The future of europe?/Islam threads (Merged)

[Fish]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2220267_1,00.html

[STEED]

Immigration is out of control in the U.K the immigration service have no idea of the numbers unlike are stupid government, Tony Blair who claims it's under control. The U.K will continual to go down the tubes unless less we get a strong leader who is not afraid to stand up, as for the article it's all happening now and will only get worst. :(

[Skybird]

Latest "Micro Census" (sort of a miniature census) in Germany from some days ago showed that 20% of people living in Germany are of not-German origin now, some having but most having not German passports. That is far more than was expected. Every German today - is not really a German. The growth rate of Muslim sub-cultures also showed to be much higher than official policy expected to see. Especially this news is tried to be hidden now. The scandal accoridng to the left is not that immigration level and Islamic expansion is so ghigh and so fast, but that it is not supported by giving them passports much earlier. Serious, that is the dispute currently.


Currently, around every fifth person in France is not only not originally French, but Muslim. Add to these the non-Muslim foreigners. every third baby being born is said to be a Muslim baby currently. It was calculated some days ago that in 40 years at the latest the vast Majority of population in France will not be European French anymore, but will be Muslim immigrants. Germany is not far behind.

It was said some days ago that Norway currently comes that quickly under Pakistani influence that currently more planes fly from Norway to Pakistan, than from Norway to North America.

It was reported in news reports of the last 5-7 days that Italy and Spain additionally to the already coming immigrants have to expect more immigration from Africa, not longer counting by the tens and hundreds of thousands, but by the many milliosn over the next years. The vast majority of these will be Muslim.

Yesterday the new head of the major British Muslim association was quoted in an interview where he used superficially logical argument how Muslim arranged marriages could help the young and confused ones to have better marriages and less divorces, and how Muslim ethics would help to strengthen Britsh ethics and moral values. He also said in open and very clear words without hiding that he wants the British to adopt to Muslim habits and rules, that certain aspects of public life should be tailored to Muslim likes and dislikes and that a stronger Islam in this way would help Britain. I must admit, that guy is clever. He made it sound logical, and sweet as honey. An extremely dangerous man. the political left will love him.

The EU ministres today again have shown rubber spines towards Turkey and have brought down Cypriotic resistance to Turkey’s refusal to recognize Cyprus. The ultimate precondition that Turkey until this date today has to normalize it’s relations to Cyprus has been given up without need and without compensation, becasue Turkey did not compoly. That is the kind of negotiations that I feared and said so one year ago. A clear, total, and complete failure for the West. Why do they keep on the negotiation process anyway? Obviously only to blind the public. The outcome already is decided.

Last week the major economical association of turkey have attacked Eogan and has accused him of hindering secular reforms in Turkey, but spending almost all his time now with pushing a hidden fundamentalistic islamic agenda that now is not so hidden anymore. One must be blind or an idiot not to see that Erdogan is not only a “moderate” fundamentalist, but a pro-Islamic hardliner. Currently the Turkish military is the only thing that is standing stubbornly between the fundamentalists, and the weakening and slwoly retreating secular system in Turkey. When the military stepped in two times in last weeks to ban pro-fundamentalist tendencies, it was sharply attacked by Erdogan, and more importantly - it immediately got criticised by the idiots-in-chief of Western governments as well. They want it to retreat and allow “democracy” – which essentially means open ways and no resistance to fundamental Islam in Turkey, and generally in Europe as well. Democracy and Islam seem to be very much ojne and the same thing for a major part of European politicians today. Die werden sich noch wundern.

Birthrates amongst Muslim colonists that have already taken ground in Europe are pushing Islamic population sizes fastly, while birth rates of native and non-Muslim europeans are declining.

The situation compares to that of Byzantium. While West Rome was busy with Middle and Northern Europe, Byzantium, after the split, suffered from two major crisis that finally sealed it'S fall. First, an ever growing paralysis of adminstration and inner policy, coming from an exploding bureaucracy that did not fight but increase the grwoing heap of laws and needed reforms that were not executed. that way, it strangled itself and lost fiancial freedom to act efficiently, and tune it'S administrative structure ( a failure that compares to that of the Osmans later, who showed the same inability). The second was the many decades of wars with the Sassanides from Persia that pushed into the ex-roman sphere of influence, a war that Byzantium was less and lesser able to fight. That way weakend in two ways, the attack for conquest by Islam was guaranteed to succeed.

The Eu is very much like Byzantium. We too have a monumental bureaucracy that hinders the state more and more, and fiancial debts and dependencies make politicians sign more and more stupid compromises that in then long run omnly make it worse. We too loose freedom to act efficiently and do what needs to be done and stop those that try to conquer our homes and places, with masses of immigrants as the primary weapon to overload our national integrity and make our social and cultural systems brake down.

Some pirates in the Mediterranean are my smallest concern, seen that way. They only add to the overall mess. I'm sure that some uncorrectable good-doers in our middle will even hinder us to fight with weapons against such pirates once they have become the rule.

You know what? Slowly but surely I come to the conclusion that this Europe is really not worth to be defended anymore. It stinks like a rotten cadaver, and attracts all kinds of carrion eaters for that reason. It strangles itself, and with it's last breath it calls: "Hooray, we are fantastic!" Maybe it deserves nothing better, then. A victim of aggression that does not defend itself, is said to be prey.

Innumerable centuries that led to cultural, legal and philosophical acchievements that gave reason for hope and optimism - but all in vain. Our ancestors must turn in their graves.

[Torplexed]

Terry Jones, the former Monty Python star, meanwhile, has spoken up for the barbarians’ technological and social achievements in a television series and has written:

"We actually owe far more to the so-called ‘barbarians’ than we do to the men in togas."


This from a member of the comedy troupe who gave us 'Spam". :p

[Yahoshua]

good post skybird....

[The Avon Lady]

Skybird, your post's text is showing up in blue. For those of us using the default forum skin, it's difficult to read. Could you please remove any font or color related tags?

On the subject: Waiting for Churchill or Waiting for Godot? (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011787.php)

[Yahoshua]

That was an excellent article Avon Lady......

Europe is coming to her senses, and she will wake to realize her terrible nightmare.

Perhaps a Churchill will come along, but in todays' world, after the smoke has cleared, will that Churhill be the one we want to keep in power or will he become the sole domineering power over all of Europe? If that is even a possibility to decide his position at that point.


It is time to end the war.

[STEED]

The clock is ticking for Europe, I suspect the solution to the answer will cause even more problems.

[joea]

Yes in searching for a Churchill to solve this problem you might get a Hitler or as what actually happened a Stalin. :-?

[The Avon Lady]

Yes in searching for a Churchill to solve this problem you might get a Hitler or as what actually happened a Stalin. :-?
Well, you get what you're looking for.

My motto: Shop carefully!:yep:

[Skybird]

Faint heart never won fair lady. Gain back the initiave, at all costs. Time is running out. There will be no revanche match once we lost. We have nothing to loose anymore.

[Iku-turso]

Excellent post,Skybird. I have allways been heavily anti-EU.
Thats the way,close borders and mind your own business and clean the mess were we are allready.
And use landmines...

[Yahoshua]

I feel all warm inside reading these posts........the voices in my head tell me to clean my rifle and buy more ammo.

[Polak]

I have 3 things I want to say.


Skybird we should go out and take a beer sometime.:yep:
I am really happy that the old eastern block(Poland) isnt suffering from the tragic problems of western europe, but during the last couple of years I have started to notice more imigrants. Mostly Asians but also a lot of muslims from the middle east. I am alsoheavily anti-EU, I believe that the gole of the EU is to destroy the once so beautiful Europe.
I am currently living in Sweden so I know what you are talking about, the "muslim problem" is also terrible here. The name mohamed/muhamed is among the top 10 names for new born babies here in Sweden. I dont know what has happened with western europe, why didn't people react to this islamisation earlier? People are still not doing anything here in Sweden. :down: I, myself will vote fo a popular nationalist party here in Sweden during the next election. I believe that I owe this to Sweden, and to Europe.

[Skybird]

I have 3 things I want to say.

Skybird we should go out and take a beer sometime.:yep:
I am really happy that the old eastern block(Poland) isnt suffering from the tragic problems of western europe, but during the last couple of years I have started to notice more imigrants. Mostly Asians but also a lot of muslims from the middle east. I am alsoheavily anti-EU, I believe that the gole of the EU is to destroy the once so beautiful Europe.
I am currently living in Sweden so I know what you are talking about, the "muslim problem" is also terrible here. The name mohamed/muhamed is among the top 10 names for new born babies here in Sweden. I dont know what has happened with western europe, why didn't people react to this islamisation earlier? People are still not doing anything here in Sweden. :down: I, myself will vote fo a popular nationalist party here in Sweden during the next election. I believe that I owe this to Sweden, and to Europe.

You may want to check your option three. In Germany, Nazis and right wing extremists openly hail Ahmadinejad and follow close cooperation with Islamist organization, because of the denial of the holocaust and both Nazism and Islam aim ant the destruction of Western constitutional fundaments and national structures. That I am openly hostile towards Islam does not automatically mean that I have sympathies for right wing extremists. I still consider myself a man of the "centre". It's just that Nazism/fascism and Islam are so much off-centre and share so intense totalitarian tendencies that I cannot avoid needing to fight against them BOTH.

[Tchocky]

I've found that most immigration is based on desire to return, e.g. Ireland in the 60/70/80's.

Shutting off borders wont help anyone

[Fish]

It was reported in news reports of the last 5-7 days that Italy and Spain additionally to the already coming immigrants have to expect more immigration from Africa, not longer counting by the tens and hundreds of thousands, but by the many milliosn over the next years.

Most of them are male, bringing there hormones with them. :shifty:

[Wim Libaers]

You may want to check your option three. In Germany, Nazis and right wing extremists openly hail Ahmadinejad and follow close cooperation with Islamist organization, because of the denial of the holocaust and both Nazism and Islam aim ant the destruction of Western constitutional fundaments and national structures. That I am openly hostile towards Islam does not automatically mean that I have sympathies for right wing extremists. I still consider myself a man of the "centre". It's just that Nazism/fascism and Islam are so much off-centre and share so intense totalitarian tendencies that I cannot avoid needing to fight against them BOTH.

Not every right-wing nationalist party is also a Nazi party. And in some countries, those parties are unfortunately the only ones who are not pro-multicult.

[TteFAboB]

I've found that most immigration is based on desire to return, e.g. Ireland in the 60/70/80's.

Shutting off borders wont help anyone

Borders MUST be shut to those who seek to destroy the nation they are immigrating to.

You have or apply for citizenship? Good for you, return. You are a Muslim from 10 generations of North African people? Sorry, stay there and be happy.

Now, of course, immigration can be reduced by physically closing the borders, however, there will always be Muslim immigration as long as the Muslim homeworld is one of the worst places to live on Earth. Some places are better than the others, but even decadent Europe is more attractive to them.

So, you can only minimize immigration by denying entrance, vista and citizenship, but if you don't do something for their home land many will continue to leave seeking a "better" life.

Now you know why Muslim Fundamentalists are the only viable, organized opposition in all Muslim nations, they know prosperity will sabotage their plans, and so they worked for decades to become the strongest political force next to the dominant class. In other words, you're doomed if you don't do anything, and you're doomed if you allow elections to take place with this organized Islamist group ready to take power and destroy the electoral process that allowed them to get there.

[XabbaRus]

I'm less in favour of the EU now than a long time back but I am also frightened by what I am reading here. You see I fear the rise of nazi/fascist groups that will start off at muslims and then anyone who is not native.

I am not denying that there are issues with immigrants not intergrating and that the EU has gone PC bollocks mad. I have no problem with stricter immigration controls across the board, whether you are from Pakistan and have no money or a rich Russian oligarch.

I think that unless you are marrying a Brit visas should be limited, and also even if you are marrying that means only you not your whole family can then tag along.

Skybird if you have alink to that article I wouldn't mind reading that interview.

I just reckon that inthe UK at least there will be a big bollocks race war before the end of the next decade.

[STEED]

I just reckon that inthe UK at least there will be a big bollocks race war before the end of the next decade.

What:huh:

Race war:o

Well I would not go that far but I would not rule out riots breaking out. With the present events of the police raid ending in a sham and the two brothers now giving their side of the story. It's a case of watch this space, for the benefit to everyone else here's that story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5075352.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5075352.stm)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5075952.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5075952.stm)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/default.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/default.stm)

There are three major problems in the U.K.

Political Correctness
Rules & Regulations coming out of the E.U. Parliament
ImmigrationThese are the big three major problems and from them comes even more problems. Are three major political parties are so weak they bow down to the E.U. Parliament with out a fight. And the worst an offender of them all is Tony Blair who is so busy sucking up to them, arranging his next job with them it makes me sick. And on the whole are political parties are running scared of the P.C. lobby which seems to control our politics. There is no doubt the U.K. is on the skids and going down the plug hole we need a very big shake up before it’s too late.

[Skybird]

Skybird if you have alink to that article I wouldn't mind reading that interview.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=KJAAS2WLPEKCFQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2006/06/10/nterr110.xml

[STEED]

Skybird if you have alink to that article I wouldn't mind reading that interview.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=KJAAS2WLPEKCFQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2006/06/10/nterr110.xml


Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari suggests this country should adopt more Islamic ways.

His aim, he says, will be to encourage Britain to adopt more Muslim ways as well as to encourage Muslims to be good British citizens. He thinks that non-Muslim Britons would benefit from having arranged marriages and espousing stronger family values; they would also do well to stop drinking and gambling and to follow many of the teachings of Islam.

Who dose he think he is saying that? I will never adopt muslim ways I got better things to do in my life than going around bending over backward's to plonker's like him. :mad:

[Skybird]

Read along, he is slick as an eel. I almost believed some of hist statements. Almost :cool: The mixture of reasonable thoughts most people could agree on, and the price for them: the declaration of wanting to push for more and more Islamic rules is what makes him so dangerous. The first wil be haioled, the second ignored. Becasue, as we all know, politicians most liked sentence is "I am optimistic."

[STEED]

Skybird, indeed he is walking on a tight rope, but the every day Muslim’s don’t give a toss about the Muslim council of England and most of them never heard of it.

[Skybird]

So what? We have in Germany the Zentralrat der Muslime in Deutschland, which is a hidden incarnation of the ultra-fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood. It also represents only a minorty of Muslims, though saying differently. Nevertheless it is Islam's representation which politicians do adress. The socalled moderates that do not care for them, nevertheless allow them to define the grounds and the future of Islam in Europe, and they also allow their voices not been heared. I wonder why. Fellow travellers may be seen as harmless, nevertheless by not hindering those minorities speaking in their names - they actively enable and support it through. They share the same responsebility as those that officially are in office. Just remember the masses of Germans in the thirties that were amused and bewildered by Hitler, and never thought he would make it to the top, thus they laughed and ignored him in desinterest. The majority of Germans were not Nazis, or followers of Hitler. Nevertheelss by their inactivity they made Hitler possible. I do not see fellow travellers as innocents. If this Muslim fellow is not representing the m ajority of Muslims, than they should get rid of him, else I take it that they do not care and are willing to let him have his ways. Which makes them passive suppoorters in my eyes. Fly with the crows, get shot with the crows. If a new Hitler would rise in Germany, and I would say in this forum I do not care, I would get crucified for sure.

[Yahoshua]

So.....now that we all recogniz the problem here:


My proposal is we all buy large quantities of 7.92x54 mm ammo and rifles to use them with.....(A G3 each would be nice but they're expensive, so something similar to a FAL might work).

Then we can all join the heyday.......or eat popcorn and watch the fun on the sidelines.

[joea]

So.....now that we all recogniz the problem here:


My proposal is we all buy large quantities of 7.92x54 mm ammo and rifles to use them with.....(A G3 each would be nice but they're expensive, so something similar to a FAL might work).

Then we can all join the heyday.......or eat popcorn and watch the fun on the sidelines.

Wow this site is slipping into facism and calling for genocide. :damn:

[Yahoshua]

You're jumping the cliff early here bud.....if there's a civil war brewing, I'd vry much like to be prepared for it. I'm not calling for a Crusade v.s. Jihad.

Just keep some electric generators and PBAs' handy (along with a few thousand rounds of ammo).

[CCIP]

Wow this site is slipping into facism and calling for genocide. :damn:

It's a cyclic thing as of the last few months :-?

***

Three problems I've consistently observed in this line of discussion for the past while.

1) It's an unwritten rule of internet debates that anyone who brings up comparisons to Hitler should automatically lose the debate. I tend to agree.

2) The dehumanizing aspect of this worries me, and I mean this not just for one side of this. There has been wonderful proof of the muslim threat, yes, and then come the extreme outbursts of 'let's get ourselves some 7.62mm ammo stocked up', and everyone is good and happy.
How are you better than your bad evil muslim friends this way? Assuming they're still back in the middle ages, you folks are rapidly calling all of us to go back there as well. Where's your justification for this?

3) Where is the solution? "The final solution"? Anything I've heard solution-wise to this is either a bad joke or a thinly-veiled allusion to genocide. I have seen plenty of reasonable and well-argued debate for the threat as such and the need for most people to realize it - only to be abruptly cut off by what I mentioned in point #2.
If you believe yourself to be a representative of a better civilization, then please come up with a better solution worthy of an enlightened European/Western culture. Otherwise, I suggest dropping the pretensions and declaring this an "East vs. West showdown, no holds barred, the winner gets to trample on the heads of the vanquished". End of story.

[The Avon Lady]

If you believe yourself to be a representative of a better civilization, then please come up with a better solution worthy of an enlightened European/Western culture. Otherwise, I suggest dropping the pretensions and declaring this an "East vs. West showdown, no holds barred, the winner gets to trample on the heads of the vanquished". End of story.
The only resolution is to ban Islam in any form. Nothing else will help.

Islam requires one of 2 things under such circumstances:

1. Leave infidel lands and go to countries where Islam can be practiced.

2. Declare Jihad against infidel countries not allowing the free practice of Islam.

Should the "civilized" world chose not to ban Islam, here's a sampling from the horse's mouth of things to come, if you haven't caught their drift yet:
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
This statement was made way back in 1998, in a speech to a Muslim audience in California. The speech was given by Omar M. Ahmad, then chairman of the board of the Council on American-Islamic Relations -CAIR.

Anyone who knows anything about CAIR knows that they are the largest, well oiled, Muslim lobbying group in the US. They put on an outward personna of "moderation", yet their organization heads have been found guilty and convicted of terrorist ties and virtually everything they do and say is to promote Muslim expansion and eventual domination of Islam in N. America (hello Canada).

For a quick rundown on what CAIR is about and up to, I suggest visiting their nemesis' site, Anti-CAIR (http://www.anti-cair-net.org/). Get to know your neighbor.

So world, you can chose to go out there and save yourselves with a bang or disappear into silence and dhimmitude with a whimper.

Was I blunt enough?:hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

virtually everything they do and say is to promote Muslim expansion and eventual domination of Islam in N. America (hello Canada).
That was quick!

From Canada's National Post: Islam: A religion of peace? (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=c53fc4cd-528a-42a9-b092-2b7b0ccce158&p=1)

[scandium]

The only resolution is to ban Islam in any form. Nothing else will help.

I've seen the Old Testament, and it is no better than the Koran. So why don't you practice what you preach and go first.

Right, I didn't think so.

[The Avon Lady]

The only resolution is to ban Islam in any form. Nothing else will help.
I've seen the Old Testament, and it is no better than the Koran. So why don't you practice what you preach and go first.
You've seen the "Old Testament" but you obviously don't know it very well.

Go ahead and attack. Ready.

BTW, don't bother dealing with reality.:rock:

[Sea Demon]

The only resolution is to ban Islam in any form. Nothing else will help.

I've seen the Old Testament, and it is no better than the Koran. So why don't you practice what you preach and go first.

Right, I didn't think so.

I don't see Jews and Christians in a worldwide "Jihad", using terrorists tactics to try and force people of the world to prescribe to their religious beliefs. :roll:

eg. I don't see any coordinated global movement by Jews and Christians to kill people who aren't of the Christian and Jewish faiths. That's a pretty noticeable difference.

[scandium]

You've seen the "Old Testament" but you obviously don't know it very well.

Well enough to know that it preaches the exact same kind of intolerance and repression that you are so fond of pointing out in Islam. Maybe it is you who don't know it so well.

[The Avon Lady]

You've seen the "Old Testament" but you obviously don't know it very well.
Well enough to know that it preaches the exact same kind of intolerance and repression that you are so fond of pointing out in Islam. Maybe it is you who don't know it so well.
I'm still waiting for you to prove your point. So far, you're full of hot air.:|\\

[Skybird]

for a better start, get rid of corrupt leaders selling our homes to Islam, and push for redcued oil-consummation and a policy that makes it an urgent priority to become independent from Muslim oil. Change constitutions so that they do no longer protect Islamic politics by abusing the right of free religion. Stop muslim immigration now. Stop Turkey's EU course. Encourage all colonists that still do not have national passports to leave back to their real homes, even put a good ammount of pressure on them and cut all privileges that derive from exaggerated attempts to integrate them. Make a one-child-policy for Muslim colonist's families mandatory by constitutional law. Isolate all Muslim countries, and ban them. All mosques must be under complete monitoring of intelligence services. All preaching must be done in the local language. Before you protest, I mind you that this life still is better than the discriminative behavior Islam demands for Jewish and christian dhimmis. In this way, Muslim population will decrease withiut the need to commit genocide, it just takes longer. We must also make it a policy that every Islamic terror strike is answered on totally equal terms. that is: striking back: two of theirs for one of ours. Let's see who runs out of weapons first. There is a reason why this new (the third, or fourth, depending on how you count) Eurpopean-Islamic war of cultural coinquest is fought with tools of demographics by Islam, and why he has given up the military aggression after threee failed attempts. Let's play the game on the ground where we have OUR advantages available. - I also say this. As Islam sees it, all world is the world of Allah, and thus Islam sees it as natural that it has the God-given right to rule all and everything. It will never change in this. So the conseqeucne is: as long as their is Islam in the world, their will be no peace. Islam's demand is total and all-emracing. this should make you think on how realistic it is that you can have an unlimted state of coexistence and mutual tolerance with Islam. Islam does not know peace with non-Islam - only times of enforced seize-firing. After 1400 years of constant conquest, war and violence in which Idlam excels more than any other world religion or culture it is high time for mankind to realize this, and draw consequences from this. An end of Islam with horror, or Islamic horror without end? And no, I have not found an answer for myself to this question, for both answers horrify me, too. During my lifetime I would be satisfied with seeing Islamic colonization and conquest in Europe being brought to a halt. - but as we all can easily imagine, none of my ideas will become true. Our mentality is against it. It's easier and less violant to arrange oneself with the status quo and find more and more twisted excuses why it is reasonable to do so. Maybe the complete desaster of WWII has burned out any sense of resistance in us indeed.

[scandium]

I don't see Jews and Christians in a worldwide "Jihad", using terrorists tactics to try and force people of the world to prescribe to their religious beliefs. :roll:

eg. I don't see any coordinated global movement by Jews and Christians to kill people who aren't of the Christian and Jewish faiths. That's a pretty noticeable difference.

Right, we don't use the same tactics. The net results are the same, however, since dead is dead. The organized Christianists who fight, tooth and nail (and successfully), to prevent the distribution of condoms that would reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS in the third world - because birth control is unholy - kills. Sure it isn't gruesome, and it doesn't get headlines, and they probably don't even intend these deaths, but the results are the same. Dead is dead. And its done to force these people to conform to the preaching of these organized religions. And the religion is Christianity, not Islam.

[scandium]

You've seen the "Old Testament" but you obviously don't know it very well. Well enough to know that it preaches the exact same kind of intolerance and repression that you are so fond of pointing out in Islam. Maybe it is you who don't know it so well. I'm still waiting for you to prove your point. So far, you're full of hot air.:|\\

I've quoted a selection of such passages in the past. Look the thread up yourself.

[The Avon Lady]

I don't see Jews and Christians in a worldwide "Jihad", using terrorists tactics to try and force people of the world to prescribe to their religious beliefs. :roll:

eg. I don't see any coordinated global movement by Jews and Christians to kill people who aren't of the Christian and Jewish faiths. That's a pretty noticeable difference.

Right, we don't use the same tactics. The net results are the same, however, since dead is dead. The organized Christianists who fight, tooth and nail (and successfully), to prevent the distribution of condoms that would reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS in the third world - because birth control is unholy - kills. Sure it isn't gruesome, and it doesn't get headlines, and they probably don't even intend these deaths, but the results are the same. Dead is dead. And its done to force these people to conform to the preaching of these organized religions. And the religion is Christianity, not Islam.
I wonder what's killed more people: Christian condom condemners or promiscuous procreation preachers.:roll:
I've quoted a selection of such passages in the past. Look the thread up yourself.
To the best of my knowledge, they were responded to appropriately.

What's the matter? Run out of steam?

[Skybird]

I wonder what the Old Testament should have to do with all this. Christian acting refers to the Christ - who by his own life alone became the founding figure of "Christianity", before him their was no idea of a christian religion at all, there only was Judaism. A christianity referring to the OT is not Christian at all, in the meaning of the word. I tend to understand these constant references to the OT as attempts to put things into politically correct relations and make it seem that Islam compares to Jesus' teachings (these are the only true Christian message there is, necessarily and as expressed in the word "Christian", anything else is church and politics only), and that Islam is as harmless. It does not compare, in any way. If you want to do a structural comparion of scriptures in Islam and christianity, than only the message of Jesus is truly representative for Islam, and the Koran as it should have been dicated by Muhammad is representative for Islam. I do not see what Islamic scripture could compare to the role that the Old Testament plays.

[The Avon Lady]

If you want to do a structural comparion of scriptures in Islam and christianity
I had originally assumed he wanted to compare Islam to Judaism but after his "condum" remarks, anything goes!

[Sea Demon]

Right, we don't use the same tactics. The net results are the same, however, since dead is dead. The organized Christianists who fight, tooth and nail (and successfully), to prevent the distribution of condoms that would reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS in the third world - because birth control is unholy - kills. Sure it isn't gruesome, and it doesn't get headlines, and they probably don't even intend these deaths, but the results are the same. Dead is dead. And its done to force these people to conform to the preaching of these organized religions. And the religion is Christianity, not Islam.

:lol: What a bunch of BS tripe. :lol: Scandium, your fallacious argument is the reason why left-wing politics is dying in North America. First of all, you give an example without a source. You generalize your facts. And then you attempt to draw moral equivalency. :dead: What Christian groups are preventing the distribution of Condoms to third worlders? :p And how are they enforcing it?

BTW, you do know that a condom doesn't guarantee HIV and AIDS prevention, right? And you must know that many third worlders themselves may not even want to wear condoms. Unless you force Africans to wear condoms, you are Al-Qaeda, in the mind of Scandium. Christians are responsible for the African AIDS crisis? :roll: :lol: Just because they preach abstinence? And therefore, they are terrorists in the same vein as Al-Qaeda? Dude, you are one funny guy.

I wonder what's killed more people: Christian condom condemners or promiscuous procreation preachers.

Good point.

[scandium]

To the best of my knowledge, they were responded to appropriately.

What's the matter? Run out of steam?

You amuse me AL. I only joined this thread to suggest you show the conviction of your belief in the evil of Islam by abdicating your own religion, since you think that other religion should be banned.

But I'm the one on the attack here eh? Now you are really projecting.

[The Avon Lady]

To the best of my knowledge, they were responded to appropriately.

What's the matter? Run out of steam?
You amuse me AL. I only joined this thread to suggest you show the conviction of your belief in the evil of Islam by abdicating your own religion, since you think that other religion should be banned.
Did you hear me asking for Christianity to be banned? Budhism? Hinduism? StarTrekism?

Is there something different about Islam? I posted what I believe clearly shows a difference. You joined this thread and claimed they are one and the same. I asked you to site your proofs. Other than your condom connundrum, which has since been responded to and proven to be full of holes:p , you have yet to prove your point.
But I'm the one on the attack here eh? Now you are really projecting.
If ya can't take the heat, get outta the kitchen!:rock:

[scandium]

:lol: What a bunch of BS tripe. :lol: Scandium, your fallacious argument is the reason why left-wing politics is dying in North America. First of all, you give an example without a source. You generalize your facts. And then you attempt to draw moral equivalency. :dead: What Christian groups are preventing the distribution of Condoms to third worlders? :p And how are they enforcing it?
Some relevant snippets from a Rolling Stones article on the HIV epidemic:

Bush's plan calls for an "ABC" approach to HIV prevention -- which stands for abstinence, "be faithful" and condom use -- but the administration is stressing the "A." In its first year, PEPFAR spent more than half of the $92 million earmarked to prevent sexual transmission on promoting abstinence programs. Studies show that such programs actually increase risk by discouraging contraceptive use. What's more, focusing on abstinence and monogamy ignores the reality facing young women and girls in Africa and other impoverished regions, who are often infected by wandering husbands or forced to have sex in exchange for food or shelter. Among fifteen- to twenty-four-year-olds in sub-Saharan Africa, studies show, more than three times as many young women are infected with HIV as young men.


"It's only a matter of time before the impact of abstinence-only programs can be measured in needless new HIV infections," says Jonathan Cohen, an HIV/AIDS researcher with Human Rights Watch.


The emphasis on morality is being driven by social conservatives, who have made spreading the gospel of abstinence and monogamy to Africans their primary mission. "Condoms promote promiscuity," says Derek Gordon of the evangelical Christian group Focus on the Family. "When you give a teen a condom, it gives them a license to go out and have sex." At a congressional hearing in April, Rep. Henry Hyde threatened to cut funding for organizations that promote condoms. "The best defense for preventing HIV transmission is practicing abstinence and being mutually faithful to a non-infected partner," Hyde declared.


BTW, you do know that a condom doesn't guarantee HIV and AIDS prevention right?
They don't need to in order to be effective. Seat belts don't guarantee you won't be killed in a car accident but I wear mine all the same.


And you must know that many third worlders themselves may not even want to wear condoms.
That is not the same as having the choice taken from them by supposedly well meaning religious groups.

Unless you force Africans to wear condoms, you are Al-Qaeda, in the mind of Scandium.
Maybe in your mind. I think it enough to educate and provide them with the means to protect themselves. My arguement is against religionists forcing their own beliefs into the equation by limiting their options. How you can twist that into forcing people to do things says more about your own mindset than anything I wrote does.

Christians are responsible for the African AIDS crisis? :roll: :lol:
Nowhere did I say that either.

[The Avon Lady]

Indeed, condums has much to do with the future of Europe.:yep:

[scandium]

If ya can't take the heat, get outta the kitchen!:rock:

What heat? There is only your usual ultra-conservative "my religion is better than yours" intolerant drivel here.

[scandium]

Indeed, condums has much to do with the future of Europe.:yep:

Perhaps that is part of your problem. If you looked at a map you would see it has more than Europe on it.

[The Avon Lady]

If ya can't take the heat, get outta the kitchen!:rock:
What heat? There is only your usual ultra-conservative
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! Ultra-conservatives! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
"my religion is better than yours" intolerant drivel here.
You really don't catch on, do you? While I certainly believe that Judaism is better than Christianity :p and a poster like Iceman believes that Christianity is better than Judaism, we are all tollerant of each other.

What we all do not mutually tolerate is a religious ideology that translates their claim to superiority into actions that will not tolerate even the likes of you, once you've served their purpose.

You just don't catch on, do you?:nope:

[scandium]

I wonder what the Old Testament should have to do with all this. Christian acting refers to the Christ - who by his own life alone became the founding figure of "Christianity", before him their was no idea of a christian religion at all, there only was Judaism. A christianity referring to the OT is not Christian at all, in the meaning of the word. I tend to understand these constant references to the OT as attempts to put things into politically correct relations and make it seem that Islam compares to Jesus' teachings (these are the only true Christian message there is, necessarily and as expressed in the word "Christian", anything else is church and politics only), and that Islam is as harmless. It does not compare, in any way. If you want to do a structural comparion of scriptures in Islam and christianity, than only the message of Jesus is truly representative for Islam, and the Koran as it should have been dicated by Muhammad is representative for Islam. I do not see what Islamic scripture could compare to the role that the Old Testament plays.

Skybird, Christianity is based on both the Old and New Testament. The New Testament may be what makes it distinct from Judaism, but all mainstream Christian faiths base their teaching on both books.

The current "Intelligent Design" debate in the US, for instance, is based on Genesis which is from the Old Testament. The Ten Commandments that prescribe how a faithful Christian should conduct their lives are also from the Old Testament.

[The Avon Lady]

Indeed, condums has much to do with the future of Europe.:yep:

Perhaps that is part of your problem. If you looked at a map you would see it has more than Europe on it.
Au contraire (http://www.justtourfrance.com/maps/town-map.asp?addr3=Condom&pc=32100)!:smug:

But you obviously missed my point anyway.

[scandium]

You really don't catch on, do you? While I certainly believe that Judaism is better than Christianity :p and a poster like Iceman believes that Christianity is better than Judaism, we are all tollerant of each other.

What we all do not mutually tolerate is a religious ideology that translates their claim to superiority into actions that will not tolerate even the likes of you, once you've served their purpose.

You just don't catch on, do you?:nope:

You would rather I join your own little intolerant crusade, or Jihad, against Islam? No thanks.

[Skybird]

I found this article to be a good summary of differences in Muslim and Christian attitude towards violance.

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=c53fc4cd-528a-42a9-b092-2b7b0ccce158

[Skybird]

Skybird, Christianity is based on both the Old and New Testament. The New Testament may be what makes it distinct from Judaism, but all mainstream Christian faiths base their teaching on both books.

The current "Intelligent Design" debate in the US, for instance, is based on Genesis which is from the Old Testament. The Ten Commandments that prescribe how a faithful Christian should conduct their lives are also from the Old Testament.

I stick to it: Christian is who follows the Christ. Before Christ, there was no Christian religion. the Christian church is an ursupator only, it is not what Jesus was about, he did not found it, he did not authorize it. The only christian "club" that I could imagine to be in the following of Jesus, are the Christian mystics, not the church and not today'S fundamentalists, both all too often in clear violation of Jesus teachings. Without these teachings, christianity is nothing, meaningless. Institutionalization and politics started not before people like Paul took over. You have not understood that most essential difference between church and Jesus in a debate some days ago, and I think you will also try hard not to realize it today.

Where a Christian acts with terror and violance, he is violating his own religion named christianity, deriving from the Christ, Jesus. He can be a church member nevertheless. The church is not Jesus, and never was.

In contrast to that, the institutional structures of Islam had been rasied and, in a way, authorized by Muhammad. Where Jesus did not found a church, Muhammad did.

Where A Muslim acts with terror and violance, he is not violating but followung the explicit rules and demands as set up by Islam's founder, Muhammad, in word, practice and teaching.

Muhammad murderd men already when he was leading caravans of his uncle thorugh the desert. He ordered 70-80 wars and pradotry raids. He ordered mass murder and genocide. He orderd murder and torture. He orderd slavery and supression.

Now show me where in the teachings of Jesus, Christians are ordered to do all that. Jesus, like buddha, tought exactly the opposite.

This difference is what it all comes down to. And btw, even the ursupatory christian chruches has seen a develoepment that made it less tyrannic and murderous than it was during the inquisition. Whereas the history of Islam is that of constant aggression, landtaking, war, violant subjugation (have you red the news on Somalia today?), and cultural cleansing up to the very present.

Read the article I linked to one post above.

[scandium]

I found this article to be a good summary of differences in Muslim and Christian attitude towards violance.

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=c53fc4cd-528a-42a9-b092-2b7b0ccce158

That article makes the same point I've made here as well:

But this need not be the only way of interpreting these texts. One alternative -- quite common in some faith communities -- might be to decide that these were commands for a very particular set of circumstances, but that they no longer apply to modern believers in this time. Another option, advanced recently by the Turkish scholar Israfil Balci, is to reject the classical interpretations of these commands as a product of the political tensions of the period.

Muslims are not the only scriptural community to face challenges of interpretation. Jews and Christians who regard the Hebrew scriptures as the Word of God must deal with the conquest of Canaan, the commandment of total cherem destruction, the violence of judges like Samson and the bloodshed of kings like David -- among many other materials that suggest Godly approval for aggressive warfare against non-believers.


Conversely, warring Christians who accept the authority of the Gospel must deal with the apparent prohibition of violence in the teachings and life example of Jesus. This discussion has been going on among Christians at least since the Crusades, when critics were heard to say "that it is not in accordance with the Christian religion to shed blood in this way, even that of wicked infidels. For Christ did not act thus."

[The Avon Lady]

I found this article to be a good summary of differences in Muslim and Christian attitude towards violance.

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=c53fc4cd-528a-42a9-b092-2b7b0ccce158
Skybird, I posted a link to that article a page back.;)
You would rather I join your own little intolerant crusade, or Jihad, against Islam? No thanks.
Then you will die or become a dhimmie. The choice is yours.

BTW, care to remind the folks what brought about the Christian Crusades to begin with? History is repeating itself.

I've decided to help you out a bit with your quotations from the "Old Testament", which you would love to use to claim that all religions are intollerant of each other. I've just spent a good amount of my time typing this out. If you don't appreciate it, others will and my efforts have not been wasted.
Perhaps aware of how absurd such New testament areguments are, Islamic apologists more often tend to focus on several Old testament passages:
"When the Lord, your God, brings you into the land to to which you are coming to possess it, He will cast away many nations from before you: the Hittites, the Girga****es, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and powerful that you. And the Lord, your God, will deliver them to you, and you shall smite them. You shall utterly destroy them; neither shall you make a covenant with them, nor be gracious to them."
- Deuteronmy 7:1-2
"When you approach a city to wage war against it, you shall propose peace to it. And it will be, if it responds to you with peace, and it opens up to you, then it will be, [that] all the people found therein shall become tributary to you, and they shall serve you. But if it does not make peace with you, and it wages war against you, you shall besiege it, and the Lord, your God, will deliver it into your hands, and you shall strike all its males with the edge of the sword. However, the women, the children, and the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoils you shall take for yourself, and you shall eat the spoils of your enemies, which the Lord, your God, has given you. Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations. However, of these peoples' cities, which the Lord, your God, gives you as an inheritance, you shall not allow any soul to live. Rather, you shall utterly destroy them: The Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord, your God, has commanded you."[i]
- Deuteronomy 20:10-17
[i]So now kill every male child, and every woman who can lie intimately with a man you shall kill. And all the young girls who have no experience of intimate relations with a man, you may keep alive for yourselves.
- Numbers 31:17-18
Strong stuff, right? Just as bad as "slay the unbelievers whereever you find them" (Quran 9:5) and "Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them" (Quran 47:4) and all the rest, right?

Wrong. Unless you happen to be a Hittite, Girga****e, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, or Jebusite, these Biblical passages simply do not apply to you. The Quran exhorts believers to fight unbelievers without specifying anywhere in the text that only certain unbelievers are to be fought, or only for a certain period of time, or some other distinction. Taking the texts at face value, the command to make war against unbelievers is open-ended and universal. The Old Testament, in contrast, records God's commands to the Israelites to make war against particular people only. This is jarring to modern sensibilities, to be sure, but it does not amount to the same thing. That's one reason why Jews and Christians haven't formed terror groups around the world that quote these Scriptures to justify killing civilian non-combatants.

By contrast, Osama bin Laden, who is only the most visible exponent of a terror network that extends from Indonesia to Nigeria and into Western Europe and the Americas, quotes the Quran copiously in his communiques. In his 1996 "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," he quotes suras 3:145; 47:4-6; 2:154; 9:14; 47:19; 8:72; and of course the notorious "Verse of the Sword," Sura 9:5. In 2003, on the first day of the Muslim holy celebration Eid al-Adha, the Feast of the Sacrifice, he began a sermon: "Praise be to Allah who revealed the verse of the Sword to His servant and messenger [the Prophet Muhammad], in order to establish truth and abolish falsehood."

Of course, the devil can quote Scripture for his own purpose, but Osama's use of these and other passages in his messages is consistant (as we shall see) with traditional Islamic understanding of the Quran. When modern-day Jews and Christians read their Bibles, they simply don't interpret the passages cited as exhorting them to violent actions against unbelievers. This is due to the influence of centuries of interpretive traditions that have moved away from literalism regarding these passages <Avon: i disagee with this. The reason is as the author already stated previously: "Unless you happen to be a Hittite", etc.>. But in Islam, there is no comparable interpretive tradition. The jihad passages in the Quran are anything but a dead letter. In Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and elsewhere, a key recruiting ground for jihad terrorist groups is the Islamic school: The students learn that they must wage jihad warfare, and then these groups give them the opportunity.

- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260131/sr=8-1/qid=1150287288/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5860147-0288848?%5Fencoding=UTF8), Robert Spencer, p.28-32

If any of you have not yet bought Spencer's book, do so. Ignorance is not bliss, I can assure you.:nope:

UPDATE: This answers some of Scandium's arguments based on his quotes from the Canadian National Post article. The answers here are also appropriate for the most part from both a Jewish and Christian point of view of the Torah or "Old Testament."

[Skybird]

I found this article to be a good summary of differences in Muslim and Christian attitude towards violance.

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=c53fc4cd-528a-42a9-b092-2b7b0ccce158
Skybird, I posted a link to that article a page back.;)
"

Haha, I apologize, I did not want to steal your credits. It seems I fell victim to my own mental brain processing when searching again for that article. Had already seen it some days ago. at Jijhadwatch (these Arab word's spellings are killing me...)

[scandium]

Whereas the history of Islam is that of constant aggression, landtaking, war, violant subjugation (have you red the news on Somalia today?), and cultural cleansing up to the very present.

And the history of Christianity isn't? As one who lives in a place where the indigenous peoples were regarded as "uncivilized heathen" who were then treated accordingly, I see things differently. But that could be because my civilized and enlightened Christian ancestors had proceeded to treat these indigenous peoples with genocide, committing a 100% extermination of them.

That is about as complete a "constant aggression landtaking, war" as you can get, since it didn't end until there was nobody left to kill off.

[Skybird]

I found this article to be a good summary of differences in Muslim and Christian attitude towards violance.

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=c53fc4cd-528a-42a9-b092-2b7b0ccce158

That article makes the same point I've made here as well:

But this need not be the only way of interpreting these texts. One alternative -- quite common in some faith communities -- might be to decide that these were commands for a very particular set of circumstances, but that they no longer apply to modern believers in this time. Another option, advanced recently by the Turkish scholar Israfil Balci, is to reject the classical interpretations of these commands as a product of the political tensions of the period.

Muslims are not the only scriptural community to face challenges of interpretation. Jews and Christians who regard the Hebrew scriptures as the Word of God must deal with the conquest of Canaan, the commandment of total cherem destruction, the violence of judges like Samson and the bloodshed of kings like David -- among many other materials that suggest Godly approval for aggressive warfare against non-believers.


Conversely, warring Christians who accept the authority of the Gospel must deal with the apparent prohibition of violence in the teachings and life example of Jesus. This discussion has been going on among Christians at least since the Crusades, when critics were heard to say "that it is not in accordance with the Christian religion to shed blood in this way, even that of wicked infidels. For Christ did not act thus."

the article also said that the history of Islam unfortunately has gone against this "tradition". This is what you do not say. It also says that the violent passages are far more attractive especially to younger muslims.

And as I often said myself, the Korn is filled with contradiction that allow Islam to claim one thing while doing another at the same time. Very practical. I myself see the call for violance clearly dominating Hadith (as far as I am aware of them) and Koran when it is about the lands that are not under Islam). And Islamic history proves me right.

you also did not show me where Jesus explicitly commanded and ordered that kind of violance and subjugation that muhammad explicitly has demanded, and practiced himself. You also still avoid the difference between church and Christianity as the tradition of following the Christ. I would also like to know where you see violant Islam in conflict with the example the founder of this religion, Muhammad, has set.

[Skybird]

Whereas the history of Islam is that of constant aggression, landtaking, war, violant subjugation (have you red the news on Somalia today?), and cultural cleansing up to the very present.

And the history of Christianity isn't? As one who lives in a place where the indigenous peoples were regarded as "uncivilized heathen" who were then treated accordingly, I see things differently. But that could be because my civilized and enlightened Christian ancestors had proceeded to treat these indigenous peoples with genocide, committing a 100% extermination of them.

That is about as complete a "constant aggression landtaking, war" as you can get, since it didn't end until there was nobody left to kill off.

And again you illustrate that church and Jesus is one and the same for you. I have explained that five or six times now to you. Won't do it again. Get it or leave it.

[scandium]

You would rather I join your own little intolerant crusade, or Jihad, against Islam? No thanks. Then you will die or become a dhimmie. The choice is yours.
We all die, eventually. But don't let that stop you from such dramatic proclamations, oh Great Seer. :lol:

[scandium]

And again you illustrate that church and Jesus is one and the same for you. I have explained that five or six times now to you. Won't do it again. Get it or leave it.

It doesn't matter how often you explain how you interpret it, since it is one and the same for me, the same as it is for millions of others who were raised as Catholic and where the Pope is regarded as infallible and Papal Decree as the word of God. You make the mistake instead of interpreting your own (Protestant?) views on chruch and Jesus as being universal when they are not universal.

[The Avon Lady]

You would rather I join your own little intolerant crusade, or Jihad, against Islam? No thanks. Then you will die or become a dhimmie. The choice is yours.
We all die, eventually.
Prematurely? Because a religion will not tolerate your infidelity? That is not the same as "eventually".
But don't let that stop you from such dramatic proclamations, oh Great Seer. :lol:
At this point in current events, one does not require prophetic visions to see which direction the world is heading in.

All of your arguments here have been rebutted with quotes, facts, current events, and analysies that make perfect rational sense.

"They have a mouth but do not speak; they have eyes but do not see. They have ears but do not listen; neither is there any breath in their mouth. Like them will be those who make them, all who trust in them.
- Psalm 135:16-18

King David was referring to idolatrous statues in those verses but sometimes people seem to be similarly made of wood and stone.

[Skybird]

And again you illustrate that church and Jesus is one and the same for you. I have explained that five or six times now to you. Won't do it again. Get it or leave it.

It doesn't matter how often you explain how you interpret it, since it is one and the same for me, the same as it is for millions of others who were raised as Catholic and where the Pope is regarded as infallible and Papal Decree as the word of God. You make the mistake instead of interpreting your own (Protestant?) views on chruch and Jesus as being universal when they are not universal.

You talk about politics then. I talk about religion. Christianity and "Churchism" are not the same. Some of the most original and creative minds that ever appeared during the last two thousand years of "church history" saw it the same, btw. ;) And often came into conflict with the papal system, for that reason, or the followers got wiped out.

The pope: God's representative on earth - what a blasphemy. and you give him as an example of christian teachings deriving from Jesus?

And I am still waiting for your answer to this: you also did not show me where Jesus explicitly commanded and ordered that kind of violance and subjugation that Muhammad explicitly has demanded, and practiced himself. I would also like to know where you see violant Islam in conflict with the example the founder of this religion, Muhammad, has set

[Skybird]

BTW, I am not protestant, nor is my view representative for protestantism. When I attack the church, I mean all churches there are.

[scandium]

You would rather I join your own little intolerant crusade, or Jihad, against Islam? No thanks. Then you will die or become a dhimmie. The choice is yours.
We all die, eventually. Prematurely? Because a religion will not tolerate your infidelity? That is not the same as "eventually".
But don't let that stop you from such dramatic proclamations, oh Great Seer. :lol: At this point in current events, one does not require prophetic visions to see which direction the world is heading in.

All of your arguments here have been rebutted with quotes, facts, current events, and analysies that make perfect rational sense.

"They have a mouth but do not speak; they have eyes but do not see. They have ears but do not listen; neither is there any breath in their mouth. Like them will be those who make them, all who trust in them.
- Psalm 135:16-18

King David was referring to idolatrous statues in those verses but sometimes people seem to be similarly made of wood and stone.

I see the trajectory, where we differ is on the causes and solutions. Yours puts the blame for everything on a book, the Koran, which is to me is a ridiculous notion in and of itself, and is naive enough to believe banning Islam would be the solution (because religious persecution has worked so well in the past, right?).

[The Avon Lady]

I see the trajectory, where we differ is on the causes and solutions. Yours puts the blame for everything on a book, the Koran, which is to me is a ridiculous notion in and of itself,
Go to Morroco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Lybia, etc., and stand on a busy street corner holding up a sign saying that.

It makes no difference what you believe. It makes a difference what the world's 1.2 billion plus adherant of Islam believe is the absolute word of god to be carried out and followed through.
and is naive enough to believe banning Islam would be the solution (because religious persecution has worked so well in the past, right?).
While it did a lot of damage and went into unrelated paths, the Crusades did just that and saved the Europe that we've known for centuries from cultural extinction and the persecution of its own religionists.

Now you can't distinquish between aggressors and their victims? All for the glory of some foolish moral equivalence which isn't even there? Now look who's playing with millions of lives, Mr. Condom!:down:

[scandium]

The pope: God's representative on earth - what a blasphemy. and you give him as an example of christian teachings deriving from Jesus?
Not to the millions of Christians who call themselves Catholics, and that is part of my point. Were there no Islam to rally against we would go back to killing each other, as we did in northern Ireland and as we did during the great schisms. Your point seems to be that Christians don't kill anyone over there faith because of Jesus. My point is that Christians have always killed people because of their faith, in spite of Jesus. And on this, regardless of how you think Christians should behave, history is on my side.

And I am still waiting for your answer to this: you also did not show me where Jesus explicitly commanded and ordered that kind of violance and subjugation that Muhammad explicitly has demanded, and practiced himself. I would also like to know where you see violant Islam in conflict with the example the founder of this religion, Muhammad, has set

This isn't relevant to me. Historically, again to go by history and not theology (since only one of these two things is concrete), it hasn't mattered what Jesus or Muhammad preached as any religion can be used to justify (as it always has been) just about anything.

[The Avon Lady]

1) It's an unwritten rule of internet debates that anyone who brings up comparisons to Hitler should automatically lose the debate. I tend to agree.
I lose:

The mental path to appeasement (http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/tblankley.htm)

You win! Bask in the glory!:up:

[scandium]

It makes no difference what you believe. It makes a difference what the world's 1.2 billion plus adherant of Islam believe is the absolute word of god to be carried out and followed through.
And if these 1.2 billion people were the adherents to this religion of 'war and murder' that you make them out to be then we would not be here, would we? That is where reality seems to differ from your perception of it.

and is naive enough to believe banning Islam would be the solution (because religious persecution has worked so well in the past, right?). While it did a lot of damage and went into unrelated paths, the Crusades did just that and saved the Europe that we've known for centuries from cultural extinction and the persecution of its own religionists.
So says Avon. None of the histories of the period that I've read on this, but I'll take your word for it. :roll:

Now you can't distinquish between aggressors and their victims? All for the glory of some foolish moral equivalence which isn't even there? Now look who's playing with millions of lives, Mr. Condom!:down:
Right Avon, I have millions of lives in my hands... :lol:

[Skybird]

You evade and distract. Not wanting to answer a question that you cannot answer in a way that pleases your previously stated opinion, you declare it to be "not relevant".

That Islam is historically acting in correspondence with it's founder's intention and commandments, whereas socalled "Christians" (or should I say "Churchianists"?) do not, is not relevant. And that violance in Jesus teachings is not allowed and accepted (and never was practiced neither by Jesus, nor by anyone who seriously was in his following), but in Muhammad's teachings is explicitly demanded, is not relevant. And that Jesus teachings were misinterpreted - I say: ursurped - by the church, whereas the teachings of Muhammad are not abused, but simply practiced to the word: not relevant.

:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

Your indifference is absurd. I see no reason to continue when someone tells me that a historical figure is said to be of zero interest and that all and everything can be taken and twisted just to justify all and everything. That is complete intellectual nihilism: the complete absence of scales for comparing, category, evaluation, value. This is the politics I see at work in the EU, and this is the reason why the West is going down the drain: indifference, and unlimited tolerance on the basis of rejecting any qualities and scales that differ between what is to be tolerated, and what not. This is the total rejection of personal identity, this is anarchy, and I see your understanding of history as anarchic, too.

Forms need borders that define them, else all you have is an empty void.

[Skybird]

1) It's an unwritten rule of internet debates that anyone who brings up comparisons to Hitler should automatically lose the debate. I tend to agree.
I lose:

The mental path to appeasement (http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/tblankley.htm)

You win! Bask in the glory!:up:

I think he meant me. :)

[The Avon Lady]

It makes no difference what you believe. It makes a difference what the world's 1.2 billion plus adherant of Islam believe is the absolute word of god to be carried out and followed through.
And if these 1.2 billion people were the adherents to this religion of 'war and murder' that you make them out to be then we would not be here, would we? That is where reality seems to differ from your perception of it.
You are forever missing the point. The religion of Islam advocates the subjugation of the world to Islam and to Muslims.

If there were only 10 Muslims who followed Islam's teachings, this thread would not exist. But that's not the situation. There are millions of Muslims throughout the western world who are well aware in general of the ultimate goal of Islam reigning supreme over you and me and our separate ideological and religious beliefs. The Islamic world is pumping billions of dollars worldwide to achieve this goal of an Islamic ruled world.

You have already been targeted. Defend yourself or at least get out of the way so that others can.
and is naive enough to believe banning Islam would be the solution (because religious persecution has worked so well in the past, right?). While it did a lot of damage and went into unrelated paths, the Crusades did just that and saved the Europe that we've known for centuries from cultural extinction and the persecution of its own religionists.
So says Avon. None of the histories of the period that I've read on this, but I'll take your word for it. :roll:
Next time you're in Rome, don't forget to visit St. Peter's Mosque.
Now you can't distinquish between aggressors and their victims? All for the glory of some foolish moral equivalence which isn't even there? Now look who's playing with millions of lives, Mr. Condom!:down:
Right Avon, I have millions of lives in my hands... :lol:
I'm simply using rhetoric that's the equivalent of yours a page or two back.

[scandium]

You evade and distract. Not wanting to answer a question that you cannot answer in a way that pleases your previously stated opinion, you declare it to be "not relevant".

That Islam is historically acting in correspondence with it's founder's intention and commandments, whereas socalled "Christians" (or should I say "Churchianists"?) do not, is not relevant. And that violance in Jesus teachings is not allowed and accepted (and never was practiced neither by Jesus, nor by anyone who seriously was in his following), but in Muhammad's teachings is explicitly demanded, is not relevant. And that Jesus teachings were misinterpreted - I say: ursurped - by the church, whereas the teachings of Muhammad are not abused, but simply practiced to the word: not relevant.

:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

Your indifference is absurd. I see no reason to continue when someone tells me that a historical figure is said to be of zero interest and that all and everything can be taken and twisted just to justify all and everything. That is complete intellectual nihilism: the complete absence of scales for comparing, category, evaluation, value. This is the politics I see at work in the EU, and this is the reason why the West is going down the drain: indifference, and unlimited tolerance on the basis of rejecting any qualities and scales that differ between what is to be tolerated, and what not. This is the total rejection of personal identity, this is anarchy, and I see your understanding of history as anarchic, too.

Forms need borders that define them, else all you have is an empty void.
I guess I don't see ideas as being themselves inherently dangerous. To borrow from the NRA: ideas don't kill people, people kill people. And in that vain, Islam isn't killing people and nor are the 1.2 billion people who practice it. Rather there are a very few people, out of these 1.2 billion, who have taken this religion and used it to fit their own ends and to recruit others of like mind to their cause. We have a name for them already, and its terrorists, not Islamists. And terrorism isn't the exclusive domain of Islam.

On a bit of a side track, if Islam is so dangerous, why was there such scant attention paid to it until recently? Not because of terrorism, that is nothing new. Not because of the theocracies in the middle east, they are nothing new either. Does it not strike you as odd that there always has to be a boogeyman to hate, to fear, and to conquer? Islam seems to have come into the spotlight right around the time the USSR had fully collapsed. So yesterday the godless Commies, today the Islamo-fascists, and tomorrow it'll be the godless Chinese.

Although at least the USSR was a well-defined nation state and not a religion practiced by 1.2 billion geographically diverse people. That is probably about as good as you could hope for a shadowy boogeyman.

[scandium]

You are forever missing the point. The religion of Islam advocates the subjugation of the world to Islam and to Muslims.

If there were only 10 Muslims who followed Islam's teachings, this thread would not exist. But that's not the situation. There are millions of Muslims throughout the western world who are well aware in general of the ultimate goal of Islam reigning supreme over you and me and our separate ideological and religious beliefs. The Islamic world is pumping billions of dollars worldwide to achieve this goal of an Islamic ruled world.

You have already been targeted. Defend yourself or at least get out of the way so that others can.
*Yawn* forget to put on your tinfoil hat again, oh Great Seer?

Quick the black helicopters are coming! :lol:

[joea]

This thread is going: :/\\chop

[Fish]

Catholic by birth, the longer I live the more averse I gone be against religions, all religions. They all suck in one way or an other.

[TteFAboB]

(...)Catholic and where the Pope is regarded as infallible and Papal Decree as the word of God.

Sorry, the Church left the Middle Ages, you probably missed Pope Benedict XVI when he visited Auschwitz:


"In a place like this, words fail. In the end, there can only be a dread silence - a silence which is itself a heartfelt cry to God: Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this? Our silence becomes in turn a plea for forgiveness and reconciliation, a plea to the living God never to let this happen again."

You should revise your Catholic education, I wouldn't be surprised to find out you were schooled by pedophile Priests who didn't had much time for proper education at all.

[Yahoshua]

[/quote]......and then come the extreme outbursts of 'let's get ourselves some 7.62mm ammo stocked up', and everyone is good and happy.
How are you better than your bad evil muslim friends this way? [quote]

Well, lemme see about this:

The popular label I've been beaten to death with is that I'm Jewish, so therefore I am: Rich, snobbish, control the world resources, opress any foreign religions, and drink the blood of moslems and christians at every passover seder.

But in reality: I am at the mercy of the masses (save for my rifle to defend myself with), I am a 10 cent dairy goat farmer, I have NO assets and currently live on a spot-job income while saving $ for school, live in Mormonville where there is NO tolerance for anyone who refuses to convert to Mormonism, but I apparently control the planet, organised and carried out 9/11 but keep myself poor to make it look like I don't do any of this.

Add to the fact that I'm the descendant of a pig (as the moslems claim), and that I'd be drawn, quartered, skinned and beheaded within 30 minutes of crossing into a moslem controlled region, and if I happen to survive there I can't even tell people my real name or else they'll think I'm a christian or a jew (they'll kill me either way).

God forbid I'd want to defend myself from these people. I might be portrayed as a serial murderer intent on world domination.

[scandium]

You should revise your Catholic education, I wouldn't be surprised to find out you were schooled by pedophile Priests who didn't had much time for proper education at all.

If this kind of disgusting personal attack is what you consider discussion then I'm not going to bother reading or replying to your garbage in the future.

[TteFAboB]

Thanks.

I do not seek your applause scandium, but exactly your disgust.

[STEED]

This thread has fallen off the rails and turned into a slanging match not what I call very constructive.

Time to give this thread the :/\\chop

[XabbaRus]

Should of happened a long time ago. Too many times now I see threads on subsim descending into s*** like this.

Definately not like the subsim of yore. Too much nastiness and venom.

[STEED]

Should of happened a long time ago. Too many times now I see threads on subsim descending into s*** like this.

Definately not like the subsim of yore. Too much nastiness and venom.

HERE, HERE. :yep:

[bradclark1]

Should of happened a long time ago. Too many times now I see threads on subsim descending into s*** like this.

Definately not like the subsim of yore. Too much nastiness and venom.

HERE, HERE. :yep:

Steed,
You can't "HERE, HERE". You've only been here since six month's!
Back in the day's of yore the world wasn't like it is today. Back in the day's of yore Muslim/Western culture was not at a clashing as it is today.
If you don't like the thread just don't read it.

[STEED]

I excise my freedom of speech and add my comment to a thread debating is one thing slanging matches is another issue. :yep:

[CCIP]

Yes, but again, as I mentioned in my post earlier in this thread - this is a cyclic thing on Subsim in the last few months. Of course, I think it shows that it's a really contentious issue that's difficult to solve.

For the record, for a while I sided with those-who-shall-remain-unnamed who sounded the alarms over a real problem coming at the West. The alarms are well-due. But when the discussion moved to hints at solutions - because most people are afraid to state a serious solution, or are keen to post an unreasonable one - well, I found nothing I can agree with. The fact is that everyone's tugging the rope their own way, and quite shamelessly at that.

I'd feel sorry for the loss of an elightened Western culture, with its high humanistic ideals and an emphasis on reason. But I wouldn't feel sorry in the slightest for the loss of a Western culture that's rapidly descending back into the middle ages.

I think we're ultimately in disagreement as to what Western values are. No wonder there's no visible response in the society as yet.

[bradclark1]

I excise my freedom of speech and add my comment to a thread debating is one thing slanging matches is another issue. :yep:

Ok:)

Just my 2 cents on the overall subject is that people mistake all this as islam vs. christianity while as a matter of fact(in my book anyway) it's a violent islamic culture vs. a democratic western culture. Unless democracy stops being so sweetly democratic our days are numbered.
In my veiw it's not religion, it's revolution, and when you want a revolution who do you recruit? The poor and those unhappy with their lot in life. They see themselves going nowhere in there own countries which have little to no industry and live hand to mouth. Why are muslims flocking to european countries? To improve their lot in life. What they find is low paying or no jobs at all and are treated as second class citizens. It isn't hard for these immams(?) to feed on this misery.
My view on these so called religious leaders is that a lot are nothing but wannabe mafia style boss's that use religion as a front to gain personal wealth and power. It's a huge scam and it's showing itself to be building in momentum.
I think islam is corrupt and their are not enough good muslim leaders to stem it or even survive it without getting murdered themselves in the name of God.
Well, make this my nickles worth.

[The Avon Lady]

In my veiw it's not religion, it's revolution, and when you want a revolution who do you recruit? The poor and those unhappy with their lot in life. They see themselves going nowhere in there own countries which have little to no industry and live hand to mouth. Why are muslims flocking to european countries? To improve their lot in life. What they find is low paying or no jobs at all and are treated as second class citizens. It isn't hard for these immams(?) to feed on this misery.
Sounds like you enjoyed Syrianna.

When will this old myth stop?

It's Not the Economy, Stupid: What the West Needs to Know about the Rise of Radical Islam (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/269) (article from 1995!)

God and Mammon: Does Poverty Cause Militant Islam? (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/104)

Saudi Columnists: Urbanization and Development in Southern Saudi Arabia, Not Poverty, Led to September 11 (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP32302)

Arab Columnists: Terrorists are Motivated by Cultural and Religious Factors, Not Poverty (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP85305)

Terrorists' backgrounds defy conventional wisdom (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006340.php)

Does poverty breed jihad? (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005378.php)

Poverty and terror: two questions for Alain Gresh (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009500.php)

Researchers probe motives of suicide bombers (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008414.php)

Affluent Genocide (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10282)

[Sea Demon]

In my veiw it's not religion, it's revolution, and when you want a revolution who do you recruit? The poor and those unhappy with their lot in life. They see themselves going nowhere in there own countries which have little to no industry and live hand to mouth. Why are muslims flocking to european countries? To improve their lot in life. What they find is low paying or no jobs at all and are treated as second class citizens. It isn't hard for these immams(?) to feed on this misery.

Sounds like you enjoyed Syrianna.

When will this old myth stop?



This myth will not stop. It is a myth propagated by socialists or left-leaning "philosophers". Bradclark1 does have a good point about revolution and poorer people likely to instigate it as they feel they have little or nothing to lose. But this just doesn't apply to the fanatacism of Islamic Fundamentalism. They're not driven by poverty.

Lefty's and socialist types push this nonsense to try and coerce us to change our ways. For example Patty Murray (D-Washington) stated a couple of years back that the reason many in the Arab world love and honor Osama is because he is building daycare centers. :lol: Almost implying that socialism would save the day. What a nut. Oh Patty, if we only changed our government into one that has universal healthcare, universal preschool, universal welfare, universal nose-wiping, etc. and provided the same to the Arab world, maybe they wouldn't hate us. Yeah...right.:roll:

[scandium]

In my veiw it's not religion, it's revolution, and when you want a revolution who do you recruit? The poor and those unhappy with their lot in life. They see themselves going nowhere in there own countries which have little to no industry and live hand to mouth. Why are muslims flocking to european countries? To improve their lot in life. What they find is low paying or no jobs at all and are treated as second class citizens. It isn't hard for these immams(?) to feed on this misery.
My view on these so called religious leaders is that a lot are nothing but wannabe mafia style boss's that use religion as a front to gain personal wealth and power. It's a huge scam and it's showing itself to be building in momentum.

Interesting theory, but perhaps I think it interesting mainly because it is a much more complete and well reasoned explanation than that offered by the "Islam=terrorism" club ;)

Also since poverty, marginalization, stigmatization certainly do correlate with other forms of "deviant" (in the sense of being outside the norm) behaviour that Western society has gotten used to, I would be very surprised if there was absolutely no correlation between these factors and those individuals who commit terrorist acts. In fact, if we look outside the "West" to Israel there is indeed correlation in that the Palestinians seem to fit all 3 criteria. But still that is only correlation and not causation. :hmm:

Editted to add (before I get jumped on here by the usual suspects):

By "seems" I meant "seems to me". I've never been to Israel and my knowledge of the situation there is limited to the odd newspaper/magazine article that inevitably gets printed after the latest attack/retaliation.

Also, even if there is any correlation (to any degree) with any of the 3 factors thae it doesn't mean that factor(s) is any way a cause of the terrorism in that region. Nor does it equate to assigning blame or taking any sides in that equation.

[The Avon Lady]

I'd feel sorry for the loss of an elightened Western culture, with its high humanistic ideals and an emphasis on reason. But I wouldn't feel sorry in the slightest for the loss of a Western culture that's rapidly descending back into the middle ages.

I think we're ultimately in disagreement as to what Western values are. No wonder there's no visible response in the society as yet.
I'll again quote Jihad Watch's Hugh Fitzgerald, which is somewhat relevant to your post:
Why do you say this? Why do you think this, exhibiting such hopelessness? Where is it written that Infidels must continue to admit Muslims into their midst? Is there a divine right for anyone to move anywhere? On what theory do you base this suicidal notion?

There are all kinds of things to say about immigration to the Western world. But there should be no argument at all that no people and no polity is required to admit those who are, or claim to be, the adherents of a belief-system that clearly tells them, teaches them, inculcates in them the belief, that they must be hostile, even murderously so, to all who do not share their belief-system. This is not imaginary. This is not fantasy. This can easily be seen in the texts of Islam. It can be seen on every Muslim website. It can be seen in the testimony of every defector from Islam. It can be seen in the testimony of non-Muslims who have had to endure life in Muslim states. It can be seen by studying the history of Jihad-conquest and the subjugation of non-Muslims, from Spain to East Asia, over 1350 years. No right, no right at all, to continue to settle within the Lands of the Infidels. No right at all to continue to create an atmosphere far more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous to Infidels, than it would be without a large-scale Muslim presence.

Don't accept things as you think they must be. We are not required, not obligated, to sacrifice our lands and happiness for some abstract principle, or out of fear of offending -- offending whom? People who divide the world uncompromisingly between Believer and Infidel? What if we offend them? Will they work to undo us, work for the day when Islam will everywhere dominate, even more relentlessly?

[The Avon Lady]

In my veiw it's not religion, it's revolution, and when you want a revolution who do you recruit? The poor and those unhappy with their lot in life. They see themselves going nowhere in there own countries which have little to no industry and live hand to mouth. Why are muslims flocking to european countries? To improve their lot in life. What they find is low paying or no jobs at all and are treated as second class citizens. It isn't hard for these immams(?) to feed on this misery.
My view on these so called religious leaders is that a lot are nothing but wannabe mafia style boss's that use religion as a front to gain personal wealth and power. It's a huge scam and it's showing itself to be building in momentum.

Interesting theory, but perhaps I think it interesting mainly because it is a much more complete and well reasoned explanation than that offered by the "Islam=terrorism" club ;)
;)

From the footnotes of the Canadian National Post article Sykbird and I posted yesterday:
What follows are selected Koranic references to fighting and killing infidels.

- Baqara (2):190 - "And fight (qaatiloo) in the way of Allah those who fight you."

- Baqara (2):193 - "Fight them (qaatiloohum), till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah's"

- Baqara (2):244 - "So fight (qaatiloo) in the way of Allah, and know that Allah is all-hearing, all-knowing."

- Nisaa' (4):76 - "Those who are believers fight (yuqaatiloona) in the way of Allah, and the unbelievers fight in the idols' way. So fight (qaatiloo) the friends of Satan; surely the guile of Satan is ever feeble."

- al-Anfaal (8):39 - "Fight them (qaatiloohum), till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah's entirely."

- al-Taubah (9):12 - "But if they break their oaths after their covenant and thrust at your religion, then fight (qaatiloo) the leaders of unbelief."

- al-Taubah (9):29 - "Fight (qaatiloo) those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and his messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled."

- al-Taubah (9):123 - "O believers, fight (qaatiloo) the unbelievers (kuffaar) who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness (ghilza)."

- Baqara (2):191 - "And slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you come upon them"

- Baqara (2):191 - "But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then if they fight you, slay them (aqtuloohum) -- such is the recompense of unbelievers."

- Nisaa' (4):89 - "then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you find them"

- Nisaa' (4):91 - "If they withdraw not from you, and offer you peace, and restrain their hands, take them, and slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you come on them; against them we have given you a clear authority."

- al-Taubah (9):5 - "Then when the sacred months are drawn away, slay (aqtuloo) the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush."

- Nisaa' (4):74 - "So let them fight (yuqaatil) in the way of Allah who sell the present life for the world to come; and whosoever fights (yuqaatil) in the way of Allah and is slain, or conquers, we shall bring him a mighty wage."

- Muhammad (47):4 - "When you meet the unbelievers, smite (darba) their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads."
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
;)

And this doesn't even touch all the other Islamic writings advocating the conquest of the infidel world, dar al-hab.
;)

[scandium]

What follows are selected Koranic references to fighting and killing infidels.

- Baqara (2):190 - "And fight (qaatiloo) in the way of Allah those who fight you."

- Baqara (2):193 - "Fight them (qaatiloohum), till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah's"

- Baqara (2):244 - "So fight (qaatiloo) in the way of Allah, and know that Allah is all-hearing, all-knowing."

- Nisaa' (4):76 - "Those who are believers fight (yuqaatiloona) in the way of Allah, and the unbelievers fight in the idols' way. So fight (qaatiloo) the friends of Satan; surely the guile of Satan is ever feeble."

- al-Anfaal (8):39 - "Fight them (qaatiloohum), till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah's entirely."

- al-Taubah (9):12 - "But if they break their oaths after their covenant and thrust at your religion, then fight (qaatiloo) the leaders of unbelief."

- al-Taubah (9):29 - "Fight (qaatiloo) those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and his messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled."

- al-Taubah (9):123 - "O believers, fight (qaatiloo) the unbelievers (kuffaar) who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness (ghilza)."

- Baqara (2):191 - "And slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you come upon them"

- Baqara (2):191 - "But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then if they fight you, slay them (aqtuloohum) -- such is the recompense of unbelievers."

- Nisaa' (4):89 - "then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you find them"

- Nisaa' (4):91 - "If they withdraw not from you, and offer you peace, and restrain their hands, take them, and slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you come on them; against them we have given you a clear authority."

- al-Taubah (9):5 - "Then when the sacred months are drawn away, slay (aqtuloo) the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush."

- Nisaa' (4):74 - "So let them fight (yuqaatil) in the way of Allah who sell the present life for the world to come; and whosoever fights (yuqaatil) in the way of Allah and is slain, or conquers, we shall bring him a mighty wage."

- Muhammad (47):4 - "When you meet the unbelievers, smite (darba) their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads."

Alright, this is certainly every bit as relevant as any other factor (more relevant in the sense that you would have 100% correlation between Islamic terrorists and these passages, although this is a little circular). But to look at the correlation from the other direction: how many of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims are linked (directly or through financial ties etc) to acts of Islamic terrorism?

Again that's where causation comes into play in that why does only a minority of those who commit acts of terror have this view in their religion while so many more of them do not commit acts of terror? Because there are other factors that are at play that are beyond these passages - I have no idea what they are, only that these passages themselves are not sufficient.

I suppose this goes back to another point I made in the other thread: these passages are ideas; why do some (a minority) feel compelled to act on them while so many more do not?

[joea]

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4963/gmlock2ht.gif (http://imageshack.us)

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4963/gmlock2ht.gif (http://imageshack.us)

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4963/gmlock2ht.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[Skybird]

What follows are selected Koranic references to fighting and killing infidels.

- Baqara (2):190 - "And fight (qaatiloo) in the way of Allah those who fight you."

- Baqara (2):193 - "Fight them (qaatiloohum), till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah's"

- Baqara (2):244 - "So fight (qaatiloo) in the way of Allah, and know that Allah is all-hearing, all-knowing."

- Nisaa' (4):76 - "Those who are believers fight (yuqaatiloona) in the way of Allah, and the unbelievers fight in the idols' way. So fight (qaatiloo) the friends of Satan; surely the guile of Satan is ever feeble."

- al-Anfaal (8):39 - "Fight them (qaatiloohum), till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah's entirely."

- al-Taubah (9):12 - "But if they break their oaths after their covenant and thrust at your religion, then fight (qaatiloo) the leaders of unbelief."

- al-Taubah (9):29 - "Fight (qaatiloo) those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and his messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled."

- al-Taubah (9):123 - "O believers, fight (qaatiloo) the unbelievers (kuffaar) who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness (ghilza)."

- Baqara (2):191 - "And slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you come upon them"

- Baqara (2):191 - "But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then if they fight you, slay them (aqtuloohum) -- such is the recompense of unbelievers."

- Nisaa' (4):89 - "then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you find them"

- Nisaa' (4):91 - "If they withdraw not from you, and offer you peace, and restrain their hands, take them, and slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you come on them; against them we have given you a clear authority."

- al-Taubah (9):5 - "Then when the sacred months are drawn away, slay (aqtuloo) the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush."

- Nisaa' (4):74 - "So let them fight (yuqaatil) in the way of Allah who sell the present life for the world to come; and whosoever fights (yuqaatil) in the way of Allah and is slain, or conquers, we shall bring him a mighty wage."

- Muhammad (47):4 - "When you meet the unbelievers, smite (darba) their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads."

Alright, this is certainly every bit as relevant as any other factor (more relevant in the sense that you would have 100% correlation between Islamic terrorists and these passages, although this is a little circular). But to look at the correlation from the other direction: how many of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims are linked (directly or through financial ties etc) to acts of Islamic terrorism?

Again that's where causation comes into play in that why does only a minority of those who commit acts of terror have this view in their religion while so many more of them do not commit acts of terror? Because there are other factors that are at play that are beyond these passages - I have no idea what they are, only that these passages themselves are not sufficient.

I suppose this goes back to another point I made in the other thread: these passages are ideas; why do some (a minority) feel compelled to act on them while so many more do not?

No. The simple question is: why do the many not actively engage to hinder those that commit such violance in their name?

Poor little Muslims, so weak and vulnerable. Over one billion Muslims out there - and they cannot ban the handful of hate-preachers, and some hundred terrorists that abuse their oh so precious religion.

O, wait. they even don't try. they even resist to any attempt of infidels trying to do the job in their place. Hm. Strange. But probably I just understand it wrong. It cannot be, what shall not be. The majority is not compelled to these ideas, as we just have red. They just do not care, for that they cannot be hold responsible.

EU some weeks ago: palestinian people shall no longer be held responsible for the policy of Hamas, therefore the cash ban has been stopped. What: the people that elected Hamas are not responsible for hamas being in government? I thought that is the principle of democracy - that governments shall represent their people? - The same kind of heavily flawed thinking.

Great going. Holding the church responsible where it has acted violantly on the basis of some old testament's violant scpriture, in violation of the teachings of Jesus. But when Islamic scriptures are quoted of same bloodthirsty and brutal content - it is waved through.

Thank God all this is just about ideas, so it does not really matter. that cake is delicious. What do you think, will the weather improve? I really think we had a little bit to less sunshine so far. Please remind me to water the flowers before we leave for the party tonight.

[STEED]

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4963/gmlock2ht.gif (http://imageshack.us)

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4963/gmlock2ht.gif (http://imageshack.us)

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4963/gmlock2ht.gif (http://imageshack.us)


:yep: :up: :yep: :up: :yep: :up:

[The Avon Lady]

What follows are selected Koranic references to fighting and killing infidels.

- Baqara (2):190 - "And fight (qaatiloo) in the way of Allah those who fight you."

- Baqara (2):193 - "Fight them (qaatiloohum), till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah's"

- Baqara (2):244 - "So fight (qaatiloo) in the way of Allah, and know that Allah is all-hearing, all-knowing."

- Nisaa' (4):76 - "Those who are believers fight (yuqaatiloona) in the way of Allah, and the unbelievers fight in the idols' way. So fight (qaatiloo) the friends of Satan; surely the guile of Satan is ever feeble."

- al-Anfaal (8):39 - "Fight them (qaatiloohum), till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah's entirely."

- al-Taubah (9):12 - "But if they break their oaths after their covenant and thrust at your religion, then fight (qaatiloo) the leaders of unbelief."

- al-Taubah (9):29 - "Fight (qaatiloo) those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and his messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled."

- al-Taubah (9):123 - "O believers, fight (qaatiloo) the unbelievers (kuffaar) who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness (ghilza)."

- Baqara (2):191 - "And slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you come upon them"

- Baqara (2):191 - "But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then if they fight you, slay them (aqtuloohum) -- such is the recompense of unbelievers."

- Nisaa' (4):89 - "then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you find them"

- Nisaa' (4):91 - "If they withdraw not from you, and offer you peace, and restrain their hands, take them, and slay them (aqtuloohum) wherever you come on them; against them we have given you a clear authority."

- al-Taubah (9):5 - "Then when the sacred months are drawn away, slay (aqtuloo) the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush."

- Nisaa' (4):74 - "So let them fight (yuqaatil) in the way of Allah who sell the present life for the world to come; and whosoever fights (yuqaatil) in the way of Allah and is slain, or conquers, we shall bring him a mighty wage."

- Muhammad (47):4 - "When you meet the unbelievers, smite (darba) their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads."
Alright, this is certainly every bit as relevant as any other factor (more relevant in the sense that you would have 100% correlation between Islamic terrorists and these passages, although this is a little circular).
There is nothing circular here. Islam teaches that the Quran is the absolute word of an omnipitent G-d and Mohamed is his prophet. If someone believes in that and is dedicated to Islam's writing and teachings, they will carry out what they rationally understand to be their duties and obligations.
But to look at the correlation from the other direction: how many of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims are linked (directly or through financial ties etc) to acts of Islamic terrorism?
I've already responded on another thread with excerpts from essays by Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald:
Let us assume that the estimate, given by one , that 10-15% of Muslims are terrorists or potential terrorists. One does not know how this figure is arrived at. Ali Sina and other defectors from Islam, whom I trust, consider it to have the percentages backwards, for they suggest that 85-90% of Muslims might become potential terrorists, or supporters of similar acts, or would be ready to harm non-Muslims in other ways, in the conduct of Jihad. Who knows, really -- and how could we ever be certain? But even the gleeful behavior of masses of Muslims all over the world, after 9/11, or the numbers of people naming their sons "Osama," or the kinds of things routinely said and applauded at meetings of Muslim nations, or the kinds of demands made on Infidel societies by Muslims now living in their midst, or the behavior of Muslim pressure groups to limit the power of Infidels to undertake reasonable security measures (including, precisely, profiling to target not a race, or an ethnic group, but the adherents or potential adherents of the ideology of Islam), and the enormous efforts to conduct Da'wa by every conceivable and sly means, including the rewriting of textbooks to transform the history of Infidel lands, and to target the most vulnerable members of society(prisoners, immigrants, schoolchildren) for the conduct of Da'wa -- all of this should give any Infidel who has studied the theory and practice of Islam, considerable pause.

But suppose that the lowest estimate -- 10% of all Muslims -- were in fact somehow true? No, let us make that figure 5% -- only 5% are potential terrorists. Then what? If one out of 20 Muslims allowed into the Western world holds to these ideas, where are we then? Or what if one of the other 19 picks them up from that one? We have no way of insuring that every single Muslim will forever and ever be immune to such appeals.

That being the case, it is a matter of obvious prudence for Western governments to study carefully the question of Muslims migration to the Western world. Even if the figure of “only” 10% is accurate, we would be mad to continue to allow in and give citizenship to such a pool of people without a moment’s hesitation or examination or consideration. Infidel governments should not allow their policies to be dictated by fear of offending, or by believing their own absurdities -- no one should continue to mouth the kind of absurdities about the religion of "peace" and "tolerance" that we have had to endure in the past.

Prudence demands that risks be minimized. And time is running out.

From Pseudo-symmetries and moral equivalences (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009624.php)



It's a "war on terror," and those "terrorists" are a "handful of extremists." No, they're slightly more than a "handful of extremists." Now they're ten percent, and now potentially 50 percent, or if we are to believe the ex-Muslims, the keen apostates, more like 80% or more of those who take Qur'an and Hadith seriously support acts of terror. And then, of course, we are not entitled, are we, to even discuss Da'wa and the demographic conquest of Western Europe -- even if such matters are discussed openly, with great anticipation and pleasure, at Muslim websites. That would not be possible.

Who's crazy? Who's schizophrenic? Is it Moussaoui? Is it Al-Sharbi? Or is it those Infidels who are still unwilling to look at the teachings of Islam -- the Infidels who are still too paralyzed with fear of what they might find out and who thus remain incapable of even beginning to study the texts of Islam, and to discover what caused the 1350-year history of Islamic conquest and subjugation and then codified oppression of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, and indeed everyone under their control who was not a Muslim.

Who is crazy? Is it Al-Sharbi, or those who are discussing his case who will tell us that he's just "one more nut case, like Moussaoui"?

From Who's crazy? (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011256.php)
Back to your post:
Again that's where causation comes into play in that why does only a minority of those who commit acts of terror have this view in their religion while so many more of them do not commit acts of terror? Because there are other factors that are at play that are beyond these passages - I have no idea what they are, only that these passages themselves are not sufficient.
Even the Quran itself recognized that many/most/lotsof its adherents who not achieve what Islam views as such a high level of dedication and self sacrifice to Allah:

" Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and strive with might and main in the cause of Allah jihad fi sabil Allah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi_sabil_Allah)? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah: and Allah guides not those who do wrong."
Quran 9:19

There are many ways to be a good Muslim, even a great one. But nothing beats a Mujahid. And Mujahids are Islam's cream of the crop, not its bottom of the barrel.

Go and study Islam, for heaven's (or Canada's) sake!
I suppose this goes back to another point I made in the other thread: these passages are ideas;
Hogwash, gibberish and nonsense! To Muslims, these are the commandments of Allah. You need not understand them. They are to be carried out.
why do some (a minority) feel compelled to act on them while so many more do not?
It is against human instinct to bring children into this world and then strap and explosive belt around them and kiss them goodbye. Try it.

Essentially, it is a question of dedication and devotion and doing what you understand is the right thing to do in spite of your greatest emotions. To be a Shahid is to be a witness for Allah. Indeed, shahid means witness.

[tycho102]

You know what? Slowly but surely I come to the conclusion that this Europe is really not worth to be defended anymore. It stinks like a rotten cadaver, and attracts all kinds of carrion eaters for that reason. It strangles itself, and with it's last breath it calls: "Hooray, we are fantastic!" Maybe it deserves nothing better, then. A victim of aggression that does not defend itself, is said to be prey.

Replace "Europe" with "France", and that's about the same conclusion at which I have arrived.

Addendum:
When the Illumaniti divest their wealth to other countries, to protect it from the conquerers, make sure that only French women can lay claim to it after liberation, and accept the first god damn claims that come through. Whatever French woman applies for the account, just hand her the money wrapped in fancy shoeboxes with a bow on the top. If it's a French man, sic the dogs on him and call the SWAT team.

[STEED]

I found this piece of news it's a bit old by a few days.

http://static.jpost.com/images/2002/site/jplogo.gif
Jewish leaders buoyed by EU interfaith meeting
Joel clark / JTA, THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 4, 2006

Jewish leaders said they were optimistic following a high-profile interfaith meeting held by the European Union last week.
The Tuesday meeting was attended by Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders from across Europe, as well as Buddhist spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama.
Fifteen delegates were invited to Brussels to represent their faith communities in a discussion focused on the role religious communities should play in the promotion of freedom, democracy and human rights across Europe.
Organized by the EU Bureau of European Policy Advisers, the meeting was chaired by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, together with Wolfgang Schussel, chancellor of Austria, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU.
The event follows a similar gathering of religious leaders at the European Commission, the EU's executive wing, in July 2005, but this was the first time that such an initiative has had the support of the EU presidency.
Europe's Jewish community was represented by Chief Rabbi Rene Gutman of Strasbourg and Bas-Rhin in France and Chief Rabbi Albert Guigui of Brussels, both members of the Conference of European Rabbis, the organization which coordinates Europe's chief rabbis.
Barroso hailed the meeting as a "very important moment," adding that dialogue between faiths was a "vital condition in understanding their differences." Delegates spent three hours discussing issues affecting their communities in front of senior members of the European Commission, including the employment, justice and education commissioners, as well as Barroso and Schussel.
The meeting was also attended by Iranian-born Shi'ite leader Ayatollah Seyyed Abbas Ghaemmaghami, who expressed a willingness to work with Jewish leaders on common issues such as ritual slaughter.
Guigui, also permanent representative of the Conference of European Rabbis to the European Union, was positive about the meeting.
"The fact that the European Union now has a clear structure for interfaith dialogue gives us great hope that we can continue these meetings into the future," he told JTA.
Guigui added that he and Gutman had raised several key issues affecting the European Jewish community, notably the rise of anti-Semitism across Europe.
"Anti-Semitism is a very deep problem for the Jewish communities of Europe and the president said that they are preparing an EU forum to fight that phenomenon," he said.
Imam Abduljalil Sajid, a representative of the UKbased Muslim Council for Religious and Racial Harmony, said the meeting had shown a lot of "hopes and aspirations" among faith leaders.
Although there was nothing new in the gathering of religious leaders, Sajid said, the presence of such influential European politicians made it a "historic event." "There's no alternative to dialogue, but what we need now is actions to follow it all up."
Philip Carmel, director of international relations at the Conference of European Rabbis, said the meeting had been a real landmark.
"Bringing together religious leaders from all the monotheistic faiths of Europe under the flag of the European Union is something that I regard as very positive," he said. "It gives a sign that the EU is committed to real interfaith dialogue and to integrating people of faith into the European discussion to build a better society."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1148482100121&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[joea]

You know what? Slowly but surely I come to the conclusion that this Europe is really not worth to be defended anymore. It stinks like a rotten cadaver, and attracts all kinds of carrion eaters for that reason. It strangles itself, and with it's last breath it calls: "Hooray, we are fantastic!" Maybe it deserves nothing better, then. A victim of aggression that does not defend itself, is said to be prey.
Replace "Europe" with "France", and that's about the same conclusion at which I have arrived.

Addendum:
When the Illumaniti divest their wealth to other countries, to protect it from the conquerers, make sure that only French women can lay claim to it after liberation, and accept the first god damn claims that come through. Whatever French woman applies for the account, just hand her the money wrapped in fancy shoeboxes with a bow on the top. If it's a French man, sic the dogs on him and call the SWAT team.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

I found this piece of news it's a bit old by a few days.
Jewish leaders buoyed by EU interfaith meeting
A skit for the gullible.

[STEED]

I found this piece of news it's a bit old by a few days.
Jewish leaders buoyed by EU interfaith meeting
A skit for the gullible.

It struck me as bit in cuckoo land that bit of news.

[The Avon Lady]

I found this piece of news it's a bit old by a few days.
Jewish leaders buoyed by EU interfaith meeting
A skit for the gullible.
It struck me as bit in cuckoo land that bit of news.
Mentioned in the JPost article is Imam Dr. Abduljalil Sajid, of the UK Muslim Council for Religious and Racial Harmony. You can read a bit about his opinions in this article (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/174gxfos.asp).
"Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." He called, "War is deceit'."
Mohamad, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52: Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html), Number 267
Suggested reading for these Christian, Jewish and Eurocrat conference participants: Stop accommodating and tell the truth (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011841.php).

[bradclark1]

Sounds like you enjoyed Syrianna.

When will this old myth stop?

It's Not the Economy, Stupid: What the West Needs to Know about the Rise of Radical Islam (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/269) (article from 1995!)

God and Mammon: Does Poverty Cause Militant Islam? (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/104)

Saudi Columnists: Urbanization and Development in Southern Saudi Arabia, Not Poverty, Led to September 11 (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP32302)

Arab Columnists: Terrorists are Motivated by Cultural and Religious Factors, Not Poverty (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP85305)

Terrorists' backgrounds defy conventional wisdom (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006340.php)

Does poverty breed jihad? (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005378.php)

Poverty and terror: two questions for Alain Gresh (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009500.php)

Researchers probe motives of suicide bombers (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008414.php)

Affluent Genocide (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10282)

Nope, never even watched, read Syrianna. Don't even know what it's about and I'm too lazy to find out.
What I said doesn't mean I believe that is the sole factor. I'm not that stupid, but I'm willing to bet that that is the reason for maybe 60% or more of radicals. I'm sure as heck not saying to set them up in socialist heaven. It wouldn't do any good anyway.
This is what I believe and I'm not trying to change anyones mind. I can't say what I believe the fix would be because then this thread would be locked. I believe in fighting fire with fire.

[Yahoshua]

You might as well give up Scandium......because it seems apparent now that unless you actually go to these Arab countries and see for yourself how they practice their Islamic teachings, you will not understand Islam until you're on the receiving end of a 3 round burst.

I can vouch for Avon Lady as she lives in Israel (haven't met her in person though), and I have been to Israel myself. I even lived there for 3 months and I can absolutely agree with what evidences she ahs posted thus far. I (used to) own an english copy of the Q'uran printed in 1993, and after reading about 30 Surahs I can absolutely tell you that this is a violent, backwards charging religion that is intent on absolute domination. Not to mention that witnessing the aftermath of a bus bombing on Ben Yehuda street in Jerusalem can sure explain a thing or two about the illegitimacy of the PA, and Islam as a whole.

[caspofungin]

can't... take... anymore...:hulk:


I can vouch for Avon Lady as she lives in Israel

what does that have to do with anything? I've lived in Saudi Arabia and Sudan, and probably know more Muslims than any 2 people on this board, but apparently whatever I have to say on the topic isn't worth hearing...

Not to mention that witnessing the aftermath of a bus bombing on Ben Yehuda street in Jerusalem can sure explain a thing or two about the illegitimacy of the PA, and Islam as a whole.

yeah, and it also explains a lot about the occupation of a nation, the oppression, ill-use, and consequent resistance of those people, right or wrong, and has more to do with politics than religion.

But to look at the correlation from the other direction: how many of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims are linked (directly or through financial ties etc) to acts of Islamic terrorism?

good question. how many are, and how many aren't? but i guess it's easier to tar all 1.2 billion with the same brush, as long as it justifies treating them in a way that the west would never condone treating it's own.

****it. these threads always degenerate into the same slanging match. no one's going to change their opinion, so why are we even bringing this *****up?

[scandium]

Agreed. I'm already getting tired of the "discussion" in these threads that seem to serve little more for some then an opportunity to incite hatred and intolerance. Having myself already been attacked with everything from "being educated by pedophile priests" to a terrorist sympathizer, I'm done with participating in these threads.

Since there is absolutely no moderation going on in these threads, no matter what is said or how outrageous, they are beginning to appear more and more as an asylumn with the lunatics in charge, and they can have at it.

:down:

[CCIP]

Alright, I think I'll do a slightly more moderate form of my pledge not to participate in political discussion (that I made a couple of years ago and failed) -

I will boycott all threads that even hint at going into this issue, divide people broadly along any religious lines, or quote Koran/Jihadwatch/whathaveyou. It's the only way I can see of not propagating this, since I obviously don't possess any great and supernatural powers of logical persuasion to stop them. :roll:

[Yahoshua]

Gee Caspo, maybe you should watch this flash viceo: http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~davoudo/israel.html and this one: http://www.conceptwizard.com/conen/conflict_2.html to see who is actually occupying who.

And if you can't seem to understand how violent Islam is after having lived in Saudi Arabia (Friday beheadings anyone?) then how will you understand anyone else?

Another flash video: http://www.conceptwizard.com/terror/a1.html and another: http://www.conceptwizard.com/imagine/imagine_n.html

And yes, I'd rather paint all Moslems with the same brush because I'm tired of tying to filter out the individuals. Moslems = Islam. And Islam is bent on dominating EVERYTHING. Including me.

So if they want to join the 21st century I want them to do it themselves and do so peacefully. Otherwise they can keep playing "Saddam, Saddam" 'till kingdom come. And if one of them so much as screams to the media about their "oh so horrible occupation under Israel" WHY do they come to Israel for jobs i it's so horrible? WHY is Israel the ONLY nation in the Middle East that doesn't have problems with aqcuiring enough food for their civilians?

If Islam is so peaceful, then why in the world does practically every person you can ask on the planet, know what the word "Jihad" means?

And yes your input is worth hearing but it oesn't mean I have to agree to it.

And just an FYI the bus bombing aftermath I saw was #10 on the terror list (if that was the one near Ben Yahuda Street).

And for good measure: http://www.conceptwizard.com/pipeline_of_hatred.html AND... http://www.conceptwizard.com/trial/trial.html

[The Avon Lady]

can't... take... anymore...:hulk:
Inhale. Exhale.
I can vouch for Avon Lady as she lives in Israel
what does that have to do with anything?
I pretty much agree. In this day and age, one does not have to be in Israel to live and learn about Islam.
I've lived in Saudi Arabia and Sudan, and probably know more Muslims than any 2 people on this board, but apparently whatever I have to say on the topic isn't worth hearing...
Now I disagree.
Not to mention that witnessing the aftermath of a bus bombing on Ben Yehuda street in Jerusalem can sure explain a thing or two about the illegitimacy of the PA, and Islam as a whole.
yeah, and it also explains a lot about the occupation of a nation,
There never was an Arab nation named Palestine. There was, however, a Jewish one.
the oppression,
That's what happens when you declare a never-ending war and continue attacking for decades. Boo damn hoo.
ill-use, and consequent resistance of those people, right or wrong, and has more to do with politics than religion.
It has to do with both. Which does it have to do with more? Toss a coin in the air. I write this to you from wakf proclaimed territory.

On the other hand, here's a case for stating it mostly has to do with Islam: Tell The Children the Truth (http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/). Site is run by or affiliated with Muslims, BTW.
But to look at the correlation from the other direction: how many of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims are linked (directly or through financial ties etc) to acts of Islamic terrorism?
good question. how many are, and how many aren't? but i guess it's easier to tar all 1.2 billion with the same brush, as long as it justifies treating them in a way that the west would never condone treating it's own.
I'll post this again:
Let us assume that the estimate, given by one , that 10-15% of Muslims are terrorists or potential terrorists. One does not know how this figure is arrived at. Ali Sina and other defectors from Islam, whom I trust, consider it to have the percentages backwards, for they suggest that 85-90% of Muslims might become potential terrorists, or supporters of similar acts, or would be ready to harm non-Muslims in other ways, in the conduct of Jihad. Who knows, really -- and how could we ever be certain? But even the gleeful behavior of masses of Muslims all over the world, after 9/11, or the numbers of people naming their sons "Osama," or the kinds of things routinely said and applauded at meetings of Muslim nations, or the kinds of demands made on Infidel societies by Muslims now living in their midst, or the behavior of Muslim pressure groups to limit the power of Infidels to undertake reasonable security measures (including, precisely, profiling to target not a race, or an ethnic group, but the adherents or potential adherents of the ideology of Islam), and the enormous efforts to conduct Da'wa by every conceivable and sly means, including the rewriting of textbooks to transform the history of Infidel lands, and to target the most vulnerable members of society(prisoners, immigrants, schoolchildren) for the conduct of Da'wa -- all of this should give any Infidel who has studied the theory and practice of Islam, considerable pause.

But suppose that the lowest estimate -- 10% of all Muslims -- were in fact somehow true? No, let us make that figure 5% -- only 5% are potential terrorists. Then what? If one out of 20 Muslims allowed into the Western world holds to these ideas, where are we then? Or what if one of the other 19 picks them up from that one? We have no way of insuring that every single Muslim will forever and ever be immune to such appeals.

That being the case, it is a matter of obvious prudence for Western governments to study carefully the question of Muslims migration to the Western world. Even if the figure of “only” 10% is accurate, we would be mad to continue to allow in and give citizenship to such a pool of people without a moment’s hesitation or examination or consideration. Infidel governments should not allow their policies to be dictated by fear of offending, or by believing their own absurdities -- no one should continue to mouth the kind of absurdities about the religion of "peace" and "tolerance" that we have had to endure in the past.

Prudence demands that risks be minimized. And time is running out.

From Pseudo-symmetries and moral equivalences (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009624.php)



It's a "war on terror," and those "terrorists" are a "handful of extremists." No, they're slightly more than a "handful of extremists." Now they're ten percent, and now potentially 50 percent, or if we are to believe the ex-Muslims, the keen apostates, more like 80% or more of those who take Qur'an and Hadith seriously support acts of terror. And then, of course, we are not entitled, are we, to even discuss Da'wa and the demographic conquest of Western Europe -- even if such matters are discussed openly, with great anticipation and pleasure, at Muslim websites. That would not be possible.

Who's crazy? Who's schizophrenic? Is it Moussaoui? Is it Al-Sharbi? Or is it those Infidels who are still unwilling to look at the teachings of Islam -- the Infidels who are still too paralyzed with fear of what they might find out and who thus remain incapable of even beginning to study the texts of Islam, and to discover what caused the 1350-year history of Islamic conquest and subjugation and then codified oppression of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, and indeed everyone under their control who was not a Muslim.

Who is crazy? Is it Al-Sharbi, or those who are discussing his case who will tell us that he's just "one more nut case, like Moussaoui"?

From Who's crazy? (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011256.php)
these threads always degenerate into the same slanging match. no one's going to change their opinion, so why are we even bringing this **** up?
Actually, western opinion of Islam is changing. And it will change more the more people study Islam, its legal writings and its history.

Will enough infidels do so and make a change in the world? We can only hope.

[aaken]

There never was an Arab nation named Palestine. There was, however, a Jewish one.

My history is a little bit rusty...wasn't the jewish nation destroyed by the Romans in the first century? After that time, for how long there hasn't been a jewish nation in the middle east?

Coming back to Europe's future, I suppose in most of european countries there is a thing called law. If some morons break it, they should, theoretically, go to jail, independently from their religion/skin color/sex. Also, in Europe there is freedom of religion, it's been a constitutional right for quite some time now, in quite a few countries. The partial or total abrogation of such right, in my view, is not an answer to any problem. Just like I don't think it's an answer to get a gun and ammo. Gun and ammo to do what? Start an ethnical/religious cleansing? How charming! I bet that one must be quite an entertaining show!

[The Avon Lady]

There never was an Arab nation named Palestine. There was, however, a Jewish one.
My history is a little bit rusty...wasn't the jewish nation destroyed by the Romans in the first century? After that time, for how long there hasn't been a jewish nation in the middle east?
Your history sounds fine to me! Before the Romans destroyed our country, they named it "Palaestina." Arabs can't even pronounce the name correctly ("P" is difficult, if not impossible for most Arabs to pronounce) and they're forced to mispronounce it as "Falastin."

We Jews have never given up our claim to Israel. As Menachem Begin reminded Israel's own Parliament:

"We were granted our right to exist by the God of our fathers at the glimmer of the dawn of human civilization four thousand years ago. Hence, the Jewish people have an historic, eternal and inalienable right to exist in this land, Eretz Yisrael, the land of our forefathers. We need nobody's recognition in asserting this inalienable right. And for this inalienable right, which has been sanctified in Jewish blood from generation to generation, we have paid a price unexampled in the annals of nations."

You may lump it, if you wish.
Coming back to Europe's future, I suppose in most of european countries there is a thing called law. If some morons break it, they should, theoretically, go to jail, independently from their religion/skin color/sex. Also, in Europe there is freedom of religion, it's been a constitutional right for quite some time now, in quite a few countries. The partial or total abrogation of such right, in my view, is not an answer to any problem. Just like I don't think it's an answer to get a gun and ammo. Gun and ammo to do what? Start an ethnical/religious cleansing? How charming! I bet that one must be quite an entertaining show!
This is what the other side has planned for you. Go ahead, sit back and relax. Just play wait and see, if you insist on not investigating what you're being tolerant of - your own society's demise.

[Skybird]

Since it was asked in two parrallel threads why these threads are there and why one should want to be so "intolerant" and criticise Islam and prefer ignorrance over "multi-culti", I suggest the following as an answer. By content it could have been from me, I agree with it very much.

I have massively criticised Bush and Neocons and the gap between American ideals and reality of American policy in earlier years. I was heavily attacked for that, but no one ever threatened to hurt or to kill me. I have criticised Christian sects and churches repeatedly and substantially, but never someone gave me reason to think he might visit me with a knife between his teeth.

It is no hobby for me, but in this forum we do speak abiut these things as well, and when in my real life I get asked, or someone tells nonsnes on these things in my presence, I do not let it go by untreated. It is important, it is about what I call my home in a wider understanding, and the future of our culture. You can expect that in my mothertongue I am more flexible and competent to express my thoughts. And more clearly.

As I have indicated earlier this year, in January I received the first paper/mail-letter ever where I was cursed for my "lies" and "attacks" and "distortions" of Muhammad and Islam, and was warned to let it be else my life may be shorter than I expect. Obviously it has come from a Muslim not from this board, since none here knows my adress, but some Muslim who happened to hear me and knows me from my real life. In February, I received the second of such a letter. I feel honoured. Usually you read in the newspaper about such things happening. Or is intimidating more regular today, even intimidation by our own governments? The editor of the conservative Brussel Journal, with whom I agree sometimes, sometimes not, is threatend with prosecution for the second time within weeks. First he was accused of racism and inhuman intolerance when criticising the pro-Islam policy of the EU, now they try to silence him with accusing him of violating his responsebility to edcuate his youngest children, because he is practicing home-teaching, which is allowed in Belgium, although rarely practiced. His two or three older children currently have made it as far as up to university. Obviously he cannot have tought them too bad. State controllers have tested them, and found them to be fully educated.

I am not afraid of this mail I received, it just justifies my opinion on Islam, and has risen my alert status a bit, and made me even angrier of the stupidity of people embracing Islam and mixing up tolerance with submission, multi-culti with Islam, racism with civilizational self-defense. That I get called a fascist some weeks ago, an intolerant and bigot, a phobic and whatever it is, I am used to. I got called by the same names whan I attacked the Iraq war in 2003. And back then the general atmosphere here was much more aggressive, and much hotter.

And just for the record, the old members do already know this, but there are some newcomers that have not stayed long enough to have red aboiut me in the past: I know a little bit about Islam by own experience. I lived and worked half a year in Iran, half a year in central and east Anatolia, and for another couple of months I have travelled several other Muslim countries. I red more than just three or four books about Islam, my shelf is nicely covered with stuff about it'S history, sociology, policy, and aboiut Koran, Hadith and the biography of Muhammad, the historically true figure I mean. If you think I just snap up some headlines and mirror them, and express some frustration about the EU, you are wrong. I attack Islam not becaue I do not know it. I attack it just exactly because I have learned about it.

Stop accommodating and tell the truth

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers an alternate plan to dhimmi governing officials:



A state policy of trying in every way to accommodate Muslims, including the policy of not offending them -- or rather, not doing anything that they could conceivably claim offends them -- is madness. It is obvious that Muslim groups, Muslim spokesman, Muslim individuals, are trying to force the Western world not to see what is in front of it. When appeals to the Idols of the Age ("Everyone Wants the Same Thing," "Everyone Is Exactly Alike") don't do it, other methods are chosen. These include murder of the outspoken (Pim Fortuyn or Theo Van Gogh) which unfortunately tends to make some Infidels suspicious of Muslims. It includes threats of murder, which unfortunately do not always work (Geert Wildres, Ayaan Hirsi Ali). It includes lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, including those the State brings (the trial of Oriana Fallaci). It includes outrage and hints of economic repercussions (Arab governments might pull those glossy ads), which can cause critics to lose their jobs (Will Cummins at The Telegraph). The main thing is to shut those Infidels up, to force them to watch every word.





But this is madness. This is not only wrong, this is the very opposite of what should be done. Everywhere Infidels should demonstrate, repeatedly, ostentatiously, that they have studied the Qur'an and Hadith, and that they have read a sufficient amount about Jihad-conquest and the subjugation of non-Muslims, over 1350 years, so that they cannot be fooled. The mere presence of a single Infidel who knows what he is talking about at one of those Mosque Outreach sessions, can destroy its value to the Muslims who are attempting to inveigle the unwary Infidels. Knowledge is everything; knowledge and the ability to articulate. Those Infidels who wish to carefully regulate the language in which Islam is discussed, because they have been told to do so by apologists for Islam (in many cases, Muslim propagandists and agitators; in other cases, non-Muslim collaborators; in still other cases, simpletons in positions of authority) are simply choosing to deny what Islam teaches, what attitudes it clearly inculcates, and what has been the perceived behavior of Muslims, animated by the immutable texts, from Spain to the East Indies over 1350 years. One can ignore all that and keep hoping and wishing, or one can decide to pull the pillow off of one's head and face the day, however disturbing it may be. The most intelligent thing to do is for Muslims to be put constantly on the defensive, to be constantly made aware that non-Muslims no longer will accept the nonsense about a "religion." Call it a belief-system with elements of worship and a great deal of everything else -- a political system, a social system -- one which is based on a clear division of the Universe between Believer and Infidel. Let Islam be criticized, let Islam be mocked. There will be a gigantic campaign, by Muslims -- there is such a campaign, uncoordinated, spontaneous, by all kinds of Muslims everywhere, to protect the Faith from those who do not discuss it exactly as Believers think they should -- which is exactly in the way that Believers do. But as Ali Sina says, constant mockery, constant awareness of Islam as a totalitarian system, an awareness displayed on every occasion by Infidels, will force certain changes, not least among Muslims of good will and open mind -- or at least stop the onward march of Islam.


Muslims are intent on remaining in the Lands of the Infidels and indeed on swelling their own ranks and power until they will not have to worry about what Infidels think at all. But at this point they still have to worry. They have to worry about whether or not the Infidels will come to their senses sufficiently, will look into history, and will look simply around the world to see how non-Muslims are treated in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, in Iran and Sudan, in Pakistan and Bangladesh and Indonesia, in Malaysia and Afghanistan, and everywhere that Islam prevails and has not been systematically contained either by local despots (Ataturk in Turkey, Bourguiba in Tunisia) and their successors, or opposed by a very large and powerful non-Muslim population (the Maronites in Lebanon until recent decades).

Tell the truth about Islam. Tell it all the time, in different keys. Show that you know what you are talking about. Modify, at times, the way you tell those truths to fit the audience you have, but keep it up. That is the way to make Infidels safer. And it is also the way to hold out hope for those people who, born into Islam, yet not liking it, wishing to escape from it, secretly hope the Infidels will limit its influence, will force changes upon it or at least the perceived need for change to the teachings, and thus the texts, of Islam.

To limit what is said, to be so solicitous of those who do not wish us well, who wish us, our laws, our customs, our understandings, our freedoms, ill, who in many cases are delighted with whatever suffering they can inflict on Infidels anywhere, is crazy. We should worry not about offending Muslims, but about whether or not we have effectively conveyed to them that we understand Islam, and that we understand that it is only those Muslims who do not accept its full teachings -- that is, the bad Muslims -- with whom we can conceivably coexist. And that furthermore we cannot always tell which Muslim is a lax, unobservant, "bad" Muslim, and which is not, nor which children or grandchildren of "bad" Muslims will revert, for one reason or another, to the original, full-bodied, dangerous version.

To engage in self-censorship, to prevent Islam from being freely discussed using terms that are neither obscene nor vicious but only, unfortunately, grimly accurate, to worry about offending Muslim sensibilities, which only promotes (in advance of and in the absence of Muslim rule) the dhimmi mentality, the very theme of Bat Ye'or's Eurabia -- all this will do nothing to protect Infidels. It will do nothing to modify the beliefs of Muslims, nor to encourage the camp of those Muslims who wish that other Muslims would recognize the dangers of what Islam teaches, and work to somehow modify it. If Infidels will not tell the truth about Islam, those would-be "reformers" within Islam will have no one to point to, no way of creating the necessary atmosphere of defensiveness and alarm which is the only thing likely to force at least some Muslims to realize, and then to admit to, some of the dangers and faults of Islam.





Too many people say they get easily bored by something if it is repeated. Too many just stanad in silence and prefer to followe their every day routine, assuming all will be good, the others will care. Too many people think it is not up to them to stand up against aggression, and defend what one is calling "home" and "civilization"

Too few defenders to win this confrontation with Islam, therefore.

[The Avon Lady]

Bah! I linked to that article yesterday!:rotfl:

[aaken]

I'm not disputing the fact that you've never given up your claim on Israel, nor I'm disputing the right of anybody to exist. But, although the arabs who were previously living over there have never been a nation, I don't think that displacing them (in part or in toto) and occupying the land that, for any reason, they thought it was theirs, has had a good effect on their mood.
Needless to say, whatever claim they may have, it doesn't justify the use of terrorism on their part. On the other hand, if kids start throwing rocks and you blast them with tank fire, it's not exactly polite.

But back to Europe.
European countries have been subject to a flow of immigration (legal and illegal) from other european countries and from non european countries . The main reason for that, I suppose, it's economical. People trying to move to places where they may enjoy better life style, earn more money, and so on. Since in Europe we do have freedom of religion, freedom of association and so on, it's normal that the immigrants (part of which eventually become citizens of their host countries) are allowed to pray whatever God they may like. it's normal as well that they bring part of their culture in the host countries. If this is not in contrast with the laws of the host country, I don't have a problem with that.
And I don't think the fact that in Saudi Arabia christians are not allowed to pray their God is an excuse to do the same in Europe.
As for the demise of my society...well...in the middle ages parts of Europe were invaded by muslims (and by anybody else as well), in some parts there was also a somewhat pacific co-existance of christians and muslims (like in south Italy during the reign of the Emperor Frederic the second), in other parts there was no co-existance. Still, most of the countries in Europe survived, evolved and ... eventually here we are today.

[Skybird]

Somehow you are always a second ahead of me.

Any chance that you do play chess...? :D

Wanted to have done it yesterday, but football was against it.

[The Avon Lady]

I'm not disputing the fact that you've never given up your claim on Israel, nor I'm disputing the right of anybody to exist. But, although the arabs who were previously living over there have never been a nation, I don't think that displacing them (in part or in toto)
There were not displaced in 1947, when the UN partitioned the country and Israel accepted it, with all it's disadvantages.

They were displaced in 1948, when the Arabs declared war and attacked the Jewish State. They were then kept displaced by the Arabs themselves, who used them as a tool of misery against Israel for 20 years and no one in the world batted an eyelid about them.
and occupying the land that, for any reason, they thought it was theirs, has had a good effect on their mood.
The Arabs again threatened to push the Jews into the sea, mounted their troops, tanks and air forces against Israel. They lost. We won. Too bad.

In a sane world, the lesson would be crime does not pay. Not so with the Arabs against the Jews.

In any case, it was the Arabs who refused to negotiate and "recognize" Israel for another decade.

Reminder: the PLO, with its charter to destroy Israel, was founded in 1964 - 3 years before any Israeli had a foothold in Judea, Samaria or Gaza.

You reap what you sow.
Needless to say, whatever claim they may have, it doesn't justify the use of terrorism on their part. On the other hand, if kids start throwing rocks and you blast them with tank fire, it's not exactly polite.
This is a lie.
But back to Europe.
European countries have been subject to a flow of immigration (legal and illegal) from other european countries and from non european countries . The main reason for that, I suppose, it's economical. People trying to move to places where they may enjoy better life style, earn more money, and so on. Since in Europe we do have freedom of religion, freedom of association and so on, it's normal that the immigrants (part of which eventually become citizens of their host countries) are allowed to pray whatever God they may like.
So put Abu Hamza back in the Finsbury Mosque for all I care!
it's normal as well that they bring part of their culture in the host countries. If this is not in contrast with the laws of the host country, I don't have a problem with that.
Bingo!

Is Sha'aria law "in contrast" with European laws? Yes or no? (Skybird, no sarcastic remarks, please!:roll: )

Is Jihad law "in contrast" with European laws?

You will learn the hard way that the democracy and libertarian society that you so love and cherish (justifiably so), will be eaten away from within.
And I don't think the fact that in Saudi Arabia christians are not allowed to pray their God is an excuse to do the same in Europe.
Are Christians trying to forceably or cunningly rule over Saudi Arabia and then harshly subjugate its population afterwards and kill those that continue to resist?

Where is the comparison? Learn, learn, learn what dhimmitude is, what jizyah is, how they were employed in countries overrun by Islam.
As for the demise of my society...well...in the middle ages parts of Europe were invaded by muslims (and by anybody else as well), in some parts there was also a somewhat pacific co-existance of christians and muslims (like in south Italy during the reign of the Emperor Frederic the second), in other parts there was no co-existance. Still, most of the countries in Europe survived, evolved and ... eventually here we are today.
Thanks to the Crusades. Otherwise, indeed you would not likely be on this forum or this forum may not have existed for that matter. What we discuss is Haram.

[The Avon Lady]

Somehow you are always a second ahead of me.

Any chance that you do play chess...? :D

Wanted to have done it yesterday, but football was against it.
I don't play chess and I don't like football. :nope:

No wonder I'm ahead of you!:smug:

[The Avon Lady]

Skybird, someone wrote a letter to Melanie Phillips (http://www.melaniephillips.com/), which I think you'll appreciate. Maybe others will, too.
June 11, 2006
The voice of beleaguered British sanity

I have been immensely touched and heartened by the steady stream of support and encouragement I have been receiving in response to my book Londonistan (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594031444/sr=8-1/qid=1150454107/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5860147-0288848?%5Fencoding=UTF8) and my various articles and broadcasting appearances related to its publication. I am extremely grateful to everyone who has written. What is notable is that so many feel they are alone in thinking the way they do; but what is clear from such a reaction is that, on the contrary, there are many, many people who retain a strong sense of decency, conscience, and the ability to think straight, and who see very clearly what is going on and how it threatens our national survival. At a time when such people have effectively been politically disenfranchised, it is particularly important that they know they are not alone. In that spirit, I reproduce here a message I received today.
I just want you to know that its so incredibly refreshing to know that there is someone in public arena to speak for those of us, who are increasingly fearful of the cultural and moral erosion we see in this country, as a result of a 'multi-cultural' society. I have never felt so compelled to write or contact someone as yourself, ever, ever before, until today, because I have simply had enough.
It amazes me greatly that people who are meant to be seen as rational, intelligent and highly educated cannot (or perhaps are too fearful) see that there is a great difference between being a racist who still lives in the dark ages and wishes for Britain to remain a white Anglo-Saxon society and those who are advocates of a British cultural and national identity.

My parents were among the many Nigerians who were sent to Britain by their parents in the 1960s to gain an education. My father qualified as a pharmacist from Cardiff University and my mother studied sociology and social policy at Birmingham. They had my brother and sister here, before returning to Nigeria in 1976, where my younger brother and I were born. They stayed in Nigeria from 1976 to 1985, where both my parents were finding it increasing difficult to live and survive in a country where corruption was necessary to maintain a particular lifestyle.

I clearly remember when my parents told my siblings and I that we were coming back to Britain, as my father's old employer had given him a job in Luton to manage one of his chemist shops - I was so excited. I was finally coming to this great country that I had heard so much about.

Britain, the country where there was always a right and proper way of doing things, a democratic country that allowed for freedom of speech and expression but was still relatively grounded in its beliefs. A Christian country that allowed for the practice of other faiths. One in which where there were opportunities for all who sought it and were prepared to work for it, almost regardless of race and colour.

I went to a local state school, where we had assembly and sang hymns and the headmistress gave a closing prayer. Hymns and closing prayer?? That’s almost unheard of in many state schools now - and why? Multiculturalism and the completely misguided belief that it would cause offence to non-Christians.

I completely agree with you that the goverment, the establishment, even the Royal Family (Prince Charles, defender of all faiths) have been completely sucked into a situation where in the country trying to be all things to all men has given up it beliefs, its fabric, its everything and is bereft of anything. My children are certainly not being taught what it means to be British – gosh, it’s almost embarrassing to say 'I am British'. Teaching all children from an early age to be able to sing the national anthe, would probably provoke a national debate about why we should have an anthem that mentions 'O Lord our God', as it might offend our non-Christian bothers and sisters. The true goal would be completely pushed aside.

I am worried that my children are growing up in a society where there is no national identity and celebration of the British culture. I can definitely attest to the fact that this lack of identity is causing children of second, third etc generation of immigrants to be brought up with the beliefs and national identity of the country their parents or grandparents have come from. They view and will view themselves to be British only as far as their passport is concerned, but a Nigerian, a Ghanaian, a Pakistani or an Indian first and foremost. I am not saying that it is this lack of identity that is solely responsible for young British Muslims wanting to blow themselves and others up, but it certainly plays a large part. They see themselves as Muslim and Pakistani / Bangladeshi / Jamaican first. For some, ‘British’ does not even feature in their identity — hence why they are so able to do what they do and believe what they believe.

Look at America, a country many times larger than ours with people from every corner of the earth, yet they still manage to retain a sense of what it means to be an American, because they make no apology for trying to instil this identity from when one has to pass the citizenship test, to the ceremony and pledge of allegiance.

It amazed me greatly after the July bombing that the majority of the media and British, white public were so shocked that 'our' own people could do this. I certainly was not shocked. What this part of the country needs to realise is because of the promotion of multiculturalism, THERE IS NO LONGER AN 'US'. There now exist separate identities living under the umbrella of Britain/United Kingdom, but who certainly do not view themselves as British.

After the recent raid in East London and the growing likelihood that the police might not find anything, I felt a sense of dread that the 'undercover' extremist groups and Muslim groups who in public like to pretend that there isn't an issue to be worried about (of which there are many) would now be able to use this as a weapon to be fashioned against the police and government, in order to ensure that their activities continue to go undetected and to protect 'their own'. These groups and their leaders who appear in the media, are aware that there is a problem within their communities but as a result of lack of identity or togetherness to the country they live in, they believe that their loyalty belongs first and foremost to their own, rather than to this country.

They might not necessarily agree with those who commit these atrocities, but are more likely to pretend to the outside world that all is well within and try and resolve the issues themselves that report a brother or sister who they know is planning to commit a terrorist crime, because their loyalty belongs to them first and not to the Crown.

There are many second generation immigrants, who although born and bred in this country are feeling a sense of alienation from the country they chose to come and live in and were prepared to imbibe its culture as well as keeping the culture of their parents, because the country, in trying to be all things to all men, has lost its identity and all are left with a lack of belonging.

My parents and I and many black and ethnic groups have always voted for Labour out of a sense of history, but I can certainly tell you that this group are more and more feeling disenchanted with the government as it is they who have slowly helped to ensure the erosion of a national identity out of a sense of political correctness, which they looked to and wanted their children to imbibe.

The Conservatives are certainly missing a trick here - the country wants direction and a national identity to be proud of and not ashamed of; someone who won’t apologise for insisting that those wanting to become citizens must learn to speak English and to pledge allegiance to the Crown, must learn the history of the country and must be able to sing the national anthem. That Christianity is the national faith, for which we make no apology for, that children must and should sing hymns in schools and have prayers.

We should stop being scared and embarrassed for wanting to be proud to be British. If the white, indigenous people are embarrassed about their identity, what hope is there for the rest of us.

You speak for a larger group of people than you probably know.

[Skybird]

A good reading. Thanks. Reminds me of what an old Armenian school friend of mine is saying, too - different words, same content.

I noted that you are very quick to show up with a huge number of links when the articles do fit in. Do you scan the web for that stuff as kind of your hobby, or is it part of your job? I myself may stumble over something and make a note for later use - and have forgotten it again the next day.

[The Avon Lady]

A good reading. Thanks. Reminds me of what an old Armenian school friend of mine is saying, too - different words, same content.

I noted that you are very quick to show up with a huge number of links when the articles do fit in. Do you scan the web for that stuff as kind of your hobby, or is it part of your job? I myself may stumble over something and make a note for later use - and have forgotten it again the next day.
I do a lot of searching for some of my work. I pop in to JW a few times a day to see what's new.

[Skybird]

Is Sha'aria law "in contrast" with European laws? Yes or no? (Skybird, no sarcastic remarks, please!:roll: )


Nooooo... why should I :lol: .


aaken,

Islam is politics and religious cult in one and the same hand, no separation as we have acchieved in in the West. Where Islam demands protection by the law due to our freedom to freely practice religion, it gets that protection - for it's cult as well as for it's policy. And it's policy inevitable includes sharia. And Sharia overrules our constitutional order and any earthly legal code, becasue Sharia is divine, and legal codes are work of man only (that'S how they see it, it is not important how we see it). Our own laws are working against us that way. At stake is not their freedom to freely express and practice - but paradoxically ours. And medias already have become very careful about what they say abiut Islam, and how they say it. No open criticism anymore - you get brandmarked not by them, but by your own fearsome people.

[aaken]

Originally Posted by aaken
I'm not disputing the fact that you've never given up your claim on Israel, nor I'm disputing the right of anybody to exist. But, although the arabs who were previously living over there have never been a nation, I don't think that displacing them (in part or in toto)

There were not displaced in 1947, when the UN partitioned the country and Israel accepted it, with all it's disadvantages.

They were displaced in 1948, when the Arabs declared war and attacked the Jewish State. They were then kept displaced by the Arabs themselves, who used them as a tool of misery against Israel for 20 years and no one in the world batted an eyelid about them.

Quote:
and occupying the land that, for any reason, they thought it was theirs, has had a good effect on their mood.

The Arabs again threatened to push the Jews into the sea, mounted their troops, tanks and air forces against Israel. They lost. We won. Too bad.

In a sane world, the lesson would be crime does not pay. Not so with the Arabs against the Jews.

In any case, it was the Arabs who refused to negotiate and "recognize" Israel for another decade.

Reminder: the PLO, with its charter to destroy Israel, was founded in 1964 - 3 years before any Israeli had a foothold in Judea, Samaria or Gaza.

You're absolutely correct. But I've never said that Arab-Palestinians are smart and learn from their mistakes. If they were, there would not be a Palestinian-Israelian problem nowadays. Just that whatever they suffered did not improve their mood. Understandable.

Is Sha'aria law "in contrast" with European laws? Yes or no? (Skybird, no sarcastic remarks, please! )

Is Jihad law "in contrast" with European laws?
Yes to both. But where in Europe those "laws" have been, are or are about to be "accepted"?
I didn't see any parlamentary debate in Belgium or in Italy or in Norway about adopting them.
(I speak just of the countries in which I live/lived).

Are Christians trying to forceably or cunningly rule over Saudi Arabia and then harshly subjugate its population afterwards and kill those that continue to resist?


No. But it doesn't seem to me that the arabs are trying to subjugate the population in Europe and so on and so forth. But probably that's because I don't live in the same reality as you or Skybird. Well...time for coffee and cigarette...


EDIT: After the coffee and cigarette...

Learn, learn, learn what dhimmitude is, what jizyah is, how they were employed in countries overrun by Islam.
I've always been unable to learn what I cannot pronounce. I would be ashamed if I started now.

What we discuss is Haram
I don't know what it is, but if it's a good thing then I hope you get it too.

[caspofungin]

@AL

a mujahid is someone who fights in the service of Allah -- fight against repression or persecution or whatever -- taking it to mean strictly someone who straps a bomb to themselves or carries a kalshnikov is limiting the definition. so taking a passage

" Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and strive with might and main in the cause of Allah jihad fi sabil Allah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi_sabil_Allah)? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah: and Allah guides not those who do wrong."Quran 9:19


doesn't mean that the quran's telling you to go and blow up restaurants and buses. certainly, there are those that believe it does, there are also those that don't. but again, we've had this discussion previously ;)

re nation -- members of a nation are distinguished by a common identity, and almost always by a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage, or descent. that's distinct from a nation-state.

In a sane world, the lesson would be crime does not pay. Not so with the Arabs against the Jews.

so what's the crime?

...an historic, eternal and inalienable right to exist in this land, Eretz Yisrael, the land of our forefathers...

fair enough. what about the arabs' rights? their forefathers lived there too. don't they have rights? apparently not. an arab family can have lived on a ptach of land for generations, now they're living in a refugee camp. they have running water 4 hours a day (the israelis control the water), intermittent electricity (again, who controls the infrastructure?), have to depend on the goodwill of whoever is manning the border crossing that day to get to work or school. meanwhile, some joe fresh off the plane from kiev or wherever gets a nice, well-appointed home, running wate, electricity, and subsidies from the government.

i don't want to get into wether this is right or wrong, because that's something we'll never agree on. same with the path to the current situation -- i don't want to get into whose fault it is. but at the very least, given the current situation, can you see why this inequity can lead to frustration and eventually violence? You reap what you sow -- you said it, not me.


@yahoshua
And if one of them so much as screams to the media about their "oh so horrible occupation under Israel" WHY do they come to Israel for jobs i it's so horrible?

because the israeli occupation has had a devestating economic impact on palestinians and their livelihoods. it's hard to get ahead economically when your trade access, investment funds, and opportunities for education are limited by an occupying power. they come to israel for jobs because they don't have a choice.

And if you can't seem to understand how violent Islam is after having lived in Saudi Arabia (Friday beheadings anyone?) then how will you understand anyone else?

crime and punishment -- crime doesn't pay, as AL said. and the inequity of who gets beheaded and who gets to stay in prison has more to do w/ society, economics, racism than religion -- just like in every country w/ capital punishment.


how will you understand anyone else... I'd rather paint all Moslems with the same brush because I'm tired of tying to filter out the individuals. Moslems = Islam.

that's right. the path to understanding is through crass generalizations and collective punishment -- because it's easier. if i painted all jews with the same brush because of what i see happening in israel, who'd be the first to call me racist?

[Tedo]

I think jews are to blame for things happening in palestina. Muslims have every right for this land. Its their land, and jews are just suppresing them. One thing more JEWS ARE NO A NATION!!!

Waiting for your critics now :oops:

[Yahoshua]

"because the israeli occupation has had a devestating economic impact on palestinians and their livelihoods. it's hard to get ahead economically when your trade access, investment funds, and opportunities for education are limited by an occupying power. they come to israel for jobs because they don't have a choice."

And Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon don't want to provide for their Arab brethren? Those multi-billion dollar profiteering sheiks don't care about their people, but it's all Israels fault because she's taking the necessary steps to defend herself? How shocking!!! (read with sarcasm).

If Mexico were commencing terror attacks against the United States, there would be a massive amount of carpet bombing in retaliation for it. But if Israel so much as lifts up a finger (checkpoints, curfews, assassinations, etc.) then she's the worlds worst opressor. Can we remember who STARTED the terror bombings to begin with?

"crime and punishment -- crime doesn't pay, as AL said. and the inequity of who gets beheaded and who gets to stay in prison has more to do w/ society, economics, racism than religion -- just like in every country w/ capital punishment."

Oh yes.... The crime of a woman who stands accused of looking at another man, the crime of stealing bread because a beggar is starving to death (in an oil rich arab country one would think these people were capable of taking care of their people). And the worst crime of all: being a Christian, or a foriegner who doesn't believe in Islam.

Yes, they're so just and equal in their doling our of capital punishment.

"That's right. the path to understanding is through crass generalizations and collective punishment -- because it's easier. if i painted all jews with the same brush because of what i see happening in israel, who'd be the first to call me racist?"

Well, if you're in Saudi Arabia, nobody would call you racist for it. I'm sure you've seen all the cartoons on the paper stands over there.

And yes, I hold the ENTIRE community of Moslems responsible for the actions of their own brethren. They molded themselves into this way of thinking and behavior, and it is their responsibility to bear for what actions their members commit.

If somebody murders a person in America, they're punished for it. In Islam it is encouraged (against those who aren't Moslem that is). If they do not condemn these actions and actively WORK towards stopping the terrorists, then they are no different from the terrorists.

I believe someone here already said something along the lines of "If you fly with the crows, expect to get shot with them."

[Onkel Neal]

Since there is absolutely no moderation going on in these threads, no matter what is said or how outrageous, they are beginning to appear more and more as an asylumn with the lunatics in charge, and they can have at it.

:down:

Sorry, but unless we make religion and politics offlimits, this is going to occur. I'm happy is usually contained in one thread. As soon as I see Avon Lady or Skybird posting something with the words "Jewish", "Christian", or "Islam", I quit reading the topic. As I did this one. I'm here now after several people complained that this topic is rife with personal attacks.
No personal attacks. There, it has been moderated.

[gabeeg]

It's funny I would probably have been one of those multi-culti people carrying the flag of cultural/religious relativism a few years ago. I have become more and more frustrated by the Muslim peoples I had tried to defend. I had argued that it is not "Islam" that was the problem but Individuals or groups that were the problem. I had argued the reasons for decades of modern problems were combinations of culture, socio-economic disparity, western ignorance and arrogance, etc. I still believe these things to a large extent and I believe that they are indeed at the root of our current problems. Where I have changed is in my willingness to give a free pass to these "Islamic Cultures" (Arab, Turkic, etc.). Where are the Muslim voices for reason? Where are the calls from the leaders in these "cultures" for more tolerance and understanding? Where are Clerics that while believing they are oppressed or wronged, try to create dialog....or admit that they are any small part of any problem? Granted there are those that attempt these things but their voices are weak and lack conviction in most instances. Time and time again they say the right things for western consumption and something else for their own domestic audience. Where are the leaders and clerics that are taking risks for the cause of reason? Where are the leaders and clerics that are willing to give what what they demand from us? Is it Indeed the teachings of Islam that make these things so seemingly impossible?

I often hear of the wrongs of Judeo-Christian cultures, such as the Crusades and the Isreali oppression of Palestinians. That these histories are daily reality to Islamic nations and cultures and are a part of their cultural consiousness. What about Islam? For centuries they had ruled over large areas of once Christian nations. Still to this day there are large judeo-christian communities in Islamic lands. Have they always been treated with tolerance? Even today, what Islamic state can say that their Judeo-Christian populations are equal....none. From the worst where they are unwelcome, persecuted, murdered to the best where they are a sub-class not nearly equal in the eyes of the government or the courts, though they maybe tolerated and live thier lives generally unmolested. Where are the calls for this to be changed? I have heard nothing but apologists even from the most reform and liberally minded in the Islamic leadership. Is it political immaturity or something else, more deeply seated?

I have read recently a bit on Gandhi, where is the Islamic Gandhi? A person who agressively pursues to correct the wrongs done to his people but is just as unyielding in standing up to intolerance in his own peoples/nation? I do not want to believe that to be a true Muslim and a true voice tolerance and understanding are incompatible. I have read the greater part of the Koran (I have three separate translations) and for the most part do not see this imcompatibility. I have read troubling passages...(but I have read troubling passages in the bible) and also passage of tolerance especially for "Peoples of the Book". What I am coming to think is that maybe these areas I find so troubling are core beliefs that are unable to be taken in context to times or events in the past.

I don't know....I really don't but I am greatly frustrated and disapointed. I find it harder and harder to defend a people and religion that though greatly wronged and misunderstood...does little or nothing to justify this defence.

As an Armenian (American) myself I have always appreciated the stories of those Muslims that helped the Armenian people (Turk, Kurd or Arab) during the Genocide and used these great and good deads to argue that Islam was not the problem but the Turkish Government and its followers (sadly a large percentage of the population). I was proud when the U.S. and allies defended the Muslims of Kosovo and largely for the right reasons (Humanitarian). I am proud as an Armenian that one of Armenias few friends in this world is Muslim Iran. How do I reconcile these feeling?

[scandium]

It's funny I would probably have been one of those multi-culti people carrying the flag of cultural/religious relativism a few years ago. I have become more and more frustrated by the Muslim peoples I had tried to defend. I had argued that it is not "Islam" that was the problem but Individuals or groups that were the problem. I had argued the reasons for decades of modern problems were combinations of culture, socio-economic disparity, western ignorance and arrogance, etc. I still believe these things to a large extent and I believe that they are indeed at the root of our current problems. Where I have changed is in my willingness to give a free pass to these "Islamic Cultures" (Arab, Turkic, etc.). Where are the Muslim voices for reason? Where are the calls from the leaders in these "cultures" for more tolerance and understanding? Where are Clerics that while believing they are oppressed or wronged, try to create dialog....or admit that they are any small part of any problem? Granted there are those that attempt these things but their voices are weak and lack conviction in most instances. Time and time again they say the right things for western consumption and something else for their own domestic audience. Where are the leaders and clerics that are taking risks for the cause of reason? Where are the leaders and clerics that are willing to give what what they demand from us? Is it Indeed the teachings of Islam that make these things so seemingly impossible?
They are drowned out by the acts of the few extremists because preaching moderation doesn't get headlines and it doesn't sell newspapers. Here in Canada we've had tens of thousands of Muslims living with us peacefully for decades but its the recent plot of 17 of them that puts the entire Muslim community in the spotlight. And it strikes me as an absurd thing that a few people here happily tar these tens of thousands with the terrorist brush, tens of thousands who are not terrorirst and are not extremists, but there it is.

And if I listened to the hysterical ravings of the few Islamophobes here then I would be building myself a mideival style castle and arming myself for Armagedon. Meanwhile in reality (the place that some seem to have departed already) I am more likely to get struck by lightning than I am to be a victim of terrorism. For that matter, if I'm ever a victim of violence (including road rage, random shootings, muggings, the entire spectrum of violent crime) I am much more likely to be victimized by someone of my own Christian faith simply because that is how it is statistically (here in this place called reality). I suspect its the same in Fresno, California.

In any case, I prefer to enjoy my life and be tolerant of people of all faiths and ethnicities to allowing myself to fall prey to this culture of fear that is being preached by the likes of Jerry Falwell and those on this board who sound just like him, who would have me live in fear of the big bad Islamic boogeyman and move to a mountain awaiting Armegedon.

[Skybird]

While the tide is growing, the small island of the happy will become increasingly crowded. A friendly Muslim neighbor in the neighbouring appartment will not change that.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, send a boy to college, but you can't make him think." (Sherrie Austin)

[caspofungin]

it's all Israels fault because she's taking the necessary steps to defend herself

that's not what I said -- don't put words in my mouth. any action has a repercussion of some sort -- the "necessary steps" that israel undertakes are taken as provocative attacks by hamas and others. i'm not stating who's right or wrong or where the blame lies -- just simple cause and effect.

Can we remember who STARTED the terror bombings to begin with?

King David Hotel? Irgun? The Stern gang, fighting the British in palestine while british soldiers were dying against the nazi's? war crimes in 1948, 1956, 1967? the arab's haven't been alone in using terrorism, friend. don't try and paint it that way.

And the worst crime of all: being a Christian, or a foriegner who doesn't believe in Islam.

there's plenty of christian expatriates in saudi arabia -- they're not being lined up at the execution square. no, they're working in well-paid jobs with great benefits.

Yes, they're so just and equal in their doling our of capital punishment

if you actually read my thread, you'll see that i made no claims about the saudi justice system being just and equal. all i said was that being imprisoned/punished had more to do with society than religion. and no, skybird, muslim society does not equal religion. just like every other religion, there's a disconnect between what's written in the books and what's practised on the ground.

If somebody murders a person in America, they're punished for it.

i've yet to see the detroit pd bulldozer someone's house because a person that lived there commited murder. how can you possibly equate civil jurisprudence with the collective punishment that happens in palestine?

And yes, I hold the ENTIRE community of Moslems responsible for the actions of their own brethren. They molded themselves into this way of thinking and behavior, and it is their responsibility to bear for what actions their members commit.

i fell off my chair when i read this one. so, i'm busy living in the usa, minding my own business, paying my taxes, breaking no laws, doing more for society in the form of my job than a lot of americans -- but i'm still at fault when someone in israel blows themselves up?

If they do not condemn these actions and actively WORK towards stopping the terrorists, then they are no different from the terrorists.

those same saudi prisons are full of al-qaeda members and sympathizers. it was jordanian intelligence that gave the info that allowed zarqawi to be found and killed. there was a huge march in london after 7/7 by muslims condemning the terrorist attack. tell me, specifically, what else do you want? again, it's just easier to lump all the muslims together and brand them as terrorists. when i'm in guantanamo bay, i'll just try and remember that i'm there because you were too ****ing lazy. thanks.

Well, if you're in Saudi Arabia, nobody would call you racist for it. I'm sure you've seen all the cartoons on the paper stands over there.

and there's no anti-arab feeling in israel? you're all about loving thy neighbour?

my point -- and scandiums, several posts ago -- is why are you holding the entire muslim nation to a standard that you hold no one else to?

[scandium]

And yes, I hold the ENTIRE community of Moslems responsible for the actions of their own brethren. They molded themselves into this way of thinking and behavior, and it is their responsibility to bear for what actions their members commit.
i fell off my chair when i read this one. so, i'm busy living in the usa, minding my own business, paying my taxes, breaking no laws, doing more for society in the form of my job than a lot of americans -- but i'm still at fault when someone in israel blows themselves up?
This is where their arguements ultimately collapse, and are shown for the irrational hatred and intolerance that is behind them. To use the recent plot in Canada as an example, again, the people here advocating this collective guilt and collective punishment would have us blame the entire Muslim community of tens of thousands for the acts of 17, and then do what? Strip them of their Canadian citizenship and deport them? Turn them out of their homes and put them in camps? Line a few up in Town's Square and shoot them? Madness, and the people who advocate such are no better than those they condemn.

[bradclark1]

This is where their arguements ultimately collapse, and are shown for the irrational hatred and intolerance that is behind them. To use the recent plot in Canada as an example, again, the people here advocating this collective guilt and collective punishment would have us blame the entire Muslim community of tens of thousands for the acts of 17, and then do what? Strip them of their Canadian citizenship and deport them? Turn them out of their homes and put them in camps? Line a few up in Town's Square and shoot them? Madness, and the people who advocate such are no better than those they condemn.

Maybe if muslims of stature speak out in the media against these islamic terrorist some minds might be changed. Silence spells consent. I think thats a major part of what gives me the "They" attitude. You don't see muslims speaking out.

[Yahoshua]

@Caspofungin:

If I recall correctly, the British had LOTS of time to leave the King David Hotel and were telephoned at least twice before the bomb blew up. And I'm apalled that you'd accuse me of trying to support terrorism in the form of the Stern Gang, and their likes. Because they didn't attack civilians, they attacked BRITISH SOLDIERS. Which is in reality, a declaration of war. NOT terrorism.

And what right did the British have to turn back on their word and break an agreement they've made? And might I remind you that a large number of Jewish units also fought alongside the British in driving back the Nazis from North Africa. Where was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at that time? Oh my, he was buddy-buddy with Hitler at the time (the Grand Mufti is one of Yassir Arafats relatives). And whaddya know? He's an Arab.

And no, I'm not "All about loving my neighbhor." Hamas in not my neighbhor. The PLO is not my neighbhor. Fatah is not my neighbhor. These are TERRORISTS. And they are my enemy. And if I had the choice I'd execute every single terrorist that was captured with rifle rounds dipped in Lard if it'd get them to stop attacking us. Terrorists have no rights. And I don't deny that there's a harsh anti-arab feeling in the Jewish community. All the terrorists that have murdered civilians there, and are trying to steal Israeli land are arabs.

And if you could hand me a list naming EVERY SINGLE DEMONSTRATOR who marched after 7/7 then I'd have a pretty good idea of who's trying to kill me and who isn't. And on a national level, Jordan is the ONLY arab country I'd even be comfortable having friendly and diplomatic relations with.

And yes, I do hold everyone to the same standard. It is you who doesn't.

If you do your part in turning in a terrorist (if the oppurtunity presents itself), and absolutely oppose the killing of unarmed civilians regardless of circumstane and nationality, then I have a pretty good chance that you're not going to come after me and I'd have nothing against you. Hell, if I even lived next door to you we could be pretty good friends, but until you can demonstrate yourself as an individual, I judge nations and communities by a collective plate.

And we hold ourselves to the same standards as well. For example, several years ago some "settlers" carried out a drive-by-shooting on Arab civilians. This is against the rules of war, and they were punished accordingly. I don't see the "Palestinians" doing the same. Rather I see an encouragement of that behavior. And because they encourage it I judge them as a whole. After all it was the PEOPLE who elected Hamas to government.

@ Scandium:

Well Scandium, the ay you put it actually seems to be a bit much in the way of National Security. But of course, why in the world would we suspect the Moslem community of harboring terrorists, when ALL the terrorism that has occurred so far been committed by Jews?

Do I advocate the mass slaughter of moslems? No. Do I advocate deportation if they refuse to cooperate with authorities regarding the turning in of suspected terrorists and refuse to condemn terroist actions? Absolutely. After all, they're being treated quite humanely at Guantan.......in fact I hear that obesity has become quite a problem over there. Not that people here want to listen to the facts of the matter.

[caspofungin]

I'm apalled that you'd accuse me of trying to support terrorism

easy, tiger. where's the accusation? where did you get that?

the British had LOTS of time to leave the King David Hotel and were telephoned at least twice before the bomb blew up

controversial. the british view is that the phone call was placed to the hotel switchboard less than a minute before the bomb went off.

Which is in reality, a declaration of war. NOT terrorism

no? definition of terrorism, from the us department of defense -- "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." which fits both the irgun and the stern gang.

when ALL the terrorism that has occurred so far been committed by Jews?

ah, the lowest form of wit and the highest of humour. except that's not really funny. all i'm pointing out is that arabs don't have a monoploy on committing terrorist acts.

Jewish units also fought alongside the British in driving back the Nazis from North Africa

absolutely. jews fought in every allied army. but (hold on to your chair) i've nothing against jews. but i'm an arab, and i'm a muslim, so i must be anti-semitic?

and, yes, i know the 13th ss division was raised from croats, mainly muslim -- they were mainly deployed in yugoslavia as anti-partisan units.

but don't forget there were arabs and muslims in commonwealth forces in europe and the china-burma-india theaters.

All the terrorists that have murdered civilians there, and are trying to steal Israeli land are arabs.

there's been plenty of arab civilians killed as collateral damage by israeli forces in palestine and lebanon. do you see me calling every jew or every israeli a murderer? and if everyone agreed they were israeli -- and only israeli -- lands, israel would be a lot quieter -- but they're not, so it isn't.

After all, they're being treated quite humanely at Guantan

yep, so humanely their dying to get out, ho ho ho. but it's only right that they're being treated humanely, because after all they've done... wait, what have they done? sure, i'd absolutely agree that some of the prisoners constitute a threat to the us. but all? and why haven't they been charged? with anything?

Do I advocate deportation if they refuse to cooperate with authorities regarding the turning in of suspected terrorists and refuse to condemn terrorist actions? Absolutely.

really? so were you calling for the mass deportation of anyone of irish descent from mainland great britain when the ira was busy with their bombing campaigns?

as i recall, it was pretty easy for the ira to get funding from private citizens in the us -- after all, they were legitimate resistance fighters engaged against an army of occupation -- oh, and all their civilian support, too. sound familiar? but that must've been ok, because they were good catholic lads...

and who gets to judge what "cooperation" and "condemnation" are? you? arabs and muslims have been cooperating with the authorities (in the uk at least) and they've condemned terrorist actions, too. so let me get this right -- every time an arab or a muslim commits a terrorist act, every single arab and muslim elsewhere has to stand up and be counted and condemn them? fair enough. but then i'll expect you to stand up and condemn the deaths of innocent palestinians, the collateral damage from the idf's actions. actually, i won't -- because i'm not the one advocating collective punishment and abrogating an individuals right to be treated on the basis of his or her own actions. but let's look back at your posts...

And I don't deny that there's a harsh anti-arab feeling in the Jewish community.

understandable. i can understand why the israelis feel they have to act the way they do, even if i don't agree with it. i can empathize with others. can you understand that there's a harsh anti-israeli feeling in palestine? can you understand why? can you empathize? because if not, if you truly, in your heart of hearts, believe that it's right and justified to kill innocent palestinian civilians, then i guess we don't have a lot more to talk about.

Hell, if I even lived next door to you we could be pretty good friends

i'd like to think so. :)

[TteFAboB]

caspofungin,

Israelis chose to bring down their "Nazi Jews" as Ben-Gurion named them.

Open your history book about the Altalena again. Do you remember who Olmert is? He was from the Irgun, remember?

This is something that NEVER happened in Palestine, with Palestinians, by Yasser Arafat or Abbas or by the Hamas. Where is the Stern Gang today?! Are they blowing Palestinian restaurants to bits every week, or attempting to do so?

The pressure to drop terrorism in Israel came from inside, Palestinians however still didn't had their Altalena moment.

Did Arafat ever opposed the Al-Aqsa brigades? What will happen to the Izz Al-Sin Al-Qassam? Will they be brought down?

Israel is now swimming in a democratic centralism (ie. no more ideological utopy) with plans on the table (define fixed borders by 2010, get rid of some settlements, etc.), what's the plan of the Hamas? If Khaled Mashaal is right, then it is "not to transform Gaza in Hong Kong [in other words, they don't have a problem with poverty, they want poverty because then they can blame Israel for it and recruit new martyrs], but we promise a digne, proud life and resistance to the occupiers of our land".

Alot was done wrong in the Israeli occupation, but how will the Hamas exercise this resistance? Diplomatically?

Say what you want about Israel, what we see once again is the Arab and/or Muslim world lagging behind. Will they take the next step toward moderation and purge, marginalize and defeat their extremists like the Israelis did?

Kissinger believes it might happen, either that or the Hamas will accept a non-declared peace deal (you go your way, I go mine, we don't blow each other), I don't like Kissinger at a personal level, but this time, I hope he's right.

The only choice are the institutions, thus the terror boat must be sunk.

Only a terrorist would disagree (Kissinger trade-mark).

[caspofungin]

The pressure to drop terrorism in Israel came from inside, Palestinians however still didn't had their Altalena moment

correct me if i'm wrong, but the altalena incident was about a government attempt to enforce its will on more violent/confrontational elements. isn't that what's been happening in palestine? abbas and the pa trying to enforce their authority on militant groups which are more confrontational? abbas' failure to assert his authority led, in part, to the victory of hamas. there are those who say abbas' efforts were hamstrung from the get-go.

Say what you want about Israel, what we see once again is the Arab and/or Muslim world lagging behind. Will they take the next step toward moderation and purge, marginalize and defeat their extremists like the Israelis did?

Kissinger believes it might happen, either that or the Hamas will accept a non-declared peace deal (you go your way, I go mine, we don't blow each other), I don't like Kissinger at a personal level, but this time, I hope he's right.

:up: :up: i'm with you totally.

[Skybird]

This is where their arguements ultimately collapse, and are shown for the irrational hatred and intolerance that is behind them. To use the recent plot in Canada as an example, again, the people here advocating this collective guilt and collective punishment would have us blame the entire Muslim community of tens of thousands for the acts of 17, and then do what? Strip them of their Canadian citizenship and deport them? Turn them out of their homes and put them in camps? Line a few up in Town's Square and shoot them? Madness, and the people who advocate such are no better than those they condemn.

Maybe if muslims of stature speak out in the media against these islamic terrorist some minds might be changed. Silence spells consent. I think thats a major part of what gives me the "They" attitude. You don't see muslims speaking out.

A public speaker saying this or that is not important. They need to turn it into a correct and valid fatwa given by their highest representatives, with reference to Koran (here is where the demanded content of the fatwa faces difficulty, since I cannot see any passage in the Koran that could be a undisputable basis for banning violance against non-Muslims, and prohibit to overcome their territories), and it is to be preferred that the fatwa also includes the formulation that it is irreversible and does not have only a limit validity, time-wise.

And then one needs to see them taking care of those in their middle that does not follow that fatwa, and violate it. Will not happen.

Just a political declaration is worth nothing, Islam explicitly allows the deceiving and misleading of infidels for the advantage of Islam or even just a single Muslim, additionally Arabs and many people along the Northafrican countries and Turkey tend to get drunk and enrapture themselves with their own picturesque language (reference to the dramatic and pathetic verbal pictures, metaphors and euphemism that are common rule, maybe you have noticed how dramatiozed their speaches are when some political statement is translated during the daily news). Expression of their different, hotter and less disciplined temperaments, I assume.

Point is: they can give you a valid political treaty - and since Sharia and Koran overrules such things, they are still allowed to ignore these treaties without bad conscience. Only a fatwa that fulfills all criterias for validity and is undisputed in the rows of their authorized clerics is a substantial basis.

And fatwas of that kind, and on the issues we Westerners would demand, we will not get from them. The Koran simply does not has a basis on which western political and ethical and philosophical understandings could be based upon. Without reference to such criterias inside the Quran, a fatwa is no fatwa.

[Skybird]

there's plenty of christian expatriates in saudi arabia -- they're not being lined up at the execution square. no, they're working in well-paid jobs with great benefits.

http://www.compassdirect.org/en/lead.php

Do you now what happens to you when you "smuggle" a Bible into Saudi Arabia, because you happen to be Christian? :smug: You laugh it off? Well, here is something to make you laugh:

http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19433018%255E1702,00.html

[Yahoshua]

3 entries found for terrorism.

ter·ror·ism http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fterrorism) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (thttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gifrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-rhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifzhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifm)
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
[Download Now (http://dictionary.reference.com/go/http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/eref/buy_HMAFF00004.jsp) or Buy the Book (http://dictionary.reference.com/bookstore/ahd4.html)]
Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=00-database-info&db=ahd4): The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity <street terrorism> —ter·ror·ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/legal/aboutmwlaw.html): Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=act%20of%20terrorism), terrorist act (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorist%20act)]

Courtesy of Dictionary.com.

The definition you posted, does indeed fit the Stern Gang and the Irgun. But I don't recall any of the Irgun members kidnapping British civilians and beheading them. But MY definition of terrorism is the last one one this list:...."the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians...." In regards to the Stern Gang, I have deep reservations about them for even having considered diplomatic relations with the Nazis. Although I'm thankful that they brought the infamous Lord Folke to justice for his crimes.

However, when using your definition, nobody here would sing the tune of the Star Spangled Banner knowing that Washington and his cohorts were actually terrorists bent on the destruction of the English Commonwealth. I'd also like to point out that a number of out government institutions are diseased with at least two things: Legislationitis and Bureaucracy. (I finally spelled it right for once).


"easy, tiger. where's the accusation? where did you get that?"

I don't support terrorism, and you called them terrorists. You even said so yourself: ".....which fits both the irgun and the stern gang."

A Website about the Stern Gang: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Gang
And a website about Irgun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
Here is a website detailing the operation: http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac10.htm


It states that the bomb exploded 25 minutes after the call. If you could find a link to an article regarding the British view I'd be happy to read it.


"ah, the lowest form of wit and the highest of humour."

I know I might be a bit slow but mommy says I'm special.


"but don't forget there were arabs and muslims in commonwealth forces in europe and the china-burma-india theaters."

And I haven't forgotten them. And I'm thankful they were on our side....at least with the Allied powers that is.


"there's been plenty of arab civilians killed as collateral damage by israeli forces in palestine and lebanon."

Yes, this is true, and it saddens me that such loss of life must be suffered at all. But if the terorists were to simply STOP. Then it wouldn't happen. And if one side continues to attack, and the other retaliates, then who is at fault? The one who attacks, or the other who retaliates?


"i'd absolutely agree that some of the prisoners constitute a threat to the us."

Good, we agree on something.


"but all? and why haven't they been charged? with anything?"

Now this is where our wonderful American beauracracy f*cks up absolutely EVERYTHING. How it should go is: Arrest, Charges, Trial, and sentencing. How it goes right now is: Arrest, Jail, maybe some charges, but no hope of trial or sentencing. This is where filtering should occur. Terrorists are kept, and innocents are not.

I like the first method better, and I should point out that here in America, Uncle Sam is NOT your friend (or mine for that matter).

"really? so were you calling for the mass deportation of anyone of irish descent from mainland great britain when the ira was busy with their bombing campaigns?"

I wasn't around for that and don't actually know all that much regarding the history of the Irish Republican War other than it was motivated mainly by religious reasons. (If you're still intent on pursuing this angle of the debate, then I'll read up on it and give you an answer).


"if you truly, in your heart of hearts, believe that it's right and justified to kill innocent palestinian civilians, then i guess we don't have a lot more to talk about."

If that's what I thought then this thread would've been shut down and I'd be reported to the police for incitement of racist speech and hate crimes. But you also have to ask yourself if these needless casualties could've been avoided if the terrorists hadn't been hiding in POPULATED AREAS.

I should also point out to you that Israel had not brought in the artillery several years ago when the bombings were far worse. But now that they're there, I'm guessing that the IDF cares less and less about collateral damage. I wonder why that could be......


"can you understand that there's a harsh anti-israeli feeling in palestine? can you understand why? can you empathize?"

Can I truly empathize for them? Possibly, if they weren't busy electing Hamas into office, and cheering on Arafat when he was at the podium declaring that he'd "Drive the Jews into the sea." And if it were solely the case of purposely forcing these people into camps and the IDF massacreing them at will when these refugees did no wrong to other groups nor made any agressive moves against their neighbor, I might've been able to empathise with them.

But as far as the process I've seen, it sort of goes something like this: Terrorist wants infidel Jews gone, Terrorist blows up bus, Infidel Jews retaliate, Some terrorists die and collateral damage results. Victims of collateral damage wail about their suffering on TV and get publicity, Infidel Jews are blamed as the agressors and punished for their action, Everyone forgets/ignores who started the fight and that there are victims of the bus bombing too, Biased Liberal media doesn't care and ignores that aspect (so much for fair and balanced). Infidel Jews offer land-for-peace deal that is rejected and another bombing occurs, with complimentary retalitaion. The mess is cleaned up and then the cycle is repeated.

I must admit, there are even times when I find myself calling for a carpet bombing to simply end the matter. But I know that it's wrong morally and ethically to do so.


"but i'm an arab, and i'm a muslim, so i must be anti-semitic?"

Do you believe the passages in the Q'uran stating that infidels who refuse to submit to Islam be exterminated? If you say no, then I don't really consider you a Moslem. I can't tell you what you are, but you're not a Moslem if that's what you deny. And if you do believe that all infidels should be exterminated and believe everything else about Islam, then you fit the criteria of being a Moslem.

I simply am unable to picture a true moslem tearing out half the Q'uran in order to "Modernize." Especially since all the words in those books were written by Mohammed and passed down from him. And a good deal of the Q'uran is dedicated towards the extermination of Jews and Christians.

How are you able to explain all of that away and still be a Moslem?


"....i'd like to think so."

As do I. I just want to be able to leave my pistol locked in my safe instead of having it loaded next to my bed for once. But until things change (however that change may occur), I'm keeping my sidearm within a moments reach at all times.

[Iceman]

Russian Song (http://www.cyberallies.com/miscapplications/Sting - Russians.mp3)

[The Avon Lady]

Russian Song (http://www.cyberallies.com/miscapplications/Sting - Russians.mp3)
Lyrics:

In europe and america, theres a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the soviets
Mr. krushchev said we will bury you
I dont subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the russians love their children too

How can I save my little boy from oppenheimers deadly toy
There is no monopoly in common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the russians love their children too

There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the president
Theres no such thing as a winnable war
Its a lie that we dont believe anymore
Mr. reagan says we will protect you
I dont subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the russians love their children too

We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
What might save us, me, and you
Is that the russians love their children too

Are these the Russians (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP117606)? :nope:

Do we have the same biology (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011545.php)? :nope:

No such thing as a winnable war (1) (http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/9909/hitlerdead2fp.jpg)? :nope:

No such thing as a winnable war (2) (http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/2488/berlinwalldancing6ok.jpg)? :nope:

Common sense (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011325.php)? :nope:

Silly nilly song? :yep:

[Yahoshua]

Great post Avon Lady.....I really get alot of info off your posts here. Thanks.

[Iceman]

Russian Song (http://www.cyberallies.com/miscapplications/Sting - Russians.mp3)
Lyrics:

In europe and america, theres a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the soviets
Mr. krushchev said we will bury you
I dont subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the russians love their children too

How can I save my little boy from oppenheimers deadly toy
There is no monopoly in common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the russians love their children too

There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the president
Theres no such thing as a winnable war
Its a lie that we dont believe anymore
Mr. reagan says we will protect you
I dont subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the russians love their children too

We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
What might save us, me, and you
Is that the russians love their children too

Are these the Russians (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP117606)? :nope:

Do we have the same biology (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011545.php)? :nope:

No such thing as a winnable war (1) (http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/9909/hitlerdead2fp.jpg)? :nope:

No such thing as a winnable war (2) (http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/2488/berlinwalldancing6ok.jpg)? :nope:

Common sense (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011325.php)? :nope:

Silly nilly song? :yep:

Holy Cow Batman...Only you would think it a silly nilly song? with a question mark????

Do ya really think peace is a silly willie notion?

People are people....you don't have to be a Jew or Muslim to think governments and religions are Screwed Up do ya really Avon Lady?

Do you even have to think about it? Good grief Charlie Brown it is a song for crying out loud.You seem to have a heart like stone it appears Avon Lady.Not everything is a plot....Smell some roses sometime. :)

http://image24.webshots.com/25/7/81/37/39478137oYpJuP_ph.jpg

[The Avon Lady]

Holy Cow Batman...Only you would think it a silly nilly song? with a question mark????

Do ya really think peace is a silly willie notion?
No, and I didn't say so. Peace is the ultimate utopia, if you can achieve it. I said the song is silly - specifically many of the lyrics. Follow my links to see why.

Sometimes wars are forced upon us. Hitler did it. Now Islam is. Unless, of course, you consider the possibility of the west capitulating and living as dhimmis under Islamic sha'aria law as the epitomy of peace. Islam views it as such. Perhaps you agree? :-?

It would be lovely if there was no evil in the world but, as you and I know, that's only going to show up later on in this world.

"Sin will be vanquished from the earth and the wicked will be no more; my soul, bless the Lord. Hallelujah." - Psalm 104:35
People are people....you don't have to be a Jew or Muslim to think governments and religions are Screwed Up do ya really Avon Lady?
I never said otherwise.
Do you even have to think about it? Good grief Charlie Brown
Leave Chuck outta this!:arrgh!:
it is a song for crying out loud.
It's a song that expresses nonsense from a historical and philosophical perspective. "Silly Nilly" is a fitting description indeed.

But if you think sitting in a circle singing Kumbaya-Kumbaya is going to bring peace and harmony to mankind, then by all means do so.
You seem to have a heart like stone it appears Avon Lady.
I am a realist. I do not care for pessimism and I hedge myself against fantasy based optimism.

You don't know me. Nor my family. You haven't an inkling of the charity work and community activities that I'm involved with. You have no concept, so it would seem, of the adoration and appreciation I personally have for my country of birth, the United States, for my grave concern for its citizens, for my pain in what I witnessed on 9/11 and for my fear of what's coming up in this world that may potentially affect most everyone around the globe.

I don't have a heart of stone any more than you have eyes of lead for not being able to see me for what I am. Like I said, you don't know me.

[The Avon Lady]

Are these the Russians (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP117606)? :nope:
Maybe this should be spun off as a separate subject.

Taleban use children as shields to fight British (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2233426,00.html).

Russians? NYET!:nope:

[The Avon Lady]

Another small step for Eurabia: A Muslim Constitution in Europe (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21222_A_Muslim_Constitution_in_Europe&only).

[Skybird]

The political left will love it. Isn't our tolerance incredibly superior? We allow them to claim their legislation ranking above that of our constitutional orders and laws.As always, always, always, the majority of oh so peaceful, oh so moderate, oh so anti-Islamist Muslims allow these "extremists" to speak for them, without challenging them, questioning them, calling them back. As always.AL probably already knows this, but for others:http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2006/06/011968print.html

[scandium]

Another small step for Eurabia: A Muslim Constitution in Europe (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21222_A_Muslim_Constitution_in_Europe&only).

All part of the world Muslim conspiracy to take over the planet - first Eurpe, then the world! :lol:

[Skybird]

Another small step for Eurabia: A Muslim Constitution in Europe (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21222_A_Muslim_Constitution_in_Europe&only).

All part of the world Muslim conspiracy to take over the planet - first Eurpe, then the world! :lol:
As a matter of fact, ruling of all world and every single man is written, postulated, practiced, historically proven nature and essence of Islamic ideology. But even if you read it black on white in their scriptures, and their scholars confirm it to you when you ask them, and their speakers (to which the overwhelming majoirty of Muslims do not reject or oppose and remain sielnt instead) demand this policy to be followed in international Muslim conferences or &quot;intercultural meetings&quot;, and when seeing the parallels between Islam's theological demand, and it's history of the last 1400 years, you still would not believe it, for it violates the conclusions of your Western civilized way of reasonable thinking, and you probaly happen to know a friendly Muslim colleague that is not like this and who tells you that Islam simply is misunderstood, and actually teaches someting very different. So the ":lol:" goes to you in fact: :lol: "I am not like that, so others cannot be like that, too. They are all like me." :smug:

[mapuc]

To all of you how have made tribute to this thread

What are you gonna do about this "islamic threat"?

keep on voting as you always have done?

or what

For me it seems like we are talking to a chair, while the real theif is keeping on stealing.

Markus

[Skybird]

I certainly do a bit more than just stopping to vote. I focus on my contacts to people in my private life, friends, strangers, people I meet by chance. I have stopped every acting and behavior that could make Islamic people feeling welcomed, and accepted, and when they confront me on that I leave them in no doubt that some elementary politeness is all they can get from me. I do not rent appartments in my mother's house to Muslim colonists, and I do not leave anyone in doubt who is asking me that I do not want Islam in Europe, and what I think of it. Where the talking goes in such directions, I try to make people think about Islam, and to see the heavily biased and censored media reports as a huge danger that bypasses democracy and unilaterally helps Islamic agendas. I tell them how it is linked to the political left, and the eurocratic monster in Brussel. I try to make them doubt at all cost, and stop to repeat slogans like trained parrots. I tell them of my travelling experiences, and how long it took for me to see the deatils fall into place, finally. I explain them the history of Islam again and again and again, until they agree and see the relevance for the present, or turn away in anger. I stubbornly challenge every distorting self-description of Muslims that try that while I am listening, calm and not on a personal level, but not giving them any ground. I have interrupted Islamic information speeches of missionary stands in the city's pedestrian-zone twice in the last 18 months, and corrected any lie they told and where I had the knowledge to correct it, loud enough that every bystander was hearing me and they could not continue, mostly I did like that with regard to history, and the person of Muhammad. the finally took their stands and books and left, since I settled down and did not indicate to leave before them. I'm sure my face is known to quite some people in this city's Muslim community here, n ot often, but occasionaly a stranger looking like if he is coming from the middle east or SE-Asia meets me, most times at work in a warehouse, and greets me with a bitterly angered look. If he starts a discussion, I take him directly and head-on, just as he wishes, and even had trouble with my boss becasue of that, so be it. I have made myself some serious enemies by telling every person asking me on Islam, or making lying statements about Islam with me being present, what I hold Islam accountable for. I can tell of that hate from their threatening paper-letters. I take their warnings as a compliment that I do something right. What I do in principal is only this: I do not step back a single step anymore, and if an Islamic person happens to hinder my way, metaphorically, I do not change course but fully slam into him make him to free my way. I do not cooperate, and I do not evade a fight (so far, verbal fights). - What I also did was teaching meditation for several years, until last winter. The intention had nothing to do with Islam, but it should have helped to immunize those who were there to resist it friendly lies more easily. - i am also not shy of discussing these things via internet, as visitors of this forum might have noticed :lol: - Now, what is it that YOU are doing?

[The Avon Lady]

Another small step for Eurabia: A Muslim Constitution in Europe (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21222_A_Muslim_Constitution_in_Europe&only).

All part of the world Muslim conspiracy to take over the planet - first Eurpe, then the world! :lol:
It's not a conspiracy. It's elementary Islamic doctrine.

You know what? All you've ever been able to do here is snicker, without an ounce of proof - theological, historical or otherwise - to your claim that Islam is not interested in making the world Islamic.

Why don't you try quoting the Islamic verses and legal texts you base your opinion on. Why don't you give us a serious go at logically and rationally showing how we're wrong.

I dare you.

Waiting...................................

[scandium]

Another small step for Eurabia: A Muslim Constitution in Europe (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21222_A_Muslim_Constitution_in_Europe&only).
All part of the world Muslim conspiracy to take over the planet - first Eurpe, then the world! :lol: It's not a conspiracy. It's elementary Islamic doctrine.

You know what? All you've ever been able to do here is snicker, without an ounce of proof - theological, historical or otherwise - to your claim that Islam is not interested in making the world Islamic.

Why don't you try quoting the Islamic verses and legal texts you base your opinion on. Why don't you give us a serious go at logically and rationally showing how we're wrong.

I dare you.

Waiting...................................
I'll do one better on this one and give you a pass on it, since all religions - to continue to exist - need to expand their followers and in the process tend to spread out. Its the leap from that to your sinister Islamic world domination predictions that I find rather dodgy; after all, Islam doesn't exist in a vacuum and there are other competing ideologies (theological and otherwise) that are not compatible with the formation of Islamic theocracy in the West. In this vein, one obstacle is our separation of church and state; another is the large christian populations which have its own expanionist (theologically, if not democgraphically via birth rate) tendencies; then there is the already entrenched liberalization of our societies which are at ideological odds with theocracy (Islamic or otherwise); etc.

Actually from my perspective, living in this particular hemisphere where Islam is particularly marginalized and not one single Islamic government exists, I'm much more wary of the encroachment of Christian theocracy (since they are the ones here with the population, money, influence, and willingness to use all of it) than I am of any other. But even the Christian theocrats here, which are the ones with the leverage in this equation, have had very little real impact and this is why I tend to scoff at your Islamophobia I suppose.

[The Avon Lady]

I'll do one better on this one and give you a pass on it, since all religions - to continue to exist - need to expand their followers and in the process tend to spread out.
What would happen if Christian affiliation shrank world-wide?

What about Judaism? We have no urgent need to "expand their followers", as you put it.

What about Budhism?

Hinduism?

Now, what about Islam? Of course, you skirt the question - again.
Its the leap from that to your sinister Islamic world domination predictions
While I might have predictions, they are based on what Islam teaches, what Muslims are saying worldwide and what Muslim's do and the actions they take and promote. And you?
that I find rather dodgy; after all, Islam doesn't exist in a vacuum and there are other competing ideologies (theological and otherwise) that are not compatible with the formation of Islamic theocracy in the West.
Precisely. You still don't catch on. Let me give you a sample:

"As the only religion of truth that exists on earth today, Islam takes appropriate action to remove all physical and material obstacles that try to impeded its efforts to liberate mankind from submission from anyone other than God. That submission is translated in following the religion of truth, provided that every human being is given free choice. There must be no pressure either from the religion itself or from those forces putting up the physical obstacles. The practical way to ensure the removal of those physical obstacles while not forcing anyone to adopt Islam is to smash the power of those authorities based on false beliefs until they declare their submission and demonstrate this by paying the submission tax. When this happens, the process of liberating mankind is completed by giving every individual the freedom of choice based on conviction. Anyone who is not convinced may continue to follow his own faith. However, he has to pay the submission tax to fulfill a number of objectives..... by paying this tax, known as the jizyah, he declares that he will not stand in physical opposition to the efforts advocating the true Divine faith."

This small excerpt, is taken from the book In the Shade of the Qur'an (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1882837185/sr=8-5/qid=1151412886/ref=sr_1_5/002-5860147-0288848?ie=UTF8), an extensive commentary on the Quran, by Sayyid Qutb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb), considered one of the greatest Sunni scholars of the 20th century.

For the nitty-gritty details of Qutb's popular philosophy of global Jihad, read his essay Jihad in the Cause of God, reproduced in the book Milestones (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/8185738440/sr=8-1/qid=1151412886/ref=sr_1_1/002-5860147-0288848?ie=UTF8).

There are hundreds more where this comes from, all from renowned and respected Islamic clergyman, based on what Islam's jurists have been saying all along for 1400 years. For heaven's sake, read some books - theirs, not ours, if you're so distrustful!
In this vein, one obstacle is our separation of church and state; another is the large christian populations which have its own expanionist (theologically, if not democgraphically via birth rate) tendencies;
So who's been boiled in oil or burned at the cross lately?
then there is the already entrenched liberalization of our societies which are at ideological odds with theocracy (Islamic or otherwise); etc.
In simpler terms, an arch-enemy of Islam. You still don't get it.
Actually from my perspective, living in this particular hemisphere where Islam is particularly marginalized and not one single Islamic government exists, I'm much more wary of the encroachment of Christian theocracy (since they are the ones here with the population, money, influence, and willingness to use all of it) than I am of any other. But even the Christian theocrats here, which are the ones with the leverage in this equation, have had very little real impact and this is why I tend to scoff at your Islamophobia I suppose.
Suit yourself.

[Skybird]

Buddhist world power! Yeah! They are fearsome conquerors, beware! Look how brutally they have subjugated the better part of Asia! How they creep for global dominance! They spread like the plague in Western cities! And then their funny clothes, don't get me started...

And then those churches of today! They throw every infidel into prison and kick him out of their countries! they have progroms by the dozens each year, slaughtering thousnads and tens of thousands! And just how sly the strip Muslims of all legal protections and rights, it could drive you mad! They demand Mosaic laws to rule over Islamic culture! they even are arrogant enough to carefully ask for freedom to practice non-Islamic cults in Islamic countries without getting depressed and made object of legal and social reprisals! How dare they? They have attacked peaceful Muhammadian country back then, and tried to enforce the submission of Islam in Saudi Arabia! They have lost all Byzantium'S territories to Islamic onvaders, well, sin'T that a sign of how sly and clever they are! No wonder that Islam headed for Gibraltar, France, Byzantium, Vienna. A clear act of self-defense against marauding crusaders! shame on them!

Yeah, all religions are equal, sure. Everything is equal, everything is of the same value, every man is as valuable as every other man, there are not qualitative differences, it is all nicely and well-meaningly levelled out. Long live the equality of victim and perpetrator, long live the equality of the noble and the rogue, long live the the equality of those that create, and those that steal it without caring to add their effort to the creating cause!

Long live the tolerance for greed, slyness and envy!

The one who has rejected all identity of himself, has no tool available anymore to form criterias to decide what he tolerates, and what not. Becasue he has not only no solid ground to stand on, he has no ground at all, and call this the absence of indoctrination. For him, all and everything is levelled-out, of same size and value, vague in form, undifferenciated in quality. He lives in mental lethargy, and calls it liberty. He is a walking dead, spreading paralysis around him.

I cannot remember how many people like this I have seen coming to my courses throughout the last years. Needs quite a good ammount of shocks and pushings to blow back some life into such cadavers. :lol:

[aaken]

is there still a point to this thread (if it ever had one)?

[The Avon Lady]

is there still a point to this thread (if it ever had one)?
Yes. Try reading.

EDIT: Actually, posts like yours are part of what this thread is about. :yep:

[aaken]

well, you know what? I've been reading this post and the quoted articles since the beginning. After 9 pages of arguments (most of which have been repeated endlessly, although in slightly different flavors), no one has budged an inch from their positions and no one will. Therefore my question.

[The Avon Lady]

well, you know what? I've been reading this post and the quoted articles since the beginning. After 9 pages of arguments (most of which have been repeated endlessly, although in slightly different flavors), no one has budged an inch from their positions and no one will. Therefore my question.
Ah, that's a different question!

Will people change their minds because of this thread?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Some people who have already made up their minds might take links and material posted in this thread to post it elsewhere, where other people might be willing to discuss the pros and cons of either side of the argument.

Who knows! There might be people here whose opinions have changed, even the slightest, even to add a minor doubt to the surety of their opinion until now.

And with each passing day, week or month, as more current events point out one side of the argument or another, they may add a weight that will tip someone's opinion scale or at least make people investigate further on their own.

Who knows?!

[Skybird]

Exactly that.

My understanding of being a "zoon politicon".

[August]

No recognition of Israel sez Hamas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5122822.stm

They believe that future generations of Palestinians will reclaim all their historic homeland. And that, in the end, there will be no room for what is now the Jewish state of Israel, our correspondent says.

So what is Israel to do now?

[tycho102]

So what is Israel to do now?

I'm starting to come around to the carpet-bombing option. But at the very least, I can't believe we ended up sending aid to the Palestinians.

Don't elect someone if you are not prepared to deal with the consequences. That goes for America just as much as it goes for Hamas and Palestine.

[Skybird]

Germany just decided on an immediate aid package of over 20 million for Hamas-voters. :down: We are very kind and reasonable, you know.

[bradclark1]

Look, it's very simple. The west is intent on good-guying ourselves to death.
Remember the saying. Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer. You can't get much closer than spoon feeding your enemy.
Are we stupid or what?

[scandium]

I'll do one better on this one and give you a pass on it, since all religions - to continue to exist - need to expand their followers and in the process tend to spread out. What would happen if Christian affiliation shrank world-wide?

What about Judaism? We have no urgent need to "expand their followers", as you put it.

What about Budhism?

Hinduism?
What about them? At a minimum all of those religions have established at least enough growth to sustain themselves over the millenia and have also spread far beyond their original borders. Christianity and Islam have both been especially successfully at expansion.


Its the leap from that to your sinister Islamic world domination predictions While I might have predictions, they are based on what Islam teaches, what Muslims are saying worldwide and what Muslim's do and the actions they take and promote. And you?
I base mine on history, an atlas, and demographics. While Islam has spread, yes, so has every other religion - so what? Islam still competes with other religions and other ideologies. Your fears might be well founded - if we turned back the clock about 5 centuries and removed every other major religion to leave only Islam. As it stands now there is no vacuum for it to fill.

[scandium]

Yeah, all religions are equal, sure. Everything is equal, everything is of the same value, every man is as valuable as every other man, there are not qualitative differences, it is all nicely and well-meaningly levelled out. Long live the equality of victim and perpetrator, long live the equality of the noble and the rogue, long live the the equality of those that create, and those that steal it without caring to add their effort to the creating cause!
I'm no expert on Islam, but I knowe enough of it to realize that all who practice it are not identical. Most, in fact, of its 1.2 billion followers, seem to do so peacefully. For those that don't, how much of their actions are due to the religion itself and how much to other factors? Skybird, you are guilty of the very same thing the eugenics followers were back in its heyday - only where they tried to simplify everything to genetics, you substitute Islam and draw the same faulty conclusions. Unfortunately for your theories, and you should know better, people are not that simple.

Long live the tolerance for greed, slyness and envy!
No, long live rationality and judging a person on their actions and not their religion, race, or gender.

The one who has rejected all identity of himself, has no tool available anymore to form criterias to decide what he tolerates, and what not. Becasue he has not only no solid ground to stand on, he has no ground at all, and call this the absence of indoctrination. For him, all and everything is levelled-out, of same size and value, vague in form, undifferenciated in quality. He lives in mental lethargy, and calls it liberty. He is a walking dead, spreading paralysis around him.
Really? I would think it more challenging to judge a person on their actions and character than to paint people into neat little categories like you are doing... 'oh you are christian, therefore you are Good and Noble... Muslim? well you are greedy, sly, and envious...'

[Skybird]

Is it also eugenic to brandmark Naszism as something bad? If an ideology by content and historical example has proven itself to be of "evil", must it nevertheless be tolerated, in the name of a greater tolerance? If a majority of people whose "faith" is so much diverse, as you indicate, remains silent and inactive and do nothing efficient to ban those "radicals" that claim to represent this faith in it's true form (and I insist on that they have Muhammad and Koran and history on their side in this claim), does this not allow to make logical conclusions about these silent majorities attitude towards those (infidels) at whose cost this abuse of their precious ideology is being practiced (like it is argued that the Palestinians are not responisble for having elected Hamas in to office?). Must I not believe a Muslim who preaches my subjugation and my second-class value as a human being, if his own people do nothing, nothing, nothing, to make him shut up, quit his rank and office, and make sure that he and people like him cannot get back to representative and administrative powers? Should I mistrust those truly secular groups in Turkish population that warn the West to acceopt Turkey or Islam and ignroing it's agenda to bring down Western values and coinstitutional orders and make them submit to Islam? when i see these observations and comapre them to the theology and the history of Islam and see it in correspondence since over a thousand years, should I ignore it and think of it as pure random chance? Is it a peaceful attitude of mind if people do not commit bloodshed with their own hands - but allow that some commit it, in their names and the name of their belief? Is that reasonable, convincing, civilized, unbiased? Should I assume that a robber and thief, a warmonger, massmurder and narcistic psychopath, a greedy sly desert gangster for whom all world he knew still was not enough, and who has ordered over 70 wars and predatory raids, who tried to wipe out whole tribes because their intellectuals were superior to his own self-made education, who murdered by his own hands before he preached the first time, who sent hundred and thousands of captured females into slavery, who murdered critics and people who did not believe his megalomania - should I assume that such a man could be the origin of a cult that promises peace, justice and reason? Should I take people who still believe in this sick figure and stubbornly reject to ever ask question about themselves and never test their belief (as has been done by almost every other greater religion that has survived until today) as people whose civilisation is of equal value and as worthy a set of ethics than ours? - Truth is, I do exactly as you recommend: I judge Muslim communities in cities, countries by their deeds, and what they alloow to be happening in their name, or not. And this is what speaks against them, loud, and with an alomost yelling voice. - A US GI enters A German house and sees the bright spots on the wall where the photos of the Führer were hanging. The houseowner comes down the stairs and says he was no Nazi, and he still is no Nazi, and Fascism is bad. He insists that Hitler is a great man, and the party always is right. You take him as an honest democrat and ignore the contradictions. I do not trust him a bit, and label him a Nazi. I let the deeds and facts speak, for words are cheap and must not be true. - Deeds, dear Islam, no words, promises, declarations, all of which you, dear Islam, explicitly allow to be abused in lies and deceptions if it is for the purposes to weaken the infidels and strengthen Islam. Some days ago, the British Muslim community sent a speaker to the microphones, after one year the finally said that it is not legitimate to kill innocents in the name of Islam. At the same time statements by even higher-ranking clerics from ALL Muslim countries that population of wetsern coutries are no innocents, since years and decades remain anquestioned,unchallenged, uncritizised by public Muslim organization and communities. Cheap wordplays only, not worth anything. But according to you, Scnadium, this just means nothing. But it is sly indeed, and greed and env plays a major role in Muhammad's demand to rule and own all world. Islam is his baby. Like it never was enough for him, it never is enough for Islam as well. That is no cheap slogan by me, that I conclude after having studied Islamic history and Muhammad's biography and character qith quite some effort and material. If I really were that stupid like you indicate, then you might want to explain why I do not attack races, other religions and cultures (burning widows inHinduism isn'T nice, is it?) thta are also present inGermany and europe. Africans for example, in huge numbers. Hindus. Indians. Jews.... Poor Islam (or shall I say Muhammadanism, becasue it exclusively is about what Muhammad has created in word, deed and sermon), mean evil Skybird just misunderstood how wellmeaning you really are. That you, poor Islam, has fought more wars against other Islamic factions than any other world religion ever has fought within itself (you can simply count it out in history books), and that innocent peaceloving Islam has started more wars of attack against other cultures than any other religion (including the bad evil "Christians", please do the counting thing again), I'm sure is only accidental. That Muslims today destroy cemetaries of foreign religionsin their territories, and destroy cultural monuments of historic value because they remind them of the time before the arrival of Islam, the time of chaos (if that is not ironic), and that all this take splace without a single Muslim country raisng it's voice against that, and withoiut a single muslim organization makes itself heared and noticed by effective dcededs to stop those who do it, certainly has no meaning that is worth to think about. Because we must be solidaric in our decision to think of Islam as being an equal.

[Yahoshua]

"I'm starting to come around to the carpet-bombing option."

You may actually get your wish there tycho.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians;_ylt=AhYwdNwW2YAfRKznbl09IDis0 NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-

But I wouldn't expect the carpet bombing to arrive just yet.....it'll be cheaper to expend the arty shells that've been stored up.

[The Avon Lady]

Skybird, I like your posts but I think it's time we introduced you to a new word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph). :up:

[Iceman]

well, you know what? I've been reading this post and the quoted articles since the beginning. After 9 pages of arguments (most of which have been repeated endlessly, although in slightly different flavors), no one has budged an inch from their positions and no one will. Therefore my question.

I have been a part of this forum for a while now and I tell ya I have learned alot from other people here and I used to be of the group....which most in America are I think....the ignorant group.... when it comes to Islam and it's purpose and mission.Being a Christian I do not subscribe to the carpet bombing approach but from what I have gleaned from this site and info I have learned from here I can understand why some do.

What it does for me is only to re-enforce and re-affirm what I have learned from Christ's teachings in the bible and why Christ must return to put things in order again...because man is simply not capable of doing it himself.

I believe every person has a gift from the creator and mine happens to be understanding...I understand why Christians believe the way they do...Jews they way they do and Muslims they way they do.Much in part from peoples here.

Just throwing in 2 cents and letting peeps know that I do read these boards and some is garbage and some is very intresting stuff.And a thank you to all who do post no matter the opinion.We all got em and we all know what they are like. :)

[Skybird]

Skybird, I like your posts but I think it's time we introduced you to a new word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph). :up:
And that word is what?

[The Avon Lady]

Skybird, I like your posts but I think it's time we introduced you to a new word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph). :up:
And that word is what?
Well it was "paragraph" but maybe it should have been "hyperlink." :damn: :p

[Skybird]

Hyperlinks, yes. but I have done almost all my reading on Islam by books only, only a very bit by internet research. Beside my daily patrol at Jihadwatch.com, Dhimmiwatch.com, a couple of international newspapers (Germany, Britain, US, Russia, Aljazeerah), Brusseljournal and Telepolis, I certainly miss a lot of interesting stuff, or forget it very quickly again. concerning linking you are far better skilled than I am, I admit without envy. And checking for these sites all day long is no job I do 24/7 anyway.Also, links are good for supporting one's opinion. they should not replace to voice one's opinion in general. that's why I wrote those two longer essay back then, instead of simply scanning some chapters from a book by Raddatz. A pity he was not translated so far, you would love his books. Very sharp-thinking and sharp-tongued observer, uncompromised is in determination to make Islam obejct of reasonable analysis and logical examination, and having an encyclopedic knowledge about Islam. we hate him :lol: Just moved to the US, for German or Austrian police cannot protect him anylonger (or does not want to).

[The Avon Lady]

Paragraphs! :damn: Paragraphs! :damn: Paragraphs! :damn: Paragraphs! :damn:

Paragraphs! :damn: Paragraphs! :damn: Paragraphs! :damn: Paragraphs! :damn:

Paragraphs! :damn: Paragraphs! :damn: Paragraphs! :damn: Paragraphs! :damn:

[Skybird]

Jajajaaaa... It because the new board software does not allow text formation with IE security settings at maximum. I always have it at maximum, and then forget to set it to medium before starting to type. When I finished typing, and realize the setting, I could switch to medium settings - and have to update the page again. Which clears the cache memory, so that I have to type everything again, for some reason inside IE the clipboard content most of the time gets deleted, too. - I am not happy with the new forum software, but having IE at maximum settings as standard routine really pays off.

[The Avon Lady]

What if you went into Windows Internet Options and added *.subsim.com as a trusted site? :hmm:

Back on topic. For the Scandiums among us: Islam’s Lethal Certitude (http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/caruba/06272006.htm).

[Skybird]

What if you went into Windows Internet Options and added *.subsim.com as a trusted site? :hmm:

</p>Already done. That only allows to store a cookie so that I do not need to log in and load my preferences again each time I come over this place. :lol: See this? One paragraph only, clean and tidy, and no typos at all.

[The Avon Lady]

</p>Already done. That only allows to store a cookie so that I do not need to log in and load my preferences again each time I come over this place. :lol: See this? One paragraph only, clean and tidy, and no typos at all.
Almost. What's that <p> HTML tag doing there? :shifty:

[Kurushio]

I am Christian...but I don't believe in God. I believe in aliens. :smug:

[mapuc]

Here's my answer to my earlier posting in this thread. And an answer to Skybird

Now I do nothing. I have been fightning with words against the left-winges and the muslim-lovers.

Now I just sit and wait sooner or later they will se that we was right al the time,

Markus

[Yahoshua]

I'd me planning a long trip if that's the way it's gonna go.

The left wing will never do a 180 as a whole. There'll always be some greenpeace diehard that's more willing to flap their gap than open their eyes to see whats actually going on.

Maybe a few will stop and think to see if what they're saying makes any sense (or works at all). But that crowd is getting smaller and smaller.

[Skybird]

</p>Already done. That only allows to store a cookie so that I do not need to log in and load my preferences again each time I come over this place. :lol: See this? One paragraph only, clean and tidy, and no typos at all.
Almost. What's that <p> HTML tag doing there? :shifty:

Pedant.