has been dangerously blurred. An opinion poll in Germany, for example, shows that more than 50 percent of Germans equate Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians with Nazi treatment of the Jews. Sixty-eight percent of Germans say that Israel is waging a “war of extermination” against the Palestinian people. In terms of Europe as a whole, another poll shows that the majority of Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace.

Opinions as grossly irrational as these imply that for many Europeans, anti-Israelism has become a convenient smokescreen for anti-Semitism. Taking this logic full-circle, the belief that Israel is the main force for evil in the world also acts to further legitimize anti-Semitism.

But how can Europeans, who famously pride themselves on being more sophisticated than everyone else, be so woefully ignorant about the reality of the situation in Israel? Much of the blame lies with Europe’s leftwing mass media establishment, which for many years has been systematically and unabashedly purveying the idea that to be anti-Israel (and anti-American and pro-pacifist) is to be sophisticated and politically correct.

Of course, the gatekeepers of European multiculturalism understand that it would be unsophisticated and politically incorrect to be openly anti-Semitic. But self-righteous criticism of Israel is another matter altogether. Thus European publics are being bombarded with round-the-clock, knee-jerk, anti-Israel political bigotry disguised as news coverage. By making such deception fashionable, European media are inciting anti-Semitism.

In one of the more outrageous examples of anti-Israel media bias, France 2 national public television used an outdated amateur video of Palestinian casualties from an accidental truck explosion in 2005 as current footage demonstrating the violence in Gaza. The video shows dead bodies of babies being laid out on white sheets. France 2 was forced to come clean when a French political blog uncovered the trickery. (France 2 also was responsible for a September 2000 report, accused of being a fake, of the supposed shooting death of Mohammed al-Dura, a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, by the Israeli army.)

[...]

Meanwhile, the European political class, which is hyper-sensitive to anti-Muslim bigotry, has remained largely indifferent to the problem of rising anti-Semitism. A recent report on the epidemic of anti-Semitic violence in the European Union shows that most European countries do not even keep official records of anti-Semitic crimes. (The first such report, which was published by the EU’s Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia in late 2003, was initially suppressed and only publicized after months of public outcry.)

European officialdom seems afraid to admit that Europe has a problem with anti-Semitism because doing so would shatter the myth that supports one of the main pillars of European self-identity. After all, European elites would like the world to believe that the European Union is a postmodern multicultural utopia where people of all tribes, tongues, and nations live together in perfect harmony.

Of course, the European political left is also pursuing an ideological battle to eradicate Judeo-Christian influences from European culture. Part of the strategy to achieve their objective involves embracing a host of Muslim causes. And so millions of Europeans have eagerly joined ranks with Islam’s 60-year challenge to Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Indeed, when European commentators proclaim that Israel is a Nazi, apartheid, pariah state, they are deliberately calling into question Israel’s legitimacy. What is clear is that European anti-Semitism says a lot more about the state of contemporary Europe than it does about the State of Israel. - Soeren Kern (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/anti-semitism-sweeps-europe-in-wake-of-gaza-operation/)

[Niccolo]

Furthermore, even if he was a pedophile and the worst person in the history of the world, it does not matter. It still does not justify killing innocent Palestinians and if you think it does why don't you just say that outright?


If you'd bothered to actually read what I said you'll see that in the first instance, Kaiti had made some comments about Islam - and once again, Islam is an ideology and not a race - and was roundly criticised for doing so. One of the things she said was that their prophet was a paedophile, and she also said that he had done things which today would be considered acts of terrorism. In response to the personal attacks which ensued, I sent in what was (I think) my first post on this thread, wondering why it was that people could freely criticise Israel, even though the actual video at the top of the thread showed Hamas gunmen managing to kill heaps of people, and yet whenever Kaiti made comments criticising Islam (again: Islam is an ideology and not a race) she was attacked for doing so?

It is perfectly possible for one to have studied Islam, to whatever extent one is able, given one's everyday time constraints, real-life commitments etc., and to reach the conclusions Kaiti did. I tried to show that. And in answer to your question, it obviously does matter. Kaiti would be right, and the people who attacked her would be wrong to do so. (And that's just the consequences of that being true here on this board. Obviously the consequences out in the real world would be fucking massive - if it could be acknowledged openly.)

I presented an analogy showing how alike the barbaric acts commited by the Japanese before and during WWII, to fellow Asians and Allied POWs alike, were to some of the acts commited by devout Muslims throughout history, not least their Prophet, who beheaded a tribe of Jewish prisoners who had already surrendered, raped one of the widows and sold the rest of the women and children into slavery. I asked why one could criticise the Japanese for doing such things, but excuse someone else - far from addressing this effectively, all you said was that the beheading of prisoners by the Japanese and the beheading of prisoners by Islamic warriors are "not comparable." That there's "definitely a difference." Some argument, that! I bet it took you a long time to get that one ready before posting it!

For you to say that you have addressed what was put before you - that is obviously nonsense.

[Niccolo]

And what, Ernle Bradford (the author of "The Shield and The Sword") was Pope was he? That's news to me. I thought he served in the Royal Navy during WWII before going on to be an accomplished sailor and military historian. You learn something new every day, eh ...

[zaron]

Furthermore, even if he was a pedophile and the worst person in the history of the world, it does not matter. It still does not justify killing innocent Palestinians and if you think it does why don't you just say that outright?


If you'd bothered to actually read what I said you'll see that in the first instance, Kaiti had made some comments about Islam - and once again, Islam is an ideology and not a race - and was roundly criticised for doing so. One of the things she said was that their prophet was a paedophile, and she also said that he had done things which today would be considered acts of terrorism. In response to the personal attacks which ensued, I sent in what was (I think) my first post on this thread, wondering why it was that people could freely criticise Israel, even though the actual video at the top of the thread showed Hamas gunmen managing to kill heaps of people, and yet whenever Kaiti made comments criticising Islam (again: Islam is an ideology and not a race) she was attacked for doing so?

It is perfectly possible for one to have studied Islam (to some extent) and to reach the conclusions Kaiti did. I presented an analogy showing how alike the barbaric acts commited by the Japanese before and during WWII, to fellow Asians and Allied POWs alike, were to some of the acts commited by devout Muslims throughout history, not least their Prophet, who beheaded a tribe of Jewish prisoners who had already surrendered, raped one of the widows and sold the rest of the women and children into slavery. I asked why one could criticise the Japanese for doing such things, but excuse someone else - far from addressing this effectively, all you said was that the beheading of prisoners by the Japanese and the beheading of prisoners by Islamic warriors are "not comparable." That there's "definitely a difference." Some argument, that! I bet it took you a long time to get that one ready before posting it!

For you to say that you have addressed what was put before you - that is obviously nonsense.

First off Islam is not an ideaology but a religeon which in terms of a technical definition might be the same but in practical application is distinct because people choose an ideology but the vast majority of people though technically can choose a religeon are born into it. Essentially, it is for the vast majority of people (whether they choose to practice or not) an association by birth.

When you attack something such as this it is loosely the equivalent of attacking someone who is gay for being gay or attacking Jews for being Jewish which is also not an ethnicity but a religeon. Accordingly, if being anti-Jewish is the same as being anti-semitic (Arabs are also semites by the way) or being racist, than the same relationship holds true for Islam and muslims. You seem to be a smart fellow, so I doubt that you have failed to grasp this on your own. This is why being anti-Islam or anti-muslim is as wrong as being anti-Jewish.

This is also why all the remarks that you mention above are extremely offensive, if you don't like people throwing around "anti-semitic" slurs than you should probably try to refrain from doing the same to others.

Finally, if you think that human culture, customs and civility haven't evolved over the course of 1300 years and cannot understand what the contextual difference between something that happened in 640 and 1940 then you may be well served by installing a moat around your abode as there maybe some marauding vikings on the prowl.

[SarahG]

Disgusting - and sanctioned by the West?

This should be shown on mainstream media.

I agree completely. Our media doesn't have the balls to air this stuff. The most they will say on the issue is how many civilians Israel has killed, spreading the propaganda that gets people to forget that these "civilians" elected terrorist organizations into political offices, and then sat by idly as groups like Hamas and Hezbollah fired rocks FROM CIVILIAN neighborhoods, next to schools, next to hospitals, next to residential districts into Israel...hoping, daring, wishing Israel would strike back.

If Mexico's people elected a terrorist group into office, and then watched or cheered on as that terrorist group fired rockets from residential areas into southern California, we'd go in and kill every baby, disfigure every women, kill every parent, burn every house, bomb every town, and torture every survivor until it stopped. By comparison, Israel at least has the sense to put their responses on a tight leash... they sat by as more than 3,000 of those rockets were fired into their boarders in 2008 before reacting with force.

That would never happen here.

[Niccolo]

So far as my remarks about the Knights of St. John are concerned, perhaps I should draw your attention to the context in which I first mentioned them on this thread: as warriors who fought a military battle against vastly superior odds, and who employed one of the most terrible weapons one could ever imagine against the Janissaries who laid siege to Fort St. Elmo. And I mentioned the siege of Malta (the first siege, that is) in the same breath as the battles at Tours, Lepanto and Vienna. So, hardly portaying the Knights of St. John as "saintly" I was showing that they, as well as others throughout history - and this includes the Allied forces in the Pacific in WWII - fought using whatever means was necessary, in order to defeat their enemy. That was the point I was making! So your assertion that I was making them out to be "saintly" is obviously incorrect.

"The Janissaries, who had been waiting for days to prove their prowess, were given their chance that morning. Mustapha Pasha unleashed line upon line of the Sultan's finest troops against the charred and cracked walls of St. Elmo. The Turkish losses were heavy, for the defenders behind their parapets made use of every device which the Knights of St. John had learned in four centuries of war. Worse even than wildfire or the trump, was the firework hoop - the invention of which was attributed by the historian Vertot to la Valette himself, but by Balbi to a Brother of the Order, Ramon Fortunii.

These hoops, "composed of the lightest wood, were first dipped into brandy, then rubbed with oil, and then covered with wool and cotton which had been soaked in other combustible liquors, as well as mixed with saltpetre and gunpowder. When the preparation was cool, the whole process was repeated several times. On an assault, when the hoops were on fire, they were taken up with tongs and thrown into the midst of the advancing battalions. Two or three soldiers regularly would get entangled with one of these blazing hoops .."

Their impact on the Moslems in their loose-flowing light robes was devastating. It was largely owing to these hoops that this first major assault on St. Elmo failed." (Bradford, "The Great Siege", Penguin, pp. 98 - 99.)

[Niccolo]

First off Islam is not an ideaology but a religeon which in terms of a technical definition might be the same but in practical application is distinct because people choose an ideology but the vast majority of people though technically can choose a religeon are born into it. Essentially, it is for the vast majority of people (whether they choose to practice or not) an association by birth.

So what you're saying is that one's religion is merely a function of one's address.

Therefore anyone who thinks critically about any religon at all, anywhere at any time, under any circumstances whatsoever, is inevitably and automatically guilty of a thoughtcrime?

Stunning piece of logical thinking, that. :lol:

[Niccolo]

Disgusting - and sanctioned by the West?

This should be shown on mainstream media.

I agree completely. Our media doesn't have the balls to air this stuff. The most they will say on the issue is how many civilians Israel has killed, spreading the propaganda that gets people to forget that these "civilians" elected terrorist organizations into political offices, and then sat by idly as groups like Hamas and Hezbollah fired rocks FROM CIVILIAN neighborhoods, next to schools, next to hospitals, next to residential districts into Israel...hoping, daring, wishing Israel would strike back.

If Mexico's people elected a terrorist group into office, and then watched or cheered on as that terrorist group fired rockets from residential areas into southern California, we'd go in and kill every baby, disfigure every women, kill every parent, burn every house, bomb every town, and torture every survivor until it stopped. By comparison, Israel at least has the sense to put their responses on a tight leash... they sat by as more than 3,000 of those rockets were fired into their boarders in 2008 before reacting with force.

That would never happen here.

We all remember 9/11 but as I have said several times now on this thread, there have been many, many more terrorist attacks throughout the world since then, including quite a few in the United Kingdom. Imagine what it would be like to have to endure that every day. Imagine that .. then think what it would be like to live in Israel.

Not one of the people who have happily criticised Israel on this thread has responded to that. (So far as I can recall anyway - if anyone has, then please correct me here.)


And I agree too, what would happen if British or American soldiers allowed a bunch of children on to a military base, then let them play around a lorryload of explosives - and then managed through their own incompetence, to blow them all up? There would be a fucking uproar - and rightly so!

Of course our soldiers are professionals. They don't allow children on to military bases, and they certainly wouldn't let them play beside a lorryload of explosives. That just wouldn't happen.


But why were those Hamas gunmen letting children play beside a heap of explosives? And flashing their weapons at them?

Were they just a bunch of stupid bastards? Or were they helping to indoctrinate children, so that they would become suicide bombers, or something of that sort? Is that a possibility? Has that ever happened before? I mean, we've all seen kiddies wearing those green bandanas .. I wonder if some of the people on this thread, who would like everyone to think their primary concern is the wellbeing of innocent Palestinian children, would like to address these questions?

[Niccolo]

Finally, muslims were already in Europe via Spain and South Eastern Europe .. - zaron

Why? What were they doing, do you think?

[SarahG]

Were they just a bunch of stupid bastards? Or were they helping to indoctrinate children, so that they would become suicide bombers, or something of that sort?

You'll find the two are not mutually exclusive.



I wonder if some of the people on this thread, who would like everyone to think their primary concern is the wellbeing of innocent Palestinian children, would like to address these questions?

That'll never happen, just as people will remain silent when its pointed out that these 3,000+ rockets were putting Israeli children at grave risk, or that Hamas and Hezbollah both intentionally went into residential places to fire rockets HOPING that counter-strikes would take out these Palestinian & Lebanese children.

[Niccolo]

When you attack (criticise) something such as this (Islam) it is loosely the equivalent of attacking someone who is gay for being gay or attacking Jews for being Jewish which is also not an ethnicity but a religeon. - zaron

"The main reason I'd been glad to leave America was Protestant fundamentalism. But Europe, I eventually saw, was falling prey to an even more alarming fundamentalism whose leaders made their American Protestant counterparts look like amateurs. Falwell was an unsavory creep, but he didn't issue fatwas. James Dobson's parenting advice was appalling, but he wasn't telling people to murder their daughters. American liberals had been fighting the Religious Right for decades; Western Europeans had yet to even acknowledge that they had a Religious Right. How could they ignore it? Certainly as a gay man, I couldn't close my eyes to this grim reality. Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me. I wasn't fond of the hypocritical conservative-Christian line about hating the sin and loving the sinner, but it was preferable to the forthright fundamantalist Muslim view that homosexuals merited death. [...]

The situation was alarming. The very things I most loved about the Netherlands - and about Europe - were the things most threatened by the rise of fundamentalist Islam. Yet the Dutch did nothing. Why did they refuse to deal with something that obviously endangered their freedom? Didn't they see what I did? Didn't they notice the look of rage in the eyes of many Muslim men at the sight of that ultimate spectacle of dishonor - a Dutch woman bicycling to work? Or did they assume that such men, simply by inhaling the damp Dutch air, would somehow magically become open-minded and secular?" (Bruce Bawer, While Europe Slept, Broadway, pp. 33-34.)

In this passage Bruce Bawer, who one might "loosely" describe as being a gay bloke from America who now lives in Norway, is criticising Islam (and the Dutch). Please explain to me how, as Bawer criticised the "fundamentalist Muslim view" that he should die because he was gay, he could possibly be doing something "loosely" akin to criticising himself, or anyone else for that matter, for actually being gay?

(Bawer is an excellent writer BTW. "While Europe Slept" is an astonishing book. He's also written some great articles - Google him & see for yourself.)

[Niccolo]

The men who did this weren't Vikings. Were they?

[Niccolo]

- Mohammed's role in Islam I can't speak to with certainty; I think religion being a personal matter is a personal interpretation for individual muslims. - zaron



FYI: The words used are nikah and dukah for the events that occur at 6 and 9 respectively. Now, nikah which is the equivalent of an engagement or in Islam a legal binding promise to be in state of marriage and dukah is when the woman moves into the man's house and becomes his wife. Intercourse may or may not happen but it is rarely documented in religious texts. - zaron.

This is quite interesting. I would be mildly surprised if you were fluent in Arabic. (Given that you don't know too much about Muhammad's role in Islam.) It's possible that you are though - after all I don't know you or your background, any more than you know mine. (So you can drop the asinine comments about me getting out more & befriending more Muslims. If you actually knew me, you'd know how silly that remark was.) It's worth pointing out though that your assertion that the translation of the hadith that I used did not say that Muhammad and Aisha's marriage was consummated. Clearly, as I showed, that is precisely what it did say. The hadith is regarded as reliable, the institution who have made it available to the public can hardly be accused of providing a biased translation, since they appear to want to help bring people of different faiths together, and the fellow who carried out the actual translation is hugely qualified and well respected. I provided a link to his "CV" earlier. Check it out. Against that we have you saying, well no they're wrong. So there.

Hardly a compelling argument, that. Care to try again?

[Niccolo]

The events of the last 60 years have a direct causal link to what happens today and you can see the continuous thread of events that have led to what happens today that is why these events are relevant. - zaron


Talking of the last 60 years, it is my understanding that after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, Arab governments criticised Israel for not helping Palestinian refugees, but at the same time Arab governments did not grant refugees citizenship, provide them with new homes, or provide funds to improve conditions in refugee camps. I believe I'm correct in saying that in 1957, at a Refugee Conference in Syria, a resolution was passed saying that "Any discussion aimed at a solution of the Palestine problem which will not be based on ensuring the refugees' right to annihilate Israel will be regarded as a desecration of the Arab people and an act of treason." The Arab League actually barred Arab states from granting citizenship to Palestinian refugees - or their descendants. Khalid al-Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister, wrote in 1973, "Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees [..] while it is we who made them leave [..] We brought disaster upon [..] Arab refugees by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave. [..] We have rendered them dispossessed [..] We have accustomed them to begging [..] We have participated in lowering their moral and social level [..] all this in the service of political purposes." Now I have not read Khalid al-Azm's memoirs, so I cannot tell if those comments of his are taken out of context. Nevertheless, the bare facts behind his statements seem to be clear enough. King Hussein of Jordan has also apparently said that the Arab nations have used Palestianian refugees "for selfish political purposes." He described this behaviour as "criminal." (Sources: Wikipedia: Palestinian refugees - Treatment in Arab countries; Dershowitz, "The Case for Israel", John Wiley & Sons, pp. 87-88.)

One book I have read is the Tory MP Michael Gove's "Celsius 7/7." In it he says: "It is important to recall, and now almost always forgotten, that the land Israel occupied (after 1967) was not, in any formal, legal, internationally recognised sense, Palestinian. It was Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian territory. And what was striking about the people who lived on that territory, who were thought of as Palestinian, is the way they were treated between 1948 and 1967 by all Israel's neighbours. They were herded into, and kept pinned up inside, refugee camps. [..]

While Arab countries busied themselves expelling Jews after 1948, and Israel made enormous efforts to absorb every Jewish arrival fully into Israeli life, those same Arab nations that were so anxious to make themselves Judenfrei did next to nothing to provide their Arab brothers with a stable footing. Quite the opposite. [..]

It is striking [..] that no pressure was placed on Jordan, Egypt or any other Arab nation to help construct the institutions of Palestinian statehood during the long years when they occupied what has come to be considered Palestinian national territory. It is only following the occupation of that land by Israel that it has become considered imperative to transform that territory into a new, and distinct, Palestinian state.

What this melancholy tale of Palestinian neglect at the hands of Arab states demonstrates is the hypocrisy at the heart of so much Arab propoganda against Israel, propaganda that much of the world is inclined to take at face value. The leaders of Arab states, none of them until very recently with even the slightest claim to be called democrats, have exploited the plight of the Palestinian people as a way of demonizing Israel, and creating a force to drive Israelis into the sea.

If it were true that solidarity with the Palestinians was the primary political force motivating feeling among both Arab elites and Arab peoples, then we would have seen investment pour into building up schools, hospitals and democratic structures in the Palestinian territories during those periods when they were either under the control of Israel's neighbours or of Yasser Arafat's PA leadership. Which, of course, never happened. Money certainly has flowed from other Arab, and indeed Islamic states, into the Palestinian territories over the years. That cash has not been sent to build a state, but to destroy one.

The reason why Israel is hated by the rulers of so many Arab states, by the leaders of so many terrorist organisations, and especially by the world's Islamists, is not because of any specific crime against the Palestinians. In the eyes of all these individuals, and organisations, Israel's greatest crime is simply to exist at all. Israel's existence as an openly plural, explicitly Western, conspicuously successful democracy in the heart of the Islamic world is just too much to bear. And not just for the autocrats and fanatics of the Islamic world. It is too much for many in the West to bear too. Israel's success is a standing rebuke to so many of the assumptions cherished by the region's other leaders and the West's own radicals, that it inspires a hatred that can, and does, lead to irrationality." (Michael Gove MP (http://www.michaelgove.com/index.php), "Celsius 7/7," Phoenix, pp. 55-56.)

[Solitary Brother]

Well you should be happy because i see Obama being a tool of the Jews.
People dont like it when such a small minority have such disproportionate power.
This causes ANTI-SEMITISM.
I knew when i saw Obama walking around with that disgusting cloth on his head schleping for jewish votes that we where in trouble.
I see Obama being wide open for criticism on this front.

[Niccolo]

SB,

Are you drunk?

N.

[plankton]

Well you should be happy because i see Obama being a tool of the Jews.
People dont like it when such a small minority have such disproportionate power.
This causes ANTI-SEMITISM.
I knew when i saw Obama walking around with that disgusting cloth on his head schleping for jewish votes that we where in trouble.
I see Obama being wide open for criticism on this front. You are either very high on some serious shit, have had a recent head injury or are mentally deficient in some way. Please let us know which one it is so i can respond appropriately.

[kittyKaiti]

First off Islam is not an ideaology but a religeon which in terms of a technical definition might be the same but in practical application is distinct because people choose an ideology but the vast majority of people though technically can choose a religeon are born into it. Essentially, it is for the vast majority of people (whether they choose to practice or not) an association by birth.

When you attack something such as this it is loosely the equivalent of attacking someone who is gay for being gay or attacking Jews for being Jewish which is also not an ethnicity but a religeon. Accordingly, if being anti-Jewish is the same as being anti-semitic (Arabs are also semites by the way) or being racist, than the same relationship holds true for Islam and muslims. You seem to be a smart fellow, so I doubt that you have failed to grasp this on your own. This is why being anti-Islam or anti-muslim is as wrong as being anti-Jewish.

This is also why all the remarks that you mention above are extremely offensive, if you don't like people throwing around "anti-semitic" slurs than you should probably try to refrain from doing the same to others.

Finally, if you think that human culture, customs and civility haven't evolved over the course of 1300 years and cannot understand what the contextual difference between something that happened in 640 and 1940 then you may be well served by installing a moat around your abode as there maybe some marauding vikings on the prowl.

Religion is an ideology. It is an idea, a belief, much like Communism. People are born into Communism just like they are born into a religion. There is nothing wrong with hating an ideology. It is an idea and the idea of religion happens to be evil.

[hippifried]

Isn't "evil" a religious concept?

[Niccolo]

Ask a dozen different religious people to give their definition of it, and you'll get a dozen different replies!

[Niccolo]

Were they just a bunch of stupid bastards? Or were they helping to indoctrinate children, so that they would become suicide bombers, or something of that sort?

You'll find the two are not mutually exclusive.



I wonder if some of the people on this thread, who would like everyone to think their primary concern is the wellbeing of innocent Palestinian children, would like to address these questions?

That'll never happen, just as people will remain silent when its pointed out that these 3,000+ rockets were putting Israeli children at grave risk, or that Hamas and Hezbollah both intentionally went into residential places to fire rockets HOPING that counter-strikes would take out these Palestinian & Lebanese children.

It's so obvious that double standards are employed here - let's just consider "innocent women and children," as the saying goes, for a moment. zaron has said that the Palestinian's plight makes his blood boil, because it's like a woman being raped and then being vilified for being raped.

I pointed out to him that if women being raped and then being vilified after they had been raped made his blood boil, then perhaps he ought to consider real cases of women being raped, then being vilified, and far worse, after they had been raped. I provided the link for a report on honour killing carried out by CIVITAS, and suggested he read it.

Predictably, zaron felt that discussing the very subject he himself had introduced five minutes earlier should now be thought of as ... "changing the subject."

Of course zaron never did manage to explain how his blood boils when he invents a simile, and says the conduct of someone he wants to criticise is like something which, as we all know, actually happens to women in many Islamic cultures, while he remains indifferent to the plight of many young women who are afflicted by that particular strain of misogyny.

[El Nino]

Niccolo, you are a long winded, annoying little man

[chefmike]

Niccolo, you are a long winded, annoying little man

Says the pot to the kettle.

[Niccolo]

Those big words throwing you off again, eh?

The question is: am I right?

[Niccolo]

Mandy wondered earlier if she could use this thread to discuss, as she put it, the barbarisms that were committed in the name of sanctifying lands in the name of Christ? Cutting off the hands of Arawak Indians for failing to find gold for the church? The inquisition? The witch trials? Manifest destiny? Colonialism? Slavery? All done in the name of Christ ... the violence and callousness of Christianity compares when it comes to sheer brutality. (Compares to what? Well, we all know the answer to that question, but let's not say it out loud.) Mandy also criticised Christianity because "they" command the largest nuclear arsenal on earth, have a military budget that exceeds every other nation on earth, and have a record of bombing the shit out of any nation that might pose a threat. She asserted that US foreign policy has an "Orwellian nature" and claims that those who have (italics mine) occupied key positions in the Bush administration and the US Congress are committed Christian Zionists, who support Israel because they believe that an ethnically cleansed Jewish state is necessary for Armageddon to occur.

I was under the impression that George W. Bush was out the door, and that there is a new sherriff in town. So what's all the panic about people who are supposed to have held key positions in the Bush administration?

Are we still supposed to worry that "they" might ... er, what is is we're supposed to be worrying about again? Witch trials, is it? Maybe the Obama administration are going to have witch trials? That must be it. Of course it is, he spoke about that during his campaign, didn't he? How could I forget the day when Obama said they were going to start dunking young women who bore the mark of the devil into the nearest river, and if they float to the surface, then they're guilty, and it's off to Gitmo for them! Oh how the crowd cheered!

Mandy isn't the first person to criticise Christians for their behaviour, or their beliefs. One can't help thinking of Christopher Hitchens' comments on Fox News when he was asked by Sean Hannity to give his opinion of Jerry Falwell. Hitchens had already ripped into Falwell in an article on Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2166337/fr/flyout), saying that the discovery of Falwell's carcass on his office floor was of zero significance, unless you were a credulous idiot who either believed what he preached, or gave him air time to do so. He added that it was a shame there is no hell for Falwell to go to. Rounding off his spot on Hannity and Colmes, Hitchens had the last word on the overweight Reverend: "If you gave Falwell an enema, he could be buried in a matchbox."

No matter how virulent the comment then, no matter how irrelevant or unlikely any of Mandy's ideas are in real life, and we all know that the likelihood of Barack Obama inviting Tim LaHaye into the Oval Office to play with the nuclear football is vanishingly small, this is all seen as legitimate criticism of an organised religion.

One sees again the double standards in operation here. The most perfervid outburst, citing the most irrelevant event, making the most incredible claim; all this is just fine and dandy, so long as one is attacking Christianity. Apparently one can criticise a religion without being a racist!

As soon as one criticises Islam though, one is attacked personally for doing so. Anyone who talks about factual events from history, or quotes the Islamic holy texts, and portrays Islam in a way which is not in complete accordance with the multiculturalist worldview, is immediately told that they are arrogant, ignorant, racist, et cetera. Christopher Hitchens, an avowed antitheist who maintains that "all religions are versions of the same untruth", is suddenly declared by Mandy to be "a whiney little shit screaming about the dangers of Islam."

Mandy apparently believes that after the fall of communism, there was a great conspiracy, and whoever was involved in it decided to spend lots of money on ... well, on something, after they had first of all declared Islam to be the new enemy of the West. States throughout Europe, and intellectuals in universities everywhere, all got together as part of this well funded movement, in order to lay down the law and sort these Muslims out. Apparently. This kind of "thinking" would almost be funny, if the situation we're in wasn't so damned serious.

The truth of the matter is that throughout Europe, Islam is on the rise, both demographically and politically. Our governments appear toothless in the face of what's sometimes called "creeping shariah." There is a long list of people who have criticised Islam, only to be persecuted, and on one occasion murdered, for their trouble. Salman Rushdie, Michel Houellebecq, Robert Redeker, Oriana Fallaci, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Theo van Gogh, to name but a few. And let's not forget the Islamic reaction to those Danish cartoons. (Seriously, let's never forget that.) Astonishingly, the Dutch MP Geert Wilders is currently being prosecuted by the Dutch authorities for speaking in an unapproved way about Islam. If the dhimmis within the Dutch political system have their way, then freedom of speech will soon be a thing of the past throughout Europe.

Pat Condell - Shame on The Netherlands. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJKRF2uB8xU&e)

[trish]

Yeah, the world would be better off if the big three monotheistic religions just disappeared (not that the others are wonderful). Down with all religious states. God didn’t promise any land to anyone at any time. Why? Because there are no gods. The squabble in the Middle East is a political conflict born of religious fantasies. We can all see right now in Gaza the atrocities that are committed in the name of Judaism and just across the border we can all witness the havoc created in name of Islam. Meanwhile, Christians in Kansas, Texas and elsewhere endeavor to keep children ignorant and women pregnant. It’s time to close those Torahs, Bibles and Korans; time to put them in the shelves and let a little dust gather. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are superstitious roadblocks to intellectual integrity and political stability. Sadly, nobody’s going to give up the long held superstitions on which they were weaned. So sadly people will continue to make excuses, point fingers, shoot mortars and bomb[] the shit out of ignorant (the human equivalent of innocent) people and children.

[edited for grammar]

[El Nino]

Yeah, the world would be better off if the big three monotheistic religions just disappeared (not that the others are wonderful). Down with all religious states. God didn’t promise any land to anyone at any time. Why? Because there are no gods. The squabble in the Middle East is a political conflict born of religious fantasies. We can all see right now in Gaza the atrocities that are committed in the name of Judaism and just across the border we can all witness the havoc created in name of Islam. Meanwhile, Christians in Kansas, Texas and elsewhere endeavor to keep children ignorant and women pregnant. It’s time to close those Torahs, Bibles and Korans; time to put them in the shelves and let a little dust gather. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are superstitious roadblocks to intellectual integrity and political stability. Sadly, nobody’s going to give up the long held superstitions on which they were weaned. So sadly people will continue to make excuses, point fingers, shoot mortars and bombed the shit out of ignorant (the human equivalent of innocent) people and children.

Trish-Hit-Nail-On-Head....

[Niccolo]

There's a pretty good series showing on Channel 4 just now, you can watch it on "catch up" at their website. The programme is "Christianity: A History."

www.channel4.com

Here's a trailer on youtube:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hnXwgMS23sw

[Niccolo]

Why Should I Respect These Oppressive Religions?

Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 'prejudice' by Johann Hari.

The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism - giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds - are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten - to put him on the side of the religious censors.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind - and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it - but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.

Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided - so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".

In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.

Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech - including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed - so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.

Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN - and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" - and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.

Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest - but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.

To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's - or their oppressors'?

As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."

Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.

Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies - that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" - and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.

All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.

I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.

When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.

But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.

But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.

But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs - but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.

Yet this idea - at the heart of the Universal Declaration - is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely.

Johann Hari, writing for The Independent. Article also available at CommonDreams dot org. (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/28-12)

I thought I would post this article so that any rational people happening upon this thread - and that may be a small group, but it may have some members - could compare the attitudes of some people here (and on HD as well) who just can't handle anyone criticising Islam, with certain other people in the world who, well, just can't handle anyone criticising Islam.

[trish]

Dennis Overbye has a somewhat relevant editorial in this week's NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/science/27essa.html?_r=2

He's a bit too syrupy when it comes to his praise for Obama, but he's on target when he deals with the values science shares with democracy, suggesting that it was not by mere chance that the two of them evolved together.

Here is a link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Niccolo refers above:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

[Niccolo]

Nice article, I'll check to see if they already have it, but if not then I think I'll pass that link along to Richard Dawkins' site.

[Niccolo]

In fact they do have it on that site already. While I was on there though, I came across this, which you might find interesting:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3551,Attenborough-reveals-creationist-hate-mail-for-not-crediting-God,Guardian

I had a look on Pat Condell's website as well, it's worth reading his "feedback" page:

http://www.patcondell.net/page4/page4.html

[Niccolo]

I recently read of the travails of my fellow IFPS board member Geert Wilders. A day later my attention was drawn to President Barack Hussein Obama signing an executive order to shut down operations at the Guantanamo detention facility.

The irony struck me that here we have the new President seeking to extend US Constitutional protections to Islamic terrorists, the enemy. We plan to provide them legal rights under the equal protection clause. Yet in Holland, a fellow democracy, the government is ordering the criminal prosecution of an elected representative for exercising one of the Western world’s most precious freedoms, freedom of speech; and in this case, freedom of speech to discuss the jihadist ideology of the enemy.

What is happening in Western civilization? Have we become so enamored with this illness called multiculturalism that we are embarrassed to honor and defend our own cultural principles? Can nothing be more shocking than to charge a member of the Dutch Parliament with “hate speech” for speaking the truth?

This reminds me of the seminal scene from the movie A Few Good Men. “I want the truth,” one of the character says. And the response was: “You can’t handle the truth.” I am starting to believe that we–actually our elected officials–are not leaders, and cannot handle the truth. The truth is that an enemy does exist and that this enemy lives amongst us, and hates us. The truth is that our insidious policies of open immigration and multiculturalism are now ushering in our demise and promoting the deconstruction of our Western civilizational values, freedom of conscience, and the freedom to express our thoughts.

The truth as I see is that we no longer have men in Western governments who are willing to defend our way of life. I find this prosecution of Geert Wilders to be an example of abject cowardice. How can it be that Islam has become such an intimidating religion that men cower away? And I address “men” because I have found more often that women are taking a stand and condemning this modern-day totalitarian, imperialistic radical ideology mired in antiquated 7th century concepts.

Islam as a religion elevates and follows a man who was nothing more than a psychopath, murderous warlord, and by modern-day standards a sexual deviant and pedophile. Islam as a political entity is based upon complete submission and seeks only to subjugate and suppress every freedom we cherish in western civilization. Until Islam undergoes a reformative process bringing it into alignment with the rest of the world, then I shall reject it, and stand against it. The converse I find reprehensible; to convert, be subjugated, or die, which are the Koranic options given to me, a non-Muslim.

I will gladly peacefully coexist with Islam. Can the same be said in reverse? And do not tell me about the Koranic verse stating, “there is no compulsion in religion,” because I understand the theory of naskh or abrogation. That means that the later verses of the Koran supercede previous verses. As a result, most violent verses in the Koran abrogate previous “peaceful” writings.
Have I just committed hate speech? No, it is the truth according to the Koran and the Hadiths, and I have no fear in stating such. I will not allow Western civilization nor America to be paralyzed by soft or hard jihad, by legal tactics, nor kinetic attacks. I pledge to fight, not for myself, but for others, for our future and legacy which we leave our children and grandchildren. Any man that cannot find the courage to do so as well, especially leaders in western civilization, I call a coward.

Geert, stand resolute, my comrade. You will win this fight, and we shall defeat this third jihad and incursion to defeat our way of life.
All who read this post never forget a simple maxim which I live by: “When tolerance becomes a one way street, it leads to cultural suicide”.
Count on Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West to stand and fight against this enemy, radical Islamic terrorism and their state sponsors anywhere, anytime.

Steadfast and Loyal,

ABW

-----

Lieut. Col. Allen B. West (ret.) is a member of the IFPS board of advisors. He served 22 years in the US Army, spending 43 months in the Middle East combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/728/LTC-Allen-West-USAR-on-Geert-Wilders.aspx

[Niccolo]

Intercourse may or may not happen but it is rarely documented in religious texts. - zaron

zaron obviously hasn't read any religious texts. Anyone who's read the Old Testament, just to start with, couldn't say that with a straight face!


Furthermore, even if he (Muhammad) was a pedophile and the worst person in the history of the world, it does not matter. It still does not justify killing innocent Palestinians and if you think it does why don't you just say that outright? - zaron

It does matter. And the point is - Muhammad's words and deeds do not justify killing innocent British, American, Indian, Australian, Israeli, or Spanish citizens. Or anyone else who happens to live in dar al-harb. But if you think they do, then why don't you just say that outright?

(I just had to comment on that "no intercourse in religious texts" remark - I mean, come on, lol ..)

[tsmandy]

Haaretz just published a report on illegal Israeli settlements that had been buried for the last two years by the Israeli govt.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060043.html

[El Nino]

TSMANDY, you are a NAZI!!!

/sarcasm

[Niccolo]

Perhaps you believe the world would be a better place now if Islam had extended its rule into Europe? I don't. Should we not frame the current situation by looking back through history and considering ... well let's see .. The Battle of Tours (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours) (732), The Siege of Malta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Malta_(1565)) (1565), The Battle of Lepanto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto_(1571)) (1571), Vienna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna) (1683) ... and right now, here at the beginning of the 21st Century ... Israel? - Niccolo


Think of Malta in 1565 - a small island which stood up, alone, to the forces of Islam, which sought to destroy it, and to impose their ideology throughout Europe. We're all glad they did, too. Should we not be thinking of Israel in a similar way? - Niccolo


Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to lose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defence.

Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: “Islam has bloody borders”. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.

It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.

This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe’s history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: “the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.”

If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.

Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don’t think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.

These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:

“Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy”. - Geert Wilders (http://ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/ayaanhirsiali/2008/09/speech-geert-wi.html)


“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.” - John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War), in 1786, before the First Barbary War.

[hippifried]

Haaretz just published a report on illegal Israeli settlements that had been buried for the last two years by the Israeli govt.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060043.html

They must have run out of dirt. I'm sure Iran could loan them some.

[hippifried]

I recently read of the travails of my fellow IFPS board member Geert Wilders. A day later my attention was drawn to President Barack Hussein Obama signing an executive order to shut down operations at the Guantanamo detention facility.

The irony struck me that here we have the new President seeking to extend US Constitutional protections to Islamic terrorists, the enemy. We plan to provide them legal rights under the equal protection clause. Yet in Holland, a fellow democracy, the government is ordering the criminal prosecution of an elected representative for exercising one of the Western world’s most precious freedoms, freedom of speech; and in this case, freedom of speech to discuss the jihadist ideology of the enemy...

Both the President & the Lt Colonel took an oath to protect & defend the Constitution of the United States. Equal protection under the law is afforded to all persons under our jurisdiction because that's what the Constitution of the United States explicitly says we're supposed to do. There's no caveats or exceptions.

Rights have nothing to do with where you live. Whether they're recognized by this or that government or not, we have right's because we're human beings. This is a basic tenet in the foundation of the USA, & enumerated in both the Declaration of Independence & the 9th Amendment of the Constitution. Not so in Europe. Countries across Europe have taken the stance that rights are granted by the ruling authority. We're not Europeans. At all. Any comparisons are bogus. Europe ha made great strides in the last half century to curtail warfare between their tribes, but they're still tied to the right of kings. They're not us. Only time will tell how much they revere any freedoms.

I think the Lt Colonel is full of shit. We're not at war with Islam. We invaded 2 countries for whatever reason. We said we're at war. In time of war, being an enemy combatant is not a crime. You're just on the other side. If the captives at Guantanamo had just been declared POWs, none of this would be happening. There was never an attempt to charge any of them with crimes until pressure from within the US forced the issue. What's happening now is just the result of some people trying to play fast & loose with American ideals. Oh there's lots of talk & flag waving, but apparently, actually being an American is just too inconvenient.

[Niccolo]

Both the President & the Lt Colonel took an oath to protect & defend the Constitution of the United States. Equal protection under the law is afforded to all persons under our jurisdiction because that's what the Constitution of the United States explicitly says we're supposed to do. There's no caveats or exceptions.

I believe that's perfectly in accordance with the statement by the author of the article you quoted. Whereas, as he says, in Holland, try speaking out about Islam and you're for the high jump ...


Rights have nothing to do with where you live. Whether they're recognized by this or that government or not, we have right's because we're human beings. This is a basic tenet in the foundation of the USA, & enumerated in both the Declaration of Independence & the 9th Amendment of the Constitution. Not so in Europe. Countries across Europe have taken the stance that rights are granted by the ruling authority. We're not Europeans. At all. Any comparisons are bogus.

Well I'm glad you cleared that up for everyone. So people like Bentham and Hume were all wrong when they argued against "natural rights". ("rhetorical nonsense," "nonsense on stilts" etc.) Well, well. Just one question though: If you truly believe in "natural rights" then why bother having them "enumerated in both the Declaration of Independence & the 9th Amendment of the Constitution"?


Any comparisons are bogus.

And yet here you are, comparing away ..



I think the Lt Colonel is full of shit.

Did you even read the article? Because you certainly haven't said anything at all about what was actually in it.


If the captives at Guantanamo had just been declared POWs, none of this would be happening.

Ah, if only the real world was as simple as your worldview ...

And Europeans are still tied to the right of kings? If your comment is a true reflection of the state of the American education system, then you're obviously just as fucked up as we are, but in a completely different way.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=30432

[Niccolo]

double post. wtf is this site like sometimes?

[Niccolo]

I don't see the struggle in Israel/Palestine as a religious one, I see it primarily as an anti-colonial struggle. - mandy

I think that reducing the conflict in the occupied territories to a religious struggle is deceitful and immoral. - mandy



The Islamic Resistance Movement is founded upon Muslims who gave their allegiance to Allah and served Him as He ought to be served. "I did not create jinns and men except that they should serve me." (Hamas Charter: Article 3 )

Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model to be followed, the Koran its constitution, Jihad its way, and death for the sake of Allah its loftiest desire. (The Motto of Hamas: Article 8 )

The initiatives, the so-called peace solutions, and the international conferences for resolving the Palestinian problem stand in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement, for to neglect any part of Palestine is to neglect part of the Islamic faith. The nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its [Islamic] faith. It is in the light of this principle that its members are educated, and they wage jihad in order to raise the banner of Allah over the homeland. (Article 13 )

There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are a waste of time and a farce. (Article 13 )

... the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to realize the promise of Allah, no matter how long it takes. The Prophet, Allah's prayer and peace be upon him, says: "The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews." (Article 7 )



I saw an Israeli politician on Sky News last night saying that Hamas is not a nationalist organisation, it is a jihadist organisation. I also read an article by Andrew Bostom, a doctor who started to research Islam and its history after 9/11. (Here's his page on Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_G._Bostom)) He quotes a Hamas MP called Yunis al-Astal as saying, "Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital, which has declared its hostility to Islam, and has planted the brothers of apes and pigs [i.e., Jews, Koran 2:65, 5:60, and 7:166, and other foundational Muslim texts] in Palestine in order to prevent the reawakening of Islam - this capital of theirs [Rome] will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe. I believe that our children or our grandchildren will inherit our Jihad... "

Some important questions arise, which ought to be considered: What kind of enemy is Israel facing? What do they want? What are they capable of? Who supports them? Have we in the West ever faced a similar enemy, and if we did, then what measures did we employ in order to defeat them? - Niccolo

Again I'll say that although the earlier parts of the Koran contain some verses apparently promoting tolerance, once Muhammad went to Medina he showed that he had a real bloodthirsty streak, and showed no mercy at all to those who crossed him.

And again, I'll say that the principle of abrogation means that the later verses of the Koran override the earlier verses, meaning that Muslims are bound to follow those verses of the Koran which tell Muhammad's followers to do all kinds of nasty things to nonbelievers. As Muhammad himself did after the Hijra.

I noticed in one of her posts Mandy said that the religion which people were "going off the deep end" of just "happened to be Islam" as if it didn't really matter much if one became a Buddhist or a Muslim, but of course it does matter - it matters a great deal. Just read the holy texts of each of those two religions, and that's painfully clear for anyone to see.

And if Hamas is not just a nationalist organisation but a jihadist organisation, then obviously, that matters too.

It matters a great deal. - Niccolo

[hippifried]

Yawn... Holy text, Batman! The Jihadist & his minions are going to blow up Gothem. To the batpoles! We mustn't allow a slowdown of cash to Israel.

You're all over the place spud. You say:
I don't see the struggle in Israel/Palestine as a religious one, I see it primarily as an anti-colonial struggle. &
I think that reducing the conflict in the occupied territories to a religious struggle is deceitful and immoral. then you say:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is founded upon Muslims who gave their allegiance to Allah and served Him as He ought to be served. "I did not create jinns and men except that they should serve me." (Hamas Charter: Article 3 ) in the next breath, & go on from there with more crap about the religion you hate. & don't try to deny it. This is page 36, & half of this thread is your diatribe against Islam.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about, & you're not going to learn by pasting snippets from jihadwatch or listening to some clown who thinks the daily struggle for redemption caused the Crusades. You don't want to know. You're a bigot just like any other. Probably one of those Rand cult egoists too.

In case anybody else wants to know. The Hamas charter has absolutely nothing to do with the conflict between the Israelis & Palistinians. Hamas is the new kid on the block. Before them it was the PLO, remember?

[hippifried]

So people like Bentham and Hume were all wrong when they argued against "natural rights".
Of course they were. They were pompous Brit philosophers. Why should they get more deference than a bartender?


If you truly believe in "natural rights" then why bother having them "enumerated in both the Declaration of Independence & the 9th Amendment of the Constitution"?
The Declaration of Independence is just that. We didn't just break from the Brits. We rejected the entire European mindset. The nation is founded on a single guiding principle of unalienable rights. Everything else stems from that. The enumeration in the Declaration is preceded by the phrase: "...& among these are" The 9th Amendment says that lack of Constitutional enumeration does not preclude retention of rights by the people. The enumerations in the Constitution itself are actualy specific restrictions on government power, because according to the Declaration, governments derive their power by consent of the governed.

I can't stress enough that we are NOT Europeans. We're not Brits. We're not colonies. We're not part of the commonwealth. The Magna Carta is meaningless to us because it was just a grant.

We're not Europeans. Our demarcations aren't tribal. There are no nobles or peasants. Our culture is multicultural. We're still working out details. It's a process, but in all of our strife, the final controlling principle is unalienable rights. Without that guiding principle, you end upwith the Nederlands, where the government recinds granted "rights" to maintain order.

[El Nino]

GAZA HORROR
Large Photo Gallery of Gaza Massacre by Israel

http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/gaza-horror-large-photo-gallery-of-gaza-massacre-by-israel/

This is graphic material, but, puts this current, disproportionate attack into an objective perspective.

[El Nino]

I am not taking sides, I am just demonstrating the reality of the situation that the heavily biased mainstream news would never, ever show. Don't kill the messenger...

[Niccolo]

Yawn... Holy text, Batman! The Jihadist & his minions are going to blow up Gothem. To the batpoles! We mustn't allow a slowdown of cash to Israel.

You're all over the place spud. You say:
I don't see the struggle in Israel/Palestine as a religious one, I see it primarily as an anti-colonial struggle. &
I think that reducing the conflict in the occupied territories to a religious struggle is deceitful and immoral. then you say:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is founded upon Muslims who gave their allegiance to Allah and served Him as He ought to be served. "I did not create jinns and men except that they should serve me." (Hamas Charter: Article 3 ) in the next breath, & go on from there with more crap about the religion you hate. & don't try to deny it. This is page 36, & half of this thread is your diatribe against Islam.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about, & you're not going to learn by pasting snippets from jihadwatch or listening to some clown who thinks the daily struggle for redemption caused the Crusades. You don't want to know. You're a bigot just like any other. Probably one of those Rand cult egoists too.

In case anybody else wants to know. The Hamas charter has absolutely nothing to do with the conflict between the Israelis & Palistinians. Hamas is the new kid on the block. Before them it was the PLO, remember?

It's difficult to believe that you are unable to read and write, but I know that some people have difficulty in that area. In the UK, we have a programme called The Big Plus for adults who have "fallen behind." I suggest you find an American equivalent, and enrol. Failing that, get someone to help you re-read the post you have quoted from. And you will find that those original comments were mandy's. Not mine.

This was signified by the word "mandy" at the end of the quotes. In case you do not know this, the words "niccolo" and "mandy" are different. They are not the same word. They are two different words. They refer to two entirely different people. I hope that's clear enough for you to understand.

As for the rest of your diatribe against anyone who criticises Islam, well obviously you don't know what you're talking about, and clearly no one is going to learn anything worthwhile from your posts. Andrew Bostom (a Dr and Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University) is dismissed as "a clown", apparently I'm a "bigot" and a "Rand cult egoist" and "in case anyone wants to know" the Hamas Charter has absolutely nothing to do with how Hamas operate. Yeah, yeah ... oh so predictable, and oh so boring.

If anyone "doesn't want to know" it's you.

[chefmike]

I am not taking sides, I am just demonstrating the reality of the situation that the heavily biased mainstream news would never, ever show. Don't kill the messenger...

Not taking sides? Not taking sides? I guess that's why you posted a link on at least one occasion using neo-nazi and holocaust denier Hal Turner to bolster one of your xenophobic quasi-libertarian rants, huh Nino? :roll:

[El Nino]

I am not taking sides, I am just demonstrating the reality of the situation that the heavily biased mainstream news would never, ever show. Don't kill the messenger...

Not taking sides? Not taking sides? I guess that's why you posted a link on at least one occasion using neo-nazi and holocaust denier Hal Turner to bolster one of your xenophobic quasi-libertarian rants, huh Nino? :roll:

Chef, I posted a link to his blog ONCE, that I hastily derived from a google search. You can think whatever you want, but it was the content of the article that I was after, not the source. It was truly a one time thing. I could care less about Hal Turner and his beliefs and you know that. I am not a racist or a supremacist. You are simply playing the guilt by association game to smear me and/or anything that I may bring to the table because I stand in opposition of your overbearing, nanny-state government positions and politics. Its one of the oldest tricks in the book. Guess what? Its not working either.
It has become clear that anybody who disagrees with your belief system is on the "lunatic fringe" or "batshit crazy". Haha, you're a miserable dude Chef. Your broadly one sided and shallow writings on this site, reveal that you are essentially mindless and weak. Even more, you seem to never debate content but rather focus on insulting the individual doing the posting, with your over used, limited and meaningless adjectives. You would be an awesome Fox News employee. Why don't you go and cook up some more Bullshit, CHEF?

[chefmike]

I am not a racist or a supremacist.

Uh huh. Sure, Nino. Whatever you say.


It has become clear that anybody who disagrees with your belief system is on the "lunatic fringe" or "batshit crazy".

No, just anybody who shills for lunatic fringe icons like Alex Jones, David Icke, et al. So your "anybody" refers to only the handful of people at HA mindless and weak enough to buy into abovementioned's paranoid theories, Nino.


Chef. Your broadly one sided and shallow writings on this site, reveal that you are essentially mindless and weak.

Mindless and weak is a perfect description for someone like yourself who buys into the wild-eyed propaganda that you spew constantly. See above.


Even more, you seem to never debate content but rather focus on insulting the individual doing the posting, with your over used, limited and meaningless adjectives.

YOUR "content"? What content would that be, Nino? Paranoid quasi-libertarianism?

"I’ve written before that I believe that Alex Jones, the John Birch Society, groups like 9/11 Truth and the more extreme elements of the Ron Paul movement are potential precursors to the kind of virulent, cult-like nationalism which launched the Fascists and the Nazis into power in the middle of the last century. Their creation of imaginary enemy groups and oppressive elites are part of a program to forge a shared identity for their followers and promote a mood of constant, irrational outrage. By divorcing their followers from reality and offering themselves up as the source of the only true answers, these demagogues lay the foundation for the kind of populist movement which starts out demanding freedom and ends up enslaving everyone.


It begins with angry mobs of idealists demanding freedom and decrying shadowy enemies of the people. The next step is blind obedience to a leader who promises to give them that freedom and destroy those enemies. The next step is the widening of the definition of the enemy to include almost everyone. The final step is an authoritarian state where freedom has become slavery in the grand Orwellian tradition and all power rests in the hands of a supreme leader and his inner circle of loyalists. Hitler and Mussolini and Lenin and Robespierre all started this way, promising to free their people from oppressive government and the business elite and the priests and the jews and the aristocrats who conspired against them. They all ended up the same way as well, in blood and war and destruction.

As an example of where these movements might be going, I offer the Grant Kidney Revolution, an amazing site from a would be demagogue who espouses what appears to be the same kind of paranoid quasi-libertarianism as Alex Jones, Lou Dobbs, Ron Paul and their followers, but at the same time is unabashed about his overwhelming desire to be a modern-day Hitler. It’s possible that Kidney’s site, books and videos are all part of an elaborate and absolutely brilliant deep satire of the political fringe, but if it’s satire it hits far too close to the truth to be funny.

I’m not suggesting that there is anyone out there who follows Kidney or takes him at all seriously, but he is a poster boy for what the next step beyond Infowars.com and the Ron Paul Revolution is likely to look like. If he were a bit less obviously Hitlerian and had a wider audience and some followers he’d be truly scary. And he’s only a hair’s breadth farther down the same road that Jones and Paul and their followers are taking the first steps on.

Demagoguery and delusion are a powerful combination. Once you get people accepting lies as truth it’s not a big step to get them to accept slavery as freedom and evil as good. Groups like 9/11 Truth and the John Birch Society have shown that they can sell the big lie to an awful lot of people. Leaders like Alex Jones and Ron Paul have shown that they can capitalize on it to make money and launch political movements. If conditions are right and a strong and charismatic leader arises to spread the delusion and capitalize on the lies, the groundwork has been laid and the foot soldiers have already been recruited to take such a movement from its idealistic start to its grim and inevitable conclusion."

http://fontcraft.com/idiotwars/?p=116

[El Nino]

hahaha... That is some true and rehashed words of wisdom; and novel thinking there, pal. Name calling and Guilt by association techniques again, I see...

[chefmike]

hahaha... That is some true and rehashed words of wisdom; and novel thinking there, pal. Name calling and Guilt by association techniques again, I see...Is there some other Nino we don't know about?

One who doesn't align himself with/defend tirelessly a nutjob like Alex Jones?

One who hasn't posted links to other acorn academy alumni like David Icke and Hal Turner?

One who doesn't bash President Obama every chance he gets because John Birch Society poster boy Ron Paul's nomination bid failed(just as everyone knew it would)?

Pray tell where is this other Nino hiding?

Do you have him locked away in your bunker where you lay in wait for the black helicopters to start rounding up people for the camps?

[El Nino]

Dude, you are out of your mind. You are like a broken record. All you do is attack the individual poster, not the content. Why is Ron Paul a lunatic? Why does supporting a humble foreign policy put somebody on the lunatic fringe? Why does questioning the authenticity of mainstream news reports and the motives behind them, make somebody crazy? Why does bringing up issues that are not "politically correct" or that challenge "conventional theory" make you immediately result to insults or ad hominem attacks? Why is thinking for oneself such a bad thing to do Chef? Huh? Why is pointing out the fact that Obama is surrounded by corporatists and the same elites that "shrubya" was embedded with, make somebody "batshit" crazy? Why is somebody who advocates freedom, the Bill of Rights and limited government involvment, a meth addict who lives in a bunker? Nice smearing techniques boss, but me and many others on this little board see right through you. Your opinion is meager and grossly unsubstantiated. You are the joke.
You're a foolish misinformed pig who believes his stance is the final say. Its people like you that support a dysfunctional system (be it left or right) and buy every political talking point, that are largely responsible for the decline. It would be wise to put your allegiances with the Constitution and not the Cult of personality Obama. Have fun watching it all unfold dog...

[El Nino]

Oh yeah, thanks for hijacking the thread and um, I am done debating somebody who is as close-minded as yourself. I do not have the time or will to debate you anymore; so good luck with your socialism movement and blatant suppression of freedom and the fundamental principles that served as the foundation of this Republic.

My last goodwill gift to you Chef, are a collection of quotes by the Principal author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html

Keep on drinking that Kool-Aid! Peace

[chefmike]

:sleep

I must've dozed off....did you say something, Nino? Something about Jefferson...was that it?...yeah, Jefferson...I was born about an hour's drive from Monticello...great guy that Jefferson...that is when he's not being co-opted by unhinged members of society like Timothy McVeigh and yourself...I wonder if you have a Jefferson t-shirt like McVeigh was wearing that day he tried to save our doomed Republic... :roll:

[El Nino]

:sleep

I must've dozed off....did you say something, Nino? Something about Jefferson...was that it?...yeah, Jefferson...I was born about an hour's drive from Monticello...great guy that Jefferson...that is when he's not being co-opted by unhinged members of society like Timothy McVeigh and yourself...I wonder if you have a Jefferson t-shirt like McVeigh was wearing that day he tried to save our doomed Republic... :roll:

*Guilt By Association
*No real discussion of content
*Same Old Same Old

I rest my case

[El Nino]

Case Closed

[chefmike]

Case Closed

I think Kaczynski's talking to himself again... :screwy

[El Nino]

No, I am talking directly to you.

[chefmike]

I believe that posting a link to something by David Icke (he of the reptilian humanoid theories) totally invalidates an argument and whoever is making it. Sorry El Nino, but I can't take you seriously anymore after this.

[El Nino]

Way to dodge the questions, so I will ask you again. As posted before:

Dude, you are out of your mind. You are like a broken record. All you do is attack the individual poster, not the content. Why is Ron Paul a lunatic? Why does supporting a humble foreign policy put somebody on the lunatic fringe? Why does questioning the authenticity of mainstream news reports and the motives behind them, make somebody crazy? Why does bringing up issues that are not "politically correct" or that challenge "conventional theory" make you immediately result to insults or ad hominem attacks? Why is thinking for oneself such a bad thing to do Chef? Huh? Why is pointing out the fact that Obama is surrounded by corporatists and the same elites that "shrubya" was embedded with, make somebody "batshit" crazy? Why is somebody who advocates freedom, the Bill of Rights and limited government involvment, a meth addict who lives in a bunker? Nice smearing techniques boss, but me and many others on this little board see right through you. Your opinion is meager and grossly unsubstantiated. You are the joke.
You're a foolish misinformed pig who believes his stance is the final say. Its people like you that support a dysfunctional system (be it left or right) and buy every political talking point, that are largely responsible for the decline. It would be wise to put your allegiances with the Constitution and not the Cult of personality Obama. Have fun watching it all unfold dog...

[Niccolo]

HRES 34 EH

H. Res. 34

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

January 9, 2009.

Whereas Hamas was founded with the stated goal of destroying the State of Israel;

Whereas Hamas has been designated by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization;

Whereas Hamas has refused to comply with the Quartet’s (the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations) requirements that Hamas recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence, and agree to accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians;

Whereas in June 2006, Hamas illegally crossed into Israel, attacked Israeli forces, and kidnaped Corporal Gilad Shalit, whom they continue to hold today;

Whereas Hamas has launched thousands of rockets and mortars against Israeli population centers since 2001, and has launched more than 6,000 such rockets and mortars since Israel withdrew its civilian population and its military from Gaza in 2005;

Whereas Hamas has increased the range and payload of its rockets, reportedly with support from Iran and others, putting hundreds of thousands of Israelis in danger of rocket attacks from Gaza;

Whereas Hamas locates elements of its terrorist infrastructure in civilian population centers, thus using innocent civilians as human shields;

Whereas Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a statement on December 27, 2008, that ‘We strongly condemn the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and hold Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence there’;


[...]


Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) expresses vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and recognizes its right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against Hamas’s unceasing aggression, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter;

(2) reiterates that Hamas must end the rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence, agree to accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, and verifiably dismantle its terrorist infrastructure;

(3) encourages the Administration to work actively to support a durable and sustainable cease-fire in Gaza , as soon as possible, that prevents Hamas from retaining or rebuilding its terrorist infrastructure, including the capability to launch rockets and mortars against Israel, and thereby allowing for the long-term improvement of daily living conditions for the people of Gaza;

(4) believes strongly that the lives of innocent civilians must be protected to the maximum extent possible, expresses condolences to innocent Palestinian and Israeli victims and their families, and reiterates that humanitarian needs in Gaza should be addressed promptly and responsibly;

(5) calls on all nations--

(A) to condemn Hamas for deliberately embedding its fighters, leaders, and weapons in private homes, schools, mosques, hospitals, and otherwise using Palestinian civilians as human shields, while simultaneously targeting Israeli civilians; and

(B) to lay blame both for the breaking of the ‘calm’ and for subsequent civilian casualties in Gaza precisely where blame belongs, that is, on Hamas;



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr111-34

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:2:./temp/~c111Lz2w2K::

[El Nino]

I am not supporting either side or placing blame on any individual group. The pictures however, speak for themselves...
I should also add that it is argued that the most powerful lobby in the USA is the Isreli lobby. So it is no such surprise to see such bills emanating out of the House, is it? There are really three sides to every story as well.

[Niccolo]

Are the statements in that resolution factually correct?

[Niccolo]

Hamas murder campaign in Gaza exposed

Islamist regime has killed dozens and tortured others as 'collaborators' with Israel in war's aftermath, Amnesty and Guardian sources say

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/13/hamas-gaza-murders-abduction-torture