Terrorist state Israel assassinates Hamas leader in Dubai

[Matt84]

Sadat was more of a Nationalist (by his own admission: Arab Socialist) than a Muslim, that's why the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated him: for not being muslim enough: for being an able thinking muslim who didn not wage jihad against the infidels to the east. So were all of the military leaders of Turkey since Ataturk who tried to de-islamize the country - reason why Turkey was the first state in the region to recognize Israel.

As I was saying before: Most Muslim countries are not Islamic countries (they are not governed by the law of the Prophet, Shari'a). As Darmanad was saying only a handful of Muslim countries are Islamic States: Mauritania (where slavery is legal), Saudi Arabia (where women can't ride a bike) and the Islamic Republic (ex Persia). The latter two are the crazier (crazier than normal sects are in power: Wahabist and Shia respectively) and most dangerous (oil and ties a Western Superpower, and oil and ties with all eastern powers, respectively). The remaining majority of muslim countries are governed by Arab Nationalist-Socialists in the form of one party systems (Egypt) or Military Juntas (Libya), or most likely a combination of both (Syria). Those kind of governments, while still Muslim, are not "good Muslims": they are seen by fundies as the corruption that prevents a true (law-abiding) Islam from arising and conquering (evangelizing) the whole world.

I think bigbadwolf is equating fear of Islam with being blindly pro-American. That's a huge mistake, the neocons had as we all know ties with one of worst Islamic regimes, and after inading Iraq they "cared not to blow up mosques" and allowed the country to include Islamic precepts in their Constitution. (That's as self-defeating as if Mac Arthur had allowed the Emperor of Japan still being a considered a god after they lost the war).

Now, what's wrong with being anti-muslim, or actually being afraid of Islam: Islamophobic?

That certainly doesn't mean you hate muslims. You are actually afraid of becoming a dhimmi in your own land. (that land is this planet, but since Geert Wilders in on trial, let's use Amsterdam as an example where Muslim gangs beat up gays and stabs playwrights, ironically in the city and country that used to be famous for being a beacon of tolerance and civility)

Finally, anyone who thinks being Islamophobic is somehow related to being racist, let's see what two ex-muslim women of two different races and nationalities have to say about the religion they endured being born into:

Beautiful Ayaan Hirsi Ali and hope for humanity Dr Wafa Sultan

 

[orwellian]

So a homophobe doesn't hate gays? He is just afraid of them?

 

[cabrera]

Sadat was more of a Nationalist (by his own admission: Arab Socialist) than a Muslim, that's why the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated him: for not being muslim enough: for being an able thinking muslim who didn not wage jihad against the infidels to the east. So were all of the military leaders of Turkey since Ataturk who tried to de-islamize the country - reason why Turkey was the first state in the region to recognize Israel.

As I was saying before: Most Muslim countries are not Islamic countries (they are not governed by the law of the Prophet, Shari'a). As Darmanad was saying only a handful of Muslim countries are Islamic States: Mauritania (where slavery is legal), Saudi Arabia (where women can't ride a bike) and the Islamic Republic (ex Persia). The latter two are the crazier (crazier than normal sects are in power: Wahabist and Shia respectively) and most dangerous (oil and ties a Western Superpower, and oil and ties with all eastern powers, respectively). The remaining majority of muslim countries are governed by Arab Nationalist-Socialists in the form of one party systems (Egypt) or Military Juntas (Libya), or most likely a combination of both (Syria). Those kind of governments, while still Muslim, are not "good Muslims": they are seen by fundies as the corruption that prevents a true (law-abiding) Islam from arising and conquering (evangelizing) the whole world.

I think bigbadwolf is equating fear of Islam with being blindly pro-American. That's a huge mistake, the neocons had as we all know ties with one of worst Islamic regimes, and after inading Iraq they "cared not to blow up mosques" and allowed the country to include Islamic precepts in their Constitution. (That's as self-defeating as if Mac Arthur had allowed the Emperor of Japan still being a considered a god after they lost the war).

Now, what's wrong with being anti-muslim, or actually being afraid of Islam: Islamophobic?

That certainly doesn't mean you hate muslims. You are actually afraid of becoming a dhimmi in your own land. (that land is this planet, but since Geert Wilders in on trial, let's use Amsterdam as an example where Muslim gangs beat up gays and stabs playwrights, ironically in the city and country that used to be famous for being a beacon of tolerance and civility)

Finally, anyone who thinks being Islamophobic is somehow related to being racist, let's see what two ex-muslim women of two different races and nationalities have to say about the religion they endured being born into:

Beautiful Ayaan Hirsi Ali and hope for humanity Dr Wafa Sultan

Mr Matt you write long replies and you believe that you are more intellectual than others and now you are quoting some ridiculuos analogy of Amsterdam. Do you know your beloved USA has more extremist gay hate crimes that are unheard of in Islamic world . Have you heard of Matt Shephard and many many others who have been killed in the USA for being gay.

The USA is more radical and extreme in its ideas of others and this is proven in its wars that have killed millions of innocents. You quote one death in Amsterdam but what about the millions of deaths in Baghdad and Kabul and Yemen and Palestine and many other countries caused by USA policy.

Hypocrisy has no bounds with you

 

[Matt84]

So a homophobe doesn't hate gays? He is just afraid of them?

Yes. Only some homophobes turn their fear into hatred. The difference is that gays don't pose a real threat to straights (to actual straights); while totalitarian ideologies on the other hand pose a real, confirmed, threat on Danish Cartoonists, New York and Buenos Aires' passers by, Spanish commuters, and yes also to gays in Iran.

It's like saying Naziphobia. Yes I am quiet Naziphobic.

Mr Matt you write long replies and you believe that you are more intellectual than others and now you are quoting some ridiculuos analogy of Amsterdam. Do you know your beloved USA has more extremist gay hate crimes that are unheard of in Islamic world . Have you heard of Matt Shephard and many many others who have been killed in the USA for being gay.

The USA is more radical and extreme in its ideas of others and this is proven in its wars that have killed millions of innocents. You quote one death in Amsterdam but what about the millions of deaths in Baghdad and Kabul and Yemen and Palestine and many other countries caused by USA policy.

Hypocrisy has no bounds with you

Don Cabrera; I don't goddam care if you insult me by calling me an "Intellectual" whatever the hell that means. If I were an intellectual I'd be reading and taking notes for a paper, instead of wasting my time in this forum.

Now I'm going to use Ayaan Hirsi Ali's arguments to debunk your love of the enemy:

When Matt Shephard was murdered (in Montana of all places!) his murderers went on trial. When any Christian fundie bombs an abortion clinic or murders a doctor, he faces harsh legal consequences.

When gays are killed in Iran, their murderers are the law enforcement. If you don't see a difference, and appreciate being on this side, then who's the hypocrite?

 

[cabrera]

Answer my question Mr Matt. There are millions of deaths caused by USA in the Middle East and you talk about some isolated incidents in Iran, Amsterdam and Saudi Arabia.

Get to the issue and stop hiding behind your mothers skirts.

 

[orwellian]

Yes. Only some homophobes turn their fear into hatred. The difference is that gays don't pose a real threat to straights (to actual straights); while totalitarian ideologies on the other hand pose a real, confirmed, threat on Danish Cartoonists, New York and Buenos Aires' passers by, Spanish commuters, and yes also to gays in Iran.

It's like saying Naziphobia. Yes I am quiet Naziphobic.

I've never felt threatened by a Muslim. Don't some islamophobes turn their fear into hatred as well? Did you actually see the Danish cartoons? Wouldn't you agree that it was a direct provocation?
And there is no such thing as Naziphobia.

 

[Matt84]

Answer my question Mr Matt. There are millions of deaths caused by USA in the Middle East and you talk about some isolated incidents in Iran, Amsterdam and Saudi Arabia.

Get to the issue and stop hiding behind your mothers skirts.

fair enough:

A) "Millions of deaths". I'll just assume you meant to say thousands. I don't like America's interventionism, I've already written extensively about that conundrum (it is one, because without American interventionist, Europe and East Asia would be under cruel Nazi ad Jap Purist totalitarian states). I wont repeat it in each thread.

B) Isolated inccidents? k, as I'm not an intellectual I don't have the figures at hand, but I certainly know that hundreds of gays are murdered by the state, who knows how many by unpunished village mobs. Same with raped-women. Outside Iran: Syria and Lebanon is under the gang-rule of Irani Hezbollah: they kill whoever thinks differently. Gaza and the West Bank, even before Hamas was elected, was a place where every suspected collaborationist was beheaded without trial. Sudan and other Sahel countries: They're outrightly inflicting a scorched earth war against all the non-muslims. Etc, etc etc.

I've never felt threatened by a Muslim. Don't some islamophobes turn their fear into hatred as well? Did you actually see the Danish cartoons? Wouldn't you agree that it was a direct provocation?
And there is no such thing as Naziphobia.

I've printed the Danish cartoons, they used to decorate my bedroom.

Have you seen the naked Jesus with a hard-on painted on a metro station in Denmark? Don't you know how offensive that it? Isn't that a direct provocation to the many godfearing Christians who still live in Denmark? Doesn't their Bible tell them to kill or somehow punish those engaged in such heresy?
Ah! But even if Christians hadn't learnt to separate the public from the private spheres, the Danish Government (or the American) would not tolerate a Biblical punishment.

C) In Europe there's no genocide like in Northern Africa, but there's another form of invasion: They assassinate whoever touches their taboos, occasionally they blow up public transportation, not too much though as not to be seen as the bad guys: the strategy is have the Europeans so scared (not only of Islam, but of their own past) that they would self-censor, begin accepting shari'a courts in Britain, and eventually begin punishing themselves whoever points out how morally disgusting Islam is. Let's follow up on the Geert Wilders trial: this might just be this century's Dreyfuss affair.

 

[orwellian]

I've printed the Danish cartoons, they used to decorate my bedroom.

Have you seen the naked Jesus with a hard-on painted on a metro station in Denmark? Don't you know how offensive that it? Isn't that a direct provocation to the many godfearing Christians who still live in Denmark? Doesn't their Bible tell them to kill or somehow punish those engaged in such heresy?
Ah! But even if Christians hadn't learnt to separate the public from the private spheres, the Danish Government (or the American) would not tolerate a Biblical punishment.

Yes I agree that is offense to Christians too. I am not justifying the reaction of the cartoons. I am saying it was an unnecessary provocation.

C) In Europe there's no genocide like in Northern Africa, but there's another form of invasion: They assassinate whoever touches their taboos, occasionally they blow up public transportation, not too much though as not to be seen as the bad guys: the strategy is have the Europeans so scared (not only of Islam, but of their own past) that they would self-censor, begin accepting shari'a courts in Britain, and eventually begin punishing themselves whoever points out how morally disgusting Islam is. Let's follow up on the Geert Wilders trial: this might just be this century's Dreyfuss affair.

I don't agree with you that they blow up public transportation. Give me one example where Arabs have blown up anything in Europe. The London and Madrid bombings, all false flag attacks carried out by western and Israeli intelligence agencies. Not to mention 9/11.

Why do you bring up Geert Wilder? I think hate speech laws are stupid. But Geert Wilder himself argues that books should be forbidden. He wants certain things banned but he wants to be able to spread his hatred. He is just another racist hypocrite.

 

[Matt84]

Should I assume that the Bombay bombings, the decades (centuries?) old conflict between Indian Muslims and "Polytheists", was also a Mossad fabrication?

 

[bigbadwolf]

As I was saying before: Most Muslim countries are not Islamic countries (they are not governed by the law of the Prophet, Shari'a). As Darmanad was saying only a handful of Muslim countries are Islamic States: Mauritania (where slavery is legal), Saudi Arabia (where women can't ride a bike) and the Islamic Republic (ex Persia).

He quickly changed his tune when he realised he didn't have a leg to stand on. And if you read his posts he's been making some pretty sweeping statements about all moslems.

The latter two are the crazier (crazier than normal sects are in power: Wahabist and Shia respectively) and most dangerous (oil and ties a Western Superpower, and oil and ties with all eastern powers, respectively).

Au contraire: they are not crazy. You can rightly call Saudi Arabia's rulers corrupt and craven, but they are not crazy. Repressive, yes. Needing legitimacy from Wahhabist clergy, yes. Walking a tightrope between Wahhabism and being in USA's back pocket, yes. But not crazy. With regard to Iran, I can't see any argument for calling them crazy. It's the USA + Israel out to demonise them. Ahmedinejad's statements and speeches are regularly misreported in US and British media (for example the deliberate mistranslation that he called for the annihilation of Israel).

The remaining majority of muslim countries are governed by Arab Nationalist-Socialists in the form of one party systems (Egypt) or Military Juntas (Libya), or most likely a combination of both (Syria). Those kind of governments, while still Muslim, are not "good Muslims": they are seen by fundies as the corruption that prevents a true (law-abiding) Islam from arising and conquering (evangelizing) the whole world.

Again, you seem to be getting your facts wrong. The implacable foe of any Arab (or Iranian) secular or nationalist movement has consistently been the USA (and before the USA, the UK and France). Against Nasser, against the Ba'athists in Iraq and Syria, against Mossadeq in Iran. One can argue that it's because of the sabotaged failure of these secular and national movements -- largely due to US interference -- that fundamentalism has got a foothold. If, for example, Mossadeq hadn't been toppled and the worthless Shah put back on his throne, there would have been no revolution in 1979. In addition, many of these fundamentalists have been nurtured by the US itself -- Osama being one prominent example.

I think bigbadwolf is equating fear of Islam with being blindly pro-American. That's a huge mistake, the neocons had as we all know ties with one of worst Islamic regimes, and after inading Iraq they "cared not to blow up mosques" and allowed the country to include Islamic precepts in their Constitution. (That's as self-defeating as if Mac Arthur had allowed the Emperor of Japan still being a considered a god after they lost the war).

There are simply too many errors here to correct them all. The neo-cons have been working hand-in-glove with Israeli interests (indeed many of the Americans neo-cons have been ardent Zionists themselves). The new constitution that Bremer took with him to Baghdad was a neoliberal one outlawing trade unions, allowing for full repatriation of multinational profits, and so on -- after all, the raison d'etre for invading the country was to plunder it. Islam is a red herring in all these machinations.

Now, what's wrong with being anti-muslim, or actually being afraid of Islam: Islamophobic?

It's a red herring. And you seem not to understand that it is so because you have no real knowedge of the region or its history.

That certainly doesn't mean you hate muslims. You are actually afraid of becoming a dhimmi in your own land. (that land is this planet, but since Geert Wilders in on trial, let's use Amsterdam as an example where Muslim gangs beat up gays and stabs playwrights, ironically in the city and country that used to be famous for being a beacon of tolerance and civility)

I see this conflation of three things frequently enough. The three things conflated are: 1) Islam has always been imperialistic and militaristic because of what happened 1400 years ago and also during the crusades, 2) The demographics of modern Europe, with lots of moslems in every West European country, and 3) supposed Islamic fundamentalism in the moslem world. The people doing this have an agenda of their own. It is disingenuous. The Islamic world has been on the receiving end since well before the decrepit Ottoman empire collapsed during WW1. The European colonial powers that had been tearing off bits and pieces of the empire -- mostly Britain and France -- were roughly elbowed aside by the upstart imperialist, the USA.

All of this is realpolitik -- of which you seem to be woefully ignorant. It has nothing to do with "liking" or "hating."