What do you say about this?

[scandium]

First off, AL are you competing with Skybird on who can write the longest Posts? Well, as long as you don't start using red and blue text

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

The fact that what can be truthfully said about one group cannot be truthfully said about another does not make it untrue, or bigoted.

Provided you make that distinction, which you don't, and which is why it is bigoted.

Especially when the group in question exists as a group because of its shared ideology.

In order to be a "group" the group must have something in common (a shared space if nothing else). In any case, would you make the generalizations you make of Muslims to any other group? "Jews" are a group, as are "Catholics"... "Irish"... "Capitalists".... "Communists"... "Hispanics"... "Plumbers". :hmm:

If that ideology has abhorrent features, that is simply a matter of fact. It must be dealt with somehow, and not allowed to continue because of fear of "bigotry" or "racism."

Ideological purity, what a concept... Is Judaism ideologically pure? No skeletons in the closet anywhere? As Jesus said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

I agree that facts should be dealt with, however if you're looking for "facts" in anything theological than that is half your problem right there.

In this you are like those who decried anti-Nazi efforts as "hatred of Germans" or anti-Communist efforts as "hatred of Russians," and you reveal yourself as just another one of those whom the ones who wish to destroy us find so useful.

Who would that be?

If my facts are correct, England has been one of the biggest absorbers of asylum seekers over the last few decades. Here are some fresh and interesting statistics to ponder:

Muslim Britain split over 'martyrs' of 7/7.

And here, I'm sure you'll be shocked, too.

Again, you still don't catch. Islamists will, if necessary, take their time and use the democratic rules and laws to their advantage, to eventually impose Sha'ria law on their host countries.

Once again, you can't see past the morning paper. Islamists are looking decades ahead of you.

Interesting how that juxtaposes with your assertion in another thread that they can't see past the 72 virgins in the afterlife. :hmm:

In any case, the Times article has some interesting findings. One has to wonder if the fact that 79% of the Muslims believe they have since experienced increased hostility (understandably or no) has any bearing on the finding that 16% of them were 'sympathetic to the cause but not the attack'. Would I expect, based on this poll, that 16% of Muslims in the UK is planning a terrorist attack? No. In fact, the only conclusion I make from this is that it proves Muslims don't all think and act alike the way you seem to think they do.

What's the comparison? Again, what do the Islamic theocracies say that is in contradiction with the religion of Islam? They are accurately preaching it, based on the writing of present and past Islamic theocrats that say the same things and sight the same Islamic scriptures, many of them blatantly and literally apparent.

Do they?

Maybe you can catch on. How about the fear and hatred of Nazi Germany by the few in the west who understood what was happening while the rest of the world slept?

The rest of the world has been asleep for the last 1,400 years eh? Quite the coma. If only I could sleep so peacefully at night

Since you know better, please tell me which Islamic schools of Jurisprudence have a different interpretation than what I have been stating and linking to? Name it/them. You have yet to do so even once.

Here's my list: Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi’i - all 4 schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence.

Shall we start dealing with the much smaller world of Shi'ite Islam, too? Just ask.

And which Western countries do they dispense justice in? How about you name those, since that has quite a lot more to do with my point.

Where does the Bible tell Christians to take over the whole world by hook or by crook?

What difference does theological nuance make in regards to historical fact? Perhaps if you'd been born 3 centuries ago you could have pointed that out to the Christian hordes that were busy conquering all of North & South America (by hook and by crook). Surely they would have listened to you. But of course Christianity doesn't conquer and enslave. Christians do (or did). Similarly, Islam doesn't conquer and enslave. Muslims do (or did).

I have already quoted numerous times the Quranic verses, ahaddiths and elementary Islamic texts that teach Muslims that they are to achieve domination of Islam throughout the world and not only by peacefully proselytizing.

Where is the Christian equivalent? Waiting (again)..........................

See above. History cares little for theological nuance.

Indeed. But believe me, we'd love to seriously argue with you once you have the facts at hand. This admission of ignorance on your part is much appreciated.

You are only just now catching onto something that I have surely said all along. Theology is all well and good, but if it is as you say it is then it should be borne out by actions and by history. Are they? I've been waiting for something more tangible than obscure theological references, but neither of you are providing. So I guess we've both been waiting.

And here you make the major error of not understanding the difference between the religious view of the verbatim validity of supposed god-given religious texts verses the admitted inventive creations of man.

If a Muslim tells you that the Quran's texts can be ignored because times have changed, he is violating a law already defined by Islam that forbids him to say or bleieve so. He may still be a Muslim but he is a sinning Muslim practicing some offshoot variation that is not Islam.

If someone says they are Catholic but don't believe in the trinity, they may be Catholic but what they believe in is not Catholocism.

Nonsense. The Bible is every bit as God-given as the Koran and there are very few Christians who still hold to a literal view of it. Almost all Christians (through their churches) ignore parts of the Bible precisely because times have changed.

As they say, you are what you eat.

I eat Pork, as do many other Christians - does that make us Swine?

If this is "Islamophobia", show me exactly why it is irrational (i.e. not based on facts or observable behavior, or a study of history). Show me why it is an "irrational" dislike or even hatred of Islam. If you cannot show that, then perhaps the word should not be invoked. But if you do invoke it, be prepared to have copious quotations from Qur'an and hadith and sira constantly presented to audiences so that they may judge for themselves, without the "guidance" of apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

Interesting standard you have there, and it is symptomatic in itself of the double standard you hold Islam to which can lead nowhere. On the one hand, you expect me to show you facts based on observable behavior - based on theological evidence! Absurd. Then, the double standard, any Muslim who disagrees with your belief is an "Islam apologist". This is a preposterous proposition, completely, and sorry but you are going to be waiting a long time since I won't be involving myself in such lunacy.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Nothing to those who inhabit the metaphysical sphere you appear to .

[scandium]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Here's where you're defeated. The world went to war against Germany, Italy and Japan. The war has been over for over 60 years. Why are these countries still here?

Because Fascism was defeated.

You really are thick.

Now AL if that were true you wouldn't waste so much of your time arguing with me (or get so upset ).

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Scandium

You simply ignore all and everything that you do not want to hear, and try to wrap up people in distracting and often hairsplitting pseudo-discussion on an almost semantical level. That's why I have stopped to bother with you. For everyone who has collected some basic knowledge about Islam, it's history, it'S scritpure, it'S theology, it is very obvious that you do not know anything substantial about it. As long as you do not change that and stop your ignorance towards Islam, you do not talk, but distort. you need to know the general content of the quran and it'S structures, you need to have some basic exoerience in the diversity of contradictory quotes you can get from it if you just happen to know where to find the single sentence that matches you cause. You need to understand how it was created, and rearranged, and that Islam denies that this process has taken place. you need to have a basic idea about what Hadith is, and what it deals with, ahnd in what form it incorproates the sharia. You need to be able to compare the Sira to the biography of the histoircally true figure ofMuhammad, you need to have some basic knowledge about his historically true life in order to understand why he preached what he preached. You need to understand what is meant with the socalled medina-model. You need to have enough information so that you can build a well-founded guess about what kind of character and personality he had. You need to know the history before Islam, both woitzh regard to the arabian peninsula, and the splitted Rome. You need to learn by what criterias Islam defines itself, and it'S goals. And finally you need to accept on the basis of knoweldge that Islam actively prohibits that such questions are asked, and that answers or knowledge in egenral are sought outside the Koran and the Hadith, and that this is why in other parts of the world schools and teachers are one preferred kind of target for Islamic terror strikes.

Since weeks we see in your answers that you do not have this knoweldge, instead your stuff perfetcly mimics the content of the pro-Islamic propaganda. I - and others - judge you on the basis of your performance, and that is a performance that shines with ignorance of facts. I do not know why AL still spends so much effort with you. I have decided different, becasue as long as you do not equip yourself with some basic knowledge about Islam, you do not talk, but distort. That knowledge is difficult to achieve, I do know myself, it takes time and studying. until some years ago, I defended islam myself, for difefrent reasons than you do. But I had to accept the growing flood of information I gained that indicated that my BELIEFS were wrong. when I changed my opinion, many of my often contradictory experiences from my times in the middle east all of a sudden fell into place and formed a consistent, smooth picture. To get there, took me years, and many illusions to be killed.

She is simply more tenacious She would probably be a good chess player. She had me skewered, ironically, on my own arguement. I have to say that after this last exchange I am at a loss for a rebuttal. :hmm:

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by scandium

A third possibility is that you haven't a clue about what "Jihad" actually means.

That's quite arrogant Scandium, what do you know about me?

I demand you answer me the name of the Immam I have been talking to for months now.

It's you who have no clue about Jihad, not me. I believe fatwah-eligible Immams have more authority than a Muslim blogger to state what Jihad is, if the Muslim blogger disagrees, he is heretical and is a member of a different religion: the Islam of Jihad-heretical Muslims.

Muhammad did not fought his battles with an army of Zen Monks. As the Avon Lady said: "If someone says they are Catholic but don't believe in the trinity, they may be Catholic but what they believe in is not Catholocism.".

Your behavior is Xiite, you say that everything changes and that not all Muslims think exactly the same, yet you do not recognize my understanding of Jihad.

If you believe everything changes then why do you oppose a new Islamic school of thought? Why do you oppose my Quran? Is it because I'm not Xiite?

[scandium]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

That's quite arrogant Scandium, what do you know about me?

How is stating that as a third possibility arrogant? It is precisely because I know nothing about you that this is a third possibility (otherwise I could rule it out either way ).

[Skybird]

Nice sig, TetFaoBob.

And couldn't you change your name? It's a pain to keep track of that useless chain of symbols.

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by scandium

How is stating that as a third possibility arrogant? It is precisely because I know nothing about you that this is a third possibility (otherwise I could rule it out either way ).

The third possibility is my cluelessness. That presumes I speak out of ignorance, when my understanding of Jihad comes straight from Islamic sources, and personally from Sunni Muslims, who are progressive enough not to fall on the trap of deception. We're all clueless, you're lucky we're not all Xiite!

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by scandium

Provided you make that distinction, which you don't, and which is why it is bigoted.

I did make the distinction, as have other here. We have quoted over and over again from purely reputable Islamic sources what Islam says regarding, jihad, dhimmitude, Sha'ria and other relevant topics.

Skybird is right. You simply ignore facts and plow on.

In order to be a "group" the group must have something in common (a shared space if nothing else). In any case, would you make the generalizations you make of Muslims to any other group? "Jews" are a group, as are "Catholics"... "Irish"... "Capitalists".... "Communists"... "Hispanics"... "Plumbers". :hmm:

More ridiculousness. So now Islamists, which are Muslims that adhere to Islamic laws, cannot be grouped?

And Muslims who are sympathetic to Islam, though they may be lenient with themselves with Islamic laws (alchohol, non-halal food, etc.) could not possibly have anything in common with their more adherent co-religionists?

Who are you fooling?

Ideological purity, what a concept... Is Judaism ideologically pure? No skeletons in the closet anywhere? As Jesus said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Who is talking about "ideological purity"? How about sticking to the subject.

I agree that facts should be dealt with, however if you're looking for "facts" in anything theological than that is half your problem right there.

No. Only you do. The facts have been presented numerous times to you. You don't even counter with facts that would show the contrary to the facts you've been presented with.

Who would that be?

Islam. Tough to keep a single train of thought, I suppose.

Interesting how that juxtaposes with your assertion in another thread that they can't see past the 72 virgins in the afterlife. :hmm:

All to achieve the same goal. Again, you are confronted with facts and make snide attempts at humor to reflect them.

In any case, the Times article has some interesting findings. One has to wonder if the fact that 79% of the Muslims believe they have since experienced increased hostility (understandably or no) has any bearing on the finding that 16% of them were 'sympathetic to the cause but not the attack'. Would I expect, based on this poll, that 16% of Muslims in the UK is planning a terrorist attack? No. In fact, the only conclusion I make from this is that it proves Muslims don't all think and act alike the way you seem to think they do.

Yet you don't bother dealing with the source of contention between non-Muslims and Muslims.

As for planned terror attacks, obviously your paper only prints what you want to read:

Terror plots accelerating, warns police chief.

Undercover on planet Beeston. Highlight excerpt:

• Once again, I felt as if I had entered a strange bubble, a world where the reality I had known before had been suspended. Bham then asked me if I would ever blow myself up for Islam. I replied that the Koran says you should not harm innocent people.
  
  “What Koran was that?” he countered. “Don’t fool yourself by saying jihad is a struggle within, to get on with life, to motivate myself to get up for prayers and that sort of thing,” he said. “That’s not jihad. Who told you that?”

Try absorbing all of the facts and statistics and not only the ones that make you happy.

Do they?

Once again, not countering with any facts as you claim to know otherwise.

The rest of the world has been asleep for the last 1,400 years eh? Quite the coma. If only I could sleep so peacefully at night

You are truly ignorant of the ongoing Jihads that have continued in Africa, Turkey, the Balkans, much of the Middle East, India and in the Asia Pacific area. Get educated.

And which Western countries do they dispense justice in? How about you name those, since that has quite a lot more to do with my point.

Their followers are in any countries that allow immigration. You have seen their justice dispensed on 9/11 and 7/7, just as 2 outstanding examples.

What difference does theological nuance make in regards to historical fact? Perhaps if you'd been born 3 centuries ago you could have pointed that out to the Christian hordes that were busy conquering all of North & South America (by hook and by crook). Surely they would have listened to you. But of course Christianity doesn't conquer and enslave. Christians do (or did). Similarly, Islam doesn't conquer and enslave. Muslims do (or did).

Your ignorance shows again. I'm in a rush but try finding an Islamic sight with search functions to go through the Quran and Ahaddiths. Search for "slave", "slaves", "slavery", etc. Quick link: Islamicity.

See above. History cares little for theological nuance.

Wrong again, as above.

You are only just now catching onto something that I have surely said all along. Theology is all well and good, but if it is as you say it is then it should be borne out by actions and by history. Are they?

Yes. Your ignorance is showing once more.

I've been waiting for something more tangible than obscure theological references, but neither of you are providing. So I guess we've both been waiting.

Go by a book I've already mentioned multiple times: The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, by Andrew G. Bostom. It is a tedious but fact filled book of several hundreds of pages that reproduced historic texts from Islamic conquerers, as well as from their victims, with a heavy emphasis on indicating the scriptural and theological foundations for much of what Islam has done for 1400 years.

Nonsense. The Bible is every bit as God-given as the Koran

I never said otherwise.

and there are very few Christians who still hold to a literal view of it. Almost all Christians (through their churches) ignore parts of the Bible precisely because times have changed.

No and pardon me for not googling for it now (late, late, late). I understand that there are clear indications in the NT that claim that the law of the OT was anulled or similar. Other posters here can more easily find these verses than I can.

I eat Pork, as do many other Christians - does that make us Swine?

Now look who's the literalist!

Interesting standard you have there, and it is symptomatic in itself of the double standard you hold Islam to which can lead nowhere. On the one hand, you expect me to show you facts based on observable behavior - based on theological evidence! Absurd.

No. You just cannot come up with the facts. Nothing absurd about it.

Then, the double standard, any Muslim who disagrees with your belief is an "Islam apologist".

Go ahead and quote me from such Muslims. We are still waiting.

This is a preposterous proposition, completely, and sorry but you are going to be waiting a long time since I won't be involving myself in such lunacy.

As you like it.

[Skybird]

There were indications before that the Catholic church's attitude towards Islam is in a change since the new pope got elected and mentioned the need for reciprocity several times since then - something that seem to have been unthinikable under John Paul II. How far this change of attitude goes, remains to be seen. It is a push into the right direction. what it now needs is energy and endurance.

From:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=23225
and quoted in http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatc...12102.php#more

The Vatican Confronts IslamBy Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 5, 2006

“Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It’s our duty to protect ourselves.” Thus spoke Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican’s supreme court, referring to Muslims. Explaining his apparent rejection of Jesus’ admonition to his followers to “turn the other cheek,” De Paolis noted that “The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century…and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights.”
De Paolis is hardly alone in his thinking; indeed, the Catholic Church is undergoing a dramatic shift from a decades-old policy to protect Catholics living under Muslim rule. The old methods of quiet diplomacy and muted appeasement have clearly failed. The estimated 40 million Christians in Dar al-Islam, notes the Barnabas Fund’s Patrick Sookhdeo, increasingly find themselves an embattled minority facing economic decline, dwindling rights, and physical jeopardy. Most of them, he goes on, are despised and distrusted second-class citizens, facing discrimination in education, jobs, and the courts.
These harsh circumstances are causing Christians to flee their ancestral lands for the West’s more hospitable environment. Consequently, Christian populations of the Muslim world are in a free-fall. Two small but evocative instances of this pattern: for the first time in nearly two millennia, Nazareth and Bethlehem no longer have Christian majorities.
This reality of oppression and decline stands in dramatic contrast to the surging Muslim minority of the West. Although numbering fewer than 20 million and made up mostly of immigrants and their offspring, it is an increasingly established and vocal minority, granted extensive rights and protections even as it wins new legal, cultural, and political prerogatives.
This widening disparity has caught the attention of the Roman Catholic Church, which for the first time is pointing to radical Islam, rather than the actions of Israel, as the central problem facing Christians living with Muslims.
Rumblings of this could be heard already in John Paul II’s time. For example, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the Vatican equivalent of foreign minister, noted in late 2003 that “There are too many majority Muslim countries where non-Muslims are second-class citizens.” Tauran pushed for reciprocity: “Just as Muslims can build their houses of prayer anywhere in the world, the faithful of other religions should be able to do so as well.”
Catholic demands for reciprocity have grown, especially since the accession of Pope Benedict XVI in April 2005, for whom Islam is a central concern. In February, the pope emphasized the need to respect “the convictions and religious practices of others so that, in a reciprocal manner, the exercise of freely-chosen religion is truly assured to all.” In May, he again stressed the need for reciprocity: Christians must love immigrants and Muslims must treat well the Christians among them.
Lower-ranking clerics, as usual, are more outspoken. “Islam’s radicalization is the principal cause of the Christian exodus,” asserts Monsignor Philippe Brizard, director general of Oeuvre d’Orient, a French organization focused on Middle Eastern Christians. Bishop Rino Fisichella, rector of the Lateran University in Rome, advises the Church to drop its “diplomatic silence” and instead “put pressure on international organizations to make the societies and states in majority Muslim countries face up to their responsibilities.”
The Danish cartoons crisis offered a typical example of Catholic disillusionment. Church leaders initially criticized the publication of the Muhammad cartoons. But when Muslims responded by murdering Catholic priests in Turkey and Nigeria, not to speak of scores of Christians killed during five days of riots in Nigeria, the Church responded with warnings to Muslims. “If we tell our people they have no right to offend, we have to tell the others they have no right to destroy us, ” said Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican’s Secretary of State. “We must always stress our demand for reciprocity in political contacts with authorities in Islamic countries and, even more, in cultural contacts,” added Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, its foreign minister.
Obtaining the same rights for Christians in Islamdom that Muslims enjoy in Christendom has become the key to the Vatican’s diplomacy toward Muslims. This balanced, serious approach marks a profound improvement in understanding that could have implications well beyond the Church, given how many lay politicians heed its leadership in interfaith matters. Should Western states also promote the principle of reciprocity, the results should indeed be interesting.

[scandium]

Interesting article Skybird.

[The Avon Lady]

Ciao Italia.

[Arwen]

It has been pretty difficult for me to get str8 to the essence of your ideas...
We already live in a century when nobody cares too much about who`s ass was bigger: the germans` or the others`.

Meine liebsten geliebten Damen und Herren, you can neither qualify people in humans and untermensch taking into account political, social, economical, religious, racial features, nor hate the grandchildren of those who did it. Why? Because it is incorrect to judge a whole "group" by their grand-grand-grand parents` mistakes.

Religion? It is pure bull****. Faith? That`s different. Why? Because religion is a tool, and faith is so much different when logics are implied.
Tool - for wars, murders and so on.
Much different, when logics are implied - it leades to development.
Without logics - fanatism...

You where talking about wars, big bowls, Islam... well, since the Second World War, as far as i could see, the armed conflicts, eventual wars that took place where started by economical reasons... not for freedom.

Rasism, religion, gods and the past ... all these are tools.
A friend of mine is a reporter and went to Iraq to write and article about the war situation (that was about 2 years ago). He told us, after coming back, that most of the Iraq "great warriors" are children, grown up with the AK in their heands, tought in the name of Mohamed and Allah, that Cristians, and Budists are wrong and they are right. What do you expect?

Ideological purity - there is nothing perfect in this world, as nothing is absolute. Evrything is RELATED to us, to events, things, past, future, to each other.
As one can say about comunism that it is an utopia, I can say just the same thing about ideological purity.

Lieblinge...

You are truly ignorant of the ongoing Jihads that have continued in Africa, Turkey, the Balkans, much of the Middle East, India and in the Asia Pacific area. Get educated.

The art of conversation implies that you respect your partner`s point of view (even if you don`t agree with him), and prove your own point of view.

Lady Avon, no offence and with all due respect, but I think you are a little bit hasty in judging people by some threads/post you`ve found on a public forum.
:hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Arwen

The art of conversation implies that you respect your partner`s point of view (even if you don`t agree with him), and prove your own point of view.

I am not an artist of debate. You may call me an amateur. Really.

Lady Avon, no offence and with all due respect, but I think you are a little bit hasty in judging people by some threads/post you`ve found on a public forum.
:hmm:

Yes and no. I call 'em as I see 'em. If you're looking for political correctness, that isn't me.

I'm in a rush but I disagree with much of what you wrote. The word that comes to mind is "ethereal."

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Arwen

The art of conversation implies that you respect your partner`s point of view (even if you don`t agree with him), and prove your own point of view.

Damn, I KNEW that Muhammad has forgotten something important.

Originally Posted by Arwen

Lady Avon, no offence and with all due respect, but I think you are a little bit hasty in judging people by some threads/post you`ve found on a public forum.

I find it a little bit rich if this kind of lecturing a - by now wellknown - longtime member of this board is done by someone who is a newcomer himself who just has posted his second or third reply on this board. Maybe you should better listen to your own advise, Alawan. YOU are the one prematurely judging established board members here.

Originally Posted by Arwen

(...) when logics are implied - it leades to development.
Without logics - fanatism...

Sounds like a perfect description of Islam's eternal dilemma and lacking developement for me.

[Wim Libaers]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

How about the fact that for possibly the first time in history, Islamic texts and lierature has become available to the public to read and digest?

How about the fact that what Islamic preaches say today and are recorded for posterity in their own web sites, on video, in printed material and trascripts, declares that Islam does indeed advocate using a variety of methods, from preaching (da'wa) to lying (taquiya) to physical military force (Jihad - yes, that kind of Jihad) to subjugate an infidel world (dar al-harb) into following Islam or, at the least being subserviant to it (dhimmitude) in countries that are to convert to the Islamic legal system (Sha'aria)?

The assumption that a significant part of the European population opposes Islam because they recognize its inherent dangers seems too optimistic to me. I am more inclined to believe that they merely distrust (and in some cases hate) muslims because of their obvious tendency to cause trouble (many crimes, vandalism, robbery, random violence, harassment), often combined and apparently at least partially caused by their very obvious contempt for those who are not of their kind.

That is, at least, what most people who object to muslims and that I interact with seem to have as their motivation for being against muslims. Not so much the religious basis (which most do not understand, and are not inclined to learn about when they could spend their time on more omportant things like TV and alcohol), but the fear that they, or people they care about, might also become victims of infidel-hating or white-hating muslim criminal gangs.




Regardin certain people's tendencies to assume that Churchill would oppose "Islamophobia", well, maybe. On the other hand, perhaps he'd recommend colonizing the Middle East and gassing the muslims. Who knows? And we can't really ask him anymore.

"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
--Winston Churchill

I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes. -- Winston Churchill