I received this message from a friend about an article in the LA Times, "Killers rendered in shades of gray," that is aptly characterized as an "erudite and subtle propaganda piece."
Below is a discussion of a new movie that tells the story of a pair of suicide bombers. The author of the article refers to them at one point as "the two heroes."Increasingly, you will be expected to "understand" the "why" of suicide bombing. Read this erudite and subtle propaganda piece that "squarely places the blame" on the "occupation." But do you have the tools to recognize what is missing from this analysis? To wonder why no mention is made of the brainwashing of Muslims into the ideology of jihad?
There is a total absence of any reference to the perpetual hate messages in the "Palestinian" media; the ingrained Jew-hatred in Muslim society; the role of Muslim clergy who encourage, justify and endorse suicide bombing; and, above all, to the role of Islam in supplying the ideology for such bombings and the promise of their just reward: Paradise.
Do you wonder why the article does not mention how the "occupation" came into being? Why the writer did not tell you that it resulted from relentless warfare and terrorism by Arab states determined to destroy Israel? That when the same land was under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation prior to 1967, its inhabitants were treated to unremitting cruelty, neglect and rejection by their own Arab brethren? And, lastly, do you wonder why the author did not inform you that failed but unremitting aggression against Israel spawned the realization that terrorism would achieve what conventional warfare could not?
Suicide bombing is the Muslim weapon of choice, not because of despair, humiliation or "occupation," but because the Muslim world believes that suicide bombing works.
But now we are asked by our own media to, essentially, "give suicide bombing a chance." See the positive in it. Blame Israel for it. Remove all responsibility from the shoulders of those who recruit for it, finance it, promote it, practice it, celebrate it, reward it, perpetuate it and glorify it. In short, Israel's enemies are absolved.
Clearly, the writer with the obligatory Jewish name is counting on your naivete and ignorance.
On the other hand, perhaps the writer is promoting a powerful idea whose time has come.Now that she has succeeded in "understanding" aggrieved suicide bombers who kill Jews because of "occupation," next month she just might end up having to "understand" aggrieved suicide bombers who kill people -- other than Jews -- for unrequited love; for personal vengeance; for greed; for pro-choice; for pro-life; for the right to die; for the right to live; for the environment, for the right to have an SUV, for the war against SUVs, for animal rights, for vegetarianism, for anti-vegeterianism, for, for, against, against...etc. etc. etc.
Why is this ideology being foisted upon us?
Can we envision where it will lead?
Has the LA Times no obligation to publish responsibly?
Write a letter to the times if you are so inclined. I can't say I believe it will help.
But I do recommend that everyone go and see another movie, one that might get no attention from the LA Times at all: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. You will get to watch a lot of the same material suicide bombers are raised on. And do recommend the movie to Rachel Abramowitz.
And here is an excerpt of the Times piece:
In untangling the roots of Middle Eastern terrorism, two ambitious fall releases find that the heroes and the villains aren't always easy to discern.WHEN the towers came down on Sept. 11, Stephen Gaghan, the Oscar-winning writer of "Traffic," realized in a flash that "Hollywood has done a terrible job creating villains." It all used to be so simple, so black and white. There were the good guys and the bad guys — not people willing to blow themselves up in orderr to blow up their enemies.
This fall Gaghan and the Palestinian director Hany Abu-Assad will release films that represent ambitious attempts to unearth the root causes of terrorism and suicide bombers. Both happen to come from the Warner Bros. conglomerate — Gaghan's $50-million "Syriana," from big Warner's, and Abu-Assad's $2-million "Paradise Now," from Warner's new specialty division, Warner Independent. Both are thrillers in a sense — but without the genre's usual catharsis. In a throwback to the politically engaged films of the '70s, the point isn't to reassure moviegoers but to provoke them....
Abu-Assad's film is much like a Palestinian "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead": It focuses on two people on the periphery of history and watches them breathe. If the culminating event is horrific, the day-to-day buildup is almost surreal in its very mundaneness. When the two heroes make their martyrs' video — in the same spot in Nablus where real suicide bomber farewell videos are shot — the camera fails to work, so they have to redo it. Their guerrilla group handlers watch and noisily eat their lunch — packed by the unsuspecting mother of one of the would-be bombers.
Indeed, the guerrillas appear less ideologues than thugs preying on young men's despair. When one of the friends suggests they'll get to paradise afterward, the other smacks him on the head as if to knock that naiveté right out. One of the protagonists is motivated by family shame — he is the son of an Israeli collaborator killed by Palestinians. Yet their anguish seems palpable — born of some mixture of poverty, hopelessness, fatherlessness and disenfranchisement. Abu-Assad shows their journey from the poor streets of Nablus to the beautiful and prosperous high-rises of Tel Aviv, a shocking journey, no doubt, but for American viewers it is unfortunately no more shocking than a trip from South-Central to Santa Monica.
Abu-Assad is a pacifist who doesn't believe in the values of suicide bombing, but he does place the blame for Palestinian suffering squarely on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and formerly Gaza. Still, he didn't intend to make a polemic. "If this is the case, I could make an article about it. I didn't need to make a film."
So, if we had Christian suicide bombers that killed muslims because of pursecution, would we have the same compassion from the author?
FACT. In America, muslims now have more civil rights then Christians.
The ACLU missed the part on "Freedom OF Religion", the ACLU practices "Freedom FROM Religion". Especially if Christianity is question.
It is hard to raise money for movies in Hollywood. $50 million for Gaghan's Warner movie? Who put it up? And who put them up to it? Someone did. Someone with a lot of money. Who, nowadays, lives in a country with an extra $100-150 billion more to spend than it did last year? And what was it Prince, now King, Abdullah said back in the fall of 1979, in an interview to the Jordanian newspaper "Al Rai" -- "we would have liked to have controlled all of the world's media" but so far, he lamented, the Saudis had not yet succeeded.
A movie that is about suicide-bombers, but not "black" and "white." It is all so complicated, such a matter of perspective. It Depends On How You Look At Things. You know: One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighter, which is especially persuasive when Saudi or other Arab money is funding this, or that, or you, you, you.
Sometimes a little understanding that things may not be what they same is useful.
Think of "King Lear," and how Lear himself, on the heath, begins to understand and insists "Take physic, pomp. Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel." Lear comes to realize that punishments meted out may depend on who has power, and who has not: "Change places, and then handy-dandy, which is the justice, which is the thief?"
Yes, there are times for complexity, nuance, understanding the Other.
Suicide-bombing is not one of them.
All those connected with these pieces of Arab propaganda should have their films denounced and boycotted, and they themselves blacklisted. And the same should go for all of those former govenment officials, whether they work for Kissinger Associates or another group, or are on their own, who have been receiving, directly and indirectly, Saudi and other Arab or Muslim money. Not one of them should be listened to when it comes to the formulation of policy toward the Muslims and toward Islam.
Which brings me from Gaghan to the need for Congressional hearings about all those ex-diplomats and ex-intelligence agents. There is even more Saudi money sloshing around the world today. If the past recipients of it are not exposed, in front of all the cameras, and what they do in return for the Arab and Muslim money -- those Op/Ed articles, those "disinterested" lectures and lessons on foreign policy -- are not exposed, in the most thorough way, then this will do nothing to dampen the interest of others in doing the same.
Which brings me, further, to ask a question. How about that so-called "realist" Scowcroft, the one held up as someone of eminent good sense by George Packer in The New Yorker -- because he is such a "realist." Never mind that this "realist" seems to know nothing, have no idea about, Islam or the world-wide dimensions of the Jihad. Never mind that Scowcroft could not possibly explain the decapitation of three Christian girls in Indonesia, or the attacks on Christains all over the Moluccas, in the southern Philippines, in the southern Sudan, in Alexandria, and elsewhere that Muslims live and dominate. Nor could he tell us, this so-called "realist," about why Hindus have been harried out of Kashmir, out of Pakistan, out of Bangladesh.
No, I don't give a damn about Brent Scowcroft's false "realism" nor about his malevolence toward Israel. I want to know who's been paying him, through Kissinger Associates, all these years? Is he now, or has he in the past, received Saudi money? Does he now receive any money from a government or group or individual in a country that is a member of the Organization of Islamic States? Oh, he does? Which one or ones? Is Turkey one of them? What other countries?
Tell us. We need to know, before people start asking you for advice -- and what's worse, start taking it.
What sums, from whom, when and where?
We need to know.
I have to use a little bit of logic here..
First if ALL muslims beleive that dying in Jihad is a SURE TICKET to get into ALLAHS WHORE house in the sky..
Then WHY are they complaining when we shoot them as they are comming out of their rats nests..
If ANYTHING...
They should be thanking us for HELPING them..
Now i know thats sick logic but if you extrapolate it out thats what you should end up with..
So i really dont understand WHY they are complaining...
Just line up wave a bunch of guns in the air.
and our fighters will HELP you meet your Goals..
This thinking is Just INSANE!!!
Why hasn't anyone commented on the recent beheadings of three Christian school girls in Indonesia? I was disgusted!
Hollywood Leftists need no money or pressure from the Saudis to be dhimmis. Hugh's bogeyman is getting a little tiresome.
And no one should comment on the motivation of Islamic suicide-mass murder, without reading some hadith on jihad and martyrdom.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html
For example:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 53:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
"The Prophet said, "Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah's Cause)."
Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it. A place in Paradise as small as the bow or lash of one of you is better than all the world and whatever is in it. And if a houri from Paradise appeared to the people of the earth, she would fill the space between Heaven and the Earth with light and pleasant scent and her head cover is better than the world and whatever is in it.""
Dancing in the streets would seem appropriate. Yes?
"FACT. In America, muslims now have more civil rights then Christians."
Is that so? Have you got any proof?
Anything to put weight behind this claim of yours, anything.....?
Oh, forget about it.
The perversion in our Islamofacist embracing leftwing media is so thick you can weave it into a rope and hang yourself with it. How do they maintain a readership with such rank offal disguised as news?
IA786...
FACT. In America, muslims now have more civil rights then Christians.
I think he was slightly wrong. It's not just Christians, it's everybody. Everybody can destroy a bible, but nobody can destroy a Quran.
Destroying a Quran could be considered a hate crime, while destroying a Bible may be protected as free speech, like burning a flag.
Thats one example, and there are more, but I'm not going to list them because I know you get the drift...
JTF:
And dont forget this one.
Mahomet: "If it werent for my followers, I would lurv to be martyred".
Right, nothing to do with enjoying all those wives, slave girls and captives too much, eh Mo?
Hugh is exactly right and Scowcroft is definitely suspect. He heads "The Scowcroft Group" now or some such "consulting" group.
It should be easy to find a grandstanding Senator (John Kerry swims immediately to mind) who will brave the tv cameras in order to root out corruption, nay, a cancer in the bowels of our government.
Presidential hopefuls, here's your chance. You can beat up on Hollywood and Washington at the same time! What could be better?
Jack Warner is spinning in his grave.
The deceit and hypocrisy of this abu assad are revolting. He claims to be a pacifist. Haven't we had enough phoney claims by phoney pacifists? I'm a pacifist, but dehumanizing Israelis and blowing them up is OK. It seems though that abu assad has taken lessons in agitprop from commies. Note that the film shows a contrast between "the poor streets of Nablus" and "the beautiful and prosperous high rises of Tel Aviv." This is a sinister and mendacious comparison.
In fact, there are some very rich Arabs living in and around Nablus [I've been there, btw]. For instance, the Abdul Hadi family of Nablus Arab Muslims were brought into the Ottoman empire's governing class in the 19th century, Rubi Bey Abdul-Hadi was an Ottoman diplomat. Then there are extremely rich Saudis, Kuwaitis, etc., who fund jihad. Why doesn't abu assad ask them to improve the living standards of poor Nabulsis instead? In fact, the US, EU, Japan, & rich Arabs have given billions to fund --supposedly-- jobs, infrastructure, education, housing, etc. for Arabs in Nablus and other places in the Palestinian Authority zones. If the money was not used for the ostensible purposes, then blame arafat, abu mazen, etc., not Israel. Lastly, there are many poor Israeli Jews and they are the ones who get murdered in terrorist attacks. They are the ones who more likely to shop in open air markets, like the one in Hadera bombed last week. Abu assad's technique is very slick and sinister. He in effect blames "rich" Israelis for the poverty in Nablus, and uses that as a justification for murdering Israelis. The Israeli victims are more likely than not to be poor Jews. Abu assad's propaganda is truly Nazi-like with some borrowing from the Commies.
One last note: The palestinian authority [=PA] was set up in 1994 and has governed --or misgoverned-- most of Gaza since then. They have controlled all of the Arab cities, including Nablus, since February 1996 [except Hebron went to the PA in early 1997]. And the PA has had huge donations since then to end poverty. To still talk of Israeli occupation is another big lie and demonstrates that abu assad's artistry is morally equivalent to that of Leni riefenstahl. And he calls himself a pacifist!!
correct the name to RUHI bey Abdul Hadi
"The perversion in our Islamofacist embracing leftwing media is so thick you can weave it into a rope and hang yourself with it. How do they maintain a readership with such rank offal disguised as news?"
How do they maintain a readership? The answer must be that most readers are of the same bent.
This problem of PC multiculturalist dhimmitude is not simply a problem of a small but powerful elite of leaders in politics, business, academe & media: it is a much deeper, broader sociocultural problem, with millions of ordinary people sincerely buying into the whitewashing of Islam, and into the vilification of those they would label "Islamophobes".
I saw the Protocols at one of its first screenings last spring at the Toronto Jewish Film Festival and found it rather weak and needing development. The film maker shows the sheer irrationality of the people who continue to see Jews as orchestrating everything, 9/11 included, and demonizing Israel as the worst human rights offender in the world despite the fact that it is way, way off, ranking somewhere in the 30s and is there primarily because of real security issues and not to create a police state such as Syria or Iran for example.
ia: I think alaskan has a fair point if not very well expressed. As one of my law teachers liked to put it, more rights for you = fewer rights for me. (This was more than 10 years ago and not said in the context of Islam, but in the general context of changes wrought by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)
If workplaces and publicly funded educational institutions are making special provisions for Muslims based on religious issues, as some articles on this site verify, and are not providing the same for other denominations (which they are not, to the best of my knowledge) the Muslims are certainly receiving preferrential treatment.
"Hollywood Leftists need no money or pressure from the Saudis to be dhimmis"
...from a post above
What, then, of Hugh's point that the $50 million must have come from SOMEWHERE? They would still be dhimmis, yes, Jew-haters, yes, but without the $50 million, this propaganda piece would not have been made. I don't know if money is the root of all evil, but it was certainly of primary concern to the bedouin robber and thief who invented this putrid cult, and it certainly gives it renewed powers today.
"IA786...
FACT. In America, muslims now have more civil rights then Christians.
I think he was slightly wrong. It's not just Christians, it's everybody. Everybody can destroy a bible, but nobody can destroy a Quran.
Destroying a Quran could be considered a hate crime, while destroying a Bible may be protected as free speech, like burning a flag."
So thats what Western civil rights are all about (sarcasm), Burning religious books?!?! Wow, that sounds absolutely brilliant.......
Good men died so we can destroy copies of the Bible and Koran. Oh Hoorah!!! (sarcasm)
Infidel,
Hollywood is awash with money -- billions and billions of dollars. There are plenty of rich financial backers and producers (and actors-become-producers) in the Hollywood nebula unconnected with Saudi money willing and indeed eager to fund PC-friendly political movies. And Hollywood knows that a movie in line with PC multiculturalism will sell better than one out of step with it -- because millions and millions of ordinary Americans are in line with the PC mentality. This is not to say that Saudis probably aren't trying to influence Hollywood in one way or another; but to point to the Saudis too much deflects from deeper, broader problems we have with Western PC dhimmitude which have nothing to do with Saudi influence and which in fact have roots that pre-date the creation of Saudi Arabia in the early 20th century.
Similarly, Hugh points to Turkish and Jordanian influence on Bernard Lewis as a way to explain Lewis's softness on Islam; as though there is not a deeper problem going on here in the West that can cause an intelligent well-educated erudite scholar like Lewis to be soft on Islam: no, it must be those infernal Muslims at every turn -- why, they can even cause a Westerner who should know better to alter his mind and conscience!
IA,
"FACT. In America, muslims now have more civil rights then Christians."
--Is that so? Have you got any proof?
Yeah, mate. That is so. In fact, in a country like India, which has been ravaged by Muslim thugs (Ghazi, Ghaznavi, whatever), where a wonderfully moderate and very modern (for thosof you who dont have much idea)religion called Hinduism is being practised by more than 80% of the population, the Muslims are the ones who get reservations for givernemtn jobs, reservation for limited seats in the best educational institutions and so on.
I can give you an eg. Friend of mine, who was ranked 1007 in a nationally conducted examination for admission to a good engineering institure was rejected because there were only 600 seats available. And a Muslim acquaintance who was ranked nearly 10,000 got in. Of course, it is probably irrelevant information that the Muslim dropped out and went into oblivion. He is probably in Allah's lap, performing orgies with the 72 virgins or young boys, as per his preference.
The day is not far when America will be established as the next Caliphate. Hopefully, the leaders in the US will take some notice of the up and coming Caliphate in EurAbia and take adequate measures to counter the growth of this cult in the US.
ia786 (I wish you'd change your name, it's annoying to type out letters + numbers),
1) the point is the preferential treatment to Muslims and their Koran
2) the freedom to burn a book -- a mere collection of paper and ink -- is indeed a precious freedom and the inability to understand that demonstrates a deep cultural difference between the Muslim and the non-Muslim.
Where the uptight Western Christian differs from the Muslim is that the uptight Western Christian will be disgusted at the thought of burning a Bible and will be angry at the person doing it, but, for the most part (with a tiny minority of exceptions), will respect the broader sociopolitical culture in which such a thing is permitted. This has not always been the case; 100 years ago in the USA, people could be, and were, charged with criminal offenses for doing things like burning a Bible or speaking blasphemies against Christianity in public. This is no longer the case -- because we have evolved and we have progressed, and we continue to evolve and progress, because we recognize that we are imperfect, we change, we modify, we make mistakes, we learn, we try to do better, etc. Islamic culture starts from the premise that perfection is already laid down by texts & traditions from centuries past, and that there is no evolution no progress for humanity (except one that would go back to those medieval models in the case where there has been some regression away from them).
The two views on human and social nature cannot be harmonized: in our imperfect, accomodating, free society, we can (and do) allow islands of people who don't believe in the imperfect adventure of humanity -- as long as they are not fomenting a subversion of our free tolerance of them.
eliyahu:
You should read up on what Orwell and Sam Harris have to say about pacifism and when "non-violence" becomes nothing more than defacto fascism. Please understand that I'm not accusing you of being a fascist, but the labels of "pacifism" and "peace" and "anti-war" are embraced by people who are very selective about when intervetion is warranted and what sort of intervention. As the Protest Warriors' sign slogans read: War is not the Answer, Except for Marxists Guerillas; and "From Iraq to Palestine, End the Occupation* (*does not apply to Lebanon, Taiwan, Tibet or anyplace under Islamist or Marxist rule; they should just shut up and stop bitching).
According to Harris, Ghandi's prescription to the Jews of Eastern Europe was to protest the Holocaust by committing mass suicide.
IA: "So thats what Western civil rights are all about (sarcasm), Burning religious books?!?! Wow, that sounds absolutely brilliant.......Good men died so we can destroy copies of the Bible and Koran. Oh Hoorah!!! (sarcasm)"
None of your "good men" died, only people of other civilizations. Those that did die hated Allah, and would have spat on his stinky feet. In fact, to be quite technical, islam was on the side of the Nazis in that war, and quite openly so. I recall hearing of no muslims that died to save Jews; the very idea of it is ridiculous.
But of course free speech also means free speech to disagree - and strenuously so - with something, to the extent that one should be permitted to burn such items in protest to make a point. Just the other day, I burnt several Sura for exactly such a reason.
Ia, however, appears to be saying that these are civil rights with which he does not agree. That is disturbing, but also symptomatic and expected.
What he does not - and thus cannot - disagree with is that muslims do indeed have more civil rights than Christians in Western nations. That much is evident from the above, and from how Christian holidays may be quietly covered up, but not muslim ones, and that Christianity as a religion may indeed be attacked in public, but not islam - the latter being considered a hate crime.
Islam itself, of course, in practice and theory, is one long, unabetted hate crime, but I digress.
So: everyone else 1, islamofascist 0.
=(
LOL
And 100 for:
Prophet Geoff
BBUH
"Yeah, mate. That is so. In fact, in a country like India, which has been ravaged by Muslim thugs (Ghazi, Ghaznavi, whatever), where a wonderfully moderate and very modern (for thosof you who dont have much idea)religion called Hinduism is being practised by more than 80% of the population, the Muslims are the ones who get reservations for givernemtn jobs, reservation for limited seats in the best educational institutions and so on.
I can give you an eg. Friend of mine, who was ranked 1007 in a nationally conducted examination for admission to a good engineering institure was rejected because there were only 600 seats available. And a Muslim acquaintance who was ranked nearly 10,000 got in. Of course, it is probably irrelevant information that the Muslim dropped out and went into oblivion. He is probably in Allah's lap, performing orgies with the 72 virgins or young boys, as per his preference."
That is obviously discrimination, it need to be dealt with.
However I am specifically talking about the West.
In the UK Muslims face discrimination when it comes to looking for a job. This is about jobs for graduates etc. There is discrimination.
I should have equal rights. I am qualified, just because I happen to be Muslim shouldn't make my life more difficult.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3885213.stm
"just because I happen to be Muslim shouldn't make my life more difficult."
-- from a posting above
One may "happen to be a Muslim" but one is also free to leave Islam. Unlike race, a belief-system can be accepted or jettisoned. If an adult, born innocently into Islam, finds out exactly what Islam teaches, and yet continues to cling to it, and remain loyal to it, then presumably that Believer accepts the division between Believer and Infidel, and the inculcated hostility of former for latter, that runs all through Qur'an, Hadith, and the biography of Muhammad. Whether or not that Believer actively participates in acts of open aggression is irrelevant.
Why should Infidels, after they learn what Islam teaches Believers about them, and when they learn that Believers owe their sole loyalty to the Umma, the Community of Fellow Believers, and that furthermore Infidels are entitled, at best, to lives under Muslim domination of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity, with all of their so-called "rights" only those which Muslims grandly chose to grant them -- why should any Infidel in his right mind wish to make the Bilad al-kufr welcoming, in any way, for Muslims?
He shouldn't. He should do everything he can to make that Bilad al-kufr as unwelcoming for the practice and spread of Islam, and for Muslims, as he can, not because he has grown up being inculcated in hatred of Muslims as they have of Infidels, not because the Bible says a word about Muslims (how could it, after all -- for Islam comes after), but because, familiarizing himself with the canonical texts, and becoming more and more aware of what happened to all non-Muslims -- Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, Sikhs (once the Sikhs came into existence), and others -- under Muslim rule, he would be crazy not to wish to minimize the power and presence and menace of Muslims.
Really, why would he come to any other conclusion? Out of what perversity?
"ia786 (I wish you'd change your name, it's annoying to type out letters + numbers)"
Dr Pepper, if you wish you can call me 'ia' or simply '786'. ia786 means nothing.
"Where the uptight Western Christian differs from the Muslim is that the uptight Western Christian will be disgusted at the thought of burning a Bible and will be angry at the person doing it, but, for the most part (with a tiny minority of exceptions), will respect the broader sociopolitical culture in which such a thing is permitted."
But why!!! If this all comes down to burning books….
why would someone want to burn the Koran? Why would someone want to burn the Torah? Why would someone want to burn the Bible?
I don't accept that the Bible as the exact word of God, yet I have one at home, we honour it and keep it in a high place. Sikhs actually keep their Holy Book in an empty room, they always make sure it is clean, they give it utmost respect. Now I am not a Sikh, I respect their religion as I do all religions. Now I could burn the Torah, Quran, Bible and other Holy books if I wanted to. But why?
Would a responsible, decent, caring human being do that? No, no one would. If something is sacred to someone, you respect it. Even if you don't believe it. That is something I live by. I have always encouraged people to seek guidance (if they need it) from their respective religious leaders and books.
I don't agree with what some Muslims do half way across the World, I am responsible for my own actions.
That is something I believe in.
"None of your "good men" died, only people of other civilizations. Those that did die hated Allah, and would have spat on his stinky feet. In fact, to be quite technical, islam was on the side of the Nazis in that war, and quite openly so. I recall hearing of no muslims that died to save Jews; the very idea of it is ridiculous."
Yeh, Geoffrey.....Yeh.
I know Pakistanis that fought for the British, around the World. People that sacrificed everything for the Great British Empire. I’ve got so many stories to tell, they would scare the hell out of you Geoff!!!
I know Muslims in the British Army now, I have a good friend in there.
__________________________________________________
Islam was on the side of the Nazis!!!
You are deviating from the straight path mate.
Some interesting links for you.
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i34/34a01401.htm
_________________________________________________
Hitler's Christianity
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/ChildrenCross.jpg
When you see a cross
Page from the anti-Semitic German children's book, "Der Giftpilz" (The Poisonous Mushroom)
The text reads, "When you see a cross, then think of the horrible murder by the Jews on Golgotha..."
(see 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, "...the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men"
__________________________________________________
"But of course free speech also means free speech to disagree - and strenuously so - with something, to the extent that one should be permitted to burn such items in protest to make a point. Just the other day, I burnt several Sura for exactly such a reason."
You have a right to disagree. You have a right to believe whatever you want. You have a right to burn whatever you want, however when it is done with a certain intention, I'm pretty sure it’s alot more than just disagreeing with it.
__________________________________________________
"Ia, however, appears to be saying that these are civil rights with which he does not agree. That is disturbing, but also symptomatic and expected."
Are you trying to put words into my mouth?
__________________________________________________
"What he does not - and thus cannot - disagree with is that muslims do indeed have more civil rights than Christians in Western nations. That much is evident from the above, and from how Christian holidays may be quietly covered up, but not muslim ones, and that Christianity as a religion may indeed be attacked in public, but not islam - the latter being considered a hate crime.
Islam itself, of course, in practice and theory, is one long, unabetted hate crime, but I digress."
Muslims have more civil rights that Christians in Western Nations. That’s interesting, what do you think of this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3885213.stm
Should Muslims have equal rights?
__________________________________________________
Explain this to me. How can Christmas Holidays be covered up? Which planet do you live on? We get weeks off when its Christmas, we have parties, we get presents, we enjoy ourselves. Have you seen the streets of England during Christmas? How can Christmas be covered up?
Now with Eid, Diwali and other festivals, we never got days off, I remember in School, we would have to bring in notes saying we were going to take a day off. Its still the same.
__________________________________________________
So: everyone else 1, islamofascist 0.
=(
LOL
And 100 for:
Prophet Geoff
BBUH
No. I remember it being 6-0 to me before you ran away. Your post didn't refute anything I said. I think the score is still 6-0.
Nice.
ia,
"But why? Would a responsible, decent, caring human being do that? No, no one would."
That's your opinion. The point about modern Western freedom as a sociopolitical system is that we try to avoid, as much as possible, making opinions into laws binding on all citizens.
Of course, we have many laws that reflect a sense of common values -- thus it is illegal to walk around in public totally nude, it is illegal to have sex on the street, etc.
But the point is, we try to limit this kind of law-making as much as possible, because we recognize and respect that not everyone has the same opinions about everything -- and we have come to believe that there are some values that cannot be determined to be the Absolute Truth, no matter how many people might think they are the Absolute Truth.
The genius of the modern West, and of the USA in particular, is that we have evolved a sociopolitical culture where a multitude of Absolute Truths can live together, without one of them becoming the dictator of the others and telling them what to do and how to live.
Of course, believers in each Absolute Truth will find it hard to psychologically tolerate the existence of other Absolute Truths and their followers -- but the modern West has learned this lesson, through many painful centuries, and now has this to say to those who cannot understand and tolerate the sociopolitical plurality of Absolute Truths: Tough beans. Deal with it. Grow up. Live and let live. Go in your closet (or your mosque or your church) and commune with your Absolute Truth, but when you go out into the marketplace with other people, then learn to be tolerant and don't expect the Laws to punish those who don't have your opinions.
What the Muslim has a difficult time grasping is the idea that a society should be a vast arena that embraces -- and protects -- many different views, many different opinions, many different practices, even when these opinions may conflict with each other. Instead, the Muslim tends to believe that leaders should impose upon society the Absolute Truth of the Koran, or that society should impose this Absolute Truth of the Koran upon itself.
The Muslim needs to learn and really digest the concept of Separation of Islam and State.
"Now I am not a Sikh, I respect their religion as I do all religions. Now I could burn the Torah, Quran, Bible and other Holy books if I wanted to. But why?
Would a responsible, decent, caring human being do that? No, no one would. If something is sacred to someone, you respect it. Even if you don't believe it. That is something I live by. I have always encouraged people to seek guidance (if they need it) from their respective religious leaders and books.
I don't agree with what some Muslims do half way across the World, I am responsible for my own actions.
That is something I believe in.
Posted by: ia786 at November 1, 2005 01:15 PM
Yes and no, ia. As you know, I take you as a respectful person who doesn't agree with intolerant people of any persuasion. Agreed that that your responsibilities are fairly and reasonably limited to your own conduct, yet on another thread you seemed to feel the onus to speak to a Sharia punishment meted out in Iran on an 8-year old accused of theft in the form of an amputation and seemed to question the veracity of the story as well as whether it was consistent with Sharia's stricures reserving such punishment for adult repeat offenders. And the extremists are among us in the west as well.
You do, however, have a greater responsibility and that is to acknowledge what is wrong, inhumane, etc.,, whether it is consistent with the Qu'oran, Sharia, or not. You'd expect the same from us regarding our respective holy texts, wouldn't you?
Ia: “I know Pakistanis that fought for the British, around the World. People that sacrificed everything for the Great British Empire. I’ve got so many stories to tell, they would scare the hell out of you Geoff!!!”
Not really. My ancestors – and myself – have actually served in the army. And by army, I don’t mean a bunch of thugs in balaclavas. They saw things you can’t imagine. Don’t worry, though – I wouldn’t want to scare you, little fellow. Just be happy that brave people are taking care of you. By the way, it was mostly the Indians, not the Pakistanis, that fought for the British. Little point there, thought you should know.
“I know Muslims in the British Army now, I have a good friend in there.”
Tell him to get out. He’s not supposed to take orders from non-muslims. The Quran says so.
__________________________________________________
Ia: “Islam was on the side of the Nazis!!!”
I agree! Wow! We DO agree about something. I admit, I never thought we’d get there, with your attitude. Whew. This reaffirms some of my faith in human nature.
Then again, the link you posted destroys it.
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i34/3 4a01401.htm
Er, I’ve seen the, er, “news” eminating from that site, and besides being unsupported, it reeks of fascism. Why again would I trust your links, Ia?
Ia: “You are deviating from the straight path mate.”
Op! Head-chopping time, I guess. Q 2: 256 tolerates no mind-changers, nosirree.
_________________________________________________
Ia: “The text reads, "When you see a cross, then think of the horrible murder by the Jews on Golgotha..."”
Well, as unsurprised as I am that you have ready access to references from Hitler's "life work", I would invite you to show me where it says in the Bible that they ought to be gassed. Anywhere? Right.
Weak.
(1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, "...the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men"
Ahhh - and the the letter then also says:
"So goeth thee out and kill them, or turn them into lizards, and fight them until all worship is for Christ, and take their women with your right hand."
No? It doesn’t?
Darn, I could have sworn there was one religious book that DID say exactly that. Hmm...anyone?
__________________________________________________
Prophet GEOFF: "But of course free speech also means free speech to disagree - and strenuously so - with something, to the extent that one should be permitted to burn such items in protest to make a point. Just the other day, I burnt several Sura for exactly such a reason."
Ia: “You have a right to disagree. You have a right to believe whatever you want. You have a right to burn whatever you want, however when it is done with a certain intention, I'm pretty sure it’s alot more than just disagreeing with it.”
Ahh. So NOW you can kill me? Gotcha. Just keeping abreast of Islamic jurisprudence. After all, a little (very little) surety goes a long way in an Islamic riot.
I think you only need an MSM report. Is that right?
__________________________________________________
Prophet GEOFF: "Ia, however, appears to be saying that these are civil rights with which he does not agree. That is disturbing, but also symptomatic and expected."
Ia: "Are you trying to put words into my mouth?"
No, I'm trying to get you to say your inner thoughts. No worries, though - I think the readers can see past your obfuscation (see above).
__________________________________________________
Prophet GEOFF: "What he does not - and thus cannot - disagree with is that muslims do indeed have more civil rights than Christians in Western nations. That much is evident from the above, and from how Christian holidays may be quietly covered up, but not muslim ones, and that Christianity as a religion may indeed be attacked in public, but not islam - the latter being considered a hate crime.
Islam itself, of course, in practice and theory, is one long, unabetted hate crime, but I digress."
Ia: "Muslims have more civil rights that Christians in Western Nations. That’s interesting, what do you think of this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/388521 3.stm"
Well, there's a law to protect muslims against that kind of discrimination. I wonder if Christians could use the same law to arbitrate for them in getting work at a muslim business?
Just kidding. I don't really wonder. =)
But hey - where's the evidence for that article, anyway? I mean, we can't just take unsupported news items as the truth, now can we? Like ones about kids' arms being crushed, for instance.
__________________________________________________
"Explain this to me. How can Christmas Holidays be covered up?...We get weeks off when its Christmas"
By replacing it in official documents with "Winter Holidays". That's covering.
"Now with Eid, Diwali and other festivals, we never got days off"
And you are a minority religion in a majority non-muslim country. Does the tail wag the dog? Before you cry discrimination, let me say this: At least you're not being killed for being a religious minority. You don't always get that kind of deal in islamic nations, you understand.
And before you use your insectlike intellect to try and paint that last comment into a death threat leveled against you, let me say this: You're an idiot.
=)
__________________________________________________
"I remember it being 6-0 to me before you ran away. Your post didn't refute anything I said."
It did. And as for who runs away - it's strange, I thought YOU were the one that left FFI. Gee. That means YOU ran.
Sad.
The un-running
Prophet Geoff
Bacon Be Upon Me
"By the way, it was mostly the Indians, not the Pakistanis, that fought for the British. Little point there, thought you should know."
I know Pakistanis that fought for the British. They have amazing stories. I also read about some Muslim (Pakistani) that won some special award, a true soldier.
____________________________________________________
"“I know Muslims in the British Army now, I have a good friend in there.”
Tell him to get out. He’s not supposed to take orders from non-muslims. The Quran says so."
No. Its called integration and Muslims leaders have stated it is permissible. Would you ever go up to an officer and tell him that?
___________________________________________________
"Ahh. So NOW you can kill me? Gotcha. Just keeping abreast of Islamic jurisprudence. After all, a little (very little) surety goes a long way in an Islamic riot.
I think you only need an MSM report. Is that right?"
What?.......
__________________________________________________
Do you believe Muslims in the UK should have equal rights?
"And you are a minority religion in a majority non-muslim country. Does the tail wag the dog? Before you cry discrimination, let me say this: At least you're not being killed for being a religious minority. You don't always get that kind of deal in islamic nations, you understand"
Yeh, so what was that about Muslims having more rights than Christians?
__________________________________________________
Sorry about rushing this reply, I really couldn't be bothered. Sorry.
A MEMO TO THE LA TIMES---
The day will arrive when Islamic militants are murdering Americans on US soil in exactly the same way depicted in this article. And they will be referred to as 'heroes' as these two homicide bombers were here by the article's author.
And your paper will probably still refuse to acknowledge the reason why. Because you have deliberately closed your eyes to the truth and refuse to permit your eyes to be opened by anyone or anything. Others will do the same now that your paper has set an example. And so the dhimmitude pandemic spreads. People learn by example!
And your newspaper's writers will continue to wring their hands, asking 'why do these Muslims bomb our people when we continue to give them everything they want???'
And the worst of it is LA TIMES, you know perfectly well why Muslims perform "suicide bombings" (and you also know that in reality these bombings are nothing less than murders sanctioned by the so-called "faith" that is Islam). Muslims believe they will be rewarded in heaven with virgins for slaughtering themselves and the "infidels." That's why.
The LA TIMES will sell more newspapers and get more advertisers by telling the public "suicide bombers" are made by social problems rather than the 'religious' ideology we see that is Islam. And that's why your paper is failing us so miserably as a valid medium of communication.
Funny for taking so much time on a reply you "couldn't be bothered" with. allah works in mysterious ways.
"I know Pakistanis that fought for the British. They have amazing stories. I also read about some Muslim (Pakistani) that won some special award, a true soldier."
Errr...congratulations? I know Indians, especially Sikhs, that fought harder. Do I win a prize?
____________________________________________________
"No. Its called integration and Muslims leaders have stated it is permissible. Would you ever go up to an officer and tell him that?"
Yes. Other muslim leaders have stated its not. One of them was a guy called Mohammed, 7th century.
__________________________________________________
"Yeh, so what was that about Muslims having more rights than Christians?"
It was that they have more rights than Christians. Did you miss that part?
__________________________________________________
"Sorry about rushing this reply, I really couldn't be bothered. Sorry."
Funny how you were so rushed you couldn't think of any counter-arguments.
But, it's expected, since after all I am
Prophet Geoff [bbuh]