INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Callaway on August 10, 2006, 12:58:23 AM
-
(CBS/AP) Police in London say they have thwarted a major terrorist plot intended to blow up planes, reportedly over the Atlantic while flying to the U.S. About 20 suspects are in custody, after a series of arrests overnight.
Britain's Home Secretary, John Reid, says about a dozen of the the suspects were "very close" to succeeding in the plot, which he describes as "significant" and designed to cause loss of life.
Reid also says the plot was uncovered and foiled by British police who have been conducting an undercover operation for a number of months.
Sky News reports the plot may have involved blowing up 20 planes in mid-air over the Atlantic Ocean.
Follow link for full article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/10/world/main1880791.shtml
I hope none of our members are badly affected by the resulting increase in security.
-
Grrr. Have had a really fucking stressful morning thanks to this - no hand baggage was allowed on flights leaving the UK, so we had to squeeze everything into the cases. Some flights from Liverpool were cancelled so we had to set off 70 miles to the airport not knowing whether PI and the kids would actually have a plane to catch when we got there - luckily I got a text from her mum half way home saying their plane was still setting off and on time.
/me relaxes a few notches and wonders if its too early in the day for a drink
/me also wishes for a sane government which didn't have its head wedged up George Bush's arse, then maybe we wouldn't be getting all this shite
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
I'm glad that no planes were blown up or crashed. Apparently, the terrorists planned to make bombs using some sorts of liquids, because the airlines are forbidding almost all liquids in carry-on baggage. Apparently they aren't even allowing ladies to carry purses on the flights, only wallets. That would make it very difficult for us to travel with our daughter. It must be difficult for PI to travel with the kids without carrying things to entertain them in the airport and on the flight and the lines must be awful. I hope she has a nice vacation and birthday anyway.
-
something tells me that PI has a certain look that the kids recognize as its time to behave or suffeer the wrath and fury of hell.
-
She has, but our kids are a match for most things lol.
It must be difficult for PI to travel with the kids without carrying things to entertain them in the airport and on the flight and the lines must be awful. I hope she has a nice vacation and birthday anyway.
It was a complete ballache apparently - they couldnt even take on the sweets they took with them to stop their ears popping. PI and the kids landed ok but to add insult to injury, although UK security had allowed her to take her cigs on the plane but not her lighter, security at Limoges made her throw them away... most of a 20 pack.She wasn't very impressed. :'(
-
and i know from experience that the first thing she probably wanted was a fag, the moment the plane landed.
i do feel for her.
-
Grrr. Have had a really fucking stressful morning thanks to this - no hand baggage was allowed on flights leaving the UK, so we had to squeeze everything into the cases. Some flights from Liverpool were cancelled so we had to set off 70 miles to the airport not knowing whether PI and the kids would actually have a plane to catch when we got there - luckily I got a text from her mum half way home saying their plane was still setting off and on time.
/me relaxes a few notches and wonders if its too early in the day for a drink
/me also wishes for a sane government which didn't have its head wedged up George Bush's arse, then maybe we wouldn't be getting all this shite
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Talk about crappy timing. I thought all flights out of the UK were cancelled.
I'd say you're entitled to a drink after this. Or two.
And you're right about our governments. Argh.
-
It could be worse. We're all lucky that they CAUGHT these people.
-
my first instinct is:
what is the bottom line?
who does this help financially/politically?
sure it was just good police work. :-\
-
I'll admit that I was thinking along the same lines. Wasn't there enough focus on the "war against terrorism"?
-
Expect the entire British Muslim demograph to be picked on more now.
-
my first instinct is:
what is the bottom line?
who does this help financially/politically?
Why don't you tell us who it helps financially and politically?
I doubt the orders came right from the top; Tony Blair has been slated for sunning himself in Barbados while all this has been happening.
Maybe our leaders were trying to send us a message concerning the War On Terror. You want to know what I think every time I hear a story about a new Muslim terror plot?
1. British troops should not still be being sent out to die in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring "democracy" to people who don't want it. Their presence there puts British civilians at an increased risk of Muslim terrorist attacks back home.
2. Muslims don't belong in Britain.
Is this just what "they" want me to think? I doubt it.
-
2. Muslims don't belong in Britain.
Why don't they belong in a socialist state?
-
Expect the entire British Muslim demograph to be picked on more now.
Yeah, right. Britain is just about the softest, most liberal, most decadent and suicidal country on earth.
Expect more bullshit stories about "Islamophobia" along the lines of "someone looked at me funny in the supermarket the other day".
People really have to be quite staggeringly ignorant not to see what has been going on in Britain, and in most of Europe, in recent years.
1. Muslims commit, or try to commit mass murder
2. Immediately, liberal twerps chip in to say that the real victims of all this are "ordinary" Muslims themselves.
3. At the same time, self-appointed Muslim "spokesmen" chip in to say the same thing. Muslims feel victimised, they say. You should give the Muslim community x,y and z or you risk pushing people into the arms of "extremists". Basically, they say, grant the Muslim community more concessions or Muslims are gonna kill you.
4. The liberal establishment willingly oblige. We must win the hearts and minds of Muslims, they say. We must work harder towards an understanding with the Muslim community!
5. The Muslim community say to themselves, "well, this works. What a bunch of gullible fuckwits. Let's plot some more terrorist attacks."
-- Go back to stage 1 --
Now, what makes Muslims feel they are justified in killing non-believers? Think hard, now.
You won't find the answer watching the BBC News.
The answer? Islam itself.
The Koran and the Hadith and 1,400 years of Islamic "theology".
Qur’an:9:5  “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.â€
Qur’an:8:39  “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.â€
Qur’an:8:65 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding.â€
Qur’an:47:4 “When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.â€
Etc etc etc.
Jihad is central to Islam. This has not changed in 1,400 years.
Are liberals really arrogant enough to think they can change this?
Do they really think it is our duty to change this?
It's not gonna happen. Wake up and smell the coffee.
-
Bigot.
-1
-
Bigot.
-1
That's just the sort of bollocks I'd expect from someone with an avatar of John Lennon.
Wouldn't it be nice to think we could all just forget our differences and live together?
Even when there are millions of people out there following a religion and a "holy book" that openly, unambiguously advocates the mass murder of "non-believers"? That's just a minor problem we can work to overcome, isn't it?
The real "bigots" are the people who actually tell the truth about what that "holy book" actually says.
Truth is no defence!
-
bigot.
-1
-
bigot.
-1
Now there's a surprise. Your (self-diagnosed) aspie individuality shines like a beacon.
It's so easy being a liberal, isn't it? You don't have to think about anything at all.
It can only be a matter of time before all the other sheep on this board follow suit and my karma's back to sub-zero temperatures.
-
that wasn't "thinking", that was irony, love. ::)
-
that wasn't "thinking", that was irony, love. ::)
How was I supposed to know?
In that case ...
Bigot.
-1.
-
It can only be a matter of time before all the other sheep on this board follow suit and my karma's back to sub-zero temperatures.
Yes. Give me three hours or so.
-
lol.
i'm quaking in my boots.
so why didn't he -1 you, then? aha! he must fancy you, darlin' you lucky, lucky bleeder... :P
-
i personally do not see anything wrong with having bigoted points of view.
its human nature and it isn't really my place to judge someone else by how they think in order to give their lives a little validity.
same with drugs or alcohol. whatever people need to get through their day i still don't see a problenm with it.
i don't see a problem with people espousing their POV as well. i am not that sensitive a bloke to think that their may or may not be some truth in what beowulf says.
whatever people feel or think is their prerogotive. i think that being politically coorect is worse than being a bigot, IMO. because at least with the bigot you know where they are coming from and how they think. with the PC person, their beliefs change with public opinion. i never know how to get along with such dishonesty.
kudo's beowulf for having an opinion. i appreciate the free thought.
-
Even when there are millions of people out there following a religion and a "holy book" that openly, unambiguously advocates the mass murder of "non-believers"?
??? the Bible?
-
haaaaaaahahahaha! nice one, QO. ;D
-
i personally do not see anything wrong with having bigoted points of view.
its human nature and it isn't really my place to judge someone else by how they think in order to give their lives a little validity.
same with drugs or alcohol. whatever people need to get through their day i still don't see a problenm with it.
i don't see a problem with people espousing their POV as well. i am not that sensitive a bloke to think that their may or may not be some truth in what beowulf says.
whatever people feel or think is their prerogotive. i think that being politically coorect is worse than being a bigot, IMO. because at least with the bigot you know where they are coming from and how they think. with the PC person, their beliefs change with public opinion. i never know how to get along with such dishonesty.
kudo's beowulf for having an opinion. i appreciate the free thought.
There's nothing wrong in expressing a view, no, but I do see a problem when expressing that view can result in people getting hurt, however. Replace "Muslim" with "Jew" in beowulf's posts, and you'll be halfway to what the Nazis were up to years before the politically correct world did anything about it.
-
i don't object to anyone having an opinion, mcj. but i do prefer that it's an informed opinion, rather than one which is cherry picked, and "formed" (i use the word loosely) unquestioningly.
-
i wasn't trying to take sides. i was just trying to let beowulf know that his opinions counted as well.
that is all. perhaps i didn't come accross that way.
-
These Islamists fuckers will stop at nothing to see our society and way of life destroyed. I fully support all methods (which were used during WW2 in the Allied Countries against the Fascists) to see them and their movenment totally destroyed.
-
bigot.
-1
You dealt with alot people from different backgrounds for a long time, so I would like to hear your take on the "evil" Muslims in general.
-
my first instinct is:
what is the bottom line?
who does this help financially/politically?
Why don't you tell us who it helps financially and politically?
I doubt the orders came right from the top; Tony Blair has been slated for sunning himself in Barbados while all this has been happening.
Maybe our leaders were trying to send us a message concerning the War On Terror. You want to know what I think every time I hear a story about a new Muslim terror plot?
1. British troops should not still be being sent out to die in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring "democracy" to people who don't want it. Their presence there puts British civilians at an increased risk of Muslim terrorist attacks back home.
2. Muslims don't belong in Britain.
Is this just what "they" want me to think? I doubt it.
What makes Westerners any better (http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm)?
So if you're gonna generalise, I might as well play along too (although I do realise that generalising solves nothing but misunderstanding).
With rapists like this, I'm proud to be a non-religious citizen of Western civilisation.
-
bigot.
-1
You dealt with alot people from different backgrounds for a long time, so I would like to hear your take on the "evil" Muslims in general.
remind me, and i will - too tired to do it tonight, and it deserves more than a half hearted witter.
-
i personally do not see anything wrong with having bigoted points of view.
its human nature and it isn't really my place to judge someone else by how they think in order to give their lives a little validity.
same with drugs or alcohol. whatever people need to get through their day i still don't see a problenm with it.
i don't see a problem with people espousing their POV as well. i am not that sensitive a bloke to think that their may or may not be some truth in what beowulf says.
whatever people feel or think is their prerogotive. i think that being politically coorect is worse than being a bigot, IMO. because at least with the bigot you know where they are coming from and how they think. with the PC person, their beliefs change with public opinion. i never know how to get along with such dishonesty.
kudo's beowulf for having an opinion. i appreciate the free thought.
There's nothing wrong in expressing a view, no, but I do see a problem when expressing that view can result in people getting hurt, however. Replace "Muslim" with "Jew" in beowulf's posts, and you'll be halfway to what the Nazis were up to years before the politically correct world did anything about it.
Liberals have been warning about neo-Nazi style anti-Muslim pogroms ever since 9/11. Well, they haven’t happened. Meanwhile, we have had Muslim terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, Beslan, Bombay, Israel, Egypt, Jordan etc etc etc.
www.thereligionofpeace.com lists 5,601 of them.
You see, liberals are more concerned with hypothetical hate crimes that might (they hope?) be committed by whites than with actual hate crimes committed by Muslims.
This is something of a double standard. I could keep pointing out liberal double standards till I’m blue in the face, but liberals will keep on applying them, because that is what being a liberal is all about.
You see, liberals want a society where every individual is “liberated†from shared moral or cultural values. Essentially, liberals believe in nothing, and they value nothing. To value something means to discriminate against something else. So, to a liberal, who sneers at old-fashioned ideas like morality, the highest good is “non-discrimination†itself (aka “toleranceâ€), while the greatest evil is dicrimination.
Now, the liberal sees Western culture as a symbol of discrimination by virtue of its very existence – its existence as the dominant culture of the West. Therefore, in order for Western society to be morally redeemed, Western culture itself must be destroyed. People who try to assert traditional Western values (i.e., WASPs) must be vilified, while cultural aliens who assert their values must be celebrated.
The double standard again – cultural aliens are not subjected to the same harsh judgements because they merely serve as objects that the liberal uses to demonstrate their piety.
And the more unassimilable and hostile these cultural aliens are, the more enthusiastically liberals will defend them, the more pious those liberals will feel, the bigger will be the politically correct lies that have to be told, and the more “racist†it will become to speak the truth. This is why liberals get such an extra-special kick out of denying the Muslim problem.
And since liberals have basically no moral concepts beyond “toleranceâ€, they don’t credit anyone else with any further concept of morality either. This is why, to a liberal, there are only three types of people in the world: liberals, Nazis and protected minorities. Any white person who doesn’t go along with the liberal belief in the meaninglessness of cultural differences is therefore a Nazi.
Now odeon has mentioned the Nazis above. There are many people who have learnt completely the wrong lessons from the Holocaust. They think the worst thing about the Nazis was that they “discriminatedâ€, or even that they were white people with a racial consciousness, rather than the fact that they were systematic mass murderers.
This kind of helps explain why so few people seem too bothered about the evils of Communism, which has killed something like 100 million people in the name of “equalityâ€.
So, anyway, in order for Europeans to cure themselves of their “intolerance†after 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, they let in 20 million people from the most intolerant – and anti-Semitic – culture on earth. How ironic.
-
i don't object to anyone having an opinion, mcj. but i do prefer that it's an informed opinion, rather than one which is cherry picked, and "formed" (i use the word loosely) unquestioningly.
What is this thing you have about “cherry picking� That is just a thoughtless accusation one could level at anyone who disagrees with one’s point of view and produces evidence to support their argument.
It’s interesting how liberals always think they are the ones who are being thoughtful and open-minded. I dare say I have read more about Islam than you, just as you have surely read far more than me about the evils of McDonalds.
Without googling, do you know what Dar-al-Harb means? Have you heard of Muhammad’s massacre of the Jews at Qurayza? Do you know what a dhimmi is? Do you know what jizya is? Do you know what a shaheed is?
The fact that the majority of Muslims don't strap bombs to their bodies is becoming increasingly irrelevant to me.
You can bet that every self-appointed "moderate" Muslim spokesperson who goes on TV saying that "terrorism is never justified" before going on to justify terrorism with a load of guff about the suffering in Palestine is not really a "moderate" at all.
What's more, 25% of Muslims in Britain say they sympathize with the 7/7 bombers. And that's just the ones prepared to admit it to a pollster!
So how is "moderate" Islam (if it even exists) going to magically capture all these angry Muslims' hearts and minds?
-
So how is "moderate" Islam (if it even exists) going to magically capture all these angry Muslims' hearts and minds?
That is the $25000 question.
-
Considering how much you claim to have read about Muslims, it's surprising how little you know. However, instead of banging my head against the wall in a futile effort to offer you a more balanced view, allow me to suggest you some reading:
- Arab Media Watch (http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx) for objective British coverage of Arab issues
- FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) (http://www.fair.org/index.php)
- Information Clearing House (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/)
- When and how to fight - Islam Online (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015848&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE) (to answer a very common misunderstanding--one you're guilty of--about what the Qur'an actually says about <irony>infidels</irony>; do browse the site for other information as well, it gives you the other side of the coin)
Oh, and -1 for your continuing bigotry.
-
Considering how much you claim to have read about Muslims, it's surprising how little you know.
Oh, and -1 for your continuing bigotry.
Are you making assumptions on what I don't know based on what I haven't yet said? Or can you point to any factual inaccuracies in anything I have said?
And have -1 for having a John Lennon avatar.
-
I wonder why people are against Israel defending itself but the Muslims are using terrorism?
-
OK; I will indulge you (Beowulf) this one time. I'll give you a few examples of your factual inaccuracies.
Here's a little gem from your quasi-rhetorics:
So, anyway, in order for Europeans to cure themselves of their “intolerance†after 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, they let in 20 million people from the most intolerant – and anti-Semitic – culture on earth. How ironic.
It's not one culture. It's never been one culture. The idea as such is absurd, it's like saying that all of Christianity is one single culture. As for "the most intolerant culture on earth", forgetting for the moment that it's not one culture, Christianity still tops the list in persecutions and general intolerance. For example, what do you think the crusades were for?
But this last little "argument" of yours is just rhetorics and you know it. How would you measure intolerance?
But let's take another one:
What's more, 25% of Muslims in Britain say they sympathize with the 7/7 bombers. And that's just the ones prepared to admit it to a pollster!
Compare the above with the AP report on this poll. It said (the bold is mine): "Sixteen per cent of respondents to the poll conducted for The Times newspaper and ITV News felt the July 7 bombers' cause -- although not their actions -- was just."
And, of course, you had to add a little extra to enhance your shocking--but wrong--number: "And that's just the ones prepared to admit it to a pollster!"
Not that I'm surprised. It's quite common for Islamophobics to do this kind of thing. The rest of your writing on this topic is pretty much the same. Hate, lies, half-truths out of context, cheap rhetorics, it's all there.
Now follow the links and read with open eyes. Give peace a chance.
-
OK; I will indulge you (Beowulf) this one time. I'll give you a few examples of your factual inaccuracies.
Here's a little gem from your quasi-rhetorics:
So, anyway, in order for Europeans to cure themselves of their “intolerance†after 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, they let in 20 million people from the most intolerant – and anti-Semitic – culture on earth. How ironic.
It's not one culture. It's never been one culture. The idea as such is absurd, it's like saying that all of Christianity is one single culture.
You come across as the sort of person so impressed with his knowledge of the world that you'd probably come down like a ton of bricks on someone for mistaking a Japanese person for a Chinese.
Look, it is not illegitimate to talk about Western culture, nor British culture, nor English culture.
In the same way, just as there are Sunnis and Shi'ites, and Arabs and Persians, and so on, it is not illegitimate to talk about Islamic culture as a whole, not least because Islam divides the entire world up into Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam.
As for "the most intolerant culture on earth", forgetting for the moment that it's not one culture, Christianity still tops the list in persecutions and general intolerance. For example, what do you think the crusades were for?
But this last little "argument" of yours is just rhetorics and you know it. How would you measure intolerance?
Well, I could start by pointing out the fact that Islam divides the world into Dar al-Harb (the Realm Of War) and Dar al-Islam (the Realm of Islam), and says that Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the whole world, through force if necessary.
How would you measure intolerance, since you've seen fit to put Christianity at the top of the list for "general intolerance"?
And the Crusades might have been brutal, but they were waged to turn back and reverse the Muslim conquest of Christian lands. Do you really think they were the Christian equivalent of Jihadist wars, i.e., wars waged against lands that have never been Muslim with the absolute certainty that one day the entire world would "submit" to Islam? I don't
But let's take another one:
What's more, 25% of Muslims in Britain say they sympathize with the 7/7 bombers. And that's just the ones prepared to admit it to a pollster!
Compare the above with the AP report on this poll. It said (the bold is mine): "Sixteen per cent of respondents to the poll conducted for The Times newspaper and ITV News felt the July 7 bombers' cause -- although not their actions -- was just."
Maybe we are thinking of different polls.
Still, phew ... only 16% eh.
I would prefer it if the figure was 0%.
Muslims who say they agree with the cause, though not the actions of the 7/7 bombers? That kind of reminds me of all those Muslim spokesmen in Britain who have recently written to Tony Blair warning to change his foreign policy or put Britons at increased risk of terrorist attacks - and, oh, also asking for a bit of Shariah Law as part of the bargain. Not that these Muslim spokesmen condone terrorism, of course.
And, of course, you had to add a little extra to enhance your shocking--but wrong--number: "And that's just the ones prepared to admit it to a pollster!"
Not that I'm surprised. It's quite common for Islamophobics to do this kind of thing.
Oh no! You've nailed me!
I'm sorry, I thought that "little extra" was a valid point.
What budding jihadist would be dumb enough to tell a pollster they agreed with the 7/7 bombers' actions anyway?
Besides. have you ever heard of taqiyya?
(And do you have an internet link to tell me that's not what I think it is either?)
The rest of your writing on this topic is pretty much the same. Hate, lies, half-truths out of context, cheap rhetorics, it's all there.
It's all there? Care to expand on that?
I don't think much of your "fisking" attempts so far.
I can see that this exchange could drag on and on ...
-
Give peace a chance.
The shittest song ever written.
-
I wonder why people are against Israel defending itself but the Muslims are using terrorism?
Good question, Kevv.
I could say more about this, but I think what most people in the West (although definitely not myself) find most objectionable about Israel is that it is an ethnically defined nation state.
People would be ok with this if they still considered the Jews an oppressed people. But now they are considered to be powerful.
Europeans now view nationalism as the greatest evil, and they are busy trying to dissolve their own nation states.
What's more, Israel sticks out like a sore thumb as a remnant of European (British) colonialism. People complain that it's an "artificial" state, but it is not much more artificial than Pakistan.
But, unlike Pakistan, it sticks out as an island of Western-style democracy amidst a sea of backwardness.
-
Look, it is not illegitimate to talk about Western culture, nor British culture, nor English culture.
In this context, it is, because the different parts of, say, Western culture have very different ideas about, say, terrorism.
In the same way, just as there are Sunnis and Shi'ites, and Arabs and Persians, and so on, it is not illegitimate to talk about Islamic culture as a whole, not least because Islam divides the entire world up into Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam.
In this context, it is. Wikipedia's your friend:
---
Dar al-Islam (Arabic: دار الإسلام literally house of submission) is a term used to refer to those lands under Muslim government(s). In the conservative tradition of Islam the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the house of submission and dar al-Harb, the house of war.
Dar al-Islam and its associated terms are not found in the two most basic works of Islam, the Qur'an and the Hadith. Some modern Muslim scholars maintain that the labeling of a country or place as dar al-Islam or dar al-harb revolves around the question of religious security. This means that if a Muslim practices Islam freely in his place of abode, then he will be considered as living in a dar al-Islam, even if he happens to live in a secular or non-Islamic country. Traditional definitions tend to focus on which religion holds ultimate authority.
---
Read the whole article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Islam).
But this last little "argument" of yours is just rhetorics and you know it. How would you measure intolerance?
Well, I could start by pointing out the fact that Islam divides the world into Dar al-Harb (the Realm Of War) and Dar al-Islam (the Realm of Islam), and says that Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the whole world, through force if necessary.
Read the above quote from Wikipedia. Then read for yourself how this issue is addressed by Muslims themselves:
When and how to fight - Islam Online (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015848&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE) (to answer a very common misunderstanding--one you're guilty of--about what the Qur'an actually says about <irony>infidels</irony>; do browse the site for other information as well, it gives you the other side of the coin)
How would you measure intolerance, since you've seen fit to put Christianity at the top of the list for "general intolerance"?
And the Crusades might have been brutal, but they were waged to turn back and reverse the Muslim conquest of Christian lands. Do you really think they were the Christian equivalent of Jihadist wars, i.e., wars waged against lands that have never been Muslim with the absolute certainty that one day the entire world would "submit" to Islam? I don't
I didn't say that. You did.
Maybe we are thinking of different polls.
Still, phew ... only 16% eh.
I would prefer it if the figure was 0%.
Quite a few Americans agreed that it was a good thing to remove John F Kennedy from office but only a few approved of the method used. Are you saying that all of those people were guilty of murder?
Do you approve of the war waged by the US, the UK, and allies in Iraq?
Besides. have you ever heard of taqiyya?
(And do you have an internet link to tell me that's not what I think it is either?)
Wikipedia's your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya)
Also, read this QA (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015762&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE) from Islam Online. Oh, and this (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE&cid=1123996016498).
The question is, what did you think it was?
I can see that this exchange could drag on and on ...
I don't. Your Islamophobia is rather harmless, and thus not worth to pick apart beyond these simple exchanges. Now go read up using the links in my previous post. I can provide you with more when you're done. And remember, all you need is love.
-
Give peace a chance.
The shittest song ever written.
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
-
16 percent is still one in evry six people polled agreed with the terrorist act of 7/7 (btw-i am not familiar with it, i am just giving numbers.
also, 1 in 6 is, like beowulf said, those who admitted it. it could be a far worse number.
still, 1 in 6 is a scary number. that would be 3 people for every family living in a container. :o
-
Give peace a chance.
The shittest song ever written.
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
I love that song. :)
-
I wonder why people are against Israel defending itself but the Muslims are using terrorism?
Good question, Kevv.
I could say more about this, but I think what most people in the West (although definitely not myself) find most objectionable about Israel is that it is an ethnically defined nation state.
People would be ok with this if they still considered the Jews an oppressed people. But now they are considered to be powerful.
Europeans now view nationalism as the greatest evil, and they are busy trying to dissolve their own nation states.
What's more, Israel sticks out like a sore thumb as a remnant of European (British) colonialism. People complain that it's an "artificial" state, but it is not much more artificial than Pakistan.
But, unlike Pakistan, it sticks out as an island of Western-style democracy amidst a sea of backwardness.
I agree with all You have said here.
I think the Europeans here and there have had enough of Israel. But Israel is not the problem that needs to be solved. At least there is one Democracy amidst the sea of backwardness. You are very correct on this point. It is to bad Europe can not see that either.
European Nationalism is dying rightly or wrongly.
The World is never that cut and dried that We live in and never will be either in the end.
-
Now is I posted that I say this what is needed is Wisdom.
So Let Wisdom Rule.
-
give wisdom a chance.
all together now, all we need is wisdom.
-
Whisper words of wisdom. Let it be.
-
i always thought it was wistful...
-
http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Let%20it%20Be%20Lyrics.html
-
i always hear song lyrics wrong.
like for the family guy theme song i always thought stewies solo was effin cryyyy!
turns out that its actually, laugh and cryyyy.
-
I hear them wrong a lot too.
-
i fixed my previous post. i guess i put image tags instead of the .
-
I thought something was missing. :laugh:
-
Again joking a side let Wisdom Rule. ;D
-
16 percent is still one in evry six people polled agreed with the terrorist act of 7/7 (btw-i am not familiar with it, i am just giving numbers.
also, 1 in 6 is, like beowulf said, those who admitted it. it could be a far worse number.
still, 1 in 6 is a scary number. that would be 3 people for every family living in a container. :o
Yes, it would seem so, but note that these 16% did not approve with the actions of the bombers.
-
so 84 percent did?
-
so 84 percent did?
They did not approve of either the cause or the methods used. But you knew that.
-
i prefer "working class hero", myself...
-
Quite a few Americans agreed that it was a good thing to remove John F Kennedy from office but only a few approved of the method used. Are you saying that all of those people were guilty of murder?
Excellent example! I shall have to remember this one.
+1
-
http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Let%20it%20Be%20Lyrics.html
Yeah for the Beattles. ;D
-
none of their sing-a-long songs. they suck.
i am semi cool with the white album, but not the song obladeoblada
-
i really don't like the beatles. so shoot me.
seemed to me there was a definite split in the 60s/early 70s, which went beatles + the who vs hendrix + the stones. i was definitely a hendrix + stones fan. still am. ;D
-
I like both, should I get shot instead?
-
only with cupid's arrows.
(hah! thought you'd confine my nauseating sycophancy to our own forum, did you? /blows raspberry. of course, it's completely (http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/obscene/eck22.gif) )
-
i like neal diamond.
-
i really, really, really, really, really hope you're being saracstic, mcj.
mind you, i hear he's becoming a bit of a cult thing, at the mo. perhaps you're just a hell of a lot more withthe programme than me, eh? :P
-
I think the Europeans here and there have had enough of Israel. But Israel is not the problem that needs to be solved. At least there is one Democracy amidst the sea of backwardness. You are very correct on this point. It is to bad Europe can not see that either.
Actually, Europeans can. Some, at least. It's not a question of either/or, it's a question of both. Israel may be the result of the world's guilty consciousness, but now that it's there, it's there and there's no point in polarizing the discussion in either direction. I support a Palestinian state but I don't support their methods to achieve one, as little I support Israel's methods to prevent it.
So Israel's part of the problem, there's no doubt about it. And yes, before anyone has to say it, so are some of the surrounding states.
Oh, and I'm not sure I'd consider Israel a democracy, considering what they do to part of their population. They don't follow the UN conventions they've signed.
But then, why should they? Their largest supporters aren't doing it either.
European Nationalism is dying rightly or wrongly.
I'm not sure I agree. Perhaps it's just tranforming to something else. Be that as it may, if nationalism leads to what happened in Germany, what happens in Israel now, or a number of other places, maybe it's better for it to die.
-
The World is apart of the polarization Europeans have been a major part of that have they not. The U.N. recognizes the State of Israel does not. It is a member of the U.N..
Israel is not part of the problem as I said. Europeans have made it apart of the problems of this World that We live in the end.
A Palestinian State will never happen if they are not willing to give up TERRORISM any group.
Israel has been under the serge of terrorism since 1948 have they not.
It not a American or European problem either what needs to be resolve is this problem or it will never get resolved at all.
How would You yet resolve it odeon?
The problem You Europeans are willing allow terrorism come for what and for what in the end.
Who is a terrorist state is it Israel or the Palestinians or Arabs the Moslem's that WAR AGAINST little Israel?
Arafat could have had 98% of the West Bank but never did take it did He at all what negotiations for the rest that He wanted never became did it at all?
Peace is nothing with what is going on is it not for Us all in the end.
Israel is a State of this World are the Palestinians yet a state the Europeans have wanted it but what has become of it nothing.
I feel for the Palestinians too.
But many use TERRORISM against the entire World that We live in is not.
We live in this World do We not?
So how come You are willing to protect Hamsa and the Palestinians that use TERRORISM?
Terrorism has been a problem of this World even in Europe too has it not?
Why play God or the Devil in the end?
That is what Europe and America needs to face does it not in the end?
How do You yet see beyond it all for Us all odeon?
Tell Me if You can for Us all here?
-
The World is apart of the polarization Europeans have been a major part of that have they not. The U.N. recognizes the State of Israel does not. It is a member of the U.N..
Israel is not part of the problem as I said. Europeans have made it apart of the problems of this World that We live in the end.
For as long as Israel uses excessive force, for as long as it chooses to summarily execute Palestinian leaders, for as long as it uses apartheid tactics to prevent Palestine from becoming a reality, it is part of the problem.
I'm not saying that the Palestinians are innocent. Far from it, and I do not condone terrorism in any form (and yes; I consider much of what the Palestinians do terrorism). I wrote this in my last post:
I support a Palestinian state but I don't support their methods to achieve one, as little I support Israel's methods to prevent it.
A Palestinian State will never happen if they are not willing to give up TERRORISM any group.
Yes, but Israel must also understand that they cannot summarily attempt to execute any Palestinian leader they do not approve of. They must tear down the wall (I'm aware of the Pink Floyd reference...)
Israel has been under the serge of terrorism since 1948 have they not.
Yes, and they've also increasingly been the cause of it. Witness, for example, the indefensible acts against CIVILIANS in Lebanon taking place now.
It not a American or European problem either what needs to be resolve is this problem or it will never get resolved at all.
It is very much an American AND an European problem.
How would You yet resolve it odeon?
I don't have a definite answer. I wish I did. I think that Clinton was getting close, but Arafat was too thick-headed to understand this. Or rather, afraid of what his people would say about that central piece of property in Jerusalem that wasn't part of the deal that was suggested.
As for what I think, it should be clear from my posts. Tear down the wall. Stop excessive force. Stop terrorism. But that's very, very simplistic, very naive, and it takes a lot more to make it happen.
The problem You Europeans are willing allow terrorism come for what and for what in the end.
Not true.
IMO, the US during George W Bush's presidency has been the number one threat to world peace. No terrorist group, no single state, be it Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc, etc, etc, comes even close. The terrorist acts are highly visible, yes, and reprehensible, loathsome, and wrong, but they've been no real threat to world peace.
George W Bush's war against terrorism, i.e., his quest for oil, is far more dangerous.
Did attacking Iraq help anything? The Iraqi people? Democracy? Anything? Anybody?
Who is a terrorist state is it Israel or the Palestinians or Arabs the Moslem's that WAR AGAINST little Israel?
Both commit terrorist acts, as defined by the UN. And little Israel is financed in part by the US.
Arafat could have had 98% of the West Bank but never did take it did He at all what negotiations for the rest that He wanted never became did it at all?
See above. I think Arafat made a huge mistake, but it isn't as simple as you say, Kevv. Of course, the sources we have regarding the accuracy of that deal are fairly one-sided. Clinton wrote about it, but as far as I know, Arafat never did.
Peace is nothing with what is going on is it not for Us all in the end.
Agreed.
Israel is a State of this World are the Palestinians yet a state the Europeans have wanted it but what has become of it nothing.
I feel for the Palestinians too.
But many use TERRORISM against the entire World that We live in is not.
We live in this World do We not?
Yes we do.
So how come You are willing to protect Hamsa and the Palestinians that use TERRORISM?
I'm most certainly not. See above, and my previous posts.
Terrorism has been a problem of this World even in Europe too has it not?
Why play God or the Devil in the end?
That is what Europe and America needs to face does it not in the end?
How do You yet see beyond it all for Us all odeon?
Tell Me if You can for Us all here?
I think I've answered as well as I can above, and I believe that we agree on most issues here, don't we?
-
You dealt with alot people from different backgrounds for a long time, so I would like to hear your take on the "evil" Muslims in general.
sorry to take so long, trav, but i wasn't terribly well, and wanted to have a good think about my response.
first off, i don't believe in either "evil" or "good". it all depends on context, persepective, intent, and prior knowledge. and that goes for both evil and good as abstract concepts (i.e., having an independent definition), as actions (e.g. shooting someone), or as qualities which people do or do not possess (a "good" or an "evil person"). i prefer to use Right and Wrong, myself - some things are one of them, and easily definable - racism, sexism, injustice, irresponsiblity, etc. however, there are various shades of grey as well as the black and white versions, some of which comes under what i call "understandable, but not excusable/acceptable" banner: some kids who've been horrifically abused whom i've worked with, behave in ways which i'd call understandable, but it's still not okay for them to behave in those ways. etc., etc., etc.
so, that's the first bit explained. as for the second bit - "muslims" - i still maintain that it's not illogical to lump a whole bunch of disparate people together into one convenient grouping. i mean, just have a look at us lot on here: can you honestly say someone stating "all people with AS are..." would be even marginally correct? not a chance. and it's the same for muslims. which is why i take anything which is stated by a "leader of the muslim community" - whether pro or anti-jihad, or whatever - with a v large pinch of salt. it's quite simple, there's no such thing as the muslim community, or the christian community, or the gay community, or the autistic community, etc. change -ty to -ties, and i might just start listening a bit more closely.
i don't claim to know everything about muslims (about anything, infact), but i do have a lot of experience working and living with a very mixed bag of people. my personal take on different cultures/religions etc. is that there are positive, neutral and negative things about all of them, on both a personal and a political level. basically, i have problems with things muslims do/believe in, but then, i have problems with things jews, christians, hindus, wiccans, atheists, capitalists, scoicalists, greens, uncle tom cobley and all do/believe in. the point being that i don't subscribe to the "evil muslim" thing, any more than i subscribe to the "all muslims are wonderful" thing, etc.
so, as far as i'm concerned, in this instance, the israelis are wrong, and have been compounded their offences over some years. on the other hand, jews have been systematically hunted for fucking centuries, so one can understand their rage. still doesn't excuse the way they've gone for lebanon recently, though, under any circumstances. the situation is far too complicated and tortuous to be able to describe it in a few words. and that's not a cop out - it really is centuries old.
does that go some way to answer your question, trav?
(and i don't give a toss if anyone thinks i did this cos of what was said in the blurb under the "lucifer's forum" bit - you can project all you like, anyone who does think that. it's your waste of energy, not mine).
-
I believe most Israelis, Palestinians, and Arabs what to live in peace. But a few do not do they. If the Palestinians and Arabs would recognize Israel and leave it at that and not use terrorism as a means this World would be better off. I think if the Palestinians and Arabs would get off there High Horse so would Israel in the end. Israel would leave them alone in the end.
The Europeans have played this card to much pitted Arabs, Palestinians, against the Israelis.
You know You can find Jews that have become Jehovah Witnesses worshiping along side there Jehovah Witnesses brother and sisters that are Palestinian and Arab brothers and sisters together as one. That is what is needed in the end to get past it and learn to live in peace together not in a state of war.
War has never solved anything in the end.
-
war is good for population control...
-
What has War controlled the populated or not in the end.
-
sex, in the end, has also controlled the popultation.
-
That one maybe true in the end.