Terrorist state Israel assassinates Hamas leader in Dubai

[darmanad]

Now we are making some progress.
1.You admit that in Islamic society non-muslims must live in dhimmitude as second class citizens.

2.You admit 2.5 million persons were slaughtered, but argue the genocide of the Armenians and other Christians by the Ottoman empire was ethnic, not religious. A subtle distinction, but probably erroneous. In 1914, as the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the central powers, an official anti-Christian jihad was proclaimed. In his book on this subject, Perter Balakian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Balakian) states:
To promote the idea of jihad, the sheikh-ul-Islam's {the most senior religious leader in the Ottoman Empire} published proclamation summoned the Muslim world to arise and massacre its Christian oppressors. "Oh Moslems," the document read, "Ye who are smitten with happiness and are on the verge of sacrificing your life and your good for the cause of right, and of braving perils, gather now around the Imperial throne." In the Ikdam, the Turkish newspaper that had just passed into German ownership, the idea of jihad was underscored: "The deeds of our enemies have brought down the wrath of God. A gleam of hope has appeared. All Mohammedans, young and old, men, women, and children must fulfill their duty. ... If we do it, the deliverance of the subjected Mohammedan kingdoms is assured." ... "He who kills even one unbeliever," one pamphlet read, "of those who rule over us, whether he does it secretly or openly, shall be rewarded by God." (quoted in Balakian, The Burning Tigris, 169-70.)

3. Zionist propaganda? What is ? The words of the Quran? I don't get it. Can you clarify exactly what is the Zionist propaganda? Do you accuse me of misquoting the Quran? Irrelevant Suras? Tell that to ANY Muslim. See if he agrees these words are irrelevant. If you lived in the mideast, you realize that you have blasphemed and that you could be killed for merely uttering these words in Saudi Arabia, Iran and possibly Pakistan. And in any state that is established by Hamas or Hezbollah. That is not propaganda . It is simply the truth. Do you disagree?
You state Iraq and Afghanistan didn't invade the USA. Duh? DId I say otherwise? You want to put words in my mouth and then prove me wrong? By the way, if the Taliban government gave aide and support to Al Qaida, then they are co conspirators in the 9/11 attack. As such they declared war on the US. The US invasion of Iraq was wrong from any perspective. It was most likely to gain control of Iraqi oil reserves with perhaps psychological ( revenge for daddy) and religious motives of Bush (god wants me to do it).

4. What is all this business about Zionist neo-con? If by Zionist you mean one who supports the independent state of Israel as a homeland for Jewish people I plead guilty. You really like the word, "neo-con." How do you define it? What are the elements of the neocon philosophy I have demonstrated. I am aginst American intervention in the mideast except in the defense of Israel. In my opinion the US ought to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan asap. Let the Shia and Sunni sort out their own damn problems. Lord knows they have been at each others throats since the 7th century. Does that make me a neo-con?

5. I have no desire to spend any more time in the mideast. Nor do I think it is required for me to do so in order to have insight into the Islamic code of ethics or history of the region. It is encouraging to hear you denigrate the Quran. Just don't do it in a number of mideast countries if you cherish your freedom. I trust you don't dispute that. Where have I misstated historical facts? My argument is with the role of Islam in the problems facing the region. It is central to understanding the Israeli conflict with Islamic parties such as Hezbollah and Hamas whose charters reject the right of Israel to exist as it is prescribed in the Quran. The immutable Quran. The word of Allah is not subject to dispute.

6. You are obviously against the continued existence of the state of Israel. Israel was established by the UN and has a right to exist whether the Arabs like it or not. Arabs and Islamic states control a land mass in the region that dwarfs the size of the Israeli state - however its boders are defined. Its borders are subject to dispute, as is the control of Jerusalem ,as are reparations to Palestinians who abandoned their property - but not Israel's right to exist. If you maintain that it has no right to exist, then you declare war. If you declare war, be prepared to fight. If that makes me a "neo-con", count me in.

7. So there it is. Geert Wilders is wrong because he is a Jew and Zionist to boot. Nevermind the facts of the case. They are irrelevant. That is absurd. Anyone reading this, please, please see the youtube video of Pat Condell about the criminal prosecution of Wilders in Holland. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96ZUZ9CPZII
It is a true heresy trial aimed at curtailing free speech and comments critical of the Quran and Islam. Truth has been divorced from justice.

Lastly , I confess not comprehending your argument about Joseph Stack. Double standards with regard to terrorism? You really want to equate Stack's act with say the act of Nidal Hasan? You are more perverted than I thought. I am reminded of orwellian's moral equivalence between a) planting bombs on a public bus to kill innocent civilians and b) subsequently taking out the guy who planted the bombs. It is a patently absurd argument. Yeah. yeah, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Not applicable in ALL cases. The human intellect must make distinctions. Failure to do so is irresponsible and unethical.
Take CAIR, the Counsel on American Islamic Relations. It too has declared it racist or discriminatory NOT to call Stack's act of piloting his plane into the IRS offices an act of terrorism. That is nonsense. The inability to distinguish between Joe Stack and for example, Nidal Hasan, the Muslim US Army officer who murdered his fellow soldiers at Ft Dix, demonstrates a lack, not of ethical consistency, but plain old intelligence. As Hugh Fitzgerald of jihadwatch put it:
Unlike a "lone Muslim," Joe Stack was not inculcated from a young age with hatred of the IRS, or the government. He was not out to right wrongs, to terrorize the IRS. He was simply at the end of his tether, and that tether snapped, and he snapped, and he decided, in this publicity-maddened age, to go out with a bang. It wasn't so much "Striking Terror Into the Hearts Of (the IRS, the government, the drug companies)," but, rather, simply Going Out With A Bang.
But the "lone Muslim" (Nasan) can reasonably be described as a "terrorist" if his act of terrorism has been inspired by an ideology shared by a billion people, and taken seriously by a great many of them, and if he thinks, if it is reasonable to think he thinks, that in smiting this particular Infidel or Infidels, he is "striking terror" into the hearts of other Infidels, and thus landing a blow for Islam. " The latter describes Nidal Hasan.

So I will go back to, as you so revealingly say, jerking off to the bile I produce here. Carry on your anti-Israel, anti-Zionist empty headed rhetoric. The truth about Islam is getting out.

 

[bigbadwolf]

The threat of Islamic takeover serves to camouflage other very real threats. An essay by Gilad Atzmon (an Israeli):

The Protocols

is widely considered a forgery. It is a manual for a prospective new member of the “Elders”, describing how they will run the world through control of the media and finance, replacing the traditional social order with one based on mass manipulation. Though the book is considered a hoax by most experts and regarded as a vile anti-Semitic text, it is impossible to ignore its prophetic qualities and its capacity to describe both the century unfolding and the political reality in which we live I am referring here to: AIPAC, the Credit Crunch, Lehman Brothers, Neocon wars, interventionist ideology, a British Foreign Secretary listed as an Israeli Propaganda (Hasbara) author trying to amend Britain’s ethical stand, a Zionist by admission put on an inquiry panel to investigate why Britain launched a Zionist war and so on.

As it happens staunch Zionists such as David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, and Alan Dershowitz use a very banal spin to divert the attention from the devastating prophetic reality depicted by The Protocols. A reality in which they themselves promote interventionist wars in our midst. Again and again they stress the fact that The Protocols was a forgery. They insist that we look at its anti-Semitic origin while evading its content and meaning. However whether or not The Protocols is a fictional text or a forgery doesn’t change the fact that it explores our disastrous contemporary reality. A reality in which we are killing en masse the enemies of Israel in the ‘name of democracy’, a reality in which Dershowitz himself puts enormous effort into cleansing academia of any critical voices of Israel, Zionism, and Jewish power in America and the West.

People like Gilad Atzmon, Uri Avnery, and Norman Finkelstein have the courage to speak the truth. Which is certianly not the fabricated nonsense about Islamic takeover. But observe how the Germans are terrified of the Zionist backlash from allowing Finkelstein to speak in this essay.

 

[darmanad]

Do I understand you to now say that Zionism is more threatening to the world than Islamic Jihad?
So what this all boils down to is whether Zionism, defined as support for a Jewish state, is more threatening than jihad, as defined in the Islamic Quran? Hmmm.
1. Jewish Zionism calls for maintenance of a Jewish state whose borders are now in dispute, but which in any case is no bigger than the state of New Jersey. Jihad calls for a world-wide caliphat goverened under Sharia law. A Sharia law state would never stop warring to create the world-wide caliphat.
2. In the Jewish state non-Jews are free to practice any belief system they want or no belief system. In the caliphat only Muslims are are permitted to practice their religion openly. People of the book (defined in the Quran as Jews and Christians) must occupy second class dhimmitude status. According to Quran's Sharia law all others must convert or die.
3. In the Zionist entity the lawmakers are democratically elected. All inhabitants are entitled to the full range of human and social rights we associate with modern civilization. In the supremacist theocracy of the caliphat, non-popularly elected religious leaders would govern. There would be no freedom of expression (death for blasphemy), no freedom of conscience (convert or die and death for apostasy), social entertainment would be seriously curtailed and prematital sex or the appearance thereof by women would be punishable by death by stoning, no equality under the law for women, homosexualtiy would be punishable by death.

Which is more threatening?

 

[bigbadwolf]

Now we are making some progress.
1.You admit that in Islamic society non-muslims must live in dhimmitude as second class citizens.

I lost a lengthy reply, dammit (what happens when one uses a library computer). I'll recreate as much as memory and patience allow.

Some of these "second-class citizens" became imperial advisors, became successful bankers and merchants. Tax rates were higher on them. But no comparison with, say, Poland or Russia or much of Europe is possible

3. Zionist propaganda? What is ? The words of the Quran? I don't get it. Can you clarify exactly what is the Zionist propaganda? Do you accuse me of misquoting the Quran? Irrelevant Suras? Tell that to ANY Muslim.

Islam is a red herring. If you had first-hand experience of the moslem world, you would realise how little the words of the koran have to do with living reality. The moslem world is backward. How exactly are they going to take over the world? There are 1.2bn moslems and 7m Israelis. Yet name one moslem university that can compete with Israel's Technion. There isn't one. Israel has probably won more Nobel science prizes than all the moslem word together. All the technology of the moslem world has been bought, begged, or stolen from the West. How exactly are the moslems -- if they could act together in the first place -- ever going to take over the world? By brandishing their scimitars?

If you lived in the mideast, you realize that you have blasphemed and that you could be killed for merely uttering these words in Saudi Arabia, Iran and possibly Pakistan.

Bollocks. I have said these things there and found people who agree. Your impressions are those of one who listens to Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, and Alan Dershowitz. You don't know the moslem world.

You state Iraq and Afghanistan didn't invade the USA. Duh? DId I say otherwise? You want to put words in my mouth and then prove me wrong? By the way, if the Taliban government gave aide and support to Al Qaida, then they are co conspirators in the 9/11 attack. As such they declared war on the US.

You should be blushing with embarrassment. Al Qaeda operatives were supported by USA during the '80s while they fought the Russkies. But US allies today become enemies tomorrow according to American expediency and opportunism. The Taliban had been playing hardball with regard to oil and gas pipelines (negotiations headed by Cheney) until some months before 9/11. Regime change was on the cards; just a pretext was needed. Come to think of it, the Taliban even asked the Clinton administration whether they should readmit Osama; no problemo was the response.

The US invasion of Iraq was wrong from any perspective. It was most likely to gain control of Iraqi oil reserves with perhaps psychological ( revenge for daddy) and religious motives of Bush (god wants me to do it).

Both Greenspan (in his autobio) and Wolfowitz are on record as saying oil was the motive.

You really like the word, "neo-con." How do you define it? What are the elements of the neocon philosophy I have demonstrated. I am aginst American intervention in the mideast except in the defense of Israel.

1) "Full spectrum dominance" of the globe to make up for USA's economic weakness. 2) Seizure of the Middle East to hold a gun against the temple of the rest of the world (would make a mafia chieftain drool with envy) 3) Unequivocal and unstinting support of Zionist expansionism and influence in the region (since most neo-cons are Zionist Jews, this makes sense).

Let the Shia and Sunni sort out their own damn problems. Lord knows they have been at each others throats since the 7th century.

The Ba'athist regime had it under control (I lived for two years in Iraq).

5. I have no desire to spend any more time in the mideast. Nor do I think it is required for me to do so in order to have insight into the Islamic code of ethics or history of the region.

Au contraire. There's a gulf between how US media portrays the moslem world and what the reality is like. Moreover, you seem to be ignorant of the true problems afflicting the place. The moslem world has been struggling with modernity for at least a century. The Ottomans sent delegations to Europe to try to ferret out the secrets of European technology and dynamism. Secular and nationalist leaders like Ataturk, Nasser, Saddam, Assad, have all grappled with this issue, each in his own way. Ba'athis is secular Arab nationalism. In all this, the koran and Islam are irrelevant.

It is encouraging to hear you denigrate the Quran. Just don't do it in a number of mideast countries if you cherish your freedom. I trust you don't dispute that.

But I do. That's what happens when you lack first-hand experience. In your worldview, all moslems must be bearded fanatics out to castrate the infidel. Well, I have spoken against the Koran and Islam. Of course, I cannot shout it. But there are thoughtful people who know Islam is a dead end, a cul-de-sac, a complete crock.

Okay, my patience is at an end (for the moment). Today's lesson over. Th-th-th-th-that's all, folks.

 

[darmanad]

A reformist movement in panuelas...
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010040568461

 

[jaredwb]

Please, Israel is no more of a Terrorist state than the Dominican Republic. I'm sure if Haiti was launching rockets into downtown DR, I (you) would expect the DR to fight back.

As for Islam, like any religion there are extremists, just like there are extreme Christians that use the bible "literally" to hate gays, jews, etc. etc.

Unlike MOST of you, I had the privilege of living in a country with a VERY large Muslim population and I have to say, they were some of the nicest people I have met in my life. Family oriented, community oriented, etc. etc.

And, like most of the world, they condemn the murderers that kill in "Mohammad's name". To them, these REAL terrorists are not Muslims nor do they practice the true teachings of Islam.