| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
A superb bit of anti-dhimmitude from Rod Liddle in The Spectator (thanks to Alistair):
Red Cross officials have been meeting in Switzerland to decide upon a new logo — and presumably, by implication, name — for their fine organisation. The logo in question is the red cross. And the problem with the cross is that it enrages Muslims. In the theatre of war, when most combatants see the red cross, they put their weapons down. Muslim combatants, though, have a tendency to pick theirs up and start shooting with even greater avidity. In recent years we have seen the emergence of the Red Crescent, which accords with Muslim sensibilities. We have also seen the Israeli equivalent, which is advertised by a red Star of David. Muslims shoot at that one, too, with unquenchable fervour. It is wholly understandable, given this profusion of competing icons, that the Red Cross, or whatever they will henceforth call themselves, should seek a symbol which is not immediately redolent of either an oppressive infidel religion or the Zionist cockroaches of Israel. They want a secular, neutral symbol and have hit upon the idea of a red ‘crystal’, or diamond. That shouldn’t offend anyone, should it? It’s what Jesus would have wanted.I have heard no reports of Christian or Jewish combatants firing on Red Crescent vehicles. Our loathing of whatever enemy we are up against, it seems to me, is less visceral and far less rooted in notions of certainty. We are rather less inclined, these days, to wish hell upon an entire people. The totalitarian flavour of Islam — the unshakeable belief in its own rectitude and a terrible paranoia directed towards serried ranks of enemies, real and imagined — makes the thought of firing on an ambulance carrying wounded infidel soldiers at least permissible and quite possibly, according to Islam’s more rigorous disciples, a beholden duty. And this is where I believe our Prime Minister has got it the wrong way around: it is the core ideology of Islam that is the problem, not a handful of incendiary preachers. But maybe he’s beginning to realise that right now.
According to the Daily Telegraph, a Muslim barrister who ‘advises’ the Prime Minister has said that Mr Blair is the victim of a sinister conspiracy between the Freemasons and the Jews, who control him and took us to war in Iraq. Ahmad Thomson, from the Muslim Association of Lawyers, has previously denied that six million Jews died in the Holocaust: that’s a ‘big lie’, he avers. There are quite a few people who think along similar lines to Mr Thomson, particularly in the United States. Mr Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber, was one such. These people call the US government ZOG — the Zionist Occupation Government — and they tend to have rather too many canisters of weedkiller in their basements. You might have heard similar sentiments from David Icke, too, although David believes that it is giant lizards rather than Jews pulling the strings. My point is that these people are usually lumped together under the generic heading of ‘nutters’. And sometimes ‘psychos,’ ‘weirdoes’, ‘loonies’, etc. But in Britain you can believe such paranoid, irrational gibberish and not merely be tolerated and excused the eponym ‘barking madman’ but actually be invited to divulge your stupidity to the Prime Minister personally. Because you are a Muslim and such poisonous paranoia is sort of expected from you, instead of being sectioned and maybe having a spot of ECT, you get to have your fantasies indulged.
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at September 16, 2005 7:10 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Mr. Black will discuss how partnerships existed between Hitler the Arab leadership in the Mid-East and how the Farhud (violent dispossession) was to the Sephardim of Iraq, what Kristallnacht was to the Jews of Germany and Austria. Mr. Shelomo Alfassa, Executive Director of the ISFSP will be in attendance at the Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust and will make a declaration on behalf of the Sephardic community. In a prepared statement Mr. Alfassa said:
"Mr. Black's research brings to the table a major addition to the knowledge base of Sephardim in the Holocaust. While many know of the devastating effects of the Holocaust against the Sephardim, most tend to think solely of Greek Jewry which suffered massive loses. What many do not know is that the Nazi's hand dipped well into Arab lands including Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia, and now we can see clearly-Iraq. This is timely information, for the world community can now recognize that when the Nazi regime was destroyed, the paradigm they created continued, as it does today throughout Arab lands."
http://isfsp.org/la.html
There`s a host of material out there that contradicts Blair`s Muslim Advisor. Once again the lying is at the fore. What better evidence than the evil book itself whivh calls for the anhilation of Jews.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 16, 2005 7:38 AM
"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil".
Thomas Mann
Posted by: alliswell at September 16, 2005 7:38 AM
The Mufti and the Führer
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html
at September 16, 2005 7:40 AM
I have heard of Israelis firing on Red Crescent vehicles and arresting occupants and drivers who were smuggling weapons inside. Smuggling weapons in Red Crescent vehicles is quite common. Perhaps, the Moslem sensibilities are offended because Bibles are allegedly being smuggled in Red Cross vehicles. Weapons for Jihad is sharia. Apostasy, haram. What else is there to understand? Dhimmi of the world, unite!
Posted by: David England at September 16, 2005 8:03 AM
Baseball players have been sporting Red Crosses for hurricane relief. After seeing a few, it also occurred to me that the symbol could not be long for this world in the age of "One nation under-- ahem, well, heh, heh, you know..."
Say I have an idea for a symbol. Maybe a star. No? Oh that's right. While Red Crescent buses are being used to smuggle guns, I believe Israel's Red Magen David remains unrecognized by the International Red Cross. After all the Geneva Convention insists the symbol be a Red Cross. Nothing personal, folks. Step aside though while we let these Red Crescent trucks through...
at September 16, 2005 8:20 AM
First of all, this is one of the most poorly written articles I've seen on here to date. It begins with the Red Cross changing its logo "[to appease Muslims]" and ends with a paragraph about some adviser to Tony Blair!
"And the problem with the cross is that it enrages Muslims."
King corrects: The problem with the [Red]cross is that it enrages Muslim combatants.
"We have also seen the Israeli equivalent, which is advertised by a red Star of David."
King wonders: OK, then. How about a poorly written article about the Red Cross changing to appease the Jewish folks who may have been equally offended by a symbol that represents another religion? Perhaps it can begin with this issue and wrap it up with a chide about how Jews own hollywood! (a joke).
Posted by: KingTolerance
at September 16, 2005 8:28 AM
How about a smiley face? Everyone loves a smiley.
Posted by: JanuaryMan at September 16, 2005 8:31 AM
"How about a smiley face? Everyone loves a smiley."
*Smile*
________________________________________________
Rod Liddle, this guy makes me laugh. He humiliated himself a while back while trying to bash Muslims.
Lets learn more about this guy @:
http://www.ligali.org/rio/rod_liddle.htm
"Before his departure from editing BBC Radio 4’s Today programme in 2002, he justified the number of appearances BNP leader Nick Griffin had made on the programme by saying in the New Statesman that he believed ‘people with strong opinions should be given the chance of asserting themselves’, and that making mischief was his delight. However Liddle who is full aware that Griffin has a conviction for inciting race hatred and holocaust denial choose not to mention it in his justifications."
"Also in 2003, Liddle despicably described Africa as ‘the pit of hell’ in an article for the Guardian explaining why he felt no guilt over the social-economic inequality facing Africa and her children, he also wrote;
If Africa is hopeless, it is because it has been ruled for the past 60 or more years by a fantastic collection of conspicuously vile dictators; gangsters, incompetents, corrupt self-serving megalomaniacs, cretinous Marxist ideologues, half-wits, imbeciles, murderous tribal warlords and, plainly, the barking mad and the criminally insane. Some of them are still there, doing their whacko, hapless stuff, in Harare, Mogadishu etc.
Not content to malign every single African government he turns his vitriol upon African culture and writes;
And then there's the local culture. I asked a Unicef man what he thought Africa would have been like had there been no evil, exploitative whitey empires; no colonisation. "Umm, possibly China," he suggested. Yeah, right. Another Unicef man laughed at the China suggestion. "You need to look at the lack of a work ethic, at the way in which the concept of time as a linear, constraining thing, is totally absent..." and a whole host of other sociological concepts which are missing from the core of African societies."
________________________________________________
at September 16, 2005 8:42 AM
What next? Are we to see the flag of Switzerland being changed in an act of grand appeasement to accommodate these paranoid people?
The symbol of the Red cross should stay the same as it always was. In any case, it was founded as a Christian organisation - in Switzerland, which is a neutral country!
Posted by: Mark at September 16, 2005 8:46 AM
IA: "Rod Liddle, this guy makes me laugh. He humiliated himself a while back while trying to bash Muslims Lets learn more about this guy @:
http://www.ligali.org/rio/rod_liddle.htm"
King: Nice one, IA! Not only is the guy a crappy writer who cannot even keep an article cohesive from beginning to end, he is infamous for this sort of diatribe as it turns out. The fact that his article even appears here with the usual "READ IT ALL" fanfare is icing on this dubious cake Spencer is trying to bake.
Posted by: KingTolerance
at September 16, 2005 9:02 AM
What's the matter King? Bothered that someone has pointed out that, like such freedoms of speech and association, tolerance also has its limits?
Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 16, 2005 9:07 AM
King corrects: The problem with the [Red]cross is that it enrages Muslim combatants.
The cross, or symbol of any other religion enrages muslims. They go berserk. Many temples were destroyed by muslims.
In Indonesia, however non-muslims lose their heads.
at September 16, 2005 9:15 AM
I agree with everything Rod Liddle has said about Islam & Africa & quite a few other things as well. I also agree with him allowing all British democratic parties access to the Al BBCeera - something that is today sadly lacking now it has been turned into a Dhimmi Occupied Zone.
Al BBCeera. "And Nation Shall Speak Unto Nation"
(unless its Israel - it upsets the Muslims, y'know)
Like it or not, the BNP fulfill all criteria for standing in all UK Parliamentary Elections - the same standard that is rightly expected of all UK Political Parties. Again, we may not like what they stand for, & I for one believe that all Holocaust Deniers deserve full humiliation in a Court of Law.
Hopefully, Mr Ahmed Thompson will soon be asked, under English Law, to prove & justify his claims that the Holocaust "never happened".
Saying it like it is. We know Liddle must be on to something because of the inarticulate, enraged responses he extracts from his so called adversaries.
I dearly love the way in which those who disagree with him try to debunk him - it is hilarious. The usual "rage in an instant" response from Muslims - why don't they get some PR to advise them? Surely there are some of the faithful who have a Media Studies Degree?
The PM is going to get alot of mail with regards to Mr Ahmed Thompson, the guy who is sooo devout he cannot even watch the Discovery Channel to challenge his laughable Holocaust Denials.
Freemasons & the Jews! In a previous life, before he deleted himself from humanity, did he by any chance write for the X-Files?
Posted by: albion at September 16, 2005 9:15 AM
Waterdragon: "What's the matter King? Bothered that someone has pointed out that, like such freedoms of speech and association, tolerance also has its limits?"
King: Reading this article, I see no such associations, at all, about tolerance or freedom of speech. In fact, the article conveniently glosses over the Red Star of David issue knowing fully well that this symbol was created for the exact same purposes as the Red Crescent. Being a Jew, I would think you'd be aware of this little "secret." Alas, your hatred for Islam supercedes your ability to read.
leavingleft: "The cross, or symbol of any other religion enrages muslims. They go berserk."
King: Have you ever wondered why it may be that SOME Muslims take such an aversion to the cross being paraded around their country? There are a number of cultural and historical reasons for this ,none of which appear in this shoddy article. You have taken it upon yourself to simply believe that all Muslims, 100% of them, hate the cross and everything its stands for. This is not only myopic but wrong. You are welcome to "Leave the left."
Posted by: KingTolerance
at September 16, 2005 9:33 AM
KT:
You may have missed this tidbit on another thread.
The INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS refuses to recognize the red Star of David emblem as part of their organization due to muslim protests.
The AMERICAN RED CROSS recognizes and supports the Israelis and their symbol and their inclusion in the international body.
Posted by: CGW at September 16, 2005 9:37 AM
CGW: "You may have missed this tidbit on another thread."
King: Why must everything have some hateful or intolerant interpretation? There are reasons, ya know, and these reasons almost always go purely undiscussed here. It is far easier for you all to cast away the reasons and just stick to your unilateral positions while reading shoddy articles.
"But Muslims, reminded of the crusader's cross from centuries earlier, refused to use the emblem. Instead, the Ottoman empire was already using the red crescent to protect its medical workers in the 19th century.
The red crescent, along with the Red Lion and Sun of Iran, was enshrined with the red cross in the Geneva conventions of 1929.
MDA has held only observer status to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies since Israeli independence in 1948." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1126491575891
Posted by: KingTolerance at September 16, 2005 9:47 AM
The article accurately diagnoses the bigotry and anti Semitism that is endemic in Muslim political circles in Britain - the type that imagines that the Holocaust was a hoax, that the Jews are in control of the government, that Holocaust Memorial Day should be scrapped because it is offensive to Muslims, and that this psychosis and fanaticism is tolerated by some on the Left in the name of cultural relativism and being sensitive to political Islamist fascists.
In the light of the fascist suicide slaughter by Islamic extremists reared on the swill of this kind of rhetoric and ideology it is an urgent issue in Britain that these lunatic fascists and anti Semitic bigots are confronted, mocked, marginalised, called to account for their support for suicide bombing and Islamist fascism, and their helpers on the left are also vilified and shown to be the useless saps they are.
at September 16, 2005 9:50 AM
CGW:
I got your earlier post. I will send my details tonight.
King:
Have you ever wondered why SOME infidels have an aversion to being blown to pieces on their cities Tube network, & have the supporters of that outrage advising the Prime Dhimmister?
All this banter, provocation. So un-necessary - I think we all know where this conflict is heading & what that conflict will mean to Islam in the West.
Hopefully it will come to fruition whilst the guys in the white hats have the technological advantage...
I also refer the honourable gentlemen to the submission (not to Islam) I gave some moments ago....
Posted by: albion at September 16, 2005 9:55 AM
KT & IA:
are you the same chaps who post at www.ummah.com,
or are IA & King Tolerance "universal" Muslim alias's (Like Mohammed, Muhammed etc, etc) ?
Regards
Albion
at September 16, 2005 9:59 AM
I urge everyone to read the link posted by KT above.
"Israel, which cooperates with the movement, has been denied full membership over the emblem issue for 57 years."
BTW, KT, as a purported Jew, what have you to say about the proposal by muslims IN CHARGE in Britain to scrap Holocaust Day and their WRITTEN denial that the Holocaust never happened? Or is that your position too? What about the well-documented connection between Hitler and muslim leaders and their plans to cooperate to completely wipe out the Jews WORLDWIDE, not just in Europe? Or does that have historical justification, also?
Posted by: CGW at September 16, 2005 10:05 AM
How about a general rule saying that the right to place an emblem on an ambulance is given only to those who can manufacture the vehicle?
Would be quite amusing to watch all these red-crescent farm carts pulled by red-crescent adorned donkeys darting about a battlefield while drivers do their best imitating the sound of sirens. Of course, only those able to produce a convincing siren sound would be allowed to join the ambulance driver classes…
at September 16, 2005 10:05 AM
They've already decided on the new symbol, and it will be used "along side" the cross and crescent. Whoever said "the red crystal" above wins the door prize. Here ya go:
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/6G8HPR
Posted by: MontJoie at September 16, 2005 10:20 AM
Thomas H
Do you want to join my Monty Python Appreciation Society?
I know my countrymen - & I know our warped English comedic senses.
I just bet there are hundreds of English comedians who have written some fantastic observational comedy about Islam & Muslims but, for PC censorship sensibilities, do not let them see the light of day.
They could never work on Al BBCeera again if they uttered a single joke about Islam or Muslims, though the subject matter is a rich target environment for the English sense of humour.
Imagine a new "Life of Brian" only instead of Christianity it is Islam that is the centre piece?
The stoning scene would obviously never be as funny...well, its law for them, innit?.
Come on everyone, start writing those sketches & sending them in to:
The Head of Programming (Light Entertainment)
BBC Broadcasting House
London
W1A 1AA
ENGLAND
at September 16, 2005 10:21 AM
KT and IA:
Why do you keep bothering with us, in your opinion, ignorant infidels? It must be clear to you by now that we must agree to disagree on many matters. We are very happy to live in our own countries governed by our own human-made laws. If you don't like us, our countries or our human-made laws, please leave and leave us alone.
Is that too much to ask? If it wasn't for 9/11, I would never have studied Islam, never been radicalized against it. But you guys won't leave us alone. You keep pushing, trying to Islamize our countries. And you are surprised when we push back? Just leave and stop bothering us already! Egypt is lovely at this time of year I have heard.
Posted by: Mentat at September 16, 2005 10:25 AM
MontJoie
The Red Crystal? The Sacred Red Crystal of Thringstone & Ibstock?
An outrage.
How dare they use the pre-medieval symbols of Leicestershires Pagans?
They'll be hell to pay down the pub tonight.
Posted by: albion at September 16, 2005 10:26 AM
What Rod says about Africa is spot on, just as he is spot on about Islam.
The Spectator is a great journal. Together with The Telegraph, it has tackled Islam head on.
Posted by: Interested at September 16, 2005 10:40 AM
What a PC sellout by the International Red Cross.
I will NEVER donate to them due to their affiliation with the red crescent, but the AMERICAN Red Cross is still donation-worthy.
Posted by: CGW at September 16, 2005 10:53 AM
My favourite part;
But in Britain you can believe such paranoid, irrational gibberish and not merely be tolerated and excused the eponym ‘barking madman’ but actually be invited to divulge your stupidity to the Prime Minister personally. Because you are a Muslim and such poisonous paranoia is sort of expected from you, instead of being sectioned and maybe having a spot of ECT, you get to have your fantasies indulged.
Laugh ?!!! I nearly wet myself !!
at September 16, 2005 11:16 AM
TooBad
"...& Knight the bugger!"
Hey KT & IA, its all gone quiet over there.
Its rude to piss in the pool & then just leave.
Posted by: albion at September 16, 2005 11:33 AM
KT: Have you ever wondered why it may be that SOME Muslims take such an aversion to the cross being paraded around their country? There are a number of cultural and historical reasons for this
So this logic can be freely applied to any Red Crescent Jews see fit to shoot up.
Amazing how Jews in the years following the Second World War have worked together with the Catholic Church in creating better relations, despite their initial aversion to the Cross because of centuries of persecution.
Now why cannot your Muslim "combatants" come to terms with the rest of the world?
at September 16, 2005 11:48 AM
Hi KingTolerance:
Instead of an entirely new symbol for the ICRC, why can't more effort be made to encourage tolerance of the existing symbols, cross, crescent, star, no matter where they may be deployed?
If you can succeed in doing that you will have promoted Tolerance indeed. I still don't quite get the "King" part, though.
Posted by: Chatillon at September 16, 2005 11:53 AM
The Leftist Two-Step:
1) The first reaction of the Leftist to Rod Liddle's remarks about Africa -- [that it] has been ruled for the past 60 or more years by a fantastic collection of conspicuously vile dictators; gangsters, incompetents, corrupt self-serving megalomaniacs, cretinous Marxist ideologues, half-wits, imbeciles, murderous tribal warlords and, plainly, the barking mad and the criminally insane -- is to object in righteous indignation.
We then marshall sufficient evidence to show the Leftist that Africa, indeed, has been this kind of mess over the past 60 years.
2) The Leftist then turns around on his tap-shoes and says, "Well, Africa's been that way because of the evil influence of Western colonialism and post-colonial interference."
You see how the Leftist's second dance-step contradicts his first? But of course, not only will the Leftist fail to see the contradiction, he will keep dancing this two-trick-pony softshoe for eternity (or at least until he's been cured of his mental disorder). (Interestingly, Muslims seem to have been taking dance lessons from Leftists -- or is it the other way around?)
at September 16, 2005 12:15 PM
ia786. I know the truth hurts .I have lived in Africa and the statements made by Liddle are not far from the truth. Why are the African countries in such a mess - you tell us.
How come any critisisam of Ialam is considered racist or muslim bashing, but Islamists can say anything they want and we are to take it as the truth. Why the double standard?
The crusades was in response to Muslim barbarism in the middle east, if the Muslims did not invade, terrorize and slaughter the inhabitants in the Christian and Jewish countries, there would never have been crusaders. In any case the symbol of the Red Cross has nothing to do with the Crusades. They should never change the symbol of the Red cross. If Muslims are unhappy about it, so be it.
at September 16, 2005 12:21 PM
Kingky...I enjoyed that article by Liddle so much that I read it twice. Sort of a rolling commentary. That the red cross 'enrages' muslims might be just a tad bit too strong. Probably not 'all' muslims are 'enraged' by it. Yet all muslims know what the cross is and what it represents. It is not a symbol they are fond of and none of them 'like' it. As a symbol of opposition to Allah, it is the symbol of the enemy, so hostility is called for. Muslims can become enraged very easilly. The Palestinians have regularly schedualed 'days of rage'. Try putting a Quran in a toilet and watch 'enraged' muslims riot in strange places, like Outer Mongolia or somewhere. Yet, not 'all' the muslims in Outer Mongolia became enraged and rioted. Just a few thousand extreemists who misunderstand the teachings of Islam. And only a handfull got killed. So it's a good thing that muslim enragement and rampaging is only a small problem, mostly confined to the outskirts of Outer Mongolia and to a lesser extent Palestine.
I read somewhere in one of the hadiths that being furious (a close cousin to rage) is a blessing from Allah. If thats the case, it would be of great benefit to muslims to stay furious and enraged as much as possible. Maybe if hugging Allah is the goal and furiousity the method, those Outer Mongolians muslims are on to something...Maybe Allah really is God, you just have to get furious and enraged to realise it...Well, Allah knows best...
at September 16, 2005 12:25 PM
King:
Either you don't understand what tolerance is or you have a reading comprehension problem or both. The point of the article is that the Red Cross is being driven to consider the generic emblem because Muslim extremists of the violent source do not respect the Red Cross or Maged Daved Adom symbols and fire away, or use Red X vehicles to smuggle armaments and transport combatants, yet these same characters can safely rely on the other side to respect Red Crescent vehicles.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 16, 2005 12:34 PM
If the cross is taken away from the Red Cross, then I shall be very CROSS indeed! So cross, in fact, that I shall never donate to the organisation another nickel!
Posted by: Mark at September 16, 2005 12:41 PM
thecid:
Spencer is interested in your offer. I am posting this on multiple threads in the hope that you'll see it. Contact him at director@jihadwatch.org.
Posted by: CGW at September 16, 2005 12:56 PM
Nice work, but tough words. I wonder if Little will get his Cummins-uppance over this one? (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003053.php)
KT: maybe you would be better off preaching your message of "tolerance" to Muslims. At this stage of the game, I think it's they that nee... ahforgetaboutit... they have "reasons" for their intolerance, I forgot.
Posted by: spect8or at September 16, 2005 1:01 PM
How about a white flag? That just about sums it up, doesn't it? Why do we care what offends muslims?
Posted by: Carolyn2 at September 16, 2005 1:03 PM
Hey, KT
If you are American, and if you are not a muslim, what do you think of Iran getting nukes? http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008132.phpAre you going to be "tolerant" of the smoking holes where American cities used to be? Or maybe it will just be Israel that will be destroyed, that would be tolerable wouldn't it?
at September 16, 2005 1:13 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008132.php
This should work.
at September 16, 2005 1:15 PM
How about a red bull's eye. A red bull's eye would work as well as a red cross, wouldn't it?
Posted by: Chatillon at September 16, 2005 1:17 PM
Out with the old and in with the new..or something like that. I bet that in five years or so, the Red Cross symbol will be phased out completely on ambulances, trucks, shirts, stationery, etc. and the red crystal will be the sole symbol. And, THEN, will the Muslims be happy??? Probably not. The "Muslim world" has so many things to be enraged, enflamed and hurt about and so many more symbols of Western culture to destroy.(with the help of useful idiots, otherwise known as dhimmis)
Posted by: maryrose at September 16, 2005 2:19 PM
I'm not a practising Christian, but I've suddenly become very fond of the cross. I plan to purchase the largest crucifix I can find to wear around my neck. If it offends any Muslim I chance to meet, so much the better!
Long live the True Cross!
Posted by: Suzan at September 16, 2005 2:54 PM
So what if they replace the symbol, it’s just a symbol, after all. Maybe they should try blue diamonds or purple horseshoes or green clovers!
A cross, a crescent and a star …sounds like someone’s come up with a new version of rock, paper, scissors!
Whee! Let's play!
Posted by: illustr8rg8r at September 16, 2005 3:34 PM
Albion,
Do you want to join my Monty Python Appreciation Society?
Sounds interesting! I guess the main target of your creativity is islam and muhammed related subject isn't it? If so, what do I have to do to become a member?
Although English is not my mother tongue I have a friend here (Copenhagen) who is English (and allergic to all things islamic) and I think he may be willing to proofread whatever I may come up with. Perhaps I can get him to write something himself as he is a very eloquent fellow.
They could never work on Al BBCeera again if they uttered a single joke about Islam or Muslims, though the subject matter is a rich target environment for the English sense of humour.
it is the same situation here, and even worse in Sweden.
Hey, how about publishing a few jokes about islam here? Do you know any?
Perhaps JW, or DW should keep a permanently running thread where we could all send in some funny stuff about the Religion of Piece(s)?
I wonder if Mr. Spencer would consent...What do you think? Worth trying, no?
cheers,
Posted by: thomas. h at September 16, 2005 3:35 PM
It would be very sad indeed if the world lost this world famous symbol of Christian forebearance, tolerance, and selfless aid. Perhaps the symbols that should be eradicated are ALL symbols associated with the failed belief system of Islam.
Given the axiomatic relationship between Islam, terrorism, and brutal totalitarianism, the world would do better to outlaw all signs of this execrable 'religion.' The mass expulsion of Muslims from Western and advanced countries would be a fine next step. How long will we continue to tolerate and endure Muslims dirtying up our beautiful shores with their hatred and the filth of their beliefs? How long will we tolerate and endure them undermining our magnificent edifices of culture and laws with their backward depravity, and their embarrassing lack of humanity? It's important to continue marginalizing the leftist Bozos who thought this "redesign" up for this most magnificent symbol of all that is good and right in the West. I believe political correctness is finally beginning to crumble....
Those unfortunate enough to be on the Muslim side of the cultural divide are probably most enraged by the fact that the Red Cross symbolizes all that is good about our side... This serves to magnify the utter failure, depravity, corruption, and lack of humanity which always characterizes the Muslim side. The Red Cross is like a mirror which juxtaposes our innumerable virtues against their undeniable and complete ugliness.
Of course Muslims are humiliated by this, and this humiliation is part of the dysfunctionality which makes them irrational, hateful, and prone to violence and terrorism. Think of thier so-called "prophet" who compensated for his own shame and inadequacies by lashing out against innocent people throughout his violent hate filled life. Today's 'enraged' Muslims are embroiled in the same cycle of humiliation and lashing out, as can clearly be seen in their various irrational pronouncements (some of which appear here!), as well as their never ending violent reactions to everything.
There has never been a more dysfunctional culture or ideology than Islam -- and Islam has never been more broken than it is today -- Indeed, the world would do well to cleanse itself of Islam so that humanity can move forward. Until that day happens, Islam will tend to impede humanity, and hold many back in backwardness and despair. As long as Islam exists, Muslims will continue to wreak devastation on all who come in contact with them and their poisonous malfunctioning ideology.
Posted by: jsla at September 16, 2005 4:12 PM
Maybe to please everybody, the cross, star and crescent could all be displayed, leaving us with a star-crossed crescent.
Sorry, lack of self control.
Posted by: Chatillon at September 16, 2005 4:42 PM
If it's not broken, don't fix it. The Red Cross has been an institution for many years and it would not make sense to abandon a symbol with worldwide recognition. Name/logo recognition are crucial to charity organizations. Why would they risk losing millions in donations by changing their name, especially to placate a group of narcisisstic misfits who contribute nothing to their existence?
With whom do I register my complaints about the star and crescent symbols that represent Islam? I feel that they impinge upon my heritage and the very sight of them cause me great anguish and fear. Whenever I see a crescent, I reflexively envision a bloody scimitar in the hand of a savage muslim. I can actually remember when there were so few muslims in America that you seldom saw one and now they're everywhere. How do I know which ones are sleeper terrorists and which ones aren't? Why must I suffer the anxiety and trauma of this uncertainty? Why should any of us be subjected to this torture? What is our recourse?
Posted by: Susanp at September 16, 2005 9:58 PM
King: Have you ever wondered why it may be that SOME Muslims take such an aversion to the cross being paraded around their country? There are a number of cultural and historical reasons for this ,none of which appear in this shoddy article. You have taken it upon yourself to simply believe that all Muslims, 100% of them, hate the cross and everything its stands for. This is not only myopic but wrong. You are welcome to "Leave the left."
King uses the word `myopic` to substantiate that he is not, therefore implying, that he is an intelligent, worldly person spreading goodwill and cheer.
Facts do not support his assertions and his liberal fascism in support of the evil ideology. He is what can only be called a
USEFUL IDIOT
which is xplained here:
`The term is sometimes claimed to have been coined by Vladimir Lenin to describe those western reporters and travellers who would endorse the Soviet Union and its policies in the West.` while being ignorant.
King T. the USEFUL IDIOT is welcome to go join a jihadist and whoop with glee over a docu of Sept 11. Hey, Kingy want some `jalebis` to give your pucky lovers?
Aww never mind you probly can afford it.
at September 16, 2005 10:05 PM
I've started a petition at PetitionOnline to try to get this cowardly, idiotic decision overturned! Check it out and sign if you are so inclined. It's at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/RedCross/petition.html
Posted by: jovan66102 at September 16, 2005 10:18 PM
Ok King Tolerance (USEFUL IDIOT that you are) please teach me so i may broaden my thinking:
1.`Have you ever wondered why it may be that SOME Muslims take such an aversion to the cross being paraded around their country?`
Tell me you USEFUL IDIOT. I live in a Mossie country. I beg you. Teach me.
2. You have taken it upon yourself to simply believe that all Muslims, 100% of them, hate the cross and everything its stands for.
USEFUL IDIOT what %age other than 100 would make a drinkable cup of tea?
King: Why must everything have some hateful or intolerant interpretation? There are reasons, ya know, and these reasons almost always go purely undiscussed here. It is far easier for you all to cast away the reasons and just stick to your unilateral positions while reading shoddy articles.
But USEFUL IDIOT you claim to be `non-myopic`. You mean to say you only know `taqqiya`. That is an article and you want the writer to put in the reasons which are there in the Koran.
Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 16, 2005 10:18 PM
But USEFUL IDIOT (you claim to be `non-myopic`. - my post above.
I think I missed something there. You have led me a merry waltz.
USEFUL IDIOT(aka King Tolerance), by inference, is an intensely myopic person. Good thing you got ia786 to hold your hand. Cight hurt yourself otherwise.
at September 16, 2005 10:31 PM
Repost:
But USEFUL IDIOT you claim to be `non-myopic`. - my post above.
I think I missed something there. You have led me a merry waltz.
USEFUL IDIOT(aka King Tolerance), by inference, is an intensely myopic person. Good thing you got ia786 to hold your hand. Could hurt yourself otherwise.
at September 16, 2005 10:32 PM
USEFUL IDIOT might be able to reduce myopia reading this:
`According to the anti-war website, Iraqbodycount.net (whose methodology we respect - even if we reject their interpretation) during the last full month, the “insurgents” killed about 608 civilians - half of whom were actually Iraqi security force members working for the democratically elected government.
The Americans killed zero.`
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/WeekInIslam.htm
All this reduction in mossie popns. yet their popn figs are increased for `useful idiocy`. This debate on red cross, red crescent blah blah. Even i9nh the India-Pak War the mossies did not pay heed to the Indian medical corps. In fact these were deliberately targetted.
Now this pathetic USEFUL IDIOT, or King Tolerance, who is free to indulge in his western decadence, stands up to deliver his friggin empathy.
Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 16, 2005 11:12 PM
`Like I said in “The Apocalypse,“ [it’s] the general attitude of resignation. Resignation generates apathy. Apathy generates inertia. Inertia generates indifference and, besides impeding moral judgment, indifference suffocates the of self-defense; that is, the instinct to fight back.`
http://mysteryachievement.blogspot.com/2005/07/enemy-we-treat-like-friend-part-ii.html
That describes a USEFUL IDIOT
Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 16, 2005 11:19 PM
USEFUL IDIOT will condescend to agree with this brother of ia786 huh:
Let us see how the orthodox Muslims repaid Gandhi: In 1924, Mohammed Ali to whom Gandhi showed such affection said, : "However pure Mr. Gandhi's character may be, he must appear to me, from the point of religion, inferior to any Mussalman even though he be without character." In 1925 he emphasized: "Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi". That is the true Islamofascist mentality revealed in all its glory.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/HinduWoman40718.htm
USEFUL IDIOT learn, learnh, learn.
Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 16, 2005 11:44 PM
Susanp: What is our recourse?
Why Sue, the courts of course! (Sorry)
Seems obvious to me, we need a legal staff,
and then to prioritize targets.
There are smaller anti-terror groups active on local levels;
They would bring litigation against local politicos, and their corporate sponsors.
National and Global groups would bring lawsuits to international offenders at their corporate HQ's in their respective cities.
Personally, I'd stay away from head's of state, and instead, go after their money/funding/power base/relatives.
Posted by: bad technician at September 17, 2005 1:32 AM
I agree that it's a poorly written article because he excoriates the mentally ill in a completely unnecessary way, who already suffer a marginalised existence. The Jewish Chronicle also carried an article about this Islamic advisor without resorting to such intemperate language about mentally ill people who are afflicted and beleagured by delusions they haven't chosen to have because their brains don't function the same as normal people, while religious people have consciously chosen a life style and a set of beliefs, however bizarre they might seem.
Posted by: londongirl at September 17, 2005 9:02 AM
KT & IA:
are you the same chaps who post at www.ummah.com,
or are IA & King Tolerance "universal" Muslim alias's (Like Mohammed, Muhammed etc, etc) ?
Regards
Albion
Posted by: albion
I went over to ummah.com and read the posts, you certainly can't deviate from the party line or you will be banned. No free thought over there.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at September 17, 2005 12:28 PM
They can change their symbol if they like, but I don't think it will bring any protection. I can't believe anyone could be stupid enough to kill neutral medics over a symbol. Those that are evil enough to kill neutral medics will do so regardless of the symbol. Even the Red Crescent is not respected by the terrorists, who have used ambulances to smuggle suicide bombers into Israel.
Posted by: Viking5 at September 17, 2005 2:37 PM
Why don't they jsut remove the cross and leave it as a white flag? Looks like thye're about ready to surrender anyway.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at September 17, 2005 8:32 PM
Why don't they just remove the cross and leave it as a white flag? Looks like they're about ready to surrender anyway.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at September 17, 2005 8:32 PM
Just to Clarify, the Israeli Magan Dovid Adom (MADA) would like to join the ICRC using a red star of David, which is what we use here in Israel. We have been aksing to join since 1948, and have been turned down each time. We do not want anyone else to change their symbol, just to allow us to use ours as well.
As far as I am concerened this "Red Crystal" is bull. If I ran Mada I would be telling the ICRC to go take a flying leap right now. Maybe its a good thing that I don't run MADA.
Posted by: Zach at September 18, 2005 6:10 AM
"The Life of Muhammed" sounds like a brilliant piss take, Albion. It'll never get off the ground though and if it did, the author would have to go into hiding.
Having visited the Red Cross museum in Geneva, it hardly seems likely that an organisation (the first of its kind to deal specifically with war torn zones) founded by a Christian could be changed like this. It would be a massive dishonor to the memory of the man who founded it.
Posted by: londongirl at September 18, 2005 7:45 AM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)