Dear Red Ken:

Since you have now made it plain that you support terrorists who wish to destroy the United Kingdom, then I hope you will be soon charged with treason and receive the term of life imprisonment which you so richly deserve.

Posted by: Mentat at August 16, 2005 9:37 AM

Livingstone was referring to the opponents of Ian Smith (more zealous louts than Selous Scouts) so Redken's Received Pantheon proves that he is a consistent fool, not an inconsistent one.

Posted by: Hugh at August 16, 2005 9:39 AM

I guess it depends on your perspective. If you're a terrified, appeasement-minded London mayor who admires the strength of your avowed enemies and hates the dhimmis squatting on that vast area of their land in the Middle East, you would probably be inclined to see a Jew-hating, totalitarian kleptocratic as a great statesman. If, on the other hand, you have a clue, you'd be more likely to call the rogue a two-bit Stalin, or, to use a more timely comparison, a Muslim Robert Mugabe.

Posted by: scaramouoche at August 16, 2005 10:18 AM

Livingstone is a capable spokesman for the worldview known as postmodernism. Under postmod, all cultures are equal and all narratives are worth hearing. The only sin is to assume one's righteousness.

Postmodernism is a recreational activity for a society at ease, a leisurely pastime for a civilisation unencumbered by any threat. But we are at war now, and postmodernism is costing us dearly. We simply can't afford it. We can't afford to give all narratives a fair hearing. Today we must believe in the rightness of our way. Never a weaker enemy than one who no longer believes in the rightness of this way.

Posted by: Michael Zaretski at August 16, 2005 10:46 AM

Livingstone is a capable spokesman for the worldview of his own arse.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at August 16, 2005 11:06 AM

A fool, a postmodernist, an appeaser?

To quote Deep Throat, I say "follow the money". Have Interpol run a trace on Ken's travel records to Switzerland; you never know what they might turn up.

Posted by: Charles Martel at August 16, 2005 11:16 AM

Any holder of public office must demonstrate loyalty to his country, followed by loyalty to his constituents. Livingstone is clearly not loyal to his country, therefore ineligible to hold public office, and must be prompty dismissed.

Posted by: US_infidel at August 16, 2005 11:41 AM

Charles Martel--Funny you should say that. I was thinking that, considering Ken's pronouncements (and George Galloway's too, for that matter), it would be all that surprising to learn they were on the take from the Wahhabists.

Then again, lots of people are completely misguided without having to be bribed.

Posted by: scaramouoche at August 16, 2005 11:54 AM

Sorry--"wouldn't" be all that surprising.

Posted by: scaramouoche at August 16, 2005 11:55 AM

livingstone likens founding fathers to jihad terrorists? not in the quote you gave he didnt. he said they had been branded as such. so why have you misrepresented what he said? get this and get it good - were going to get nowhere unless we get the cooperation of the muslim community in the uk. kicking people out is not going to stop terror or dont you people think muslims have access to computers?
us infidel - livingstones constituents will decide how loyal he is, not a us boy like you.
scaramouche - aint nobody sucks up to wahhabists like george w bush - and his dear old dad

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 16, 2005 12:18 PM

Yes, right: the Founding Fathers were just BRANDED as terrorists. Now that American independence has been recognized by all, they are celebrated as heroes.

And as soon as Britan will be an Islamic Caliphate, the initial Islamic fighters who paved the way for it will be celebrated as heroes, no longer BRANDED as terrorists, right?

But what if the Brits don't want to establish a Caliphate?

Posted by: rahel at August 16, 2005 1:24 PM

you are right rahel - terrorists who win are viewed as heroes (at least by those who supported them) and are no longer viewed as terrorists - that is the way of the world. but if we dont want sharia law in this country then we have to find the best way to prevent it. the matter has been neglected for far too long and i fear tony blair is engaging in headline- grabbing initiatives of no lasting value. this country has lost the moral high ground (if it ever possessed it). a good start would be to face up to the appalling hypocrisy and double standards we apply to our dealings with the rest of the world, and do something about it

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 16, 2005 1:48 PM

Through one of the links to MEMRI TV from this site, I watched a debate between a man and woman debating whether Islam or the West starts the violence.

The muslim guy was somewhat convincing that the West is the aggressor, if you didn't know any better.

For example "Did Angola colonize France or the opposite? Did England colonize Pakistan, or the opposite?"

For every example, the muslim woman gave a counter example where the muslims began the bloodshed, and the West, or the indigenous people were justly reacting to the violence.

Here, with the UK situation we get to see it first hand, without the passing of years to cloud our judgment.

Who attacked the British Imams? No one. Who took the innocent British civilian lives? The jihadists.

20 years from now, some Muslim will say that the deportation of Imams and the closing of some British Mosques sparked the "Glorious Revolution" where the Islamists, tired of the religious persecution and restricting of their free speech rights, started the Holy War that raged across all Europe. And was therefore completely justified.

But we'll know better who caused it, won't we?

Posted by: VoiceOfSkippy at August 16, 2005 2:03 PM

Red Ken is a cesspool of moral, historical, cultural and religious equivalence.

I laugh out loud when I read such nonsense:

"opponents of Ian Smith's regime in 'Rhodesia' (Zimbabwe), Nelson Mandela and the Yasser Arafat have all been branded terrorists by someone at one time or another," the mayor said.

Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) would be a lot better off today under Ian Smith and a "racist" white government. Mugabe just shows us what a black paradise is.

And Arafat was NOT a terrorist for Red Ken?

Arafat was a monster, a most depraved, vile and hateful murderer and no respectable western leader should have ever engaged with him.

If Red Ken's mind is so screwed up, how twisted are the people who made him mayor of London?

Posted by: Terminator at August 16, 2005 2:41 PM

C'mon Skippy:

The Islamists will say the Brits started it when they gave Palestine to the Jews and redrew the borders of the old Ottoman Empire, not to mention the invasion of Iraq.

When it comes to the "who started it" game, well, I remember a few years back some senior Egyptian jurist suggesting that Eqypt ought to bring suit against some big international Jewish organizations over the Egyptian gold the Israelites acknowledged they took with them when they fled captivity a couple of millenia ago to return to the Promised Land. (But just think of the counterclaim the slaves' descendants would have!)

They have no shame.

What is more telling, is what Amos Oz, the Israeli writer and peace activist observed on the eave of Gulf War II -- that out of just short of 30 conflicts then raging around the world all but three or four at best involved Muslims on at least one if not both sides, much of it "insurgencies" looking to impose a Sharia state somewhere in the non-Arab world.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 16, 2005 2:43 PM

"...a good start would be to face up to the appalling hypocrisy and double standards we apply to our dealings with the rest of the world, and do something about it"

Freddie my boy, that's right, it's all our fault. Reading some of your earlier posts I started thinking you were just naive of the Islamists game plan, but now I see your just a western hating apolgist for Islam. I think you are part of the problem Freddie. Islam and democracy do not mix well,Period! And there is nothing we can do from our side that can ever change this, Period! So my suggestion to you and your multiculturalist friends is to keep quit and let the true patriots of your country sort out the mess your Eurabian politicians have gotten everyone into.

Posted by: William The Crusader at August 16, 2005 2:46 PM

william dont dare ever call me an apologist for islam again - i hate islam. read dr patrick sookhdeo's book "a people betrayed" and youll see one of the reasons why. it is a scholarly mine of information on the problems of my fellow christians in pakistan. so "islam and democracy do not mix" is that so? then perhaps you can tell me why the two half-wits in the white house and downing street have spilled the blood of (allegedly) over 100,000 people in order to impose democracy on iraq. or is that not really what theyre at william??? perhaps they have something else in mind. what do you think? i tell you what i think - the oil is running out and the poor dears are getting desperate

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 16, 2005 3:32 PM

There are a lot more then 100,000 dead in Iraq "Freddie" and most of them were killed by Muslims such as Saddam and Zarqawi.It was Zarqawi who issued a statement recently justifying the killing of Muslims not Bush or Blair. In you zeal to demonize Bush and Blair did you forget about Saddam and Zarqawi? Or is that you just don't care?

Posted by: Roxane at August 16, 2005 4:05 PM

Freddie:

T'ain't the Brits and the Americans who rely on Middle Eastern oil so much as the French and Germans who were so reticent about taking Saddam down... ...and who also, by the way, were heavily implicated in oil-for-food, the French especially. (So much for their humanitarian concerns in demurring from the invasion.)

And if there's anyone who should be worried about the depleted oil stocks, it's the economies that are entirely dependent on petroleum for GNP, and that's not the West.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 16, 2005 4:33 PM

i think youre being over kind to saddam hussein roxane(something you ought not to do). i think it is more or less accepted that noone ever killed more iraqis than saddam. i was working in pakistan at the time of the iraq-iran war and clearly remember being ridiculed by conservative american colleagues when i pointed out his obvious evil (they all thought he was well ok because he was fighting iran). incidentally so did western governments, going by all the arms they sold him

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 16, 2005 4:43 PM

The nonsense above by one "freddie" about this being a war for oil is silly. In what way? Will the Americans acquire Iraqi oil at below-market prices? They never have acquired oil at below-market prices, not from the Kuwaitis in 1991, nor the Saudis whom they have repeatedly protected (in the Gulf War, and in getting rid of Saddam Hussein). The market price is the market price. Prate about "a war for oil" all you want; it means nothing.

And one more thing, a matter of punctuation. It may have been acceptable, just, for E. E. Cummings not to capitalize, but no one subsequently should attempt to capitalize on his non-capitalization. That includes "bell hooks" and "freddie" above. Grammar, spelling, punctuation -- offend their rules and you mock the gods. And the gods are not mocked.

Posted by: Hugh at August 16, 2005 4:51 PM

so hugh my "silly" postulating, indeed "prating" re the reasons for the war are totally meaningless. im hardly alone in that one, given the heinous lies issued on the subject by the white house and downing street

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 16, 2005 5:18 PM

"im hardly alone in that one [in attributing "war-for-oil" reasons to Bush and Blair]"
--- from a posting above

No, you are not alone in refusing to understand the oil market. But you might try. Oil is a commodity. OPEC is an imperfect oligopoly. The swing producer has always been Saudi Arabia, which at any time X chooses a price Y that will maximize its revenues over time -- in other words, maximize the value of its reserves.

In order to choose this price Y at time X, many factors have to be considered. What is OPEC's share of the market? What is demand among oil consuming nations? How rapidly can that demand contract, or shift to other sources of energy, in response to changes in price? What are the effects on consumers' psychology, on the investment in the search for other sources of oil and gas, in the development of cleaner coal-burning plants, of solar and wind energy, of nuclear reactors? What will be the effect, and how fast, on attempts to dampen energy use? What will be the effect of price Y on the political will to make long-term changes in policy at home, including the imposition of gasoline and other taxes on oil and oil products, and how large might those taxes be, and how certain will investors in other sources of energy be that those taxes will never be removed?

All of these questions have to be factored in. And at any time X, the ideal price Y will be set by the Saudis, but that price Y may also be affected by the imposition of a tax Z by the oil-consuming nations. However, as long as the United States elites were convinced, as an article of faith, that Saudi Arabia was a "friend" or "staunch ally" that could be relied on to "moderate" prices -- it never happened, it never would happen -- then nothing was achieved. And so much might have been achieved, in energy policy, if Saudi Arabia had long ago been recognized for the enemy it is. An enemy that cannot harm us with its oil policy, for it will always seek to maximize its revenues over time, which is why it would never remove so much oil from production (indeed, Matthew Simmons convincingly suggests that Saudi Arabia may not have as much oil as we have all been lead to believe) so as to send the price to $1000 a barrel, any more than the restaurant down the street will charge $300 for a plate of tortellini con funghi.

Those who prate -- yes, prate -- about a "war for oil" do not understand the oil market. They cannot offer a single example of any Arab or Muslim state offering anyone, for political or other reasons, preferential pricing. The sole example, in the history of OPEC, of such preferential pricing, is that which Chavez in Venezuela offers to -- Castro. That's it.

So you tell me, exactly what you mean by a "war for oil." You explain to me just what you think the Americans and the British thought they could get from Iraq -- cheaper oil, perhaps? Why? The Americans, it should hardly be necessary to remind anyone, are not being very clever imperialists in Iraq, for they are paying for a hundred hospitals, 3,100 new schoolrooms, water treatment plants for 4.5 million people who never before had access to water, power grids, and much else. And meanwhile the Americans have been instrumental as well in cancelling the debts -- but only to Infidel countries -- of Iraq that amount to $90 billion. And on top of that the Americans have spent nearly $300 billion. And not a single drop of Iraqi oil has been "seized" (idiotic idea) or taken at less-than-market prices.

If you know nothing about the oil market, kindly learn about it, beginning perhaps by reading the article that appeared in Policy Review more than a decade ago, written by Douglas Feith, on OPEC pricing. Or go and read what Prof. Adelman, now retired, of MIT has written. But refrain from making pronouncements on something you have not bothered to study. This site is not Hyde Park Corner, open to any nonsensical or ignorant fellow who thinks he has something to say. The space is precious.

Posted by: Hugh at August 16, 2005 7:51 PM

Thank you, Hugh, for another penetrating article.

Freeloader, you may have lots of company in your "war for oil" theory, but that doesn't make you smart. It makes you one of the ignorant masses. Let me tell you how it works down here in Texas. It's not so much different elsewhere, as oil people deal in the hard realities that Hugh talks about, whether on the macro or micro level.

It just so happens that I took my eighty-something year old mother to the bank this afternoon. She signed an extension on the mineral lease to the family farm.

She has a fraction of not too many acres, but being good lawyers (haha) we had negotiated a better-than-average royalty rate. The land produced some oil, but mostly natural gas, back in the late 70's and early 80's. We didn't get rich, but we made enough to improve some pasture, put in a long road, change some ditches, add a large stock tank (i.e., water pond), and put in some desperately needed cattle pens. The gas played out and prices collapsed in the mid-80's. It was again leased to an interested exploration company a few years ago, and they did some new seismic work, for which they pay a "bonus" for the opportunity to dynamite our pastures and record the echo. They haven't drilled yet, but they wanted to extend the primary term of the lease. All of these little things are common. With the rising prices, it is beginning to look attractive once again.

Oil is basically what economists call a fungible commodity. That means that one barrel of oil is just about the same as another barrel of oil. It doesn't matter much where it comes from. Mexican oil is as good as Canadian oil is as good as Saudi oil. It takes an expert to know the difference. Those differences are due to specific gravity, sulphur content, etc., and can make some crudes easier or more difficult to refine, or yield different mixes of products, and, accordingly, there are some differences in price. But the standards are well known and agreed upon, like corn, or wheat, or silver, or any other commodity.

The oil produced from our property is not as good as Saudi crude, but it's not bad. Saudi crude is a "light crude" and is easier to refine. You might be interested to know that some wells actually produce natural gasoline, good enough to run in your car, right out of the ground, but those wells are rare. The ones I have heard about were in Olklahoma.

The oil industry was born in Texas. There were some little piddly oil wells in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, but the first "gusher" came in just about one-hundred years ago near Beaumont, Texas, in a field called Spindletop, not all that far from my home. Texaco, Humble (Exxon), Gulf, Sinclair, Mobil, Conoco, all got their start or their major boost right here. Even Shell and British Petroleum have major operations here. Refineries. Chemical plants.

Our people invented the industry. My father had a drill-bit on the floor of his office. By the time I was in the second grade I knew the meaning of a drill-string, derrick, pumpjack, hardhat, crown block, mud pit, well-log, shot charge, fishing tool, and a roughneck. I was in high school when blow-out preventers were invented. All the early well fire-fighters came from here.

Our boys taught the Saudis about oil and drilling. And the Russians. And the Vietnamese.

Lots of people talk about this so-called war for oil, and how Bush or Chaney or somebody wants some middle-east oil. We hardly get any crude from Saudi Arabia, and really don't care much whether they pump their stuff or not. The USA gets most of its oil from Mexico and Canada. (Frankly, I am much more concerned about the supply from Mexico than the supply from Saudi Arabia.) Russia supplies a lot, also. Saudi Arabia is way back in the pack. Oil, being a fungible commodity, can be obtained from any willing seller, and lost production will be made up by somebody else. And if you paid any attention to what Hugh has to say, you can understand that the supply and demand will be adjusted so fast you probably wouldn't have time to fill your tank.

And fantastic production is still going on in the Gulf of Mexico, off the Texas and Louisiana coasts. Huge floating drilling rigs are constantly being constructed and put into use. Get on the web and look at the pictures. Who REALLY needs Saudi oil, or Iraqi oil? Of course, the finger-pointers. France. Germany. They have had their fingers in the Middle East since World War One (remember the Berlin to Baghdad railray?), and they also have the short supply lines which leaves them most vulnerable to a cutoff. Look what's happened to North Sea crude production.

When I see on the TV news that an Iraqi pipeline has been bombed and is burning, I look at it a bit differently than you probably do. See, I don't automatically assume that it's Iraqi oil in the pipeline. It's common practice for the pipeline owner and pipeline operator to be different parties. And the owner of the crude or product flowing through that pipeline can be somebody else. The crude owner may own a million barrels, pumped under great pressure from one storage point to another. He may sell or trade that crude while it is still in the pipeline. Or half of it. Or he might have sold short, and is delivering it against a contract to supply a certain amount of a certain grade by a certain date. He might be sending crude to a refinery in Basra, in return for kerosene or jet fuel delivered by another pipeline in Baghdad. Lots of possibilities. And tomorrow, the stuff in the pipeline might belong to someone else.

Lots of things go on out there, and what you think you know might not be so. How do you know what you think you know? That is the great question.

Posted by: texan at August 17, 2005 1:04 AM

Yes, but Texan, if the Saudi supply drops off, the price of Mexican and Canadian crude would shoot up - would it not? So the Saudi supply is important to the US even if it does bot take too much of it for itself.

Posted by: Timbo at August 17, 2005 1:51 AM

bot? - NOT (typo)

---

To be or bot to be, bat is the question.

Posted by: Timbo at August 17, 2005 1:55 AM

The Mayor of Londonistan said these things?

Well, I am shocked & stunned....(NOT)

Hugh & Texan - thanks for great posts.

Posted by: albion at August 17, 2005 7:04 AM

Timbo:

Sure gas prices would shoot up if the Saudi's stopped pumping. However, the Saudi's won't be getting any money. How long are they going to last when they aren't getting any money?

Posted by: Terrahawk at August 17, 2005 8:34 AM

Terrahawk is quite right.

The Saudis are happy to hold the world to ransom and make hay while the sun shines, but oil doesn't just fuel Western industry. It is virtually the lifeblood of most middle eastern economies which otherwise produce nothing.

But there is more to ponder re: whether this was merely a war for oil. I honestly have to wonder if the sly and disingenuous Saudis -- despite the public protests they made for the US to keep out of the briar patch -- welcomed the invasion of Iraq, hoping it would, in the longterm, keep even move Iraqi oil off the market and drive prices up sharply. I have read that for the last 20 years the Saudi economy recorded large deficits, keeping all those princes and princesses in the manner to which they are accustomed. This year, however, they recorded a $60+ billion surplus.

Of course if oil prices go past a certain point it will make alternatives such as gas/alchohol mixes and hydrogen cells more attractive as well as rendering such unconventional petro sources as Alberta's tar sands more attractive. And a business columnist in the Aug. 17 Globe and Mail has made the point that relatively speaking, we are paying less for gasoline than we did in the 1970s.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 17, 2005 9:44 AM

One of the most helpful threads I've read, thanks going out to Hugh and Texan.

VOS;
"...but we'll know better..."

Yes, but let's hope we're here to tell it.

Roxane;

I'll bet there was more than 100,000 corpses that were even past the point of decomposing before we ever set foot. I imagine the 100,000 mark was "old news" even back then.

WD!;

As Huntington says, "Islams borders are bloody". I would add that so is much in between them, the Shia/Sunni lovefest is the first to come to mind. i wonder if there is a Quranic verse advocating amphetamines. It never fails to amaze me how there seems to be a lack of modulation in muslim responses to just about everything, from activities of daily life to issues of international scope and impact. They seem to have only 2 modes, stupor, and bellowing, raging, balls-to-the-walls homicidal fury. I cannot comprehend how the muslim world can maintain this thunderous, vitriolic, rampage of blood and destruction. personally, i would need to "take a knee" occasionally. this fevered pitch must become numbing in time. or maybe it's like working continous double-shifts, after a while it just starts to feel normal.

Posted by: t-ham at August 17, 2005 9:52 AM

if the space is so precious hugh why have you and texan taken up so much? what i said was that if the reasons i thought the war was being fought were meaningless, then i was not alone in that, namely that the reasons for the war given by bush and blair have likewise proven to be meaningless. btw did you actually say why you thought the war was being fought?
incidentally who said anything about getting cheaper oil? not me. everything ive read on the subject recently indicates the oil is running out. now to my non-oil brain, that might indicate that if anything it might get more expensive. so the west will have to take it wherever they can get it, at whatever price it costs

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 17, 2005 10:47 AM

I'll bet there was more than 100,000 corpses that were even past the point of decomposing before we ever set foot. I imagine the 100,000 mark was "old news" even back then.

The 100,000 figure comes from a report by the British medical journal Lancet. It used a statistical methodology, though, where the final number arrived at was extrapolated from interview data with about 3700 households. Unfortunately, the study did not make any corrections for the well-known Arab tendency to publically lie for the purposes of emotional gratification (e.g. to avoid humiliation, or- conversely- to wallow further in a perceived state of victimhood). Figures based on actual reports of killings put the number at 27,000, 5-10,000 of which can be attributed to terrorist and criminal activity.

Posted by: emperor_diocletian at August 17, 2005 10:58 AM

Freddie,
Hugh & Texan took up so much space because they seem very well researched & have formed opinons of their own via the depth of their knowledge, research & experience.

I wish you had the same level of research to back your statements here.

I do not wish to belittle your posts - that is not what JW is about, but you remind me of some student I used to know in the 80's (me).

I wish I had kept quiet back then until I knew what I was talking about.......

Could you please be more specific with regards to "the heinous lies issued on the subject by the white house and downing street"? Thanks.

Posted by: albion at August 17, 2005 11:14 AM

albion - hugh and texan took up so much space because they did not fully read what i said, and in hughs case, misrepresented it. tony blair has lied. we know that intelligence told him there was no proof of wmd in iraq. blair translated this to the british people as "saddam has wmd, and has the capability of deploying them against british citizens in cyprus in a timescale of 45 minutes". he is also on record as saying that if no wmd are found, saddam can stay. no wonder they call him tony bliar. we also know that it is not a war on terror as saddam had no links with al qaeda. so why the war? is it about what the west thinks is freedom? is so why has that basket case in north korea not been taken out? (who incidentally HAS wmd) what about mugabe? what about saudi arabia for that matter? i mean thats where the alqaeda links are. i merely said i thought it was about oil. what do you think its about albion?

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 17, 2005 12:08 PM

"..were going to get nowhere unless we get the cooperation of the Muslim community in the uk. kicking people out is not going to stop terror"

Fredie - you nonsensical & ignorant fellow!!!!!!! (Sorry about the horrific torrent verbal abuse just then - it's Hugh, he's having a bad influence on me.)

The more you give the Muslim community, the more they want.

For decades the UK bent over backwards for them. They could say and do almost anything, what was our reward? ..... Bombings!

Let's face it.... you don't make the same mistake twice. Do you think that old poison is suddenly going to become our new medicine?

Posted by: Timbo at August 17, 2005 12:10 PM

Albion:

Doubtless, freddie is harping about the [conventional] WMDs the survey teams were unable to find, as that was what Bush and Blair relied on so heavily to justify invading without the UN's blessings. And doubtless, freddie would hear nothing about the massive piles of highly explosive materials and other basic supplies for making WMDs noted in the Duelfer Report, not to mention the account by Saddam's chief nuclear scientist of equipment and plans buried in his own rose garden at Qsay Hussein's instructions after Gulf I as evidence of Saddam's presistant non-compliance and intention to start things up again once he had Hans Blix & Co out of the way.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 17, 2005 12:14 PM

Vis "bush and blair lying" about WMDs, one thing I'd point out to the freddies of the world is that both Bush and Blair are young politicians who were then facing elections in the near term.

Accuse them, if you wish, of being to ready to accept unreliable intelligence if it fitted in with justification for invasion, but politicians who aren't of the sort that are elected for life are unlikely to knowingly risk being turned out of office in a year's time on a crapshoot that they will be proven right.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 17, 2005 12:40 PM

Oh, by the way, yes I agree, Gulf War II is self-destructive costly and ideologically unsound.

My personal opinion is that it wasn't about oil.

Causes of GWII (me thinks):

A. A wave of understandable paranoia after 9/11. Most people have forgotten Sadam's lofty praise for the 9/11 attack.

B. There was a genuine intelligence stuff-up, and Blair and Bush actually believed their own hype.

C. A personal enmity between Sadam & Bush. Bush felt he had unfinished family business in Baghdad.

D. They thought they could introduce democracy into the Middle East and that the Iraqis would react kindly to their liberation.

The Iraqis were supposed to have thrown flowers at American tanks. Horrible chemical weapons dumps were supposed to have been discovered in the desert. And like a phoenix from the flames, a new democratic and free Iraq should have emerged, heralding a new and positive chapter in the history of the Middle East.

That was their dream - now they are in a nightmare, which they're too proud to acknowledge as such. The war is also doing the Jihadist cause far more good than harm, and as an anti-Jihadist, I enthusiastically endorse the immediate withdrawal of American troops from the Middle East.

We can't do that, they say, "the security situation in Iraq will deteriorate" --- WHO CARES! Let the Muslims massacre each other - I'll lose no sleep about it. Why must we get in the way?

Unfortunately, some months back, I made the mistake of daring to suggest that there was a strange lack of war criticism amongst the stories on JW, and I said they had a Republican bias, which brought the wrath of the big boss man down upon me, Mr. Spencer himself, who took time off to come to the battlements and personally hurl rocks and burning oil down upon me.

Anyway, I digress........

No, I don't think it was about oil.

In Gulf War I the Americans finished up far too early.

In Gulf War II the Americans are finishing up far too late.

Democracy is always a forlorn hope in a Muslim country. There were never any WMD's. There is never going to be peace in Iraq without a dictatorship. Iraqis themselves have told me this.

Time to leave.

Posted by: Timbo at August 17, 2005 12:50 PM

aye right water dragon. so saddam could cobble all these highly explosive materials and other basic supplies together in 45 mins. all i know it has now been admitted at the highest level there were no wmd are you saying wmd was the reason we went to war btw?
timbo - u pig ignorant fool!!(sorry to reply in kind - i can do it to heh heh) the more you give the muslim community the more they want. doesnt this apply to every community? if not then prove it. how has the uk bent over backwards? we welcomed these folks cos we needed them. they have not been able to do or say anything we havent been able to do or say. were there muslim bombings before iraq here? if so remind me. dont you want peace and stability here? see u just rabbit on, but youve not given any solution - any way im off to make my dinner

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 17, 2005 12:56 PM

No freddieshiftkeynotworking, what I am saying was that while Saddam's intent was clearly there, because international law has yet to be updated on justification because the usual suspects oppose it, Bush and Blair were prepared to accept intelligence reports supporting imminent threat. Had China and other countries accepted gross human rights violations and other travesties perpetrated by Saddam's regime as justification for UNSC action as has been proposed and supported by numerous Western countries for some years nwo, there would have been considerably less need to rely on WMDs as an imminent threat.

Here's what Christopher Hitchens recently had to say about the justification for deposing Saddam. His answer is in the context of explaining how his support for the invasion is more consistent with his long held "leftist" principles than those of the "mainstream" left today.:

"But lets look at the case of Iraq and the left. If you asked someone who has the principles of a 1968 leftist the following question: what is your attitude to a regime that has committed genocide, invaded its neighbors, militarized its society into a police state, that has privatized its economy so it is owned by one family, that has defied the non proliferation treaty in many ways, that sought weapons to commit genocide again and cheated on inspections, that has abolished the existence of a neighboring arab muslim state? What is your view of this as anyone who is a 1968 leftist? For me, I would be appalled if anyone knew me even slightly would not guess my attitude. Iraq should have been taken care of a long time ago. Instead, when I made my view public, I was berated by the left and my view was seen as an insane eccentricity."

Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 17, 2005 1:53 PM

I have a solution:

REPATRIATION

"We needed them" I dispute that, and if it was ever the case - it's not now!

Oh come on Fiendish Freddie, London was (and maybe is still) considered the ideological Jihadist hub of the universe, a meeting place for every disgruntled Jihadist this side of Tehran - and don't tell me it wasn't. Instead of sorting the problem out, we debated whether to introduce tough laws NOT to say anything negative about their negative religion.

"how has the uk bent over backwards?" What are you cooking for dinner Fiendish Freddie, magic mushrooms? Hash brownies? The Muslims rioted, plotted and plotted, and finally bombed us. If a Christian community in any Muslim country had done 10% of that s***, they would have hung every last one of them from the lampposts - and you say the UK tolerated nothing?
PLEASE!

"were there muslim bombings before iraq here? if so remind me"

No bombings, no, but there were riots, terrorist fundraising, and much treasonous and aggressive talk amongst the Muslim community which was ultimately going to lead to bombings sooner or later - and did.

9/11 happened before Iraq or Afghanistan, their reason: a military base in Saudi and "support" for Israel, this is all the excuses they needed to kill 3000+ people. In Spain, apart from a withdrawal from Iraq, the terrorists also demanded a return of the Iberian Peninsula to Muslim rule! If you think that these bearded Neanderthals need Iraq as a pretext then you're sadly mistaken. The war does not help us with this problem - but it's very naive to think that if you take Iraq out of the equation, that everything will settle down. There are almost 100 verses in the Koran that sanction violence against non-believers (as opposed to none in the bible) and because of the nature of the beast, they are always going to be at our throats.

Posted by: Timbo at August 17, 2005 1:54 PM

yes well at least youre making sense waterdragon, unlike timbo. thats about as good a reason as ive heard for getting rid of saddam. (as if i needed to hear one about shunting that bastard) but im not convinced it explains everything about our motives in iraq.
timbo just what is your major malfunction? you want to repatriate every muslim in the uk? are you going to pay for their property or steal it from them? remember that they are contributors to not takers from the economy. muslims have rioted wow -I have rioted. they have not done anything to harm our country that we havent done 150 times over. what if the muslim is a white british convert where you goin to park them? etc etc. incidentally timbo you were right about the war in your last but one post. btw w dragon ive just watched colin powell and condoleza rice denying iraq had wmd in feb 2001 and july 2001 respectively

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 17, 2005 3:09 PM

freddie:

I'm sure the motives for invading included some degree of self-interest, just as surely as the French, Germans and Russians had their own self-interests in opposing the invasion as the oil-for-food scandal is showing.

Possibly, Blair thought the situation extremely urgent because he had Islamists in the UK manufacturing Ricin and murdering police constables and didn't want to wait for another 9/11 on his turf on his watch. Some sources (William Shawcross in "Allies" for one) say Blair was far more hawkish about Saddam on human rights violations far earlier than Bush.

It will be years, if ever, before we know everything that was going on. Classified documents -- those not destroyed by Sandy Berger -- have to be 50 years old before they are declassified.

But anyone who thinks this was just for oil and that Bush and Blair consciously lied about WMDs is very mistaken.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 17, 2005 3:29 PM

"you want to repatriate every muslim in the uk?"

Yeah - I know I'm an idealist dreamer, but what can I do?

The chances of this happening in the next 20 years, are, I admit, far less than 1%. However, just because we can't build a perfect society, doesn't mean we can't talk about one.

Posted by: Timbo at August 17, 2005 3:37 PM

"muslims have rioted wow -I have rioted."

"WOW" - indeed, you would be saying much more than a sarcastic wow if you had been one of the poor Englishmen beaten up by Pakistani thugs for no reason. I was at the poll tax riot in 1990, and that was the last non-Muslim riot in the country I believe. If you really have been in the front line of a riot, you would know that it's deadly serious.
You talk of rioting as if it happens all the time - it doesn't, and it IS a big deal.

"they have not done anything to harm our country that we havent done 150 times over"

Fiendish Freddy, what planet are you from? The 7/7 outrage was the worst attack on London since WWII? What the hell are you talking about?

"remember that they are contributors to not takers from the economy."

They have the highest social security dependency of any community, and I hate to think how many billions it costs to keep an eye on them. They are a liability, not an asset.

"are you going to pay for their property or steal it from them?"

Alas, at this time that's just a pipe dream anyway. What is the point in ME putting forward a complex game plan? Use your imagination. Extreme problems call for extreme solutions.

Posted by: Timbo at August 17, 2005 4:53 PM

"you want to repatriate every muslim in the uk?"

Freddie,

You can turn on your television right now and see every Jew and only Jews being removed from Gaza.No Christians, no Muslims just Jews. In some cases people are being forcibly removed from homes they have lived in for decades.The Isreali government is compensating these Jews for their property with payments of between $150,000-500,000. One of the reasons given for the removal of Jews from Gaza is the cost of keeping them safe since Muslims will not allow Jews to build homes in Gaza and live.

You could make a case for removing immigrant Muslims from Western societies for security reason. We have less security and less freedom with large numbers of Muslims in the West. There are also increased security costs not associated with Buddists, Mormons, Satanists or any other group.No other community needs to be "baby sat" and kept under surveillance to the same extent as Muslims.Repatriating immigrant Muslims back to their homelands with compensation for any property they have lost (ala Gaza) would probably save money in the long run,maybe in the short run too.

Posted by: Roxane at August 17, 2005 4:56 PM

Roxane:

I second that.

There is no Muslim country in the world where 'infidels' or Jews can safely assume that their rights or property are protected. On the contrary: The historical record is self-evident in that Christians and Jews, Bahai and Zoroastrians or Buddhist and Hindus have been systematically purged once the sons of Allah took over.

Yes, there are still a few Christians left in Egypt and Lebanon, yes some Germans build little houses on the Turkish coast, yes in Morocco they let you pay to stay, but you, as an unbeliever have no rights and when it suits the Mohammedans you will be evicted or killed.

Mohammedan infil-traitors come with an agenda:

To out-breed us.

To achieve critical mass and to install "Sharia-law" in our countries.

Perhaps lefty-looney twits like Freddy will then realize that freedom is not free and our values worth fighting for.

Posted by: Terminator at August 17, 2005 5:16 PM

Timbo, maybe your question has been answered already, but I think what we were trying to convey about price is this:

Oil is a fungible commosity. No one country has a corner on the market, and, therefore cannot enforce price stability at a chosen level. If a producer is removed from the market, whether by accident, war, earthquake, or political decision, other producers will take advantage of the situation by selling into the rising price. This can happen as long as there is at least one producer/supplier who is not yet at it maximum production capacity.

Imagine yourself to be a producer. If you are willing to sell at a given price before the supply interruption in another part of the market, then, logically, you should be willing to sell at an even higher price after the supply interruption. Your goal as a supplier is to maximize profits, and by selling at the increased price you do so. If you are happy with the revenue stream you have been getting, then you could actually reduce production, and sell fewer barrels at a higher per unit price, but you can see that that is not going to work for long. Someone is going to sell more, and when the market levels off, you will have failed to benefit by the market disruption, while every other producer has benefited.

Of course, self-analysis is complicated by the differing costs of production. Some oil is very expensive to produce. The wells may be deep, the pressures may be so high (or so low) as to require special equipment, the wells may give off poison gas (e.g., hydrogen sulfide, which is also highly corrosive of equipment), there may be a war on, etc.

Saudi Arabia's great advantage is that it is the world's low-cost producer. I believe it can still make money even if oil falls to five dollars a barrel.

Frankly, I think the invasion of Iraq is about positioning for the World War. I believe there were weapons of mass destruction, a few of which were actually found. Embarrassingly few, and the media gave it very little play. But almost every Iraqi general captured by the coalition said there were WMDs, but that they were deployed with other units.

We have not yet searched all the ammo dumps. Several were found that are as big or bigger than Manhattan island. And, many people believe, as do I, that some weapons were removed to Syria. But, so what?

The real war is upon us. It was going on for a long time. One could even say that it started with the assassination of presidential candidate Robert Kennedy in 1968, by Sirhan Sirhan, who was a Palestinian. Or the slaughter of the Israeli athletes in Munich. Or the many hijackings and bombings of the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s. But there can be no doubt that the events of 9/11 focused the attention of the President.

I think a lot of very high-level strategy was goosed up. Plans were dusted off from the shelves of the war colleges and the chiefs of staff. It did not escape notice that muslims were waging war in diverse places. It didn't take a genius to see that the middle east was the center of gravity. We needed to be there.

Look at the map. Iranian leaders have been threatening to wage their own war against Israel (and us, the Great Satan) for a long time. Isn't it better to have forces arrayed against them on the east and the west. Do you think we are building air bases in Iraq so we can fly out some oil for Bush and Chaney? We are rotating our troops through combat zones, training them and revising our Air-Land Battle Doctrine, and refining our tactics, procedures, and weapons.

Is this war is going to go nuclear? IF NOT, then we had better secure our forward positions while we can.

I apologize for wandering so far off thread.

Posted by: texan at August 17, 2005 7:46 PM

The people who talk glibly about expelling people many of whom were born in Britain fail to understand that the "high" level of unemployment among Muslim youths - amounting to about 22% - mean that 78% are gainfully employed and paying tax. The percentage rises in the older age classes. Timbo and the rest, learn to read statistics before you open your mouths. And considering the enormous amount of Muslim doctors, civil servants, schoolteachers, etc., are you willing to pay the enormous amount of tax it would take, from an impoverished tax base, to train or find replacements? Timbo, you call it idealism; I call it something else. And it seems clear to me that while many of us on this site oppose Islam, you just delight in the thought of causing discomfort to individual Muslims.

As for Ken Livingstone, what nobody seems to have noticed is his notorious anti-Hebraism. What he calls "Zionism" makes him froth at the mouth, and, as with all Jew-haters, distorts his judgement and blinds his sight.

Posted by: Paolo at August 17, 2005 8:05 PM

Paolo:

"78% are gainfully employed and paying tax."

Nonsense.

60 % out of these 78% you mention are breeders and their offspring.

In real terms there is a negative return and with the enormous cost of 'monitoring', (policing) and the jails and courts full of Mohammedan crim's you'll find that economic benefits to us are none-existent.

Posted by: Terminator at August 17, 2005 10:04 PM

freddiethemask-

So you are now a "British white Muslim convert to Islam"?

Or are you the new name for one of the trolls so common here with this exact same vein of argumentation and thinly-veiled concerns as you evince?

"King Tolerance", Jr.? "ia786" the Second?

The b.s. still filters through.

Just tell the truth, you guys.

You're Muslim.

You are in favor of Islam dominating the world.

The rest is just taqiyya icing on the crappy cake of the Koran.

I don't buy a word you say, having learned, as Ernest Hemingway put it, to trust my "bullsh*t detector".

Feed not the trolling ones.

Posted by: BigSleep at August 17, 2005 10:13 PM

learn to read statistics before you open your mouths

I agree. Time, apparently, to trot out those damn statistics again.

http://www.islamic.co.uk/statistics/disadvantage.asp

On the whole, and relative to any other religious group, Muslims are a horrendous economic burden to British society. Does that mean we should start deporting them? In my view, no (at least not on economic grounds), but there can be no argument that the extraordinarily generous benefits system in the UK serves as a magnet and a crutch for those who have no inclination to work or otherwise become productive members of the community. Not to mention all of the free time it offers beneficiaries to spread Dawa, preach and teach violence against infidels, recruit jihadists, and generally undermine the fabric of British society.

Posted by: Charles Martel at August 18, 2005 4:40 AM

There is more to a nation than economics & money heading into the Chancellors coffers.

I reject economic reasons for not considering the mass evacuation of Muslims from the UK -
we did this before when Roman Catholics attempted to blow up Parliament.

The economic consequences were not considered important at all.

Freddie - its difficult to exchange views with someone who is apparently hiding their true self & beliefs. If you are a Muslim, please say so. I am sure that it will make the exchanges more interesting.

I know it may be difficult for you to comprehend, but the posters here are not afraid of open & frank exchanges of views, beliefs & opinions that they hold dear. Are you?

Posted by: albion at August 18, 2005 6:03 AM

There are three corrupting influences in British society which will seriously hamper the UKs ability to rid itself of its fifth column of jihadists. First, are its asylum and immigration policies which, for the most part, have been surrendered to Eurabia via membership in the EU and associated treaties. Second, is its benefits system which as I have pointed out above, provides a fertile breeding ground for Muslim miscreants. Finally, the UK is the global epicenter for the Human Rights Racket -- Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, et al -- which have a death wish for any society that seeks to protect itself from a destructive fifth column via tougher immigration or policing laws.

WRT benefits, British society is so addicted to socialism -- or the "third way" as New Labour prefers to call it -- that I don't hold out any hope of the system being curtailed or rationalised in the forseeable future. It's a tragedy and a travesty because just as the West's consumption of oil is financing the international jihad, the dole is being exploited to support Dawa and jihad within Britain.

Posted by: Charles Martel at August 18, 2005 7:00 AM

Paolo:
Yes, I will gladly pay more tax now because it will be more cost effective for the nation in the long run.

Just how much do you think a "New English Civil War" is going to cost?, or are you one of those people that think that the "reserved English" would not be capable of such a thing in these postmodernist times? I guess niether of us know the answer to that one - & are unlikely to do so until a serious mass attack involving thousands of deaths on English soil. We know they are capable of it, we know that given the opportunity they will bring this to fruition.

Taking mass evacuation off the table gives the enemy hope & would of course be seen as another example of Western weakness.

I do not believe that Islam is compatible with English Democracy.

I truly believe that Islams presence here is a danger to our democracy & way of life.

Money & infrastructure do not come into the argument as far as I am concerned, niether does racism or any branch of rightwing politics.

Its common sense to remove a potentially lethal enemy from your territory.

Senator Tancredo has the right idea - take nothing off the table, keep them guessing as to your response to further mass atrocities.

The Doctors, Civil Servant & Schoolteacher idea does not hold any water for me, there are fundamentally more inportant things to a nation than its economics & infrastructure. After WWII, we had great skill shortages & we paid dearly for it in terms of reconstruction - but we got there, under our own steam without compromising the Nation for future generations....(Until the birth of, in my opinion, the twin evils - PC & Multiculturalism)

Posted by: albion at August 18, 2005 9:59 AM

texan:

Great post. Not sure Bush and Blair (and their advisors) saw Iraq as simply geo-strategic positioning in advance of a greater conflict, but a pre-emptive bid to stave one off if at all possible. May we live long and healthy enough to find out.

The great difficulty is that "pre-war" conditions that currently prevail is that, like in the 1930s, far too few people -- politicians, beaurocrats, academics, journalists and the general public -- can connect the dots. Who wants to believe that we are living in times that are very similar to the run-ups to the previous World Wars. But what's different this time out other than that the aggrieved parties are non-Europeans who are united by the same quasi-religious ideology. I think Paul Berman is on the money when he theorizes that the enlightened, Western liberal mind that just wants everybody to get along and prosper just cannot contemplate the illiberal nihilist mindset that foments jihad.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 18, 2005 10:21 AM

albion - if you cant read dont thank a teacher. i have already made my position as a fundamentalist christian perfectly clear. now if you dont believe me then that is your problem. now if im saying that we have no right to repatriate all muslims in this country after letting them in and if im saying we ought not to nuke mecca (as i read one half wit on this site suggesting) as a solution to the "islam crisis", are you saying this is not a fundamentally christian position? if so i suggest you go away and do some homework
paolo you are right - the FACT is muslims put more into gordon browns piggy bank than they take out. bigsleep you seem an extremely silly person. the only person who will ever "dominate this world" will be the lord jesus christ when he comes back to set up his everlasting kingdom. (although corporate americas having a damn good crack at it as we speak)

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 18, 2005 10:43 AM

Freddie:

Please point me to the Office of National Statistics website where your claims of Muslim tax generation into the UK Exchequor can be examined.

It deserves scrutiny.

Security costs in London alone because of Islamist terror are approaching £500,000 extra per day since the awful events of 7/7.

I am not floating any particular boat with regards to mass evacuation - but it would be interesting to see the figures for damage caused in an all out attack on the UK by the 3,000 Jihadis with British Pasports (conservative figure & estimate).

Imagine, all 3,000 getting their Go Codes on the same day - what price to rebuild a nation then? Imagine the damage to infrastructure, the mass panic - the very substance & foundation of the Nation crumbling under a massive, sustained attack.

Every civilised defence option should be on the table - & mass evacuation of Muslims must be one plan. I am not interested in genocide, mass murder or any inhumane option.

Repatriating Muslims to the much vaunted "Muslim Lands" would be a kindness. I cannot imagine the horror of living under Sharia Law as a Westerner - so it must be terrible for Muslims living in the West to experience the freedom & self determination of most Western cultures..

I have no idea what a fundamentalist Christian is - me being an English Heathen & nature worshipping Pagan.

Posted by: albion at August 18, 2005 11:09 AM

excuse me roxane but the israelis in gaza were not welcomed in as immigrants, they imposed themselves there. do not say this is an anti jewish statement because it is not!
timbo - "poor englishmen beaten up by pak thugs for no reason" and no pakistani has ever been beaten up by english bastards for no reason? "7/7 outrage is worst attack on london since ww2" how many people have been killed in our country since ww2 because of terror? must run to thousands. can you work out the percentage as to how many were killed by muslim terror?
albion ive asked this before. you said islam and democracy are incompatible. so why have we spilled the blood of thousands to impose it on iraq? terminator thinks im a lefty looney twit, bigsleep thinks im a mask, a troll (thats not even human is it?) and a muslim. i am certainly left wing, perhaps because im poor

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 18, 2005 11:51 AM

Freddie:
English bastards? Mmm. A telling comment as to your true identity, whatever it is.

You have made a statement here with regards to the amount of tax Muslims generate into the UK Exchequor.

Please substantiate these statements or withdraw them. I for one can find no demographic break down for such figures on any ONS website.

Democracy, by its very nature, is the work of man run by the laws of man. Islam does not recognise the law of man as having the same weight in the pecking order of life as Sharia Law.

You cannot have one section of any modern democratic society that adheres to the law of Allah via a book based on the Arab peninsula in the 7th century whilst the rest of us live to the law of the land - in my case English Law.

That is why I believe that Islam is not compatible with democracy.

I think thats a reasonable answer, now, please, with respect, where is yours?

Posted by: albion at August 18, 2005 12:04 PM

thats just it albion - you ARE interested in inhumane options if you are proposing repatriation of muslims to "much vaunted muslim lands" if you have no idea what a fundamentalist christian is then start reading the new testament. itll be a much better defence against islam than anything youll read in here thats for sure. i mean my impression is that people who come on site (bearing in mind ive only been doing it for a few days) have basically no idea what to do about the problem of islam. they dont seem to understand that islam is in total crisis. sadly we as christians are suffering terribly in egypt in pakistan saudi arabia iran. i believe in speaking openly with muslims which i do, hopefully in an attitude of love but all you get in here is mouthing off, and despising muslims

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 18, 2005 12:16 PM

"with respect" albion i have not said that islam is compatible with democracy, i asked you why we are trying to impose it on what is by all accounts, a muslim country. (although it was christian before it was muslim, christians have been there since the year dot) is it because we can control them better
albion i dont know what an ons website is - i read the internet (courtesy of the royal mail learning for all scheme), magazines and newspapers. i notice you have not been able to produce proof contrary to my assertion

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 18, 2005 12:39 PM

The poster who signs in as "Freddy the freeloader:"

..."but the israelis in gaza were not welcomed in as immigrants, they imposed themselves there. do not say this is an anti jewish statement because it is not!"

Judea and Samaria are the ancestral homelands of the Jews.
The poster, "Freddy", is either clueless about history or he pursues a Mohammedan agenda in the guise of "Christian fundamentalism"

To claim that Jews "imposed" themselves there is Mohammedan propaganda and very much anti jewish.

Posted by: Terminator at August 18, 2005 1:46 PM

freddie:

Vis Gaza, well, I guess there are some disadvantages to being on the losing side of three wars of aggression, aren't there?

The history of the Holy Land is a long and tortuous one. The non-Jews of the region would have you believe that every last Jew died or left after the Roman Empire conquered it, but that's a gross fallacy. Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed and one other major urban area were always majority Jewish. They would also have you believe that everyone who lays claim to Palestinian citizenry is the descendant of people who inhabited the area continually since time immemorial, but that's not true either. And it is equally untrue to claim that things were nice and peaceful there until Jews from Eastern Europe started buying up and reclaiming destitute lands in the late 1800s, or that the "intifadas" are only about the "occupied territories", but this is also untrue.

Most "Arab" Christians and Muslims hate Jews because they resolutely refused to convert and always have.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 18, 2005 1:48 PM

water dragon/terminator, so are you saying the israeli settlers WERE welcomed in as immigrants to gaza? if youre not saying that then why argue with me. terminator you know very little indeed. the word "jew" refers to people of the southern kingdom (after the reign of solomon) not to the northern kingdom of the ten tribes (the capital of which was samaria)the whereabouts of whose people noone knows. the new testament makes it clear that the jews have no dealings with the samaritans (john 4:9). if you read your bible you would know more, but youre not interested in what God says, only in your own fatuous notions of how the world should be. water dragon have i made any of the claims you talk about have i? no? then why cast them up to me? why not just address the issues i raise, if you can. btw terminator check out my latest posts on the pakistan incident. youll just love it, i promise!

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 18, 2005 3:03 PM

What I'm saying freddie, is who cares if they weren't welcomed by the non-Jews who claim they and they alone are native Gazans. I don't know how old you are, but I'll hazard a guess that I have a few years on you and remember a time when the locals weren't so hostile, the days before Palestinianism took root, and Bedouins flocked to Israel to enjoy the benefits of an improved economy and the rule of law, which was pretty much unknown to them. After 45 years of being heavily propagandised from the cradle by their leaders into believing that the Jews are why 500 million Arabs live in misery and squalor, there are only a few who will acknowledge that history publicly. Check out Brigette Gabriel's website. She's actually a Lebanese Christian, but she will confirm the heavy indoctrination vs the reality and who the real malevolent actors are in the Middle East. So will Walid Shoebat, a Palestinian American who converted left behind his terrorist roots and converted to Christianity. See his website. And lastly, also check out Nonie Derwish's website. She herself is a Gazian who converted to Christianity and supports Israel.

Many of the people who claim an unbroken, longstanding connection have pretty questionable claims to citizenry themselves, including the late and unlamented Yasser Arafat who was born in Cairo and only spent a few years of his life in Jerusalem after his mother died.

When the UNHCR counted "Arab refugees" after Israel was granted statehood, they counted people with as few as two years' residency as displaced persons, even if they only moved back to where they came from in the first place.

So, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not off-topic. You, however, are perhaps underinformed or misinformed.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 18, 2005 4:03 PM

water im not arguing with you about this and im too tired to look up the websites you suggest. i was only saying it would be very wrong to repatriate all muslims from the uk, since they were welcomed here. roxane, i think it was said oh well what about the forced removal of israeli setlers from gaza. im saying what is the relationship between the two

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 18, 2005 4:23 PM

Freeloader:

."..tired to look up the websites you suggest. i was only saying it would be very wrong to repatriate all muslims from the uk, since they were welcomed here. .."

Just what makes you believe that the sons of Allah were "welcomed" in your country?

This nonsense is repeated ad nauseam in France, Germany, Holland, Italy: This is absolute rubbish!

Yes, perhaps 35 years ago western countries opened up, forgetting their history, believing Mohammedans would integrate and allowed Muslims to settle, the 'cheap labor' story.

The real invasion came in the last 10 - 15 years, after the economic boom of the seventies, and attracted by welfare and benefits. "Freeloaders" in the true sense of the word. With the intention to out-breed us.

They make no beef about it.

Isn't Habib Bourgiba, the first prime-minister of Algeria, on record for stating "We will conquer your countries with the bellies of our women?"

Posted by: Terminator at August 18, 2005 4:39 PM

terminator as to the welcome given to muslims, first you say "absolute rubbish" then you say "yes perhaps". the fact is theyre here. successive elected governments allowed them here on the basis they could stay here. if that was wrong and shortsighted then that is our fault.(well who else can we blame) if we are what we claim to be ie honourable and civilised, then we will have to live with it. if its causing a problem then we will have to sort it out. that will only come about through patience commitment understanding outreach persuasion determination.
knee jerk reactions will not do. as for "the economic boom of the seventies" what a joke. that was the decade this country had to go cap in hand on all fours to the imf just to survive

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 18, 2005 5:20 PM

To correct myself:

The quote

"We will conquer Europe with the bellies of our women" stems from Boumedienne, not Habib Bourgiba.

As for "Freeloader":

""yes perhaps". the fact is theyre here. "

Freddy is not so generous when it comes to Jews and Israel.

Israel is a miracle and its people made the desert green. An ancient language was brought to life (again) and Israel is a reality, in spite of 4 wars and being surrounded by 500 million hateful Arabs who want to destroy it.

Israel is a reality. Jews are there to stay. And the 'Palestinians" are an invention. They are Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians and Lebanese, Arafats pet-terrorists, used and abused, instead of educating their children they turn them into hateful zombies.

And for people like Freddy, its always "the Jooooozzzzz...."

Get real Freddy!

Mohammedans were never welcomed to any place in Europe.

Neither are they welcome in Australia. But they are coming in ever larger numbers. They contribute nothing, but they demand and demand. The invasion is real and their intention to out-breed us is rarely denied.

1400 years of Jihad conquest should open the eyes of even the most blue-eyed PC-infected Westerner.
Unfortunately the majority still believes we can somehow civilize the last unwashed hordes, the primitive savages and integrate them into civil society.

It is past the experimental stage. You want to be a Dhimmi, Freddy?

Don't create arguments for arguments sake, Freddy. If you are Christian, your future under Sharia will look bleak.

There are many sura's in the Koran that call for the killing of Jews. Strangely, many Jews choose to ignore the Koran and the hatred that it contains.

I don't.
But that doesn't seem to worry you, Freddy. you are mostly concerned that Islamic parasites are well treated by your country. Or any other country that they choose to invade.

Why?

Posted by: Terminator at August 18, 2005 8:14 PM

Freddy -

Forgive my late reply - I live in Australia.

(My mother and father are British and I lived in England for 26 years and have a British passport - so let me off for speaking as an Englishman).

"Thousands" have not died in terrorist incidents in England. 2,000 (I think) died due to the troubles in Northern Ireland. The great majority of these deaths did not occur on the mainland. The IRA (INLA etc.) were actually fighting because they wanted to lose their "British" identity. The Jihadists are completely different, they actually want to change British identity.

I think you have a lack of immagination and foresight as to the Islamist threat. 20 years ago anybody that said that the Pakistani community would start bombing us and preaching discord would have been judged as an extremist bigot. Now we see they were right. What we are saying now, is that by 2025 there will probably be attacks on us from this hostile community that rival America's 9/11. And why not? Why take the risk with having them here?

Why not make the UK more Christian, instead of less Christian.

I too am a practicing Christian, which stops me from talking about genocide or revenge killings, however, just because I am a Christian does not mean I become a spineless apologist for those who defame Christianity. I would gladly like to see two dark skinned Christians entering the country for every Muslim that is shown the door. Racism and hate do not enter into it - it's more like a heartfelf concern for our future.

Depart from me, you evildoers,For I will keep the commandments of my God!

Psalm 119:115 (New King James Version)

Be careful not to have any man or woman or family or group among you whose heart turns away from the Lord our God today to go and worship the gods of those nations. Do not let there be a root among you giving poison fruit and bad-tasting plants.

Deuteronomy 29:18

And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

Mark 3:24

Posted by: Timbo at August 18, 2005 9:57 PM

Fiendish Freddie-

How on earth can you be a "fundamentalist christian" and have a problem with the Jews being back in Israel?

Try reading your Bible!

Perhaps Bigsleep is right. Somehow you don't add up.

Posted by: Timbo at August 18, 2005 10:23 PM

Freddie is unmasked. Pay attention to his writing style when he gets going and forgets to keep the mask up. Oh, Moderator. . .

In the meantime, Freddie, I notice that you consider yourself to be a fundamentalist Christian, with some kind of expertise in the tribes of Israel.

Do not take us to task for using the term Jews to refer to Israelites, regardless of tribe. The generic term "jews" is perfectly good enough for all our communication purposes, unless and until we need to discuss individual tribes and what happened to them.

So, in your experience, have you considered that the "lost" tribes are actually among us today? Does not your Bible tell you that the tribe of Dan would serve as a marker for all the tribes? Have you looked at a map of Europe? Do you see the Danube River? Gdansk? Denmark? Danzig? How many places can you find that are marked by the tribe of Dan?

Would it surprise you that some of that blood of Jacob went to England and then to the United States? Did you know that recent DNA testing has shown that Thomas Jefferson (the author of our Declaration of Independence, and the third president of the United States), had some genes of middle eastern origin? Did you know that a sizable percentage of the Mexican population has distinctly jewish ancestry, discovered by recent DNA studies? In your hatred of the "West" (oh, spare me, don't bother to deny it) you certainly can vouch that many jews converted to Catholicism in Spain, can't you? And you do know that Spain was an imperial power much greater than the United States (again, please, don't bother), conquering Mexico and Central and most of South America, spreading jewish blood all over the New World?

Doesn't your Bible say that the descendants of Jacob would be a "great nation" and "a company of nations"? Could that be the United States and the British Commonwealth? Could it be that history is converging in a way that even YOU didn't know was possible? Could it be that many American and British people are going to find that they have jewish blood, and that America and the British Commonwealth are really what your Bible calls the "chosen people"?

No? Oh, well. I guess the Bible was referring to Bangladesh and Pan-Arabia. And I guess the war is just about oil. And American imperialism and white racist superiority. And everyone should just make nice 'cause Muhammad wasn't a pedophile after all and muslims aren't out to kill us. OK, Back to the TV.

Posted by: texan at August 19, 2005 12:53 AM

Tex, please tell me you do not exclude the actual (real) Jews in Israel today in this grand view of yours. If you think they're some kind of impostors, then I am going to be disappointed in you.

Christian fundamentalists are always Zionists, so I really don't understand this guy Freddie at all.

Posted by: Timbo at August 19, 2005 3:21 AM

Greetings Freddie:

You have made a statement here with regards to the amount of tax Muslims generate into the UK Exchequor.

Please substantiate these statements or withdraw them. I for one can find no demographic break down for such figures on any ONS (Office of National Statistics) website.

Your assertion that Muslims pay more tax into the Exchequor than they take out cannot be verified - therefore I think it is fair to ask why you made such a statement?

I am an Englishman Freddie, & genocide & inhumane treatment of ayone is not on any agenda I subscribe to. Mass evacuation, as I have said, is a sensible option to seperate two incompatible peoples (Muslims & non - Muslims).

Surely, you are not syaing that Muslims currently in the UK would not be happier being Governed by the Law of Allah, Sharia Law?

As I could never live under what I consider to be an Islamic fascist system of Governance, it must work the other way round. Democracy is "apostasy" to Muslims - enough have said it in the UK for me to actually believe what they are saying.

Iraq? Well, will we ever really know the wjole story? One thing is for sure, the War for Oil theory just does not stack up.(RE: Texan & Hughs excellent earlier posts)

No one here minds debating with you Freddie,
but do the community the courtesy of knowing who you really are. Masks are pointless to those who have nothing to hide.

Posted by: albion at August 19, 2005 4:47 AM

Freddie Flearider,

."..tired to look up the websites you suggest. i was only saying it would be very wrong to repatriate all muslims from the uk, since they were welcomed here. .."

Welcomed by whom exactly?

By the ruling and intellectual, so called, “elites”?
Absolutely!
By the majority of the people?
Absolutely not!

And you Freddie Flearider are either a terminal idiot, or an agenda-driven liar if you insist on sending out such tripe.

Terminator,

You said to Flearider:
If you are Christian, your future under Sharia will look bleak.

Not necessarily, Terminator. He could make a very comfortable living as an exemplary boot-licking dhimmi, spying on Jews and Christians and reporting the dissidents to his Mohammedan masters. You know, - a Quisling.

Posted by: thomas. h at August 19, 2005 9:31 AM

Timbo:

I'm not so sure that all Christian fundamentalists are supporters of Israel. Certainly in my youth (I'm 53), there were many who were pretty hostile and contemptuous towards Jews. On a different thread (the one recent one about Ken Livingstone), f-t-f wrote this:

"apostate and christ-rejecting israel, of course, does not allow christian jews or jewish christians to become citizens of israel. "

Presumably, f-t-f is of that particular strain of fundamentalist Christians that I recall who loathe Jews because they have not accepted Christ's divinity -- the fundamental difference between Jews and Christians.

I know not a lot about the fundamentalists who support Israel, so I can't speak as to their motivations, but having had one "born again" try to convert me (I'm a secular Jew), I gather at least one motive some of them have is to see the prophesies of the End Days fulfilled and that requires the return of Christ-accepting Jews to the Holy Land.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 19, 2005 10:02 AM

actually, it was the thread about Pakistan and Christians were f-t-f wrote the above.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 19, 2005 10:45 AM

tell you what albion - why dont we exchange phone numbers - you come up to glasgow (idont have a car) you can visit me in my bed sit, you will be most welcome to attend my church ( i worship at gospel hall, avenuepark street, maryhill, glasgow.) actually why dont you come up in november, im preaching one sunday then. who knows you might even get saved, pagan.
yes water dragon i thought after i mentioned the facts of the law of return that i might be accused of loathing jews - what a dreadful lie! (dont tell me youre playing the victim as well) texan - of course the twelve tribes are among us well they certainly didnt emigrate to mars did they?but noone knows for sure where btw dont lecture me on the convergence of history you are not talking to an idiot and i know what the holy scriptures teach concerning it. also you would do well to spend more time with the holy word than with plain truth magazine, armstrongist.
thomas they were welcomed by the elected government which in a democracy represents the people, or is this concept unknown to you?
TIMBO now youre just plain lying - where did i say i had a problem with jews being back in israel????? the thing is in accordance with the purposes of God in the world, and i trust his purposes.
terminator your ignorance is unparalled. i have been saved by sovereign grace that means my future is assured. it will be just as glorious with or without sharia, as ill be forever with the Lord (as if satan could undo the cross work of our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ). you also need to be saved. you have no defence against the work of satan (eg islam) unless you are saved. you are already in the camp of satan, along with the muslims if you are not saved. God forbid you should spend eternity in the lake of fire well you ll have plenty of muslims to argue with there.
timbo - as for big sleep he wouldnt know how to add anything up
incidentally you are all welcome to my church not just albion btw albion do you like footy? perhaps we could go to a game when you come up

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 19, 2005 2:52 PM

tell me timbo, as a "practising christian", you will, like me, hate islam. (it is a blasphemous contoction of demons, right?) but do you not also love muslims? (remember please the word of the lord in matthew 5:44, 45) if like me you do love muslims, or try your very best to, will you not join with me as a fellow christian and condemn the virulent abuse directed at thes folk by many people on this site? will you join with me in prayer for muslims every day?
i believe most people on this site have no idea how evil islam is. they prattle on about it at great length but do not understand where it comes from i mean some of them have even thought up silly little baby talk names for muslims like muzzie or muzzle, displaying i fear the true level theyre on. islam is perhaps satans master plan to keep folk from christ. being people of the world, lots of folk on this site appear to be terrified of losing what they have if they come under islam, not interested in what they will gain if they put themselves under christ.

earlier you seemed to imply i was a "spineless apologist for islam" that i find very sad, given the clear anti islam message i have consistently put out. it also seems to me that all the ranting right wingers in here have no idea what to do about the islam problem, for all their diatribes. there are things that can be done - dedicated prayer, obedience to the lord, demonstration of love and outreach to all muslims, not just the nice ones.
only christ rejectors will say i have lost touch with reality here. noone who has a home in heaven will argue with me on this. "for the dominion is the lords: he is the governor among the nations" psalm 22: 29.
BTW ALBION not a good idea to exchange numbers i think what do you suggest for a meet? assuming youve nothing to hide albion

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 19, 2005 4:48 PM

Timbo, I certainly didn't mean to exclude any "actual" Jews from anything. They were an implied given in my post. Also, I do not claim any authorship of a "grand vision" or anything else, as I heard about something like that years and years ago. It is only lately that the DNA material made me think of it again. Apparently, though, Freddie seems to know a source for the overall theory. I'll have to google his references and see. The DNA information comes from local media. It was particularly fascinating to me, because of the illegal alien problem we have here in Texas, and the apparent discovery that many Mexicans have Jewish blood. There are one or two DNA laboratories here in the States that specialize in the geographic mapping of a person's genes. It has been a service that a lot of blacks have used to find their African origins.

If the muslims ever try to re-institute the "final solution" (and I have no doubt that they would if they could) there will be a lot of people who never would have guessed they are in the "solution set".

In any event, the killers have made Jews of all of us now.

Posted by: texan at August 19, 2005 5:06 PM

FF -

I think the 10 commandments are a sound basis for any Christian. In which case we should not steal from Muslims (i.e.: evict them from the UK/Australia without proper financial compensation) nor should we kill (execute) any, even those guilty of murder. However within the 10 commandments I see nothing that would stop us from, as humanely as possible, repatriating them.

Love thy enemy - sure! Did Jesus love the moneylenders in the temple? Sure He did. Did he smash up their tables and kick them out? Sure He did.

Posted by: Timbo at August 20, 2005 12:35 AM

Freddy Freeloader sez:

"terminator your ignorance is unparalled. i have been saved by sovereign grace that means my future is assured. it will be just as glorious with or without sharia, as ill be forever with the Lord (as if satan could undo the cross work of our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ). you also need to be saved. you have no defence against the work of satan (eg islam) unless you are saved. you are already in the camp of satan, along with the muslims if you are not saved. God forbid you should spend eternity in the lake of fire well you ll have plenty of muslims to argue with there.
timbo - as for big sleep he wouldnt know how to add anything up..."

Terminator sez:

Sorry, Freddy. Can't make any sense of that. On a previous post you described yourself as "poor"- did you mean intellectually challenged?

Posted by: Terminator at August 20, 2005 2:57 AM

timbo - "i think the 10 commandments are a sound basis for any christian" but there is nothing in them which says we should love our enemies. also the old testament which you like to quote from clearly says murderers should be executed. also your earlier quote from deuteronomy was most inappropriate - it does not apply to the present day - if it does, then it can only apply to the church in the matter of discipline, not to countries. as for jesus kicking thieves out of the temple, bear in mind he is god not sinners like us.
you have a problem. you do not know how to "rightly divide the word of truth". if you do not understand what that means, then get yourself to your local fundamentalist church. if you were debating the faith with any intelligent muslim, he would have you for breakfast. get it sorted. incidentally you have not responded to my plea for prayer for muslims, which is tragic. if you are saved then why should you not enthusiastically hope that they should be.

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 20, 2005 12:05 PM

no terminator, i did not. it would appear that this is something else we dont have in common

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 20, 2005 6:28 PM

Freddie -

I wrote a long reply then I lost it all. Alas, I have a heavy heart now and don't want to write it all out again.

Very quickly....

I never said love thy enemy was in the 10 commandments!

"if you were debating the faith with any intelligent muslim, he would have you for breakfast." Oh come now, Freddie, wishful thinking or what? I would love to debate with an honest and well informed Muslim - I never have.
Please direct me to an Islamic site where they deal with tough and genuine questions?
The Muslims we get here certainly can't be called "intelligent". They always vanish after a few hard questions or they resort to mouthing off mindless Jihadist rhetoric when it becomes clear they are out of their depth.

Yes you are a kindly man of God, but being a Christian isn't about being a doormat. You can say "no, this is wrong, this is evil, please leave". You can!

Forgive me, my friend, I am unhappy about waiting around for an English 9/11. It's going to happen. 7/7 was just them putting their toe in the water.

I love fellow Christians too much to wait around for their slaughter at the hands of a community you are so quick to defend.

"prayer for muslims", yeah, why not? I will include them along with Satanists, Nazis and rapists - they all need God's help don't they?

Posted by: Timbo at August 21, 2005 6:22 AM

Freddie -

I wrote a long reply then I lost it all. Alas, I have a heavy heart now and don't want to write it all out again.

Very quickly....

I never said love thy enemy was in the 10 commandments!

"if you were debating the faith with any intelligent muslim, he would have you for breakfast." Oh come now, Freddie, wishful thinking or what? I would love to debate with an honest and well informed Muslim - I never have.
Please direct me to an Islamic site where they deal with tough and genuine questions?
The Muslims we get here certainly can't be called "intelligent". They always vanish after a few hard questions or they resort to mouthing off mindless Jihadist rhetoric when it becomes clear they are out of their depth.

Yes you are a kindly man of God, but being a Christian isn't about being a doormat. You can say "no, this is wrong, this is evil, please leave". You can!

Forgive me, my friend, I am unhappy about waiting around for an English 9/11. It's going to happen. 7/7 was just them putting their toe in the water.

I love fellow Christians too much to wait around for their slaughter at the hands of a community you are so quick to defend.

"prayer for muslims", yeah, why not? I will include them along with Satanists, Nazis and rapists - they all need God's help don't they?

Posted by: Timbo at August 21, 2005 6:23 AM