I guess we can trust Turkey now

[Rockstar]

Seems they may have tipped off Israel to some nuclear sites in Syria. Some Israeli drop tanks were found on Turkish soil too indicating an exit route.

[geetrue]

Sounds good to me ... link please.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Seems they may have tipped off Israel to some nuclear sites in Syria. Some Israeli drop tanks were found on Turkish soil too indicating an exit route.

The facts are not in yet what happened.
But if Turkey was involved, its in their interest to keep Syria in check, nothing more.

[JALU3]

Links? We need verification.

[The Avon Lady]

Jerusalem Post, based on Kuwaiti news reports. Grain of salt. Anything could be true.

BTW, you're making a big mistake assuming that, if first of all this is true, Turkey can be 'trusted'.

There is a major difference between the still very secular military versus the more and more fundamental Islamic government versus the population, which itself is crawling away from Turkey's secularism of yesteryear.

[JALU3]

I know that there are many secular mulsims here in the States . . . but what is the possibility of that becoming the majority, or a sizeable minority in the Southwest Asia Region?

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by JALU3

I know that there are many secular mulsims here in the States . . . but what is the possibility of that becoming the majority, or a sizeable minority in the Southwest Asia Region?

Don't hold your breath.

[JALU3]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Don't hold your breath.

Believe me I am not. However, that doesn't mean that it's not impossible several generations from now. That is, that we combat the radicalization of Islam by doing what brought it to this point in the first place. Educate more moderate Imams to preach a more moderate interpretation of the faith. However, with seperation of Church and State arguements . . . their will be no counter to the continued teachings of imams trained in more radical forms of that faith.

[melnibonian]

No matter if the Syria story is true or not, I like the fact that Israel shows absolutely no respect for international treaties, borders and the sovernty of its neighbours and still manages to make everybody else answerable by evoking all those things that it shows total contempt for. Great skill Indeed it would be good to know how they do it as it might come handy in the future :hmm:

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JALU3

Believe me I am not. However, that doesn't mean that it's not impossible several generations from now. That is, that we combat the radicalization of Islam by doing what brought it to this point in the first place. Educate more moderate Imams to preach a more moderate interpretation of the faith. However, with seperation of Church and State arguements . . . their will be no counter to the continued teachings of imams trained in more radical forms of that faith.

Be advised that "moderate" Muslim Erdogan just complained to the EU leaders that they talks of "moderate Islam", that this is insulting and indicates that there is another Islam beside Islam. I preach since years that a thing like moderate Islam does not exist outside Islam, that there is only Muhammad's Islam, and that "fumdamentalistic Islam" "moderate Islam" and "Islamism" are only some of the many Western self-deceptions, and invented by the West, a brainbirth of Western linguistic artists. Also be advised that Islam does not know the separation between state and religion, and never knew (Atatürk was totally hostile to Islam, he was no "moderate Muslim"). Finally please note that for example Turkey massively influences (rules all by itself) what Imams they are sending to germany - and the overwhelming majority of these do not even speak German. This goes unopposed by the German government, and thus what they are preaching cannot effectively be controlled. The Turkish government also massively interferes and intervenes in German inner-political decisions and the german education system, in final consequence demanding that Turks must not integrate, and must not talk German language, and should be left under dominance of the Turkish state. so much for integration.

Islam is a radical and violent ideology by itself. It is no answer, but the cause of the problems you are touching. Also, radicals, as you call them, are not violating, but following Muhammad's formulated will as to be found in the Quran. The peaceful, non-violant Muslim wishing not to submit Europe - is the hereticxaccording to Muhammad's will, who ruled quite clearly that it is not free choice, but an obligation to contribute your share in helping to spread islam all over the world. Missionizing is obligatory that way, which served Muhammad's interests to built his empire well, didn't it. Always see the shape of Islam through Muhammad's eyes, than you immediately see the explanation why it is what it is, and what it wants. It's power-politics and personal cult in it's purest form. Muhammad was no holy man, he was a conquerer for whom nothing was ever enough, and who did not shy awa from murder to silence his critics and used his privately founded religion as the tool to intimidate and silence his critics. It is so very easy to understand, I do not undersand how a single human in the world can still fall for this greatest fraud of all times.

The major threat to the West is no terrorism anyway, even if we get a 9/11 each year, we would adapt, we would learn to live with it, like Israel did with decades of bomb attacks. Note that I almost never talk about terrorism. I'm about the ideology. The hidden creeping of Islamic values and rules into our education system, public life, and the legislation, this is the danger, and it seems that all opposition to it is useless and gets labelled as racism and Islamophobia, and all pointing out of Islam's characteristics earns you the immediate stigma of being intolerant and extremist, and gets you attacked by the EU, and national political establishmenets as well. Even when Islamic authorities that are known (sometimes even respected) in the West in mocking frankness tell the West that they are meaning to overthrow it, that they are planning to infiltrate it, using what they call themselves the demographic bomb (in their own words!) against it and conquer it by outbreeding it, and when they do not hide at all that they are not interested to integrate and get tamed, but working for the Muslimisation of all europe - even then these arrogant zombies in the West still believe they know it better, and that they know that these guys do not mean it like they say it, and they grab for every straw that they so desperately hope will keep their infantile naive better-hoping of the world alive, and they seek their salvation in tunnel-viewed balieving that europe's example is so convincing to other people that it is able to make them becoming like europe by simple having a look in admiration and praise at this wonderful "strong" europe.

Truth is europe is nothing more than prey for Islam, and it's historical identity, in the positive namely formed by the enlightenment and the ideas of humanism, is a rotten cadaver only, not willing and not wishing to defend that set of ideas and values anymore. We are yearning for getting dominated by Islam, we already invite Islam to overtake Europe, and wave it in, and pave the way for it, and unlock all doors and gates and windows. We call it tolerance. Tolerance in Islamic understanding means monoculture, with a state of organized, obligatory discrimination for some hand-selected dhimmi-communities that totally submit to the dominance of Islam, and accept to serve as obedient vasalls of second-class citizenship. Coexisting other cultures are alraedy an offense, simply by being there and not being Islam. Since Islam narcissistically feels challenged by them simply being there, it tries to get rid of them so that it feels no longer challenged in it's self-perception. note that Muhammad after he met the jewish pharasees at Medina who demonstrated him his great intellectual deficits in what he considered to be the successful self-lecturing in Jewish religion, was so offended and angry over his inferiority that he answered the pharisees better knowledge aboiut their faith by waging war, chasing two tribes away, betrayed the third one and massacred all the 800-900 males completely, and send all girld and women into slavery, and annihilated that tribe'S culture completely. The UN since 1948 calls such an effort "genocide". - See the pattern?

Europe has no will to defend itself. If that does not chnage, it's future therefore is Islam, rightfully deserved, and it will not even have any right to complain. Nobody forced Europe to voluntarily rob in the sand like a dog. It will be no step forward, but several giant jumps backward.

[JALU3]

Your lengthy response is very interesting . . . if there is no melting pot, i.e. integration and assimulation into to the host culture, even while preserving the best of your original culture, leads to civil fracturing, leading to a disintigration of its present political boundries.

But are there not sect of the muslim faith?
And if there are, do all of them preach conversion of the "infadels", even if by force . . . or death?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by melnibonian

No matter if the Syria story is true or not, I like the fact that Israel shows absolutely no respect for international treaties, borders and the sovernty of its neighbours and still manages to make everybody else answerable by evoking all those things that it shows total contempt for. Great skill Indeed it would be good to know how they do it as it might come handy in the future :hmm:

Probably a skill evolved over many years borne out of necessity and self preservation mel :hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by melnibonian

No matter if the Syria story is true or not, I like the fact that Israel shows absolutely no respect for international treaties, borders and the sovernty of its neighbours and still manages to make everybody else answerable by evoking all those things that it shows total contempt for.

Yes, like contempt for not allowing oneself to be nuked by incoming Syrian Scuds. Bad, bad Israel!!!!!!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JALU3

Your lengthy response is very interesting . . .

There are many here by now who will see that totally different!

if there is no melting pot, i.e. integration and assimulation into to the host culture, even while preserving the best of your original culture, leads to civil fracturing, leading to a disintigration of its present political boundries.

But are there not sect of the muslim faith?
And if there are, do all of them preach conversion of the "infadels", even if by force . . . or death?

There are many sects, as a matter of fact there are even sects that teach things that are in violation of what muhammad has taught. People in Musklimnnations are not stupid by birth, they just get educated by Islam to be stupoid. you will never find a passage anywhere from me where I said turks are stupid, Algerians are stupid, or soemthing liek that, I am no racist. I always go for the ideology of Islam instead. without Islam, Arabia would probably be a centre of civilization, trade and knowledge like the West has become. Remember that in the medieval, Arabia was far more advanced than Europe, it had the better starting conditions. It was a truly multi-cultural soociety, with almost all known cultures present inside it'S realm. Look what it is now: a pure monoculture, and if you as a Christian try to enter it with a bible in your suitcase only for your own private use, you are in extremely deep and potentially lethal trouble - by law you oculd get killed for that. After the medieval phase of Arab cultural blossoming came Muhammad, and deleted all these advantages once and for all. If I were Arab, I would curse him for the misfortune he had brought over my people. Oil also played to the disadvanatge of Arab culture, becasue having found the hen that gives them golden eggs, they had no need to invest in education, industry, sciences, research, much of it already was forbidden by Shariah law. Instead they got corruption, and even more phlegmatism, as if Islam ever were short in supply of the latter.

Somewhere in Turkey, I think, i once read about a Muslim community that even is fully matriarchalic! However, a modernization of Islam like it was tried when the Protestants separated from the Catholic church never took place in Islam, Islam has no pendant to the reformation in the West - it fought and still fights all such efforts down with the Islamic pendant to the Inquisition: the law of Shariah. The split into Shia and sunni is not for theological reasons, but comes from the Islamic civil war that started as a stzruggle for political power after Muzhammad's death and in principles last until today - see the high tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the major facitons of both parties. The prkmary conflict in the ME is not that between Israel and the Palestinians, like the Eu and the US often assume, it si the clash between sunni and shia power. That's why the Western policy never has achieved anything substantial there, it is basing on wrong assumptions. - We we have left Inquisition behind us since long, while the Sharia is demanded by a majority of the people in almost all Muslim nations (including Turkey, if only those witty laserbrains from the West would ever care to move beyond the tpourist centres and western-style metropoles and visit the rural areas. In fact some of the most orthodox Muslims I ever met, I did not meet in Iran, or Algeria, or whereever - but in Turkey).

My very determined argument over and ove again ist that what is considered to be tolerant, peaceful, coexisting Islam - is not really islamic at all, not in the meaning of the quran, and not according to what Muahammad taught, or is quoted with in Quran and Hadith. Has there been peace-loving, democratic, tolerant germans in the Third Reich? Yes. Have they found representation in the third Reich, have they influencd the evil that came from fascism, have they ibnfluenced the theory of Naism? No. The Third Reich and nazism remained to be of the evil and aggressiveness that they were from the beginning. Same way i see muhammad'S ideolgoy. He erected this cult with himself in the focus of it, so that he could not be critized without the critic getting accused of being heretic. He erected an artifical "religion" as a tool to implement his power politics, and keep it all under control, and swear in his followers to follow him in his ambitions withoiut asking questions abiout him, without relfecting abiut him, without being critical about him. That is all what islam is about. That'S why "Muhammedanism" is the by far more precise term to name this ideology. Evertyhing muslims believe to know about allah, the Sharia, Islam, and what the ought to do - came from one only source: Muhammad's mouth. and that man was an epilleptic, a gangster, a murder, a mass- murderer and a power hungry mobster, sorry, but that is the historical truth, check it out yourself if you don' believe me. Historians count 60-70 wars and predatory raids in his favour. the people that collected the taxes, or better, the protection money, in muhammad's name - were the same who used to teach muhammad's religion at that opportunity. I think it is rooting here that there is no separation between state and religion in Islam. He originally may have started in an effort to adress the social crisis that had appared from the raise of the trader's elite and their growing wealth that split up the traditional tribal social security systemns for the weak and old, but it then went like we also see it happening in the present: there is a given orgnaization of freedom fighters in some third world country, that had started to free the people from capitalistic tyranny and blablabla, and erect a systm of more social justice. It then ends tne or twenty years later in a mafia-like gang kidnapping people, blackmailing, trading drugs and weapons and assassinate people by death squadrons, still calling all that "rebellion" and "people's front" and "freedom movement".

I urge you not to believe it just because I say it, I have read and experienced quite some lot about it all, yes, but I am no professional with making a job of knowing about it, so my expression of these things, and my summarizing is inadequate and incomplete, and over the years I also have forgotten many details again. I just referate the very basics, and general trends in history, that's why I am repeating myself so often, becasue these basics are few, and simple. Search literature and sources yourself, eduate yourself on Islam, do not trust Islamic scholars that when you ask them they will give you an objective answer, and will not trys to hide the many flaws and dark sides of it - they wouldn't have become Imams and scholars if doing so. If you want an objecztive, true assessemnt of Catholicism - would you expect the pope to be that objective source of information? Hardly. we have a wonderul tool here in the West, that in no other culture was developed to that sharp-skilled degree than here: the scientific methodology, the tradition of Greek logic, the reason of the elightenment, the principle of trial and error, sceptical analysis. Use them on Islam! Islam will cry heaven and hell and will be offended 24/7, and will demand not do so so, knowing that it will fall apart in the light of the spotlights of reason and logic, but just do not believe me or others here. Educate yourself, there is over 100 years of thorough academic research being done on Islam, the results having put down in many good books that are far more objective than what Islam (like any other religon and cult) has to say about itself. ironically, by collected material the West has gained far more knowledge about Islam, than Islam ever showed intreest for other cultures, it'S just that the West deliberatly has choosen to ignore this knowledge. The best antidot to Islam (and any fundamentalistic religion or cult!) is - logic and reason. It simply does not stand them, like sunlight kills vampyres.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by JALU3

But are there not sect of the muslim faith?
And if there are, do all of them preach conversion of the "infadels", even if by force . . . or death?

From Jihad means much more than violence (but it also means violence):

Unfortunately, jihad as warfare against unbelievers in order to institute Sharia worldwide is not propaganda or ignorance, or a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists; instead, it is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology. Islamic law contains unmistakable affirmations of the centrality of jihad warfare against unbelievers. This is true of all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence (madhahib): the Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali, and Shafi’i, to which the great majority of Muslims worldwide belong, as well as of all the other schools.

These schools formulated laws regarding the importance of jihad and the ways in which it must be practiced, centuries ago. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared:

Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.

Likewise, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favorite of Osama bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists:

Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).

The Hanafi school sounds the same notes:

It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.

And so does the Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058 ), who echoes Muhammad’s instructions to invite the unbelievers to accept Islam or fight them if they refuse:

The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…

Underscoring the fact that none of this is merely of historical interest is another Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.” This manual, ‘Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveller), after defining the “greater jihad” as “spiritual warfare against the lower self,” devotes eleven pages to the “lesser jihad.” It defines this jihad as “war against non-Muslims,” noting that the word itself “is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.”

It spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by a Jordanian jurist that corresponds to Muhammad’s instructions to call the unbelievers to Islam before fighting them: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) . . . while remaining in their ancestral religions.” Also, if there is no caliph, Muslims must still wage jihad.

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Extremists? Propaganda? No, this is the Islamic mainstream.