Liveleak under threat from Islam!

[SUBMAN1]

AH oh! It has started

-S


Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.

Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.

We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

[Happy Times]

Yeah, i posted it in the original thread.

[SUBMAN1]

Yeah, i posted it in the original thread.This one deserves its own

[Happy Times]

Yeah, i posted it in the original thread.This one deserves its own

Sure, but i think it will get locked here also. Im getting very pissed and tired. They are winning piece by piece.:nope:

[Tchocky]

Yup, all of Islam. Every single Muslim.

Yup.

[Happy Times]

Yup, all of Islam. Every single Muslim.

Yup.

Dont start that, have you seen any condemnation from muslims on this attack on free speech?

Yup.

[August]

"Give me liberty or give me death" has been changed to "Please don't kill me and i'll do whatever you want"? :nope:

[Happy Times]

How right was Pat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dXGJ2rYdA

[Happy Times]

Videos found in LiveLeak.

Martyrdom Operation in Khost by German Turk
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8c9_1206654582

Spectacular Al Qaeda Martyr On Peshmerga Headquarter
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=82e_1206571161

Al Qaeda: US Tank Hits Huge IED
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b5_1206652609

Al Qaeda: Huge IED Vs American Forces Humvee
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f37_1206652535

Al Qaeda: Sniping 2 ING Forces
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=606_1206651620

[SUBMAN1]

Come on Tchocky, don't be mean will you. Think about Subman, that news made his day, you don't want to ruin that do you ? :)Quite the contrary i have to say. I hoped and figured the Muslims had grown up from their 2 year old mentality. I hate being wrong. The children still exist as children.

They could have easily turned this against the West by proving them wrong. So I must include that Muslims are not very bright either.

-S

[mrbeast]

Come on Tchocky, don't be mean will you. Think about Subman, that news made his day, you don't want to ruin that do you ? :)Quite the contrary i have to say. I hoped and figured the Muslims had grown up from their 2 year old mentality. I hate being wrong. The children still exist as children.

They could have easily turned this against the West by proving them wrong. So I must include that Muslims are not very bright either.

-S

Of course all 'Muslims' are the same all of them just like robots. ;) :nope:

[Skybird]

Refering at single events and individuals exactly is what helps islam to claim the posture of being a victim of radicals hijacking it. Instead, stick to the ideology, describe it's content from it's "holy" scriptures", point finger at it's contradictions and how these help to mask the intolerance and brutality and discrimination islam has for all what is not itself. Confront Islam on its very own ideology, en detail, with all determination, and do not give it any room instead that to move back.

Radicals do not hijack it. while sometimes they are violating islamic laws when turning against other muslims, for the most they are representing the commands and orders of how they are given in islam, by muhammad's nice little book. If only Westerners would open their eyes and see that. But since that would mean to declare war and pick a weapon and fight, they prefer to deceive themselves. Weak stupid cowards make bad fighters. But that is what would be needed in the widest meaning of the word: fighters, in the political arena, in the medias, in society (civil courage), but we do not have fighters, and the rare exceptions we occasionally witness we turn our backs on, and relativise the dimension of the threat instead. We do not have fighters indeed. What we have instead is brainless hot-air merchants - but these stand at the ready line by line. And there seem to be no remedy for that.

[SUBMAN1]

Of course all 'Muslims' are the same all of them just like robots. ;) :nope:You can keep telling yourself that, but if they follow the Quran, they have no choice. See Skybirds post above. He has a pretty decent grasp of the situation.

-S

[Happy Times]

Skybird may know the subject, that doesn't make him "the" voice with all due respect. Saying that Muslims have no choice but to follow the Quran (in that case being terrorist or wannabe), sorry but that's ignoring facts, or maybe you don't actually know any muslim. All the muslims I know personnally, I bet you wouldn't know that they're muslims. You can always say "that's because they're not actually muslims", fine, I guess that you're right and that about 1 billion of people are mistaken.

Most of those 1 billion support sharia law and that meens they dont like us. Thats a fact, live with it.

[mrbeast]

Skybird, I understand where you are coming from but I think you are working under a mistaken premise, ie that all Muslims adhere to every rule or passage in the Koran. Now I know for a fact that pretty much all Christians do not adhere to every rule written in the bible why would Muslims patricularly be any different, considering that Muslims like Christians are subject to human nature?

[SUBMAN1]

Well, I have to disagree with some posters here. They conducted a survey of Muslims in the US, and the majority of them believe that bombings are justified for example, and that is in the US! So, since the US ones are more should we say worldly, that means that all of them in the middle East, I'd put at 75% or more of them would say that bombing infedels is justified to further their religion! That is just crazy!

In the polls, the youth were more likely to agree over older Muslims, but still a ton of the older ones also agreed. This is one violent religion!

-S

[STEED]

^^^Are heck that's done it^^^


Time for a mug of hot chocolate and sit back. ;)

[Skybird]

Skybird may know the subject, that doesn't make him "the" voice with all due respect. Saying that Muslims have no choice but to follow the Quran (in that case being terrorist or wannabe), sorry but that's ignoring facts, or maybe you don't actually know any muslim. All the muslims I know personnally, I bet you wouldn't know that they're muslims. You can always say "that's because they're not actually muslims", fine, I guess that you're right and that about 1 billion of people are mistaken.
Get your numbers straight. In Britain alone, early last year a representative statistic found half of the male juveniles being in favour of violance to enforce sharia law and turnin Britain into an islamic nation. amongst adults, it was around one quarter, if my memroie does not fool me. having been in several Muslim nations myself, I know the statistics there a bit to, as they were representative in he mid-90s. In tukey for example, over 80% of the people live outside the huge cities and metropoles wehre there is western influence to be seen indeed. So over 80% of them live in the rural areas, and the ppor anatolian highland. ands here, ultra-conservative islam waited and took a nap during atautkr'S experiment that now is falling apart. I must tell you that the majority of people I have ssen are very conservative and very much orthodox Muslims indeed. This difference between the huge cities and rural places i have seen in many other countries. I do not know SE Asia, but I say that it is like this for most if not all of the coreland of Islam, the Arabic sphere that is.

From German newspapers I learened that since some weeks, Britain learned that the number of yearly enforced marriages is multiple times as high as was previously estimated. the number of incidents has been correct to 1000, then 2000, then 3000, and still climbing. Before, it was described to be almost non-existent, so low it should have been. Nonsens.

Stop wasting your strength to press your eyelids closed so desperately.

Quran is the word of God, so they see it (historically of course it is more about muhammad than Allah), and that is the simple reason why man is not allowed to chnage it - that would be heresy, stupid little men on planet earth chaning words in God's mouth! You either take all, or nothing at all and bear the consequences: subjugation and discrimination if you are Jew or christian, death if you are atheist or follower of another religion than Judaism or Christinaity. that is not free for interpretation - that is Quranic law. The socalled radicals see that damn right. And since that is the word of God - draw your conclusions. not following the quran en detail, is kind of a rebellion against the word, the demand, the command of God. If you do that, you are heretic, and Sharia demands your penalty. Sharia is the tool that is meant to motivate you to never step off the red line Quran is painting for you towards what you have to believe, and how you have to believe. If a Muslim thinks he has any freedom of interpretation here, he does not truly understand how merciless his relgion is that he is following.

Yeah I know that is all unwelcomed news, and a description of a bitter, grim, conflict-heavy reality. But it is the only reality there is, so face it, or capitulate like all the others and become a human of second class, being stripped of much of his freedoms. Choice is yours: fight or run.

[SUBMAN1]

Skybird, I understand where you are coming from but I think you are working under a mistaken premise, ie that all Muslims adhere to every rule or passage in the Koran. Now I know for a fact that pretty much all Christians do not adhere to every rule written in the bible why would Muslims patricularly be any different, considering that Muslims like Christians are subject to human nature?The Quran is the word of god litterally. The Bible is mans interpretation of gods ideas and up for challenge.

-S

[Skybird]

Skybird, I understand where you are coming from but I think you are working under a mistaken premise, ie that all Muslims adhere to every rule or passage in the Koran. Now I know for a fact that pretty much all Christians do not adhere to every rule written in the bible why would Muslims patricularly be any different, considering that Muslims like Christians are subject to human nature?
Becasue the bible is considerd to be a book about god, but not written by god. Thats is different with Quran, which is understood to be the word of God. And... ah, just above I had touched the issue, and days ago I explained it all again, and again before, and before, and before. Really, I'm getting tired of it. You can find it if using the search button and doiung some reading of my postings. I'm not giving all the arguments just again. give me a break, guys, find out yourself. Once I answered it to mrbeast, the next one will pop up and ask exactly the same question -help!

[SUBMAN1]

My eyes are wide open but thanks for your concern. As far as "fighting", I'm as sick of violent muslims as I'm sick of people saying that they're "against Quran because it's violent you know" while they're actually just racists.Try replacing that line with - just actually people that care for one another. You might go farther.

-S

[Happy Times]

Well here is your "moderate# muslim talking. Kinda of confirms what we are talking about, they are a minority with no power and majority dont see them and as muslims and some even want them beheaded. This one even has to cover his face out of fear.:roll:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=B8EAD1F0-F5C7-4F1A-9FE0-8AC974E21C83


Frontpage Interview's guest today is Khalim Massoud, the president of Muslims Against Sharia, an Islamic reform movement.


FP: Khalim Massoud, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Massoud: Thank you.

FP: Tell us why it is necessary for you to wear sunglasses in the picture you gave us to use of you.

Massoud: As you might imagine, Islamists are not particularly happy with our group. According to our poll, over 20% of Muslims want us beheaded. I am perfectly content with my head not being separated from my body and I'd like to keep it that way for as long as I can.

FP: Sounds like a good idea.

Tell us what Muslims Against Sharia is about.

Massoud: Our organization is created to give voice to moderate Muslims who are virtually ignored by governments and media and to expose the radicals masquerading as moderates. Our goals are

* to educate Muslims about dangers presented by Islamic religious texts and why Islam must be reformed.

* to educate non-Muslims about the differences between moderate Muslims and Islamists (a.k.a. Islamic Religious Fanatics, Radical Muslims, Muslim Fundamentalists, Islamic Extremists or Islamofascists).

* to educate both Muslims and non-Muslims alike that Moderate Muslims are also targets of Islamic Terror.

FP: Why do you think moderate Muslims are virtually ignored by governments and the media?

Massoud: Most of American mosques are financed and run by Wahhabis. Wahhabi imams are anything but moderate, hence most of religious leaders are radicals. So-called "civil rights" groups, i.e., CAIR, MPAC, ICNA, MAS, etc. that comprise Muslim establishment are nothing more than offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood and fronts for Hamas and al-Qaeda. They are very well financed and are extremely skilful manipulators of the media. And most of the people in government and media truly believe that those groups are moderate, because they are either too lazy to do research or they choose to ignore terrorist ties.

As a result, when either the government or the media needs an Islamic point of view, Muslim establishment groups are go-to "experts" by default. With the "expert" seat being filled, moderate Muslims are left out.

Another problem with moderate Muslims is they are scared and not organized. They are scared because they cannot speak up in mosques for fear of being kicked out and there are virtually no organizations that represent their views. They are not organized, because, unlike the radical, they do not receive tens of millions of dollars in financial support, therefore they have to work for a living.

FP: Why do radical Muslims masquerade as moderates? What are their strategies in doing this? Are they effective in doing so? Who have been some of the radicals that have been exposed?

Massoud: Radical Muslims are masquerading as moderates because they have no control over the military and police. Yet.

They cannot openly proclaim their agenda of Islamic domination in front of Western audiences. They are gradually taking over the West. Some countries in Europe (France, Britain, Germany, etc.) are partially ruled by Sharia law, and even up in Canada, there is talk about Sharia courts for Muslim communities.

Their strategy is very simple. They constantly claim that they are peaceful and moderate, and Western media is more than happy to repeat that nonsense. They do not praise terrorism in public, but they justify it by playing the Muslim victimhood card. And they are very effective at it.

Many radical organizations have already been exposed by counter-terrorism researchers like Steven Emerson, John Loftus, Rachel Ehrenfeld, Joe Kaufman, Paul Sperry, Zeyno Baran, and many others. The proof that the Muslim establishment is anything but moderate is widely available. However, the government and the media either for political reasons or out of sheer stupidity completely ignore it.

FP: Is it possible to give a simple answer to this question: what exactly is the difference between a moderate Muslim and a radical Muslim? Where is the fine line that separates them?

Massoud: Absolutely. The determining criteria is the belief in Islamic supremacy. Radical Muslims believe in Islamic supremacy, which makes them religiously obligated to wage Jihad for world domination, using both terrorism and gradual subversion of host societies. Moderate Muslims consider their religion a private matter and believe in religious equality.

FP: What are some of the dangers presented by Islamic religious texts? If you are a Muslim, then how can you reject these texts and remain a faithful Musilm?

Massoud: Most of the dangers are presented by passages based on the Islamic supremacy doctrine. The Koran contains verses that command us to subjugate or murder non-Muslims in order to create Islamic rule. On the other hand, the Koran teaches preciousness of human life. How can a logical person believe that those diametrically opposed concepts came from the same source? How could Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate be the source of "kill [infidels] them wherever you find them"? The only logical explanation is that the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries, and all we want to do is to revert it as close as possible to the original.

FP: I would like to touch on your intriguing point that “the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries, and all we want to do is to revert it as close as possible to the original." Is there any textual support for such a notion? And doesn't this notion run counter to the Islamic doctrine of the perfection of the Qur'an, which insists that the Qur'anic text is the same as it was in the time of Uthman? In light of these considerations, do you think you will gain much support in the Islamic world?

Massoud: We do not have any direct evidence that the Koran has been corrupted over the centuries. However, there is some circumstantial evidence supporting our point. First, if you take two English Korans translated by two different people, the difference could be very substantial. Substantial to the point that the same verses could have completely different meaning. Case in point: a recent arrest of Ghows Zalmay, who, according to the fundamentalists, misinterpreted some verses in the Koran.

Based on these facts, it is reasonable to conclude that when the Koran was copied many times over, the mere mortals who did the copying might have "adjusted" the texts to reflect their personal views, or the views of their superiors.

Second is deductive reasoning. The Koran contains verses that represent mutually exclusive concepts, i.e., human 'life is precious' vs. 'kill the infidels wherever you find them' or 'respect the People of the Book' vs. 'do not take Jews and Christians for friends'.

Allah is infallible and cannot contradict himself, which means that some of those verses are not the literal word of Allah. Also, how can Allah, who is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate be a source of "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them"?

The only logical explanation is that the Koran we have today was significantly altered.

As for gaining much support in Islamic world, we believe that education is the key. Our experience shows that if we present our view to an open-minded skeptic, chances are we'll gain a supporter.

FP: How and why must Islam be reformed? Is this really possible? Some would argue that if you take the Islam out of Islam, it will no longer be an Islam. What would you say to that?

Massoud: Islam in its present form is incompatible with modern society, that's why it needs to be reformed. The first step is to abandon the doctrine of Islamic supremacy and remove passages from religious texts that could be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as calls to violence. We believe it is possible. Muslims, just as all other people, are human beings. If Christians could abandon the Inquisition, Muslims can abandon Jihad. Taking violence out of Islam is not the same as taking Islam out of Islam. It is a historical fact that major religions like Christianity and Judaism have undergone reformations on more than one occasion. Islamic reformation is no different.

FP: I very much appreciate your position and your goals are truly admirable. I would just like to say that the Christian reformation and the potential Islamic reformation are different. Christians easily abandoned the Inquisition because the Inquisition was un-Christian and had no foundation in Christian texts. The key is that when Christians have behaved in aggressive or intolerant ways, their acts were not based on Christian teachings; their acts were un-Christian. But the same cannot be said for Muslims when they engage in aggression and intolerance, since such behavior is a fulfillment of their theological mandates. All the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that it is part of the responsibility of the umma to subjugate the non-Muslim world through jihad.

But in any case, it is all of our great hope that Muslims such as yourself can succeed in the reformation you wish to engender in Islam. The key though: isn’t there a belief among Muslims that the Koran is the literal word of Allah and that it cannot be tampered with?

Massoud: The original Koran is the literal world of Allah and should not have been tampered with. The Almighty God, whether you call him Yahweh or Allah, is infallible. Since modern versions of the Koran contain contradictions, they cannot possibly be the literate word of God. Therefore, the belief that the modern Koran is untouchable is based on ignorance. God gave people free will, and unscrupulous people who were supposed to safeguard the Koran corrupted it instead. Now, we must change it back.

I also do not believe that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that it is part of the responsibility of the Ummah to subjugate the non-Muslim world through Jihad, i.e., Sufism.

FP: I am a bit confused as to who can arrogate to themselves the authority to be the arbiter of what the “original” Koran actually said. What if some Muslims argued that they need to “change it back” to get rid of all the peaceful messages that the Koran has in it, on the premise that the violent passages represent the real Koran? Wouldn’t this make more sense since the historical Mohammed was himself a military man who waged war, captured slaves, preached war against unbelievers, etc.? He led by example did he not? If this is not true, then how exactly do you argue that Islam is meant to be peaceful if Mohammed was himself a man of war?


It also appears from your words that you reject the idea of abrogation, as delineated by Qur'an 2:106. If so, how do you propose to distinguish between the original Qur'an you are saying existed and the interpolated passages, since there is no textual evidence for such an original Qur'an?


Also, what do you make of the fact that the Qadari movement, which upheld free will, was declared heretical by numerous Islamic authorities and eventually wiped out?


I would also like to touch on the point of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. In terms of Sufism, for example, it remains a bit of mystery why this sect of Islam is constantly portrayed as being non-violent and tolerant when the history of the Sufis is actually one of violent jihad. The jihad in Chechnya is a prime example.


Also, Sufism is an order, a way of mysticism, not a school of Islamic jurisprudence. Moreover, the pioneering Sufi, Al-Ghazali, was clear that his Sufism did not negate his support for Islamic supremacism. Andrew Bostom has published this quote from Al-Ghazali:


"[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees...One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide...they may steal as much food as they need...[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle…Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]…on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]… They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…. (From the Wagjiz, written in 1101 A.D.)"


What are your thoughts on these realities?


Mr. Massoud, please do not misunderstand by questions and arguments here. I am in full support of you and your organization and it is obviously the West’s and the world’s prayer that Muslims will follow people like you. I am only asking these questions to clarify matters and to crystallize if the possibility of an Islamic reformation is truly a genuine hope and can be based on strong and realistic foundations.


Massoud: We do not claim to have authority to be arbiters of what the original Koran said. What we do, is put forth our arguments why we believe that the modern Koran is not the same as the original. It is up to the Ummah to judge the validity of our arguments and whether accept or reject them.

The notion that violent passages represent the real Koran is contradictory to the notion that Allah is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, therefore, we believe it is incorrect. The issue of the Prophet Muhammad is very complicated. On the one hand, he was a human, and, therefore, imperfect. On the other hand, it is impossible to know how much of the historical accounts of that time are true and how much is fiction. If the Koran could have been changed over the centuries, so is the version of events surrounding Mohammad's life.

The idea of abrogation would run contrary to the idea of Allah's infallibility. We cannot with absolute certainty distinguish between the divine and 'man-made' verses. But we can do the best we can by using common sense. As for the Qadari movement (which I am not familiar with), not every reform movement achieves its goals, but that does not mean that we shouldn't even try.

Sufism may have its dark aspects, but in today's world it is as close to our idea of Islam as it gets. Sufi Islamic Supreme Council of America is the only real Islamic religious authority in the North America that does not advocate ideas of Islamic supremacy. Jihad in Chechnya is not indicative of Sufism. The remnants of Sufism that survived 70 years of Soviet rule are dominated by Wahhabism. Calling Chechen mujahideen Sufi is just as misleading as calling CAIR moderate.

Mr. Glazov, there is no reason to qualify your questions. They are legitimate attempts to get to the truth of the matter and nobody should be offended by honest and direct questions about 'sensitive' subjects. Failing to ask those questions is what got us where we are today in the first place.


FP: Can you talk a bit about how moderate Muslims are also targets of Islamic terror?

Massoud: Darfur. Hundreds of thousands of Black Muslims are murdered by the radicals. Algeria: more than a hundred thousands of Muslims are murdered by the radicals. Iraq: tens of thousands of Muslims are murdered by the radicals. Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Chechnya. Any place where there is conflict that involves Muslims, moderates are being murdered by radicals. Radical Muslims wage Jihad to kill infidels, and many of them consider moderate Muslims as infidels. This is a DHS-type threat level table that illustrates my point:

FP: Earlier you noted that a poll your group did revealed that roughly one-fifth of Muslims think that Muslims like you should be beheaded. What is your interpretation of this fact?

Massoud: Muslims like us present the biggest danger to the Islamists because we are destroying the myth of moral authority of the fundamentalism. When non-Muslims point out flaws in Islam, the radicals dismiss them as Islamophobes. When Muslims talk about problems with Islam, they are not as easy to dismiss. Moderate Muslims are the best antidote to Islamist venom and Western governments are being very unwise to choose radicals over moderates.


FP: So what is the most effective way we can help moderates and reformers such as yourselves?

Massoud: You, meaning non-Muslims, must stop living in your PC fantasy world, stop worrying about offending Muslims, and start calling things what they are. You must draw a clear distinction between Muslims and Islamofascists, between Islam and Islamism. Muslims will not be offended at the term "Islamofascism" as long as it is clear that the term applies to Islamists, not Muslims in general. You can no longer afford to pretend that there is no global war between Islamists and the rest of the world. You must pressure the government and the media to stop whitewashing (and cut all ties with) Islamists. Just because Islamists claim to be moderates, that doesn't make it so.

You must stop financing radical Islamic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Iran by sending billions of Petro-Dollars to the Persian Gulf. You must provide political (and should provide financial) support for moderate Muslim groups, i.e., American Islamic Forum for Democracy. There are plenty of moderate Muslims who would join the fight against Islamism, given the chance. It must be made absolutely clear that terrorism is a military issue and terrorism cases, i.e., HLF or al-Arian, have no place in civilian courts. When Islamists praise bin Laden, march with "Hizballah is our Army" posters, or desecrate the American flag, you call it freedom of speech. But when a counter-terrorism researcher protests against events organized by Islamists, he is charged with harassment and gets a restraining order. And when another counter-terrorism researcher sheds light on Islamist-al Qaeda ties, she is sued for libel.


FP: Are you optimistic that non-Muslims and moderate Muslims that want to preserve Western civilization and liberty will be able to defeat the force of radical Islam?


Massoud: Yes, if the West wakes up before it’s too late. Unfortunately, at this time, the West seems to be more interested in Left vs. Right rather than Freedom vs. Slavery & Death.

FP: Khalim Massoud, thank you for joining us and thank you for your courage and for your noble fight to spawn an Islamic reformation.


Massoud: Jamie, thank you for having me and giving me a forum to present our views.

[Skybird]

My eyes are wide open but thanks for your concern. As far as "fighting", I'm as sick of violent muslims as I'm sick of people saying that they're "against Quran because it's violent you know" while they're actually just racists.
that is pretty much what I say, so thank you very much. If I were a racist, I would attack the muslim individual on terms of his skin colour and genetically caused inferior IQ. , instead of dealing with Islam's ideology and education towards making a normally born person a stupoid person. Oh, and my apology for holding everybody responsioble for the choices he voluntarily makes. I thought that this kind of responsibility comes hand in hand with freedom - but what does a racist like me know anyway...

Now, sleep on and have nice dreams.

[Stealth Hunter]

Come on Tchocky, don't be mean will you. Think about Subman, that news made his day, you don't want to ruin that do you ? :)Quite the contrary i have to say. I hoped and figured the Muslims had grown up from their 2 year old mentality. I hate being wrong. The children still exist as children.

They could have easily turned this against the West by proving them wrong. So I must include that Muslims are not very bright either.

-S

Yes, all Muslims and Middle-Easterners in general are stupid...:nope: :roll:

Subman, how many Muslims have you actually met?:hmm:

[Seth8530]

Ive known a muslum before and she was one of the nicest people i knew, why didnt she try and kill me? Is it because she nots a muslum?

[mrbeast]

My eyes are wide open but thanks for your concern. As far as "fighting", I'm as sick of violent muslims as I'm sick of people saying that they're "against Quran because it's violent you know" while they're actually just racists.

Well I'm sick too, these threads are just going round in circles, and frankly all of its just depressing. :damn:

Islamic fundamentalists depress me.

Tub thumping populist demagogues and their propaganda films depress me.

Posts on here depress me.

Skybird's mile long responses depress me! ;) :D

Seriously though, I'm bowing out of Islamic threads for a while and I shall just spectate it seems that one or two others are getting fed up, so I think we should just agree to disagee. :yep:

If you see me in an Islamic thread, as Gary in Team America says 'put a Jihad on me'!

[Stealth Hunter]

Becasue the bible is considerd to be a book about god, but not written by god. Thats is different with Quran, which is understood to be the word of God.

Not really given the fact that the Bible in today's society is viewed as the word of God... Just ask the Evangelicals... Ken Ham for instance, who is one of the preachers at the Church of Evangelicalism. "I believe the Bible is the WORD of God, and that he was the creator of the Heavens and the Earth." Here's a video quite similar to that (not the exact sentence I posted, but that one can be found in a video with Mr. Ham on the issue of Richard Dawkins):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk&feature=related

[SUBMAN1]

Yes, all Muslims and Middle-Easterners in general are stupid...:nope: :roll:

Subman, how many Muslims have you actually met?:hmm:Unfortunatly, quite a few. Problem is, to raise the subject is to draw fire from their mouths. Now we just ignore the subject compltely since in some cases, we have not talked for over a year. I can't avoid them through mutual friends, so its a catch 22 situation. Best to sweep the elephant under the rug.

Ever wondered why I know so much about it? Now you know.

So you?

-S

PS. If you're Christian, why not invite your neighborly muslim neighbors over for dinner? Hahaha!

PPS.Not really given the fact that the Bible in today's society is viewed as the word of God... Just ask the Evangelicals... Ken Ham for instance, who is one of the preachers at the Church of Evangelicalism. "I believe the Bible is the WORD of God, and that he was the creator of the Heavens and the Earth." Well, thats his own thoughts and quite rare I would say. 99% of Christians would laugh at that idea. The Quran however, 99% of Muslims believe it is the word of god. Always some rebels in that 1%.

[Happy Times]

Well here is your "moderate# muslim talking. Kinda of confirms what we are talking about, they are a minority with no power and majority dont see them and as muslims and some even want them beheaded. This one even has to cover his face out of fear.:roll:

Hey, that man seems pretty wise, a bit like Gamal Al Banna but younger, that's encouraging (only found that http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/15/religion.comment in english about Gamal, but there's plenty of french pages that google would translate well enough)

Now as much as I dislike people who put all muslims in the same bag, I also find really irritating people who think that the "West" is a solid uniform block.

Edit @ Skybird : I can well read you and I did, so that comment wasn't aimed at you.

You have a good heart and wish for the best im sure, but if we would support these dissidents that would certainly drive any listeners from them. To me West is as uniform you can get without being a one country.

[SUBMAN1]

You summed up pretty much what I feel about that whole thing too, I tryed to avoid posting on that sort of thread, I guess I'm just gonna try harder :)

@Seth : come on man, her family didn't even stone you ? not even a bit ? ;)Don't kid yourself. Ask the neigbors of the 9/11 hijackers. Every one of them couldn't believe if for similar statements - nicest people one could ever have met! Need I go show you this? I bet each one of these idiots wished their neighbors were in those buildings the day of the airplane strikes!

-S

[Happy Times]

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/head-in-the-sand.jpg

[DeepIron]

Seriously though, I'm bowing out of Islamic threads for a while and I shall just spectate it seems that one or two others are getting fed up, so I think we should just agree to disagee. :yep:

A wise choice IMO MB... Pour me a Guiness if you will and we'll sit and watch from the sidelines... :up:

[Stealth Hunter]

Can you really blame thUnfortunatly, quite a few. Problem is, to raise the subject is to draw fire from their mouths. Now we just ignore the subject compltely since in some cases, we have not talked for over a year. I can't avoid them through mutual friends, so its a catch 22 situation.

After all the **** in recent times that Muslims have been through, they finally get their chance to fire back. They're under attack with stereotypes and hate, although they can be the same way (but honestly, the Muslim community is under serious attack at this point). If you actually lived the life of a Muslim, then I'm fairly sure you'd understand why they fight for their beliefs (not just because the Quaran says they should; the Muslims in general suffer from extensive problems in social affairs, and they're becoming the new version of the black man during the 1950's and 1960's, discriminated against for their beliefs).

Christians are really no better. They try to force people to live the same way they do. Abortion? Stem-cell research? How about evolution being taught in school? They use violence, too. Radical Christians have in the past BOMBED abortion clinics because "it defies the word of god". Really now? Then you're just as bad as the radical Muslims, since they too say "it's the word of god".

PS. If you're Christian, why not invite your neighborly muslim neighbors over for dinner? Hahaha!

I'll be sure to bring my Muslim BROTHERS along with me next time. Hell, maybe we'll bring our tents and camp out on your front lawn. We might even bring our replica guns and RPG's along with a video camera to play "Terrorist Video Challenge".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Face-plain.svg/120px-Face-plain.svg.png

[Happy Times]

Can you really blame thUnfortunatly, quite a few. Problem is, to raise the subject is to draw fire from their mouths. Now we just ignore the subject compltely since in some cases, we have not talked for over a year. I can't avoid them through mutual friends, so its a catch 22 situation.

After all the **** in recent times that Muslims have been through, they finally get their chance to fire back. They're under attack with stereotypes and hate, although they can be the same way (but honestly, the Muslim community is under serious attack at this point). If you actually lived the life of a Muslim, then I'm fairly sure you'd understand why they fight for their beliefs (not just because the Quaran says they should; the Muslims in general suffer from extensive problems in social affairs, and they're becoming the new version of the black man during the 1950's and 1960's, discriminated against for their beliefs).

Christians are really no better. They try to force people to live the same way they do. Abortion? Stem-cell research? How about evolution being taught in school? They use violence, too. Radical Christians have in the past BOMBED abortion clinics because "it defies the word of god". Really now? Then you're just as bad as the radical Muslims, since they too say "it's the word of god".

PS. If you're Christian, why not invite your neighborly muslim neighbors over for dinner? Hahaha!

I'll be sure to bring my Muslim BROTHERS along with me next time. Hell, maybe we'll bring our tents and camp out on your front lawn. We might even bring our replica guns and RPG's along with a video camera to play "Terrorist Video Challenge".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Face-plain.svg/120px-Face-plain.svg.png

Go attack the jihadists if you are worried about your public image, if you go in Subman yard he will probably shoot you.

[joea]

Go attack the jihadists if you are worried about your public image, if you go in Subman yard he will probably shoot you.

Your ignorance is appalling. :down:

[Stealth Hunter]

if you go in Subman yard he will probably shoot you.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g17/Sgt-Smithy/1205613353844bo3.gif

[SUBMAN1]

Go attack the jihadists if you are worried about your public image, if you go in Subman yard he will probably shoot you.Probably true. I don't take to kindly to uninvited intruders, and have plenty of ammo to deal with the situation.

Then again, maybe I shouldn't be cautious. Islam is a peaceful religion and all:
Dubai, 28 March (AKI) - A photo of Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders has been posted on several Islamist websites linked to al-Qaeda, after his anti-Koran film was released on a video-sharing website on Thursday.
Wilders' 17-minute film entitled Fitna, criticised Islam's holy book, the Koran.

The film sets verses of the Koran against a background of images from terrorist attacks.

"The Dutch, enemy of Allah, has done what he threatened to do and distributed his film," said a banner in an Islamist website.

The message is followed by dozens of posts by visitors of the site asking for Muslims to act against him.

"Dear brothers, remember what happened to Ariel Sharon. Now let's hope that he (Wilders) ends up the same way," says a member of the forum.

[mrbeast]

Seriously though, I'm bowing out of Islamic threads for a while and I shall just spectate it seems that one or two others are getting fed up, so I think we should just agree to disagee. :yep:

A wise choice IMO MB... Pour me a Guiness if you will and we'll sit and watch from the sidelines... :up:

Good idea DeepIron I haven't had a pint of Guiness for years! :up:

BTW this post doesn't count for putting a 'Jihad' on me Team America stylee, I'm off topic! LOL

[SUBMAN1]

Your ignorance is appalling. :down:To me, it sounds like he is greatly informed, so I would re-direct that statement back at you! :D

-S

[Happy Times]

Go attack the jihadists if you are worried about your public image, if you go in Subman yard he will probably shoot you.

Your ignorance is appalling. :down:

Explain?

[Stealth Hunter]

Cases of Christian terrorism:

[1]
http://www.commonplacebook.com/current_events/politics/christian_terro.shtm
(relatively old, but still has some good statistics in it)

(from the year 2001) Over 170 abortion clinics and doctors' offices in 14 states and the District of Columbia received threatening letters claiming to contain anthrax. The envelopes had return addresses from the U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Marshall Service with postmarks from Atlanta, GA; Knoxville, TN; Chattanooga, TN; or Columbus, OH. The envelopes were also marked, "TIME SENSITIVE: Urgent Security Notice Enclosed." When opened by clinic staff, all letters contained a white powder with a letter stating, "You have been exposed to anthrax. We are going to kill all of you. Army of God, Virginia DARE Chapter."


[2]
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
(another good statistical site)


[3]
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2719258620070428
(interesting news article)

[SUBMAN1]

Cases of Christian terrorism:

[1]
http://www.commonplacebook.com/current_events/politics/christian_terro.shtm
(relatively old, but still has some good statistics in it)

(from the year 2001) Over 170 abortion clinics and doctors' offices in 14 states and the District of Columbia received threatening letters claiming to contain anthrax. The envelopes had return addresses from the U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Marshall Service with postmarks from Atlanta, GA; Knoxville, TN; Chattanooga, TN; or Columbus, OH. The envelopes were also marked, "TIME SENSITIVE: Urgent Security Notice Enclosed." When opened by clinic staff, all letters contained a white powder with a letter stating, "You have been exposed to anthrax. We are going to kill all of you. Army of God, Virginia DARE Chapter."


[2]
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
(another good statistical site)


[3]
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2719258620070428
(interesting news article)Not sure I remember mass marchings in the street from Christians, nor suicide bombings, nor be-headings, nor do I remember an airplane full of innocent passengers being flown into a building. Seems to me, I can't remember Christians killing Christians either.

Always a couple whackos in any part of the world, but Islam has managed to take it up not 10 notches, but 100. That is the problem.

So are you really serious in trying to do a compare here? For real? This could be funny! :D

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

Terrorism: unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies


True with the Muslims on 9/11... not ALL of them... also true for the "Warriors of God" and their abortion clinics.

Although, the best case we might have of terrorism in the Christian/Catholic religions stems from the Inquisition era, in which torture, execution, and imprisonment were used to convert the people of Europe under the belief in Jesus Christ as the only Lord and Saviour. During these eras (Spanish Inquisition, Italian Inquisition, etc.), an estimated 100,000 people were imprisoned, tortured, and executed for their beliefs which differed from those that the followers of Christ had. The executed included Jews, Muslims, Pagans, "Heretics", and several other smaller religions that existed throughout the European nations of the time.

Not a modern piece of terrorism, but it's what's gotten Christianity/Catholicism to where it is today. Using fear of torture and death, the two religions removed any "non-believers" and only allowed believers to live. The point, which was quite clear, as even the Church stated this was: "Convert or Die".

Several thousand died on 9/11, yes that's true. It was a modern event, and it was very terrible. Despite the fact the Inquisition was officially abolished just 174 years ago (1834; making it relatively old), the fact still stands that 100,000 people were tortured to death because of their beliefs. Old, yes, but it's like the Holocaust. Just because it started over 6 decades ago doesn't mean we should forget it and move on. Despite what you may say, the Inquisition was a form of terrorism.

[Happy Times]

Terrorism: unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies


True with the Muslims on 9/11... not ALL of them... also true for the "Warriors of God" and their abortion clinics.

Although, the best case we might have of terrorism in the Christian/Catholic religions stems from the Inquisition era, in which torture, execution, and imprisonment were used to convert the people of Europe under the belief in Jesus Christ as the only Lord and Saviour. During these eras (Spanish Inquisition, Italian Inquisition, etc.), an estimated 100,000 people were imprisoned, tortured, and executed for their beliefs which differed from those that the followers of Christ had. The executed included Jews, Muslims, Pagans, "Heretics", and several other smaller religions that existed throughout the European nations of the time.

Not a modern piece of terrorism, but it's what's gotten Christianity/Catholicism to where it is today. Using fear of torture and death, the two religions removed any "non-believers" and only allowed believers to live. The point, which was quite clear, as even the Church stated this was: "Convert or Die".

Several thousand died on 9/11, yes that's true. It was a modern event, and it was very terrible. Despite the fact the Inquisition was officially abolished just 174 years ago (1834; making it relatively old), the fact still stands that 100,000 people were tortured to death because of their beliefs. Old, yes, but it's like the Holocaust. Just because it started over 6 decades ago doesn't mean we should forget it and move on. Despite what you may say, the Inquisition was a form of terrorism.

Despite being 600 years younger Islams body count is millions bigger than Christianitys.
And it continues today all over the world, lets be honest about this.
This pussy footing is getting old.

[Stealth Hunter]

[quote=Stealth Hunter]Despite being 600 years younger Islams body count is millions bigger than Christianitys.
And it continues today all over the world, lets be honest about this.
This pussy footing is getting old.

Younger it is, but I'm afraid that talk is quite cheap when it comes to your statistics on body counts. If you can show me EVIDENCE that they've killed millions, feel free to post it. That's not to be rude, but honestly, given how many Holy Wars have been put on the Muslims, I really doubt that they've killed millions more than the Christians have in the name of god.

[caspofungin]

Despite being 600 years younger Islams body count is millions bigger than Christianitys.
now, that's ignorance.

subman1, i'm a muslim, and i'm pretty bright, so easy on the crass generalizations. and skybird posting an opinion that you agree with doesn't make him the expert on the subject.

[Letum]

Despite being 600 years younger Islams body count is millions bigger than Christianitys.
now, that's ignorance.

subman1, i'm a muslim, and i'm pretty bright, so easy on the crass generalizations. and skybird posting an opinion that you agree with doesn't make him the expert on the subject.

Damm right!

Even world war one and two where sold by both sides as a Christian war.
Battle cries of "god save the king" etc. Onward Christian soldiers. "God's on our side".

The numbers killed in the name of the Christian god are equally immeasurable.

[August]

Even world war one and two where sold by both sides as a Christian war.
Battle cries of "god save the king" etc. Onward Christian soldiers. "God's on our side".

The numbers killed in the name of the Christian god are equally immeasurable.

That's just bull Letum. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddists, Hindus, Shintos, Sikhs, even athiests, they ALL fought for their respective sides in great numbers, so calling WW1 and 2 "Christian wars" discredits the sacrifice of millions.

[Letum]

Even world war one and two where sold by both sides as a Christian war.
Battle cries of "god save the king" etc. Onward Christian soldiers. "God's on our side".

The numbers killed in the name of the Christian god are equally immeasurable.
That's just bull Letum. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddists, Hindus, Shintos, Sikhs, even athiests, they ALL fought for their respective sides in great numbers, so calling WW1 and 2 "Christian wars" discredits the sacrifice of millions.

I am not saying that there where not any people from other faiths in the armies.

I am saying that people where told that god was on their side.
Churches where used as places to promote and glorify war.
Christian rhetoric was used in propaganda and songs.

[August]

I am not saying that there where not any people from other faiths in the armies.

It was more than just the odd non christian in the ranks Letum. There were entire armies made up of non-Christian faiths. Stop trying to minimize their participation.

I am saying that people where told that god was on their side.
Churches where used as places to promote and glorify war.
Christian rhetoric was used in propaganda and songs.
So what. The rhetoric of a dozen other major religions used in a similar manner. You don't think that the Japanese or the Soviets or the Turks or the Chinese or the Indians or the Arabs marched off to war singing Onward Christian Soldiers do you?

[Letum]

I am not saying that there where not any people from other faiths in the armies.

It was more than just the odd non christian in the ranks Letum. There were entire armies made up of non-Christian faiths. Stop trying to minimize their participation.

I am saying that people where told that god was on their side.
Churches where used as places to promote and glorify war.
Christian rhetoric was used in propaganda and songs.
So what. The rhetoric of a dozen other major religions used in a similar manner. You don't think that the Japanese or the Soviets or the Turks or the Chinese or the Indians or the Arabs marched off to war singing Onward Christian Soldiers do you?

:damn: I am not trying to minimise it at all! Even Hitlers SS divisions had Hindus, Muslims and Athiests in the ranks.
Of course non-christian nations did not promote war through christianity!

The vast majority of concientious objectors where Christian.
The rhetoric of all other major religions used in a similar manner at one time or another. Every major religion has had vast amounts of blood shead in it's name.

[August]

:damn: I am not trying to minimise it at all! Even Hitlers SS divisions had Hindus, Muslims and Athiests in the ranks.
Of course non-christian nations did not promote war through christianity!

The vast majority of concientious objectors where Christian.
The rhetoric of all other major religions used in a similar manner at one time or another. Every major religion has had vast amounts of blood shead in it's name.
I see what you're trying to say Letum but you happened to choose as your examples two wars which, because of their extreme mult-national, multi-continental nature have had the least to do with religion out of all of mans wars throughout history, so you really can't call them "Christian wars"!, i'm just sayin... :cool:

Getting back to the discussion at hand though. One aspect of the present conflict is that our enemy is trying to make it a religious war exclusively and by doing so gain the support (and exert control over) the entire population of Muslims. Our side is trying to keep the war non-sectarian in nature but that hampers our efforts considerably since we're outsiders and any move we make can be cast as anti-religious in nature.

I have always said that the problem of Islamic terrorism ultimately has to be solved by Muslims themselves. As long as they provide shelter and passive support to the bin Ladens of the world no western army however powerful is going to be able to weed them out completely.

[Letum]

I wouldn't say it is exclusively religious on the Arab side.
There is a hell of a lot of political, nationalistic, cultural, economic and racial stuff going
on as well.

Religion is just the vehicle it all rides upon, in the same way that the crusades had far
more to do with internal power struggles and socio-politics in Europe than religion.

[August]

I wouldn't say it is exclusively religious on the Arab side.
There is a hell of a lot of political, nationalistic, cultural, economic and racial stuff going
on as well.

Agreed. What i meant by exclusively is using the religion as the primary vehicle by which to obtain and maintain mainstream Muslim acceptance or at least toleration. After all without Islam to justify his actions bin Laden becomes just another garden variety psychopath easily ignored by his fellow Arabs. That's not as easily done once he dons the mantle of protector of the faith.

[Skybird]

After all the **** in recent times that Muslims have been through, they finally get their chance to fire back. They're under attack with stereotypes and hate, although they can be the same way (but honestly, the Muslim community is under serious attack at this point). If you actually lived the life of a Muslim, then I'm fairly sure you'd understand why they fight for their beliefs (not just because the Quaran says they should; the Muslims in general suffer from extensive problems in social affairs, and they're becoming the new version of the black man during the 1950's and 1960's, discriminated against for their beliefs).

That is hard to believe, since since the early 60s catholic church implemented an official policy of massively bending towards islam and trying to engage it in dialogue, and not even demanding reciprocity in "negotiation" results: instead the West for 40 years is making concessions and concessions for muslims living in the West, that never were answered on equal term from Muslim nations. I am aware that colonialism did some harm to Muslim communities in their native lands, and created instable and artificial constructions like for example Iraq. Nevertheless it is also an issue of capacity and potentials a culture has to offer, and the muslim world since the medieval fell behind, since it's ideological basis did massively hinder it to keep up with the accelerating developement of europe, and thus it wasted the advantages it one held over europe, regarding medicine, optics, and quite some more things. But this cultural impotency is a result from Islam putting it all into stasis, it is not he bad europeans that all of a sudden found a magic key to lock araba culture. Before Muhammad, Arabia was fully multicultural, and had best starting coinditioons be come today'S trading and cultural hotspot and centre, but instead... Blame the ideological basis that made this. Don't mess it up and claim others to be responsible for it. As I see it, Islam today demands to be given the fruits from other culture's work and accievements for free, while refusaing to work for it, or to chnage itself, but de,manding to impose it's own impotency onto others that should give it what makes them superior in science and economy and social systems etc.

I don'T buy your crocodile'S tears ypu shed about yourself. To the greater part, I see you people being responsible all by yourself for the fatalistic stagnation your societies were locked up in - by Islam. Nevertheless I really must say that I see a many muslim people running around here in Germany with a big mouth as if the world could not be without them, and as if their is no life than living in their home countries.

If Islam is so fantastic a culture, why did it strip you off your chnaces, why did so amny of you moving to the West, why are your native societies so archaic and regarding many potentials: so inferior, then?

Sorry if I sound a bit personal, but I am getting angry if Islamic people tell me that we are responsible for all what is bad in their home nations, but rejecting any responsibility their own culture has in making these nations what they are: societies run by the thinking and social motives ordered by islam. If you want to make these laqnds a better place to live - start to critically analyse the ideology these places are suffering from, since many centuries.

BTW, muslims hardly "fire back" in recent times. They have been on aggressive offensive for the better part of history and aucnhed the longest, most far-reaching military conquest that is known in human history. And when three major attacks onto europe nevertheless saw their demand to subjugate europe as well failing and turned them being frustrated over not getting what they wanted - I couldn't care less. europeans managed to get behind the inquisition, and the dark age, and the neutralised arabia'S cultural superiority, and took the lead, and set the pace, and became the global centre of gravity until recently. We banned the power of the religious dogma and the church. If you want to earn the fruits of these efforts, take the effort to sow yourself, and confront your relgion like europe confronted it's own. just don'T demand to be given the fruits for free without changing yourself at all, and not wporking for it, and even demanding us to accept you in our homes when your lands do not give us and other foreigners not the same rights and freedoms you enjoy here in return. islam is not your right to stay like you are, nor is it the remedy to your problems - Islam is the cause of your troubles you are in.

[Letum]

I wouldn't say it is exclusively religious on the Arab side.
There is a hell of a lot of political, nationalistic, cultural, economic and racial stuff going
on as well.
Agreed. What i meant by exclusively is using the religion as the primary vehicle by which to obtain and maintain mainstream Muslim acceptance or at least toleration. After all without Islam to justify his actions bin Laden becomes just another garden variety psychopath easily ignored by his fellow Arabs. That's not as easily done once he dons the mantle of protector of the faith.

Quite true. If the middle east was populated by Buddhists, then we would be seeing
buddhist terrorists right now. (As alien as that might sound!).
The religious war is a product, rather than a cause.

[joea]

Go attack the jihadists if you are worried about your public image, if you go in Subman yard he will probably shoot you.
Your ignorance is appalling. :down:
Explain?

The personal attack on Stealth Hunter, and by implication other Muslim members.

[Takeda Shingen]

Joe is correct. This is getting far too personal. Pull it back, guys.

The Management

[Happy Times]

Go attack the jihadists if you are worried about your public image, if you go in Subman yard he will probably shoot you.
Your ignorance is appalling. :down:
Explain?

The personal attack on Stealth Hunter, and by implication other Muslim members.

Hes the one that was going on Submans yard with RPGs.:p It referred also to Stealth Hunters previous lies about shooting an home intruder dead.:roll: Im still not sure what and who he is. He could be a confused second generation Iranian American teenager and not middle aged ex Iranian military as he claims, to me his credibility is zero for his admitted lying..

[bradclark1]

After all the **** in recent times that Muslims have been through, they finally get their chance to fire back. They're under attack with stereotypes and hate, although they can be the same way (but honestly, the Muslim community is under serious attack at this point). If you actually lived the life of a Muslim, then I'm fairly sure you'd understand why they fight for their beliefs (not just because the Quaran says they should; the Muslims in general suffer from extensive problems in social affairs, and they're becoming the new version of the black man during the 1950's and 1960's, discriminated against for their beliefs).
It might have something to do with the fact that you never hear any objection from the muslim community about terrorist violence.
It might have something to do with the fact that what muslims do in western countries would get a westerner killed in a heartbeat in an muslim country.
It might have something to do with the fact that muslims in western countries think that that country should change it's way of life and laws to suit them.
It might have something to do with muslims making demands and take but never give.
It might have something to do with the belief that if muslims want to live like in their country they should move their butts back to their country.
It might have something to do with muslims come to a western country but demand that that host country fall back to a muslim way of life and arcane laws.
It might have something to do with muslims come to my country and preach hate against me in my own back yard!
Who is under assault here?

[GlobalExplorer]

This is like if the germans said: we don't want you to show any more holocaust movies, because it hurts our feelings. If you show it, we will kill you! We will put your family in a gas chamber if you show this movie!!

I mean obviously this guy is a right-extreme and islam hater, but it is his right to make his movie, and to kill himself. If they kill him for that, they will prove that he was not so wrong. And thats probably what he wants. He seems to have a death wish, and he wants to become a martyr.

I would prefer if this thing would have never happened. But I want this movie to be shown and then forgotten.

Let's say I could watch it together with a muslim and afterwards we discuss it and come to the conclusion that it's anti-muslim propaganda, but also that the islamist threat is a fact, and we should do something about it together.

The same way I can go to an Auschwitz movie together with a yew and talk it over, and talk about lessons of the past.

[caspofungin]

Who is under assault here?
how many muslim standing armies are occupying western countries?

It might have something to do with the fact that you never hear any objection from the muslim community about terrorist violence.
there are objections, there are demonstrations, there are clerics and governments saying 9/11 was wrong. And the Iraqi Army that's trying to help the americans impose some kind of peace -- aren't they muslims? what about the pakistani, jordanian, or saudi intelligence services, passing info to help prevent terrorist attacks -- they're muslims too, right?

It might have something to do with the fact that what muslims do in western countries would get a westerner killed in a heartbeat in an muslim country.
yes, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time gets innocent muslims killed in palestine, iraq, afghanistan, by western bombs or bullets. And it's not like there's mass demonstrations in the streets of Washington every time a wedding party gets atomized by a bomb.

It goes both ways.

[SUBMAN1]

how many muslim standing armies are occupying western countries? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57507,00.html

It goes both ways.The most inaccurate statement of the Century. We wouldn't be anywhere if this didn't happen:

http://xrlq.com/Images/9-11%20%281%29.bmp

There would be no standing armies. There would be no violence. The world would have continued on as normal. The armies are their in defense, not to crush Islam.

-S

[caspofungin]

oh, that's right, a suspected "army" of 5000 sleeper agents is on the same scale as the IDF, coalition forces in Iraq or Afghanistan.

you're right, though, the most inaccurate statement of the century is
We wouldn't be anywhere if this didn't happen
The assumption that before 9/11 all was well in the world, and that's the sole reason the world is the way it is today, is pretty funny.

So, the US army is in Iraq to defend against another 9/11? You believe that even after the Pentagon itself reported there ws no significant alqaeda presence in iraq before the invasion?

There would be no violence? Are you serious?

The world would have continued on as normal -- right, living happily and at peace in the us leaving everyone else to deal with the consequences of your foreign policies.

the world is a lot more complicated than you make out, subman. when i say "it goes both ways" i agree that islam has to "clean it's own house." But to lay all the blame on the muslims is, frankly, pretty ignorant of history.

[Skybird]

I mean obviously this guy is a right-extreme and islam hater, but it is his right to make his movie, and to kill himself. If they kill him for that, they will prove that he was not so wrong. And thats probably what he wants. He seems to have a death wish, and he wants to become a martyr.


On the man:


The 45-year-old Wilders' pushy behavior is exasperating to Dutch security officials and politicians alike. In the parliament, where he holds a seat with other members of his opposition group, the Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV or Party for Freedom), he comes across as self-confident and defiant, dogmatic and unaffected. For months, various cabinet ministers, intelligence officials and police officers have urged him to abstain from his plan to release his film "Fitna" (Arabic for "strife") (more...) (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,542255,00.html), in which he hopes to settle scores (more...) (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,529994,00.html) with what he calls the "fascist Koran."
But the more he comes under public pressure, the calmer the man seems to become, as he lounges in his purple chair in the Dutch parliament, twisting his stout, angular face into a mischievous grimace. He behaves with the infallibility of a missionary convinced that he has been chosen to disseminate his dark visions. "Fitna is the last warning to the West. We can choose to pass freedom on to our children or allow our freedom to sink into a multicultural swamp," he says forebodingly.

Wilders is depriving himself of a personal life with his obsessive hatred of Islam. His bodyguards move him to a different location every night. He sees his wife once every week or two. In his windowless office in the Dutch parliament building in The Hague, the Binnenhof, he smiles derisively as he shows films depicting his image, underscored with the rattle of machine guns and the snarling voice of a hate-mongering imam calling for his death.

He derives obvious enjoyment from forcing his political foes into a dilemma. On the one hand, the elite in the Netherlands despise him for his demagogic manner, with which he indiscriminately associates all Muslims with terrorism. But banning his film? That would violate the unassailable value of freedom of expression. This conflict has led the Green Party's leader in the Dutch parliament to grudgingly support the notion that the government should pay the cost of security for the public performance of his film.

He is only too pleased to watch intellectuals -- the people he routinely castigates as do-gooders and cultural relativists -- squirm. Nevertheless, his poll ratings are climbing. If the country were to hold elections next Sunday, his PVV, which currently holds nine seats in the Second Chamber, or lower house of parliament, would likely double its standing. His tirades against Moroccan adolescents jostling through pedestrian zones strike a chord with ordinary Dutch voters.

But political scientists also pay tribute to him occasionally, as they did a year ago when he pertly asked two newly sworn-in state ministers which state they actually served. Was it the Dutch state, he wanted to know, or the Turkish or Moroccan state, of which they were also citizens?
"Islam Will Not Be Reformed for 1,000 Years"

Everyone in the Netherlands has an opinion about Wilders, and yet little is known about him as a person. A recently published biography attempts to provide an initial impression of the origins of Wilders' rage against Islam. He was born in the city of Venlo, on the German border. He was a latecomer, and his mother spoiled him to no end. His father, the head of research at Océ, a manufacturer of copying machines, had hidden from the Nazis in World War II. Forty years later, he still refused to cross the bridges over the Meuse River to neighboring Germany. This strict devotion to principle seems to have made an impression on the young Geert. Referring to his military service, he says: "I too was happy not to have to share a tent with the Germans during joint maneuvers."His goal after finishing school was to see the world. But he lacked the money to get to Australia, his preferred destination, so he went to Israel instead. Wilders, who speculates that some of his ancestors were Jewish, felt completely at home upon his arrival in Israel. "It felt like I had been there before," he says. He supported himself by working long hours in a bread factory, and he traveled extensively in the surrounding Arab countries. The Israelis, he felt, were not as pigheaded as the Arabs. "But when the Egyptians talked about Israel, you could see the hatred in their eyes."


He visited Muslim countries again and again. Even in the late 1990s, he flew to Iran, Syria and Jordan. To this day, he waxes poetic over these "magnificent countries," but then he adds: "It's a real shame that these places are so chaotic." Wilders is very familiar with the Arab world, the same world where he is now causing such a commotion. It is short-sighted to describe him as ignorant.

By the same token, he is not a dull racist and xenophobe, like his right-wing populist counterparts in France, Belgium and Germany. He wants to ban the Koran, the burka and the construction of new mosques. But he also wants to prevent "gays from being beaten up on our streets by Muslim youth." He is married to a Hungarian woman, a former diplomat who works for a multinational US corporation today.
The roots of his frustration with the political and social caste are much easier to uncover. Wilders became acquainted with the soft lap of the welfare state, complete with its proliferating system of subsidies and its corruption, when he worked for the Dutch social insurance agency. In 1990 he joined the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), which purported to fight precisely that tangled social network. Frits Bolkestein, the party's charismatic leader, became his mentor and discovered Wilders' talent for writing speeches.
Wilders, the pupil, also shared his new teacher's sharp criticism of Muslim immigrants.
When Wilders entered the city council of Utrecht in 1996, where he represented the VVD, he lived in the city's Kanaleilanden neighborhood. As a resident, he had a firsthand view of the gradual demise of what had been a middle-class residential neighborhood. While the Muslim immigrants became radicalized in their faith, Wilders became equally radicalized in his conviction that Islam is backward and "will not be reformed in 1,000 years." People who know him remember that he used to complain about not feeling safe to walk in the streets of Kanaleilanden. Some conjecture that it was at that time that his rage against Islam was truly inflamed.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,543627,00.html

Of course the author of that eassay does not hide his opinion that since Wilders was pointing fingers mercilessly at the obvious contradiction on Islam between the claimed position of peacefulness - that time and again gives shelter to the obvious motivation from Islam for violence and aggression - it all is "hate-speech."

I withhold any final opinion of mine ofn the person, for I do not know eniough aboiut him, and his other political views. Regarding the issues being dicussed here, I refuse to attack him on what he did. I would have done it slightly different, but okay. He seem to think that subtlety will not reach anything, and has totally failed us for the past 40 years. And that is an opinion i share by 100%.

I said in the other thread that I had launched myself that I do not consider the conetent of the movie to be the interesting thing anyway, but the bahvior he was able to cause and trigger from the West. And that the West fails him so completely and so bitterly defend it's worst enemy instead, is a very strong and revealing message of failure and deception - nd it does not light my optimism.

Wishful thinking never creates favourable realities - it destroys them instead.

[GlobalExplorer]

An interesting detail is that my father, who is usually very right extreme and also extremely anti-islamic in his views, feels provoked by the movie (he said that if Wilders will be killed than he deserved it *cough*), while I, who is usually the liberal, would fight for it to be shown, no matter how it provokes muslims.

It was the same with the mohammed carricatures.

I don't know if this contributes anything to the discussion, but I find it a surprising facts. Sometimes I dont understand my dad, he wants things as: putting immigrants to prison camps, euthanasia of handicapped babies, commending people who kill in self defense, eye for an eye sentences, branding HIV positives with an "AIDS" tatoos .. you get the picture. He is also one of those who would love to see all turks thrown out of Germany. Well fortunately no one listens to him ;)

[GlobalExplorer]

Now if there was just some way to watch that f_cking movie, at the moment all links are dead. I am sure the flick is not even worth it, but now everyone wants to see.

[August]

An interesting detail is that my father, who is usually very right extreme and also extremely anti-islamic in his views, feels provoked by the movie (he said that if Wilders will be killed than he deserved it *cough*), while I, who is usually the liberal, would fight for it to be shown, no matter how it provokes muslims.

It was the same with the mohammed carricatures.

I don't know if this contributes anything to the discussion, but I find it a surprising facts. Sometimes I dont understand my dad, he wants things as: putting immigrants to prison camps, euthanasia of handicapped babies, commending people who kill in self defense, eye for an eye sentences, branding HIV positives with an "AIDS" tatoos .. you get the picture. He is also one of those who would love to see all turks thrown out of Germany. Well fortunately no one listens to him ;)

wow, you could be describing one of my German uncles. Your family name isn't Haas or Karl by any chance is it? ;)

[GlobalExplorer]

No. The problem with my dad is he just talks too much when he sits in front of the TV. Outside of politics he is a really nice guy.

[August]

No. The problem with my dad is he just talks too much when he sits in front of the TV. Outside of politics he is a really nice guy.

Again, just like my uncles. :D

[GlobalExplorer]

*Laughs*. I just hope I am not going to be like that when I am older.

So you're half german?

[August]

*Laughs*. I just hope I am not going to be like that when I am older.

So you're half german?
Yep. My Mom grew up in a little farming town southeast of Frankfurt.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Altenbuch,+Germany&sa=X&oi=map&ct=image

[Wolfehunter]

This stuff just never ends.:roll: Like I said before, I don't mind people respecting there own believes as long as they don't force it down on me. I don't force my ideals on them. They want to marry old men to kids, that there ideals not mine. We consider that wrong but thats our ideals not theres. We have no right to tell them how to live as they have no right to tell us how to live. So if they come here they have to respect our lifestyles and if we go there we have to respect theres. IF we don't like it stay home.

Final:up:

Anyhow our western government are wimps. They change the laws accordingly to those who have the bigger http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff110/WolfeXhunter/avatar_6439.gif bribes.

Update,
If you want to still watch that film you have to google search it or through BT site.

[GlobalExplorer]

Thanks for the tip WH. Torrent works great.

There is also talk of another movie: "Islam: What the West Needs to Know"

has anyone seen that too?

Of course I would also like to see the propaganda movies which explain the view islamic of the west. Can anyone recommend something? What was the name again of that turkish movie they wanted to prohibit some time ago? I think it was "Valley of the Wolves".

[GlobalExplorer]

What? The film is just 15 minutes long :hmm: ?