Drop the Bible and step away slowly

Discussion in 'World Events' started by GeoffP, Dec 21, 2006.

  1. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    GeoffP:"Illustrate this straw man."

    I was referring to the point at which you threw in Cold War issues in the context of this discussion, as if I had been espousing some sort of Communist rhetoric:

    GeoffP:

    "Where is the ad hominem in the last post?"

    GeoffP:

    "But you just said we should subvert them!"

    You lost me... I doubt if I have stated that we should subvert Muslims. I am all for disrupting all forms of terrorism by means of legitimate international law-enforcement. Maybe you could clarify by quoting me with a little context in this "gotcha".

    "Borders separate ethnic groups."

    Not in any normal modern society.

    "Is it wrong to separate yourselves from a population rife with political fanaticism"

    Especially so if the fanaticism is a reaction to apartheid. In such a case fanaticism is encouraged.

    "And the ghettoization of the immigrant Israeli community in the early 20th century"

    Tit for tat doesn't accomplish anything. If I do you wrong, you are not thereby justified in doing wrong to another. This is very basic ethics.

    "How about dhimmitude via sharia: does this also represent a form of apartheid, since it restricts the rights of non-muslims?"

    Yes. As I have been repeatedly suggesting, doing wrong can provoke more wrongs. But this doesn't bring us to what is right, until we break the cycle. In modern times, Zionist separatism have been the greater provocation, and one that can be most easily moderated by Israel's American protectors. US foreign policy is flailing around with all sorts of deadly experimentation, yet will not curb Israel.

    Put another way, There are a multitude of overlapping conflicts raging in the mideast, but the Arab-Israeli one inflames them all. There is little leverage for collectively influencing all the various Arab fundie whackos, dictatorships. and mafias, each with their own agendas. Israeli apartheid is the one common element, the abolishment of which would promote stability like nothing else. The longer Washington avoids calling this dog to heal, the more obvious it is that this is what must be done.

    "Look ["Fisking"] up yourself."

    I don't mean to wear you down. I've been trying to share with you some things I've learned about Muslims from close observation. It seems that I have had better opportunities to encounter Muslims than you. If you would talk with more Muslims and read from the links I have provided for you, I can assure you that your assumptions about a high proportion of fanaticism and fundamentalism within the Islamic world will be challenged. I don't mean to infer that you are stupid, but instead that the politicization of religion is creating common illusions. These are illusions that can be dispelled.

    "you previously were of the opinion that there were indeed moderates and, indeed, immoderates, who could be discerned, seemingly."

    And I still am of that opinion. I have not wavered from that opinion. Fisker.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    No. No, no, no, no, no, hypewaders. No. For heaven's sake, if you don't understand an analogy, hypewaders, by all means ask. I promise not to bite your head off about it.

    Now: I was referring to the semi-mythical process whereby "true" communism would be attained, eventually, hopefully, within some timeframe, at sometime in the forseeable future. Yet it never was, in practice. I, myself, am a communist; and yet I was never really fooled by the rhetoric from my "brothers" in Moscow, nor Peking, nor anywhere else. That was the comparison being made. Has true communism been attained? No, it has not. The point, then, is hardly a straw man. It has nothing to do with "Cold War issues" or whatever nonsense, and I was not accusing you of introducing communist rhetoric. It was an analogy illustrating baseless hope: islam will not change because it has a vested interest in being what it is. The communist regimes of the East...well, might have changed, but being their structure what it was, were innately predisposed to tyranny, and not the supposed tyranny of the proliteriat, as was sometimes discussed.

    Oh, for nonspecific-deities' sake: NO. NO. Again, ask. I was referring to Tariq Ramadan and ilk (i.e. CAIR), including the presenter of the site. Frankly, Hype, I am not entirely convinced that your objection is genuine in motivation, but be that as it may I was not accusing you of hatred. My convictions against the use of ad hominem should have been manifest from by post, you pathetic twerp.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Nowhere did I say you opined we should "subvert Muslims".

    But of course. I also point out the inherent contradictions in the verysame sentence of your synthesis:

    So is it change we want, or not? How can one "encourage" without "encouraging"?

    Oh? France and Germany seem not to be normal societies. Nor, say, Greece and Turkey. The USA and Canada. Poland and Russia. None of these strikes you as "normal societies"? Iran and Syria? All borders are by definition invalid?

    But, of course, the fanaticism began 1400 years ago, and the apartheid (see Quran 9:29, and "dhimmitude" and "sharia"). So the Israeli response is then a reaction to ongoing Arabic aggression, and not a catalyst. Glad to see that we got that out of the way. Yet I wonder if, had you been grudingly forced to admit that the Arabs and not the Israelis started things, your position would have been that "two wrongs don't make a right" or something like that.

    Now was that a prediction or what? Sometimes I even surprise myself.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So: first, the Palestinians are 'responding' to Israeli aggression, even though it was the Jews who were fighting dhimmitude and oppression in Palestine (deriving from over 1400 years of such tradition, termed "dhimmitude" today), and then, as if by magic, you turn around and say that "tit for tat doesn't accomplish anything". Amazing. Just amazing.

    Well, hype, my dear opponent: are you now saying that the Palestinian actions are then "unethical" - since in your opinion the Israelis are the ones that started things ("reaction to apartheid") and the Palestinians are now engaging in "tit for tat"?

    My own position on the issue is that the Israeli response has been forced all along, by the ongoing militancy of their neighbours, some of which are using the Palestinians as pawns against their hated enemy, the Jews they would like to drive into the sea. I don't support all Israel's actions, but I do support their right to exist as a separate nation, since genocide appears likely otherwise; or dhimmitude at the very least.

    Hype, three invasions in fifty years is frankly the "greater provocation". This is not really open to question. Israel has been responding half-heartedly to attack after attack - in fact, their response has been scaled throughout.

    No. Israeli breathing and the existence of Israel itself is the common element. As for breaking up Israeli "apartheid"; first dhimmitude and sharia would have to go, unquestionably. The Jews of the world are not - and this is quite reasonable - likely to place themselves at the will of a majority of people conditioned to utterly hate them.

    Well, you aren't wearing me down in the slightest. Regrettably, these views are supported, time and again, by the evidence. They are not illusions.

    Well then, are there moderates or not? You seem to imply that there are all these terrible, distinct "radicals" one post, and then in another you imply there are no "radicals". Make up your mind.

    As for knowing muslims - I have known several; some of which I encouraged to leave islam. Some did. I have observed attitudes underlying their personalities which did not fill me with much hope.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    Despite your impression of 'Zionist separatism', it seems no more an intrinsic property of Zionism than discriminatory Sharia is of Islam. There has been Israeli support for a one state solution:

    http://www.onestateplan.com/

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

    http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2...p://www.jnewswire.com/article/1085&frame=true

    While it's true the idea of a one-state solution isn't currently supported by the Israeli government, it doesn't seem to be supported by the current Palestinian government (whether that means Hamas or Fatah) either. It seems historically the PLO supported a one state solution only on condition that most of the state's inhabitants be disenfranchised:

    http://www.angelfire.com/co4/eccmei/newsletter/advocacytips/0804a.html

    While there is indeed a political leader in Israel who wishes to achieve ethnic separation, that idea isn't widely supported either:

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

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/23/opinion/eddromi.php
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Zephyr, when Israel reforms to the point of the abolishment of segregation, then internal and external coexistence of Jews with Arabs will follow. In such a context, one-state solutions could certainly take hold. But first, Mideastern society, including all ethnicities must re-integrate.

    This relates to GeoffP's concept of borders being ethnic and cultural barriers. In ages past they were that to a greater extent, but in the modern context this is not only implausible but a certain recipe for repression and conflict.

    To continue an exchange on the subject:

    GP: "Borders separate ethnic groups."
    HW: "Not in any normal modern society."
    GP: "Oh? France and Germany seem not to be normal societies. Nor, say, Greece and Turkey. The USA and Canada. Poland and Russia. None of these strikes you as "normal societies"? Iran and Syria? All borders are by definition invalid?"

    To which I must answer that ethnic Germans are not to be precluded from the same opportunities in modern France as ethnic Frenchmen enjoy on the basis of ancestry or traditions. The same holds true for his other examples- Ethnic segregation is neither the purpose of modern nations, nor is ethnic segregation healthy for modern states. Modern segregationists with respect to Israel are no different in their backwardness than segregationists of the old American or African Souths. Once segregation is challenged, it can only persist in conflict with the now more progressive world around it. Put another way, segregationism is both obsolete and dangerous in the modern world.

    This is not to say that discreet cultures cannot be preserved, only that when national borders are set up as cultural barriers, conflict results.

    In Israel's case, as with other apartheid states of recent history, an intrinsic impasse to security can only be alleviated by integration and by the establishment of equal human rights regardless of ancestry or creed. With equal rights in place, there are any number of viable options for the future of the Holy Land. Without equal rights for all, there no viable options for stability. This is precisely where I think US policy on Israel has failed. Before introducing complex peace plans, the United States should insist on the reform of human rights in each of the nations concerned. In the case of Israel, the United States enjoy unique leverage in being Israel's generous armourer, protector, and financial supporter. Once Israel becomes a guarantor of the fair and equal treatment of all resident ethnicities including Palestinian Arabs, the rest of the troubles can be worked out with relative speed and ease.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2007
  8. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationality_law

    Palestinians with Israeli citizenship do have equal rights. Those without probably have as many rights in Israel as Mexicans do in America.

    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/israel.htm
     
  9. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    "THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration"

    Surely you don't consider that a statement of equal rights, spanning local ethnicities. You know that displaced Palestinian Arabs are not allowed to return.

    "Palestinians with Israeli citizenship do have equal rights."

    And surely you don't consider your statement of equal rights to be in practice in Israel.

    But if you do, maybe we can move such a discussion to a thread on the topic.
     
  10. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    In response to GeoffP:

    I've learned a lot from you about Fisking, this splitting of hairs. It makes progress in this conversation difficult, but I'll try and get through it.

    You began your last post here with three denials of the straw man distraction, ad hominem attack, and then denial of a statement. None of these are vey important here:

    GeoffP's original statement: "When will the grandiose effect occur [reform in Islamic societies]? Will it be before of after "true" communism is attained?"

    Qualifier: "I was referring to the semi-mythical process whereby "true" communism would be attained, within some timeframe, at sometime in the foreseeable future."

    I apologize. I did not recognize that communism was part of the issue in this thread. Your Communism is accepted.

    Original statement: "Of course, the merest fact that one can find dozens and dozens of these sites, and none of the 'other' kind that Hype searches for with a hopeful eye, means nothing, I'm sure. Such soft-spoken irrationality, such gentle hatred."

    Qualifier: "I was referring to Tariq Ramadan and ilk (i.e. CAIR), including the presenter of the site. "

    Alright then, now that that's cleared up, could you give an example of Ramadan's hatred?

    I'll stop this post here for clarity...
     
  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Under sharia or dhimmitude? Not likely.

    Why implausible? Do not most Germans speak only German? Russians Russian? Americans American?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Why not? There is a linguistic barrier, for one thing: the German has likewise never paid French taxes, for another (leaving aside the EU concept).

    We are discussing existing ethnic constructions of nations, not discrimination within them. Please stick to the topic.

    Israel is not maintaining segregation, but rather driving towards two separate nation-states. Your applying racist labels to it is disingenuous.

    Well, in case you hadn't noticed, political islam - which is to say, everywhere with an islamic majority - is not a "discreet culture". It is one of repression and demonstration and incendiary politics. So your case also fails on this proviso.

    Demonstrate such denial of human rights. Why is Israel pilloried, and say Syria or Lebanon or Iraq or Iran or Pakistan or Egypt or Afghanistan not pilloried? If Israel is an apartheid state, then why are the latter not? Or why are all nation-states not, since all exclude foreigners to some degree.

    Regrettably for your case, it was the denial of human rights for non-muslims that led to the formation of Israel in the first place. The racist, apartheid systems of sharia and dhimmitude must be abolished before meaningful discussion on harmonization can be implemented. Anything else is merely a deliberate attempt to plant a poisoned tree.

    Regrettably, history and present politics disagrees with you on this.
     
  12. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I'm sorry you find conversation and argument so difficult. I would recommend an introduction to the "logical fallacies". These are freely available.

    You seem to have spent a lot of time discussing them then.

    I have to admit I laughed out loud when I read this, since I can see you really don't get the point. It might be best if you let this issue drop, since you cannot make head nor tail of it. I might advise you that it's not really about communism.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Research the word "analogy".

    Best thing you could have done, really.

    First off, he slides around issues. For example, when recently quizzed by the readers of the "Globe and Mail" (Canadian paper) in a bizarre version of "Meet the mad scholar", he responds to this question:

    Bold questions, properly stated. Tariq responds with this:

    Never once does he really answer the big questions: Charter of Rights, division of mosque and state.

    Again, no real answer: is a "new model" then an islamic one? Well, it would appear so.

    Back with more postings about Dear Tariq later.
     
  13. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    ...and continue here.

    GeoffP:"Nowhere did I say you opined we should "subvert Muslims".

    Your Post (#99, 3rd sentence from the top):

    "But you just said we should subvert them! Which is your final choice?"

    Your accusations of contradiction are as contradictory as accusatory. But let's muddle on through, because I think I can glimpse the hair you are attempting to split here.

    Hypewaders: "All we in the West have to do to encourage a progressive new Iranian revolution is to suspend our paranoia and insecurity, and leave Iran alone."

    GeoffP: "So is it change we want, or not? How can one "encourage" without "encouraging"?"

    I was attempting to convey the concept of passive encouragement, as opposed to active provocation. Maybe I'm just not being clear, but it seems as if you are mostly endeavoring to muddy the water here.

    Let's press on. I'll skip the borders-are-ethnic-barriers bit, since I touched on it in responding to Zephyr.

    "Is it wrong to separate yourselves from a population rife with political fanaticism?"

    Especially so if the fanaticism is a reaction to apartheid. In such a case fanaticism is encouraged.

    "But, of course, the fanaticism began 1400 years ago, and the apartheid (see Quran 9:29, and "dhimmitude" and "sharia")."

    I say again, it doesn't matter who started it. That's a debate as endless as it is fruitless.

    "So the Israeli response is then a reaction to ongoing Arabic aggression, and not a catalyst."

    And the US invasion of Iraq was a reaction to Arab aggression on 9-11-01. That doesn't mean it was thereby justified.

    "Glad to see that we got that out of the way. Yet I wonder if, had you been grudingly forced to admit that the Arabs and not the Israelis started things, your position would have been that "two wrongs don't make a right" or something like that."

    It might be something like I have already written here previously, had you been paying attention. "Tit for tat doesn't accomplish anything. If I do you wrong, you are not thereby justified in doing wrong to another. This is very basic ethics."

    "Now was that a prediction or what? Sometimes I even surprise myself."

    What's it like to be self-titillating?

    "Well, hype, my dear opponent: are you now saying that the Palestinian actions are then "unethical" - since in your opinion the Israelis are the ones that started things ("reaction to apartheid") and the Palestinians are now engaging in "tit for tat"?

    In this instance you are twisting our conversation into an auto-argument with yourself, taking up both sides of the exchange with obvious self-satisfaction.

    Let's just return to the basic ethics of what we are discussing: You have been wronged. This does not relieve you accountability for your actions. The same principle applies to Israel; to any and all nations. Turn it around, switch protagonists for antagonists and I'll tell you the same. Got it?

    "I don't support all Israel's actions, but I do support their right to exist as a separate nation, since genocide appears likely otherwise; or dhimmitude at the very least." (italics added)

    Now we're getting down to it. You slide the phrase "separate nation" by with the insinuation of separatist nation. Which is to say apartheid nation. So in precisely the same way as many Americans a generation ago espoused segregating blacks from whites, you are promoting the concept of separating Jews from Muslims. In the very same way as some White South Africans advocated separating themselves from Blacks, you are advocating apartheid. Even as you tangle it all up in twisted conversation and justifications, you are still revealed as a segregationist not unlike any other segregationist.

    "Hype, three invasions in fifty years is frankly the "greater provocation". This is not really open to question."

    How many invasions has Israel launched in the same period? This is your best justification for apartheid? I know you can do better than that.

    "Israel has been responding half-heartedly to attack after attack - in fact, their response has been scaled throughout."

    So the latest invasion, officially a response to Hezb'ullah's capture of 3 IDF soldiers in Lebanon was scaled in killing thousands of uninvolved Lebanese, and busting that recovering nation back down to the brink of anarchy? What kind of sick scale are you holding up?

    "Well then, are there moderates or not? You seem to imply that there are all these terrible, distinct "radicals" one post, and then in another you imply there are no "radicals". Make up your mind."

    No, you need to get your own muddled head together. You are having rhetorical conversations with yourself here, and confusing my words with the ones you have been substituting. Wake up. I have been consistently pointing out that radicals of the sort who would impose Dhimmitude on the rest of the world are a minority within modern Islam. I have been pointing out that terrorists are a minority within Islam.

    "As for knowing muslims - I have known several; some of which I encouraged to leave islam. Some did. I have observed attitudes underlying their personalities which did not fill me with much hope."

    I don't understand how an attitude underlies a personality. What I have learned to understand is that personalities are unique, and that all the best of human qualities can be found in equal proportion among Muslims as among Jews, as among any ethnicity I've encountered. I've also learned that bigotry comes from ignorance, be it bigotry over color, nationality, or creed.
     
  14. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    GeoffP: "We are discussing existing ethnic constructions of nations, not discrimination within them. Please stick to the topic."

    Nonsense. This thread is all about ethnic descrimination. I have been taking you to task from the outset for slanderously overgeneralizing about Muslims.

    "Israel is not maintaining segregation, but rather driving towards two separate nation-states."

    Israel has consistently demolished any hope for a moderate and viable Palestinian state- Through patently segregationist policy.

    "Demonstrate such denial of human rights. Why is Israel pilloried, and say Syria or Lebanon or Iraq or Iran or Pakistan or Egypt or Afghanistan not pilloried? If Israel is an apartheid state, then why are the latter not? Or why are all nation-states not, since all exclude foreigners to some degree."

    Not to the same degree. Where in modern history has an Arab nation forcibly expelled Jews in numbers approaching those of Palestinian refugees? Every major Arab city I've visited has a Jewish quarter -largely emptied out- but not by decree. The entire Mideast has been robbed of mush diversity as a direct result of the hard feelings and successive wars that washed over the region in the wake of the "triumph" of segregationist Zionism.

    "Regrettably for your case, it was the denial of human rights for non-muslims that led to the formation of Israel in the first place."

    No, it was the Holocaust. Get a clue.

    "Back with more postings about Dear Tariq later."

    Good. So far you've offered nothing incendiary on his part. No incitement of terrorism, no proclamation of support for an Earthly Caliphate. So get back to your digging.
     
  15. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    *************
    M*W: But people didn't have access to the bible in the dark ages before the printing press, so no, they didn't read it. In fact, only a minute percentage of the population could even read -- scholars and such. The masses were peasants in the field.

    Charlemagne promoted the education of the masses, but then again, Charlemagne was associated with the Church. The Church became the teacher of the masses (as well as the policemen of them). So it wasn't as if they weren't "allowed" to read the bible, they didn't have access to written scripture then.
     
  16. rrram2 Alpaca Farmer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    39
    That is a lie. Only Ignorant so called "christians" worship Jesus Chrsit as God.

    A true christians is not ignorant and knows better. If you really want to get into it. It is impossible to truly be a christian and believe that Christ is GOD.

    Because you cannot believe that God raised christ from the dead. (sorry)
    Or are you going to tell me that he raised himself from the dead?
    In which case he was NOT really dead.

    Believing Christ is God is the greatest lie ever told and the highest form of Idolatry there is.

    If you really believe Christ is God not only are you deathly ignorant,
    and have a serious spiritual problem ( often which is almost impossible to cure), but you CANNOT be "born again".

    If Christ is God MAN is NOT redeemed and yet in his sins!

    If you worship Jesus Christ as God you are literally secretly worshiping the devil.

    Jesus Christ is NOT GOD!!! (sorry devil worshipers!)
     
  17. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    The Trinity, including the divinity of Christ, is an article of Christian faith, as central to Christianity as the Pillars of Islam. You can debate over conceptions of reality in the Philosophy/Religion forum if you like, but the basic tenets of Christianity's beliefs have been long established, rrram2. You're in the wrong forum and thread, unless you'd like to discuss Muslim tolerance/intolerance of other beliefs (which I welcome you to do).
     
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Said the kettle. Either you encourage, or you adopt an attitude of laissez-faire. I cannot in honesty tell what you intend, since you apparently don't know either.

    Yes. Badly. Your argument, frankly, makes no sense since you seem to flip the focus back and forth to feed your own agenda.

    And, again, you contradict yourself: first extremism is more likely from the defending party, and then you seem to feel it doesn't matter, so that you can continue slandering Israel. Which one did you prefer?

    You are again comparing oranges and bricks. Israeli response was to overt Arabic aggression from their neighbours. There is no doubt of this fact. Iraq had little or nothing to do with 9/11. Talk about muddying waters.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    "Glad to see that we got that out of the way. Yet I wonder if, had you been grudingly forced to admit that the Arabs and not the Israelis started things, your position would have been that "two wrongs don't make a right" or something like that."

    It might be something like I have already written here previously, had you been paying attention. "Tit for tat doesn't accomplish anything. If I do you wrong, you are not thereby justified in doing wrong to another. This is very basic ethics."[/quote]

    Except when it isn't, apparently. Excuses, excuses: eh hype?

    You mean self-prophetic; and very gratifying is how I would describe it. I found this last bit of avoidance similar fodder:

    Well...no. You see, you said that extremist reaction - which you clearly meant in the Palestinians - sprung from "apartheid", which you have already applied to the Israelis. Here, I'll quote what you wrote so you can understand:

    So here you're opining that the Palestinian reaction is, you know, the fault of the Israelis, who moved first.

    To which my response was:

    Then I mentioned this as another precursor to this supposed Israeli "apartheid":

    So in the first case it's - y'know, aw shucks - understandable. And in the second, well tit for tat is quite wrong, which is very basic ethics.

    Tell me, Hype: do you know much about very basic ethics? Because, it's wrong to bring up contrary positions for the sake of winning an argument.

    No. I mean "separate" nation, in the same way that the USA is not Canada, nor Zimbabwe Ghana. Nor Belgium the Netherlands. Your insinuation falls flat on its face and can't get up. Maybe you could get it a clapper, so people would pay more attention to it.

    And again you evade the dhimmitude and sharia issue. Why? Why not simply address with honesty for a change?

    ?? How many wars has Israel launched with her neighbours? Well, none. Did you miss this kind of thing in history class? You don't consider three major attacks as being reason enough to adopt separation? You seem to be trying to paint Israel with the same brush as South Africa for some reason, while completely avoiding the political issues, or the absolutist doctrine of sharia. Why? Hype, please be honest in your debating style.

    The kind that you don't like: fairness. Why did Hezbollah not simply return the soldiers? Don't they have any love for their countrymen? Or is the hate of Israelis more important? Where are those soldiers now? Why is Israeli targetting of Hezbollah immoral, and the indiscriminate targetting of Israeli civilians moral in your eyes?

    And then you allude to the extremists not being extremists with your use of quotes around "extremist". Why?

    As have I. Regrettably, the commonality of views of Jews in the Middle East is negative. One fellow even remarked to me that he thought Jews were "perverse". He didn't clarify, of course, as I yelled at him a little. Several posters on another on a website 'accused' me of being Jewish, as if it were a crime. What motivates such attitudes, hype? The Quran? It seems to be something in common.
     
  19. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Ah: the islamofascist posse arrives to help you, hype.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Don't scare them off - you need them.

    As for rrram2 - while Jesus may or may not have been God, there is little doubt Mohammed was his own special little devil.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Is it slanderous overgeneralization to talk about prevalent attitudes to non-muslims in the ummah? Is there any doubt of public opinion there?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please don't wander the topic off into irrelevance. And my points concern islam, rather than muslims per se.

    Well, the one state solution was tried up to about 1948. It failed, since Arab society was not in a position to contemplate equality for non-muslims. Even today such discrimination goes on (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53574). A single state is, of course, unreasonable. A two-state solution has been offered - and rejected by Arafat, whose representation of the Palestinians was criminal to say the least.

    I would blame inefficiency rather than a lack of hatred - and Jews and Christians are indeed under attack in the islamic world, so lost time is being made up for. And why would the two things be similar anyway? What have native Christians and Jews done to their islamic "hosts"? What terrorism do they engage in? Are foreign armies of Christians coming in to attack their islamic host countries? No. Dhimmitude and sharia are also ongoing there. So, again, you are comparing oranges and bricks.

    Hard feelings? So second-class citizenship is evidence of "soft feelings", then?

    No, there was a single state until the war in 1948, when the situation became intolerable and the Jews had enough numbers to fight. Get a clue.

    Well, as you ignored previously, Tariq is only in favour of a temporary moratorium on lapidation - stoning to death for adultery - rather than a complete ban. His cousin, too, is or was Raid al-Banna, the guy who blew up 132 people in Iraq.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Article...http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005536.php

    Not to forget his equally stupid brother:

    There's little doubt that Tariq is basically as his brother is: a wolf in sheep's clothing. A particularly stupid sheep, anyway.
     
  21. Sock puppet path GRRRRRRRRRRRR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,112
    From here
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Word.
     
  23. Ghost_007 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,170
    Still at it? Don’t you get bored saying the same thing over and over? generalisations and rhetoric, same old GeoffP.

    Get this, Israel came into existence in 1948, at that time Palestine ceased to exist, Arabs were thrown out of their own homes. The Arabs that resisted and fought back were secular and had nothing to do with religion, not that there’s anything wrong with a religious resistance, they had every right to fight back. Bringing in all the usual 1400 years ago, Islam, Shariah nonsense doesn’t wash. You take things at face value GeoffP, that’s you’re problem.

    Nothing but propaganda.
     

Share This Page