".................only a tiny minority of Muslims support this evil idddddeology, which is of course a perversion of true Islam. Islam is a religion of peace".............

....just keep repeating the mantra Prime Dhimmister, soon it will be Gordon's problem".....

Posted by: albion at September 19, 2005 3:22 PM

I saw Queen Rania on CNBC today talking about investment in Jordan. Boy, did that munchkin nab a hottie or what? Just like Queen Noor, she is out there defending Islam and denying the truth and the West eats it up.

Posted by: John Sobieski at September 19, 2005 5:59 PM

"The majority of Jordanians are Palestinians"

King: Well, gee! 2+2=4. If a majority of Jordanians are Palestinian then it would resonate that a 'majority' of Jordanians polled would have an unfavorable view of Jews. I wonder what sort of responses you'd get if you polled the Jewish settlers in the Gaza strip about their views of Arabs? Hmmmmmm.

"Both of them are artificial nationalities created out of Arabiyya for political reasons."

King: Pot-kettle-black. We're back to trying to make 2+2=3 and calling it true again. Israel was 'created' out of Palestine in 1948. This 'creation' forced the expulsion of Arabs to make way for a zionist Jewish state. Things have not been right in that neighborhood eversince. Hmmmmmm.

"The poll found decreasing support in Islamic countries for Al Qaida and suicide bombings."

King: So now which is it? Are we denouncing all of Islam as a violent ideology? If so, this poll actually disproves your point! If there is decreasing suppport for Al Qaida and suicide bombings in Islamic countries then that would mean you've been wrong all along. Hmmmmm.

The issue this brings up is one of a disconnect between Arab governments and their people, and how you cannot call a nation "friendly" to the west simply based on governmental relations. While Jordan is a "friendly" nation at a government level, the rank and file Jordanians are boiling with anger at the West. The same is true with Saudi Arabia. These citizens not only see a disctinct double standard in their backyards, they see their governments buddying up to the West. Meanwhile, Palestinians rot away in some filthy refugee camp, coming up with ways to get their land back and you call them every name in the book.

Posted by: KingTolerance at September 19, 2005 8:39 PM

Robert -- I think I can clear up the problem about "Jordanians" and "Palestinians." According to such authorities as the famous 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, "Palestine" is defined as follows:

"we may describe Palestine as the strip of land esxtending along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea from the mouth of the LItany or Kasimiya River (33 22' N.) southward to the mouth of the Wadi Ghuzza; the later joins the sea and runs thence in a south-easterly direction so as to include on its northern sid ethe site of Beersheva....Eastward there is no such definie border. The River Jordan, it is true, marks a line of delimitation between Western and Eastern Palestine; but it is practically impossible to say where the latter ends and the Arabian desert begins."

So Jordan, in its populated parts (not the Syrian Desert) comprises Eastern Palestine, and Israel Western Palestine.

What does this mean? It means that in Jordan both Eastern Palestinians (Jordanians) and Western Palestinians (from the territory now held by Israel) live. A persone born in Jordan to "Western Palestinian" parents would call himself Jordanian. A person born in Jordan to parents who were born in Jordan, to grandparents who were born in Mandatory Palestine, would call himself whatever is most advantageous to him, depending on where he travels, to whom he speaks, and who harbors what suspicions. It is best, in Arab countries, to be a "Jordanian" not a "Palestinian," despite all the support for "Palestinians" as the shock troops of the Jihad against Infidel Israel. On the other hand, at least until recently, one might garner more sympathy from the unwary Westerner by calling oneself a "Palestinian" who lives in Jordan. It is fascinating to see how al-Zarqawi, a name given to him because he was born in a "refugee village" in Zarqa, would ordinarily call himself a "Palestinian" but everyone has been quick to label him as "Jordanian-born" without going into detail, because Arabs think calling him a "Palestinian" might damage the "Palestinian" (i.e. Arab Muslim) cause, and the Western press, without even considering the matter for a moment, has obligingly gone along.

But what is al-Zarqawi if not a "Palestinian" Jordanian, which is to say, if we can draw this accordion out still further before, a "Western-Palestinian Eastern Palestinian." And what of those who were born in, say, the West Bank in 1953, and were therefore Jordanian at birth, and now lives in Amman? Such a person would be a Jordanian, but no ordinary Jordanian. Rather, from 1948 to 1967, those people born under Jordan's rule in the West Bank, and Jordanian citizens (no one talked then of "Palestinians" or of a "Palestinian people" -- that came sometime after the defeat of June 1967) from birth. In order to distinguish such people from those "Palestinians" born in Eastern Palestine, i.e. east of the Jordan River, it would be best to speak of Western-Palestinian Eastern Palestinians (born in Israel and the West Bank, and now living in Jordan) and Eastern-Palestinian Eastern Palestinians (born in Jordan of parents or grandparents who were from "Eastern Palestine" and still living there) and the final group, those people who were born in Jordan, as were their parents and grandparents. These would be the Jordanians, or rather the plain-vanilla unadjectivized Eastern Palestinians, mostly of Bedouin extranction.

Al-Zarqawi, as noted, was born after 1967 in Zarqa, in what is present-day Jordan (i.e. present-day Eastern Palestine) should be most accurately described -- using the guidelines of the Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, and the last two thousand years of Western history, most accurately as a "Palestinian-never-a-Jordanian Jordanian" which is to say, an "Easter-Palestinian Eastern Palestinian." Of course, I haven't bother to go into the fact that a great many of the Muslim Arabs who claim to be descended from "Western Palestinians" and now live either in Israel and its territories or in Jordan, are in fact people whose presence in the area does not go back further than the 1920s and 1930s, when the Arab Muslim migration into Mandatory Palestine was far larger, though illegal, than any Jewish migration allowed by Great Britain, the Mandatory authority that was supposed to, but did not, "facilitate Jewish immigration" and "encourage close Jewish settlement on the land" by the express terms of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

Does that make it all clear?

I thought it would.

The moral of all this is :

What a tangled toponymic web Muslim Arabs weave, when e'er they practice to deceive, first by making up the "Palestinian people," and then by pretending that no matter how far back some Muslim Arab (or often not an Arab, but even Kurds, Berbers, Turks, Muslims from Bulgaria moved there by the Ottomans in the 1880s -- all of them more-or-less Arabized by now, though many know exactly where their true origins lie, outside of "Palestine") ancestor goes, no matter how tangential his connection to "Palestine," as long as there was one, that necesssarily and for all time makes all of his descendants into into "Palestinians," with all the claimed rights thereto appertaining -- and apparently forever.

No, not so fast. We wish to consider the fine print. We wish to think about this clearly before being buffaloed into using such phrases as the "Palestinian people" or, for that matter, talking about "Palestinians" and "Jordanians" living in Jordan.

Any objections?

Posted by: Hugh at September 19, 2005 8:52 PM

"Well, does that make it all clear?"

King: As clear as "gamboling sheep" parading by my window right now.

Posted by: KingTolerance at September 19, 2005 9:05 PM

A little history on Jordan:

The Mandate of Palestine was set up after WWI out of territory of the defunct Ottoman Empire on both the west and east banks of the Jordan. It incorporated language from the Balfour Declaration, showing the intent to create a Jewish homeland in that area. Note that there was already substantial Jewish presence in the land, with a Jewish majority in Jerusalem that dated back to the 1880s.

'A British government memorandum in September 1922 ("The Churchill White Paper"), approved by the League of Nations Council, specifically excluded Jewish settlement from the Transjordan area of the Palestine Mandate. The whole process was aimed at satisfying wartime pledges made to the Arabs and at carrying out British responsibilities under the Mandate. Unfortunately for the Zionists and counter to the whole expressed purpose of the Mandate in the first place, by this action more than three-quarters of the territory of the British Mandate was taken away from the potential Jewish Homeland without any corresponding action favoring the Palestinian Jews.' (quote from palestinefacts.org)

There were several Jewish communities that had been established east of the Jordan that were abandoned as a result of the Churchill White Paper. To this day, Jordan is officially 'Judenrein' i.e. no Jew is allowed to own land or become a citizen (not sure why any would want to, but there you have it). Partly as a result of this policy, land conquered by the Arab Legion in 1948 was ethnically cleansed of Jews, including Etzion Bloc south of Bethlehem and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, where over 50 synagogues were destroyed. The Legion didn't have much work in Hebron however, since the Jewish community (nearly continuous since biblical times) had been eradicated in an Arab pogrom in 1929.

With this kind of background, it is clear that anti-Jewish attitudes amongst the Jordanians (of whatever ilk!) have been passed down from father to son for many years, way predating the founding of Israel.

And some people have the gall to say that Israel (with 1 mm Arab citizens) is a racist state!

Posted by: materialguy at September 19, 2005 9:36 PM

The Muhammedan poser "King Tolerance" above will not cease and desist in his attempts to obfuscate, to relativize, to make arguments for arguments sake without really saying anything other than:

'Black is white and white is black. and at night all cat's are grey...'

King: So now which is it? Are we denouncing all of Islam as a violent ideology?

Is it not a violent ideology, little King?

KT: 'Meanwhile, Palestinians rot away in some filthy refugee camp, coming up with ways to get their land back'-

If they are filthy, whose fault is that?

And who gives the Muslim Arabs who call themselves 'Palestinians' all these fantastic amounts of money, which is squandered on weapons, indoctrination and 'intifada' while they produce nothing but hatred, watch their 'leaders' steal as much as they can possibly steal?

The Paleys 'own' nothing, not even a nationality. There is nothing that needs to be 'given back'- but what their Arab-Muslim 'brothers' owe them! Instead of letting the EU and the US feed those ' filthy refugees' (your own words!) don't you think your Muslim brothers should help them out?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 19, 2005 10:03 PM

Sheik Yerbooty: "King Tolerance" above will not cease and desist in his attempts to obfuscate, to relativize, to make arguments for arguments sake..."

King: You can play with your obfuscate word like a cat toy (that cat is grey at night, by the way) but is does not make your position any stronger.

Sheik Yerbooty: "Is it not a violent ideology, little King?"

King: Yes, it is not.

Yerbooty: "If they are filthy, whose fault is that?"

King: Well, I said the camp was filthy but since you wish to cast your racist slant...

Yerbooty: "The Paleys 'own' nothing, not even a nationality."

King: In your attempt to be witty (you're not), you actually stumbled upon the buried treasure wherin lies the key to this issue! As the old saying goes: "There is nothing more dangerous than someone with nothing to lose." Trying to explain this to someone who calls himself "Sheik Yer whatever" is about as useless as asking him to use a word other than obfuscate.

Posted by: KingTolerance at September 19, 2005 10:16 PM

Mr. King: Running out of arguments, are we?

Islam is a race -again- now, is it?

When it suits you, then it is 'race...' How very Islamic!

And then this gem: "There is nothing more dangerous than someone with nothing to lose."

Strange. Mohammed Atta and consorts had 'nothing to lose?'
The British- (born) bombers had nothing to lose?

Yep. They were all poor and dangerous because of the 'Joooozz' ???

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 19, 2005 10:46 PM

"The majority of Jordanians are Palestinians."

I have a funny feeling that the majority of these “Palestinians” really hold Jordanian passports. Technology has yet to advance to the point where a mythical Country issues passports to mythical citizens.

Posted by: Bar at September 19, 2005 11:01 PM

The word "King" taken as an identifying tag is telling self-inflation: shades of O'Neill's "The Emperor Jones."

Posted by: Hugh at September 19, 2005 11:06 PM

I had the emperor confused momentarily with the hairy ape. Now that I recall the details the differences are pretty similar.

Posted by: sonofwalker at September 20, 2005 1:55 AM

I had the emperor confused momentarily with the hairy ape. Now that I recall the details the differences are pretty similar.

Posted by: sonofwalker at September 20, 2005 1:55 AM

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

King, the Mohammedan poser, sez:

"....a disconnect between Arab governments and their people, and how you cannot call a nation "friendly" to the west simply based on governmental relations..."

We do not call Arab nations 'friendly' here on JW/DW. Some fools may, but WE do not.

Further, he confirms: "...the rank and file Jordanians are boiling with anger at the West. The same is true with Saudi Arabia..."

Who guessed it!? Is that something we didn't know?
Question is, do we need the Arabs at all, since they all 'boil with anger against the West'- why should we not keep our distance, why should we continue to pay them billions in jizyia, money that is wasted and never repaid?

And for the 'Palestinians', those Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians who are stuck in the refugee-camps and who are so close to the heart of this Mohammedan poser calling himself "King", just why are they stupid and poor? Why are they boiling with anger? Because we made them?

No, Mr. King.

They are stupid and poor because of Islam, because of the constant warfare and what their clerics make them believe, while their leaders, (like your beloved Arafat, Erakat and Abu Mazen) stole and still steal the money the Europeans and American give them in the foolish hope for 'peace', which we all know is not possible, since the 'divine laws of Allah' forbids them to make peace, especially with Jews, those sons of 'apes and swine', who have miraculously taken back their ancestral homeland, which was for too long Dar al 'Islam, and has now turned into Dar al 'harb.

What do Pali's learn when they go to School? (if and when they go to School, that is). What stops Pali's from producing things that might be of use to humanity, like consumer-goods, like whatever civilized people do to be part of humanity?

Nothing, King. They learn nothing. They want to be 'martyrs'. They want to kill Jews. They want to destroy.

Death and destruction, that is Islam, Mr. King. You can watch it everyday, 24/7, and it is not the West that makes them do it, and it is not the Joooozzz:

It is Islam, the 'religion of peace'... The cult of a billion ‘believers’ who have nothing to offer the world but belief, based on the absurdities of a 7th century carawan-robber, rapist, slave-trader and torturer.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 20, 2005 3:30 AM

'kkin'intolerance had ran out of arguments, such as they were, months ago, and I am astonished to see him back repeating his old stuff as though we had not heard it before.

Respondents in Lebanon, which has a large Christian population, were nearly unanimous (99 percent) in their unfavorable views of Jews. Victims of dhimmi propagandizing and the Stockholm Syndrome

Alas, I wish it were as simple as that. The trouble is that for most of its history, Israel and its supporters overseas have regarded Christianity as no less, and possibly more, enemies, than the Muslims. With the brief and failed exception of the Lebanon war, there has been no attempt to encourage any Christian pro-Israeli faction, and the language of Western friends of Israel - I remember the late Robert Maxwell and the inflammatory "research meetings" his wife used to host - has actually been more anti-Christian than anti-Muslim. At the same time as the Israelis sought a foredoomed accommodation with Muslim Arabs, and even courted the insignificant Druze group, they ignored or insulted the Christian churches; early in their history, they actually sought the friendship of Stalin's Soviet Union. Recently, the Israeli occupation authorities infuriated the remaining Christian community in the once-Christian city of Bethlehem by allowing the building of an enormous mosque, meant to dwarf the local Cathedral, right next door to it.

Part of this suicidal policy is no doubt due to the shock of the Holocaust, which was contemporary history at the foundation of the State of Israel, and made Israelis suspicious of the Christian West. Part has to do with the indubitable Arab Christian part in the invention of Arabic nationalism (the "secular" kind, now nearly extinct, but which was the main force facing Israel from 1948 to the 1970s). But I'm afraid far too much of it is just inherited prejudice. The Daniel Goldhagen tendency is widespread among Jews, as is shown by the massive Jewish support for such groups as the ACLU. When push comes to shove, the Christian world will still support Israel; but perhaps a few of us will remember exactly how many insults we have had to swallow along the way.

Posted by: Paolo at September 20, 2005 3:36 AM

'kkin'intolerance had ran out of arguments, such as they were, months ago, and I am astonished to see him back repeating his old stuff as though we had not heard it before.

Respondents in Lebanon, which has a large Christian population, were nearly unanimous (99 percent) in their unfavorable views of Jews. Victims of dhimmi propagandizing and the Stockholm Syndrome

Alas, I wish it were as simple as that. The trouble is that for most of its history, Israel and its supporters overseas have regarded Christianity as no less, and possibly more, enemies, than the Muslims. With the brief and failed exception of the Lebanon war, there has been no attempt to encourage any Christian pro-Israeli faction, and the language of Western friends of Israel - I remember the late Robert Maxwell and the inflammatory "research meetings" his wife used to host - has actually been more anti-Christian than anti-Muslim. At the same time as the Israelis sought a foredoomed accommodation with Muslim Arabs, and even courted the insignificant Druze group, they ignored or insulted the Christian churches; early in their history, they actually sought the friendship of Stalin's Soviet Union. Recently, the Israeli occupation authorities infuriated the remaining Christian community in the once-Christian city of Bethlehem by allowing the building of an enormous mosque, meant to dwarf the local Cathedral, right next door to it.

Part of this suicidal policy is no doubt due to the shock of the Holocaust, which was contemporary history at the foundation of the State of Israel, and made Israelis suspicious of the Christian West. Part has to do with the indubitable Arab Christian part in the invention of Arabic nationalism (the "secular" kind, now nearly extinct, but which was the main force facing Israel from 1948 to the 1970s). But I'm afraid far too much of it is just inherited prejudice. The Daniel Goldhagen tendency is widespread among Jews, as is shown by the massive Jewish support for such groups as the ACLU. When push comes to shove, the Christian world will still support Israel; but perhaps a few of us will remember exactly how many insults we have had to swallow along the way.

Posted by: Paolo at September 20, 2005 3:37 AM

"The word "King" taken as an identifying tag is telling self-inflation"

No worries Hugh. I believe some posters here last week sorted out a new name for him. As soon as he learns to spell the letter U he will be changing his name to "Useful Idiot". Now that's a name fit for the "King".

Paolo, that was a very good analysis. Don't normally agree with everything you say sometimes but you seem to be spot on here.

Posted by: William The Crusader at September 20, 2005 5:12 AM

Re Hugh's post:

It is fascinating to see how al-Zarqawi, a name given to him because he was born in a "refugee village" in Zarqa, would ordinarily call himself a "Palestinian" but everyone has been quick to label him as "Jordanian-born" without going into detail, because Arabs think calling him a "Palestinian" might damage the "Palestinian" (i.e. Arab Muslim) cause, and the Western press, without even considering the matter for a moment, has obligingly gone along.

Ditto Abu Qatada.

Posted by: Effractor at September 20, 2005 6:12 AM

Oh king, king, king....you are sounding like a f__k__ 7" record.

Try answering the arguments as they appear instead of repeating your Mohammedian mantra that we are all sooo well versed with here at DW /JW.

In your last postings, I forget the thread, you actually posted some links to sites that did, on face value, support your position.

I was mildly impressed.

I appreciated that. I thought it may be the dawn of a new era - an era where you & IA actually get down to business & defend what we see as the indefensible using facts & well thought out arguments.

I was looking forward to future threads. Now you have reverted to type. Its not only boring to see you ridiculed & intellectually defeated time after time, its sad because you live in the West.

Defending a successful Hitler, which in my humble view Mohammed was, must cause you problems.

The similarities between Mohammed & the Third Reich are startling.

I am sure that if Hitler & the Third Reich were successful in their despicable aims, over the following centuries a new "Holy Book" would have emerged - maybe an updated Mein Kampf, sowing in mysticism & psuedo religious icons & stories of valiant conquest & of course the heroic cleansing of all those deemed to be "unworthy" - the ingredients were there from the start of European fascism.

Please, your arguments, such as they are here are pants. Soiled ones at that.

Posted by: albion at September 20, 2005 6:43 AM

Morning all!

King, still with us? Some day I'd like to see a dialogue between yourself and Naseem, 'twould be interesting!

Posted by: Gary at September 20, 2005 6:48 AM

The founder of Pakistan, Ali Jinnah`s kindly, fatherly, loving, respectful advise to useful idiots like King:

"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.

In this way Gandhi's experiment with Islam failed. This should serve as an object lesson to all who try to appease the fanatic Muslims. It will not succeed but only lead to greater fanaticism and destruction.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/HinduWoman40718.htm

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 20, 2005 6:55 AM

King Tut,

KT: 'Meanwhile, Palestinians rot away in some filthy refugee camp, coming up with ways to get their land back'-

Why don't you study the history? Because you fear to come up with something like this:

It’s not surprising that the PLO vehemently opposed this program – after all, former residents of a refugee camp, now living in a nice home in a new neighborhood, would have a stake in supporting peace and opposing violence, exactly the opposite of the PLO’s strategy.

What is perhaps surprising is that the United Nations also opposed the program, and passed harsh resolutions demanding that Israel remove the Palestinians from their new homes and return them to the squalid camps. For example, UN General Assembly Resolution 31/15 of Nov. 23, 1976:

Calls once more upon Israel:

(a) To take effective steps immediately for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps from which they were removed in the Gaza Strip and to provide adequate shelters for their accommodation;

(b) To desist from further removal of refuges and destruction of their shelters.

Similarly, UNGA Resolution 34/52 of November 23, 1979 declared that:

measures to resettle Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip away from their homes and property from which they were displaced constitute a violation of their inalienable right to return;

1. Calls once more upon Israel to desist from removal and resettlement of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip and from destruction of their shelters;
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=960

Posted by: Cynic at September 20, 2005 7:44 AM

I am now begining to hate myself

wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Posted by: ploome at September 20, 2005 12:22 PM

"King, still with us?"

King: Despite your 'shock and bewilderment' that I may still be here, I assure you I intend to always be around to oppose and clarify the unilateral bile flung here. I will post in response to any one of you, as I wish, since I live in a free country and I am abiding by all of the rules this board has.

If this troubles any or all of you, it speaks volumes for your fortitude to handle an opinion different than your own. If you think terms like "useful idiot" or "king tut" matter to me, you've already lost your argument. While you may think you can come here to masturbate with our anti-Islamic grunts, there can and always will be someone who will call you on it. That's what bothers you...

'Tis always fun to see just how far the rot has seeped!

Posted by: KingTolerance at September 20, 2005 12:30 PM

Cynic:

You might appreciate Melanie Phillips's Sept. 20 Diary entry re: the UN's most recent report on the sorry state of the Palestinians. Note that, despite everything, they are still better off on the HDI than many of their neighbours, and would have been better off still had they not bought into Arafat's rallying call for Intifada II.

September 20, 2005
Duh!
On the global political stage the UN is Israel’s implacable foe, helping create the impression that the country is grinding the Palestinians into abject poverty and destitution – that is, when it not committing genocide against them. Leaving aside the inconvenient detail that genocide wipes out whole populations while the numbers of Palestinians have actually been increasing, official data published this month by the UN gives the lie to its own propaganda about the lack of Palestinian well-being. The UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report 2005 is a massive tome. But chapter five* which deals with violent conflict makes it clear that it was the second intifada beginning in Sept. 2000 which reversed a small trend towards improvement on the Human Development Index and resulted ‘in a sharp deterioration in living standards and life chances,’ more than doubling the poverty rate. Israel is commonly blamed for this deterioration. But as the report observes: ‘...violent conflict is one of the surest and fastest routes to the bottom of the HDI table’. And that conflict was started and promulgated by the Palestinians.

What is even more revealing is that in tables on p 220, the Occupied Palestinian Territories are in the medium cluster with an HDI of 0.729 – a better standard of living than the Arab states overall which have an HDI of 0.679. On the Human Poverty Index, the territories are ranked seventh on a list of 103 developing countries, with other Arab countries ranked below them. Saudi Arabia is ranked 32; Syria is 29; Iran is 36; Egypt is 55; liberated South Africa (all those who accuse Israel of ‘apartheid’, please note) is 56.

Now what is the one factor which the Palestinians have that other Arab states do not have, the factor which lifts their living standards above even those Arab states which have massive oil wealth? It is their close economic relationship with Israel, both in terms of the jobs that Israel provides for them and the massive amounts of aid that Israel pours in to the territories. And what has been the Palestinians’ response to this country which is so crucial to their living standards? Why, to murder its citizens in great numbers and try to destroy it altogether. And what has been the outcome of that genocidal campaign against Israel, apart from murdering large numbers of Israelis? Why, to put Palestinian development into reverse.

Is this the biggest self-inflicted wound in history?

* link: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_chapter_5.pdf

Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 20, 2005 12:46 PM

"Gandhi's experiment with Islam failed."
-- from a posting above

Gandhi's assassin was a Hindu infuriated, like the man who shot Rabin, with what he perceived was appeasement of Muslims.

For those who like Great Men (of the Book-of-the-Month-Club level), then Gandhi had a great run, and many apparently chose to overlook such things as his advice to the Jews of Europe, which was not to oppose HItler but to adopt the technique of passive resistance, satyagraha. This was nonsense, and showed either how silly he was, or how ignorant.

Never cared for Mahatma Gandhi. Too holier-than-thou. And admired by those who think invocation of the word "Peace" makes them holier-than-thou. It doesn't.

On the whole, I'd prefer a sensible rascal with a taste for hochmagandy, as long as he had taken the measure of the nature, and menace, of Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at September 20, 2005 1:48 PM

albion: "In your last postings, I forget the thread, you actually posted some links to sites that did, on face value, support your position. I was mildly impressed. I appreciated that."

King: Great. I'm thrilled.

albion: "I thought it may be the dawn of a new era - an era where you & IA actually get down to business & defend what we see as the indefensible using facts & well thought out arguments."

King: We are doing that in fact - nothing has changed. If you choose to see something as "indefensible" you've already checkmated yourself and your ability to debate. Suit yourself.

albion: "Defending a successful Hitler, which in my humble view Mohammed was, must cause you problems."

King: Your "humble" view, as entitled as you are to have it, is crap in my equally humble opinion. It may strike you as interesting that my tolerance of other religions, including those folks who are peaceful, law abiding Muslims, has enriched my life beyond your limited comprehension. Problems, no.

albion: "The similarities between Mohammed & the Third Reich are startling."

King: That's funny - I think the same of most of the crap I read on this website! While you pound out things like "Islam is a cancer" and so forth, you fail to see the trap you've fallen into. Wholesale hatred of an entire religion and its practicers have gotten the world into trouble before, eh? At least you are making it a bit easier for yourself by simply blaming Mohammed. He should be easier to catch and throw in prison. wink, wink.

albion: "Please, your arguments, such as they are here are pants. Soiled ones at that."

King: You call what you've offered here an 'argument??' Its just your humble view that shows how far the neo-con rot has seeped, that's about all. Now if you've nothing more to say, perhaps you ought to be the one changing your pants.

Posted by: KingTolerance at September 20, 2005 2:54 PM

Not shocked at all, king, leeches do hang on... and the rot is evident in everything you say.

Apologies to everyone else...

Posted by: Gary at September 20, 2005 3:00 PM

Paolo,

I'm afraid far too much of it is just inherited prejudice. The Daniel Goldhagen tendency is widespread among Jews, as is shown by the massive Jewish support for such groups as the ACLU. When push comes to shove, the Christian world will still support Israel; but perhaps a few of us will remember exactly how many insults we have had to swallow along the way.

I quite agree with you on that. Except perhaps that, in my opinion, “Daniel Goldhagen tendency”, at least in the context of Daniel Goldhagen himself, has more to do with cleverly exploiting the gold mine of the Christian guilt than perpetuation of “inherited prejudice”.
Not that the latter doesn’t exist, but in terms of offering international academic acclaim and commercial potential it is significantly less rewarding than the former.

Posted by: thomas. h at September 20, 2005 3:03 PM

Gary: "Not shocked at all, king, leeches do hang on... "

King: You don't say! You've made exactly two posts in this thread. Both were vacuous and directed at me. It seems that without your buddy Geoff, whom you shake your pom-poms for, you have nothing to discuss.

Posted by: KingTolerance at September 20, 2005 8:31 PM

`If you think terms like "useful idiot" or "king tut" matter to me, you've already lost your argument.` - a posting above by King tolerance

I have called the poster a `useful idiot` and that goes for gandhi, galloway etc. Now if thye poster feels that i have lost the argument, then i already have him on the hip.
He has not been able to prove me wrong, but now scrambles under his blanket of obscurity. No matter. Soon his lovable mossies will be plucking his hairs.
As i said, nothing but a USEFUL IDIOT.

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 20, 2005 10:57 PM

`It may strike you as interesting that my tolerance of other religions, including those folks who are peaceful, law abiding Muslims, has enriched my life beyond your limited comprehension.` - same useful idiot.

`Peaceful law abiding citizens` have enriched the life of useful idots.
I can see him sharing `jalebis` and doing the bhanra with his mossie lovers after 9/11 and the london bombings. Go break a leg.

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 20, 2005 11:03 PM

Gallery Of Useful Idiots

As much as she would like to say she did, Teri did not come up with the term "Useful Idiot." Lenin did. "Useful idiots" were those gullable, well-intentioned people in Western democracies who became apologists for the, shall we say, excesses of the new Soviet regime. You know, things like murdering dissenters, torture, rape, etc. They helped Lenin and friends deflect any criticism over things like carrying out three times more political executions in three months than the czars had from 1825-1917. But then as Stalin pointed out, "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic."

http://www.teriobrien.com/usefulidiots/default.asp

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 20, 2005 11:06 PM

`Enriched his life` - Makes me laugh if not that it is so tragic.

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 20, 2005 11:07 PM

King Ignorant, sez:

"... peaceful, law abiding Muslims, has enriched my life beyond your limited comprehension. .."

Now which law would that be, Mr. King?

Sharia?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 21, 2005 4:23 AM

King Tuts Wankfest Hut

I have never said that "Islam is a cancer" - but thanks for the analogy, its a good one & quite prescient.

So DW / JW is "like the Third Reich"?

Really?

I think that likening Mohammed to the Third Reich carries more weight as a comparison.

Both were guilty of spreading their evil iddddeology (Princess Blairs spelling) by military action.

How is DW / JW, or any of the contributors like that?

Really King, defending the faith through reasoned argument seems to be a skill lacking in most Muslims - you especially.

I suggest you revert to true type & just start beheading those who disagree with you, taking their women as slaves & concubines & of course taking their property & wealth as your own.

Go on, its what Mohammed would want you to do, to live your life impersonating the "perfect man" & living to his word.

You are a good Muslim aren't you, Kingy?

Posted by: albion at September 21, 2005 7:06 AM

KT~ nothing at all vacuous: I was pretty specific, you just can't grasp it.

Geoff, not sure if we've ever met, since I hadn't been here for a good 4 months, but keep up the good work!

Posted by: Gary at September 21, 2005 7:45 AM

Hitler killed a lot of churchpeople. He made deals with Jerusalem's Mufti who ordered Muslims to help him kill the Jews and at the end of WW2, many Nazi officers found refuge in Arab countries. In fact, many neo-Nazis have converted to Islam (because Christianity has stopped its jewbashingtime quite some time ago) here in Europe and they love to destroy Jewish stores ...
So which do I fear most as a Jew in Europe? Islam.
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/4411

Was it Nelson:
`Attack is the first line of defence`.
But this silly kingky fellow srutting his silly stuff simply rushes in with his poor education.

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 21, 2005 7:51 AM

Central members of Kristiansand Progress party claims Hitler?s "Mein Kampf" and the Koran are one of the same, and they want Islam banned in Norway.

"We are not the only ones demanding this ban," said Halvor Hulaas, chairperson in Krstiansand Frp to the paper. "This is an opinion that is well established in Scandinavian countries. We are now importing people with a religion that is practiced in the same way it was practiced when it was established in year 600."

"It is about high time Norway and Europe make the ideology Islam and the practice of this, illegal and punishable in the same way as Nazism," Udn泊said. "The prophet Muhammad urged them to kill everyone infidel."
http://www.atsnn.com/story/67331.html

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 21, 2005 7:52 AM

Kingie-wingie: "It seems that without your buddy Geoff, whom you shake your pom-poms for, you have nothing to discuss."

Uh-ohhhh...

You know what they say about the devil, Kingie? Never say his name. He might pop up.

King, if you don't know what a "useful idiot" is, then you're pretty much done the debate. You come on here, throw around ad hominem all day to try and provoke - what? hate? Well, it's true that that can be provoked, if one is stupid or persistent enough. It's much, much more of an accomplishment to provoke it through a direct statement of goals, beliefs and philosophy - kind of like the effect reading the Quran has on non-muslims ("kufr", as you call us).

Let's address your starting, er, "arguments".

Kingie: "Israel was 'created' out of Palestine in 1948. This 'creation' forced the expulsion of Arabs to make way for a zionist Jewish state. Things have not been right in that neighborhood eversince."

Isn't "eversince" a spice? I use it in my "Eternal Key Lime Pie"; a tasty piece of pastry, but you can never empty the pan. Gain a lot of weight that way, let me tell you. But more to the point, there was no "expulsion" of Arabs, but rather a mass exodus in response to rumours stirred up by other Arabs that their women were going to be raped and their families slain, now that the Israelis had won the war. Oh! The war. You do remember that one, right? The one where the Jewish immigrants kept saying: "Please don't kill us, we just want to live in peace" and the Arab nations on all sides said "No! Filthy Jews go back to Europe! And we'll massacre you if you don't! And we've been receiving arms for years and we've got tanks too!" and the Jewish immigrants said "Ok, we'll fight to protect ourselves rather than be slaughtered and our women raped and our children enslaved", and then those darn Jews went and WON and, well, things have not been right in that neighborhood "eversince".

You remember that part, right? The massacres of Jewish settlements before the war for their "insidious Jewish temerity" of even existing? You remember that, right? Yeah, thought not. But, of course, the Israelis are the bad guys. Sure sure.

King: So now which is it? Are we denouncing all of Islam as a violent ideology? If so, this poll actually disproves your point!"

Or perhaps it's because the US et al have been killing al Qaedites and their supporters for a while, and the citizens of this country are beginning to realise they don't want the same? Seriously, we're talking about the ongoing character of islam wherever it's found. Care to join the debate?

Gary, nice to see you round mate. I got a promotion!

Prophet Geoff
BBUH

Posted by: Geoff at September 21, 2005 11:34 AM

If mossies have a right to destroy Israel, then the Indians would have a right to destroy Pakistan. Both were created by the UN.
That goes for Bosnia etc. as well.

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 21, 2005 10:40 PM

leavingtheleft:

mossies have no 'right' to destroy Israel.

For India to destroy Pakistan, that may need some resolve.

Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania will go, eventually.

But what will it take, before we find the strength and the resolve to clean Clinton's mess up?

And the UN, along with Coffi, and Amnesia along with it's Muzzie- propellers, it will vanish in the ozone, sooner or later.

Our survival is at stake. Let's make sure that is us who survives!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 22, 2005 6:30 AM