Is the video offensive or does it just point out the obvious? Discuss.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=31395313

It's all old news, even at the time it came out.
Anyway, it is said that he's going to make Fitna 2 and that it comes out next year.
I also heard that he's getting help from professional filmmakers from Hollywood.

It's all old news, even at the time it came out.
Anyway, it is said that he's going to make Fitna 2 and that it comes out next year.
I also heard that he's getting help from professional filmmakers from Hollywood.

you may have 'heard' that but i cant see why a film company would be interested. not to mention most of the footage is from video sources.

So who are the Hollywood people involved? I presume you know that he was hosted by The David Horowitz "freedom" center in LA?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Horowitz_(ex-Marxist)

you may have 'heard' that but i cant see why a film company would be interested. not to mention most of the footage is from video sources.

I heard it on the news, but they said that 'it was said' or 'Wilders said it' (I don't remember the actual wording), so..

Gee what a surprise!


So who are the Hollywood people involved? I presume you know that he was hosted by The David Horowitz "freedom" center in LA?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Horowitz_(ex-Marxist)

Hmm.. I also see that I didn't word that last sentence as I should have. They said that, supposedly, some professional filmmakers from Hollywood offered to help Wilders make Fitna 2.

Is the video offensive or does it just point out the obvious? Discuss.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=31395313

It points out the obvious, which the insufficiently introspective find offensive.

Here you go:

He will produce the movie with American experts from New York and Hollywood, he said, although he did not name any of them. Somewhere in the course of next week, the man whose party is currently leading in the polls in the Netherlands, he will go to Florida for a fundraiser for his new project.
http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/16/coming-soon-fitna-ii/

Wilders claims that several professional film makers from New York and Hollywood have offered to help. He declined to name names but said they had in the past made films which were shown in the cinema.
http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/fitnathe-sequel-wilders-to-make-second-film/

It is intended to involve U.S. filmmakers in the making of "Fitna 2". This is important because the U.S. promotes mass immigration for Western societies. Recently U.S. President Obama urged the EU to accept Turkey as a member, which would open European nations to unchecked immigration from Turkey.
http://snouck.blogspot.com/2009/04/geert-wilders-announces-fitna-sequel.html

Originally published by 'De Telegraaf': http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/3713692/__Wilders_maakt_Fitna_2__.html

that documentary played in the cinema?

i asked if it played in the cinema.

this doesnt make sense?

No, it didn't play in the cinema.
You asked it as if you just discovered that it did play in the cinema and were surprised. At least, that's how I interpreted it. Sorry.

I don't get it, even if the funders were the 5 jewish bankers that control the world from out space, I don't see how that changes the validity of the film: a message is either true or false based on what it is, not who delivered it.

Off-topic posts deleted. The OP is regarding the movie Fitna and discussion of its content. This assumes that discussants have viewed the movie -please do not engage in trolling/thread hijacking just because the movie is critical of a superstition. If you have a critique to offer of the film, please discuss it on its own merit.

To reiterate, the video doesn't do much to enhance relations between the non-muslim and muslim community nor is it likely to stem hatred. Instead it exerts every effort to instill fear and paranoia among non muslims with its 'they are out to get us all' message, highlighted by its use of 9/11 and other terrorist attack footage. The video demonizes the koran and other than doesn't offer much insight into current political or religious issues affecting secular society. It tells mulims to 'tear the hatred' out of the koran as if this were the main interpretation of the book for muslims and as if it were the main message in the religion. At one point it says 'stop the penetration' but doesn't explain whether he means stopping the penetration of extremism in islam or stopping the growth of islam in western society. His fear and bias is so obvious I am surprised he didn't simply advocate the banning of islam altogether.

There should be more discussion on videos that use this kind of propaganda. I wouldn't advocate banning the material but it definitely warrants discussion

To reiterate, the video doesn't do much to enhance relations between the non-muslim and muslim community nor is it likely to stem hatred. Instead it exerts every effort to instill fear and paranoia among non muslims with its 'they are out to get us all' message,

Does it say those things about killing unbelievers or not?

Does it so those things about killing unbelievers or not?

Sorry I don't understand your question.

Read it again.

The post says "Does it so those things about killing unbelievers or not?" The sentence isn't well written so I'm not sure of its meaning. I am asking you to make the question clear by re-writing it.

The post says "Does it so those things about killing unbelievers or not?" The sentence isn't well written so I'm not sure of its meaning. I am asking you to make the question clear by re-writing it.

PERCEIVED: Does it so those things about killing unbelievers or not?
ACTUAL: Does it say those things about killing unbelievers or not?

PERCEIVED: Does it so those things about killing unbelievers or not?
ACTUAL: Does it say those things about killing unbelievers or not?

Ah! Ok. Well I could find passages in the bible where it states god told Israel to go into canaan kill the people and keep the land as well as other very warlike statements against so called 'heathens'. In the present climate of terrorist threat i don't think it helps to address Islam and all muslims as somehow representative of an extremist ideology. For example if he had instead addressed the fringe groups in the visual focus instead of images of the Koran being opened up, little girls being fed racist views against jews as if this were happening in every muslim home etc., I would have seen it as more than just simple propaganda. Anything can offend, what I was looking at was the overall message, whether there was any insight outside of 'we need to fear muslims', they are bad, the religion is extremist etc etc., and I didn't see that. How does more fear and paranoia serve us in these unstable times? :shrug:

How long has it been since the west has suffered from terrorism by muslim extremist? islam has been around for a very long time yet this form of terrorism is relatively new. Before muslim terrorists seemed to concern themselves with the political reality of Israel, it wasn't 'the west'. What the video fails to do is give reason why this turn of events has occurred, what had changed, it uses the information as a kind of 'de facto' islam is violent and bad, Islam is the problem full stop and points the fear finger at anyone who practises the religion.

Ah! Ok. Well I could find passages in the bible...

Does not matter, most so called Christan countries are secular and do not have a recognized state religion, have separation of church and state and generally don't follow edicts out of a books of mythology and fancy as law. Unlike most Muslims countries, which have sharia law or base their laws off of the koran or worse the Hadiths. The Muslims need to secularize and literally stop following most of the koran just like how most christens stop following most of the bible.

Does not matter, most so called Christan countries are secular and do not have a recognized state religion, have separation of church and state and generally don't follow edicts out of a books of mythology and fancy as law. Unlike most Muslims countries, which have sharia law or base their laws off of the koran or worse the Hadiths. The Muslims need to secularize and literally stop following most of the koran just like how most christens stop following most of the bible.

What are the laws in Christian countries based on?

And by secularize, do you mean like the western countries Muslims need to replace native populations with foreigners, invade, occupy and militarily enforce their values on other societies as the secular societies have been so fond of doing?

Secular societies have been killing millions of people since before WWI. They currently occupy several countries, supply most of the worlds weapons, exploit the poor and are currently known for torture and waterboarding of innocents who have been illegally detained. They also dehumanise the people they kill through propaganda and by considering them as collateral damages.
Why should anyone follow their values?

This movie is an excellent example of how western societies demonise the other, as a prelude to nuclear bombing, occupation or genocide [as previously seen with the Japanese, the "savages" and the Jews]

All this movie is, is an excuse to justify further occupation, murder and torture of Muslims. The fact that the movie is perpetuated and spread by atheists and anti-Muslims over and over and allowed to generate more hate is ample evidence of this fact.

How many threads have already been devoted to this movie? But its against Muslims, so even the moderation here is willing to allow many more threads on it. Anyone who demonises Muslims has an open platform on this forum.

What are the laws in Christian countries based on?

The principles of men? Morals and ideals of the time? for example separation of church and state as a law was NOT a Christian ideal, it was advocated by our deist founding fathers.



And by secularize, do you mean like the western countries Muslims need to replace native populations with foreigners, invade, occupy and militarily enforce their values on other societies as the secular societies have been so fond of doing?

Secular societies have been killing millions of people since before WWI. They currently occupy several countries, supply most of the worlds weapons, exploit the poor and are currently known for torture and waterboarding of innocents who have been illegally detained. They also dehumanise the people they kill through propaganda and by considering them as collateral damages.
Why should anyone follow their values?

So your saying because secular countries have been nationalistic and militaristic, secularism is wrong? Your right fuck secularism and these ideas of giving citizens freedoms of speech, religion, human rights, women and ethnicities equal rights, we should go back to the day and age of killing people because god commands us too! Through out the baby with the bath water you say. And the qualities you mention are not even limited to secularism: What did the ottoman empire do to the Armenians? Muslim countries don't torture or kill innocents, no they just kill women that were raped or bury them half way in the ground and stone them to death. And muslims countries certainly don't dehumanize non-believers, they just legally value non-believers lives less.



This movie is an excellent example of how western societies demonise the other, as a prelude to nuclear bombing, occupation or genocide [as previously seen with the Japanese, the "savages" and the Jews]

Considering this was not a government propaganda film its is not so great an example as you think, its simply freedom of speech at its highest.



All this movie is, is an excuse to justify further occupation, murder and torture of Muslims. The fact that the movie is perpetuated and spread by atheists and anti-Muslims over and over and allowed to generate more hate is ample evidence of this fact.


I don't see where you came to that conclusion: I see it as and advocation for Muslims to secularize.


How many threads have already been devoted to this movie? But its against Muslims, so even the moderation here is willing to allow many more threads on it. Anyone who demonises Muslims has an open platform on this forum.

Hey if you find that such a problem why don't you leave, well of course because your a uncontrollable addict but also because we give you an open platform as well.

My point was that whatever Geert Wilders says that Muslims want to do or Islam teaches Muslims, is exactly what the secular countries are doing today and have been doing for the last century.

So whats the issue?

My point was that whatever Geert Wilders says that Muslims want to do or Islam teaches Muslims, is exactly what the secular countries are doing today and have been doing for the last century.

Secular countries have edicts that say they must kill all disbelievers? There a difference between nationalism, militarism, secularism and religious rule, our problem with is with religious rule, your problem is with nationalism and militarism but your erroneously place on secularism.


So whats the issue?

2 wrongs don't make a right!

So you are saying what people say is more important than what they do? Who cares what the "edicts" are?

Secular countries are occupying Muslim countries and don't do body counts, they kill so many of them. If this is what Geert Wilders wants Muslims to do, he is a strange person indeed.

So you are saying what people say is more important than what they do? Who cares what the "edicts" are?

You mean Muslims don't kill people based on religious edicts, they just say they should?

Secular countries grant their citizens many freedom and rights, they just have a blind spot for other peoples, this due to nationalism and has nothing to do with secularism as it is a problem endemic to all countries.


Secular countries are occupying Muslim countries and don't do body counts, they kill so many of them. If this is what Geert Wilders wants Muslims to do, he is a strange person indeed.

Iraq and Iran killed each other with great gusto.

So its better to kill and torture millions than the few? Better to exploit entire continents and destroy them completely than have strict laws? Better to economically and politically exploit the world rather than be restricted in social intercourse?

So its better to kill and torture millions than the few? Better to exploit entire continents and destroy them completely than have strict laws? Better to economically and politically exploit the world rather than be restricted in social intercourse?

I don't get your logic? secularism does not equal those things, that nationalism. Though iran and Iraq collectively killed 1.5 million of each other and constantly used religion to rally up the people, the motives of the leaders was very much nationalistic, just like the motives of the political and military leaders of secular countries.

So basically Muslims should be neither religious nor nationalistic. The Iran-Iraq war was another secular nightmare [both Muslim Shia nations].

IOW, Muslims should follow either a more cruel and globally destructive ideology or behave like aliens with some other higher ideal that no one else follows.

Is it ok to do something because someone else does it now or has done it in the past? I'm not trying to vilify Islam, just pointing out that the argument that it's ok for muslims because the west is doing or has done whatever is not truly justification. Perhaps some higher standard is what should be striven for instead.

Or was the Holocaust justified because the Jews had committed genocide in claiming their "promised land"? Does the one justify the other?

Is it ok to do something because someone else does it now or has done it in the past? I'm not trying to vilify Islam, just pointing out that the argument that it's ok for muslims because the west is doing or has done whatever is not truly justification. Perhaps some higher standard is what should be striven for instead.

That depends. Would you consider self defence justified after years and years of oppression?

Are people allowed to get angry when they are vilified by those who would murder them for resources?

Is it justified to build a society based on genocide and then preach to everyone else about human rights without making any reparation of your wrongs?

So basically Muslims should be neither religious nor nationalistic.

No, EVERYONE should be neither intolerantly religious (if you religious don't thump it on others) nor nationalistic, everyone should be egalitarian.


The Iran-Iraq war was another secular nightmare .

No, one was ruled by sunnis the other by shia, it was a mix bag of many motives.


IOW, Muslims should follow either a more cruel and globally destructive ideology or [B]behave like aliens with some other higher ideal that no one else follows.

Yeah, that would be great, I think everyone should behave like that, but if only a few do its still worth it.

No, EVERYONE should be neither intolerantly religious (if you religious don't thump it on others) nor nationalistic, everyone should be egalitarian.

No, one was ruled by sunnis the other by shia, it was a mix bag of many motives.

Yeah, that would be great, I think everyone should behave like that, but if only a few do its still worth it.

So whats your opinion of the film by Wilders? What does it represent knowing his stance on banning the Quran and limiting the immigration of Muslims into Europe [thats what Fitna 2 is about, keeping out Muslims]?

What does it represent about the Muslims you know?

That depends. Would you consider self defence justified after years and years of oppression?

Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc were defending them selves in the yam kippur war?



Are people allowed to get angry when they are vilified by those who would murder them for resources?

By cutting off the heads of innocents? By crushing a child to death? By blowing them selves up on buses and schools, by kamakazing into civilian building thousands of miles from their homeland which is at peace with said country anyways? no, no that is very wrong.


Is it justified to build a society based on genocide and then preach to everyone else about human rights without making any reparation of your wrongs?

If a serial killers calls another serial killer a murder is that wrong?

Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc were defending them selves in the yam kippur war?

No they were defending the Palestinians. From the Jewish terrorists, like the ones who blew up other Jews and who conducted the deir yassin massacre.




By cutting off the heads of innocents? By crushing a child to death? By blowing them selves up on buses and schools, by kamakazing into civilian building thousands of miles from their homeland which is at peace with said country anyways? no, no that is very wrong.

How is a country at "peace" with another when it supports a totalitarian dictator it has helped establish?




If a serial killers calls another serial killer a murder is that wrong?

Can a serial killer be his own judge jury or executioner? But thats how the system operates.

Try it.

Secular societies [like Geert Wilders'] have killed and tortured the most people in this century.

True or False?

False. And out of context. If the Communists were trying to extend their influence and we used violence to stop them, we appear to be the bad guys because our actions caused death. Death isn't everything, as living under an oppressive communist police state is a fate worse than death in many ways.

Both sides were secular:rolleyes:

Both sides had red in their flags too. That's irrelevent.

Both sides were secular:rolleyes:

Ruhollah Khomeini secular? YOUR HIGH!!!

We're talking about the communists and allies. Do try and keep track of the conversation.

Was Khomeini's name Rohullah? Thats the Islamic title for Jesus. Hilarious.

No they were defending the Palestinians. From the Jewish terrorists, like the ones who blew up other Jews and who conducted the deir yassin massacre.

Why were they defending Palestinians, huuum?



How is a country at "peace" with another when it supports a totalitarian dictator it has helped establish?

Because those dictators (the Saudis) rule the country and dictate who they are are peace with, which by the way the majority of Saudis support the monarchy.


Can a serial killer be his own judge jury or executioner? But thats how the system operates.

I'm talking bout criticizing others, not about punishment and action.

Why were they defending Palestinians, huuum? .

Because of all that egalitarianism you keep spouting about. They were seeing their neighbors massacred.



Because those dictators (the Saudis) rule the country and dictate who they are are peace with, which by the way the majority of Saudis support the monarchy.


Of course they do, now. When the Sauds were massacring people in the 1920s with the help of the British it was very different. After all, even the Americans elected Bush twice. People get used to all kinds of crap.


I'm talking bout criticizing others, not about punishment and action

A serial killer who pretends to be an angel doesn't have much credibility.


You still haven't told me your opinion of teh movie.

Because of all that egalitarianism you keep spouting about. They were seeing their neighbors massacred.

LOL! No they are doing it for two primary reasons:
1. To get rid of the Palestinians in their territories.
2. because of the massive insult to Islam the jewish state is.

Considering how some of them treat Palestinians refugees in their own territories your reasoning makes absolutely no sense.



Of course they do, now. When the Sauds were massacring people in the 1920s with the help of the British it was very different. After all, even the Americans elected Bush twice. People get used to all kinds of crap.
So then you concede that point, good, lets move along.



A serial killer who pretends to be an angel doesn't have much credibility.
who pretending to be an angel?


You still haven't told me your opinion of the movie.
My opinion is the movie is designed to do one thing only: stir up controversial discussion, this thread proves it for me.

Does not matter, most so called Christan countries are secular and do not have a recognized state religion, have separation of church and state and generally don't follow edicts out of a books of mythology and fancy as law. Unlike most Muslims countries, which have sharia law or base their laws off of the koran or worse the Hadiths. The Muslims need to secularize and literally stop following most of the koran just like how most christens stop following most of the bible.

But his video doesn't seem focused on muslims in other countries which would have lead to an even more specious argument. He's worried about muslims in secular society, Dutch society specifically. In a secular society as long as everyone follows the law we cannot tell people to 'stop following the koran'. In the States it would be a mistake to think that christians have 'stopped following' the bible because they have not. There is a separation of church and state which is why are dollar bill states in 'god we trust' and creationism is being taught in some schools.

If his motivation is to stop people from following their religion then I believe he probably failed but it is obvious that he doesn't care whether muslims follow the Koran or not. He doesnt care about muslims, their perspective, experience, the truth of their identity or anything of that nature. We know this because it isn't explored in the video. He isn't trying to enlighten anyone on anything. What he leaves us with is a carefully crafted piece of propaganda, where the message is designed to outrage those who are not muslim and ostracize those who are. He is using fear as a tool which doesn't surprise me because the whole Bush presidency used fear as a means to shape the country's attitude and point them in a certain direction. People don't think clearly when they operate out of fear, anxiety and paranoia. He plays with emotion derived from emotionally charged sensitive material to keep his viewer from objectively tackling the fact that there is no subject matter save fear. He wants you to fear muslims and treat the koran as the feared enemy of liberty and justice etc etc. Its age old propaganda and its been used before in our society to raise fears about jews, blacks, communists at one point the japanese.

But his video doesn't seem focused on muslims in other countries which would have lead to an even more specious argument. He's worried about muslims in secular society, Dutch society specifically. In a secular society as long as everyone follows the law we cannot tell people to 'stop following the koran'. In the States it would be a mistake to think that christians have 'stopped following' the bible because they have not.

The worry is not that they will follow the Koran and go to mosque, rather that they don't integrate and demand sharia law.


There is a separation of church and state which is why are dollar bill states in 'god we trust' and creationism is being taught in some schools.

There a big difference between having 'in god we trust' (which god?) on a dollar bill and sharia law, pure perfect secularism has never existed, but that does not mean an imperfect secular state is not desirable over a blatantly theocratic one.


If his motivation is to stop people from following their religion then I believe he probably failed but it is obvious that he doesn't care whether muslims follow the Koran or not. He doesnt care about muslims, their perspective, experience, the truth of their identity or anything of that nature. We know this because it isn't explored in the video. He isn't trying to enlighten anyone on anything. What he leaves us with is a carefully crafted piece of propaganda, where the message is designed to outrage those who are not muslim and ostracize those who are. He is using fear as a tool which doesn't surprise me because the whole Bush presidency used fear as a means to shape the country's attitude and point them in a certain direction. People don't think clearly when they operate out of fear, anxiety and paranoia. He plays with emotion derived from emotionally charged sensitive material to keep his viewer from objectively tackling the fact that there is no subject matter save fear. He wants you to fear muslims and treat the koran as the feared enemy of liberty and justice etc etc. Its age old propaganda and its been used before in our society to raise fears about jews, blacks, communists at one point the japanese.

Yes, but is the message true or false? If the nazis were saying "The jews get a disproportionate number of noble prizes!" in a well orchestrated video designed to anger people, is the claim (The jews get a disproportionate number of noble prizes) incorrect?

The worry is not that they will follow the Koran and go to mosque, rather that they don't integrate and demand sharia law.
There a big difference between having 'in god we trust' (which god?) on a dollar bill and sharia law, pure perfect secularism has never existed, but that does not mean an imperfect secular state is not desirable over a blatantly theocratic one.
Yes, but is the message true or false? If the nazis were saying "The jews get a disproportionate number of noble prizes!" in a well orchestrated video designed to anger people, is the claim (The jews get a disproportionate number of noble prizes) incorrect?



Well integration is something of a choice. We do not demand that an orthodox jew integrate, we do not demand that they be rid of their religious courts. Why is there a need to demand it of muslims? What of Gypsies? Maybe we should be more concerned about whether gypsies integrate? Where is the video of gypsies robbing jewelry, reading palms and selling babies in alleyways? Make sure you have them dancing in colored flowing skirts and ruffled tops with one shoulder exposed and large gold hoop earrings:rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stm

I am sorry but I don't see secular society as being placed at risk here. There will be muslims who practise their religion loosely, who live and play among non-muslims and there will be those who are only comfortable in the confines of their own community. All the film does is raise anxiety among those who know nothing about those communities and are ready to think the worst.

Reality isn't made up of 'true' or 'false' its made up of complexities. His message isn't something I 'believe' so I guess its false since the representation is skewed, I mean are muslims in malaysia for example to see themselves in that footage? The Chams of cambodia wouldn't have a clue as to whom they were trying to represent nevermind the message. I don't equate terrorism with muslims anymore than I equate practising catholics with IRA. I just don't think he was trying to achieve anything positive in his work and if he was he missed the mark.


On a different note I would like to recommend a very good film 'Arranged' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ50OHibLq0&feature=channel_page


http://www.arrangedthemovie.com/


Or maybe this is the worse fear of all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9XVB_uYppE&NR=1

Well integration is something of a choice. We do not demand that an orthodox jew integrate, we do not demand that they be rid of their religious courts. Why is there a need to demand it of muslims? What of Gypsies? Maybe we should be more concerned about whether gypsies integrate? Where is the video of gypsies robbing jewelry, reading palms and selling babies in alleyways? Make sure you have them dancing in colored flowing skirts and ruffled tops with one shoulder exposed and large gold hoop earrings:rolleyes:

The integration I was speaking of was respecting the states laws and tolerance for others. I could find sharia law acceptable if the secular courts have final authority and as long as it limited to civil disputes between muslims rather than "she must die because she was raped", "or that infidels life is not worthy of serious punishment" kind of sharia law, what ever conceding people do between them selves is none of by business and that includes agreeing on how to finalized civil disputes, but when a side says "I don't want to have my hand cut off" or "I don't want hanged slowly for being raped." that not conceding anymore, nor is that kind of punishment for those "crimes" allowed in secular societies.



I am sorry but I don't see secular society as being placed at risk here. There will be muslims who do not practise their religion loosely, who live among and play among non-muslims and there will be those who are only comfortable in the confines of their own community. All the film does is raise anxiety among those who are already alienated from those communities, people who don't know much about them etc.

And there will be Muslims who will kill their daughters for being to secular or being a apostate. When a Muslim women was raped by a Muslim man here, the Muslim community here rallied to his side demanding he not be punished for it was her fault, this is the kind of lack of integration I'm talking about: not accepting that we don't punish rape victims and that we punish the rapist.



Reality isn't made up of 'true' or 'false' its made up of complexities.

2+2=4 is mutable? Reality is not made of absolutes, no philosophy on reality is right at all times and places, including yours: there are simplistic states in reality.


His message isn't something I 'believe' so I guess its false since the representation is skewed, I mean are muslims in malaysia for example to see themselves in that footage? The Chams of cambodia wouldn't have a clue as to whom they were trying to represent nevermind the message. I don't equate terrorism with muslims anymore than I equate practising catholics with IRA. I just don't think he was trying to achieve anything positive in his work and if he was he missed the mark.

The Muslims in Malaysia are far more secular. I equate terrorism done by Muslims with Muslim fundamentalist, which represent a significant percentage of the Muslim population in some countries, of these only a handful are sick fuckish enough to these act, but the rest sympathize with them.

I have a film for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpNATfZH5KU

The integration I was speaking of was respecting the states laws and tolerance for others. I could find sharia law acceptable if the secular courts have final authority and as long as it limited to civil disputes between muslims rather than "she must die because she was raped", "or that infidels life is not worthy of serious punishment" kind of sharia law, what ever conceding people do between them selves is none of by business and that includes agreeing on how to finalized civil disputes, but when a side says "I don't want to have my hand cut off" or "I don't want hanged slowly for being raped." that not conceding anymore, nor is that kind of punishment for those "crimes" allowed in secular societies.



And there will be Muslims who will kill their daughters for being to secular or being a apostate. When a Muslim women was raped by a Muslim man here, the Muslim community here rallied to his side demanding he not be punished for it was her fault, this is the kind of lack of integration I'm talking about: not accepting that we don't punish rape victims and that we punish the rapist.


2+2=4 is mutable? Reality is not made of absolutes, no philosophy on reality is right at all times and places, including yours: there are simplistic states in reality.



The Muslims in Malaysia are far more secular. I equate terrorism done by Muslims with Muslim fundamentalist, which represent a significant percentage of the Muslim population in some countries, of these only a handful are sick fuckish enough to these act, but the rest sympathize with them.

I have a film for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpNATfZH5KU

There is another anime called Waltz With Bashir, you may have heard of it already

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWo8U5J0XeY&feature=related

We should remind ourselves that the film seems to address a threat of muslims in secular western society.

I'm sorry electric but there are muslims living in the States and Europe and some live under Sharia and it doesn't seem to be a problem. When I lived in NY and Europe I have never heard the stories of horror that you describe, bad things happen yes but I will not suppose that they are representative of an entire religious group. The truth is that there are many muslims who live and work in secular society and do not clash with the society they are living in. Your examples remind me of when they used to demonize black men and african american communities where it was thought that you would be robbed or raped at any time because 'they' were there.
Crime is crime and if someone commits a crime then they should be dealt with but to assume that because someone follows a religion that they are willing to commit a crime is nothing more than a witch hunt, profiling and a wide open window towards racism.

If you want to 'simplify' the truth to the degree that you can only deal in stereotypes by all means go ahead but I hardly find it very sophisticated.

Why are musims in malaysia more secular when they live under sharia law as well as secular law?

"The nation maintains two parallel justice systems in the country (see: Courts of Malaysia). One is the secular justice system based upon laws gazetted by Parliament. The other is sharia (syariah, Islamic law). Ostensibly Syariah Courts only have jurisdiction over persons who declare themselves to be Muslims. Consequently, this results in non-Muslims not having legal standing in Syariah Courts."

There is another anime called Waltz With Bashir, you may have heard of it already

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWo8U5J0XeY&feature=related

a-n-i-m-e? let me get this straight a autobiographical animated movie by an french-iranian cartoonist, is an anime?... you make me sick!



I'm sorry electric but there are muslims living in the States and Europe and some live under Sharia and it doesn't seem to be a problem.When I lived in NY and Europe I have never heard the stories of horror that you describe, bad things happen yes

what, you live under a rock?
http://www.financialpost.com/conrad_black/story.html?id=159480
http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/2009/04/islam-in-russia-muslim-father-orders.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52437
and that just a tip of one type of iceberg of the many icebergs of this issue!


but I will not suppose that they are representative of an entire religious group.

I never said they were.



The truth is that there are many muslims who live and work in secular society and do not clash with the society they are living in.

yeah secular ones. I know some, nice people.



Your examples remind me of when they used to demonize black men and african american communities where it was thought that you would be robbed or raped at any time because 'they' were there.


i'm not talking about all muslims, not even a majority!



Crime is crime and if someone commits a crime then they should be dealt with but to assume that because someone follows a religion that they are willing to commit a crime is nothing more than a witch hunt, profiling and a wide open window towards racism.

simple fact, most fundamentalist are more prone of criminal acts, Muslim fundamentalism more so, Muslim fundamentalism is a threat to human rights and world safety.



If you want to 'simplify' the truth to the degree that you can only deal in stereotypes by all means go ahead but I hardly find it very sophisticated.


yeah, Muslim fundamentalist are stereotypes, they don't actually want strict sharia law, oppression of women, horrific punishments, and jihad against all that they feel opposes them in a grand scheme for would domination... oh wait they do by the very nature of being Muslims fundamentalist!!! Its like saying christan evangelicals are a stereotype, Democrats are a stereotype: no they not! Its a label for people who actually think a certain way, any exception is no longer under that label so its not a stereotype!



Why are musims in malaysia more secular when they live under sharia law as well as secular law?

because their version of sharia law is far more water down then say Saudis and Iranians, they are secularizing, good for them. For example the sharia law in malaysia is at worse allowed to imposing fines for an amount not more than RM 3000, and imprisonment to not more than 6 months, no hand chopping, lynching, stoning, killing of apostates, etc, unlike saudis and iran.

So if you are not talking about all muslims, not even a majority, and if you agree that there are decent religious muslims then you understand why the video seems perjurative of all muslims simply because it doesn't distinguish? Even the section where it states 'tear out the hatred' as if non-violent muslims somehow could have an influence on violent extremists seems damning to me. Stereotyping people at a time when they are targets of hatred and fear simply because of the way they dress, religious beliefs or where they are from is not helpful. You have not built a case as to how this video is helpful in anyway to stem hatred and violence or bridge gaps between differing peoples. One has to question the intent of the filmaker.

By the way you don't make me sick electric, I'm indifferent.

So if you are not talking about all muslims, not even a majority, and if you agree that there are decent religious muslims then you understand why the video seems perjurative of all muslims simply because it doesn't distinguish?

I'm not sure the video does not distinguish, it seems to be asking for secularization, secularized Muslims are not the subject of the video, fundamentalist Muslims are the ones worry about.



Even the section where it states 'tear out the hatred' as if non-violent muslims somehow could have an influence on violent extremists seems damning to me.

They could in fact have a influence, in most Muslims countries they so called "non-violent" Muslims have the majority they could stand up and denounce their psychotic brethren, but they don't, openly because they don't want to
die and internally because it difficult to rat out a brother of the faith.



Stereotyping people at a time when they are targets of hatred and fear simply because of the way they dress, religious beliefs or where they are from is not helpful. You have not built a case as to how this video is helpful in anyway to stem hatred and violence or bridge gaps between differing peoples.

I think its helpful, it induced this discussion.


One has to question the intent of the filmaker.
To get attention, to make money? like all filmmakers.


By the way you don't make me sick electric, I'm indifferent.
Calling something anime is never appropriate to me, accept in the case were it styling, plot and show elements are characteristic of anime.

Electric: Calling something anime is never appropriate to me, accept in the case were it styling, plot and show elements are characteristic of anime.

So for this your disgusted. Well done.

Electric: I'm not sure the video does not distinguish, it seems to be asking for secularization, secularized Muslims are not the subject of the video, fundamentalist Muslims are the ones worry about.

I can agree with that but fundamentalist muslims are not going to be moved by a video of this nature and there is little that a secular society can do to change the mind of a fundamentalist. Outside of the video expressing a certain outrage it hardly goes so far as to enlighten a secular society on the nature of extremism other than state its extreme. The only other outcome from the work is to manipulte the fears of a secular society and that can only lead to outrageous acts like turning on muslims whether they be extreme or not. I'm thinking of all the times muslim families and individuals were asked to leave an airline because of passenger fears etc.

Electric: They could in fact have a influence, in most Muslims countries they so called "non-violent" Muslims have the majority they could stand up and denounce their psychotic brethren, but they don't, openly because they don't want to
die and internally because it difficult to rat out a brother of the faith.

Well I think this has happened already. Many muslims have said basically that terrorists are not acting in their name but it becomes more and more difficult for non-violent muslims to take this stance when they themselves are coming under fire simply because of their religion or because they wear the burkah or hajib. We are alienating this portion of the muslim population and its not helpful.

So for this your disgusted. Well done.

Thank you.



I can agree with that but fundamentalist muslims are not going to be moved by a video of this nature and there is little that a secular society can do to change the mind of a fundamentalist.

Of course, despite what the video says the primary propose is to invoke controversy and attention to the artiest. It was not designed to actually convince fundamentalist Muslim to secularize, that near impossible! Look at the ones on this forum: I cannot for the life of me convince them that killing children is wrong (these being infidel children mind you).


Outside of the video expressing a certain outrage it hardly goes so far as to enlighten a secular society on the nature of extremism other than state its extreme. The only other outcome from the work is to manipulte the fears of a secular society and that can only lead to outrageous acts like turning on muslims whether they be extreme or not. I'm thinking of all the times muslim families and individuals were asked to leave an airline because of passenger fears etc.

No, things like 9/11 did that, this video has not, this video is like pissing in a sea of piss.


Well I think this has happened already. Many muslims have said basically that terrorists are not acting in their name but it becomes more and more difficult for non-violent muslims to take this stance when they themselves are coming under fire simply because of their religion or because they wear the burkah or hajib. We are alienating this portion of the muslim population and its not helpful.

Agreed, but this video is not actually harming, Europe is hating Muslims more and more because of mass immigration of them, in the US unfavorable opinion of Muslims has actually decrease over the last 5 years by ~25%.

What makes you believe it is geared towards the 'athiest'? It doesn't make a case against religion only Islam.

Electric: No, things like 9/11 did that, this video has not, this video is like pissing in a sea of piss.

Yes 9/11 precipitated that kind of thinking so how can the video do anything else but bolster more fear and paranoia?

Electric: Agreed, but this video is not actually harming, Europe is hating Muslims more and more because of mass immigration of them, in the US unfavorable opinion of Muslims has actually decrease over the last 5 years by ~25%.

And dont you find that odd considering most muslims are simply hard working people minding their own business? I spoke to a Danish friend of mine recently and she said that although they are having problems with their muslim immigrants, mostly young gang members, she said that they were the 'few'.

What makes you believe it is geared towards the 'athiest'? It doesn't make a case against religion only Islam.

Why would I think it geared towards atheists?



Yes 9/11 precipitated that kind of thinking so how can the video do anything else but bolster more fear and paranoia?

Because its a little video, not a terrorist attack.


And dont you find that odd considering most muslims are simply hard working people minding their own business? I spoke to a Danish friend of mine recently and she said that although they are having problems with their muslim immigrants, mostly young gang members, she said that they were the 'few'.

its the ones that aren't that piss people off.

Why would I think it geared towards atheists?
Because its a little video, not a terrorist attack.
its the ones that aren't that piss people off.

Yes the video doesn't deal with 'religion' per se it deals with the koran or precisely an extremitst interpretation of the koran.

Videos can either expand our knowledge of something or it can sensationalize. This chose to sensationalize and offers nothing else, it plays on emotions, on fears.

Criminals piss everyone off.

Videos can either expand our knowledge of something or it can sensationalize. This chose to sensationalize and offers nothing else, it plays on emotions, on fears.

I don't think it plays on fear, rather the responses are varied, I do agree it "sensationalized and nothing else" that the propose of the video, to be controversial for attention.


Criminals piss everyone off.
When they are immigrant criminals it opens the question of deportation and closing borders.

Illegal immigrants are always deported, many muslims are legal citizens and not criminal at all. ciminal behaviour happens regardless of religion or ethnicity.

I think the video didnt give any information that is new, nothing we haven't seen or heard before. Its biased opinion on the koran and nothing more, this of course is ok by itself but I don't find anything useful about it save spreading an unreflective bias, there isn't anything else informative about the work so if that was also the intent it failed.

I think the video didnt give any information that is new, nothing we haven't seen or heard before.

I never said it did.


Its biased opinion on the koran and nothing more, this of course is ok by itself but I don't find anything useful about it save spreading an unreflective bias, there isn't anything else informative about the work so if that was also the intent it failed.

Wait how is reading verses out of the Koran bias? I don't think being informative was an intent at all.

Because he isolates an interpretation of the koran held by extremists and not muslims at large

No they were defending the Palestinians. From the Jewish terrorists, like the ones who blew up other Jews and who conducted the deir yassin massacre.

Well the Palestinians need to get some new defenders because the current ones suck and can't even defend themselves.

Because he isolates an interpretation of the koran held by extremists and not muslims at large

Add I think his argument was those that do interpret those sections like that, not to.


Well the Palestinians need to get some new defenders because the current ones suck and can't even defend themselves.

Not to mention these so called defenders also kill and oppress Palestinians.

Lucysnow, I just want to say that although you are not Muslim, what you stated as far as the Muslim view regarding this film and how this alienates almost all Muslims is very true. You are a very intelligent person, and I am glad you are posting in this forum. If you would like to ask me anything, please PM me, it would be an honor.

Unfortunately, some people such as the producer of this film want to ban the practice of the Islamic religion from all Western countries, and to do this they will lie, deceive people, and spread false information about Islam and Muslims. Some of those who are not exposed to Muslims in the West think that somehow Muslims want to supplant the system here and force Islamic law on the populace. These people don't even know that Islamic law in Muslim countries does not apply to Non-Muslims, only those who profess themselves to be Muslims. They isolate Islamic law to isolated punishments for vague crimes, intentionally not defining them. For example, the punishment of execution for adultery is only allowed in the context if two individuals engage in this in front of four eye witnesses, yet the punishment is written to prevent the crime and dissuade others simply from the known possible crime. There are other examples, but in modern times many Islamic societies have feel into absolute ruin and anarchy, because of wars imposed on them. Do you expect war-torn Somalia and war-torn Afghanistan which have both in invaded and involved in civil wars to be an example of an enlightened Islamic state?

What we have today are the ruins of the Islamic justice system and attempt by war-torn societies to establish a minor semblance of order any way which they know how. The European colonization, genocide, and theft for 200 years of the Muslim World has left its mark on the Islamic world and what we live in today is world in which people are trying to recover a past which was stolen from us. We were forcibly secularized, we never wanted European laws, yet they didn't leave any of our old institutions intact, and they completely obliterated our independence with their chosen monarchies and dictators.

The Muslim psyche is one of a long history of victimization, subjugation, and shame at defeat. Therefore, outrage and grief are natural expressions for a people whose culture was forcibly removed from them, whose great leaders were captured, tortured, and murdered in gruesome ways, and whose way of life has been on the defensive for nearly 200 years of European intellectual, scientific, militaristic, and economic attack.

Well the Palestinians need to get some new defenders because the current ones suck and can't even defend themselves.

Kinda like black criminals.

Unfortunately, some people such as the producer of this film want to ban the practice of the Islamic religion from all Western countries, and to do this they will lie, deceive people, and spread false information about Islam and Muslims. Some of those who are not exposed to Muslims in the West think that somehow Muslims want to supplant the system here and force Islamic law on the populace. These people don't even know that Islamic law in Muslim countries does not apply to Non-Muslims, only those who profess themselves to be Muslims. They isolate Islamic law to isolated punishments for vague crimes, intentionally not defining them. For example, the punishment of execution for adultery is only allowed in the context if two individuals engage in this in front of four eye witnesses, yet the punishment is written to prevent the crime and dissuade others simply from the known possible crime. There are other examples, but in modern times many Islamic societies have feel into absolute ruin and anarchy, because of wars imposed on them. Do you expect war-torn Somalia and war-torn Afghanistan which have both in invaded and involved in civil wars to be an example of an enlightened Islamic state?

Wait, Saudi Arabia is a war torn Islamic state? You mean to tell me that they don't maim, whip and behead people publicly, that they don't execute people for witchcraft and apostasy? And that they don't impose sharia based law on non-muslims?


We were forcibly secularized, we never wanted European laws

Many Iranians tell my quite the opposite.


The Muslim psyche is one of a long history of victimization, subjugation, and shame at defeat. Therefore, outrage and grief are natural expressions for a people whose culture was forcibly removed from them, whose great leaders were captured, tortured, and murdered in gruesome ways, and whose way of life has been on the defensive for nearly 200 years of European intellectual, scientific, militaristic, and economic attack.

Oh woe is you. That way some Islamic state are incredibly rich yet live so backwards.

Like all anti-Muslim threads, we go from Netherlands to Palestine to Saudi Arabia is a seamless homogenous manner. Typical.

I suppose this is what Skinwalker means when he wants to discuss the movie "on its own merit"?

Naturally, there is no point in even debating some people. Basically all criticism of Islam can be isolated to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, so what of the 50 other Muslim countries. They are a minor inconvenience to this view.

So what's your purpose in debating about Islam? To prove that Muslims are as they are portrayed in this movie?

Intentions are very important. If one wishes to increase hatred of Islam, then nothing of truth shall touch him. Whereas, if one genuinely wishes to learn the subject, then the world will open up for him. It is all about intention.

On this forum, its mostly anything goes as long as its against Muslims.

Naturally, there is no point in even debating some people. Basically all criticism of Islam can be isolated to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, so what of the 50 other Muslim countries. They are a minor inconvenience to this view.

And Iran, Lebanon, Jordon, Syria, etc, I guess I have not heard anything bad about Malaysia they have been pretty liberal, neither Turkey, at least the cities in Turkey.


So what's your purpose in debating about Islam? To prove that Muslims are as they are portrayed in this movie?

no, I simply advocate having secular states instead of religious ones.


Intentions are very important. If one wishes to increase hatred of Islam, then nothing of truth shall touch him.

So if a Nazi says 2+2=4, its not true? Truth does not care about intention, rather it is action that is dependent on intention not truth.


On this forum, its mostly anything goes as long as its against Muslims.

Suck to be you.

So you think The Eternal Jew was right about Jews?

http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/stills.shtml

So you think The Eternal Jew was right about Jews?

http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/stills.shtml'

And that has to do with the price of cheese how?

Its the same type of propaganda. Even has the verses from Deuteromy thrown in for god effect. It was people like you even then shaking their heads and seeing how right the Nazis were when they made that movie

Its the same type of propaganda. Even has the verses from Deuteromy thrown in for god effect. It was people like you even then shaking their heads and seeing how right the Nazis were when they made that movie

So this film is also a product of a ruling government and was not say rejected by said government? The Dutch are not going to start hording Muslims into concentration camps, and if they do I'll object to them.

So this film is also a product of a ruling government and was not say rejected by said government? The Dutch are not going to start hording Muslims into concentration camps, and if they do I'll object to them.

They are killing them in Afghanistan at present. Just substitute ruling government for colonial cousins/

Note that the movie is not about Dutch Muslims.

Besides, its nothing new where the Dutch are concerned. e.g. the Srebrenica massacre

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/5858/picture1xwz.png (http://img99.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture1xwz.png)

Source (http://books.google.com/books?id=n_zcNMoTYgkC&pg=PA377&lpg=PA377&dq=Dutchbat+racism&source=bl&ots=4xdWQ_iQ7N&sig=xVHAMORjX2noQ3ZxyjjL-bSiZU8&hl=en&ei=_Wz4SfDvAonItgfD4by3Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2)

They are killing them in Afghanistan at present. Just substitute ruling government for colonial cousins/

They aren't being killing simply because they are muslim.



Note that the movie is not about Dutch Muslims.

In the full movie it is: at the end/climax/crescendo its specifically about muslins in the Netherlands.


Besides, its nothing new where the Dutch are concerned. e.g. the Srebrenica massacre

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/5858/picture1xwz.png (http://img99.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture1xwz.png)

Source (http://books.google.com/books?id=n_zcNMoTYgkC&pg=PA377&lpg=PA377&dq=Dutchbat+racism&source=bl&ots=4xdWQ_iQ7N&sig=xVHAMORjX2noQ3ZxyjjL-bSiZU8&hl=en&ei=_Wz4SfDvAonItgfD4by3Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2)

So the Duntch UN battalion represents all of the dutch government and people?

Sure, in the same way that fitna represents Muslims, the Dutch who rode their vehicles over the people they were sent to protect represent all Dutchmen.

Lucysnow, I just want to say that although you are not Muslim, what you stated as far as the Muslim view regarding this film and how this alienates almost all Muslims is very true. You are a very intelligent person, and I am glad you are posting in this forum. If you would like to ask me anything, please PM me, it would be an honor.

Unfortunately, some people such as the producer of this film want to ban the practice of the Islamic religion from all Western countries, and to do this they will lie, deceive people, and spread false information about Islam and Muslims. Some of those who are not exposed to Muslims in the West think that somehow Muslims want to supplant the system here and force Islamic law on the populace. These people don't even know that Islamic law in Muslim countries does not apply to Non-Muslims, only those who profess themselves to be Muslims. They isolate Islamic law to isolated punishments for vague crimes, intentionally not defining them. For example, the punishment of execution for adultery is only allowed in the context if two individuals engage in this in front of four eye witnesses, yet the punishment is written to prevent the crime and dissuade others simply from the known possible crime. There are other examples, but in modern times many Islamic societies have feel into absolute ruin and anarchy, because of wars imposed on them. Do you expect war-torn Somalia and war-torn Afghanistan which have both in invaded and involved in civil wars to be an example of an enlightened Islamic state?

What we have today are the ruins of the Islamic justice system and attempt by war-torn societies to establish a minor semblance of order any way which they know how. The European colonization, genocide, and theft for 200 years of the Muslim World has left its mark on the Islamic world and what we live in today is world in which people are trying to recover a past which was stolen from us. We were forcibly secularized, we never wanted European laws, yet they didn't leave any of our old institutions intact, and they completely obliterated our independence with their chosen monarchies and dictators.

The Muslim psyche is one of a long history of victimization, subjugation, and shame at defeat. Therefore, outrage and grief are natural expressions for a people whose culture was forcibly removed from them, whose great leaders were captured, tortured, and murdered in gruesome ways, and whose way of life has been on the defensive for nearly 200 years of European intellectual, scientific, militaristic, and economic attack.

Thank you Diamond for the offer. I think no matter our differences we have a lot to contribute in exchange with one another in these forums and I will take the opportunity in future to ask for your knowledge and perspective on issues relating to Islam and regarding Muslims both historical and current. I know there is a bias in the West and its reflected here on these boards which is unfortunate because we miss the chance to learn from each others experience and perspective.

Sure, in the same way that fitna represents Muslims, the Dutch who rode their vehicles over the people they were sent to protect represent all Dutchmen.

fitna does not represent all Muslims.

Lets see what Fitna: The Sequel has to say before we get ahead of ourselves.

Thank you Diamond for the offer. I think no matter our differences we have a lot to contribute in exchange with one another in these forums and I will take the opportunity in future to ask for your knowledge and perspective on issues relating to Islam and regarding Muslims both historical and current. I know there is a bias in the West and its reflected here on these boards which is unfortunate because we miss the chance to learn from each others experience and perspective.

Agreed. I also respect your view. It is very rare for someone to show an inquisitive nature regarding modern affairs, especially in regards to Muslim affairs. Though our viewpoints are mocked and disrespected, this does not lessen the point that we indeed have much to say. We are not one dimensional savage characters who are predisposed to violence and fanaticism. It is very unfortunate that we are misunderstood in the West to such a large degree. Reading the posts from people such as you gives me hope in a future in which humanity can live as equals in mutual respect of one another.

We are not as different from other humans as some want us to believe. When we are happy, we laugh. When we are hurt, we cry. When we are wronged, we thirst for justice. When our skin is torn, we bleed the same red blood. I only hope more people can see this.

The pleasure is all mine. It is a great honor to read your posts. Please continue to honor this forum with your presence.

fitna does not represent all Muslims.

Quite right. Nor is it meant to. If one wishes to make a case against the evils of DutchBat driving, or a specific commander or even the entire battalion, then one should be free to do so, evidence permitting. By the same token, one should be free to examine the evils of islamic fundamentalist / islamic politics and decry its evils. Sounds all quite fair. Has Sam even seen Fitna? Dubious.


It is very unfortunate that we are misunderstood in the West to such a large degree. Reading the posts from people such as you gives me hope in a future in which humanity can live as equals in mutual respect of one another.

By which you mean the decapitation of apostates, as you alluded to some while back? :D I do agree completely that muslims are not one-dimensional savages, nor that anyone is. However, islamic politics - like most religious politics but to a far greater degree, at least in this era - is a complex, multidimensional savagery. You are an example of that.


We are not as different from other humans as some want us to believe. When we are happy, we laugh. When we are hurt, we cry. When we are wronged, we thirst for justice. When our skin is torn, we bleed the same red blood. I only hope more people can see this.

Of course.

By way of reciprocity, please also note that non-muslims - including apostates - laugh when happy, cry when hurt, bleed when struck down by a mob in the street. Or even by the state.

Best regards,

GeoffP

So does The Eternal Jew also make a valid point? Are there Jews who use their finances to control social policy? Who have dual loyalties? Who exploit others for profit? Who arrogantly look down on non-Jews?

Is that movie an example of an instance where "one should be free to examine the evils of jewish fundamentalist / jewish politics and decry its evils. Sounds all quite fair."?

So does The Eternal Jew also make a valid point? Are there Jews who use their finances to control social policy? Who have dual loyalties? Who exploit others for profit? Who arrogantly look down on non-Jews?

Of course there are but they don't blow them selves, their highest rabis and politicians do not state how infidels should be killed, how followers should die for martyrdom, how Jews should rule th world and all other religions should be destroy and follower converted. In actually jewish people have a far higher rate of secular thought and free thinkers then Muslims, Muslims have the highest rate of fanatical murderous fundamentalism in the world, aside for small cults.


Is that movie an example of an instance where "one should be free to examine the evils of jewish fundamentalist / jewish politics and decry its evils. Sounds all quite fair."?

I once saw a film about the Orthodox jews in Jerusalem, their little bags of shit, I had no problem with the video.

So does The Eternal Jew also make a valid point?

Let me think...a propaganda film based on nothing and created by Nazis who wanted to send all Jewish people to the gas chambers. An assuredly tough call. Not.

But you did not answer my question. Are there Jews who are like what the Eternal Jew depicted?

Using their finances and power, exploiting people and using hasbara to misrepresent other points of view?


Of course there are but they don't blow them selves, their highest rabis and politicians do not state how infidels should be killed, how followers should die for martyrdom, how Jews should rule th world and all other religions should be destroy and follower converted. In actually jewish people have a far higher rate of secular thought and free thinkers then Muslims, Muslims have the highest rate of fanatical murderous fundamentalism in the world, aside for small cults. .
How do you know they don't? You speak Hebrew? Receive any input from Memri on what the Jews are saying about other people? Just read the talkbacks in any Jewish publication to meet such Jews.





I once saw a film about the Orthodox jews in Jerusalem, their little bags of shit, I had no problem with the video

Yup, I met some shitbags who were personified by that too. And I've seen Israelis on al Jazeera who make The Eternal Jew look optimistic.

Sam: As for Jews blowing themselves up, they are the first terrorists in history. Look it up.

The first terrorists in history? Using hyperbole again SAM? Cite evidence please.

Sam: As for Jews blowing themselves up, they are the first terrorists in history. Look it up.

The first terrorists in history? Using hyperbole again SAM? Cite evidence please.

I deleted it because it was going off topic.

The Sicarii, first known forerunners of modern terrorism

Sicarii (Latin plural of Sicarius 'dagger-' or later contract- killer) is a term applied, in the decades immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, (probably) to an extremist splinter group[1] to the Jewish Zealots, (or insurgents) who attempted to expel the Romans and their partisans from Judea.

Today there are extremists of not entirely dissimilar behavior, which are calling themselves by the same name.[4]

In studying the originals, political scientists see the radical Sicarii offshoot of the Zealots as one of the earliest forerunners of modern terrorism. Like modern terrorists, they intended their actions to suggest a message to a wider target audience: in this instance, the Roman imperial officials and all pro-Roman and collaborationist Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarii

But you did not answer my question. Are there Jews who are like what the Eternal Jew depicted? Using their finances and power, exploiting people and using hasbara to misrepresent other points of view?

There tons of people like that, some of them are Jews, what your point?



How do you know they don't?

Because I know jews, talked with jews, lived with jews, etc, they could have easily converted me if they weren't so secular. I have talked with, worked with, was taught by Muslims too and I've yet to meet in person a Muslim bent on global domination, death to jews, etc, now on the internet I meet those kind all the time, I read international survey reports that show how endemic support of terrorism is in the Muslim world, and I wonder how we can secularize all these fundamentalist Muslims into the nice ones I've meet.



Yup, I met some shitbags who were personified by that too. And I've seen Israelis on al Jazeera who make The Eternal Jew look optimistic.

No questions you would see that on Al Jazeera.

I read international survey reports that show how endemic support of terrorism is in the Muslim world, and I wonder how we can secularize all these fundamentalist Muslims into the nice ones I've meet. .

Perhaps you should see why they support "terrorism". Note that only the west calls it terrorism. But then you think people have no right to defend themselves from western colonialism or occupation.



No questions you would see that on Al Jazeera


Because of course, you've seen al Jazeera and noted the excellent quality of their programming, which is curiously suppressed in the US.

Perhaps you should see why they support "terrorism". Note that only the west calls it terrorism. But then you think people have no right to defend themselves from western colonialism or occupation.

And back to the same point, by killing civilians, killing children? When soilders invade your country you shoot the soldiers, when foreigner powers install a dictator your riot against the dictator, you don't blow your self up in foreign nations or kidnap and decapitate there citizens, it only hardens their resolve to kill you!


Because of course, you've seen al Jazeera and noted the excellent quality of their programming, which is curiously suppressed in the US.

Yep, and is so suppressed in the US that I can go online and watch it at any time I want.

And back to the same point, by killing civilians, killing children? When soilders invade your country you shoot the soldiers, when foreigner powers install a dictator your riot against the dictator, you don't blow your self up in foreign nations or kidnap and decapitate there citizens, it only hardens their resolve to kill you!

Everyone kills collaborators in war. Read some history.




Yep, and is so suppressed in the US that I can go online and watch it at any time I want.

But not on any cable television.

Everyone kills collaborators in war. Read some history.

2 wrongs don't make a right. Learn some logic.


But not on any cable television.

And that has to do with the price of cheese?

2 wrongs don't make a right. Learn some logic.


Biology is logic. :rolleyes:

Singling out Muslims for killing collaborators to enemies who put them in concentration camps, torture them, kill their children and destroy their countries is illogical.


And that has to do with the price of cheese?

That the internet is everywhere, but keeping al Jazeera off cable is very significant.

See any Americans calling for freedom of expression? lol.

But you did not answer my question. Are there Jews who are like what the Eternal Jew depicted?

Sure. Just as there are muslims just like that, and Christians, and everything else. The question is the proposed message. In the case of "The Eternal Jew" and other of your viewing preferences, the target is Jews - all of them, every one. Hence the "Eternal" part: they are always like this, they do it everywhere they go. (An attitude towards Jews that I notice you have in common with The Eternal Jew, but never mind for the moment.) Fitna refers to islamic extremism and political supremacism. Only an extremist or supremacist - again, those with views much like your own - would completely equate islam with surpremacism.


Using their finances and power, exploiting people and using hasbara to misrepresent other points of view?

I don't think you even know what hasbara is. How could I possibly credit you with any knowledge of it, when you decry my understanding of islamic sociality because I'm not muslim?


Perhaps you should see why they support "terrorism". Note that only the west calls it terrorism. But then you think people have no right to defend themselves from western colonialism or occupation.

Is their "defense" predicated on the suppression of minorities? Because that's an integral part of islamic supremacism. I tend to shy away from the term "terrorism" because it's frequently misleading.


Because of course, you've seen al Jazeera and noted the excellent quality of their programming

:rolleyes:

the target is Jews - all of them, every one
Ever heard Geert Wilders speak about Muslims?


I don't think you even know what hasbara is

You can't polish a turd and if you try, you will only end up with dirty hands.

Thats a direct quote
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054129.html

Biology is logic. :rolleyes:

what the fuck does that mean?



Singling out Muslims for killing collaborators to enemies who put them in concentration camps, torture them, kill their children and destroy their countries is illogical.

The Saudis that did 9/11 were put in concentration camps, tortured, had lost there children to america and their country was put it such ruin by america? If they have a problem with the Saudis they should have attack them first, not one of there indirect supporters, it provides no benefit, but the Saudis are Muslim and America are not.

The Palestinians blood thirst is understandable but how there outletting it is completely wrong morally, logically, strategically, they are only enhanced and extends their suffering, which is probably what Hamas wants to keep up support and recruitment. If lebonon, Syria and Egypt really cared about the Palestinians they woudl integrate them and be done with the suffering and oppression, but they don't, they need constant strife with the shame to Islam that Israel, they need to scapegoat all their problems on israel, kill any Muslim leader that dares to bring peace. When they trap Palestinians in refugee camps, refuse to give them food, electricity, economic interaction, no one cares about Muslim on Muslim suffering. Islam is the religion of peace that why they aren't going to be the better men and take in the Palestinians and thus make for war and suffering for ever and ever, soooo peaceful.



That the internet is everywhere, but keeping al Jazeera off cable is very significant.

See any Americans calling for freedom of expression? lol.

If American's wanted al jazeera on cable they would get it.

Please are you venting Zionist Hasbara on me? There are Palestinians in Saudi Arabia too.

And the Israelis are making far more profit from the Holocaust industry than anything the Palestinians are doing from other Palestinians. Besides, ALL the Palestinians are second class citizens and exploitation would be common under such circumstances. Even the Jews were more afraid of Jewish police in Warsaw than they were of Germans.

Again, basic history.


If American's wanted al jazeera on cable they would get it.

The Americans only get to see what the media decides they shd.

Please are you venting Zionist Hasbara on me? There are Palestinians in Saudi Arabia too.

The ones that did 9/11 were not of Palestinian decent!



And the Israelis are making far more profit from the Holocaust industry than anything the
Palestinians are doing from other Palestinians.

What that have to do with anything?



Besides, ALL the Palestinians are second class citizens and exploitation would be common under such circumstances. Even the Jews were more afraid of Jewish police in Warsaw than they were of Germans.

And that has to do with...?



Again, basic history.

meaningless opinions you mean.



The Americans only get to see what the media decides they shd.

We have the internet you know, we can READ! Americans only watch what they want to watch, which is usually shit the was craped out of a giant walking piece of shit, but hey that what they want to watch and thats what the media provides, because the media is run by cooperations, not the government, and thus those that don't provide the mindless crap Americans want don't get the ratings and don't get the money.

Exactly. And mindless crap is what Americans feed on. Who knows who did 9/11?

Exactly. And mindless crap is what Americans feed on. Who knows who did 9/11?

Why do your ask stupid questions? Mindless crap is what Americans feed on because they want it, no demand it! Its not because of some conspiracy by the media orchestrated by the 5 jewish bankers in space. So no, your wrong.

Ever heard Geert Wilders speak about Muslims?

If he so describes muslims per se, rather than islam (with the inherent understanding that he means political islam; although I wonder if well-intentioned secularists are held up to the same standard in their denunciations of Christian identity politics), then he and I disagree. I don't recall him saying "muslims", but if you have such an instance, please feel free to post. He appears to be quite correct in outlining the dangers of islamic identity politics, however,


You can't polish a turd and if you try, you will only end up with dirty hands.

An exciting and not completely relevant aphorism.

. He appears to be quite correct in outlining the dangers of islamic identity politics, however

Really? Like the Dutch who rode their vehicles over fleeing civilians in Srebrenica?

Look around you, whose identity politics is imposing itself with military force, torture and murder on civilians? I can't believe you're educated people, acting like blind clueless morons. Can you believe if the situation were reversed and you were in some Gitmo while your family rotted in a refugee camp and the people whined about how dangerous YOU were to THEIR society? Fucking A.

What planet do you live on where YOU kill and torture people and blame THEM for it?

Really? Like the Dutch who rode their vehicles over fleeing civilians in Srebrenica?

What that have to do with Islamic politics?



Look around you, whose identity politics is imposing itself with military force, torture and murder on civilians?

Military force to do what, kill people for killing sack? Torture authorized by whom a corrupt moronic administration who no longer in power? And murder, our soldiers go and beat children to death, then go home and are awarded as heroes with everyone knowing exactly what they did but thinking that child soooo deserved to die? When Americans and Europeans saw civilians dieing, saw despicable war crimes by their soldiers they pulled back, they demanded an end, but say when the Lebanese see a Muslim 'freedom fighter' chop off someones head they dance in the street. Why is it that we westerns cringe at the murder of civilians while you find the murder of infidel children to be acceptable, imagine if we had your morality: all of the middle east would be leveled to trinitite and any remaining Muslims world wide would have been rounded up into death camps and gassed. You don't see the hypocrisy of whining about war crimes when you your self find war crimes acceptable (when they come from your side).


What planet do you live on where YOU kill and torture people and blame THEM for it?

We don't torture and kill like they do. We try to focus are attacks on soldiers, 'they' try to focus their attacks on civilians, we try to follow conventions of war and those that don't are eventual deposed or imprisoned, while 'they' worship and reward unrelenting brutality. We simply want to removed dictators, governments and organizations that we feel are a threat to world safety (a motive I and other westerns feel is moronic as the problem is the people them selves), 'they' want to bring down whole countries and kill everyone and have Islam rule the world and have all disbelievers converted or murdered.

When Americans and Europeans saw civilians dieing, saw despicable war crimes by their soldiers they pulled back, they demanded an end, but say when the Lebanese see a Muslim 'freedom fighter' chop off someones head they dance in the street

More Hasbara. Obviously the Americans and Europeans get over it pretty soon, as the last 20 years of war in Iraq have shown. As Madeline Albright said when 500,000 children under 5 years of age died under sanctions "the price is worth it". Then they went on to the next occupation, and the next and the next.

So forgive me if I gag over the penitency of the Euro-American occupation machinery.

As for the Lebanese dancing in the streets, thats more Israeli Memri making. Works well on mindless people who get their idea of the world from mindless media.

Which is why we have the irony of occupiers and invaders and torturers and killers worrying about the terrorism from their victims. Ha! Kinda like the Nazis feeling oppressed by the Jews and thinking they were undergoing a Holocaust.

More Hasbara. Obviously the Americans and Europeans get over it pretty soon, as the last 20 years of war in Iraq have shown. As Madeline Albright said when 500,000 children under 5 years of age died under sanctions "the price is worth it". Then they went on to the next occupation, and the next and the next.

Your confusing politicians for people.



As for the Lebanese dancing in the streets, thats more Israeli Memri making. Works well on mindless people who get their idea of the world from mindless media.

it was on fucking al jazeera them celebrating the return of Samir Kuntar!



Which is why we have the irony of occupiers and invaders and torturers and killers worrying about the terrorism from their victims. Ha! Kinda like the Nazis feeling oppressed by the Jews and thinking they were undergoing a Holocaust.

The Jews in the holocaust did not terrorize the nazis, if they did it would have only hasten their deaths, jews were smart enough to figure that out but muslims aren't, dispite decades of never ending suffering continued partially by their own stubbornness to invigorate their attackers! Also I still don't see how Saudi Arabians are "victims" why is it so many muslims see them selves as "victims" when many of them live in states that are prospering wildly or have been under Muslim control for decades? Why is it muslims arn't bombing Egyptians for forbidding aide or even opening borders with the Gaza strip during times of blockades by Israel? Why is it muslims are so caring of muslims in other nations when the crimes against them are caused by infidels (not by other Muslims that they ignore) and cheer at the death of infidals, while eurpeans and americans increasingly questions and demand retraction of the policies of our politians with the death of every civilian? Why is it the Malaysians aren't sending suicide bombers to bomb America? Why is the Turks actually want to join the west?

Your confusing politicians for people.

Again, its a VOLUNTEER army



The Jews in the holocaust did not terrorize the nazis

Nobody terrorised the Europeans or Americans either. Everyone is just fed up to the teeth of being exploited by the neocolonials.



”
it was on fucking al jazeera them celebrating the return of Samir Kuntar!


Ah yes Samir Kuntar. Captured at 16 years of age tortured and jailed for life, who still insists he did nothing. Unlike Shalit who probably shot and killed many Palestinians and can rightfully be shot as enemy combatant.

Again, its a VOLUNTEER army

Who volunteer to embedder the world or what ever bullshit the politicians feed them, just like the terrorist volunteer to kill infidels for allah, wait that not like each other at all, the terrorist are considerable morally worse then even the lowliest redneck solider!



Nobody terrorised the Europeans or Americans either. Everyone is just fed up to the teeth of being exploited by the neocolonials.

Exploited? The standards of living in saudi arabia, UAE, dubii, etc have rocketed at a incredible rate in just 2 generations and you have the balls to whine and say they are exploited by the west? If anybody is being exploited now it is the poor muslims by the rich Muslims, and the rich Muslims say "Well its the great satan's and little satan's fault, they must die, allah commands it!" to coo the poor into not rebelling by mixing religious faith into diverting attention away from the rich leaders, and most Muslims fall for it head over heal for it.



Ah yes Samir Kuntar. Captured at 16 years of age tortured and jailed for life, who still insists he did nothing.

Your delusional! You want me to quote the man? He admits totally to killing them, he even admits that he wants to do it again! Now the exact nature of how he killed them he does not admit to, that it, but when Kutar says "and Allah willing, I will get the chance to kill more Israelis." you know he fucking guilty!



Unlike Shalit who probably shot and killed many Palestinians and can rightfully be shot as enemy combatant.

After being capture he can't, of course hamas doesn't care about the geneva convention, and we all know he is long dead.

the terrorist are considerable morally worse then even the lowliest redneck solider!

Why?

Terrorists fight a no holds barred war. They purposely target civilians and employ underhanded tactics such as kidnapping. By choosing terror as their goal they abandon any pretence of having a moral position.

The people they face may be as bad or worse, but as long as they must maintain their respectiblity in the world community, there are checks on what they can do.

There is nothing you can say in the defense of terrorism that can justify it as a tactic, that is the point of using it. Attempting to justify it only shows that you either are morally corrupt or you have no understanding of what yourside is doing.

Why?

Few rednecks would kill a child with the butt of his gun, gun down citizens, chop off heads, etc, these people are stupid and prejudice but not homicidal maniacs, they have standards, muslim terrorist have none, they kill anyone that they can label as the enemy, soldiers, men, women, children, anyone that does not believe in their particular brand of islam. They kill their own and say "well aaah, ummm, yeah their going to go to heaven anyways so it worth it" they make up what ever logic, they strap bombs to children and retards they don't care what.



Attempting to justify it only shows that you either are morally corrupt or you have no understanding of what yourside is doing.

Considering how SAM and at least one of the other Muslims here find murdering children for "freedom fighting" acceptable, I would go with the former.

As for the Lebanese dancing in the streets, thats more Israeli Memri making. Works well on mindless people who get their idea of the world from mindless media.

Sam doesn't get her information from the "mindless media" but instead is on the front lines herself, reporting directly.


Which is why we have the irony of occupiers and invaders and torturers and killers worrying about the terrorism from their victims. Ha! Kinda like the Nazis feeling oppressed by the Jews and thinking they were undergoing a Holocaust.

Yes, the "occupiers and invaders and torturers and killers" first and foremost targets are schools, followed by orphanages and hospitals. Military targets are always left to the last.

Yes, the "occupiers and invaders and torturers and killers" first and foremost targets are schools, followed by orphanages and hospitals. Military targets are always left to the last.

Correct. Which was the last "military" target?




WASHINGTON — United States officials acknowledged Thursday for the first time that at least some of what might be 100 civilian deaths in western Afghanistan had been caused by American bombs. In Afghanistan, residents angrily protested the deaths and demanded that American forces leave the country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/world/asia/08afghan.html?_r=1&ref=world

Few rednecks would kill a child with the butt of his gun, gun down citizens, chop off heads, etc, these people are stupid and prejudice but not homicidal maniacs, they have standards

Have you heard of the 15 year old who was gangraped after which she and her family was shot and burned?

Including a 5 year old?

Have you heard about the children in torture camps like Gitmo? Where are they?




Mohammed el-Gharani, a Chadian national and Saudi resident, was just 14 years old when he was seized by Pakistani forces in October 2001, in a raid on a mosque in Karachi, Pakistan, 700 miles from the battlefields of Afghanistan.

El-Gharani's defense lawyers charge he was treated with appalling brutality. They say that, after being tortured in Pakistani custody, he was sold to U.S. forces, who flew him to a prison at Kandahar airport, where, he said, one particular soldier "would hold my penis, with scissors, and say he'd cut it off."

They claim his treatment did not improve in Guantanamo. Subjected relentlessly to racist abuse, because of the color of his skin, he was hung from his wrists on numerous occasions, and was also subjected to a regime of "enhanced" techniques to prepare him for interrogation -- including prolonged sleep deprivation, prolonged isolation and the use of painful stress positions -- that clearly constitute torture.

Have you heard of the 500,000 children under five years of age who died and the Americans thought the "price was worth it"?

One sixteen year old held in prison for decades compares favourably to an entire country bent on destruction and murder worldwide, where "we don't do body counts", "waterboarding is not torture" and people are "collateral damages".

Have you heard of the 15 year old who was gangraped after which she and her family was shot and burned?

Including a 5 year old?

Have you heard about the children in torture camps like Gitmo? Where are they?

Nothing compared to terrorist organization which are actually dedicated to committing moral atrocities, I love to see terrorist prosecute one of their renegade soldiers for committing torture or murdering children, oh wait no terrorist is a renegade for such acts, that what they are suppose to do, and you even agree with it, when a western soilders commits an atrocity we demand he be punished as a criminal, when a Muslims terrorist does it you defend it as freedom fighting.



Have you heard of the 500,000 children under five years of age who died and the Americans thought the "price was worth it"?

Numbers out of someone ass.


One sixteen year old held in prison for decades compares favorably to an entire country bent on destruction and murder worldwide, where "we don't do body counts", "waterboarding is not torture" and people are "collateral damages".

The USA is not bent on "destruction and murder worldwide" sure some of the politicians are but the people are not, Terrorist on the other hand are by definition, you don't go blowing your self up in a school yard because you like people. You don't see american dancing in the street at the news of killing of civilians.

Nothing compared to terrorist organization which are actually dedicated to committing moral atrocities

Bzwahahahaha!

Boy, your thought processes are really screwed. You think 500,000 children dying is "nothing"

Bzwahahahaha!
Boy, your thought processes are really screwed. You think 500,000 children dying is "nothing"

we don't like killing children, you do, that the difference.

Sam, sam, sam...

5 innocents are killed in a bomb blast which was aimed at militants.

1 innocent is captured and slowly has his head sawn off by Islamic militants.

You are saying that the former is the most immoral act.

The death of all innocents is wrong. Because you are a government and a superpower, doesn't necessarily mean you have more of a right to than unknown assailants to do so.

As for the term 'Islamic' militants, it is redundant, as all people in the region are Islamic. It is like calling the robber of a grocery store in America a 'Capitalist' or 'Christian' robber. So to is it unnecessary to use the term Islamic for a criminal. It further pushing Muslims against the West, as this is seen as a cheap shot against their faith which is unnecessary. Coverage in the US media have been anti-Muslim and serves to both demonize Muslims and Islam, and dissuade Americans from Islam.

Sam, sam, sam...

5 innocents are killed in a bomb blast which was aimed at militants.

1 innocent is captured and slowly has his head sawn off by Islamic militants.

You are saying that the former is the most immoral act.

The method of killing does not matter. If everyone had a bomb, you could make a valid comparison.

You can't judge people for being too poor to have bombs, or overlook the death of a million people as collateral damages.

The death of all innocents is wrong. Because you are a government and a superpower, doesn't necessarily mean you have more of a right to than unknown assailants to do so.

We are not a government and a superpower, we are merely citizens who don't have control of the politicians, mainly because most of the electorate is ignorant or bias for them. Terrorism actually increases the chance kill happy politicians will be elected ("to defend America", "to make them pay",etc) against the will of us more liberal ones, wars of no use, were citizens are dying, soldiers are dying, moral atrocities are being committed by us actually increases the chance less kill crazy politicians will be elected, much to the joy of us liberals. Much the opposite of say Lebanon were Hezbollah is worshiped for every attack and child murders are praised as heroes.



As for the term 'Islamic' militants, it is redundant, as all people in the region are Islamic.

Incorrect and you know it. There are other people of other religions in there.



It is like calling the robber of a grocery store in America a 'Capitalist' or 'Christian' robber.

The political and social beliefs of a robber has nothing to do with them robbing, the robber could be a anarchistic satanists for all we know. The USA is not 100% capitalist or christian.



So to is it unnecessary to use the term Islamic for a criminal.
It further pushing Muslims against the West, as this is seen as a cheap shot against their faith which is unnecessary. Coverage in the US media have been anti-Muslim and serves to both demonize Muslims and Islam, and dissuade Americans from Islam.

Sure why not, lets call them "fundamentalist militants", is that pc enough for you? :)

I don't watch the media for many reasons, bias coverage one of them, endless crap another. I vowed long ago to never again have to hear even the first sentence to a news report about Brittney Spear's conch.

My post was specifically addressed to Kenny's remark. It does not make sense outside of this concept. Furthermore, Israelis have murdered far more Palestinian children than vice versa, yet they are benevolent and just in doing so. This is exactly what I am saying, it doesn't matter who commits an injustice, killing innocents is wrong in any context. To neglect the greater injustices committed by governments is to deny facts. Those who kill to sustain themselves, can never have peace and will cause their own demise.

I am simply stating the absurdity of referring to warlords or unidentified bombers as 'Islamic' militants. They are criminals and this is how they are referred to in the press of the Muslim world. Adding the adjective 'Islamic' or the even more dishonest 'Islamist' is designed to create a state of paranoia among Western populace relating to the Islamic religion and innocent Muslims. It's a propaganda tactic used to incite anger at innocent people, and further leads to the rise of hate crimes and murders against innocent Muslims in the West, especially defenseless women and children.

I still can't get over 500,000 children under five being dead classified as "nothing".

Such depraved indifference as an example of morality.

My post was specifically addressed to Kenny's remark. It does not make sense outside of this concept. Furthermore, Israelis have murdered far more Palestinian children than vice versa, yet they are benevolent and just in doing so. This is exactly what I am saying, it doesn't matter who commits an injustice, killing innocents is wrong in any context. To neglect the greater injustices committed by governments is to deny facts. Those who kill to sustain themselves, can never have peace and will cause their own demise.

I am simply stating the absurdity of referring to warlords or unidentified bombers as 'Islamic' militants. They are criminals and this is how they are referred to in the press of the Muslim world. Adding the adjective 'Islamic' or the even more dishonest 'Islamist' is designed to create a state of paranoia among Western populace relating to the Islamic religion and innocent Muslims. It's a propaganda tactic used to incite anger at innocent people, and further leads to the rise of hate crimes and murders against innocent Muslims in the West, especially defenseless women and children.

I'm sorry, but it's the truth. Islamist militants are organized, motivated, even financed by distinctly religious means. It's a terrible public relations problem for Islam in general, but I would urge anyone reading this not to confuse this branch of political/activist Islam for the religion as a whole.

The number of innocent deaths on either side is a deceiving statistic, as it doesn't take into account the context. The Pals may shoot off a missile here and there that is destined to kill randomly, but you would not expect an appropriate response to be equally weak and random. Missiles are an act of war, you don't pull any punches to stop your country from being hit by them. It's a dangerous tactic in the first place to risk your civilians by attacking from within their neighborhoods. Are the Pals in a similar situation as WWII? Are they in immanent danger of unprovoked blitzkrieg and firing squads? Are they acting like allied resistance and targeting the occupying forces? No, this would be a silly comparison, a caricature of the situation.

Islamist militants are organized, motivated, even financed by distinctly religious means.

Like Hamas was by Israel? The mujahideen by the US?


. Are the Pals in a similar situation as WWII? Are they in immanent danger of unprovoked blitzkrieg and firing squads?

Did you miss Gaza 2009?

http://hina212.com/images/gaza2009.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XsGfkm9aILk/SYBemihiDcI/AAAAAAAACKA/MUVnZWQ1w80/s400/War+on+Gaza+2009.jpg

Like Hamas was by Israel? The mujahideen by the US?


Did you miss Gaza 2009?



Really Sam, you're tactics are worse than PETA. You do little more than insult peoples intelligence by stooping to posting those pics.

I actually remind people they have a brain by pointing out the "nothing" they ignore, inspite of being self proclaimed "secular" "humanists"



The number of innocent deaths on either side is a deceiving statistic, as it doesn't take into account the context.

The context is occupation.

I actually remind people they have a brain by pointing out the "nothing" they ignore, inspite of being self proclaimed "secular" "humanists"

And, that's what you actually want us to believe you're doing? http://www.smileyshut.com/smileys/new/free-sad-smileys-471%5B1%5D.gif

Sure. The secular humanists here flap their lips and arms, but are weak when it comes to standing up for their self proclaimed convictions.

My post was specifically addressed to Kenny's remark. It does not make sense outside of this concept. Furthermore, Israelis have murdered far more Palestinian children than vice versa, yet they are benevolent and just in doing so.

A) Their not benevolent, aside for the israelis on this forum no one is saying they are.
B) Neither are they just in doing so, but if their target were militants and they honestly where not trying to kill the children then it was not as unjust as directly targeting children.



This is exactly what I am saying, it doesn't matter who commits an injustice, killing innocents is wrong in any context. To neglect the greater injustices committed by governments is to deny facts. Those who kill to sustain themselves, can never have peace and will cause their own demise.

This is moronic, those with the power will make peace eventually, either diplomatically or by making a very large glass parking lots, terrorist thinking they can bring on demise by targeting schools and buses and children are going to bring on demise alright, there own and all of their people will be vaporized with them! They will eventually bring the enemy to such as rapid furry that the enemy will use all the fire power they have at there disposal to bring peace by genocide: now I'm not saying this is right I am only saying this will be the outcome of terrorist actions (all being in a vacuum of course), its why terrorism is not only morally wrong but strategically moronic!



I am simply stating the absurdity of referring to warlords or unidentified bombers as 'Islamic' militants. They are criminals and this is how they are referred to in the press of the Muslim world. Adding the adjective 'Islamic' or the even more dishonest 'Islamist' is designed to create a state of paranoia among Western populace relating to the Islamic religion and innocent Muslims. It's a propaganda tactic used to incite anger at innocent people, and further leads to the rise of hate crimes and murders against innocent Muslims in the West, especially defenseless women and children.

Well then lets call it fundamentalism, say like following a holy book strictly and enacting violence in its name, which should be battled by prescribing secularism (not by forcing democracy, which is retarded, hence why bush is a retard) the video prescribes this.

Sure. The secular humanists here flap their lips and arms, but are weak when it comes to standing up for their self proclaimed convictions.

As opposed to your "god given" convictions?

Oh good, lets talk about me. Again.

Good distraction from your inability to actually have the guts to take a stand.

The method of killing does not matter. If everyone had a bomb, you could make a valid comparison.

You can't judge people for being too poor to have bombs, or overlook the death of a million people as collateral damages.

Well gee... Lets just all just thank allah that muslims as yet do not have their hands on nuclear bombs. Would be interesting to make the 'valid comparison'.

I think a valid comparison can be made between Muslims as colonials and the west as colonials. The West created the Third World out of the same society that the Ottomans created thriving economies in.

Well gee... Lets just all just thank allah that muslims as yet do not have their hands on nuclear bombs. Would be interesting to make the 'valid comparison'.

(cough) Pakistan (cough), obviously secular muslims like Pervez Musharraf are not a threat to the world like fundamentalist ones are.


I think a valid comparison can be made between Muslims as colonials and the west as colonials. The West created the Third World out of the same society that the Ottomans created thriving economies in.

Oh you mean those economies run on slaves, oh how wonderful the ottomans were! The ottoman empire is dead (thank god) and western colonialism died 50 years ago, get over your self.

Because the US economy does not run on the poverty inducing WB and IMF? :rolleyes:

Not to mention the annual war where it attacks the defenceless?

Despite it all, the Ottomans created thriving economies, for all their brouhaha, the west created hunger, poverty and the Third World.

Oh good, lets talk about me. Again.

Good distraction from your inability to actually have the guts to take a stand.

Many here are taking a stand against your hatred and bigotry, but to no avail.

Many here are taking a stand against your hatred and bigotry, but to no avail.

Why don't you open a few more threads on how terrible all theists except Jews are and quit pretending you actually have a position that you'll maybe eventually stand up for?

My assertion that certain posters view the use of violence and injustice by large governments as morally superior than that of lesser resistance groups has been proven due to the responses I have seen. I believe in the end ti will always come down to propaganda on the side which has more resources dominating the simple and easily influenced human mind. Unless one himself has experienced the disasters of neo-colonialism of superpower governments first-hand, the reality will remain elusive.

As of yet, although some posters claim to be freedom, security, and justice for Muslims, we see that their statements on this forum contradict that claim. Those who villify Islam, view Muslims as undesirables, and support occupation of Muslim territories by US/Israel/Russia/China/India/etc shall forever be seen by Muslims as agents of their enemies. i think it is ludicrous how these individuals will demonize the Islamic religion and Islam's Prophet in one thread, and then claim respect Muslims' wishes in another threat. It is known as hypocrisy and duplicity. One should be consistent with one's views, regardless of the circumstance. Upon stating this rather apparent contradiction, I would like to honesty ask these posters how they expect Muslims to think of these people as their liberators.

As is evident so far, the real goal is make Muslims non-religious, to attack Islam on religious/ideological/social/historical grounds, and to further support the machinations of larger powers on the weakened Muslim world. Indeed this is the whole problem. The Western power centers and those indoctrinated to its line of thought view Muslims as lower human beings, to be viewed with contempt, mistrusted, ridiculed, abused, and liberated from themselves and their culture. If you don't see the difference of interests between what Muslims want in their lands and what the Western power centers want with Muslim lands, a person will remain completely ignorant of the overwhelming reality.

The Western power centers and those indoctrinated to its line of thought view Muslims as lower human beings, to be viewed with contempt, mistrusted, ridiculed, abused, and liberated from themselves and their culture.

I agree with you. This is also the mindset of several anti-Muslim posters here. And of course, pointing this out is viewed as "hatred" and "bigotry"

Because the US economy does not run on the poverty inducing WB and IMF? :rolleyes:

Not to mention the annual war where it attacks the defenceless?

Despite it all, the Ottomans created thriving economies, for all their brouhaha, the west created hunger, poverty and the Third World.

You honestly believe the US just attacks the defenseless in a vacuum, yeah we do it because we find it soooo fun. And our people just jump and chear and this its the greatest thing ever, so we booted out the last guys who did it and his party, wow, makes total sense!

Like the ottomans did not make wars and invade people and forcibly convert them to their religion? By your logic the US is right to keep trying to replicate the success stories of invading and rebuilding, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Europe, etc. You beleive the ottoman empire was a great thing, the last vestiges of it spent its time murdering 1.5 million people and to this day denies it.

The US never attacks a country that can fight back.

The Ottomans did not create the Third World. The western nations did. And still continue to sustain it.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/3/structural-adjustment-a-major-cause-of-poverty

The US never attacks a country that can fight back.

Simply obtaining nukes will be taken as an act of aggression by the USA. It won't matter what you think. Whether they're right or wrong won't matter either.

Yeah, I note how many countries with nukes the US is occupying.

Yeah, I note how many countries with nukes the US is occupying.

It's no accident. It's like putting honey out and the hornets show up. Not sure if they're out to protect their citizenry or economics, and I don't think religion is high on that list.

The US never attacks a country that can fight back.

The Ottomans did not create the Third World. The western nations did. And still continue to sustain it.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/3/structural-adjustment-a-major-cause-of-poverty

impoverish countries existed before the ottoman empire, western nations did not create third world countries either, they are simply an effect of human social advancement on this planet.


Yeah, I note how many countries with nukes the US is occupying.

At this rate, Pakistan, it practically begging us for help.

I vowed long ago to never again have to hear even the first sentence to a news report about Brittney Spear's conch.

In the news today...Brittney Spear's conch was converted into a parking garage.

The US never attacks a country that can fight back.

Well d'uh!

You guys should try it some time instead of provoking us and getting punked all the time.

War sucks and if you pick on the big guy, you are going down hard.

Well d'uh!

You guys should try it some time instead of provoking us and getting punked all the time.

War sucks and if you pick on the big guy, you are going down hard.

We spanked your ass in 1812, and we weren't even a country yet.:D Although I think we may be counting on your help when Russia starts encroaching on our Arctic soil and airspace.

Why don't you open a few more threads on how terrible all theists except Jews are and quit pretending you actually have a position that you'll maybe eventually stand up for?

I don't push Islamic propaganda like you do, so why bother?

At this rate, Pakistan, it practically begging us for help.

Correction. Pakistan's leadership is begging the US to stop bombings of civilian neighborhoods as it is angering its population. The powerlessness of a government to prevent murder at the hands of foreign powers reveals that such a government is subservient and a puppet for a foreign power. Once, Pakistani citizens realize, as they are now, that their government does not represent their legitimate aspirations, it will be dismantled and new politicians and leaders shall be put in place. Pakistan is facing massive protests, and Zardari knows this is because of his own corruption and exploitation of the populace, and his unwillingness to stop violation of Pakistani sovereignty by his masters in Washington, Indian agents, Northern Alliance agents, etc.

The overall population is not begging the US for anything. Don't be mistaken. They realize that asking a colonial and oppressive power to stop murdering your civilians never works. You must defend yourself and threaten to take action when your civilians are killed. Imagine if any nation monthly murdered 100 American civilians, what would be the American response to them? An American life is not any more sacred than a Pakistani life. That is the entire point.

impoverish countries existed before the ottoman empire, western nations did not create third world countries either, they are simply an effect of human social advancement on this planet.



At this rate, Pakistan, it practically begging us for help.

Only you would consider structural adjustment as social advancement. :rolleyes:

Only you would consider structural adjustment as social advancement. :rolleyes:

Compared to mass ignorance and tribalism of the past today's imbalances between the rich and the poor scale in comparison. Consider that without the technology of the last 200 years most of the to worlds population would not even have been born.

We spanked your ass in 1812, and we weren't even a country yet.:D Although I think we may be counting on your help when Russia starts encroaching on our Arctic soil and airspace.

If by "spanked" you mean "avoided being taken over."

The Brits did a good job of spanking us (we were a third world nation at the time after all), but lost on the home front by having too many irons in the fire.

As for US/Canada: "During the course of the war, both the Americans and British launched invasions of each other's territory, all of which were unsuccessful or gained only temporary success. At the end of the war, the British held parts of Maine and some outposts in the sparsely populated West while the Americans held Canadian territory near Detroit, but these occupied territories were restored at the end of the war."

For a more personal touch, my great [some odd greats] uncle Daniel Baker was a significant financial contributer for Cmdr. Perry's victory on lake Erie, at least by family legend..

Really? Like the Dutch who rode their vehicles over fleeing civilians in Srebrenica?

...this is an imminent danger to the society of islamic nations? I think you've (deliberately) misconstrued the issue in favour of propaganda.


Look around you, whose identity politics is imposing itself with military force, torture and murder on civilians?

Iran. Saudi Arabia. Egypt. Jordan. Turkey. Iraq.

Pakistan. Afghanistan. Indonesia. Malaysia. Morocco. Libya. Palestine. UAE.

The Sudan.


I can't believe you're educated people, acting like blind clueless morons.

Ditto.


Can you believe if the situation were reversed and you were in some Gitmo while your family rotted in a refugee camp and the people whined about how dangerous YOU were to THEIR society? Fucking A.

In the bolded text, you're sort of joining issues again. As for danger, you were perfectly ok with Egypt rounding up 20,000 Egyptian Jews and either deporting them or putting them in a concentration camp, so your humanitarianism comes late.


What planet do you live on where YOU kill and torture people and blame THEM for it?

...are you referring to Saudi Arabia or Iran when you say this? Because this happens to apostates there.

Or Pakistan. Afghanistan. Egypt. Malaysia....

Oh, irony. You show your head in the strangest places.

Here is an interesting video on Wilder's Fitna. Knew he had to be a wanker:p

His interview on Hardtalk pt 1,2,3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6cFKQNBH3s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aleqQ6g9j64&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STkH1kjAlaU&NR=1

The Danish cartoonist who's work is used in his film was offended and wanted Wilders to take it out and had some very interesting things to say concerning Wilders view

Ah, another proud nationalist threatened by Muslims. Boy, I hope the Muslims in these countries are making alternate arrangements for their families.

No one is paying any attention to his silly films. What gets me is that he says Judaism is Western like Christianity but not Islam. In other words he accepts Jews but not Muslims.

No one is paying any attention to his silly films. .

Are you sure?



IT WAS no surprise that the far-right Freedom Party did well. But even its leader, Geert Wilders, did not expect to come second. Yet a combination of strong Euroscepticism and strident anti-Islamic rhetoric won 17% of the vote for Mr Wilders, giving his party four seats in the European Parliament—one fewer than the Christian Democrats. Eurosceptic parties, which include the far-left Socialists and a pair of small Calvinist parties, took nearly a third of Dutch seats.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13832564



In other words he accepts Jews but not Muslims.

Why is this surprising?

Geert Wilders in Jerusalem “The Jihad against Israel is the Jihad against the West.” (http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/12/14/geert-wilders-in-jerusalem-%E2%80%9Cthe-jihad-against-israel-is-the-jihad-against-the-west%E2%80%9D/)


Perhaps a few of you may be new to Jerusalem, yet, Jerusalem is not new to any of you. We all carry Jerusalem in our blood, in our genes. We all live and breathe Jerusalem. We talk Jerusalem, we dream Jerusalem. Simply because, the values of ancient Israel have become the values of the West. We are all Israel, and Israel is in all of us.



Wilders lived in Israel for two years during his youth and has visited the country 40 times the last 25 years.[32]

Wilders stated about Israel: "I have visited many interesting countries in the Middle East (Tunisia, Turkey, Cyprus, Iran) but nowhere did I have the special feeling of brotherhood that I always get when I land on Ben Gurion International Airport[33].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders#Wilders_and_Israel

SAM why are you avoiding a response to GeoffP post #154?

Selective outrage? also called Bigotry.

Seems that GeoffP has nailed your provincial diaconal view of Islam and Muslims.

Are you sure?

Why is this surprising?
[”[/URL]

Well I certainly could see it as propaganda and the journalist said its bombed in terms of audience viewing.

I was surprised he made the distinction because it seemed contradictory to me.

Well I certainly could see it as propaganda and the journalist said its bombed in terms of audience viewing.

It did? How did the journalist assess that? I thought that assumption was belied by all the talk the film generated.


I was surprised he made the distinction because it seemed contradictory to me.

You're assuming the man actually has an educated opinion. I mean he goes to a country where half the population is under occupation and feels at home. What does that tell you?

Well its in the video watch it again its in part 1.

Well lot's of people go to visit Israel and feel at home that's not my concern, I just do not see what it has to do with whatever theory he has about Islam. I don't think he is being honest. Anyway he was denied entry into England and he was prosecuted by the Dutch courts for the film.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm

It was a rhetorical question :)

I think he's genuinely one of those people who we spoke about, the ones who are afraid to lose the culture they are used to. So I suppose the ghettoes in the Netherlands make him as fearful as they make the Danes.

I think the decision to ban him as an inciter was wrong. I had initially thought it a good idea, but our conversation in the assimilation thread has made me realise that these issues need to be out in the open. Instead of reacting with fear and insecurity, Muslims should address these concerns.

Meanwhile denying him entry or prosecuting him has only given him more public support. So it seems to have been counter productive.

I do not question whether he believes he will lose his culture. What bothers me about him is the use of propaganda to make sweeping negative generalizations about Islam. He took the most extreme interpretation of Islam and then went on to prescribe them to all Muslims and this I think is wrong.

All other questions of immigration etc is another matter. What makes him an asshole is not wanting to protect his culture nor nation but trying to inject bigotry into society with his ill conceived notions.

Well I have never really been a fan of censorship so...

Instead of reacting with fear and insecurity, Muslims should address these concerns.


Gee, we've been telling you that since you got here, many tens of thousands of posts ago, Sam. :rolleyes:

Gee, we've been telling you that since you got here, many tens of thousands of posts ago, Sam. :rolleyes:

Pointless to tell me since the issues that Lucy and you have with Muslims in Europe or Russia or wherever have little or no relevance for me. Except for the security checks I get pulled up for consistently.

In fact, either of you would probably not like my views, seeing as you prefer to live in communities of a very particular type and mix with very selected people.

The US never attacks a country that can fight back.

The Ottomans did not create the Third World. The western nations did. And still continue to sustain it.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/3/structural-adjustment-a-major-cause-of-poverty

Well when you are the post powerful country in the world it is kind of hard t find an equally matched opponent SAM. But with few exceptions, george II, the US does not look to fight.

Name one year in the last 100 when the military was not engaged.

Name one year in the last 100 when the military was not engaged.

How do you define "engaged'? for example the positioning of thousand of US troops in South Korea is not "looking for a fight" rather it to try to prevent one, specifically to prevent the north form trying to invade again.

So can anyone put a thousand troops in the US to keep them from trying to invade yet another country? Or would that be an engagement?

So can anyone put a thousand troops in the US to keep them from trying to invade yet another country? Or would that be an engagement?

If the USA openly asks for those troops like South Korea does, sure.

Heh, yeah right. To protect them from their relatives in the North, after the US and Russia had divided their country between them.




When Japan lost control of Korea at the end of World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union split the peninsula into two territories pending promised national elections, which never took place. Instead, after Moscow and Washington failed to agree on a way forward, the United Nations in 1948 declared the Republic of Korea (ROK), with its capital in Seoul, as the only legitimate government on the peninsula. The Soviets rejected that assertion, and in 1950, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) invaded. The United States, heading up UN forces, came to the aid of South Korea. War ensued until 1953, when a cease-fire froze the front line at roughly the thirty-eighth parallel.

Heh, yeah right. To protect them from their relatives in the North, after the US and Russia had divided their country between them.

I guess it would have been better if we had let North Korea rule the whole country eeh? Considering the death camps, starvation and oppression of the north Korean people I was actually a very good thing the US adn the UN did not let the Russians take the whole thing.

Because North Korea was ruling the country when it was divided. Right. Possibly, the millions of people suffering now in North Korea [not to mention the families divided all these years] need never have happened.

Because North Korea was ruling the country when it was divided. Right. Possibly, the millions of people suffering now in North Korea [not to mention the families divided all these years] need never have happened.

so if the US did not interfere the people would have risen up against the Russians alone, and later the rule of the kims alone? your high.

Pointless to tell me...

Yeah, we know that, too.


In fact, either of you would probably not like my views, seeing as you prefer to live in communities of a very particular type and mix with very selected people.

What communities and what particular type and mix of selected people do you refer, Sam.

Or, is that another of your twisted views?

Because North Korea was ruling the country when it was divided. Right. Possibly, the millions of people suffering now in North Korea [not to mention the families divided all these years] need never have happened.

Possibly and possibly not, Sam. Or perhaps everything would be infinitely worse. If you can think of a reason things would be better, post it by all means. But hypotheticals don't help.

In fact, either of you would probably not like my views, seeing as you prefer to live in communities of a very particular type and mix with very selected people.

I wasn't going to comment, then I did. Sue me.

It's an interesting point you raise, Sam - but the problem with mixed communities vis-a-vis islam (which I presume is your point) is that they don't actually stay mixed for very long. There's usually overgrowth, assimilation, or ghettoization of the non-s. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, and so forth. Do you object to Middle Eastern monoculture?

I object to people who have never been to the Middle East and know absolutely nothing about it having an opinion on its culture.

PS. Pakistan and Iran are not the Middle East.

I object to people who have never been to the Middle East and know absolutely nothing about it having an opinion on its culture.

PS. Pakistan and Iran are not the Middle East.

I object you being so picky, even if you lived in a country you can't accurately speak for it.

I object you being so picky, even if you lived in a country you can't accurately speak for it.

I would say that having lived there and travelled and learned the language, I can speak with more authority than an armchair admirer of robert spencer and daniel pipes [both in themselves people who are "experts" that do not know the language or have spent any time in the region].

You can actually see the obstuseness in questions like:


Do you object to Middle Eastern monoculture?

Ignorance is not a point of view.

I object to people who have never been to the Middle East and know absolutely nothing about it having an opinion on its culture.

PS. Pakistan and Iran are not the Middle East.

Very well: islamic culture, if you prefer, rather than Middle Eastern per se. But since that's your criterion - religion - above, you can hardly call the question ignorant, nor recuse yourself simply because you've travelled in it, unless you care to refute the field of statistics altogether. Where is the religious diversity? Then again, I suppose there's some where you are now. May it always be so.

Very well: islamic culture, if you prefer, Where is the religious diversity? .

:roflmao:

Ah! Different grades of the same, you must be implying.

Er...how is that different, again? Or put another way: if we don't just fancy a different kind of orange, can we not get an apple? If not, why not? A weighty issue. I'm sure you have an emoticon for it. Say, head banging against a wall? That usually serves when one doesn't have an answer for something complex.

You do realise that what you call Islamic culture is the original Judeo-Christian culture?

That modern western "civilisation" [which is ready for yet another bout of ethnic cleansing if the rightward anti-immigrant shift is any indication], is not religiously diverse, because it has no religion? Its more Greco-Roman than anything else.

You do realise that what you call Islamic culture is the original Judeo-Christian culture?

I suppose that if it were, I could call it that. Your supposition is only obstructed by two things: i) reality, and ii) the relevance of any of that.


That modern western "civilisation" [which is ready for yet another bout of ethnic cleansing if the rightward anti-immigrant shift is any indication], is not religiously diverse, because it has no religion?

Wow. That was staggeringly wrong. Also, those who live in already-shattered glass houses...well.


Its more Greco-Roman than anything else.

That one too. Where do you come up with these? Fascinating stuff.

I forgot to mention: I don't really follow Daniel Pipes' writings, to be honest. Nor do I agree with Spencer uniformly either. It's an odd thing: I use my own judgement. It can be done, you know.

Strangely, I wouldn't accuse Sam of lip-synching robotically to the crazy beats coming out of some of the less-enlightened types at al-Ahzar, but there we are.

Yeah the blond blue eyed Jesus in the toga is the Real Jesus™

Feel free to show that Christianity or Judaism is not Middle Eastern in culture and is indeed Greco-Roman.


lip-synching robotically to the crazy beats coming out of some of less-enlightened types at al-Ahzar

Name one. Just one. With a link to where I have done the above.

Yeah the blond blue eyed Jesus in the toga is the Real Jesus™

Er...and why would you think this?

Actually this raises another question: kind of a who cares, really? sort of thing. Jesus was Jewish, which is to say he probably looked Occidental Jewish. Not a shocker, exactly. But then again - does it matter anyway? Some African-American churches used to portray him as black. That was crap too, but does it hurt anyone?


Feel free to show that Christianity or Judaism is not Middle Eastern in culture and is indeed Greco-Roman.

Actually it's both. And - speaking of the Middle East and the whole Greco-Roman world - in one of these worlds it's permitted, and in another it's treated as a dangerous, traitorous meme that deserves to be savagely suppressed until it's extinguished.

Two guesses which one! :D

This relates back to your point about the original culture of the region and so forth.


Name one. Just one. With a link to where I have done the above.

Frankly, I'm not even sure you've taken up lip-synching. Although it is very au mode these days - even "Air Sex" has become (horrifyingly) some kind of karaoke for the socially disinclined. However, you will note the actual phrasing used in my comment:


Strangely, I wouldn't accuse Sam of lip-synching robotically to the crazy beats coming out of some of the less-enlightened types at al-Ahzar, but there we are.

"Wouldn't". As in: would not. As in: I don't. Do not. I wouldn't accuse you of doing that, because I think it would be silly. I was having a poke at your attaching me to Daniel Pipes. Chill.

Anyway, as I was saying there: I actually don't read him. Well, once or twice maybe; a good three years ago at least. Nor do I agree with Rob Spencer on everything either. I think he's a bit too suspicious at times, verging even to being occasionally slightly paranoid. Still, even I'm a bit paranoid at times - yes, yes, shocked as you are to notice it. Can't always be avoided.