What do we do with Islam?
 

@ The Avon Lady:
Just keep on reading the new postings, especially mine, and you will be happy.
:rotfl:

Okay, then there are two religions holding politics and religion in one hand. I do not claim to know much on Judaism. Would you say Israel is a laicist nation? Just curious.

Yes I know what you mean, but that is not much different from the fascist party here at Spain concurring to the elections with the program of eliminating the democracy :88) Totalitaristic attitudes that want to wipe out democracy can concur to an election, that is one of the principles of our current civilization. Do we have to change that?

However, what counts in our democracies is how the rights of the minorities are respected, so from that point of view even a majoritary (51%) mulism party in the parliament shouldn't be able to change fundamental rights and freedoms. That's why I talk about strengthening our guarantees.

Anyway, for such a situation to happen, we should have in our countries a HUGE concentration of radical muslims. Is that the future? Who knows...

As you see the problem slowly starts shifting not towards the ideas themselves, but towards the people who sustain them being a majority :up:

Here is an example: Would we be equally alarmed if the fascists like LePen in France would have 51% of the parliament?

Probably.

Would we start thinking about deportation of the fascists in that case?

I don't think so.

I'm confused by your use of the term "laicist". From the dictionary:

la-i-cism (lay'uh siz uhm) n.
1. the nonclerical, or secular, control of
political and social institutions in a
society.
[1930-35]

The current State of Israel is mostly secular, with certain essential religious based laws to accomodate and compromise between its religious and non-religious citizens.

[quote="The Avon Lady"]
Quick, fool, who slaughtered the Palestinians in Sabra and Shatilla?
[quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra-Shatila_massacre

[quote="The Avon Lady"]
Why did Israel invade Jenin? How many Palestinians died? How many Israelis?
[quote]

Since the area was cleared of journalists and the UN was denied entry until long afterwards, no one knows how many died. The mere fact that the UN and press was kept away, implies that there is was a lot to hide.

@iceman

what? you asked for a specific quote, and i gave you one. is it my fault it doesn't make sense to you? and i'm not sure what you mean by defensible quotes. "What we have here is a lack of communication."

And I ask you to look for yourself, not because i have no answers, not because i've no defense, but becasue whatever i say is going to be biased by my personal interpretation. All i'm saying is that if you want a truly objective answer, you have to look to the source yourself with an open mind. If I want to learn about israel, i don't ask a palestinian and vice versa. I look up my own sources, and wiegh them according to how objective i think they are or aren't.

and i'm not sure how quoting from the bible is an example of a specific quote that has all the answers.

don't take this the wrong way, i honestly don't understand the point you're trying to make. i agree that politics and religion don't make a good mix.

@TteFAboB

unlikely, but possible. doesn't really matter to me. is it important to you to think that maybe one of your ancestors owned one of mine? and besides, we've our own slaves now -- if you believe everything you read.

no, genius, i'm talking about the western media. plus, i'm sure the portuguese colonists would be able to teach anyone about repression and genocide.

sweet, if i'm ever in brazil, i'll know which car to key.

actually, they do. it's called freedom. and the day you, with your Brazilian ghettoes and class divisions and alleged non-racism and police death squads shooting street kids, has something to tell europe about humanity -- well, no offense, but that day isn't near.


no you're just beaing mean, comparing us to you. look up "censorship" and "deception" -- then quote me a post where i've advocated either. you're perfectly entitled to your opinion -- just as i'm entitled to think that your opinion is close-minded, xenophobic, bigoted, and not very nice.

i believe -- strongly -- in liberty, equality, and common humanity, regardless of a person's age or race or gender or religion. it looks like you don't. now go play some soccer or shoot some street kids. and tell your president to stop watching pirated movies, he can afford to buy them legally.

edit-- sorry, that's unfair to all the brazilians i don't know. i shouldn't generalize or jumpt to conclusion, i know. apologies to them. but TteFAboB -- i still think you're an idiot. who's self-righteous.

Thank you. As the article states:

The Sabra and Shatila massacre (or Sabra and Chatila massacre) was carried out in September 1982 by Lebanese Maronite Christian militias in then-Israeli-occupied Beirut, Lebanon, when Palestinian refugees were killed in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. The Maronite forces stood under the direct command of Elie Hobeika, who would later become a longtime Lebanese parliament member and in the 1990s also a cabinet minister.

The camps were externally surrounded by Israeli soldiers throughout the incident, and the militias had been sent in by Israel to find Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) members. However, Israel's culpability in the killings is hotly disputed, and Israel has denied direct responsibility, while finding certain Israelis, among them Ariel Sharon, indirectly personally responsible.

The massacre was done by Christian Phalangists. Not a single Israeli solder participated nor knew of it in advance. When it started, it was reported to IDF command.

Thank you for backing me up.

Next.............................
Or that it was a war zone or that the UN and leftist jouralists have been know to interfere in Israeli operations.

So now we've gone from facts to implications and faulty ones at that.

Well, what do you know! The UN itself disagrees with you. From the Report of the Secretary-General prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution ES-10/10 (Report on Jenin):

The number of Palestinian fatalities, on the basis of bodies recovered to date, in Jenin and the refugee camp in this military operation can be estimated at around 55. Of those, a number were civilians, four were women and two children. There were 23 Israeli fatalities in the fighting operations in Jenin.

You're a very lousy puff artist for the Palestinian terror cause.

i love the way an honest question on these forums degenerates into a slagging fest. sure, and i've done my part in inflamming some people. human nature, i guess, as evident on this forum as it is in real life.

Unlikely, but also possible, none of my ancestors ever owned a slave, or at least not that I know of, however, if I could go deeper back in time, the chances would increase, say, early Roman Empire, if I ever travel back in time and figure it out I'll let you know, anyway, I would like if one of my ancestors had owned one of yours, the fact we are both talking today would prove how much we changed and how far from those dark centuries we have come, dropping old-fashioned outdated beliefs, such as owning slaves, to the past. Well, at least one of us left the 8th Century.

No doubt, they managed to wipe out a ton of people, converted to Christianity those that were left and fooled their enemies to gain land, it's every Immam's dream!

You forgot about entire regions left without decent education, some places don't even have electricity, and many others have no sewer, hey, that's not TOO far from Saudi Arabia! Well, except for the desert, didn't the Royal family spends billions on their credit cards and also imports dozens of luxury and sports cars? We'll get there, as soon as we have that much money to waste around, and as soon as we get a Royal family. I nominate myself for King, but I need a Queen, how many cows do I have to buy to trade for a woman in Sudan?

censorship

n 1: counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy [syn: censoring, security review] 2: deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances

deception

n 1: a misleading falsehood 2: the act of deceiving [syn: deceit, dissembling, dissimulation] 3: an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers.

You did excluded part of my plan to be able to call me a Nazi, but I'm glad you asked, because I think you are a very angry literal fundamentalist and not very nice either.

Wait, wait a minute, who's liberty are we talking about here, yours or mine? Or which definition of liberty are we talking about, yours or mine? I see you don't tolerate my beliefs, I know that you believe I am an inferior Infidel, but as a "person of the book" I demand to be tolerated!

Thanks, you already called me a Nazi, a genius, mean, close-minded, xenophobic, bigoted, not very nice, street kid shooter and an idiot. It seems self-righteousness is the least of my problems.

if i'm getting bent out of shape, its because i strongly disagree with mass deportations and forced abortions, which is what you were talking about in your first post.

leaving aside the name-calling and getting personal, do you really think thats a rational or reasonable way of getting things done? if you do, then i'll exercise my right to disagree with you. and maybe i could be a little more mature or less personal, but you punched my buttons.

i'll be honest and agree with you -- about some things. the way saudi arabia is run is corrupt and a disgrace. sudan has gone froma western leaning democracy in the late 50's and early 60's into a backward, run-down backwater in a backward, run-down continent -- no sudanese will disagree with that. does that have to do with the nature of islam or the greed and self-service that's part of human nature? we could argue all day about that, and we have in the past. and i see you're getting upset about my unjust generalizations and invalid asumptions -- so you can imagine how i feel reading your posts and others on this forum.

i've never had a problem with any one based on their religion, and i've never thought anyone inferior or superior to me based on their beliefs. honest truth. and i don't believe in censorship. show me the posts where i've insinuated that.

and what post --exactly-- do i make it clear that i'm a fundamentalist? please quote it. and i do believe in personal liberties. if i believed that the way the taliban acted was the proper practice of islam (which i don't) then i wouldn't be posting on this board, i'd be off in afghanistan.

you did get one thing right -- i am "very angry." maybe i did go too far. maybe you're a really nice guy in person. but look at your first post, and tell me that's not going to incite a response -- a passionate response.

Your entitled to think that if i ever have a kid, you can rip it out of my wife and use it for experiments (not putting words in your mouth, you're the one that postd that). Do you agree i'm entitled to get upset about comments like that?

go right ahead, set me straight. quote the post where i've implied i'm superior, or that my religion is superior. quote the post where i've put down another religion. quote the post where i've advocated censorship-- the post where i've asked someone to not post, or retract their statement. you're the one talking about infringing the civil liberties of a population because of their religios beliefs. you're the one talking about enacting some of the same policies the nazis used against the "untermensch."

so please don't get all sarcastic and be all "look at the crazy muslim, you can't even talk to him" -- i found your post deeply offensive, and responded in kind. tell me i'm wrong, tell me i misinterpreted your post and got the wrong end of the stick, and i'll apologize, shamelessly and in public. but if what you posted is what you truly believe, then don't expect hugs and kisses.

Well, that's YOUR interpretation of it, I speak of halting immigration and preventing a population from overcoming another, the part about mass deportation is up to you, I have nothing against deporting certain Immams, but there aren't enough Immams anywhere to reach a "massive" level of deportation of them.

And here is why interpretation is everything, and this is my main point, your reaction depends on how you read it, you have found one way to get it, I can present you with more, but I will not bore you to death, suffice to say due to the apocaliptical nature of this thread I chose the most politically uncorrect way to transmit my message, as requested by the author of the topic:

Certainly, stopping large masses of Muslim from immigrating, keeping their population under control and expanding the native European population seems like the way to go as far as the majority game goes.

Now, if you ask about "foced abortions", in practical terms that could even achieve some results, including many colateral ones, if you ask me if it's a rational or reasonable way I'll tell you under an emergency situation it is, but I don't speak this out of prejudice or Nazism, stopping a population from spreading their families is an effective proven method of reducing that population's number over time, look at East Timor, the Portuguese-speaking population has been nearly extinct using similar methods, in some regions the Chinese commit such athrocities to attempt to keep the population size under control. So, if necessary "forced abortions" would certainly work, but if you ask me such a thing would never be necessary.

Agreed.

Relatively speaking, me neither, my views on Islam refers to the religion as a whole and to its representatives, not each individual Muslim.

When I say censorship I mean when you quote only one part of my post, it gives the impression all the responsability lies on Muslim babies and all the Europeans have to do is abort them to get rid of their problems. Since we were trading Nazi greeting cards I thought censorship was a word worth of Nazism.

I don't even know you, so you are as much a fundamentalist as I am a Nazi, I could say you are a fundamentalist because you interpret (or don't) every word I write in your favor, but saying that would be equally opportunistic on my side.

Yes, but that was my goal, I came here for entertainment and was offered the possibility to post anything politically uncorrect, so I did it, I could post kind happy words but then it would just be another random useless post. Having this chat with you is something I will remember for a little longer.

Yes.

Now it's my turn to ask if you agree or not, do you agree there are religions and religions and religions?

Not only the Nazis but many others, including religions, like at the Inquisition, what if I believed the ultimate goal of Islam is to conquer Europe one way or another? Do you agree we are allowed to think even of the worst athrocities to brain-storm the future?

Your interpretation is perfectly valid and you are allowed to respond as you see fit.

absolutely. i've never once, on this forum or any other, stated that my religion or myself was superior to anyone else's. on the contrary, i've heard plenty of people claiming that my religion is inferior to theirs, and then had that followed up with hypocritical vitriol. check the forum -- the aggression certainly isn't coming from me. but then i'm sure that someone will interpret my statements as "he's trying to fool us" or some such nonsense.

what's right for me may not necessarily be right for someone else. we may each think the other is wrong, but the nature of religion is faith, and as such, can never be proven right or wrong.

unfortunately, human nature is such that differences are seized upon and used to excuse, at worst, inhuman behaviour. that's something i oppose, whether it be from a muslim or a christian or an animist or whoever.

i also feel people, as individuals, are responsible for their actions. the corollary is that individuals aren't responsible for the actions of others. so although abu musab alzarqawi and i may pray towards the same place or fast on the same days, and we're both viewed as muslims, we're not the same. his actions, and the actions of fundamentalists -- muslim or otherwise -- that kill innocent men, women, and children as a form of political redress or for a baser gain than that espoused in any religion, don't define me or a billion other muslims. does that make me a "bad muslim" or an apostate? i suppose i'll find out when i'm dead.

so you may think islam is a threat. i disagree. each of us is entitled to our opinion. the actions that those opinions lead to, however, can be the start of a slippery slope, for either side.

but as long as we're talking, however heatedly, and not throwing rocks or shooting or keying each others cars -- well, its a start. and we're doing better than most politicians, in europe, brazil, or the middle east.

So what do we do with Islam?
 

:o
Pffff.
(one of my shortest postings ever...)

:hmm: ?

anyway, i'm at work, should try and squeeze in an hour or 2 of shuteye. see you all tomorrow for another thrilling round of "the world's problems compressed onto a single forum, with all the attendant anger, ranting, flaring up that ensues."

seriously, coke v pepsi? man united v city? american football v rugby? pc v mac? sh3 v aotd?