How would you stem the tide of the islamic hordes? [Archive]

BlackFalcoN

June 15th, 2006, 03:39 PM

To formulate a solution, we must first try to grasp the essential basics of the problem:

Islam is fundamentally based on old scriptures and the Koran, the holy book of the prophet Mohamed preaching the will of
Allah.
This book is filled with very strict rules for worshippers for living every day life, as well as creating the ultimate
ideology: establishing a global caliphate, a world ruled and dominated by Islam. This promotes a very black/white radical view against outsiders; the infidels, who must be conquered at all costs.
They represent the world in a very simplistic manner: Those who worship Islam, and those who don't.

Non-believer are demonized as being the Big Enemy of Islam, and are given 2 options: convert to Islam or die.

Muslims who sacrifice themselves for their believes (fight against the infidels), become martyrs, achieving the highest
possible reward in afterlife (70 virgins) and become folk-hero in their local communities.

As in many religions, we can find moderate groups as well as fanatic hard-core groups.

The problem with Islam is, that there has always been a kernel of imams (religious leaders) present that take the writings of
Mohamed very literally, and this grants them a license for violence against those who do not 'believe', creating a new form
of 'Radical Islam'.

Radical Islam won't tolerate any criticism what-so-ever, and will go to every extend to exterminate those who do criticize them. ( e.g. Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie , massive riots and burning of embassies around the world for the publishing of
Mohamed cartoons in Danish newspapers, killing of the cineaste Theo Van Gogh in Holland for Islam criticism, … )

A lot of Islamic regions are underdeveloped shitholes to begin with. ( their only export being crude oil and Jihad :D )
Given their shitty desert life, the gross of the population has a very bad outlook on life.
Their only hope is for a better afterlife, which can be achieved by following the Koran very strictly, making them very
devoted believers.
This fact is also exploited by radical imams, who try to convince Muslims to bring the ultimate sacrifice for their religion:
Giving up their shitty inferior lives in exchange for a better afterlife.

( >>Those who claim US Policy is responsible for Islamic bombings and acts of terror are DEAD-wrong... Violent conquering
of the infidel has always been a part of Islam (as well as other religions), going back long before the US even was founded )

The fundementalistic aspect makes Islam a very serious threat to Western society (or every other non-Islam society for that
matter).

Freedom of religion in our modern Western democracies, is a double edged sword that will cut us really bad in the future if
we don't change the tide. ( for decades we have tolerated the multicultural societies in which we live, having allowed 'their' non-western culture and religions)

Already are there forming huge 'enclaves' in the suburbs of many European cities.
( Those who disagree this fact are free to travel across Europe this summer and visit the lovely Moroccan and Turkish ghettos
of Northern France, Lille, Brussels, Antwerp, Amsterdam -- districts where law enforcement literaly has lost all control
and don't even dare to wander into )

The Islamic hate in the media is mostly shifted towards the Big Infidel numero Uno, being the United States of America,
but I'm sure most (Western?) European RS members will agree that the Islamic invasion is a problem that manifests itself mainly in Europe. (how many US cities are there that have Arabic as their primary local language in some communities ? :confused: )

The fact Europe is invaded is partly explained by the fact that most European countries have a regime that is very tolerant
toward foreigners (e.g. no Maoistic country would allow such extremities of immigration as seen in Europe )
plus the enormous wealth the West has to offer in comparison to Middle Eastern shitholes.

Europe can't benefit of the strategic advantage of having thousands of miles of ocean in between itself and the Islamic cesspools. ( an advantage that the US and Australia surely have). Every day illegal (Muslim) refugees make their way
across the Mediterranean sea into Spain or travel the Balkan to enter Europe.

What I'm just trying to point out here: most U.S. or Aussie members will diminish the threat of 'Muslim conquest', labelling it non-existent, a media hyped phenomenon that was invoked by U.S. Foreign policy that stirred up the hornet nest that is the Middle East.
However, Europe no longer can deny the massive invasion of Muslims, which have among them a great deal of religious fanatics.

If no actions are taken, it's just a matter of time before Western Europe will fall under the Islamic burka.
( Just compare the average fertility rate of most European countries to the average Islamic muds
http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/Basic_Information/total_fertility_rate/europe.html
we're not even replacing our current population, meaning, over time, the European race will become extinct, even without the help of Islam !!! :eek: :eek: )

Eventually, over time, there WILL come a time that the US will have a SERIOUS threat of becoming invaded with Muslims...

Anyway, to recap my post in a nutshell:

Islamic fundamentalism is the result of hardcore believers, fuelled by their religious leaders, who wish to establish a global reign of Islam by violently conquering the infidel, resulting in a better afterlife for them. This conquest is happening on massive scale, as already can be seen in many European cities.

Now we must seriously ask ourselves, how can we solve the problem of violent Islamic conquest and stop the invasion ? :)

akinrog

June 15th, 2006, 04:04 PM

( >>Those who claim US Policy is responsible for Islamic bombings and acts of terror are DEAD-wrong... Violent conquering
of the infidel has always been a part of Islam (as well as other religions), going back long before the US even was founded )

While I agree majority of the ideas you presented, I have to disagree the foregoing.

First of all nobody must forget that core cadre of Al-Qaeda, i.e. Afghan Mujahideen was previously one of major instruments of US intelligence, while they were fighting against REDs in Afghanistan. They were not only supported by US intelligence, but also trained, armed, protected and bankrolled by the same.

And many second and third degree evidence indicates that these groups might still have connections with and/or steered by at least a part or whole of a developed country's intelligence organization (if not US intelligence), since almost all of the attacks are well timed, well organized to attain certain aims which while at the first look seems beneficial to cause of Islamic Fanatics, actually benefits certain multi transnational companies based in Western Countries. Regards.

BlackFalcoN

June 15th, 2006, 04:24 PM

I should have phrased that differently.

I'm not denying at all that many governments are involved in what we call state-sponsored terrorism/freedom-fighting/liberation/contra-movements/… (many powers throughout history have done this to gain certain economic/strategic/political advantages. [ a lot of CIA involvements in the 70-80-90's come to mind :D])

I'm just saying that Muslim extremism existed long before there even was such a thing as the United States of America, that violence has always been a part of Islamic religion, and that the United States can't be held responsible for triggering that violence.
My reply was more directed to statements like these:
Ask yourself this question: Would there be terrorist bombings if the US-army hadn't fought in the Middle-East in the first place? Interfering with conflicts which were none of their business, well......oil was their business.

I'm convinced that, yes, these bombings would have taken place, even if the US didn't invade/ got involved in the Middle East, given the nature of fundamentalistic Islam.

Trivia:
What was the most popular name given to newborn boys in Brussels (Capital of Belgium) and Amsterdam (Capital of Holland) in the year 2005 ?

simply RED

June 15th, 2006, 06:50 PM

Threat...

The biggest threat to the western society is the way - decisions are taken nowdays. The way society denies (nuclear energy, genetic modified foods, ecological thinking, etc...) Things that are 100% positive but the "democracy" is saying they are evil. Society prefers to be poisoned by fosil fuel burning stations other than chosing cheap safe and clear nuke stations... (fosil burning adds more radioactive waste than nuclear energy)

I do not tolerate religious extremists too! But we are (still) too strong military power (I mean NATO)! That they have no chance for success!!!

From industrial culture we are slowly turning to "work-on-the-desk" one.
And while we are arguing about wrong and right - countries like China are forging forward unbelievably fast!
Immagine the day - China and USA are equivalent in military power...
Remember what NATO did in Serbia? Now immagine the same operation led by the Chinese military :P...

Gollum

June 15th, 2006, 09:22 PM

I definately do not think that us foreign policy is responsible for the muslim problem the world is facing today. Though I do think US foreign policy is fucked up, simply because decision makers seem to get it wrong every time.

However, the fact is that muslims all over the world have always been violent terrorists. One only needs to take a look at Indonesia, Thailand, the Phillipenes or even most recently, Canada, to see that muslims are violent terrorists on every nation on this planet. Their rage is not just against the US. Muslims attack every society they infect, including other muslim societies as seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Another recent example of what Islam is really about were the arson of several embassies in Islamic countries, and the murder of dozens of innocents during riots sparked over newspaper cartoons.

I think that muslim societies need to be penetrated from inside to either re-educate future clerics or imams, as well as destroy or otherwise dispose of muslims convicted of terrorism, or conspiracy to commit terrorism. This last statement makes me sound remarkably like Hitler, I know, however the sad fact is that muslims are probably going to be responsible for a huge amount of lost life and property in the near future due to terrorism. Muslims and Islamic nations are actively seeking not only WMD's but specific terror weapons such as radiation bombs and chemical agent dispersing devices.

If no one stops them, what can we expect to happen to the world? Well, a good example is what is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan right now. Or even Somalia may serve as a good example. No rights or freedoms for women, no freedom of religion for anyone, no fair trials, no anything.

Islam must be stopped at any cost. This is the most important issue the world will face in this century. If we fail to stop Islamic expansion and terror, Islamic fanatics will destroy the planet with their terrorism.

If anyone needs further proof that Islam is founded on violence, one simply needs to research the history of "Muhammed", who was in fact a warring pedophile with several child wives.

bipolar

June 15th, 2006, 10:11 PM

Muslims aren't that big of a threat in my opinion.

I think governments gone bad are the the biggest threat to world. In the last century alone governments gone bad have killed at least a hundred million of their own people, not including wars.

I don't think it's an indirect/direct result of our foreign policy. In fact, I think it's the opposite. Western countries depend on it as justifcation for the foriegn policy that they want.

Without it as a perceived threat, I don't think they could rally the public to support any of this foreign policy or domestic policy which is necessary to keep their own citizens from resisiting or plotting revolution.

The patriot act, etc is not for foreign terrorists. It is for We The People!. It gives them necessary power to try and prevent a revolution. Although, I don't think they will be successful.

In my opinion, the powers that be either create, provoke, dupe people into commiting acts of terror. I am not talking about acts of resistance against government.

When you think about it, most humans are at least smart enough to understand that terror is not an effective means to acheiving goals. I beleive it doesn't really exist naturally in most humans. In terms of terror I am talking about attacks on innocent civilians.

I mean yeah, some people who are crazy might do it. The only other time someone may think it to be benificial is if they are brainwashed, duped, provoked by an enemy that would benifit from it more than they would.

Terrorism is a benifit to your enemy. It provides all the justification they need from their population to destroy you. Why would someone knowingly help their enemy?

I know this is hard for a lot of people to accept. If you refuse to believe any of this, there is nothing anyone can do to change that. I refuse to debate and waste my time trying to convince people of this type of thing. It is up to you to be willing to accept it and look into it yourself.

nbk2000

June 16th, 2006, 12:58 AM

BlackFalcoN:

Q: Most popular name for boys in Belgium/Holland?

A: What is Mohammed?

;)

mil&co

June 16th, 2006, 03:17 AM

As for being anti-U.S., which I assume is the intent of
your post, I warn you now that you may be skating on thin ice with the
powers-that-be on this board.
No, it wasn't the intention of my post to give an anti-US impression. It was my intention to show just how vulnerable democracy is the way it is ran today, not only in the US, but all over the world.

The perfect system in my oppinion is one like the US has now, but with suffrace withdrawn for the people with an IQ <110. So there's less chance of opinion-manipulation.

However, the fact is that muslims all over the world have always been violent terrorists. One only needs to take a look at Indonesia, Thailand, the Phillipenes or even most recently, Canada, to see that muslims are violent terrorists on every nation on this planet. Their rage is not just against the US. Muslims attack every society they infect, including other muslim societies as seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I don't agree with you on this one. Western society's have plunged the world into war for two times within thirty years, and you dare blaming the Muslims for having their little "conflicts"?

The violence is not coming forth from religion, it's the nature of man to blame. Every human being desires power. Sometimes man tries to gain that power with religion as an excuse, but that's not the cause.

But I'll stop arguing about politics, since the past has told me it is not allways appreciated by the M(G)ods.

BlackFalcoN

June 16th, 2006, 04:44 AM

BlackFalcoN:
Q: Most popular name for boys in Belgium/Holland?
A: What is Mohammed?

We got a winner :p

Your prize will take you to an all paid 3-day stay in the lovely city of Borgerhout, Belgium, where over 90% of it's inhabitants are Muslim. Famous sights will include such places as Borgerhout mosque, burka-R-us HQ and the experience of personally witnessing the last white resident, fleeing the city.

No seriously, the most famous name for boys in Brussels and Amsterdam was INDEED Mohammed. This just shows at what incredible speed these muds are spawning.
( and the incredible devotion to name your child after a religious prophet)
(> How many White citizens would call their kid Jesus ? [not considering the Mexican sub-species :D ] )

nbk2000

June 16th, 2006, 06:46 AM

Hitler has already shown Europe the solution for undesirable populations:

GENOCIDE

Your enemies cease being a threat when they cease to exist.

The ragheads are adopting the strategy of infiltration and replacement from within.

By outbreeding the native population, they will eventually be in the position of overthrowing the natives government with the islamic caliphate.

When will this happen?

Historically, when a country has less than 60% of ethnic homogenity, it implodes.

It always happens, there are no exceptions. The only thing that delays it is either crushing force (Yugoslavia) or continuing economic growth (USA). But once either of these suppressors is removed, the inevitable happens.

So, in the example of Holland, when less than 60% of the population is White Dutch, and more than 40% is brown ragheads, you're going to be in deep shit unless you use overwhelming force to purge them.

Note how there are now more jews in New York City than in all of Germany.

Genocide works.

And if White people don't use it, the ragheads will.

Do you think they'll let you live in peace after they take over?

BWAHAHAHAAA!

Christians are stoned to death. Tourists and journalists are kidnapped and beheaded. POWS are burned alive. There's no such thing as surrendering to Jihadists. If you're captured, you die.

During both world wars, if a soldier was captured or surrendered, he was 99% likely to survive, because these were wars of political differences.

In wars of idiology, the vanquished enemy is an Enemy of God! How can you let an Enemy of God! continue to exist? You can't, so there are no POWs or surrender, only slaughter and genocide.

The West is in a slow-motion war with an idiological enemy, thus no quarter can be given. If we continue on the path of appeasment and tolerance, we're doomed.

Don't think the Chinese would put up with this shit for a moment.

Notice the decided lack of islamist bullshit happening in/to China? They know better.

If western intelligence agencies do influence the raghead terrorists, then perhaps they need to direct them against the chinese, to take some pressure of of us.

BlackFalcoN

June 16th, 2006, 08:31 AM

Outgrowing them is no option, given our current 'modern/emancipated views' on society. We will doom ourselves to excist if we don't find a solution to solve this in the next 50 years.

A lot of Western white females opt for a professional carrier and stay single by preference.
( where as the Muslim woman is locked inside the house, her only purpose serving her Muslim husband and creating as much Muslim spawn as possible in her lifetime :( )
This is how Allah wishes it to be, for a man blessed with many children will exponentionally create an army of future worshippers.

Polygamy is universally accepted by the Koran, so a man is not limited in planting his seeds in just 1 female. Where as Western society frowns upon everything that deviates from the monogamous norm.

Most Islamic marriages are not based on love, they are arranged deals between two families. Since both parties know from the beginning that there is no such thing as 'love' in their relation to begin with, very little marriages end up broken because of the feeling that love has faded their marriage (as can be seen in much Western marriages.)

High member Muslim families are the standard (promoted by their religion) + polygamy allows them to be a more efficient baby factory overall.

Unless we can drastically change our views on modern society, and all start reproducing on (at least) an equal scale like the Muslim muds, we are doomed to be outgrown. :mad:

Males specimens are abundant and they are able to create multiple offspring A DAY (requiring them only to provide their genetic material to a female), the focus should be on the female part of the reproduction cycle.
( Examples of this can be seen everywhere in nature, where a single (alpha) male is responsible for impregnating hordes of females, time after time after time, ergo creating an immense pack of offspring over time )

This is basic Darwinism people : the strong survive to come to an age to reproduce, then reproduce as much as possible, thus being biologically successful.

By allowing the Islamic mud to reproduce on a bigger scale, we as Western society (unconsciously) admit their reproductional superiority......

Suppose we could eliminate 100% of all Muslim females between age 0 and 45, the problem of Islam would dissolve itsself within the next century...
(Given that we could prevent interracial marriages - which in case of Islam is not THAT much a problem, since the Koran is pretty clear about non-Islamic marriages ;) ).
Destroying their birth factories = winning the war on terrorism :cool:

Unfortunately, no Western leader has the guts to phrase it like that since genocide is simply not accepted by society.

However genocide is in our genes.
The same principle the alpha male applies in nature when he starts killing off the newborn offspring of his rivals within or outside the pack, is hardwired into every normal human being.

The big difference is that, unlike animals, million of years of cultural evolution have turned us into "civilized" beings.
The basic principles of life, like sex and killing, have become such a taboo, that we often deny them as being part of our human nature.

Unless we can retap into those taboos, and making them more socially acceptable (which is not likely going to happen in the near future), genocide will be the weapon only available to the individual (condemning him for life by the rest of his society -resulting in stigmas and reparations to be paid for centuries to come- when he fails.)

The only question is how long we will try to deny that our views are not compatible with their views. War will become -at some point- inevitable.

How can we as western individuals turn the tide ?

Corona

June 16th, 2006, 09:08 AM

How can you turn the tide?

By making us wear silk underwear. Supposed to turn us into sissies... muslim men aren't supposed to wear silk underwear and gold and diamond jewelry (watches, etc). It is like Kryptonite for us.

I wish you luck.

So.... when do I get my gold Rolex???

Jacks Complete

June 16th, 2006, 06:35 PM

Hahaha, nice one Corona.

The "Muslim" problem is just the same as the "Red" problem, the "Christian" problem, and so on. The people in power always need a device to scare the Sheeple. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Commie threat is gone, so after a few years without anyone to play the bad guy, the Muslims were found.

Before the Commies it was the Nazis, before the Nazis it was the Bolsheviks, and so on.

Once the Muslim threat is gone, there will be another one. And another one. And another one.

With each threat, real or imagined, the power of government will be grown further, the rights of the individual to life, liberty and lack of pursuit by government goons will be further removed.

Without a professional police force, there would be far less crime. Without an enemy to talk up, there would be no government budget for fun black operations, shiny weapons, nor big armies to play god with.

nbk2000

June 16th, 2006, 09:14 PM

Nazis were never a threat to the white race, nor was communism.

Those were political differences.

The current struggle with the islamists is, however, fundamentally different, as it's an idiological war, not a political one.

It just so happens to be convenient for the current regime in Washington to use the islamic threat to get what they want, but it's a threat that isn't going to go away.

In 30-50 years, when it's China that's the boogeyman of Washington, it'll still be islamic fundamentalism that'll be the greatest threat to western civilization.

http://www.white-history.com/hwr67.htm

Gollum

June 16th, 2006, 09:49 PM

Well, personally I don't give a damn about what color a person is, so I just want to set that straight right now. My personal beliefs are based on the fact that islam is a religion of rape and pillage and not a result of most muslims being brown skinned. I happen to be into east asian chicks in fact.

I think that genocide is one possible answer, and probably the easiest for a large government. However, I do not think for even a moment that any one of us even with the dedication to pull off such a stunt has the RESOURCES to pull off such a stunt.

I think that defeating the muslims through manipulation of their clergy and control of foreign islamic countries is the realistic key to defeating islam within the next 50 years.

Other ways of stopping islamic trash are by prohibiting muslims from entering the country, as well as conducting civil campaigns against known radical muslims and their groups.

Perhaps even something less civil could be done in countries currently experiencing severe islamic violence problems, such as in France or even anywhere else in Europe. The destruction of mosques and eviction of muslims and their supporters might force them to go back to whatever hell hole they come from.

It'd sure be easy to just round up all the bad ones though and drop a cyanide bomb over 'em. Too bad it'll never happen.

Corona

June 17th, 2006, 02:40 AM

We aren't the enemy.... you all would be dead if that was true (who can stand against 2 billion people... and their lawyers?).

You guys are your own worst enemies.. see this guy. I agree with 90% of whatever this guy sez:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Athens.shtml

http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

And Gollum, go see a doctor for that persistent tummy-ache... it is the first sign of some exotic problem... like male pregnancy. Muslims pissing in your corn-flakes are the least of your problems, dude.

Btw, a little factoid.... in 20-30 years, one-third of the people walking the streets in Denmark will be Muslims. Whattchagonnado???

Cheers.

Oh... and I wasn't joking about the silk underwear and gold Rolex. That was a freebie to help "the west" on its mission.

BlackFalcoN

June 17th, 2006, 06:38 AM

A possible solution would be to trigger a full scale war, now that we still have a chance to win.

Yes, countless sacrifices will have to be made; hundred of thousands of Westerners will find an early death.

But why wait until they cast the first stone? (As if beheading journalists and burning embassies over indifferences aren't enough already to be considered hostile action :eek: )

In 50 years, most part of Europe will be overrun by Muslims, and even aggression against them will be bound to fail.

A superior number of Muslims will be deeply rooted into our cities, and conventional military action against an enemy who is hiding amongst the sheeple will be very difficult (as can be seen in Iraq at the moment)

I think that genocide is one possible answer, and probably the easiest for a large government. However, I do not think for even a moment that any one of us even with the dedication to pull off such a stunt has the RESOURCES to pull off such a stunt.

You don't fight a full scale war against a huge number of people on individual basis.

But through dreaming of provocation and escalation, we can lure Western governments into going to war against its Muslim population, ultimately escalating in an international war between the West and Islam countries.
(We know Islam doesn't tolerate criticism, and will always react with aggression instead of selecting the more diplomatic solutions)

If a small group of dedicated people dreamed about carrying out selective operations against local religious Muslim leaders for example, the vast majority of Muslim monkeys will flood the streets, causing havoc across the country.

A recent example of 'immigrant' reactions can be seen in Clichy-sous-Bois (France)

The 2005 civil unrest in France of October and November was a series of riots and violent clashes, involving mainly the burning of cars and public buildings by gangs of youths at night. Events spread to deprived housing projects (the cités HLM) in various parts of France. Triggered by the death of two teenagers in Clichy-sous-Bois, a poor and isolated commune in the eastern suburbs of Paris, the violence predominantly involved second-generation immigrant youths who live in underprivileged neighborhoods and led to strong debates about integration and discrimination in France

The full article can be read at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France

Multiple innocent French elderly were killed in these clashes.

The events lasted for 20 nights. 8,973 cars got torched in France alone.
The country was in chaos for 3 weeks.

This 1 incident sparked riots and unrest in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland

The whole reason why these events started in the first place, was because of 2 juveniles got electrocuted, while hiding in a High Voltage Power Station while running from the cops.

It was only for DAYS later that the immigrants "justified" their actions, because they had the idea the French government wasn't nice enough for them... (not giving them da respec' they deserved :rolleyes: )

Corona

June 17th, 2006, 09:12 AM

Won't work. Your women need us.... European men are losing sperm count as we speak. Like I said, you guys have bigger problems than Muslims under your mattress. We are just filling a need you guys can no longer fill or will no longer be able to fill.

And now you "dream" of a war that will decimate your race further?

Consider:
1. Four wives at one time.
2. I love blondes.

You, meanwhile, start drinking Cod Liver Oil.... maybe that will help sperm count. :p

BlackFalcoN

June 17th, 2006, 11:22 AM

Won't work. Spoken like a true Muslim immigrant :D

I'll provide the statistics on request for those who just think this is a 'racist' remark

Consider:
1. Four wives at one time.
2. I love blondes.

Don't get your hopes up just yet.

With all the depleted uranium that is silently being used today in the Middle Eastern region & Afghanistan, your 'nads will soon enough be shrunk to the size that not even an entire battalion of US Rangers will be able to locate your little dictator.

DU has nice effects on future generations to come too btw ;)
"Unborn children of the region are being asked to pay the highest price, the integrity of their DNA."
http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html
While a few thousand of Western troops are exposed to high concentrations, millions and millions of Muslims will be left with plenty to enjoy in their big sandbox for the years to come.

The site has some nice pictures at the bottom that will surely make you go all warm and fuzzy inside. ;)

We are just filling a need you guys can no longer fill or will no longer be able to fill.

Yes our European sperm count may be going down; yes our birth rates are coming to a point that we are not able to maintain current population levels.

Relatively few of our children get born with birth defects however.
Ever wonder why birth defects in children are so low in Western Europe?
Because, as already stated by NBK; genocide works.

But don't worry; your Auswitch will come soon enough at some point in the future...

But, meanwhile, thanks for your constructive reply and enjoy your blondes :)

Corona

June 17th, 2006, 01:56 PM

Aha...!!! Pics of birth defects caused by DU... just to make me feel "warm and fuzzy"... shame shame... your hatred and naked bigotry stands exposed, despite your forthcoming protestations to the contrary.

Lost our paper-thin sense of humor, have we? You're too easy to bait and too full of hot air and empty talk.

And you're too cheap to get me silk boxers shorts and a goddamn Rolex. And I'm an Asian... in case you were wondering. With excellent sperm count, thanks.

Oh well.... carry on.

(cod liver oil... cod liver oil....)

bipolar

June 17th, 2006, 08:13 PM

I would fight with any freedom seeking person(no matter what race, etc.) against a tyranical government of any kind, or forces that represent them(of any race,etc.)

All this kind of stuff is exactly what the government wants. They want to build tension and divide the population is as many ways possible. By race, by class, by religion, by political views, by status, by sex, sexual orientation, etc. The reason is, if we are all fighting against each other we won't be all working together to fight against them, or planning a revolution together.

In my studies of Psychological Warfare, the biggest main objective always used is to divide and cause tension in the population. This way they will avoid working together against the enemy. This involves false flag terror attacks.

It is one of the oldest basic strategies in warfare, divide and conquer. Don't fall for it.

Most racist groups(KKK, National Alliance, Aryan Nations) have been started and continue to be controlled either by intelligence agencies or the ADL (which is a Israeli Mossad front) to use as dupes for targeting minority dissidents, discrediting certain beliefs, and unknowingly carrying out Psychological Operations.

akinrog

June 18th, 2006, 12:30 AM

IMHO, you guys are losing the focus of these recent events, turning into a clash between civilizations. This is exactly what certain power hungry, money loving circles based in not only Western countries but also many non-western countries (including Middle East and Asia) want you to believe and do.

If you really want Islamic terrorism fade away, solution is very simple. Tell US government not to support Saudi Arabia (despite the heavy influence of oil tycons: Bush is one of them, swimming in Arab money) and promote/enforce secularity in these countries. Many members mentions about the atrocities in Malasia, Thailand, Indonesia, Somalia, by Moslem radicals. These countries are pauper houses in comparison with Saudi Arabia. At this point, one must ask who is supporting those moslem radicals in those countries?

The answer is simple: Saudi Arabia et al. Saudis and other oil rich countries are second spoiled child of US in Middle East after Israel. They do whatever want without any consequences since they are for sure, they baited / purchased giga corporations in Western countries. They enforce harshest form of Islamic laws (i.e. Sheriah) in their countries violating human rights every day but ignored by European and US based media and the governments therein.

Look at the situation in Middle East, despite all terrorist attacks carried out against US came from pro-US Arab countries, US preferred to attack a totally irrelevant Arab country which was one of the most secular country.

Although my country's population is 99 % Moslems, our governmental regime is secularity and we do not allow religious people (MOslem radicals represent a minority in my country thanks to secularity) to enforce their beliefs on the government and modern Moslem majority who have secular beliefs.

We are suppressing Radical Moslems and in my country: no radical moslems can state that regime must be Islamic based. We simply put them in prison for that. Nobody is allowed to grow beard or get dressed in Islamic fashion if the same is a public servant. No radical women is allowed to appear before courts or doctors, universities (i.e. public places) with their heads covered (as ordered by Islam). I know this is non-democratical but one way or another we have to suppress these people, otherwise we shall also turn into one of those Arab countries, where Sheriah is abound.

By preventing heavy influence of Islamic Radicalism, we have prospered, have had good relationships with Western governments, and we are developing. This is not an option for those other pauper house countries, wherein Islamic fundamentalism is promoted by pro-US Islamic Fundamentalist Arab countries.

I don't know what is the case for USA but AFAI can see European governments have a crush for radical moslems. For example, in the capital city of my country, I see long lines of rural dressed people before European embassies (urban people do not get dressed like those, i.e. in Islamic fashion). And they manage to get their visas therefrom. But If I (as a modern man, dressed in modern fashion) apply for visa (even for genuine business purposes), the embassy personnel creates a lot troubsles not to issue visas.

And for those European members, I have a few words for you. First of all, you must analyze the issue very well. I mean who immigrates? Does well educated, doctors, lawyers and all people who have regular and well paid jobs (like me) immigrate to Europe or rural people who used to have scarce food, no jobs, no qualifications for a decent job?

Of course the second group of people immigrate. These people have no qualifications to get a good job in their own country and since after 1980s people could not make a living out of agriculture due to global political changes with respect to agricultural policies.

What I'm trying to say is that all people flooding European cities are actually mostly rural people, who are good for nothing in a city life, and who not only fail to have qualifications to get a good job or get involved in industrial production cycle in their own countries, but also even did not see and /or live in a city before going to Europe. And it's a gross mistake by European governments to allow these people to work / live in their countries, since they cannot adapt themselves not only to the city life of their own countries but also vivid city life of Western countries.

And European governments until recently protected not only leftist refugees but also many Islamic fundamentalist organizations. After attacks in US we could convince German government to extradite a Islamic fundemantalist leader to my country.

This guy together with his radical people was trying to establish Caliphate in my country through violence.

To cut a long analysis short, in order to eliminate threat by Radical Islam, your governments must
1) Stop giving support and ignoring atrocities made by pro-US Arab countries (for the sake of oil) and promote / enforce secularity therein. Just you managed to suppress influence of church / clergymen during Rennaissance, thereby gaining development, enlightment a few hundreds years ago, if you help suppressing Moslem clergyman and telling them shut the fuck up, Islamic tide, as you put it, shall normalize and exponantial reproduction shall also cease. For example, I only have two kids, a single wife (since bigamy and polygamy are felonies in my country, despite there are some loopholes in law) and do not need any more kids. However, radicals on the other hand have several kids, and in some cases more than one wife since their priests tell them to do so.

2) Prevent western intelligence (especially that of US) to engage dealings with Islamic radicals to attain/ secure certain transnational companies' interests and if they do, punish them utterly. Islamic radicals are hard to control and these guys (i.e. Islamic Radicals, not all Moslems as Chris stated, took a vow to destroy Western civilizations. Regular Abdullah in streets is generally ignorant man who is struggling for his life, have no knowledge of world, and obey the instructions given them by Imams (i.e. priests) who are mostly radicals). Regards.

nbk2000

June 18th, 2006, 03:46 AM

Considering how the Ku Klux Klan has around since before the American Civil War (1840's), I find the notion that they're dupes of Mossad HIGHLY improbable, seeing as how israel didn't exist until the 1940's.

This isn't to say that the KKK of today is anything like it was back then. :(

Anyways, the Nazi's have already shown us the way. The furnaces weren't built, nor were the populations exterminated, overnight. You must do it by degrees.

First, you must make being a muslim in a western country a liability, not an assest. As it stands now, the blighters are getting welfare handouts and preferred treatment. That has to end.

First, all new raghead immigration stops. Can't kill roaches you have if you leave the fridge door open. ;)

Assimilation with the host countries culture is mandatory. All existing rags have to take proper legal names. In germany, there are no mohammeds or abdula, only Fritz/Franz/Hans...you get the idea.

All legal transactions and dealings with the state and commerce has to be with a legal name, so if mohamed doesn't want to integrate, fine...no welfare, no drivers license, no state housing, no nothing. :p

Next, to decrease their birthrate, make birth-control implants mandatory for welfare. It's already being done in the US with niggers. If 'Fritz' want's welfare, than he gets the implants, and so does his bitch.

No implants? No welfare.

Next, no burkhas, head covers, or pajamas in public.

Wear what you want in the house, but in public, it's reverse-taliban. You wear a burkha or pajama pants, you get arrested.

Perhaps even be required to wear a cresent? Like the jew star of david.

Non-native populations are required to live in certain (walled) sections of the city, in forced segregation from the natives, in what wouldn't be called 'ghettos', but would in fact be such.

Curfews, of course. No rags out after dark.

Children are in state schooling the moment they're old enough to go. 4 years old or so. The Hitler Youth were in state programs so much that they saw each other more than their parents, and that's what you want with the rags.

By putting them in government care, they become attached to the state more than their parents, and they not exposed to raghead idiotology, but western ideals.

They become spies for the state against their parents, exposing plots from within the familial unit.

Keep the raghead population in a constant state of movement so they don't have opportunities to form trust. Instill distrust by having traitors amoung them who operate as instigators. This makes all ragheads distrustful of anyone outside of their immediate family, thus isolated and ineffectual.

It also serves as convenient 'Burning the Reichstag' fodder for the inevitable liquidation of the ghettos.

By 'Burning the Reichstag', you give the native population of your country the 'righteous anger' necessary for them to OK the death camps.

Western civilization doesn't need a high sperm count, just intact and healthy DNA. We have the technology to reproduce by cloning if need be.

Continue with poisoning the ragheads native lands with DU, dioxin, and other military-industrial complex waste products to induce mutations, cancer, and birth defects.

The rags can breed all they want. In fact, we should encourage them to have MORE children (over there) because it'll increase the spread of defective DNA throughout their race, poisoning them from within, and them having no compensating technology. :)

Decrease availability of women by encouraging selective abortions or some sort of covert hormonal influence. In 2 generations, their society will implode from the weight of 'bare branches' (men with no women). Think it's bad there now? Wait till there's 3 men for every woman!

Assassinate religious leaders who agitate against the west. I'm sure there are plenty of 'Lee Harvey Oswald'-type patsies in the arab world we could use as cats paws for this purpose.

Encourage instability in the region by arming warring states with intel (not weapons) that leads to mutual slaughter. Once the region disintegrates into tribal factions, instead of the fiction of nation-states they have now, move in and CRUSH.

With control of the worlds oil-supply, Pax Americana is assured for generations to come. :D

bipolar

June 18th, 2006, 04:47 AM

The Anti-Defamation league is just a later public incarnation of the Jewish Fraternal Lodge B’nai B’rith. It was founded in the 1840's. It was basicly the the start of Zionism and the people planned to create Israel. I meant to say B’nai B’rith, but I forgot the name.

Although I am not an expert on this area, I have come to understand the lots of history about the civil war has seriously been erased and rewritten. The subject is shrouded in misinformation and false history.

From what I understand the original KKK was actually a good organization. It was not racist, at least not more than the normal population back then. It was basicly a militia of former confederate soldiers protecting all the southern citizens from the atrocities and abuses of the northern occupational forces during reconstruction. Also from all the northern carpet baggers trying to take control of the governments and steal property.

After the occupation was over, and they basicly got some control over the government again, they disbanded.

The new KKK was started up again by B’nai B’rith with a different objective. Zionist always knew that anti-semitism was necessary for them to succeed. They create the problem of racism and hate and they control the organizations which are about stopping hate, and give everyone their solution to the problem that they create.

Their is some speculation that Zionists played a big role in funding the Nazi's and putting Hitler into power. They did it with the plan of causing major Jewish suffering so they could have justification for the creation of Israel after WW2. This seems to be feasible considering how many current top US figures had ties to funding the Nazi's during WW2.

Prescott Bush, George Bush's grandfather was even caught and fined a million dollars for trading with the enemy. It was found out recently that he continued to siphon money to the Nazi party after right up to the end of WW2.

Check out this article: http://www.iamthewitness.com/Ashkenazi-Nazis.html I can't vouch for it's complete credibility, but it does make a lot of sense to me.

simply RED

June 18th, 2006, 09:40 AM

Before 250 years my country was ruled by the turks (muslims). Now it is run by the ammericans. Ammericans are no better than the turks!
Even worse! (they are no better than Saddam in Iraq too!)

There is not much difference who is your master as far as you are a slave.

ozboy

June 21st, 2006, 09:16 AM

Corona. Your not helping your cause mate, you're just heliping to prove a point to everyone that muslims are violent by nature.

We had race riots [muslim youth vs everyone else] in Australia just recently, and it just goes to show that this sort of thing is happening all over the world.

Just to make something clear, I am not a racist {or anti-muslim},but from what I have seen and heard, from knowing them nearly all of my life the vast majority are violent, devious and deceptive and freely admit this!

Knowing this I would never turn my back on such a person, for when you least expect it they'll stick the knife in. Thank you.

Jacks Complete

June 21st, 2006, 11:52 AM

It's the disparity between real life and what's on the TV, as much as anything. Give the useless pikeys a TV, they want a bigger, better TV, like the guy over there has. Except the guy over there paid for it by working all day. What does a pikey learn when you explain this to him? When to break in, knowing the guy is at work.

The muslim problems are much the same, they see what we have, and they want it. But they only see the airbrushed side of things shown on the TV, they don't see that there are lots of places with millions of people who don't have a learjet on standby and three big cars.

Then, to make it worse, you get the people who are a little smarter than the others, who realise that this low-level wanting and resentment can be used to bring themselves power. The next thing you know, it is civil war, or race war, or a police action.

Nuke hollywood. You know it makes sense.

(I'll leave as an exercise for the reader how much of this you think is a joke)

knowledgehungry

June 21st, 2006, 08:46 PM

Mormonism, that is how to stop the Islamic Juggernaut.

Mormonism is basically Islam with Jesus for white people. Mormonism has multiple wives, strict rules about what you can eat, drink, smoke etc. just like Islam. The best part is Mormons have an even better eternity than the Muslims, while Muslims die and recieve their seventy virgins or one seventy year old virgin(depending on translation ;) ) Mormons can actually obtain Godhood! The God of the Mormans isn't as stingy with omnipotence as Allah:D.

If you want your country to repel the great Mohammeddan threat, join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where good old fashioned American Christianity meets wacky new age cult.

On a serious note when Corona told us to give them Rolexes and silk underwear he was right. The reason America is not as powerful as it could be is that the American people are scared to lose their comforts and temporary security(the same reason we are killing our economic future by outsourcing everything to China). Jihad Joe might think twice about strapping that C-4 belt on if he could wear a fashionable Gucci belt instead while driving his new BMW.

nbk2000

June 22nd, 2006, 07:24 PM

http://artofwar.ru/m/mironow_w_n/text_0180.shtml

A autobiographical account of a russian soldier fighting in chechnya against ragheads.

OK, hold on motherfuckers, I'm coming. No mercy for anyone, not for the elderly, not for the children, not for the women - NOBODY will be spared.

Ermolov and Stalin were both right - these folk are not to be re-educated, only exterminated.

FUCK YEA! :D

cletus

July 22nd, 2006, 02:16 AM

Apparently if you stuffed a muslim corpse inside a gutted pig and buried it,that dead raghead would not go to their version of heaven(72 virgins for all eternity,chance to fuck their prophet Muhammud up the ass etc.).Since that is the goal of all these suicide bombers it would no doubt be a detterent,if not it would still be fun to do.

nbk2000

July 22nd, 2006, 04:54 AM

I've read that the jews do that to the bodies of the suicide bombers that they scrape up in israel, though I'd think it easier to sprinkle bac-o-bits over the slop prior to shoveling it up. :)

tmp

July 22nd, 2006, 12:01 PM

Bac-o-bits ? LOL ! NBK2000, it can never be said that you lack a sense of
humor ! :D

Simply_RED, your point about the "masters" is a good one. When I was a
teenager my step-Dad(a good man) was serving in Vietnam. On the evening
news coverage, there was an anti-war demonstration in a large city, probably
NYC, where some hippy freak was on the stage espousing the virtues of
Communism. An old Jew, who had survived both the Nazi and Soviet
internments, pushed this freak into the audience, ripped off his shirt to reveal
the scarring at the hands of both political systems, and exclaimed "I am a
doctor of Communism !"

He was arrested by the police but released a short time later with no charges.
He explained to the police that the Russians had "liberated" him from one of
the infamous death camps. He said "He was saved from the lion by the tiger."

nbk2000

July 23rd, 2006, 04:44 AM

Actually, if you've ever read the label for 'Bac-o-Bits', you'll see that it is pig free. Completely synthetic. :D

Though I'm sure ragheads would be too stupid to know that. :p

defiant

July 24th, 2006, 01:17 AM

Theoretically speaking, the only way to stem the tide is to kill the leaders and their backers/media moguls - both theirs and ours. Its the power hungry greedy mother fuckers that are the problem. Arabs and the like can be extremely devious, but the Average Muslim wants to live in peace, raise their family, and on occassion indulge in Hummos liberally sprinkled with bac-o-bits.

There are similarities between people of similar socio-economic standings despite national or religious differences. The rich of one nation acts like the rich of another, as does the poor. For the most part at least.

So you understand where I'm coming from, I have a longstanding disdain for authority. To me Anarchists are moderates. From an emotional standpoint killing all the leaders makes logical sense to me. But the topic concerns "stemming the tide" - not a total cure - so perhaps pruning leaders in a manner that sends a message of tolerable limits is the way to proceed. After all, the elite do finance some wonderful toys and entertainment.

To keep things in perspective, please recognize that great pains and injustices have been inflicted on peoples by every political and religious system in existence. Nor is Communism or Democratic Capitalism the culprit. The problem is the character of the leaders and the elite, regardless of the political system. The quality or character of the leaders is a more significant factor than the political system espoused. In fact, nations that westerners call communist are generally olygarchies of one sort of another, as are capitalist nations. Moreover, capitalist nations are communist in that they give (the lion's share) of handouts to corporations.

And bac-o-bits are pork free. Anyone know where the secret pork flavor comes from?

defiant

July 24th, 2006, 01:18 AM

Anira

July 24th, 2006, 11:19 AM

I don't think that "Bac o Bits" are truly pig free- on the label it says "Natural Flavors" and does not say they are vegetarian, the other brand says that they are vegetarian.

Muslim extremists? Personally have never met a Muslim that was more extreme than any Christian I know. They just express their extreme (as opposed to our) views differently than Christians. They started a war and are fighting it the only way they can, its hard to finance a war out of pocket books. The Americans? Well they are spending billions just to have a shot at blowing up some Muslim. Some times a few Muslim blow up some Christians, then we start really whining.

akinrog

July 24th, 2006, 12:00 PM

In another forum, I made a post regarding how international corporate media networks present a certain case in different aspects to both Moslem audience and Western audience in an attempt to manipulate both audiences.

For example, certain corporate international media network (CNN) avoids covering shootings of unarmed Iraqi civilians in a Fellujah mosque in US, its sister network in my country repeatedly showed it to create indignation amongst the people for several days.

They are trying to manipulate the world. e.g. while after a suicide attack the same corporate network shows to US people archieve images of ragheads are cheering up in the streets and Israelis suffering in such suicide bombings, their international branches shows how Palestinians are beaten by Israeli soldiers, and Palestinian causilties caused by Israeli bombings and indiscriminate rocket attacks. :mad:

By providing different coverage to different audiences, they are trying to increase tension between West and Middle East, thereby serving the purposes of new world order guys. Regards.

Jacks Complete

July 24th, 2006, 05:59 PM

Thank god/dog for the internet. It lets us get our knowledge from many more sources. Of course, you have to work out which god/dog the writer supports a lot of the time, but fortunately the nutjobs tend to wear it on their sleeve.

I prefer technical stuff.

Bugger

July 28th, 2006, 12:37 AM

Oh yes. It is that false god (with a small g), Dog-Spelled-Backwards, that supposedly tells Muslim suicide bombers to go around killing as many other people as possible along with themselves, on promises of a free trip to Paradise with 72 virgins.

Defendu

July 28th, 2006, 01:27 AM

Oh yes. It is that false god (with a small g), Dog-Spelled-Backwards

http://home.alltel.net/petronski/obvious.jpg

sethangel19

July 28th, 2006, 09:05 AM

first i have to address ozboy... who apparently doesnt know shit about the race riots... the race riots were perpetrated by white middleclass brats from sydney who cant hold their grog and cant even follow the simple language on the news... the "incident" that triggered the race riots (a bashing of two lifeguards on the beach) was started by the lifeguards (which they admitted on national television). a whole bunch off middleclass brats exposed the red on their necks, because they cant stand the fact that children from lebanese backgrounds are taller and beefier than their skinny white asses... it wasnt muslims vs. everyone else, it was a big ass bunch of drunk, skinny, middleclass white boys picking on a handfull of lebanese/other ethnic people, without his mates not one of them would be capable of holding his own with the skinniest, sickliest lebanese in a fucking cancer ward... on chemo...

secondly the racism on this thread is quite surprising, one would expect the enlightened nature of this forum to attract a better class of people. oooh... lets all freek out, the muslims are comming... give me a break... whoever made the remarks about muslims just being the enemy of the moment needs a pat on the back, and a gold star for good work... everyone who doesnt realise this clearly has the memory of a goldfish, or is under the age of ten and thus doesnt know any better... it shits me to tears when cunts go blabbing about shit they dont understand, read the fucking koran FIRST (and the rest of the scriptures (many judeo-christian(tripple parenthesis rocks)) associated with the islamic faith) and THEN try and pretend you know jack shit about muslims, when you go running your mouth off with bullshit that doesnt stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny (like non-beleivers are given two options "convert or die") you reflect badly on the entire human race. peace and tolerence are characteristics of the islam faith, if you dont understand the word TOLERENCE check an online dictionary...

this is why demonising muslims is so easy for the powers-that-be, we live in an information golden age, and yet people cant be bothered doing a 30 second google search to double check the bullshit theyre being forcefed... do me a favour, take a few hours out of your life, instead of going to your weekly rage-a-holics or kkk meeting, go to your local library, get the koran, and sit down for a few hours and read the sucker, actually just skim it looking for all this bullshit, its not there... for the net, start here http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/
who knows, maybe youll like it so much youll convert, and if you actually beleive what you blab on about, then at least you wont die... plus a harem of virgins does have its plus sides...

for all the people who want to be freeked out, go freek out about peak oil... or the irrelivancy of the democratic process in the contemporary western political environment... but dont bring down the class of a great forum with bullshit about "muds" "ragheads"

ps YAY this is my first post... i know having an attitude isnt good ettiqute but i couldnt help myself... i promise i will get around to posting on the more relevant topics soon...

nbk2000

July 29th, 2006, 02:26 AM

When she was 6, Muhammad asked Abu Bakr, Aisha's father, for her hand. Abu Bakr thought it was improper, because, as he said "I am your brother"; Muhammad brushed aside Abu Bakr's reservation by saying that it was perfectly lawful for him to marry Aisha [ Ref: SAHIH BUKHAR I7:18].

What happened to " there is no compulsion in matters of religion ?" Anyway what compulsion did Muhhammad need being a prophet his word was law, he restricted men to only four wives when he himself had more than four, that was a convenient exemption for Muhhammad.

So, Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad, and 3 years later, i.e. when Aisha was 9, the marriage was consumated. And Muhammad was 53 then [SAHIH BUKHARI 5:236,7:64,7:65,7:88] .

The 3 year waiting period probably had to do with the fact that at that time Aisha had contracted some disease, whereby she, temporarily lost her hair. Aisha was then socially and psychologically still a child as is evidenced by the fact that she was still given to her toys, she was unaware of what was happening around her, and her playmates behave as would the children at present times [Sahih Bukhari 8:151,5:234].

Aisha became Muhammad's favourite wife. And the sexuality in the relationship was predominant [ SAHIH BUKHARI .1.270, 3:36, 7:6, 3:148, 3:149, 3:150, 7:142, IbnSa'd 1pg165 ]. Later, Aisha was to be called the "mother of believers".

If you are wandering, yes, the relationship was pedophilic.

That can't be said about Jesus or Buddha.

PS: If your next post continues the error of lower case 'i', when used in referring to yourself, instead of the proper 'I', you'll find yourself non-existant here. :)

Defendu

July 29th, 2006, 04:43 AM

because they cant stand the fact that children from lebanese backgrounds are taller and beefier than their skinny white asses...

http://i7.tinypic.com/21bp5w8.jpg

plus a harem of virgins does have its plus sides...

What if your god decides that his sheep should be racially diverse sheep and decrees that you get only negro virgins? :eek:

klashnikov

July 29th, 2006, 12:04 PM

A religion of peace?

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." - Koran, Surah VIII: 12,

"And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah." - Koran, Surah VIII: 39

"Announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve." - Koran, Surah IX: 3

I am definitely feeling the love and peace!

cutefix

August 1st, 2006, 10:19 PM

In my observation Islam is a religion based on insecurity and distrust to other religions...They always have the feeling that the Jews are persecuting them

Lewis

August 26th, 2006, 06:39 PM

Islam, Christianity, and most other religions are all essentially the same.

They're highly archaic governing systems meant to supplement monarchs' ruling power.

Basically, Christianity was a way of keeping serfs' heads up their asses in feudal Europe. No one questions the King if they believe they'll burn eternally for it.

So in the end, fighting over religion is the most fundementally idiotic thing anyone could do. Why not just take all these hateful religions, group them together, and call it Fearism. Make these people live in walled ghettos, and take their rights and power away.

Then, the rest of us can live normal, 21st century lives without worrying about any religious bullshit making us fight. Then we can get back to what's importiant: oil! :rolleyes:

cutefix

August 26th, 2006, 11:57 PM

Different Religions are like water in the river; they come from different places but the ultimately flow and end in the sea:cool:

Its unfortunate that most practitioners of every religion never realized that; but dontinue to dwell on the narrowness of their dogmas.

These narrow interpretations is the root of the never ending trouble related to religions:(

Chris The Great

August 27th, 2006, 06:57 AM

I don't think the problem is religon at all. I believe many people who are religious are probably LESS likely than athiests to hate because of religion. And yes, I am an athiest.

The problem is not religon, the problem is that people have become to believe that THEIR ideas and THEIR way is the right way. It does not matter at all whether this is religon, politics (don't believe me? Look at Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, and compare that to the crusades and this jihad) or just some stupid thing like animal rights (PETA throwing blood and screaming at people).

There are plenty of people who do not take their religion this way, in fact the majority do not. They are not the problem, the problem, as always is that there are some people who cannot accept that they are not the only way and the only person with the "right" answers.
The same people who are a problem with religion will be a problem with ANY idea you give them. It's not really what they believe, but how they believe it.

Meawoppl

August 27th, 2006, 03:11 PM

I think the fundamental problem that Islam encounters in the modern world is twofold.

First, the culture associated with Islamic values is not conducive to mixing with other cultures.

This is particularily the case for the women in Islam. My gf's father is very serious about about the religion, and one of the things that I have had to come to an understanding with is that he can never know about my involvment with his daughter as long as she wants to maintain any sort of normal relationship with him. My example is fairly rudimentary, but it extends upward in staggering examples. Bernard Lewis (the middle-east historian of the day) even take stance that the decline of the muslim empire, was a result of a willful arrogance toward other countries, resulting in a failure to modernize.

Second, the culture reacts to cognative dissonance by reaching for the fundamentals.

The koran is the cornerstone of most middle-east governenments. It speaks volumes to how if you are pious and adhearant to the religion, you will be successful, as a religion, as a country, as a person. Unfortunately, most of the people live in war-torn and unstable countries, ruled by autocracys and tyrants. They then feel that failure is due to whatever westernizations that they have embraced, so they begin to fight against them.

Ah well, that is just my 2cents (prolly worth even less these days with the devaluation of the dollar ;p)

Here are some related links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Went_Wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_world
Wikipedia is just so great!

pdphill

August 28th, 2006, 11:36 PM

The Islamic Tide will self-destruct. The Euro and US lack of balls in dealing with a near-nuclear Iran will allow those persian ass-holes to obtain or develope a nuke. The Iranian Prez, who is very dangerous, can't wait to create chaos to fulfill the Koran's version of a Messiah. Iran will use the nuke or nukes against the Chosen People, or perhaps against the US forces in Iraq. That will be the end of Tehran.

Alternative scenario is that Iran obtains the nuke(s) from North Korea and we also finally conclude that war 56 years after it began. Why did Japan and Germany not challenge the US with a substantial insurgency problem after WWII? Answer: We ground their dicks in the dirt (atomic and fire bomb, respectively) and occupied their asses for decades. North Korea, Vietnam and Sadam's Iraq exist(ed) because we didn't finish the job.

Sadly, Americans will only finish the job when faced with their own destruction. One can only hope that peaceniks die in the initial attacks.

megalomania

August 29th, 2006, 12:34 AM

Oh, I don't think the US lacks the balls to deal with Iran. One war at a time...

anonymous411

August 29th, 2006, 01:52 AM

RAND analysts have done a lot of groundbreaking work in this area. Why waste my time writing a half-baked rehash of my opinions when I could point everyone to rock-solid research straight from the source?

Complex issues deserve complex treatment, period. Do yourself a favor and boycott mass-media pundits who generate snap solutions pitched at the lowest common demonimator...

http://www.rand.org/nsrd/cmepp/

Defendu

August 29th, 2006, 01:56 AM

Iran will use the nuke or nukes against the Chosen People,

http://www.darrellwconder.com/

Things You’ve Never Heard In Church Series: The Truth About Our Judeo-Christian Heritage:
http://tinyurl.com/p96ob

We ground their dicks in the dirt (atomic and fire bomb, respectively) and occupied their asses for decades.

http://www.whitakeronline.org/052105.htm#second

nbk2000

August 29th, 2006, 07:15 AM

411:

I find it funny that the Jews in RAND are the ones to be giving advice on how to deal with the middle-east.

That's like asking a wolf on how to deal with sheep!

anonymous411

August 30th, 2006, 08:28 PM

Well, I know plenty of analysts who work there who aren't Jewish. And plenty of Jews who care about human rights and the future of Palestine as well. I've seen a Pakistani Muslim and a Cacuasian Sikh working with a Jew and a Ukranian on the same projects. Most of the time you don't even think about it. For all I know, nine-tenths of the people there are atheists.

I think RAND is one of the last places you'd expect ethnic or racial stereotypes of any kind to hold true.

megalomania

August 30th, 2006, 10:31 PM

I think they want a wolf’s advise on how to deal with the sheep. That’s my best solution to the problem, and I think they realize it too. So many sheep to slaughter, how best to kill them cheaply, eh?

anonymous411

August 30th, 2006, 11:21 PM

Like many issues which demand a keen understanding of human nature, it's just a "wolf" kind of problem. You know as well as I do "sheep solutions" are generally predicated on unrealistic assumptions about basic human motivations. All that pie-in-the-sky "c-c-can't we all get along" horseshit never worked in the history of humankind and never will.

Only a wolf can comprehend the mind a wolf...or as Richard Nixon once said, "In order to truly understand evil, you have to be a little evil yourself".

Whether or not a foreign policy based on enlightened realism can be reconciled with the Constitution and the rule of law remains to be seen. Not that anyone in power is trying that much, but I haven't given up hope yet.

Misanthropologist

August 30th, 2006, 11:30 PM

JC, thanks for including "the Christian Problem" in your short list. Yes, Islam has a history of violence. We must not forget that Christianity has a rather bloody history as well, using their beliefs to justify mass murder and attempted genocide throughout its history. \

Please don't get me wrong, I am not anti-christian, but any religious system that has within its framework a deep-set hatred for other religions (e.g. the Christian/Jewish/Muslim view of seeing all other religions as tools of Satan) has real potential for abuse both by state powers as we see in Islam, and in more civil oppression which I see Christians create here in the US every day. When someone preaches to me, I preach my views back, and always the conversaton turns to the preacher calling me a tool for Satan, or at least on the short track to hell.

Take this War On Terror that's going on right now. It's creator, or Puppet Prince anyway, George W. Bush has consistently used language frighteningly similar to the Islamic extremists he plans to exterminate. His language has also given away the fact that he views this as a religious war, that somehow he feels it is his duty as a Christian to kill these thousands of heretics, although I belive the Ten Commandmends have something to say to that.

If you are not familiar with Chick Publications, check out www.chick.com to try and grasp the scope of my point. These pamphlets are proliferated throughout America. I have a decent collection, over 40 different pamphlets, myself, used mostly for entertainment. Not only are these things seemingly aimed at breeding hatred, they are distributed by almost every supposedly peace-loving Christian church I have visited. Also the amount of misinformation is rather staggering.

More on topic, and sorry about the rant, the way to stop terrorists is to take away their justifications. Although most are radical Islam, their major recruiting points are not religious but political. Their fight is against international policies on the mideast that have not changed significantly since the beginnings of the Cold War. Also part of the problem is our support of Isreal, which is the worst terrorist-state in the region. And if you believe that our support of Isreal is anything short of limited religious warfare, then please do the world a favor and kill your children. Keep your idiocy out of my gene pool.

btw- I am also not anti-American but our government has to seriously upgrade its capability for self examination.

To use a well worn phrase: I love my country, It's the government I fear.

Mr.ANFO

August 31st, 2006, 04:45 AM

Do NOT quote whole posts! :mad:

Misanthropologist:

I will agree with your comment x2! Thank you!;)

1stly:The US is a Police state.

2ndly:The US trained militia men against the invading Russian army in Afganistan in the 1980s, the Mudjhahaddim.. well it was the US trained Mudjhahaddim who released prisoners who were radical fundimetalists.. hence now we got this problem.

It is the US who react without historical knowledge of a conflict and make the situation WORSE!

Funny how one gets the same shit back they dished out. What goes around comes around.

cutefix

August 31st, 2006, 05:41 AM

Funny how one gets the same shit back they dished out. What goes around comes around.

As said by one respected diplomat of an Asian country

For many years this nation ( America?) had been bullying weak countries ,.... now it finally gets its comeuppance . ;)

nbk2000

October 10th, 2006, 05:20 AM

I attached a picture which expresses the sentiments of many Americans, when regarding the ragheads.

the_twitchy1

October 31st, 2006, 09:15 PM

Wow. I mean... Wow.

For a bunch of social 'outside the box' ers, you really do take the media's viewpoint on this shit seriously. Do you really think it's because these people are muslim that they are attacking us in such a fashion? Do you honestly think that religion plays more thant he smallest, most insignifigant role?

Do you not realize that it's just a fucking cover?

The Koran has passages that would seem to be saying violence is good, and to be embraced. The Bible has passages that seem to be saying that sacrificing your cattle is good, and to be embraced. How many people do you see sacrificing cattle? Only those that want a good excuse to be able to eat cheap beef.

The same thing happens here. Put a bunch of people in an impoverished area of the world, create oil companies that take the only resource they have to trade and give them nothing in return (unless you are from a wealthy family in those countries!), and then arm them, but also take a chunk of their land and give it to someone else, arming that someone else even more than you did to them.

What do you think will happen?

That's what's going on in the middle east. The area, already impoverished to begin with, has had most of the oil companies that were being run by the countries taken over by outside multinationals. Also, as was stated, most of the groups in that area that currently are well armed were armed by us westerners or the 'reds'. Top that off by us taking (by force!) a good sized chunk of land and giving it to the Jewish community (because we feel guilty for what Hitler did...) , then arming that community to the teeth.

I'm sorry, but if you don't think that those people have a right to resent your government's actions, you're an idiot.

Now, if you are there, seething with frustration against a government that has fucked you over in a hundred different ways, but is not even something that belongs to your area of the world, what are you going to do? Well, when an imam comes to your area, telling you that not only can you get back at those that did this to you but that in doing so you'll be guaranteed an everlasting life in paradise, and a good life for those that you love here...

I don’t think that choice has anything to do with religion, my friend. Religion is just the excuse. It’s just the thing that is used to cover the fact that these people are without hope of actually being able to make a change, and are just striking back with fury and frustration.

nbk2000

January 16th, 2007, 10:51 PM

An interesting essay on the causes of raghead extremism in western societies.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faessay84409/robert-s-leiken/europe-s-angry-muslims.html?mode=print

LibertyOrDeath

January 28th, 2007, 03:18 AM

While there are a few Muslims who are of the hyper-militant "convert or kill all the infidels" variety, I think the majority of Muslims who hate the West are acting in a defensive manner against Zionist aggression.

Imagine growing up in (illegally) occupied Palestine. Your mother and father have to pass through Israeli checkpoints each and every day to get to work. While there, they are called "Arab dogs," spat upon, and even beaten at gunpoint by laughing IDF soldiers. You see your parents come home each day beaten and bruised. That sort of thing happens all the time to the Palestinians, whose blood is considered cheaper than dirt by the Israelis. Here's an article on the checkpoints from an Israeli newspaper (Ha'aretz):

http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive/november2003/punching_an_arab_in_the_face.htm

Which of us here wouldn't go out looking for bloody revenge against the Israelis for allowing such things to happen to our loved ones? I would gladly give my life to get some major payback for such offenses.

And then there are Israeli airstrikes on crowded marketplaces and apartment buildings just to take out one or two militants in the crowd...children shot by Israeli snipers on the way to school...people prevented from traveling to hospitals during emergencies...all kinds of atrocities. It's a brutal occupation, and the US government makes it possible by sending billions of OUR tax dollars to Israel each year -- not to mention vetoing every unanimous UN resolution critical of Israel for its brutality. Whenever the Palestinians dare to fight back against the Israelis, it's called "terrorism," even though the Israelis have killed far more innocent women and children than their enemies have. And then Americans think that the Arab world "hates us for our freedom." Right.

US foreign policy, at least in the Middle East, is under the complete control of the pro-Israel lobby, which is composed of both nationalistic Jews and so-called "Christian Zionists" who believe that the "Chosen People" can absolutely do no wrong. And of course US Mideast policy is also heavily influenced by pro-Israel Jews in high government (and advisory) positions. The Iraq war simply would not have happened if not for Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Abrams, Shulsky, and some others. As for Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al., they are willing puppets who probably fall into the "Christian Zionist" category. These people, along with their media shills (especially in neocon talk radio) are the ones whose goal is to use the US military and our tax dollars to redraw the Middle East in a manner favorable to Israel.

Here's the paper by Profs. Walt and Mearsheimer on the Israeli lobby that was recently in the news due to the controversy it caused (as does any public criticism of Israel):

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

How would I stem the tide of the "Islamic war"? I'd cut off foreign aid to Israel and stop US meddling in the Middle East. The best way to keep America safe is to stop making bitter enemies by perpetuating gross injustices.

FUTI

January 28th, 2007, 05:08 PM

Actually I think that would give the "wings" to the raghead suicidal bombers.

"We defeated the USA and infidels in Palestine...and now we can take on the world." - I don't blow things out of proportion...their way of reasoning isn't logical and can't be compared with ours. Is it cultural difference or brainwashing is secondary issue. After they get their way in Afghanisthan when the Soviets pulled out...remind me whom did they strike next? USA I think. Do you think they would change the pattern?

And then there are Israeli airstrikes on crowded marketplaces and apartment buildings just to take out one or two militants in the crowd

I agree that is criminal. They will "mask" that as colateral damage anyway and you can't do anything about it. However I saw more than one video footage of muslim rioters using women and children as human shield...so I think those strikes were message to someone that human shields won't stop them and that they are determined to do what it takes to do the things their way. They try to make terrorist/freedom fighters (you choose) digg-up themselves underground. If they stay in the open they are heroes of the people giving the movement the momentum that is dangerous to Israel political stand. Using human shields isn't my kind of fair fight...even if you are outgunned you can try guerrilla tactics without putting civilians in combat zone.

children shot by Israeli snipers on the way to school

Now this is really sick!!! No matter who did it. It smells dangerouslly like "false flag" operation though(I think that is the english term) - when someone sacrifice few of is own civilians to blame the enemy for atrocities etc. Nazies invented the sharade of that kind for the cassus belli before going on Poland I think. If Israel have mentally ill shooters that shoot kids....they should check their military medical procedure. My country carefully screen mental health of recruits...but boy I wish they screen them again after the military training since some of them aren't like I remember them entering in the army.

people prevented from traveling to hospitals during emergencies

If I didn't saw video footage of muslim rioters transporting arms and amo in hospital vehicle under the so-called patient, I would almost cried. Considering the tactics curently in place in Palestine with car bombing...I would think twice before allowing some suspicious car pass my check point. Terrorist have the advantage because they are calling the shots, marking the targets, writting the rules...and they are always on the move. LEO or the army can only be passive and defensive against them...it is three-letter-agencies that lead the active fight against the terrorists. They call the army when the some "agency" mess-up so they have to clean the mess. As for the "rules" the terrorist write on the way. If they ever look upon the wider picture they would choose tactics that expose civilians less than this. However they use cultural/religious differences and hate to blame it all to the other side even their own mess-up.

I too think/hope that there are peacefull Muslims, but USA allowed spreading the radical ones all over the map...and most of those are money-supported from USA "friend" Saudis.

As for Israel having a lobby...you really invented the wheel. What country recieves highest USA donations per year? Let me stab in the dark - Israel maybe? Money they gave to the lobbist is well spend. It comes right back to them out of your pocket.

Only education of the masses and well-being of nation can stop the constant flow of the desperate idiots willing to blast themselves for Allah. But is it feasible in the country that forbid women to expose their face in public or to educate themself. My friend watched scientific presentation in some of Arab countries where two works were presented. Male author spoke about its work, female didn't spoke instead her male menthor did it. It looks like quantum jump is needed in judgment there before things starts to settle.

sbovisjb1

January 28th, 2007, 07:37 PM

I saw all these Muslims protesting and I thought why did the peelers not come and pick them up? Its actually quite rediculous. They walk all over our graciousness and freedom of religion to go and create trouble. They are being brainwashed by the radicals Whabbs and the people who didn't conform when they took over were killed, so basically only the radical form of Islam exists. I know this sounds intolerant some will say and Im just being racist, but HOW tolerant are they? http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4765/1487/400/l1741778.0.jpg

tiac03

January 29th, 2007, 02:29 AM

Personally I will treat someone the same way I would be treated If I lived in their country.

What I can't stand is the whole idea that they come over here and expect our rules and traditions to vanish and theirs to take over.

How many times have you seen a group of arabic women all living with one man yet they (without being asked) say right away that they are sisters or sisters+mother.

They find ways around our rules and they get away with it because We are too Politically correct to do anything about it.

Fuck 'em I'd give them blood tests when they come into the country... If their tests are negative to being related, right back home they go (same goes if their children share a common father).

Soon we will be forced to follow their religious rules as laws in our own countries because our gov'ts are too afraid of looking bad infront of the cameras.

Hell in Canada we already have RCMP officers wearing fucking Turbans.

In their country we would be treated with less respect than a pile of camel shit, but here they are treated like kings. We bend over backwards for them.

We let people into our country who would in a heartbeat kill you for your shoes, why because they claim to be poli refs. I'd rather them die there than they kill someone I care about here.

Personally I love what the US is doing. "Fight them on their land before they attack you on yours."

It's better to fight a war in someone elses back yard than in your own.

We can't expect these problems to stop until our gov'ts decide to be less politically correct and punish certain "peoples" rather than everyone collectively.

People automatically think that the problem is the tools and not the people using them. Explosives and Guns don't get up one day and suddenly decide to kill people. The mentally unbalanced People do and where do most unbalanced people come from...?

Violent societies, places where they see people/family cut up with machetes, or shot for a mediocre reason. killing becomes as easy as tie-ing ones shoes.

War torn countries, dirt poor countries, and fanatically religious countries should be on the "do not accept list" for immigration.

Most gun crime here is commited by Haitian street gangs, most of the members arn't even canadian citizens, or care to be. They come here because they have the oportunity to sell drugs and live pretty well doing it.

The arab Teens/early 20's arn't any better.

Times they are a changing: crime is going up, freedoms are being sacrificed and our heritage and national pride is going the way of the dodo, and why? So we can look good for the Media. (Which is also why so many soldiers are dying in Iraq and Afghan. The soldiers every move is scrutinized by the media. Strip a couple prisoners down and take pictures is talked about for weeks, where as an IED, Carbomb, or beheading barely makes evening news.) Inorder to save more soldiers lives they have to play dirtier, and they won't because the media will condemn them for it.

sbovisjb1

January 30th, 2007, 08:54 PM

Do what the French are doing, send in the damn army. Or in Denmark, where I believe they are trying to make Islam illegal, since its an intolerant religion. Or at least the fanatical part.

JouMasep

May 13th, 2007, 12:02 PM

Islam is the greatest threat to freedom of speech and thought that the world has ever seen.

As was said, it’s not merely about [socio] political systems, but it’s about an ideology –an ideology that takes the form of an all-encompassing and pervasive belief system, their religion.

The reason why islam spreads has something in common with both communism as well as Christianity

Marxist ideology has as its principle to “unite all workers of the world” –and thus rule the world (by proxy of their fat-cat party bosses of course) And Christians have as a brief -according to the new testament- to “go forth and multiply”. (Make more Christians through procreation and conversion)

Apart from the fact that the Bible does not advocate conversion through the sword, the big difference between islam and Christianity is also that islam has a much more effective carrot-and-stick mechanism. If you are a good muslim you get great rewards that are both highly attractive and graphic in description. (i.e. die for your faith: you get the 72 hot virgins and a bonus of white stallions –note; typical wet dream of your average young desert dweller) In comparison the much more vague concepts of “going to heaven” and “being in the presence of His shining light” that Christianity has to offer, look lame in a world saturated with entertainment media and hedonistic pursuit.

The stick of “going to hell” is heavily diluted by the various Christian churches itself. The old “brimstone and fire” preachers have been replaced by chummy guys who try to make the church into something of a social-religious club. They do this because of dwindling numbers, for fear of putting the congregation off with all that nasty "hell-talk". Hell is much less real than it used to be.

Now look what happens to Muslims who try to eat a pork pie at the steps of the Mosque. Oh you never hear of that? Proves my point a bit! Hell is something that may come to a Christian at the end of his sinful life. A quick and nasty death is what our errant Muslim is sure to get if he tries it in the wrong country. (or perhaps anywhere nowadays) His faithful brethren will take care of that.

The big difference between Islam and communism in itheir success rates of “permanent conversion”, is that the muslim is suckered into believing that Allah knows his thoughts –so he can’t even afford to think in a deviant way. But most good commies did not believe much in their system and only went on with it because of patriotism and fear of the ubiquitous informers. But eventually no system that is inherently unworkable can survive on fear of humans –we can try to fool humans! So communism pretty much died.

Oh and there is one more difference, the most militant form of muslims are [related to] the Semitic tribes (as are the jews) –notorious hotheads and troublemakers who scream bloody murder at any infringement on their own rights/territory but who will think nothing of doing nasty things to others. In fact what we think of as nasty or evil (like shooting an unarmed man off his bicycle, killing him because he said nasty things about muslims) is a sacred duty in the eyes of the rag heads –it say so in their Quar’an

Caesar’s motto was “divide and conquer”
The rag heads do it like this: “multiply and conquer”
With enough majority they can legally change the very constitution in many countries. With lesser of a majority they can intimidate a country to do so anyway.

Normal rule of law will become sharia law.

Charles Owlen Picket

May 25th, 2007, 01:53 PM

"Muhammad is Allah's Apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another". - Qur'an 48:29

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah & his Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of The Book (Jews & Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission & feel themselves subdued". - Qur'an 9:29

I have read the Book quite a bit....and I know what is in it. Those who would suggest (or insist) that Islam is a religion of peace are wrong. Those that would say that Islam is a religion of tolerance are wrong. Those that would make excuses for the actions preformed in the name of Islam are self-destructive. Islam appears to eat it's own children...... Read the Book.

Das Räumungskommando

May 25th, 2007, 08:53 PM

Fjordman has written some very good articles about the threat that muslims pose to us:

http://chromatism.net/fjordman/fjordmanfiles.htm

Corona

May 26th, 2007, 03:38 AM

Let me help you out....

--------------------------
This History Channel presentation casts some Western eyes over the book and helps viewers to decipher some of the important passages of the text contained within...... fascinating insights on what the Koran means and why it has proved to be so influential.
--------------------------

http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/1172711/77257/

:p

defiant

May 28th, 2007, 10:34 PM

The Koran is full of passages advocating violence, but also advocates hospitality (even towards non-believers) and not being the aggressor.

The reason Islamists are fighting isn't to convert our troops or because the Koran tells them to - they're fighting against police state tyranny imposed by occupying forces, foreign countries meddling in their affairs, and occupying forces that are torturing and killing civilians. They're not at war because they hate freedom.

The Koran - like the red white and blue - are used to rally people to war, which goes to prove that people are idiots everywhere.

Corona

May 28th, 2007, 11:23 PM

Defiant:

According to the video I linked to above, these are called "the sword verses". It is a great thing, being a muslim myself, that we are encouraged to fight back (the bad guy has to throw the first punch) if attacked or even if under threat.

This is very similar to the US concept of peace being backed up by firepower. Imagine if the US had been a lovey-dovey hippy nation with only slingshots and boiling oil to defend itself? You guys would be speaking Ruskkie (or worse) right now, guaranteed. And there would've been no RogueSci.

So that is the significance of the "sword verses". In all of history, you only have peace when the other guy knows you carry a big stick.

Watch the video I linked to.... it removes all confusion about when we are supposed to fight and when we are supposed to stop (Jihad comes with an Off switch :D ).

defiant

May 29th, 2007, 12:13 AM

Corona: Exactly - but my post wasn't directed to you (I don't have a demonoid account and can't download your link. If you or someone else would send me an invite I'd appreciate it :D ).

Don't disagree with you either about the Koran encouraging people to fight and stand up for themselves (with an off switch). Your interpretaton is prevalent among reasonable people.

Not that the Koran doesn't go overboard with its rhetoric on violence towards disbelievers from a 20th Century American's perspective.

At the same time the Bible unrealistically discourages self-defense with its emphasis on turning the other cheek and reliance upon divine intervention. Perhaps the only exception is Jesus in Luke 22:36

“Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.”

One freakin passage about self-defense out of a thousand plus pages of rhetoric authorized by Constantinople. And Jesus was a friggin revolutionary. No wonder the west lost the crusades...

In any case Muslim/Christian/Judaic competition is a mute point - the Chinese are the next world power.

Enkidu

May 29th, 2007, 12:26 AM

I think that Ron Paul had the right idea when he spoke during the Elephant Primary Debate on Fox News. He called many attacks (I think specifically 9/11?) blowback for the US meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. If we, as a nation, go over and sit on someone, why shouldn't they attack us? (I honestly don't have a problem with so-called 'terrorists' attacking military installations. After all, we have declared war on them!) However, I would like to point out that many times the US involvement in predominantly Islamic nations is pro-Islam, even if that's not the reason for involvement. Take, for example, the US supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan against the Commies. At other times, the 'interference' is overtly pro-Islam! Take, for example, the US involvement in Serbia. (On a tangent, nobody takes any notice of the shit (Muslims slaughtering Christians) in the Sudan. How's that for a vote of confidence for the ragheads?) The US even tries to save the ragheads from themselves. We fought a war and saved the Kuwaitis from Saddam Hussein. I have to lean toward the opinion that the US has been pretty even handed, even in our meddling.

I believe many people underestimate the importance of Israel in the conflict between the US and radical Islam/certain Middle Eastern countries. Nearly all Islamic groups hate the Jews. We are one of the biggest reasons that the Jews haven't been destroyed in the Middle East. Again, why shouldn't the ragheads hate us? However, the fact that they hate us for supporting Israel should not deter us from our support. Israel, like it or not, is our only true friend in that region.

I would like to take a moment to differentiate between ragheads and Muslims. Muslims are like Catholics. Most of them are religious because their parents were, i.e., they are Catholics or Muslims in name only. I think that most Catholics don't actually believe that birth control is murder; I also think that most Muslims are not hell bent on killing me. I know many, many Muslims, and I am happy to say that a Muslim is one of my closest friends. Ragheads are to Muslims like niggers are to black people. Just like only a few black people are stereotypical niggers, only some Muslims are ragheads.

On the question of the 'big stick,' Corona, I think you'd best keep your shtick in your pants before anybody finds out how small it is. ;) Theodore Roosevelt said something close to 'Walk softly and carry a big stick.' Carrying such a stick comes with great responsibility. I've seen video of clerics' 'sermons,' and I certainly don't think that they're up to the responsibility. It's unfortunate that the violent and unstable ragheads garner most of publicity. I certainly see more of the stick (Shiite vs. Sunni, Iran attempting to develop nuclear weapons in order to annihilate Israel, etc.) than the soft strolls in the garden.

Corona

May 29th, 2007, 12:38 AM

Enkidu:

Our "big stick" is very big (I'm from Pakistan). We've been making nukes since 1983 and have all kinds of delivery systems. The Indians admit we can destroy all their targets 3 times over (this was 5 years ago.. we have moved on since then) and can change the climate of the planet forever.

Have you ever heard Pakistan threatening another country with nukes??? Like Iran did?

I agree with you totally (and with Roosevelt)... big stick must be kept in pants. No need to show it off... and we never have. Clerics are not a threat to anyone, btw. It is an American nightmare that some cleric would take over our nukes..... I find that an impossible scenario.

If you are asking why O'Binbin attacked you, you might as well ask his late dad, who once wanted to convert his fleet of bulldozers into tanks to fight against the Americans (why, way back then? I don't know). When told it can't be done, he swore he would have 200 sons and each son would be his "tank". He only had 50-60 kids... but still. O'Binbin is only doing what his daddy wanted his kids to do... he himself doesn't know why... but he makes up all kinds of excuses to justify his actions.

Defiant:

I don't agree that the Koran goes "overboard with its rhetoric on violence towards disbelievers".

Much of the Koran is also like a diary and even if you don't believe in the religion, the Koran is of immense historical importance all on it's own. That is because.. OK, here is how it worked.... muslims are being attacked for example by the Kaafirs (infidels/pagans... Jews and Christians can not be called "kaafir" under muslim laws). They all go to Mohamed and ask him what does God say we should do? And Gabriel dictates a verse or two to Mohamed, giving instructions for that very problem.

It took 22-23 years for the Koran to be completed in this manner... something came up and people consulted Mohamed and a problem was solved.... and it does list measures taken against various threats the muslims faced at a specific point in their history (the "sword verses"). Such things are not necessary for the 21st Century. Of course we got nukes and stuff... but we also have media/propaganda tools to counter the other side's media/propaganda tools as well as trade and financial weapons, computer viruses, etc. In fact, Pakistan's most effective and most often used weapon, is it's Diplomacy.

Point is... best translations of the Koran come with a history section (not found in internet versions of the Koran). Reading without the specific historical context... why was a thing said?... in response to what?... what was the situation?... without the historical context, you can make it justify all kinds of crap.

This is exactly what some fundo-Americans do and exactly what Islamist-fanatic creeps do (both have the same goals). They mess with the *historical context*. There are many things in the Koran that are not supposed to apply anymore (unless those conditions are repeated). For example, marrying 4 wives. Muslims could marry 4 women at the same time only because most men had died in a certain war. It does not apply any more... or isn't supposed to.

As for Christians not fighting back... in the early years, Muslims operated according to Christian protocols (Muslims see themselves as the continuation of Judaism and Christianity... not as something different, so much of their earlier rules applied)... they were not allowed to fight back. This was because of their small numbers.. they would've been wiped out if they had. Only after a certain line had been crossed, was the permission given. Even then it is clear, fighting isn't the best way. Out-maneuvering is the best way, not fighting.
---------------

For those who don't have Demonoid, torrent of above video can be found in a zip file, no password...

http://rapidshare.com/files/34027085/koranic.zip.html

Charles Owlen Picket

May 29th, 2007, 12:13 PM

Pakistan is generally considered a "moderate" Islamic state. Pakistan has done some unique things in it's history and for all it's interaction with India, I think that should one of them disappear, the other would be lost without the other. After all, the survivor would have to put up with Bangladesh.

But I ask the question rhetorically: "Why is it that Muslims feel so cowed as to not speak out in the face of pathologic behaviour?". The world does not hear about one Islamic state condemning another for support of terror. Is unity so damn important as to be construed as "selling out" to the hated Christians?

Why does Islamic unity demand silence in the face of wrong-doing? From the 1970's onward there has been little criticism of terror used against civilian targets that not only can't strike back but the targets themselves include children, the elderly, the handicapped, & women on buses. And when someone DOES speak out a religious edict is published to have them murdered. When someone asks a child if they would rather be "feared" or "respected", a child often picks "feared".....adults mostly pick "respected".

Why? Because adults know that to be feared is often a gateway to being hated. And a (person or) nation-state that is hated is also generally impotent in world affairs (or inter-personal ones).

Corona

May 29th, 2007, 12:56 PM

After all, the survivor would have to put up with Bangladesh.

THAT is a horrible horrible thought..... just horrible. :eek:

Now a few words about what you said...

This isn't about Islamic unity. Different groups of muslims will behave differently and we have no right to tell them how to behave or not. The only one with the moral authority to say something is Saudi Arabia (because they have Mecca in their territory.. and because most of everyone has borrowed money from them)... but they're your guys. Nobody listens to them anyway these days... even if on the rare occasions they do speak out.

What you are saying is exactly like if when the IRA was cutting pieces out of British ass, you are asking "why don't Filipinos and Mexicans stop the IRA and say something about them?!!! They are all Catholics!!!"

Dude... really. That's one hell of a silly world-view.

Fatwas (religious rulings of clerics) have no legal validity.. not in normal penal code nor in Islamic sharia law.

Plus there has been plenty of speaking out against islamic-fanatics... it is not our fault you can't... or won't... hear about it.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html

And see here:

http://karachi.metblogs.com/archives/2007/04/spreading_love.phtml

and

http://www.tabraiz.net/rambling/Karachi_Says_No_to_Extremism/Karachiites_Say_No_to_Extremism.htm

Happy? Pics speak louder than words. This is something so common it isn't worth mentioning. It is not our fault your news services are deaf dumb and blind.

What crap were you saying about being "afraid" to speak out? But we will only do so when it concerns us right here. Iraq, for example, is not our concern and neither is Al-Qaeda or whoever it is you've got shooting at you.

Enkidu also said something about on the whole America meddling in a good manner.

Well, you did good in Bosnia. The Bosnians are not attacking you, are they? You did good in Kuwait. The Kuwaitis aren't attacking you, are they?

But you attacked Iraq... and they are getting back at you.

I have email buddies in Israel. And I talk to Palestinians too. I would never hurt Israel (have no reason too.. they never hurt Pakistan) but fully understand the Palestinians bombing the crap out of them. It is their right.

Why and how, for God's sake, does it somehow become *my* responsibility to help you out of your mess??? :rolleyes: You guys think muslims are somehow one people and act alike and have some kind of telepathic link with each other (us Asians do, btw.. have a telepathic link of sorts).... That's crazy. :p

Enkidu

May 29th, 2007, 04:05 PM

What you are saying is exactly like if when the IRA was cutting pieces out of British ass, you are asking "why don't Filipinos and Mexicans stop the IRA and say something about them?!!! They are all Catholics!!!"

What crap were you saying about being "afraid" to speak out? But we will only do so when it concerns us right here. Iraq, for example, is not our concern and neither is Al-Qaeda or whoever it is you've got shooting at you.

Why and how, for God's sake, does it somehow become *my* responsibility to help you out of your mess??? :rolleyes: You guys think muslims are somehow one people and act alike and have some kind of telepathic link with each other (us Asians do, btw.. have a telepathic link of sorts).... That's crazy. :p

What about Bosnia? That nation was predominantly 'Christian.' Other 'Christian' nations stopped the genocide. You see, religion should play no role in the decision to condemn/go to war with another nation. I haven't actually decided what I think the criteria should be... but I know it's not religion!

Another point is that the IRA is a terrorist organization half way around the world from the Philippines, while Iran is a terrorist state right down the street from Pakistan.

On reason I think that many Americans in particular lump Muslims in one group is that that they are idiots and think that Muslims only live the Middle East. The geographical region in which you live gets you all lumped together. That's why I try to refer to 'Middle East' politics rather than 'Muslim' politics. If there was a problem in North America, like people in Quebec started bombing other Canadians, you can bet your ass that America would get deeply involved. I live in Texas, farther away from Quebec than you live from Iran. I'd be all for involvement.

Do you know what the Monroe Doctrine is? A former president of the US decreed that the Europeans couldn't come over and interfere with North or South America. They are our neighbors, we'll take care of it. Well, take care of your god damn neighbors! You people are always fighting each other or someone else. (Don't deny it, it's easy to prove.)

Enkidu also said something about on the whole America meddling in a good manner.

I believe I said 'even handed.' I was trying to say that we don't viciously attack Muslims. I don't agree with meddling, btw. However, I don't think all of our actions in the Middle East have been meddlesome. But that's another topic.

I [...] fully understand and support the Palestinians bombing the crap out of [the Israelis]. It is their right.

Nope, sorry, it's not their right. They have a right to wage war, not to bomb the shit out of civilians.

I've seen video of clerics' 'sermons,' and I certainly don't think that they're up to the responsibility.

Clerics are not a threat to anyone, btw. It is an American nightmare that some cleric would take over our nukes..... I find that an impossible scenario.

Even if those clerics aren't an immediate threat, their ideas are and their brand of Islam is.

Corona

May 29th, 2007, 04:19 PM

Other 'Christian' nations stopped the genocide. You see, religion should play no role in the decision to condemn/go to war with another nation. I haven't actually decided what I think the criteria should be... but I know it's not religion!

First of all I agree with you... yet again... that religion is no criteria to wage war on someone else. For example, Pakistan has never waged war on India because of religion.

As for Bosnia... There were no "other Christian nations" to the rescue. All the Europeans were being their pussy selves and letting the Bosnians be slaughtered. It was only the US that stopped the Serbs. And guess who gave them the weapons?

Pakistan's then new "Bakter-Shikan" anti-tank missile was field tested in Bosnia with great success. This is only one small example. US knew we were supplying them weapons, but we did it all with American blessing... they looked the other way.

And you say Iran is a terrorist state next door..... "terrorist???"

I would say they are not terrorist, just loud-mouth assholes, and you would say, not so... doesn't matter. What you are saying is, you want us to fuck up a neighbor because you say they are bad guys? They won't last 5 minutes against us, true.... but is that the way to behave with another country we are not at war with?

When we fight, we will fight for our own reasons... not because the US tells us to. Iran, for example, has done nothing to us that we should hurt it. They are not a problem.

Btw, everyone agrees that Pakistan is part of Asia... it is South Asia to be exact. The "Middle East" starts from Iran. And Pakistan would be very stupid to get involved in the Middle East (even though it is next door). We don't speak their language and don't even share the same religion (most Pakistanis are Hanfi.. same as Central Asians/Russian muslims), culture or history. We don't even share the same enemies.

Now then...

A Palestinian explained to me that they try their best to kill military target only. Hamas, of course, would kill civilians. And who created HAMAS, do you know? Mossad admits they created HAMAS to counter the PLO... but it all went bad and got away from them and they lost control. Well, well, well.....

As for clerics... they are no different than your guy who just died... Falwell and his kind (New Orleans was God's wrath brought down upon sinners). They have a mouth and they use that mouth. No different and no more or no less of a threat.

Enkidu

May 29th, 2007, 05:09 PM

I would say they are not terrorist, just loud-mouth assholes, and you would say, not so... doesn't matter.

I guess that's where we agree to disagree. You say I over-estimate the danger posed by radical Islam/clerics/Iran, while I say you ignore or even support those ideas.

You say you don't want to/can't deal with the problems/instabilities in your neighborhood, so I say I'm going to vote Elephant (unfortunately).

Like you've said, Corona, our thought processes aren't too different. I can see us reversing positions if I had been born a Paki and you had been born an American. :D (Environment and all that shit.)

The little differences are always the most fun to hash out. ;)

BTW, you never told me where you get your news. When you said that you've seen news organizations that put ours to shame, was that bullshit? Where do you get your news?

nbk2000

May 29th, 2007, 05:35 PM

Would an American (or whites in general) be in any danger on the streets of Pakistan, of being kidnapped or killed by fundamentalists or jihadis?

defiant

May 29th, 2007, 09:59 PM

NBK: From my understanding of it Pakistan consists of tribal areas that the Pakistani government is discouraged from entering as well as non-tribal areas where the Pakistan government limits its rule.

From what I've heard American's aren't allowed in the tribal areas without special permission from the Pakistani government and aren't safe unless invited/escorted in. Similar to the ghetto's in the US - except of course that the tribal areas are not ghettos in the American sense of the term. The tribal areas seem to be more of free zones where tribes object to government intrusion. Sort of what America used to be when it was free.

Corona: I agree with much of what you say and like the way you express yourself - it says alot about your character.

Nor am I debating whether or not war is prudent when outnumbered. Sometimes its better to wait to amass combative power, sometimes enough is enough and aquiescence is out of the question. That's a personal choice, or the result of religious and/or political propoganda.

Christian pacifism is taken to ridiculous extremes in the West unless violence is authorized by government. In fact not just Christianity. Do you remember Bush at the podium announcing why war with Afghanistan was justified with religious leaders of all denominations nodding their heads and giving their blessings. And the Taliban offered to turn over Osama if the US presented evidence of his guilt, as the US reportedly did to Russia and Pakistan (both distrusted by the US till the sudden turn around after 9/11 (the Russia turnaround justified an Exxon contract to develop Russia's oil resources in the Caspian Sea, but the turnaround with Pakistan was influenced by "Your either with us or against us" rhetoric.

Hell, even the Dali Lama has changed his "no violence" tune by indicating that "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." Evidently prophets learn as they go, as do us ordinary mortals.

Also , internationl news reports indicate that all is not well in Pakistan. Reportedly Musharraf is walking a tightrope between US policies and an increasingly populist Taliban movement.

Lets not forget that the US and the Pakistani governments financed the Taliban, and that the Taliban is now out of control in the same way that Hamas is out of control due to Mossad funding. Lets also not forget that Mohamed Attah received his $100,000 in funding a week prior to 9/11 from the Pakistani INS. http/www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1266317,00.html

I don't question your sincerity, but the facts you present are one sided.

Corona

May 29th, 2007, 11:59 PM

Enkidu:

News services that have impressed me recently:

ARY
GEO
DAWN-TV
Al-Jazeera (english language)

(these are 24 hour news channels only)

Otherwise I get my news where I find it. On the ground. You can also read the same paper I read. http://epaper.dawn.com/

Even watching the good old BBC, I don't get the feeling of stress and tension I get when watching CNN, FOX, etc.

About Iran... They once tried to kill our guys in Afghanistan... but we killed them all instead (they say). In response they tried to burn down our embassy in Tehran (Iran). I still won't call them terrorists.... I would call them emotional midgets, however.

As for voting "elephant"... if you mean voting Republican, you ought to know over 90% of all Pakistani-Americans also vote Republican... they always have, including the American part of my family. Pakistan has had excellent relations with the US usually when Republicans are running things. When Democrats are in power the US tends to tilt towards India.

If I was American, I would always vote "elephant" too.

NBK:

A few days ago I saw more than one American lost in the bazaar (you can instantly tell they were Americans... different body language than Europeans). Or they just appeared lost. They were buying T-shirts by the ton and nobody had killed them yet.

Yesterday I saw another guy (American) at the supermarket buying Cuban cigars by the ton. He was alive when I left. I don't know if anything happened to him later.

Defiant:

Pakistan created the Taliban to guard our trade convoys traveling to Central Asia. They were very useful in protecting us from attacks by the warlords and we didn't have to involve our own troops. The US supported this action because it was assumed that when these monkeys grow up they will also be used to guard a giant oil and gas pipeleine from Central Asia to Pakistan and India and to the sea bypassing Iran.

And then it all got away from us.....

As for the tribal areas.... when Pakistan was created in 1947, the whole area agreed to be part of Pakistan only on the condition that we let them have self-rule. That condition is still honored today. Even now we can't arrest ordinary crooks who run into those areas (our laws don't apply)... we have to ask the tribals to please hand them over. Tribals don't pay taxes either.

As for all is not well in Pakistan... no, all is well. Prez Mushi is unpopular among politicians who have had their balls stepped on. The rest of us normal folk like Mushi just fine. I will even vote for him this year (election year).

As for the Guardian story, that story has never been proven and was first reported by an Indian news source which the Guardian picked up. Since India always is looking for an opportunity to stick it to us, I am not surprised. Story has changed more than once anyway...

Anyway, the US would not be paying Pakistan billions of dollars if we weren't doing something very right to please Chimpy. :p

Charles Owlen Picket

May 30th, 2007, 12:30 PM

Woooooo....this is getting tough to respond: everyone is quoting in so many little chunks here....

CORONA: I don't think it's a silly world view that religious brethren make comments about activities of like brethren IF the ISSUES are related to religious agenda. As a matter of fact, I would expect it. Frankly, there were a great many Catholic groups speaking out on the troubles in NI. Especially during the late 1970's.

Are you REALLY going to stand by your statement that a Fatwa has no legal validity in Islamic sharia law? Careful now........

And regarding NBK2000's query whether a American would be safe on the streets of Pakistan one has only to look at the State Dept.'s warning list of countries for tourists & business travelers. -> NO, they would not be safe.

bobsuruncle

May 30th, 2007, 01:41 PM

The Koran is very clear in what it says. What matters is if people are going to interpret it literally or metaphorically. If you follow it literally, then yes, I have no doubt that muslims would be justified in citing the koran when carrying out acts of terrorism. The Koran and the old testement are violent books. Now with christianity you have the reformation movement and the new testement. With guttenburgs printing press and the spread of education, people were able to read the book themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Islam is still a young religion (1400 years), they have not had a reformation and there is no new koran. People who are often uneducated rely on mullahs or imans to tell them what god wants or said, and given how gullible a desperate and uneducated population can become, these preachers are very capable of selecting passages from the koran and applying them to suit their own ends.

So islam is from a time where violence was a way of life, it is a war time religion, we have to accept this from its history, its formation and the examples of the prophet. We can deal with this by educating people, and the muslims have to do this themselves. They cannot take the koran literally, they have to see it as a metaphorical or spiritual work.

When it comes to fighting terror itself, its a matter of intelligence. There are not enough officers to follow every lead, this is why bombers slip through the nets. Once security agencies are better staffed and capable to ciphering through all the information they collect, it will be easier to identify, track and trace terrorists.

Corona

May 30th, 2007, 02:28 PM

Picket:

Yes, I stand by my statement that Fatwas have no legal validity in Islamic law (there are at least 80 different version of "islamic law"... I mean Hanfi law). Meaning someone can't get up and say "this is my Fatwa that sez you're toast!"

There is a concept, specially in Iqbal's philosophy (Iqbal was the poet guy who came up with the idea of Pakistan) that one can not have any opinions or laws without consensus. He basically rubbished the very idea of a fatwa and considered it unislamic altogether.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa
--------------------
"In Sunni Islam, a fatwa is nothing more than an opinion. It is just a view of a mufti and is not binding in India." ― Maulana Mehmood Madani

There is a binding rule that saves the fatwa pronouncements from creating judicial havoc, whether within a Muslim country or at the level of the Islamic world in general: it is unanimously agreed that a fatwa is only binding on its author.
-----------------

Get it? It is only a legal opinion. Of course the guy issuing a Fatwa will say that it is law... bull.

And even that is irrelevant as we have British law in this country (and in India) in which such nonsense has no place.

In countries with operating parliaments, only parliament has the right to make laws. There is sometimes a body that can check the laws for compliance with islamic values... but they are consultative and can not produce laws.

As for the US State Dept. and it's advisory.... who do you think NBK would like to listen to? Them... with the pale complexions who have forgotten what the sun looks like..?... or me...?... son of the soil who knows where you can get the cheapest Potassium Nitrate?

Live a little, take a risk, visit Pakistan, get shot at, leave with a story to tell your grandkids.

I don't think it's a silly world view that religious brethren make comments about activities of like brethren IF the ISSUES are related to religious agenda.

No, I find it very silly. Islam does not have a single authority or a church. My religious opinions would be useless to those from a Wahabi culture or Shia culture, for example.

nbk2000

May 30th, 2007, 02:55 PM

We can bomb them forever, but as long as they continue to believe, we will never truely defeat them.

What the West needs to do is begin full-scale theological meme warfare!

By dismantling their religion, we dismantle their will to resist. :)

I leave it to better minds to figure out the details of how, but it is the surest way.

In fact, I think what they need is a new prophet, a messianic figure to act like Jesus, to hand them down a new Koran, one in line with western values.

'Course, such a thing would take decades, if not centuries to engineer, but it would be the surest way to permanently neuter them.

But, because it would take so long, that ensures that no western pols would go for it, since they can't get votes doing anything positive that takes more than 4 years. :(

Where's Maud'dib when you need him?

Regarding foreign travel, I just think 'What would The Duke do?'.

He'd either have a native guide, or an invading army. :p

Corona

May 30th, 2007, 03:09 PM

In fact, I think what they need is a new prophet, a messianic figure to act like Jesus, to hand them down a new Koran, one in line with western values.

British already tried that to break the will of Indian Muslims long long time ago. They came up with THIS guy,

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

Didn't work. He is seen as a joke with kiddy nursery rhymes about him...

Mirza aggar hota Khuda ka Nabi
Tatti may gir kay marta na kabhi

(If Mirza had been truly from God
He wouldn't have fallen in his own shit and died).

He did fall (asian style squat toilet caved in) head first into his own shit and choked on it. :p So much for the British effort....

He'd either have a native guide...

Me! Me!

Enkidu

May 30th, 2007, 05:28 PM

Would an American (or whites in general) be in any danger on the streets of Pakistan, of being kidnapped or killed by fundamentalists or jihadis?

An even better question to ask is, 'Are Pakis safe on their own streets? If not, then why aren't they?' I think not. I've read the newspaper [http://epaper.dawn.com/] for today, 30 May 2007, and I found that every third article is about someone or a large group of people (40+) getting killed, assassinated, or kidnapped. The government is even implicated in the 'May 12 incident.' How much less safe would whites be?

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/21/missing.reporter/index.html

Even though that incident happened a long time ago at the beginning of the so-called 'War on Terror,' I seriously doubt the sentiment that caused the kidnapping of Pearl has gone anywhere but underground. Remember the recent riots against Musharraf's pro-west leadership.

News services that have impressed me recently: Al-Jazeera (english language)
Jeez, really? :rolleyes:

Otherwise I get my news where I find it. On the ground.

Are you referencing your newspaper (which I assume you pick up off the ground), or are you saying that you have an innate knowledge of your region because you live there? If it's the latter... again :rolleyes:

Yes, I stand by my statement that Fatwas have no legal validity in Islamic law (there are at least 80 different version of "islamic law"... I mean Hanfi law). Meaning someone can't get up and say "this is my Fatwa that sez you're toast!"

I don't think it's a silly world view that religious brethren make comments about activities of like brethren IF the ISSUES are related to religious agenda.

No, I find it very silly. Islam does not have a single authority or a church. My religious opinions would be useless to those from a Wahabi culture or Shia culture, for example.

I agree with Corona on this one. Simply because one sect thinks one way doesn't mean they can influence the other sect. After all, they are sects! Think about the Inquisition and other persecutions of 'Christians' by other 'Christians' (Catholics). The same thing happens today in Islam. One sect is always trying to kill the other. There is no room for discussion.

And even that is irrelevant as we have British law in this country (and in India) in which such nonsense has no place.

In countries with operating parliaments, only parliament has the right to make laws. There is sometimes a body that can check the laws for compliance with islamic values... but they are consultative and can not produce laws.

I'm not concerned with 'Prez Mushi' nuking me. However, I am concerned about radical Islam (which is alive and well in Pakistan) supplying al-Qaeda explosives to bring down a jetliner.

You miss the point, Corona. You won't condemn terrorists (or whatever you want to call them) because they (and violence, for that matter) are so ingrained into your society.

Then again, I do like the Duke's westerns. :D

nbk2000

May 30th, 2007, 07:43 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_surrounding_the_death_of_Mirza_Ghulam_ Ahmad

Supposedly it was was 'complications from diarrhea', not falling down into a toilet...though that could be considered a complication in a suitable macabre way. :)

Besides which, they didn't have the technology to make a believable messiah back then. I'm sure it'd be much more likely to succeed now, and most assuredly in the future.

And if some jihadhi's snatched me up in pakistan...nanawatai!...that's what they'll be screaming. :p

Corona

May 31st, 2007, 12:20 AM

Enkidu:

The May-12 incident was not Islamic or anything... it was our own dirty politics which resulted in workers of one political party killing workers of other political parties who had blocked the whole city for a showdown.... you can pick up further details from Karachi Metblogs.

Daniel Pearl did something very stupid. Even when warned not to, he himself contacted these very dangerous people. You know what happened.

Regarding these jihadis and such, I don't take them seriously because they ran the country in the 1980s and proved to be useless. Also, the Govt. secretly supports them (political reasons). I have seen the Govt. turn them off before when they were no longer needed simply by shutting off their money supply which they get from foreign countries. The point is, America wants Pakistan to get into a fight that nobody can win. We are better at this than you guys. Instead of them shooting at us, we take the slow approach and can defuse them over a number of years. 25 years from today, there will be no jihadis. But you can't just go and shoot them, Duke style. If you shoot them, they will never go away. I can guarantee that. Fortunately, the US is finally listening to us and moderating it's policy (though you won't read about it).

As for Al-Jazeera, I knew it would produce that reaction in you... Have you seen the english language version (not available in US, maybe)? It is not the same as the Arabic channel. I am sure you will be impressed.

As for radical jihadis getting their hands on stuff.... man, did you see that video I linked to in that gun thread? We have no shortage of explosives, guns, ammo, freely available. Believe me, if it was to happen, it would've happened. This shows the control we have over islamic saps. Here is the video again. Watch it and tell me what you think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9xf62PKC5M

And keep reading DAWN and more Pakistani newspapers. I also recommend blogs such as this: http://pakistaniat.com/. Good archives.

For Pakistani news channels:

http://www.geo.tv/usa/
http://geo.tv/geonews/
call toll free Number 1-877-478-8872 in USA for connection.

http://www.aryoneworld.net/
I think one can also get these guys in US... not sure.

DAWN-TV (part of DAWN newspaper and 100% english language) will be coming to US too.

etc. etc.

I can speak 4 languages so they work fine for me. I did say earlier that the biggest disadvantage Americans have (even their intelligence services) is that they don't have foreign language skills.

NBK:

Mirza was very prone to diarrhea because he had poor hygiene. For example, he liked eating sugar cubes. But he kept his sugar cubes in the same pocket with little clay pebbles that he used to rub on his penis after he had a piss (to dry the last drops). When short of pebbles, they went back into the same pocket after use.

Of course he got diarrhea...:p

I asked many people who were kids during that time... they all say, it is true (though not mentioned in polite company) that the toilet floor cracked and he fell into the cesspool.. another version is that he had a heart attack and he just keeled over into the toilet (basically a hole in the ground over which he was squatting). Either way, they found him choked on shit. He was suffering from diarrhea for most of his life... that was why he spent all that time in there.

Btw, the British copied the Mormons when they asked him to create a new religion. There are many many similarities. They figured that if it could work for the Mormons, it could work here.

defiant

May 31st, 2007, 12:53 AM

Your being kept busy here Corona because people are interested, so understand that I'm going to be contentious because I'm interested in your response.

First, Fatua's may not apply to Islamic community as a whole, but at the same time Islamic communities follow a Mullah's by popular consent. It's this consent that forms the basis of the Mullah's power and influence. Consent lends the Mullah's Fatuas the standing of law if only on local levels. On this level Fatua's aren't merely legal opinions, they're recommended course of conduct based on the Koran and Divine intent.

I'm not bitching - that's as good a system as any. If a wise Mullah is issuing Fatua's his people are likely to prosper. If wisdom is lacking or special interests are granted privilidges that hurt the community eventually a conflict will arise.

The exact same conditions exist in systems based on English law, as is the case here in America. Judges render decisions that uphold the law or legal sounding decisions that pervert the law. An example of the latter is a recent federal ruling that the 14th Amendment, which prohibits "states from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process" - doesn't apply to states!!!

The critical factor is not the system, but the character of those administrating the system - as well as how good the propoganda is, and the level of awareness and rebelliousness of the population. This is true in the east as well as the west.

Second, with regards to where Mohamed Attah got his financing - I don't trust Indian media either when it comes to Pakistan. But US intelligence confirmed that financing came from Pakistan. The 911 Commission refused to investigate on the basis that following the money trail wasn't important. A clear cover-up.

In like manner the Taliban offered to turn over Osama if the US offered them evidence of his involvement. Reportedly the US turned over this evidence to Pakistan and Russia, who were not US allies at the time - but refused to provide evidence to the Taliban on the basis that the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists. The public bought the media hype.

As you indicate (without specificity) the underlying motivation was Caspian Sea oil interests and a pipeline that bypasses Iran - meaning Unical, Enron, and Exxon interests in the region. The Taliban didn't chose Unical/Enron to build the pipeline and therefore negotiations were not possible. Osama had nothing to do with it. Meanwhile Exxon signed a multibillion dollar contract with Russia a week after 9/11 to develop oil resources in the Caspian Sea. Western Media clumsily orchestrated the transition. Russia was an enemy one week, and the next was a US ally that was with us on the war against terrorism. Then came the blurb about the Exxon deal with Russia. Needless to say multi-million dollar contracts aren't negotiated, drafted, and enacted in the course of a week - but the public bought the lie.

Clearly 9/11 was an orchestrated event on many different levels, and many countries were complicit. This includes the US, Pakistan, and Russia, as well as others.

Third, tribal areas being off limits to the Pakistani government, "Al Caida" is free to operate in the region. Or rebel factions at least. The existence of "Al Caida" as an organization appears to be one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated. Seems more like a concept to me - like "patriot" in the US.

At this point I believe that "Al Caida" means the "database" - being a CIA database like Abel Danger. You know where I'm coming from - correct?

Corona

May 31st, 2007, 01:31 AM

Defaint:

What you are describing that if the Fatwa is wise, everyone will agree.... well, it doesn't have to be called a Fatwa or come from a mulla then, does it? Anyone can be a leader if he has the knack of making wise decisions.

----------------------
For many Muslims, "democratic civility" is seen as a reproduction of the Islamic concepts of "shurah" (consultation), "ijima" (consensus) and "ijtihad" (independent interpretive judgment).The Quran laid down the principle of "shurah" to guide the community's decisionmaking process.
---------------------
As you can see, without 'Shura" you can't have laws. And a shura (same as elected Parliament) has always been hostile to the concept of Fatwa.

In our villages... away from our British laws, there is the traditional "panchayat" or "jirga" system. That is when village elders get together and decide matters, including how to punish criminals. Believe me, I have never heard of elders being motivated by some mulla with a fatwa. Mullas are looked at as one step above janitor. They are usually not part of the "elders".

As for Atta and his financing... you say US intelligence said this or that? The same US intelligence that said Saddam was making WMDs to attack USA? The same US intelligence that has been wrong about everything? Please.

Pakistan has always been a US ally... for a price. The US State Dept. insiders call Pakistan "that expensive prostitute". :p

You have read well between the lines... there is much about the "war on terror" that is a big drama, nothing more.

We have given some freedom to Taliban in the tribal areas, not to Al-Qaeda. Taliban are local assholes. Al-Qaeda are foreign assholes. Locals themselves shot and killed many many fighters from Uzbekistan. So our policy of Taliban vs. Al-Qaeda is working. It will take many years, but we will get a result. All without us killing them (they can kill each other).

About Persian... I can understand about one or two words in every other sentence... if spoken slowly. I have no idea if Al-Qaeda is the base or database... my understanding is, it can be either.

Enkidu

May 31st, 2007, 02:28 AM

I'm not concerned with 'Prez Mushi' nuking me. However, I am concerned about radical Islam (which is alive and well in Pakistan) supplying al-Qaeda explosives to bring down a jetliner.

As for radical jihadis getting their hands on stuff.... man, did you see that video I linked to in that gun thread? We have no shortage of explosives, guns, ammo, freely available. Believe me, if it was to happen, it would've happened.

Erm, it did happen. As defiant already pointed out (whether you believe it or not), Paki radicals had a hand in 9/11. I understand that there are many guns and explosives all over your country and countries like it. Like I said, you people have been fighting each other or somebody else for a long time. However, that's in your country. I don't what you've got spilling over (predominantly monetarily) into America.

Most of the rest of your post backs up the idea that your people are, by their very nature, violent and unstable by Western standards. BTW, I don't particularly blame Islam for that (though it may have some part).

Here is the video again. Watch it and tell me what you think.

Damn, talk about a good place to go for a few seminars. :D

I want to second defiant and say that I am very interested in what you have to say and I'd like to thank you for taking the time to respond in an intelligent manner.

-----

The existence of "Al Caida" as an organization appears to be one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated. Seems more like a concept to me - like "patriot" in the US.

It is likely that Al-Qaeda has fewer members than the common American believes. It's also likely that when we 'go after Al-Qaeda,' we are in reality just attacking various 'terrorists' or enemy combatants. However, those opinions do not contradict Al-Qaeda's status as an organization. Just like any other terrorist group, such as HAMAS, it has leaders and structure, and even expands to other countries. From the Wikipedia page on Al-Qaeda,

Bin Laden is the emir and Senior Operations Chief of al-Qaeda (although originally this role may have been filled by Abu Ayoub al-Iraqi), advised by a shura council, which consists of senior al-Qaeda members, estimated by Western officials at about twenty to thirty people. Ayman al-Zawahiri is al-Qaeda's Deputy Operations Chief and Abu Ayyub al-Masri is possibly the senior leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Corona

May 31st, 2007, 02:47 AM

Ummm... as far as I know all the 9-11 guys were arabs, most being from Saudi. There was nobody from Pakistan.... or you are maybe talking of Khalid Shiekh... Al-Qaeda planner (planned 9-11 they say)... some kind of Pakistani-Arab...

It is true that some parts of Pakistan are very violent (like that gun place in the video)... we live in a tough neighborhood with India on one side and Iran on the other.. we have kept both of these swine at arm's length... and, another example, we were the only guys to successfully attack inside the Soviet Union blowing up their power supply causing massive black-outs (it was only a "message".. a warning). If we weren't around, you might have the Soviets still making trouble. We bled them dry (with lots and lots of American help, of course... Europeans being pussies as usual... and our muslim "brothers" also totally useless). We could only do that because we are NOT nice people. :cool:

Everyone can't live in a country with a east coast and a west coast, now can we? :) I'm sure, if we had been Americans we would be very nice folk.

And please don't get too snooty with me. You are not much better than we are... Pakistan being 115th and US being 96th on the global peace index scale. Anyone can Google tons of crap that shows the US is no Europe in the crime and violence department. We are both turds.... only I know it, while you are in denial. But consider this, history is made by turds like us (being a turd is good).... not by some bureaucrat from some office in Switzerland.

In fact, close your eyes for a second and imagine that USA has suddenly turned into Switzerland.... No Mega... no NBK... no RogueSci... and no Duke.... they are all busy knitting sweaters. And I would rather jump in the Indian Ocean than live in a nanny state.

Pakistan was created by this guy:

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

And he was a student of German philosophy.

---------------------------
Some intellectuals criticised Iqbal for embracing Nietzsche's concept of Übermensch, reflected in Iqbal's descriptions of ego, self, and renewal for Muslim civilization.
--------------------------

So he wanted Pakistan to be a Nietzschian nation and it's people, Ubermensch. Most of us, who do not listen to mullas, listen to this guy.. his ideas still give us direction (we/he did kick the British out of here). Mullas dislike him very much to this day. This also shows why you can't totally trust us... Americans have good instincts... you can never trust Ubermensch.

As for the tribals behaving violently, it has nothing to do with Islam... that is just the way they are. If they weren't fighting Americans, they would be fighting against themselves in "blood-feuds" between families that go on for generations until someone from one family marries someone from the other family. We are fortunate to have such people (the Pathans... or Pashtun.. I'm one of them), because they are good fighters.... if we can convince them to shoot in the right direction. :p

And I disagree with that throwaway comment you made ("and countries like it"). There is no other place like Pakistan. You might thank God for that... I sure do. :p

Also thank God that we are on your side.... sort of... kind of... I guess.... :D

Charles Owlen Picket

May 31st, 2007, 01:01 PM

I truly agree, it is nice to have a discussion of this subject. However, perhaps the reason we are discussing this in such a detached and objective manner is due more to none of us having lost a loved one rather than anything else...(?)

Enkidu

May 31st, 2007, 05:11 PM

And please don't get too snooty with me. You are not much better than we are... Pakistan being 115th and US being 96th on the global peace index scale. Anyone can Google tons of crap that shows the US is no Europe in the crime and violence department. We are both turds.... only I know it, while you are in denial. But consider this, history is made by turds like us (being a turd is good).... not by some bureaucrat from some office in Switzerland.

I fully admit that America has committed terrible atrocities. Dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is unjustifiable in my opinion. Some Americans have committed atrocities on an individual level. Examples of this include the wanton killing a civilians during the Vietnam Conflict and people like McVeigh or Cho.

The difference (I think) between the US and a country in your region is that the US is methodical. After our embassy was bombed in Nairobi or the Cole was attacked, we didn't start destroying holy places in Saudi Arabia, did we? After 9/11, we announced to the world that we were going after the terrorists and the people or nations that support them. So, we attacked Afghanistan (and now we're trying to rebuild it).

BTW, that peace index is bullshit. The reason America is so far up on the list is our high level of defense spending.

As far as Americans committing violence on personal level, it's only a few people once in a while. AFAIK, the US has lower per capita murder rate than Pakistan (which doesn't even publish murder rates :rolleyes: ).

In fact, close your eyes for a second and imagine that USA has suddenly turned into Switzerland.... No Mega... no NBK... no RogueSci... and no Duke.... they are all busy knitting sweaters. And I would rather jump in the Indian Ocean than live in a nanny state.

Then again, I do like the Duke's westerns. :D

I don't have a problem with men being men. Jeez, I'm on The Forum. I could go through a list of my manly qualities, but I'll spare you. :D It all goes back to keeping it in your pants, which most Americans do. If NBK went around sticking all the niggers he sees, we wouldn't have him. :rolleyes:

Corona

May 31st, 2007, 05:34 PM

Pakistan publishes crime rates all the time. They are available to journalists on demand and sometimes when there is a crime spree, they get coverage in the papers.

About 5-10 people murdered daily in Karachi, the largest city (on average... when politicians aren't playing dirty pool). For a city of 16 million people, that is excellent! In Peshawar, where every third person walking the streets is an Afghan refugee, the murder rate is about 3 people a day.

I am quite sure, your crime and murder rates are far higher. Was the Virginia Tech episode my imagination? These seem to happen quite frequently... some kids or postman goes bonkers and shoots the hell out of everyone else?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/153988.stm (old report from 1998... but judging from what I see on FOX, probably much higher now)

Comes out to about 30 people a day... higher than ours.

So, we attacked Afghanistan (and now we're trying to rebuild it).

:rolleyes: Sure. :p

The difference (I think) between the US and a country in your region

My "region" is the Asian Subcontinent or South Asia, not the Middle East. Please get that straight, once and for all.

the US is methodical. After our embassy was bombed in Nairobi or the Cole was attacked, we didn't start destroying holy places in Saudi Arabia, did we?

Faking evidence of Iraqi WMDs was very "methodical". I agree. :p

Btw, we're also crapping in the peace index because of higher military expenditure than normal. We are undergoing massive upgrades for army, navy and airforce by 2016.

And why are you calling the peace index crap? Just because they didn't give you a nice score, they are crap? Admit yer a turd.. just like me! And be proud of it! Both our countries have nothing to apologize for.... nobody can make a nation full of nukes do anything it doesn't want to do (you taught us that, btw). Us turds make history... others just pass wind.

They've got some pretty impressive names with them:
---------------------
The Global Peace Index, published a week before a Group of Eight (G8) summit in Germany, rates 121 countries from Algeria to Zimbabwe on some 24 factors including levels of violence, organised crime and military expenditure.

While most European countries including Britain rank in the top, more peaceful half of the league table, the United States is nearer the bottom in 96th place.

The index is backed by international figures including the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former US President Jimmy Carter and US economist Joseph Stiglitz, all winners of the Nobel peace prize. It is also supported by Queen Noor of Jordan.

Overall, the study found that small, stable countries which are part of regional blocs such as the 27-nation European Union are most likely to be more peaceful.

The Dalai Lama, the Tibetan Buddhist leader who fled China after an aborted uprising in 1959, said the launch of the index could be a useful tool for policymakers.
-----------------------

Are we done with the pissing contest???

Enkidu

May 31st, 2007, 06:13 PM

I feel a bit muddled right now. *confused* But I'll post anyway. :)

Examples of this include the wanton killing a civilians during the Vietnam Conflict and people like McVeigh or Cho.

AFAIK, the US has lower per capita murder rate than Pakistan (which doesn't even publish murder rates :rolleyes: ).

Pakistan publishes crime rates all the time. They are available to journalists on demand and sometimes when there is a crime spree, they get coverage in the papers.

I am quite sure, your crime and murder rates are far higher. Was the Virginia Tech episode my imagination? These seem to happen quite frequently... some kids or postman goes bonkers and shoots the hell out of everyone else?

I mentioned the Virginia Tech kid; his name was Cho. Those incidents are few and far between and generally committed by someone whose mental health is in question.

Actually, I looked into murder rates briefly a while back. Pakistan does not publish ACCEPTED murder rates.

Btw, we're also crapping in the peace index because of higher military expenditure than normal. We are undergoing massive upgrades for army, navy and airforce by 2016.

And why are you calling the peace index crap? They've got some pretty impressive names with them: former US President Jimmy Carter

Yeah, Jimmy Carter, the failed ex-president who goes around undermining and shitting on the US every chance he gets. :rolleyes:

I haven't researched the Peace Index in depth. Here is an article from Economist magazine (the publisher of the Peace Index) that discusses some of the cons and theoretical flaws.

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9266967

The index takes note of internal factors—crime rates, prison population, trust between citizens—and external ones, like relations with neighbours, arms sales, foreign troop deployments. Norway's top place reflects its calm domestic atmosphere and good relations with nearby states. In the case of Israel (119th), high military spending, a huge army and unresolved local conflicts are deemed to outweigh its low level of ordinary crime. Canada comes eighth; its American neighbour a dismal 96th, strangely just above Iran.

The index will run into some flak. A country that applied the simple Roman maxim—“if you want peace, prepare for war”—would score badly. By unconditionally endorsing low military budgets and marking down high ones, the index may seem to give heart to freeloaders: countries that enjoy peace precisely because others (often America) care for their defence. Indeed, one of the ideas behind NATO and several other security pacts is that America's protection limits the need for medium-sized powers to be big military players in their own right.

Does the Peace Index take into account that video you posted or the conflict in Kashmir (rather than, oops, there's a little disagreement)? I think not.

---

Edit: Damn! You're editing your post while I'm posting! LOL

My "region" is the Asian Subcontinent or South Asia, not the Middle East. Please get that straight, once and for all.

Are you denying you live right next to Iran? How about that you live one country away from Iraq? Those are relatively small countries as well.

Faking evidence of Iraqi WMDs was very "methodical". I agree.

Actually, IIRC, chemical weapons were found in Iraq. The media just buried the story. :rolleyes: I found these links through Google...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/

Are we done with the pissing contest???

:cool:

Corona

May 31st, 2007, 06:37 PM

Oops. Double post accident while making corrections. Please delete. Sorry.

Corona

May 31st, 2007, 06:44 PM

And what do you mean by "accepted" murder rates? Accepted by whom? Independent news people confirm they are generally accurate.

Incidents like Virginia Tech may be few and far between, but they happen with regular enough frequency to give the US a "reputation". What was that "bowling for Columbine" where you can get a gun at a bank and ammo while getting a haircut?? Even we don't do THAT!

Even amongst nations who you would like to admire you (Japan, Europe, etc.)... Pakistan is Pakistan... but the US is known as a very violent place indeed. Go ask any Japanese.

I don't know why you are dissing Carter.... he has done far more good than the Chimp behind the wheel. OK, he wasn't a Republican... nobody's perfect.

That video I posted is normal activity making and selling guns. It has nothing to do with the peace index, I'm sure. If it did, then I agree with you, peace index people are assholes. About Kashmir... the violence there is India's problem isn't it? ;)

As for Iraq, we refused the American request to send troops there (he asked both Indian and Pak)... even after the swine beheaded two Pakistani truck drivers. It would've been the wrong thing to do.... to react with emotion. We don't do that. And please, why are you insisting that Iran must be dealt with? I had many Iranian friends in school. Everyone of them was an idiot... so I doubt they are going to get nukes or be a threat to anyone. They're just a bunch of useless loudmouths. If they do anything to hurt us, we'll bring them down hard.... without firing a shot. We did it before and ruined our relations with such friendly assholes.

Now then.. I am getting the feeling NBK would like us to get back on topic (he tried twice). I also gave you a hint to lets stop this Pakistan vs. USA pissing contest. Both of us live in crappy countries.... thats how the world sees us and I say screw the world... as if I give a shit what the world thinks. Hell we can end the world by pressing Da Big Red Button. We don't need to care about the sound of crickets in the grass. So there.

The topic is how to stop yourself from hugging muslims. Any ideas?

nbk2000

May 31st, 2007, 07:16 PM

Murder rates are only comparable by per capita.

America, having a vastly larger population, would have many more murders, but measured per 100K population versus Pakistan?

Also, the only numbers I accept are those that break it down by race. White>White and White>Other murder rates are far less than Other>Other and Other>White.

So Whites are much less violent in that aspect.

It's only when non-White>White murders are aggregated in that the statistics get skewed out of proportion to reality.

Cho is a perfect example of this, as he's not an American, but a korean on a visa who happened to kill in America. And notice that he stated he hated the others student with their I-Pods and gold jewelry...sounds like he envied their prosperity, much like the rest of the third world does.

Again, who are you going to trust...media statistics or a native son? ;)

On the other hand, when Whites go to war, we kill far more of each other and other races than those races do us or themselves.

In other words, we're generally civil amongst ourselves, but when we're pissed off, we're going fuck somebody up! :)

Now, I don't know racially homogeneous Pakistan is, but if you are racially similar, than your violence stems from ideological/religious/tribal differences, correct?

Corona

May 31st, 2007, 07:24 PM

Most violence right now in Pakistan is because of "mobile phone snatching".... muggings. If you don't hand over your mobile phone, mugger will probably kill you. With 60 million mobile phone users, they are having a picnic.

Pakistan's population is very multi-ethnic, btw. There are 8-9 different races from inside Pakistan with 2 dozen different languages. Plus many other ethnic groups from outside who have made this their home, recently or hundreds of years ago. They almost never fight for ethnic reasons.

The dirty fights are all politically motivated. It was dirty politics that forced Mushi to kick out Baldy and take over as Prez. Whenever there is an election year (like this year) someone will do something stupid and someone gets popped. Same in India.

What you said about white-on-white and black-on-white makes sense....it would be far far lower if you consider white-on-white.... but I would also add the white govt. is ultimately responsible for letting non-whites run amok. I would blame programs that favor certain non-whites (because they are seen to be in need of help) as they stop the need for them to challenge themselves.

I know this guy in US who was approached by a black dude... apparently a mugging. He asked him if he was from India or Pakistan? He said Pakistan, and the black dude said, oh good, on your way. There was a Pakistani restaurant nearby which gave free food on Thursdays (a common religious practice with some people... supposed to bring them luck)... that is why he let him go. If he had been Indian... splat.

Per capita...?.... What is America's largest city (not sure)? You can compare with the rate of 5-10 daily murders in Karachi pop.16 million.

Now that you have broken it down by race, I can tell you that 90% of the crime (murders and mobile phone snatching) is done by muslim immigrants from India (called Mohajirs) who belong to a certain political party. This is common knowledge here. And some by Afghan types who work for loan sharks. Ordinary folk can be compared to white-on-white statistics.

Bugger

June 1st, 2007, 10:28 PM

To get back to the subject of this thread, " How would you stem the tide of the islamic war?" - the answer is simple: ban Islam, or at least those sects of it who seek to impose their religion on other people by force, or kill non-believers. In the U.S.A., while the First Amendment (along with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments) guarantees the right to peaceably assemble to practice one's religion, this cannot apply when it interferes with the civil rights of other persons such as non-Muslims. There would certainly be Court precedents for this.

Corona

June 1st, 2007, 11:43 PM

There is an even simpler answer.

Instead of supporting Israel, turn around and support Arabs. Totally and completely. Just dump Israel. They will bring you nothing but grief. And you'll have to do it anyway one day as Jews are like stagnant swamp-water, but Islam is the largest and fastest growing religion in the USA and Europe. So either do it today... or be made to do it tomorrow.

Arabs have more economic resources and far more natural resources, etc.... get fuel at rock-bottom prices..... you still want to keep this deformed American-aid guzzling midget called "Israel" around? Would you rather have a few million inbred Jews on your side.. or 1.5 Billion people who are Arabs, Asian, Central Asians, Chinese, Indians, Africans, etc. You really want to keep fighting against the world... while our military and economic strength and numbers of our people, grow and grow?

And unlike us Asian folk, Arabs love America. Even though you are screwing them, they can't get enough of American products and watch American TV all the time. I get Arab TV here on cable (in English language), so I know what I'm talking about.

Think about it, America. Right now you can't do shit. But with your firepower and the manpower of 1.5 Billion people, what is it you won't be able to do? Remember, the US is the most flexible nation on the planet ... you guys have taken advantage of all kinds of opportunities by thinking out of the box. And you have let people down all the time.. leaving them up shit creek without a paddle. That is your history. Leave the Jews up Shit Creek... without a paddle.

So this can be done too.

Also remember, the Wahabi are only here because the US buys their petrol. The Wahabi were a British creation (like NBK's idea of a new messiah). They found a guy called Abdul Wahab (I think that was his name) and used him to break up the Ottoman Empire. What can be started, can be stopped and can be turned around.
--------------------------

"I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young
nation from an insidious influence and impenetration.The menace,
gentlemen, is the Jews.

"In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have
lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have
segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at
and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is
founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state
within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country
to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal.

"For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in
that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call
Palestine. But gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple,
they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because
they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot
live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other
people not of their race.

"If you do not exclude them from these United States,in their
Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in
such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and
change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our
blood, given our lives our substance and jeopardized our liberty.

"If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants
will be working in the fields to furnish their substance, while they
will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you,
gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will
curse you in your graves.

"Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor
how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be
otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not
even thou they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change
its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if
permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional
Convention."

Benjamin Franklin, 1787,at The Constitutional
Convention, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

Charles Owlen Picket

June 2nd, 2007, 12:34 PM

Why would America need to choose between either one? There is no verifiable reason to believe that kissing Islamic ass will bring about anything but shit.

The quote: "So either do it today... or be made to do it tomorrow"...is EXACTLY why America should be very careful. This type of statement is EXACTLY why the US should be awful cautious with it's foreign policy. "The cost of the animal comes from the horse's mouth"....That's where the expression came from, by the way.

I'll say it one more time: Gentlemen, read the Book. Who we are dealing with in the Islamic world is honestly illustrated and allows for a "big-picture" overview from an American perspective.

Corona

June 2nd, 2007, 01:27 PM

Picket... kissing Arab ass gave us (Pakistan) cheaper petrol. You ought to try it sometime. All you have to do is pucker up and toss your self-esteem in the gutter.

As for the other stuff.... demographics don't lie. This is exactly where you are headed. As the number of Muslim voters and the power of Muslim special interest groups increases in democratic societies, you know where the tide will turn. There is nothing sinister about it. Just democracy in action.

And then I'm gonna come over and I'm gonna rape your sister! (actually not... but this is what some reading this just thought... :p )

And yes, Gentlemen..... As a Muslim, I want you to read the Koran. Please read all of it, preferably with historical context in the margins (or else you will end up looking stupid in the middle of some argument). The Koran was intended to be discussed by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Learn as much as you can.

And please watch the video I linked to:

http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/1172711/77257/

(it will really really save you from looking stupid)
-----------------------------

Anyone remember that classic Western...?... "Good, Bad, and the Ugly"?

From the American point of view, America is GOOD... like Clint Eastwood. Muslims are BAD... like Lee Van Cliff. Guess who is UGLY? (apologies.. just making a point)

Americans can keep fighting Muslims... enemies real or imagined... while you are getting your ass eaten away by a Chicano invasion. THAT, my dears, is something that is happening today, right now... not something that might happen tomorrow... :eek:

Good luck with your Spanish lessons. :p

hatal

June 2nd, 2007, 03:53 PM

There is an even simpler answer.
"For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in
that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call
Palestine. But gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple,
they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because
they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot
live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other
people not of their race.

I like this quote its is very catching! Ofcourse the whole article is truthfull. Suprisingly their words didn't make Mr. Washington and Mr. Franklin called "antisemitic". Why? It would be hard to destroy legendary historic figures. So the historians today say: "by jews they meant banks and finance" or crap like turning words and sentences inside out and doing a lof of (mis)interpretation.

Back to topic. How would I stem the tide of the islamic war? Why would stem it! Two things provide the basis of their war. One is the existence of Israel. They are constantly killing muslims not just on the land they have stolen from them but murdering everywhere around the world with their sleazy little gang the mossad. Second thing is: dictators ruling them with the help of the west. Just so that the USA can get his oil without any nasty negotiations. "The Spice must flow"

The jew-bags just sit back in the NY skyscrapers and watch their asses getting fatter by the interest rates. Once or twice a year they go lobbying so that their homeland, Israel (where they don't want to live because its insecure) gets its few billion dollars subvention and the big arms deals. And the rest of the worlds has to deal with all of the political-economical-financial sideeffects of this whole bullshit business (terrorism, high fuel prices, migration, religous violence, arms race, shady politcs, etc).

Stem it? Are you kiddin'! Let them blast those bastards and their commrades everywhere, anytime.

Enkidu

June 2nd, 2007, 06:01 PM

In my first post in this thread, I mentioned Israel.

I believe many people underestimate the importance of Israel in the conflict between the US and radical Islam/certain Middle Eastern countries. Nearly all Islamic groups hate the Jews. We are one of the biggest reasons that the Jews haven't been destroyed in the Middle East. Again, why shouldn't the ragheads hate us? However, the fact that they hate us for supporting Israel should not deter us from our support. Israel, like it or not, is our only true friend in that region.

Maybe I'm not up on my Jewish history (and I think I am), but I'm not aware of any time that the Jews attacked the US. However, many times the US has helped the peoples/countries in the REGION SURROUNDING IRAN (including, but not limited to, the Middle East. Does that include you, Corona? :rolleyes: ) and they still hate and attack us. So history bears out that assisting and trying to be buddy buddy with ragheads does't work, while the Jews have always been our friends.

I don't buy into the Jewish conspiracy bullshit. They didn't plan 9/11, they don't control American politics, and, guess what, they aren't a threat to the America or the American way of life. They are just a scapegoat for people who are down on their luck (i.e., the Germans post WWI) or poor SOBs who owe money to the bank.

"If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish their substance, while they
will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves."

Benjamin Franklin, 1787

AFAIK, the only people who are working in the fields are the Mexicans. It's been 200 years, and I'm not cursing the Jews. In fact, I seriously doubt that anti-Semitism has grown since Franklin's time.

"Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not even thou they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention."

Benjamin Franklin, 1787

Hmmmm, haven't you been professing your Azn-ness? :p

Defendu

June 2nd, 2007, 06:20 PM

...I'm not aware of any time that the Jews attacked the US.

They must be doing a good job to bury the USS Liberty attack.

See:
http://www.ussliberty.org/

About Hitler and the Jews:
He had also been taken aback by the growing presence in Vienna of bearded Jews wearing caftans, a sight unknown in Linz. "How can they be Germans?" he asked himself. He read the statistics: in 1860 there were 69 Jewish families in Vienna; 40 years later there were 200,000. They were everywhere. He observed their invasion of the universities and the legal and medical professions, and their takeover of the newspapers.
Source:
http://www.leondegrelle.org/theenigmaofhitler.html

PS: That Franklin quote is largely considered a hoax, even in anti-kike circles.

Charles Owlen Picket

June 2nd, 2007, 08:59 PM

The Franklin quote is a hoax. Most people know that. And most people (I hope) know that the whole of the middle east is a trap. But is any of it worth a single American life? Truly, it's time to pull the plug on the oil cartel.

None of these fucks are our friends. And we will never get "friends" by kissing Islamic ass. Leave that for Jimmy Carter. His successes never end. IMO the issue should be approached form a perspective of what is good for our Nation. It's often been stated that our race is our Nation. But the depth of that statement is often lost on those with a narrow world view. -And there is nothing wrong with that either. People grow at different rates and outlooks often change. Loving one's race does not necessarily mean hating anyone or anything. Caring for one's heritage is not evil. And quite frankly I don't believe there is some "Star Chamber" gathering of jews trying to control world banking or things of that sort. Honestly I find it somewhat laughable that Dr. Finkelstein, the dentist, is trying to destroy the value of the dollar....He's too busy making it.

Charles Owlen Picket

June 2nd, 2007, 09:16 PM

Picket... kissing Arab ass gave us (Pakistan) cheaper petrol. You ought to try it sometime. All you have to do is pucker up and toss your self-esteem in the gutter.

Do you really mean that the government of Pakistan has thrown it's self esteem away for petrol dollars? Certainly there is a greater complexity than that to the relationship between Islamic nations..... If you DO mean that very thing, could you provide an example?

Enkidu

June 2nd, 2007, 09:33 PM

They must be doing a good job to bury the USS Liberty attack.

We bombed British troops in Iraq. Accidents happen. I've not fully looked into that incident, but it occurred during wartime, and I see no motive for a deliberate attack on the US.

That Franklin quote is largely considered a hoax, even in anti-kike circles.

Haha, I figured it was, but I couldn't pass up the chance talk about it. :D

Defendu

June 2nd, 2007, 10:10 PM

We bombed British troops in Iraq. Accidents happen.

Were those Brits flying a huge flag over their position, where U.S. troops could easily identify it?

nbk2000

June 3rd, 2007, 12:38 AM

The average jew may not be part of the Illuminati (for lack of a better term), but most of the Illuminati are jews.

Go to my FTP folder and you'll find a graphic that shows the ownership of the top 6 media companies. Who owns them? Jews.

Why is 40% of the senate jewish, when they constitute only 2% of the population (at most)?

Why are most radical organizations leadership heavily loaded with jews?

Marx created Communism, and he was a jew.

Radical feminism? Steinem and Dwarkin...jews.

Pro-fag, eco-freak, anti-nuke, pro-pacifist, pro-immigration, liberal, anti-christan, pro-muslim (yes!), pro-race mixing, etc. etc. etc....jews!

AH had it entirely right when he said that jews were the purveyors of filth and strife throughout history. The jews even blew up ships leaving Germany with jewish refugees on it because they weren't going to palestine!

Corona is right in that we should ally with the arabs against the jews, as the jews are the most pressing and insidious problem, since they infiltrate White society and corrupt it from within.

The arabs want to stay where they're at and stay among themselves, and would be quite happy if the Whites never set foot in their lands, and vice-versa.

The Nazis had allied with the arabs, so that's good enough for me.

Interesting link about muslims, arabs, and the middle-east:
http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/terrorists/

knowledgehungry

June 3rd, 2007, 02:22 AM

I don't know whether there is something inherently sinister about jews, but I know this there is an overrepresentation of jews in places of power(in the US at least). They control many companies and hold many places in the government, as well as being involved in many political parties not in power. By they I do not nescessarily mean a jewish conspiracy, rather jewish individuals.

Since power corrupts and the love of money is the roots of all kinds of evil, many jews are no friend to the American working man, does this make them a sinister force bent on global domination? I don't know the answer to that, and personally doubt it. What I do know is that they, like most politicians, CEO's, and bankers, care about their agenda, not what is best for our country, or our countrymen!

nbk2000

June 3rd, 2007, 03:54 PM

The largest American city, New York City, with a population of 8.1 million, had 597 murders in 2002. according to the 2003 FBI Report of Offenses Known to Law Enforcement.

So, for the same population (16 million) it would have about 1180 murders, which would be only 2/3rd of what your city has at 5 murders per day (1,800+), and 1/3rd at 10 per day.

Now, if we went per capita, using the District of Columbia (Washington DC.), at 0.354 per 1,000 people, we'd get 5,664 murders for a city of 16,000,000, more than 3x your lowest and almost twice your highest.

Of course, you have to understand that DC is almost entirely nigger in a part of the country were private gun ownership is virtually banned through impossible permit restrictions (aside from the pols, of course) and the police are almost entirely nigger too. Essentially a corrupt african 3rd world shithole with the seat of American power in the middle of it. :rolleyes:

akinrog

June 3rd, 2007, 04:24 PM

There is an even simpler answer.

Instead of supporting Israel, turn around and support Arabs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKor9oXCqfA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aiwi_BovAx0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0KZfi9F7Wg

Wake up, my dear friend. US Govt. had been, was and is still kissing Arab ass. Have you ever heard of Great Middle East Project?

This project aims at converting all Moslem countries (even those secular ones) into some sort of Islamic fundamentalist monarchies, just like our friends Saudis.

This policy is disguised as promoting so called "mild" Islam.

Actually I was looking for an interview of Bush where he says "The hardest part of my job is to connect Al-Qaeda with Iraq" to which interviewers answers that you can't because Al-Qaeda comes from Saudi Arabia.

US govt. turns his head when our royal friends support terrorism and the members of so called Al-Qaeda which many specialists claim that it was an old operative of our famous three lettered organization, are recruited amongst these folks.

This clearly indicates who is responsible for Fundamentalism.

Especially US (actually multi-national/ supranational) large corporations who are mostly behind the policies of conservative circles have a crush and great tolerance for Islamic Fundamentalists. Regards.

Corona

June 3rd, 2007, 04:49 PM

NBK:

I had no idea there was such a huge difference when it comes to black populated areas.

Karachi has the worst crime because it is full Indian-immigrants. The rest of the country isn't that bad.

And wherever we have easier access to automatic weaponry, the less crime we have.

Wherever we have more cops, the more crime we have.

Cops here are known as "sooar" (piggy) or "khanzeer" (swine). Amazing how in different parts of the world they are called the same thing no matter what the language? :)
----------------

Jews.... they may be nice folk and you may be pals with them, yeah? I am talking about nations.. countries. A country can never afford to have permanent friends.. only permanent interests. (who said that? Washington?)

You want the oil to keep flowing with the least amount of trouble? Dump Stienowitz. Sooner or later, you'll have to do it anyway.

Picket:

I won't get specific... but I will say, Pakistan can say no to the US on many things... but we can never say no to Saudi (or to China). Fortunately, Saudis don't really need anything from us and they don't make demands.
----------------

I have been doing this Karate shit for much of my life.... on and off. So I know what I'm talking about....

It is a fact that the best Karate fighters come not from Asia, but from the US. Why? Because of your "melting pot". It works on ideas too. Different styles, methods, training techniques, all kinds of knowledge blended together to create a superior product.

Same will happen with Islam.

See, Islam has always changed through it's history. Once upon a time, the Governor of a distant land (I think what is now the UAE) complained to Mohamed, "the people there do not perform the same rituals we do and do not keep the same holidays. They do things different.... I am much annoyed!"

Mohamed said, "Don't be. Let them do what they want. God says, difference in Islam is a Blessing". (Which is why we have 80-85 sects, with different laws.)

So creating sects in Islam... coming up with new versions is ALLOWED. The Prophet himself allowed it so it can change according to need. Islam's first mission was "social justice".. getting rid of slavery, etc. Today, it can EASILY pick up a new mission. You want to have a say in what that new mission might be? Go for it.

If Americans think they can get away with it... let NBK (or anyone) come up with a sect of their own.

Already there is an American version of Islam which let a woman lead Friday prayers in a mosque full of men (you'll never see that in Pakistan :p ...Indonesia, yeah, maybe). I am talking about something which white American converts believe in. It is different from what the immigrants bring with them. And it is evolving very fast.

Fact is... America assimilates everything (we are the borg...:eek: ). What is even more impressive is the even faster speed with which American ideas are picked up by the rest of the world.

So you can easily fight ideas with ideas of your own. Come up with your own Islam if you want to stop the Wahabi. Nobody will stop you, as it is allowed.

The British were/are very smart people, the bastards. They found this guy Abdul Wahab passed out in a brothel. They got him to create Wahabism and broke the Ottoman Empire in two (Lawrence of Arabia was involved). They tried again with a guy called Mirza (for muslims in India) but Mirza fell down a toilet and that was the end of that.

First rule of history... history can always be repeated.

See... living in a country (Pakistan) that can kill every person on this planet more than once ... we are not impressed with American firepower. Yeah, it's great.. big deal.

We ARE impressed with America's soft power. Understand what I mean? American ideas are adopted.. IF you are sincere and not trying to pull a fast one.

Akinrog:

I am well aware that Americans are trying to make us MORE fanatic.... here and there.

I am also aware that American visas are given to fanatic people, but denied to ordinary folk like you and I. Why? Because fanatics/fundos are easy to manipulate, that's why.

This is under the theory (a correct one actually) that fanaticism survives under a monarchy or dictatorship. Or fanaticism brings about dictatorship. And such places are easier to control. (whenever we have had elections, the fundo creeps could never get more than 13% of the vote all through Pakistan's history). Fundos do very badly in a democracy.

I am saying such nonsense came out of some Jew's head, I am sure. As NBK has said, these swine control 40% of the US senate. They appear pro-muslim for a reason.

But the march of demographics won't change. As an somewhat amateur student of history, I can guarantee it will be like I said. Putzwitz out on his ass.

Enkidu

June 3rd, 2007, 04:53 PM

@NBK: I looked into murder rates a while back. Pakistan (and MANY other countries) do not publish accepted murder rates. The published rates are much lower than outside estimates and true(r) rates. So, the Pakis probably kill each other more often than the blacks in DC. :eek:

The arabs want to stay where they're at and stay among themselves, and would be quite happy if the Whites never set foot in their lands, and vice-versa.

The 'arabs' may stay in their own lands, but Islam will not. I don't have a problem with westernized middle eastern people, or even 'moderate' (westernized?) Islamic folks. But what about radical factions that, by default, come with Islam? You can't separate 'arabs' from Islam. You have to support both or neither.

Corona

June 3rd, 2007, 05:11 PM

@NBK: So, the Pakis probably kill each other more often than the blacks in DC. :eek:

Probably??? "I reject your reality and substitute my own"....

I am calling you a liar. :)

I know crime reporters who get these stats on their own. Who are you? A punk that lives on the other side of the world? :p You know more about my place or religion than I do? :p

This from a guy who watches FOX. :rolleyes:

The 'arabs' may stay in their own lands, but Islam will not. I don't have a problem with westernized middle eastern people, or even 'moderate' (westernized?) Islamic folks. But what about radical factions that, by default, come with Islam? You can't separate 'arabs' from Islam. You have to support both or neither.

I think I answered that very satisfactorily in the above long post, better than you can understand.

I will be coming to rape your sister sooner than you think. Watch out.

nbk2000

June 3rd, 2007, 05:13 PM

NBK 1:1

The Beast, riding on the back of a giant sandworm, created the Universe and everything in it with a flick of His mighty tail, and all that was in it was His.

NBK 1:2

And The Beast said "Behold, I myself shall rule over men, that they may do my will and be obedient only to me.".

NBK 1:3

And thus The Beast came to live amongst men as one of them. And He was recognized by His mark "2453 AA75 C64D B418 7D36 FD45 E42D AF70 23A3 E16E", and all the nations of the world submitted to Him.

:)

If the arabs, asians, and niggers can have a version of Islam, so can the White man, and I shall be their prophet! :D

Corona+Enkidu...no personal attacks, please.

I'm sure that in 3rd world countries, a lot of crimes are under-reported, as it's considered a matter for the family/tribe to get revenge for, not for law enforcement (what there is of it) to handle.

But, I'll also take the word of someone who's lived there their whole life over government statistics (What did M. Twain say about them?), as to the nature of the crime and who's committing them.

akinrog

June 3rd, 2007, 06:15 PM

[COLOR="Navy"]
But what about radical factions that, by default, come with Islam? You can't separate 'arabs' from Islam. You have to support both or neither.

The most radical faction is present in the sandland to the south of Iraq and their atrocities carried out under Sheriah (Islamic Laws) are being ignored and even tolerated and supported (in UN Human rights commission or whatever it is called) by certain power who is supposed to be waging a "war on terror".

I'm sorry but I would like to ask this question to you since you seem to be a religious person: Do you think it's very strange that a government who is taking a stance of true Christianity (no pun / implication), is promoting the most dangerous and most violent interpretation of Islam?

For example do they need to promote Wahhabism which is the most (retro-)reactionary of all schools /sects?

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

In 2002, the United Nations Committee against Torture criticized Saudi Arabia over the amputations and floggings it carries out under its interpretation of Sharia. The Saudi delegation responded defending "legal traditions" held since the inception of Islam 1400 years ago and rejected interference in its legal system.

Who supported SA in her cause in that committee?

Alex Jones, whom although having some weirdo ideas, I'm a fan of, said US creates its own enemies. Regards.

Corona

June 3rd, 2007, 07:33 PM

Akinrog:

---------------------
Wahhabis came into power by torturing and killing Muslims. They finally took Mecca with the help of the British in 1924 and bombarded the Shrine of the Holy Prophet in Medina. But it was in 1931 that they finally took Medina. And in 1932 the Wahhabis founded the state of Saudi Arabia.

http://www26.brinkster.com/sdolshah1/wahab1.htm

http://www.puzha.com/puzha/selfpublish/1123414056.html
---------------------

Note the British help. In a weird way, the British started the world on the road to 9-11. (I never stop getting a kick out of saying that... apologies to my English friends and family).

Americans have taken over much crap left by the British. But they are slow to realize that some crap just won't work anymore.

I have said here somewhere before that there are two Wahabi countries on the planet. One is Saudi Arabia, the other is USA. For example, I sure as Hell wouldn't send my kids (if I had kids) to an American University to learn about Islam... there is a strong chance they'll pick up Wahabi garbage.

All American Islamic studies, mosques, etc. are funded by Wahabi money.

If I try and get a visa to visit the US, they'll tell me to fuck off. But if someone from Saudi wants a visa... well, he'll get one in 5 minutes.

When 9-11 happened, and those buildings came crashing down, someone next to me said, "well, it was only a matter of time... their own butt-buddies finally bit them on their ass". And I agreed with him.

But I am getting the strong impression that some in US have finally learned what is what and now they intend to cut off Wahabism at the knees (Dubya won't do it... he and his family are in cahoots with them ... I'm talking of later).

In 25 to 50 years, there will be no more Wahabi crap... IF the US cooperates.

Americans searching for instant success will be disappointed. There is no such thing as "instant" in such things. 25-50 years might seem slow, but it will be sure.

Of course, if the "pro-muslim" Jews have their way, the Wahabis will thrive for some time.

Jews, Iranian Shias, and Wahabis are somehow linked. In fact, someone told me (and I agreed with him), "how can America bomb Iran? Jews and Iranians even look like each other (true). How can one cousin bomb another? It'll never happen. This is all a drama to keep us busy".

And then I find that the Shia version of Islam (as found in Iran) was founded by a Jewish Rabbi!
--------------------------------
Abdullah ibn Saba was originally from the city of Sana`a in Yemen. He was a Jewish Rabbi who claimed a conversion to Islam during the caliphate of `Uthman.
..............
Accourding to Sunni historical references, Abdullah Ibn Saba enticed the Muslims to kill Uthman.

He is considered by Sunni writers as the originator of Shi'ism itself .......... The Apostle Paul and ‘Abdallah ibn Saba' were in classical times said to have been "Jewish agents" who infiltrated Christianity and Islam to destroy them from within.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Ibn_Saba
------------------------------
Piece of shit Jews.. then and now. THEY are going to bomb Iran??? Nope. I mean I'm happy about that... who wants a war in their backyard... I'm just saying why and who and what.

An American buddy of mine said this about Jews... "man they got us fucked coming and they got us fucked going... all this support for Israel.. a country that can't even make it's own toasters!"

Come to think of it... anyone see any made-in-Israel products? Huh? Any toasters? And DVD players? Any thing at all? My home is full of Pakistani, Chinese and Japanese products. Anyone know what this leech called Israel does to make a living???

Enkidu

June 11th, 2007, 03:38 AM

I am calling you a liar. :)

I know crime reporters who get these stats on their own. Who are you? A punk that lives on the other side of the world?

You're right, I'm not going to leave my comfortable America to see just how murderous the people in your country are. However, I am a punk with internet access, and therefore I can take advantage of other's work and look up (and you could too, if you wanted to see the truth) the true facts. This document is a little old, but, as I already looked into this, I'm not about to do it all over again just to convince you of your error. This is a UN document.

http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/WCTS/wcts.html

Where's Pakistan on the list? :rolleyes: Also, just for kicks, I looked up Pakistan's murder rates on wikipedia... and guess what? It was the lowest on the list, even below Japan. Believable, huh?

Show me some accepted statistics or just shut the fuck up. :rolleyes:

The 'arabs' may stay in their own lands, but Islam will not. I don't have a problem with westernized middle eastern people, or even 'moderate' (westernized?) Islamic folks. But what about radical factions that, by default, come with Islam? You can't separate 'arabs' from Islam. You have to support both or neither.

I think I answered that very satisfactorily in the above long post, better than you can understand.

What about the current spread of radical Islam in Britain? If the British are so good at coming up with Islamic sects, why haven't they done it again? Even if you were to say that 'westernized' Islam is a sect of its own, that doesn't negate the fact that the radical sects remain and (sometimes) flourish. I stand by what I said.

I'm sorry but I would like to ask this question to you since you seem to be a religious person: Do you think it's very strange that a government who is taking a stance of true Christianity (no pun / implication), is promoting the most dangerous and most violent interpretation of Islam?

For example do they need to promote Wahhabism which is the most (retro-)reactionary of all schools /sects?

akinrog, I'm not sure I understand your question.

I assume you are referencing the youtube videos you posted? I didn't see much about Wahhabism in those. (As an aside, I was sick to my stomach as I watched those clips. The journalism was absolutely terrible and extremely biased. In an attempt not to throw the baby out with the bath water, I watched them.) I didn't think that those so-called 'reports' gave the whole story. Yes, we give aid to the Palestinian leaders, and that trickles down to the Jihadists. What's the point?

On to your question, Yes, I am religious, actually wacko religious by most standards. (However, I pride myself on being able to look at things from other perspectives, even atheistic and materialistic points of view.) I don't think it's strange that we (allegedly) support extremists. Our government and our leaders are, even if they are 'smart,' generally idiots, although there are a few bright lights.

On human rights, as I have said, the US has always turned a blind eye to human rights, especially if our interests are involved. It's sad.

Corona

June 11th, 2007, 04:49 AM

Enkidu:

Oh wow.... you had this all bottled up just waiting for Roguesci to come back? :p

You can say what nonsense you like... you have been seen here spouting off pre-packaged nonsense which I logically rebutted. But when you ran out of arguments... "he must be lying... HE MUST BE!!!". :D :D

We don't put everything on the net, you ninny. I know you are a new guy so you probably don't recall Mega saying something like, "90% of the knowledge of Man is still on paper!". Get it? I read books like THIS one (see link... written by a cop I know... nothing to do with murder, but I am making a point) You don't have access to such material. http://sparky.infinitehosting.net/images/cartheft.jpg

I am giving you true stats brought forward by crime reporters whose job it is to report on such things. They conduct independent surveys on their own. I have stats of only two cities of Pakistan... Karachi and Peshawar (which is why I only mentioned Karachi to NBK for comparison). I do not have the murder stats for Pakistan, though I have it on good authority they are far better than the stats for Karachi (Karachi being the worst place in Pak, crimewise). Deal with it. What is, is.

Nothing anyone might say would make a dent in your skull.... but what FOX or your Jew York Times would say is acceptable to you, I am sure. OK... how about this thing that just happened yesterday somewhere in America? Some family got shot to hell in their own house? I can watch FOX too, you know. :)

I certainly wouldn't want to go to America and get killed either. :eek:

Of course, losing your arguments against me on many points, you are now left with nothing but to imply that I am fibbing. :rolleyes:

As for you being murdered if visiting Pakistan... no, I can promise you, you will not be moidered. Sure, you might have your legs broke.. but moiderized? Nawwww. I am not the only one who will be able to smell FOX-news-fundo on your breath.

I can see where you are coming from... sure have started sounding Yahoodi-like. :p (Yahoodi = Jew, Yahoodistan = Isreal).

I also "stand by what I said". And Kid.. since I have home advantage on the topic, I am far more credible than you are.

--------------

About the current perceived radicalization of a small portion of British Muslims.... well, when you create a force you have to give it sanctuary. Which is what they have had to do since early 20th Century. That is a principle of creating movements. You have to give their followers sanctuary.

There is a reason why Wahabis and Mirza-followers, BOTH, find Britain such a neat place to spread their crap from.

Point is, they were up to no good. Now the pigeons come home to roost. They are welcome to them.

If the British are so good at coming up with Islamic sects, why haven't they done it again?

I am sure someone from Britain would give you a more comprehensive answer.

I think they have lost their touch since after WW2 or were made to step aside. Everything that the British did.. most of their causes, mistakes and triumphs... has been taken up by America.

And though NBK believes it would be easier to do today because of advanced mas marketing... I believe the opposite. Those were simpler times. These days, everyone finds something unacceptable or disputable or can check out the other guy thanks to info-tech.... I doubt if another Wahabi sect can be created today as the British created long time ago.

Since Enkidu can't and won't get it, please everyone read Akinrog's post again. These guys are supported by 'the West". I'm from Pakistan and I'm saying it. Akinrog is from elsewhere (I am guessing Turkey) and he's saying it. And that is that.

Enkidu

June 11th, 2007, 07:03 AM

@Corona: Once again, your logic trumps all. :rolleyes: Just how many ad hominem attacks can you fit into one post? Your arguments, which, at one time, were somewhat intelligent and interesting, have degenerated into simple flaming because you have nothing else to say.

Read my posts before replying. You might be able to at least continue in the discussion.

Why should I take the time to go back and find journal and news articles for you? I already studied crime rates (in relation to 'illegal' drugs actually), and am quite satisfied with my findings. I've given you at least some hard fact from independent sources, while all that you've said is we should take your word for it because you're a 'native son.'

As for akinrog's question, I addressed the aspect that you brought up. However, I thought his question might have dealt with religion rather than "the West supports radical Islam and it turns around and bits them in the ass," which we've already been over many times and with which I agree. (As I've said before.)

This particularly amused me:

I can see where you are coming from... sure have started sounding Yahoodi-like. (Yahoodi = Jew, Yahoodistan = Isreal).

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Keep flaming. :rolleyes:

Edit: And, BTW, I don't watch Fox News. Wrong again. :D If there's anything else you'd like to know, just ask. :)

Corona

June 11th, 2007, 08:56 AM

Oh, I've said plenty. Your turn now, is what I waiting for... and still waiting.

You have not provided any proof that I can believe, that all of Pakistan is as violent as you like to say. All you have said is "the Pakis probably kill each other more often than the blacks in DC."

Probably??? Are you sure or aren't you?

Why are you trying so hard to hammer on this very small point to prove me wrong? So that you can say that all Muslims are violent? Kid... if all Muslims were violent and wanted you dead.. you would be dead. You have no idea how much grief 1.5-2 billion people can cause even if armed with sticks and stones. If Pakistan was involved in 9-11 just two buildings would not have fallen in Jew York.... all of Jew York would have turned into a crater with a mushroom cloud overhead.

I know it is a favorite theme of the Yahoodi inspired media that Pakistan will somehow let O'Binbin have a nuke or two (which is where your argument seems to be headed). You think we are crazy??? :p :p

All I did was provide stats of Karachi, not Pakistan. Yet you claim to know more about all of Pakistan than I do??? Up to now you have given me no hard facts that I could not rebut... sorry.

It is this very attitude that makes trouble for Americans around the world. You don't realize the real situation (Iraqis will greet us with flowers!) until it is too late... BANG.

Btw, the phrase "native son" was used by NBK. I suggest you don't drag him into our little circus. He makes me nervous and you should feel the same. Being a "native son" btw, is a heavy point in my favor. One can't dismiss it out of hand.

As for FOX... you were cross with me when I dissed FOX. So don't tell me you don't watch FOX. Why are you ashamed to admit it now? :confused:

In sincerity, I apologize for being short. My only excuse is that someone who singles out 'Fox News' (the only rightist network, so obviously it wasn't selected at random) as crap makes me a bit pissy.

Your words Kid. :rolleyes:

I am done with Enkidu as he is not consistent and seems to make it up as he goes along. If anyone else has anything intelligent to say or ask in this thread "how can I stop myself from hugging the nearest Muslim", please feel free. "They all hate us!" is trite. And so is "they want to convert us all"... as if we give a damn...

I suggest we find answers in history to try and change tomorrow. I have done my best to provide you a glimpse of Islamic law and history and the immense diversity of Islamic people. Any questions, please feel free.

nbk2000

June 11th, 2007, 10:01 AM

I told the two of you to lay off the personal attacks, but you both continued.

So, you both get to take a vacation, and hopefully take the hint that it can become permanent.

hatal

June 11th, 2007, 02:43 PM

NBK 1:2

And The Beast said "Behold, I myself shall rule over men, that they may do my will and be obedient only to me.".

They forgot, didn't they?

nbk2000

June 12th, 2007, 03:09 AM

I remember in school, when some kid would get called up by the teacher for some infraction, how some other kid would always snicker at them.

I hated punks like that.

LibertyOrDeath

June 12th, 2007, 07:10 AM

Regarding the issue of Jewish power, I strongly recommend the works of Kevin MacDonald, a psychology professor at California State University at Long Beach. He explains why Jews have so often been at the helm of many intellectual movements -- often of the leftist variety, but more recently including neoconservatism.

Essentially, neoconservativism is a kind of phony US patriotism coupled with jingoism against the Muslim world. It's a movement that was started by Jews for the ulterior motive of benefitting Israel. It led to the Iraq war, and it's causing US saber-rattling against Iran. (Notice how the US doesn't seem nearly as concerned about North Korea getting a nuke? That's because North Korea isn't seen as a threat to Israel; Iran is.)

Here's a taste of Prof. MacDonald's excellent work:

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/UnderstandJI-3.htm

akinrog

June 12th, 2007, 01:55 PM

I hope this does not translate into a necromancy. Calm down gentlemen.

akinrog, I'm not sure I understand your question.

I assume you are referencing the youtube videos you posted?

The journalism was absolutely terrible and extremely biased. In an attempt not to throw the baby out with the bath water, I watched them.) I didn't think that those so-called 'reports' gave the whole story.

Youtube videos are about a very very very strange phenomenon where a government (together with its predecessors and most probably with decsendants (sp?)) who is posing as and supposed to be staging a "war on terror" was actually either turning his head while somebody financing terrorists and even helping that somebody financing the same and / or actively training them for certain ends (like mujahedeen who are now al-Qaeda members), thus becomes actual entity behind these terrorist factions.

And videos of not only Alex Jones but also Michael Moore show evidence of the complicity of certain three letter agency in an event, of which you are blaming Pakistan for. This event involves giving money to a certain terrorist who is the planner of such attacks. A.J. and M.M. videos clearly indicate that that money comes from that certain three letter agency and paid to the terrorist in question via Pakistani Secret Service.

I believe those videos "too" do not give the true story.

I didn't see much about Wahhabism in those. (As an aside, I was sick to my stomach as I watched those clips. Yes, we give aid to the Palestinian leaders, and that trickles down to the Jihadists. What's the point?

You should not be seeing Wahhabism in those videos or any other place in Western Media, since any mention of wahhabism in bad shade by Western media is forbidden by unwritten rules for the sake of certain interests.

The videos do not mention about palestinian leaders, IIRC, Plutzer (sp?) Award Winner David Kersh's interview contains such remarks as giving aid to fanatic Sunnite Moslem factions in Lebanon to defeat Hezbollah.

If you want me to clearly indicate the point for you, then let me try to explain the point: Assume a hypothetical situation where a cop first sell drugs to an individual and then arrest the very person who such cop just sold drugs to, for the possession of drugs.

Is it legal? I don't think so.

The current situation poses exact analogy for this political maneveours disguised as a phony war on terror movement.

And if you are old enough, you must be remembering the al-Qaeda as freedom fighters while they are staging asymmetrical warfare against Russians in Afghanistan.

However their name was different back then: they were called Mujaheedeen.

Who trained them, who supported them? When you answer those questions, you can understand white sheep and black sheep (or sheep and goats in Bible) very clearly.

On to your question, Yes, I am religious, actually wacko religious by most standards. (However, I pride myself on being able to look at things from other perspectives, even atheistic and materialistic points of view.)

You being religious, is not my point.

I don't think it's strange that we (allegedly) support extremists. Our government and our leaders are, even if they are 'smart,' generally idiots, although there are a few bright lights.

It's not an allegation. Everything started with father Bush becoming three letter agency director and Reds invaded Afghanistan. I am sorry to say but for more than 3 decades, religious fundamentalism is promoted by the same power. And now here we are, a globally retro-reactive world.

Given the above support and promotion of the Islamic fundamentalism by certain power, according to you logic, a cop who sells drugs to an individual and arrest him for possession of drugs is normal? Regards

Kaydon

June 12th, 2007, 02:03 PM

The war in Iraq is a Jewish plan to have us fight and die for their interests.:rolleyes:

There's a really simple and easy solution but because George W. Bush is nothing more than a Jewish puppet it won't come to be. Simple non-stop bombing and bring a real Holocaust to their precious land. They think Hitler committed atrocities against their people, they haven't seen anything yet. If White America would wake up, then there would be hell to pay.:cool:

This shit would be a non-issue had America remained a homogeneous country... :mad:

I hate everyone.:)

So how would I stem the tide? Executions, bombings and fucking out right sadistic behavior towards anyone who supports Islam. :D:eek:

nbk2000

June 12th, 2007, 11:46 PM

Assume a hypothetical situation where a cop first sell drugs to an individual and then arrest the very person who such cop just sold drugs to, for the possession of drugs.

Actually, this is what's known as a 'reverse sting', and is legal in the US. And has been for many years.

Bugger

June 13th, 2007, 12:24 AM

That would, fairly and squarely, be entrapment, especially where it is clear that the person who bought the drugs from the pig would not have otherwise bought drugs from anyone. Cases have been thrown out of Court all over the U.S.A. under those circumstances, and in my country, on account of entrapment.

LibertyOrDeath

June 13th, 2007, 04:30 AM

The war in Iraq is a Jewish plan to have us fight and die for their interests.:rolleyes: That's exactly what it was. Of course not all Jews were in on it, but a Jewish cabal in the upper ranks of government and advisory positions was absolutely responsible for it:

White man's burden (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical.

Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC31Aa01.html)

Democratizing Islam (http://www.acpr.org.il/publications/policy-papers/pp141-xs.html)

To democratize Islam it will be necessary for the United States to conquer Iraq and other Islamic regimes and maintain an occupation force for two or three decades, as was done in post-war Japan and Germany.

Israel Shares Blame on Iraq Intelligence, Report Says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36694-2003Dec4?language=printer)

The spies who pushed for war (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html)

And now that Saddam is out of the way, a lot of the neocons are pushing for the US to attack Iran. Here's an example of such propaganda from a neocon Jew:

Bomb Iran (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-muravchik19nov19,0,1681154.story)

There's a really simple and easy solution but because George W. Bush is nothing more than a Jewish puppet it won't come to be. Simple non-stop bombing and bring a real Holocaust to their precious land. They think Hitler committed atrocities against their people, they haven't seen anything yet. If White America would wake up, then there would be hell to pay.:cool:The solution is to purge Zionist influence from the US government, and then to cut off all political and military aid to Israel. Let them fight their own battles against the Arabs.

This shit would be a non-issue had America remained a homogeneous country... :mad: Agreed. Actually, I don't mind having a few non-Whites around, but this business of one ethnic group infiltrating the government and media and using their influence to dictate US policy needs to end.

So how would I stem the tide? Executions, bombings and fucking out right sadistic behavior towards anyone who supports Islam. :D:eek:That's what the neocon Jews want you to think. Why play into their hands? All we need to do is cut off Israel and stop undesirables from entering the country.

nbk2000

June 13th, 2007, 05:24 AM

That would, fairly and squarely, be entrapment...

It's perfectly legal here, because you are committing a crime by mere possession of the narcotics, regardless of whether you are buying or selling them, from cops or otherwise.

Without American support and supplies, Israel would wither on the vine, or rather, be washed off the face of the earth by a tsunami of sand niggers. :p

akinrog

June 13th, 2007, 08:37 PM

Actually, this is what's known as a 'reverse sting', and is legal in the US. And has been for many years.

I assume such tricks are always pulled off by pigs and goats everywhere. However, I don't think they can do it explicitly.

I mean they cannot sell the drug to the victim and immediately arrest the guy in question (unless the person in question is a known drug dealer).

In case of a drug dealer I know organized crime police (as covert agents) do such things.

And, I know some occasions that they plant weed or white into your pocket. :eek: Regards.

Kaydon

June 13th, 2007, 09:42 PM

Well I believe in the Constitution and the Constitution didn't say anything about giving ShakaZulu or Jose citizenship. Said only Whitey was to be the Citizen.

Establishing a Uniform Naturalization Rule

Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: . . .

The whole "all men are created equal" argument is also just.. stupid.

I am amazed at how many people think that this line has something to do with human genetics. This line was written by Thomas Jefferson. The statement that "all men are created equal" is not a genetic thesis. Indeed, all the research he did on race (as printed in the Notes) shows the opposite conclusion. So if you read the Federalist Papers (which explain the Constitution and the thoughts behind the Declaration et al), you'll find that the Declaration is an open letter to the British Government giving them reasons for separation (a general statement on racial equality would have no place here as it had nothing to do with British-American relations).What Jefferson was getting at was that the King is no better than any other member of the Empire and is not qualified to rule simply because he was born to royalty. "All men are created equal" is a repudiation of notions of royalty, not of race. The fact that this line has been twisted into an argument for racial equality shows you how nefarious egalitarians are -- distorting our founding documents to suit their purposes.

Of course, if someone wants to debate race, etc.. We could surely arrange a topic about that, unless NBK has a problem with discussions of that nature.

Anyway, back on the topic.. more or less.

Put another way, how is the Iraqi war, the bogus ’war on terror’ actually a war FOR the US? What’s in it for us? Cheap oil? No, have not seen that yet. Peace in the Middle East? Not even close. Earning respect from the Muslim world for our evenhandedness in dealing w/ the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? No way! A prostrate Arabia that Israel & her US-proxy bully can push around? Bingo! We have a winner here.

All benefits go to Israel, so I think it’s safe to say it’s being fought for the Jews, mostly by idealistic, clueless young Americans (at least in the lower ranks) acting as little more than mercenaries who want to believe in something, anything, to justify the waste of American lives, their own & their comrades. But though they mean well, they really are just being used like pawns in a chess game, as cannon fodder, like Vietnam II, & completely accepting of vile government propaganda. Our soldiers are victims too, of political spin created by cynical old men, willing to send young men off to die or be maimed in their wars, for their own petty egos & political legacies.

Bush & all other Israeli ass-licking presidents are nothing but errand boys for the moneyed elite of international bankers & financiers, a supra-national club, citizens of the world, who have multiple homes the world over, & who claim no particular country besides the idea of greater Israel, unless it suits them, or by doing so may fool the yokels into thinking these puppet masters are patriotic Americans.

Unless you’re fighting to keep Mexicans OUT, you’re spinning your wheels. The real invasion is happening w/ the blessings of corporate America, regardless of political party. Bush is blowing smoke up our arses. We will not prevail in Iraq or the region, because we’ll only make more enemies than friends as long as we allow Likud-party Jewish agents & their useful gentile idiots to direct US foreign policy from both the State Dep’t & the White House.

I thought the American people had learned the lessons of Vietnam, including that you cannot fight other people’s wars for them, & they did for a time, but a whole new generation has come of age since then, & they have no memory of that betrayal of trust by their government against those at home & on the battle field.

Bush says the soldiers are fighting for my freedom - pigs twat they are!

That’s just more propaganda, another lofty platitude of abstract hokum, our freedoms are being reduced exponentially under Bush II. How people can be so gullible to believe this tripe is almost beyond me, but I know w/ TV all things are possible. Hell, now Uncle Samuel can read my email, my library book check-out list, tap my phone, & anything else in the name of the ‘war on terror’.

No, they are not fighting for my freedom in Iraq. If we pull out tomorrow, I don’t foresee the Iraqi Republican Guard launching a D-Day like invasion of the US. Nor will the Osama Bogeyman infiltrate, unless he swims the Rio Grande.

Time to call the bull crapola what it is - crapola.

If you need to delude yourselves into thinking there is some noble purpose behind the waste of American lives in Iraq, so be it. Just don't expect me to swallow that Kosher-Hollywood marketing blitz about the US making the Middle East safe for democracy, as I know that line was already used to justify WWI, under another delusional despotic do-gooder, mad church-boy, Tommy 'Woodrow' Wilson.

Unintended consequences can be a real bitch. Tell George about them, but in a single page memo, as he does not like to read & gets bored quickly w/ detailed history or anything requiring more than a circle-jerk of clusterfucking yes-men & negro yes-women.

I still think we should bomb them, then leave them to their own devices and see how long they last without Whitey. :p

However, I think NBK said it best.

Hitler has already shown Europe the solution for undesirable populations:

GENOCIDE

Your enemies cease being a threat when they cease to exist.

Vote Ron Paul '08! ....He's the best we can hope for.

Charles Owlen Picket

June 16th, 2007, 10:27 PM

I certainly realize that this is OT to a degree but as long as we are discussing Islamic idiosyncrasies I wonder if anyone could shed some light on what the clit-lick tongue sound Islamic women make at the drop of a hat....(?) You know what I mean; the "Woooo-Woooo" sound made by the tongue wagging back and forth while the vocal cords and breath work in chorus.

I have never understood what that sound means nor where it came from.....other than Islamic women preform it while in public, etc. It seems quite popular and intriguing (as it makes little sense, superficially).

nbk2000

June 17th, 2007, 01:16 AM

If I remember correctly, it's actually a word that means 'No'.

It's like when little kids close their eyes, plug their ears, and say 'it's not happening'.

They chant that word as some kind of ritual denial of an unpleasant reality.

Corona

June 17th, 2007, 02:40 AM

Despite my reluctance to continue in this thread, I feel I can answer some of Picket's question.

When we didn't have cable or satellite TV, we used to install very tall antennas and hook them to powerful boosters so we could catch Dubai TV. When the weather was just right, we could get reasonable reception. We didn't understand a word of Arabic (and still don't) but they had some very nice english language programming.

Anyway, I was shocked to discover this godawful sound you mention on the TV one day. And I kept running into some woman making it again and again.

It was obvious to anyone watching that this sound is made at weddings. It is a "fun sound" made by Arab women only (never men).

Lucky for us, Asian women are incapable of making this highly irritating sound.

Only Xena (on the TV show) used to make this sound for war. Similar.. but worse... than the woo-woo sound we used to make when playing cowboys and Injuns.

This is not a sound made by "Islamic women".... it is only made by "Arab" women of some countries, not all; it seems celebratory in nature; and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam itself. It is pure Arab culture and has pre-Islamic pagan roots.

It also seems to be an African thing.

I searched and got this:

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

It is called "zaghareet" and I remember that scene from Lawrence of Arabia.
---------------------
ZAGHAREET: a Middle Eastern/African ululation performed to honor someone, or to express joy or sorrow, or as a welcome - a sustained sound created by rapidly trilling the tongue at the back of the roof of your mouth in a loud, high pitch while covering your mouth with your hand

http://people.tribe.net/42f8d563-cf9d-449d-b8af-35ec8d4535df/blog/912bdba7-911d-4efe-89eb-2ad88c3ba6e5
------------------------
Zaghareet (pronounced zah guh reet). This is a high-pitched ululation done with the tongue.

It is a sound of celebration associated with weddings, parties and other joyful occasions.

Within the context of belly dancing, it is a favorite tool for expressing approval for whatever another dancer is doing at the time and sometimes dancers themselves will zaghareet to express how fun they’re having at the moment.

http://www.goldengoddess.ca/articles.html
------------------------

NBK is talking about the word "La" which means "No".

To my ears, it doesn't sound like "la la la"... it is just a nonsense sound. Though I suppose if you can say la la la in the right way, it would produce something close to this sound.

Charles Owlen Picket

June 17th, 2007, 11:05 AM

Frankly, I have heard this at funerals televised from the middle-east. So actually I think it just may be the "NO-NO-NO" thing mentioned by NBK. I have unquestionably heard it in unhappy contexts to my Caucasian ears - unless they are happy that their kids blew the shit out of themselves and took a bunch of women and kids with them....(OK....maybe they were happy). There is NO way I can understand, that's why I ask these questions.

Their culture doesn't treasure the Winter Lands, the forests, women, the sail & sea like northern Europe. It's quite foreign; therefore the questions.

Corona

June 17th, 2007, 11:28 AM

When it comes to arab culture, it is as foreign to me as it is to you.

About their songs, I asked someone who lived in UAE what these guys sing about... he said, it was like "my camel had little camels and that makes me a lucky bloke". Traditional Bedouin music is the music of a very simple folk, I am told, who are happy with simple things.

However, most Arabs aren't Bedouins. I think you have the impression that all Arab culture is Bedu culture and they don't have such concepts in their song/story tradition as those you mentioned (specially "women"). I believe that is wrong and would be an unfair generalization. I have seen dubbed Arab movies (Egyptian) which were far better than ours or Indian movies. So they aren't exactly intellectually deprived (though I can't say the same for Saudi). Culture seems to be quite rich... I just don't have access to it because of the language barrier.

As for the "sail and sea", don't forget that Arabs were a highly nautical people (Sinbad the Sailor). Much of the muslim empire was spread through ships. India was conquered by the arabs using their navy as was Spain. All the navy ranks we use... "Captain", "Admiral", etc. are from the arabic language.

So I'm pretty sure they know the sea and sail in their culture and sing about it too. The people of UAE and Oman started out as pirates, you know.

nbk2000

June 17th, 2007, 02:49 PM

To simplify:

Islam is a religion.
Arab is a culture

You can be one, the other, or both.

But being one of those things does not automatically mean you are the other.

Now, that LALALALALALA sound is one that I've only heard when seeing ragheads at the scene of a bombing (when they're the target :)[BTW, here's a hilarious video (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7fc_1181665828&c=1) that made me LOL.]) and the women are doing that shit. I've always assumed it was the denial (no) chant. If they do it at weddings too...or the men anyways...what does that say? ;) :p

From my understanding, arabs and asians (chinese/jap) had excellent pirates and coastal sailors, but they never ventured into the deep blue like the Europeans did, circumnavigating the earth and all that.

Corona

June 18th, 2007, 03:39 AM

About the video...ouch.... poor guy! How long can one stay alive in THAT condition? Anyone know?

I didn't hear that sound in the video.. I did hear someone saying something like "Yala, yala, yala...".. I think that is "hurry up!" or "go go go!", not sure.

The horrible sound Arab women make, that Picket was talking about.. what for the sake of convenience I would call the Xena-war-cry.... can be heard about 2 minutes into this video of a wedding in Iraq:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HdpjQAhY8s

From the little I have seen of Arabic TV and movies, if a guy makes that sound, he is probably some kind of a Poofter.

Arabs and Chinese had sea trade links with each other, so it was not just sailing in coastal waters. The Chinese were guilty of cultural snobbery however. For example THIS guy...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4593717.stm

Admiral Zheng He, really went places that others couldn't. He is even said to have gone as far America and circumnavigated the world (not proven). His ships certainly were capable.

But then, coming back to China, either he.... or his king... said that there is nothing the Chinese could possibly learn from the savages who live outside and they should stay at home and not have any links with the outside world. Which is what happened to China for the next few hundred years.

Arabs played the exact role in history that you and Mega keep talking about when you talk about RogueSci. That one must collect knowledge from different sources and translate and spread it around ("As muslims, you must gather knowledge even if you have to go as far as Cheen (China)"... Mohamed). That is what the Arabs did, specially when it came to Maritime history. They got a lot of their stuff from the Greeks, for example, and improved upon it. See Astrolabe:

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

They spread by sea to China and some medieval sources say they even went as far as the Americas (from the Atlantic side, I assume).

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

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=13166&hl=maritime

What the Arabs pioneered in navigation and what the Chinese pioneered in shipbuilding, was incorporated and improved upon by later maritime heroes.

Why do Americans drink coffee today (I don't touch that drink, thanks)? Because long long ago, the Arabs discovered it and passed it on. Just an everyday example.

Ygarl

July 14th, 2007, 11:43 AM

The problem with the entire situation is not religious.
ALL the major religions have embraced or currently embrace violence for their purposes - including Buddhism (re: the multiple sects of nijitsu throughout medieval Japan's history, etc.).

The problem is intolerance - if you will simply not tolerate other people's rights to believe differently - if you will not realise that the differences between other types of people are acceptable, then you will feel disgust and/or derision at others. Then as lower quality people, you will feel justified at doing whatever you feel you need to do to people to get what you want.

This includes land, oil, respect, money, power, worship or whatever other things you feel you want.

It's not religion to feel others are inferior by nature. It is psychopathy.

Inferiority (or superiority) should be decided by meritocracy - not color, religion, geography, or culture.

However, this is the real world.
So - to return to topic:
The only realistic way to stop Muslims from attacking the West is as follows:

Do as our silk undies and Rolex wearing Muslim suggests.
Make all the "oppressed" and "down-trodden" mujahadeen and jihadeen so happy with their lot that they would be complete idiots to complain about it.
It would then be impossible to recruit from the lower end of the market - so to speak - as it simply won't exist.
Also - it might be a very, VERY good idea to make sure that the more radical Muslim teachers and clerics in the West get either very happy lottery wins, or even more unhappy mysterious (and sudden...) fatal illness to ensure they stop recruiting in the West.

Unfortunately, it will have to take place at grass-roots level in the absolutely worst areas first. The problem is, the very radical clerics in several Muslim communities in the UK are aggressively calling middle-class men from their fold to join Jihad.

This shows the problem is very complex, but once these preachers are stopped one way or the other - and no further extreme Jihadist clerics are created back in Pakistan, Afganistan, Lebanon, Jordan, etc., the problem will be solved.

By the way - surely it would have been far cheaper to simply pay off Saddam Hussein for instance, than to have invaded Iraq?

Jome skanish

July 14th, 2007, 07:13 PM

Stop muslim immigration to Europe and North America. In my opinion, the very idea of accepting "refugees" as a way to save the world is bullshit.

Those who manages to get here are mostly the richer middle class, and if saving 3-rd worlders lives are what we should with our tax money, helping them in-situ is many times more efficient.

Those regions who "produce" most immigrants does not do that due to geography or climate, they end up in wars and poverty because their general culture is anti-intellectual, tribalist, islamist or whatnot.

Bringing "those poor people" here will not help the 95% who are unable to leave, it will only bring us those very same problems.

And what is so great with this multiculturalism all our politicians are bragging about and treating as inevitable? Replacing the very people who made the first world first with the people who made the third world third? Please...

"we have to be generous and open to muslims and islam, because when we're the minority* they will do the same things to us" - Jens Orback, minister of integration and gender-equality in the govt. of Sweden 2004.

*(meaning the Swedes)

The western world are indeed going to hell in a hand basket, our politicians are talking about replacing us and our culture with other people and no one even lifts an eyebrow since hating everything about your heritage is what you are expected to do if you are a white person. And on MTV we see tough blacks singing about killing each other while most whites shown are emo/fags in one way or the other.

All of these things are symptoms of a disease that is tainting our society. The worship of weakness, Christianity and it's secularized bastard son (socialism) taken to its extreme in the self-hate, pity, hedonism and rootlessness of modern culture.

I'm not a racist, but I'd prefer western people to be truly racist any day over those self-hating occidentalist scum spitting at everything they inherit and not giving a shit about what their children will one day inherit or not.

In short, we need to get our asses in gear and become what we want to be, not what THEY want to mold us into. And remember, no one can stem the tide alone!

Corona

July 15th, 2007, 03:12 AM

Do as our silk undies and Rolex wearing Muslim suggests.
Make all the "oppressed" and "down-trodden" mujahadeen and jihadeen so happy with their lot

Nobody gets this joke, which I made a long time ago.

I was not talking about economic conditions of the common man... or if they feel oppressed or anything....

I was simply talking about the fact that if you are a Muslim fundamentalist (male), you can't wear silk underwear or anything made of gold. It is something you are not supposed to do, period.

So I was joking that if you can make O'Binbin wear silk underwear and a gold watch, his "rep" will drop to ZERO amongst his fanatic buddies. (because he would be violating an islamic rule)

This means that if you know your favorite Muslim wears silk underwear, you can marry him.

I hope everyone gets it now. :p

Ygarl

July 17th, 2007, 10:20 AM

I was simply talking about the fact that if you are a Muslim fundamentalist (male), you can't wear silk underwear or anything made of gold. It is something you are not supposed to do, period.

So I was joking that if you can make O'Binbin wear silk underwear and a gold watch, his "rep" will drop to ZERO amongst his fanatic buddies. (because he would be violating an islamic rule)

I get it completely (and did before)!
I mean, if you dilute the culture of fundamentalist Islam to the point where the pay only lip service to it, then Jihad is not a possiblity. This is precisely what has generally happened to the Roman Catholic religion...
"Crusade" is something that springs to mind, along with "Inquisition" and "Hammer of Witches", "Heresy", and lots of other fun phrases which people used to associate with the Catholic church. The fun fights betweens Gnostics, Eastern Orthodox, Hellenist, Roman, and Judaic Christians, etc etc look a lot like the ones between Shi'ites, B'nai B'rith, and Sunnis really.

All that really happened is the Christian religion got diluted by secularism. Now it would be a pretty crazy suggestion that the Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons declare each other "heretical" and start spouting Bible verses and large-caliber machine guns at each other to cleanse the world of each other.

1000 years ago, this was not the case. The wars by just Constantine alone when scaled up to today more closely resemble World War 2 than anything else. And the Crusades very closely resemble the Iraq wars in scale today... except it's more specific than general in scope.

Anyway, my point is: the cure to radicalisation is simply secularization.
The really extreme people will just seem like nutters - not leaders.

Worked for the Christians...

Rbick

July 18th, 2007, 06:11 PM

It bothers me that people who believe in teachings of the Bible or in God at all are regarded as fanatical. Christianity as I have been taught, and how I understand it, is based on compassion, love (and not just for other Christians, but for people as a whole) , good values and morals, and doing the right thing. If you don't believe in God, then ultimatley you don't believe in concequence, so why not go kill your parents and rape a baby? Life would be pointless. Roman Catholics seem to portray the wrong view of Christianity to the public with their weird legalism, which ironically is spoken against in the Bible. They've let thousands of years of pointless traditions and rules get in the way of a relationship with God. And the fact that different denominations fight each other over the same concept is just stupid.

Dispite what I believe, there are of course fanatical Christians. Like you said, the Crusades. Why did that happen? Well you can pretty much twist words into what ever you want them to say. And I do agree that secularism has removed most religious fanatics from our current society. However, look at where our society is headed. It definatley isn't looking good. I watched 5 minutes of MTV and my IQ went down 50 points. And now all I want to do is screw drunk bitches and buy things! Would you rather have fanatics crashing planes into buildings or a society that is greedy, selfish, and willing to ruin peoples lives or even kill others for their own benefit? Seems like a lose lose situation here... (Example: The "X" corporation is making more money than us. Here is 5 million dollars to bomb the shit out of their building and kill as many people as possible). Yes, thousands of people have died at the hands of fanatical Muslims. But how many more thousands of people have been killed as a result of godlessness, lack of values, and greed (Stalin killed 40 million of his own people. Or how about how the US massacred Native Americans and took their land?) More people are killed in the US by drunk drivers, knives, guns, lead pipes, ect. than extremists will ever be able to kill (in the US).

So whether the culture of the Middle East, or any culture, is secularized or not, I think we are going to continue to run into problems. Maybe not the same type of problems, but definatley of the same magnitude.

Ygarl

July 19th, 2007, 08:03 AM

Ah... the secularism = lack of moral responsibility argument.

I am not advocating chaos and fighting in the streets between corporations - I am advocating a personal sense of right and wrong backed by ENFORCED law. Not this crap we have now, where laws are passed to keep the powerful in power while crushing resistance amongst dissenters.

A lack of belief in Deity or following Christianity does not equal a lack of belief in consequence. All Christians (or Theists/Deists) are not fanatics. FANATICS are fanatics. My point was Christians can also be - and have been - as extreme fanatics if not more so.

Society's failings have been pointed out of 2000 years or more. All societies fail - period.

ROME said their society was failing - and it was.Rome's lasted 400 years. Sumer's lasted about the same. Egypt's lasted 1500 years or more. China's Golded Age lasted over a thousand years. Germany's empire (the medieval one, not the pathetic failure in the 40's) lasted nearly 500 years.

The people in charge of the decimation of the Native Americans not only believed they were good God-fearing Christians (and almost all Protestants at that) - they believed they were doing the poor savages a favor, moving them off of land they did not know how to use properly, and saving thier souls from damnation if not their bodies.

The argument of secularism = death and destruction is completely false. I will tell you why: since the dawn of the current "secular age" - say, the 1940's - every known mass-murder or well-known famine or outrage has lead to some sort of effort being made to stop or relieve it.
The same cannot be said before this time...
Stalin? Europe just left him to it.

Are you honestly comparing MTV to large terrorist activities?
Do you honestly believe the level of DUI is higher now (per capita of drivers) than it was in - say - the 40's or 30's? You want to look that up, mate.

How about murder? The murder rate has been dropping in the US and throughout Europe steadily for over 20 years.

Drugs? No one has any reliable stats whatsoever about this. People have been smoking opium/heroin recreationally for thousands of years, as well as marijuana. Ask the people under the Taliban: are you Godless - you produce opium poppies...?

How about pedophilia? Can you provide evidence that this has increased? Or has its reporting just improved - after all, the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are RELATIVES OR FRIENDS of vicitms. You can't tell me this is something "new". You would never have told anyone about this happening to you before the 1960s or even later!

The only real difference in society is that people are more open about things and less willing to hide them.

About Christianity is it now exists:

Since the current Bible is a cobbled together hodge-podge of Frankensteinian cut-and-paste, heavily tainted by in-fighting amongst the factions all vying for power in the 1st to 4th centuries it can hardly be said to be an accurate accounting of what Jesus was actually trying to accomplish or say. Did Jesus really say to turn the other cheek at one point, and that he came to "bring... a sword" in another? He never once even says himself that he is the "son of god". In fact when asked by Pilate if he is the King of the Jews (messiah if you will), he denies it directly!

Even going back to Acts, the arguments evident between Pauline and Gnostism thought (Paul and Peter or John) show up several times and in the contridictory and even at times abusive comments flying about in the last half of the New Testament. You get one Apostle stating one point of view, and the other another, and so on. You even get Paul changing his "rulings" - for that is what they were - depending on who he was writing to!

Most Muslims with an interest in the subject will agree: Paul was a dangerous, self-serving, self-aggradaising crank at best, and at worst an Anti-Christ. He basically hijacked this cult's beliefs for his own benefit.

Let me posit this scenario for thought: If Paul thought that dying for his beliefs was so noble as esconced in the root of Christian belief - "no greater love is there than a man lay down his own life": why did he demand to be tried in Rome, instead of dying in Jerusalem - like Jesus did?
Simple: self-preservation. Failed self-presevation, but nonetheless.
He thought he'd have better odds with a Roman court then being stoned to death by Pharisees in the forecourt of the Temple. He thought he would get off, as this was a religious crime against non-Roman Gods and not a violation of the law.
It is never actually stated he was executed or convicted, and some evidence is that he continued preaching after going to Rome elsewhere.

Early Christians crushed and persecuted other sects like the Gnostics, and other Egyptian, Syrian, Ethiopian and Hellene sects before even Constantine got started at it. This was at the stage before they even had Bishops, written law, etc. They were still living in communes in some cases at this stage - like cults often do now.

If your particular branch of Christianity can trace its history back to before pre-Pauline Christianity, then I salute you. Of course, this makes you a Gnostic, an Essene semi-Judaist, or something even more exotic.

Otherwise you're going to have to explain when exactly your particular variety decided it no longer wanted to be involved in violence of persecution of heretics, pagans, and general miscreants.

The reason Christians no longer kill others or persecute them openly is very simple indeed: they no longer hold the overall power to do so. Christian dogma no longer holds all the way from the top to the bottom of society.

And before someone goes "Catholics did it all. Catholics are the real baddies", I suggest one looks through Calvinism, Lutheranism, and various other groups' history of its treatment of other groups and natives. South Africa, Java, Centra Africa,the Sami of Finland/Norway, Australia, etc. etc. all spring to mind.

PAULISM is responsible for these atrocities - not Christianity.
Christianity as it was originally intended died a de facto death some 1700 or 1600 years ago. What is left is a corrupt and mutated result of a power struggle over hundreds of years. As it was originially intended it say simply:
Love God. Love your neighbor.

If people followed these things everywhere, this website would never have existed - would never have NEEDED to exist. But as I said before, this is the real world.

If your group has done none of these things, then I humbly suggest that this may be because it simply did not exist at the time these things were still common. In other words: they do not have the power to do so, so taking the "pacifist and tolerant line" is easy due to having no other options.

It's easy to be nice to people you don't like or even believe are evil, if you don't have any other options. I believe that if your group existed in the correct circumstances, it would have been lead to the same course as any of the others - simply because of the natures of the humans within it.

I still insist - in the failure of any contridictory argument - secularism of religions to the point of lip service and a general "niceness" ensures radicalism is crushed. Dogma and extremism - amongst a wide variety of religious groups - ensures further terrorism and war.

Who would die for their religion, if nobody is actually believes this is necessary anyore?

Would I rather have a semi-agnostism which realises that all you need to do to be rewarded in the afterlife is treat people nicely and love God, - or - dogmatic conflict with fear of damnation and war with enemy belief systems?

Option 1, please.

Would I rather have an atheism backed up by might of law and moral responsibility and people (if not downright imposing) implying that my atheism is wrong and treating me like dirt - or - follow a corrupt and wrong system in the hope I will be saved after I die and gain the admiration of others in this system?

Option 1, please.

Anyone else think otherwise?
Better yet, can anyone dispute the points I made about the early Christian church (and by extension the roots of Islam - based on the Jewish and early Christian traditions)?

p.s. I love this stuff... really!

Bugger

July 19th, 2007, 10:41 AM

In reply to Rbick:
So it was that false god, Dog-Spelled-Backwards, who was behind the Catholic Church, other fundamentalist sects who try to impose their weird beliefs on other people, capitalism, and Islam, all along. Muslim suicide bombers claim that Dog-Spelled-Backwards makes them do it, on promises of a free trip to Paradise with 72 virgins, for randomly killing as many other people as possible along with themselves, and at the same time turn all Muslim women into burkha-clad sex slaves whose only job is to kill themselves by excessive child-bearing, so that eventually their sect will have the whole world to themselves. Catholics and some other Christian fundamentalists (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, Exclusive Brethren) claim that Dog-Spelled-Backwards told them to ban contraception and abortion and wage costly lobbying campaigns to have their wishes imposed by law on everyone else, and to become f***wits and have as many babies as possible regardless of the lousy lives their kids have or the resulting environmental degradation, so that eventually they will have the whole world to themselves as a dictatorial theocracy. And capitalists encourage and try to exploit the situation, by taking advantage of the resulting excessive numbers of poor to screw their wages down, and speculate in commodities and land and housing which become scarce as the result of the overpopulation, - while also hypocritically pretending to worship Dog-Spelled-Backwards.

Rbick

July 19th, 2007, 10:53 AM

Wow thats quite the report you wrote there... I read every word and I see where you are coming from. And yes, I am comparing MTV to terrorism. More of a mental terrorism than anything. A raping of the mind if you will :D. Would you let your kids watch that? But there is one major point I would like to make first off: Christianity is not a struggle for power and about fighting other sects.

Otherwise you're going to have to explain when exactly your particular variety decided it no longer wanted to be involved in violence of persecution of heretics, pagans, and general miscreants.

The answer is we never had to decide when, because we never wanted to be involved with violence and killing. And the church I belong to, the Church of Christ, has be around for, well about 1,970 years. My "variety" is that of Christians who do love their neighbors, love God, and do have compassion for the human race. I don't go into a dark room lit with candles and worship a big statue every sunday, plotting how to kill those who do not believe. And we arn't just nice to those who do not believe because we have to. We are nice because that is what we are suppose to do. The Bible does not advocate the killing of non christians, and never did. This is as far as the New Testament, which changes things up a bit from the Old. (Again, people can twist things any way they want, leading to the Fanatics we're talking about).

If your particular branch of Christianity can trace its history back to before pre-Pauline Christianity, then I salute you

The reason Christians no longer kill others or persecute them openly is very simple indeed: they no longer hold the overall power to do so.

Don't these statement contradict themselves to a degree? Do you mean the "Paulines" as you call them?

I'm actually headed to Mexico this week to feed the needy and help at an orphanage with a Christian organization. Not trying to boost, but I'm making a point. Do the ones I'm helping call themselves Christians? Probably not. Will I help them and show unconditional love regardless? Yes. Will I teach them the same love and caring that Jesus did? Yes, because that is what we are suppose to do, and it is the right thing to do.

You are obviously very knowledgeable of history, and I do not argue with you on that. But I am not part of what happened 1500 years ago and I was not part of the crusades. I am a part of now, and the impact on my life from what I believe to be a God is undeniable. It is a very personal walk for me, not a mob of "lets get together and kill some non-believers!" Humans play a small role in my willingness to study God and help others. And no, I don't just study religious text. I study secular literature as well. Actually more so than religious text... I'm in search of a higher meaning and truth. I DO believe in the Big Bang, but I believe that our Creator was in control of it. I DO believe the Earth is 4 billion years old. How else would this whole crazyness of a universe have started unless by intelligent design? My extensive study in physics (non formal, I have done all of my own reading and learning on these matters, for the most part) and now going into chemistry has not led me away from a God, but closer.

I wasn't trying to say DUIs, drugs, and murders are greatly increasing. I was making the point that humans are humans, regardless of whether they are religious or not. With religion we kill each other, without religion we kill each other. Secularization of the Middle East wouldn't help the problem of terrorism and murder in general, it would help the terrorism and murder committed by Fanatics. I think this paragraph sums up most what this thread is about...

As for Jesus, there are more than just pure Biblical reference to him. If one is studying Christian history, one should look further than just the Bible and atrosities committed by "Christians". Over in Isreal, they give tours of the place where this (the Bible and Events mentioned in religous and secular text of the time) is all assumed to have happened. They teach it like we teach the signing of the Constitution, like real history, not as a myth, like many here in the West do. Check out the Dead Sea Scrolls, and writings by St. Augustine (i.e. Confessions, The Trinity). Augustine was around 340A.D., and his ideals and morals are very closly related to what is taught today. Not that of killing pagans and hating unbelievers, but of love and compassion, like what Jesus taught. But I do believe that God sent Jesus to teach the love of God and I do think he died for a very great reason.

As for Paul, he was quite the extremist. Although I don't think we can pass too much judgement on him, since if the Bible was so horribly mutilated in the middle ages, our accounts (as far as his writings in the Bible) of him wouldn't be all that accurate. Right? My preception of God is not based soley on the Bible. As stated above, I do not just follow blindly, I am in search of truth. And my search thus far has led me to God.

I recall you adding a comment about human nature. I'm running out of time, so I'm not going to quote it. But human nature, if it can indeed be good, why is it that way? Are some of us just made to be kind, loving creatures? My personal opinion is no, there is a reason we are the way we are. You can call it Mother Nature, Mother Earth, or God, but there is a reason. I just chose the latter.

I understand that there are a lot of people out there who claim to be Christians, and then shun those who don't believe. This is so contradictory, and it is actions like this that give Christianity a bad name.

It is apparent that we both have very different views of Christianity, and I'm sorry if you view them as power hungry ruthless killers. I consider myself a Christian, and I am certainly not any of those things. Am I condemning those who are not Christians? No I am not. You're aetheist? Cool, I'll still love you, but you'll probably get into a few debates with me about religion :). My sister doesn't believe in God, but I will do anything for her. So in the end, I think society would be better off with Christian morals and values (the way I know them to be, not the crazy pagan killers you know) than with that of MTV's (referring to current day society) instant gratification and love of possessions.

P.S. I like it too. Its always fun to have a religious debate, whether in person or online :)

In response to Bugger: I just saw your post, you posted while I was posting sooo: That was kind of random. Stop looking at what others do in the name of God and realize it is a personal walk with what I believe to be God. Whats with Dog-Spelled-Backwards? If you're disrespecting or make fun of me by typing this, please don't. Read my article to get a feeling of my opinion.

JohnSmith

August 3rd, 2007, 03:43 PM

Gentlemen,

I have been trailing trough the seven pages of postings,on this topic and I have learned a lot.
The thing I like to add to this lively debate is this : do not be fooled!

Especially not by those who would have you believe, that their is any "negotiation" to be had with muslims or islam in general.
Being the wrong side of forty, and having lived all that time in the EU, I have some experience with islam;this primitive and loathsome socio-political system, which is kept under control by a pre-civilization religious cult.

I have been beaten, robbed, insulted,stabbed, spat on and ridiculed by these so called "moderate" muslims.
Categorically, I state, a "moderate" muslim, is as likely as a mother of three becoming a virgin.

Together with millions of fellow Europeans I had to witness the demise and destruction of all our values and morals.
Only to be replaced, by a vague dogma of "togetherness"(?) and the ever present "tolerance".

The education we had to provide our children with, took all our efforts, as we had to un-learn them most of the dangerous and vile rubbish that they were putting in their heads, by a schooling system, that is poisoned to the core.

An honest days pay, for an honest days work, has become a far away echo, from times I do not even remember.

The wealth of whole nations is squandered, on "projects" in far away dictatorships and "integration" incentives closer to home (what is left of it). Europe has become a powder cake, that is led from Alpine resorts, by shadowy and unaccountable traitors,that have nothing but contempt for the civilization, that bread and educated them.

All this in the name of the vague concepts I mentioned earlier.

The truth is,gentlemen, that we have been sold into slavery, or have been made Dhimmi's (some on the forum will understand too well what this means!)

Billions of Euro's of taxpayers money have been thrown away, on North African despots and on Arab countries,who find the ramblings of mohammed and his ilk, the pinnacle of civilization. People who believe we own them something (servitude being one thing) have been provided with hardware and funds, enough to destroy us tenfold.

Anti-Semitism and rampant anti Americanism have become mandatory. History books have been re-written.

And why?

Because some EU leaders (the French mainly, who else) have this delusional idea, that they "understand" the muslim world.
They believe, that they should play a key role in the development of the planet, and since nobody who knows them wants to take them into account, they "create" their own "world power" .

The "Euro-Arab dialogue" is what this cursed vehicle is called (please read "Eurabia by Bat Ye'or).

In no way, is the present course of European politics representative, of the feelings and the opinions of the majority of the European people. The big problem is that these "policy maker" are not accountable, so they can not be voted out of office.
This is so because of unclear structures within the European Union/parliament and/or electoral systems, that are devised to keep the powers that be, exactly where they want to be.

In the mean while we, the people are being left to deal with criminal laws,indoctrination, fanatical gun control, theft and bondage.

The muslim rules the streets of Europe. They should be driven back in the sea/sand or wherever the crawled from.

There is nothing about islam that could commend it. It is violent, for I felt its punches on my head and its blade in my ribcage.
It has no respect for property, for my money was taken from me. Muslims are ignorant, for they insult skill and true dialogue.
They are filthy, for I had to endure their spit in my face.

We Europeans are, of course, the true guilty party! It is we, that allowed all this to happen. It is us, that did away with our spine, over the last 30 odd years.

But now, we are stuck with this legacy of serfdom.

I want them out! Away with them, for all I care, they can go back to bashing each others heads in, in some God forsaken piece of dessert.

I want these criminally insane people out of my street, my town and my country. I truly do not care, which faction they belong to, as it is of no importance. I do not care whether they slash my throat with or without remorse.

These 40 odd years on this continent didn't make me an "expert" on the subject, it just made me a victim.

I am not the one to tell others what to do and think, but when I read the postings on the forum, I can't but help to be a bit sad, that members quarrel over details. Important bit of info,but none the less; details.

We are drowning, and those of us that think they can swim, think again, as the coast is very far way....

We need help, in spite of the Anti Americanism, that is rampant here, many will look to the US. For if they do not help us out, who will? The American people, would be will within their rights to "give us the finger",since we didn't have e decent word to say about for almost half a century. But know, that the majority of ordinary folk, is not like those "professional lefty protesters".

Europe has its foundations in two millennia of Judeo-Christian culture, with a good "dollop" of Enlightenment added to that.
It is supposed to stay that way. We have not, nor do we want any common ground with anything that, even remotely, sound like or stinks like islam.

For the sake of sanity; please wake up.

Charles Owlen Picket

August 3rd, 2007, 10:15 PM

It's a good idea to space your posts from line to line so it's more easily read for those of use who are also over 40....

I understand and easily read the sadness in your dialog. It's not hard to feel that way when you feel powerless. But feeling powerless and being powerless are two different things. This issue with Islam is a complex subject.

I believe very strongly that learning as much as one can about a subject that influences one's world is paramount to coping with that influence.

One of the best weapons in dealing with a socio-political dynamic is humor. In such a political war; Islam has light years to go for any armament what so ever.

nbk2000

August 4th, 2007, 02:43 AM

The problem with the muslim world is their fecundity.

The muslims alive now are a problem, but those to be born are even more a problem, as they'll be even more of them in the future then there are now.

So, while building the furnaces to deal with the current problem, it'd be good to reduce the future problem by reducing their birthrate.

If there's one thing you can count on, it's the buggers desire to free handouts. In that sense, they're just like American niggers.

So, if you're giving them free food, they'll happily eat it while cursing you. If that free food happens to have chemical sterilants in it, than that makes their main weapon (their breeders) useless. :)

Start up a free muslim foodbank, and taint all the food with sterilizing chemicals. Eventually the White euro's will get sick of the brown tide and fire up the furnaces once more. Do your part by reducing the problem now.

Defendu

August 4th, 2007, 02:49 AM

Europe has its foundations in two millennia of Judeo-Christian culture,

A history/theology lesson for you:
http://www.darrellwconder.com/judeochristianheritage.html

LibertyOrDeath

August 4th, 2007, 06:04 AM

Especially not by those who would have you believe, that their is any "negotiation" to be had with muslims or islam in general.
...
I have been beaten, robbed, insulted,stabbed, spat on and ridiculed by these so called "moderate" muslims.
Categorically, I state, a "moderate" muslim, is as likely as a mother of three becoming a virgin.
...
The truth is,gentlemen, that we have been sold into slavery, or have been made Dhimmi's (some on the forum will understand too well what this means!)
...
Anti-Semitism and rampant anti Americanism have become mandatory.
...
Because some EU leaders (the French mainly, who else) have this delusional idea, that they "understand" the muslim world.
...
The "Euro-Arab dialogue" is what this cursed vehicle is called (please read "Eurabia by Bat Ye'or).
...
The muslim rules the streets of Europe. They should be driven back in the sea/sand or wherever the crawled from.
...

While I agree with some of what you posted, much of it -- what I've quoted above in particular -- sounds exactly like the Jewish neocon propaganda designed to promote the "Clash of Civilizations" between the West and the Arab world that Jewish neocons have been longing for since well before 9/11. As stated earlier, the goal of the neoconservative movement is essentially to get the West embroiled in an endless war against Muslim nations to the ultimate benefit of Israel.

Not to sound unkind, but I have a feeling that your real name sounds a lot more like "Yoshi Goldstein" than "John Smith." I'm about 99.9999% sure that you're Jewish and are writing to promote Jewish interests.

The use of the terms "anti-Americanism" and "anti-Semitism" in the same sentence is a dead giveaway (as is the French-bashing). I see that tactic over and over again in the writings of neocons. In fact, do a search on Yahoo for the exact phrase "anti-American and anti-Semitic" and see how many results come up! It's in the thousands. That's no coincidence.

Such propaganda tactics and slogans are employed repeatedly by ethnically-conscious Jews (perhaps that's redundant) in order to inculcate the notion that American and Israel are joined at the hip -- that we have the same interests, that America has a responsibility to serve and protect Israel, and -- more subtly -- that it's unpatriotic to be opposed to the Jewish agenda.

"What? You don't think we need another Holocaust museum in this country?! Why, you're a traitor and you hate America, Mom, and Apple Pie! You probably don't even Support Our Troops!"

I would prefer that Muslims stay in their own lands, and I advocate essentially ending all immigration from third-world countries. But Muslims wouldn't be a problem if Jewish supremacists hadn't pushed for the current liberal immigration policy in the US and weren't subverting our government into supporting their land-grab in the Middle East. And yet there are still Americans who believe Bush's lie that "they hate us for our freedom." Even if America were a free country, Bush's claim would be ridiculous.

Once again, I urge people to read Prof. MacDonald's piece on neoconservativism. It provides extremely valuable insight into current events:

http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol4no2/km-understandIII.html

For an example of Jewish neocon propaganda from one of the better-known neocon think tanks, try here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-muravchik19nov19,0,1681154.story

And lest we forget:

"It Wasn't Arabs" by Edgar Steele (http://www.rense.com/general44/wasnt.htm)

Edited to add:

Defendu's above link is excellent reading, especially the section titled, "The Accursed Goyim!" I had already learned that information from other sources, but that link provides a fine summary.

hatal

August 4th, 2007, 06:41 AM

The only thing I can add to the links and what LibertyOrDeath said is this book.

THE*ISRAEL*LOBBY*AND*U.S.*FOREIGN*POLICY
http://rapidshare.com/files/46885698/israellobby.pdf

Valuable reading material. Highlights interesting relations, and why America wastes his political capital on supporting a country in exchange for nothing.

I had to upload it again on ".com", it was deleted from rapidshare.de (but luckly I still had it on my computer).

P.S.: please re-upload.

nbk2000

August 4th, 2007, 07:05 AM

The word 'anti-semitism' seemed oddly out of place in JohnSmith's post, as anyone who hates islam and arabs is NOT going to differentiate them seperately from jews...unless they are a jew themselves, or support jewish agendas.

After all, it was the jews who pushed for allowing muslims into the White homelands, so as to dilute the White Race and attempt to displace them from their own homes.

Why?

Because the only real threat to the jews are racially-aware Whites. Only Whites have feed the furnaces with jew fuel :) and they remember this.

JohnSmith

August 4th, 2007, 08:41 AM

Gentlemen,

Thank you all, for your replies, your comments and your advise. As far as the recommended literature goes, I will certainly follow up on that and read / study the works you recommend ,post haste.

To address some of your concerns: I am not Jewish.
To put it in less "correct" terms ; I am as Arian as the come. Being of pure white and European(I even have Viking blood!) linage,with roots to be traced back to somewhere in the 13 th century, I can assure the panel, that I have no interest (other then strategic) in furthering any Jewish cause. I am not an agent of Jewish propaganda.
I do believe, however, that the truth has its rights. The history of Israel, has a direct bearing on our present day circumstances.

I have, and this addresses the kind comments of " Charles Owlen Picket ", read and studied the history of Jewry and its effects on the world extensively. Again, this doesn't make an "expert" on the matter, but it provides,at least, some insights.

I also make it my business to know as much about islam and its cohorts, as I can : know your enemy, is good advise, indeed.
Next to a well filled library, I even went as far as to pay money for a copy of the koran; so I could see for myself what all "the fuss was about" (It is the most boring and useless piece of text I ever read...)

As far as "french bashing" goes: they can't be "bashed" enough. If I could go back in history, and change one thing, I would ,no doubt ,choose to change the very existence of "the french" for it would make the world a better place for it.
Since medieval times they have done nothing else but glorify them self, in a manner that bewilders sane human beings, and leave the rest of the world "to pick up the pieces". This whole muslim drama, that destroys Europe, and more and more the rest of the world, is of their making as well.

It was De Gaulle, who's ego, that couldn't stand, not being at the conference in Yalta, after WWII, where the faith of Europe was decided. He didn't do anything during the war, except being a nuisance and "be in the way". We will not even speak of his collaborationist government later on in History.
This ego was the direct cause of the later EAD, the "European-Arab dialogue" : aka: the politics from hell !

So yes, I have reasons to dislike the french (the description of my true feelings, would be censored,and are not fit for polite company) This megalomania, involving the invasion of these dessert-dwellers, is only their latest stunt!
The impact of french politics and suffering it brought in Europe, fills libraries. We still live with the consequences,today,of their "moments de gloire", and believe me, there are more pleasant things.

The use of the terms Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism in one sentence is a give away,some of you claim. I object to that statement in the strongest possible terms. In Europe, the two are Siamese twins.
Because of the support, that is mandatory in Europe for Arafat's legacy of murderers and cut throats, and the Arab world will take nothing less then the total destruction of the state of Israel, the American support for Israel is portrayed as evil.
You can't be Anti-Semitic and be pro-American here.(or the other way around for that matter...)

A lot is said in the press and in politics about the "struggle" of the so called "Palestinian people" (who are Arabs, there is no such thing as a Palestinian) ,most of it is smoke an mirrors, non of it is even close to the real historic truth.
As there are no such things as "half-truths" these Pro- Palestinian rants need to be seen for what they are ; complete lies!

I hope I somewhat explained my position towards Israel and the Jews. I have no special love for them, but since the Arabs choose to inflict a choice of sides upon us, the choice is easily made.

A word on "feeling powerless".Yes ,I do feel powerless. And it is not a very nice sentiment, I can assure you all.
My old Grandfather used to say "there are no more wretched and sad people, then those, that are betrayed by their own leaders". He was correct, and I am glad he didn't have to live to see this mess...
To address an other remark (on humour) I can't even tell a joke about a muslim. The "man" will have my skin ! There are laws, that even make it illegal to express my views the way I did in my first posting, (and this one ,no doubt).
Not only do we have to tolerate the muslims, no, by law we have to love them as well....
This is beyond "funny", there is nothing amusing about this any more...

I do not know, how we will drive this 5th column from our shores,but the longer the less, I believe and the possible success of a political solution. Europe is rotten to the core, and it stands to reason, that only drastic solutions will save our collective skins.
I do not advocate solutions that resemble any WWII practices, not because my "humanitarian" feelings towards muslims,as I do not have those,but simply because this would come back to us and bite us in the posterior.

The Germans still pay ,for the actions of a one-time regime and its actions, and the rest of "correct" Europe is using the "Final solution" as an alibi to shut us up. We can not be responsible of giving our children a legacy of false guilt, just because we want to defend our homes and families. On the other hand any action taken to reclaim our heritage and our lands has to be complete and without mercy towards any who believe in any form of compromise.

Every day, there is more legislation being made and inflicted upon us, that favour our, de facto, muslim rulers. I wouldn't even know where to begin, to make "a stand" against this treachery. The only thing to do,so far, is "put up, and shut up".
And yes, that makes a man feel helpless and powerless. Most of the people are so busy surviving, that they do not even have the energy to define the catastrophe that is all around us.
In time of need and uncertainty people ,also, have this nasty tendency to choose for the status quo. This doesn't help matters much either.

It is very difficult in creating awareness, if the media, politics and the law are against you. On top of that one has to take into account the struggle for survival, that is most people fate,in Europe.
The pro muslim propaganda machine would have given Herman Goebbels a wet dream. Even in times of the internet, it is very difficult to fight such a well oiled and well financed machine.

A further posting will be made, after I have had the chance to read/study all the links you all,kindly, provided.
I hope I have accommodated those members, who advised “spacing” the text of a posting

Highest Regards
John Smith:(

Defendu

August 4th, 2007, 12:15 PM

Since we're on the topic of an immigrant invasion, here's a link to The Camp of the Saints, by Jean Raspail, and a few related books:
http://www.resist.com/Onlinebooks.html
and a review:
http://es.geocities.com/sucellus23/667.htm

Das Räumungskommando

August 4th, 2007, 03:28 PM

I can just second everything what JohnSmith says.

This is the only reason for that I'm here in fact; when Europe turns into another big Kosovo I want to be prepared, because in contrast to these bastards who call themselves the "representatives of their people" I'm still rather young and will probably be still alive when we have to reap what they seeded!

Here in Europe, we become more and more deprived of our rights, our freedom.
Some time ago British PM Gordon Brown advised his ministers to not to use the words "Islam" and "terror" in the same sentence, at the same time the EU establishes policies which forbid it to connect the Islam to terror in any way and publishes "handbooks" on how to avoid offending "religious feelings" (that's Muslim's feelings in European Newspeak). They want to limit the freedom of the press for the same reason.
In the meantime Albrecht Schachtschneider, professor of the university of Erlangen points out how the new European Constitution undermines the Rule of Law (which most European states can't and don't want to uphold anyway) allowing the reintroduction of the death sentence and the quelling of riots with deadly force.

The European leftist media does indeed a good job in depriving the average citizen of all the information necessary.
The leftists - that's the real problem. There were no big ominous insidious Jews that forced us to take all those Islamiggers. It was (and is!) the leftists who let alll those people in, they're like cancer and AIDS.
They belong to the body, but they're degenerated in some way, so they basically turn against the body, against its own, itself, and kill it. I'm sure most of those fools really think they're on the just side, merely doing something good, but that does not change the effects of what they do.
The only way to fight cancer is cortisone. That means the body as an entity might be saved, but it is not a nice and pleasant thing to take. I guess we will see who will be stronger - The cancer or the cortisone.

The leftists also ressemble AIDS, because they systematically weaken the body's defenses. The Muslims alone are not a problem. These retarded chimps had no chance without help from within. The Muslim world virtually produces zero scientific output. From the outside they wouldn't pose any danger.
You can read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Foreign_A ssistance) how the Pakistanis "developed" their nuclear program: With (illegal) help of the Chinese.
So, if you have AIDS and die from a cold, who's to blame? AIDS or the cold?

You say the US help Israel but get nothing in return. That's not true. If Israel falls we will be next. The Muslims want EVERYTHING, from their point of view the Dar al-Harb must be defeated and the great global islamic Umma must be established on one way or another.
And I can't share your antipathetic feelings towards Israel anyway, but that's another story. And no, I'm NOT a Jew.

I already have posted a link to Fjordman's articles, but I'll do it a second time since I thing his articles are accurate and important although the quality has diminished recently: *click* (http://chromatism.net/fjordman/fjordmanfiles.htm)

I mean look at the statistics: 85% of all convicted subjects of rape in Sweden are Muslims, since Muslim immigration the rate of rapes has quadrupled, rape involving children under the age of 15 (I think) is six times as common as it was one generation ago. Oslo has six times as much rapes per capita as New York, and here in Germany even the socialists who rule Berlin have admitted recently how disastrously many crimes are commited by Muslim immigrants. In almost every major German city, there are "No-Go-Areas" for Germans, where we can't move any more without fear for our lives.

And Germany has far more immigrants from Eastern Europe, but they don't pose any problems. Well, how that comes...

NoltaiR

August 4th, 2007, 04:05 PM

To simplify:
Now, that LALALALALALA sound is one that I've only heard when seeing ragheads at the scene of a bombing (when they're the target :)[BTW,

IIRC, the "lalala" sound you are hearing is a very common phrase in the muslim world when dealing with their jihad ("holy war"). What they are saying is actually "ya Allah". Not sure if you knew that.

And on a personal note, I find that it completely rediculous that they kill others and themselves for God. If it was a much smaller sect, we would just call them a cult and have the ATF exterminate them.

Corona

August 4th, 2007, 04:29 PM

IIRC, the "lalala" sound you are hearing is a very common phrase in the muslim world when dealing with their jihad ("holy war"). What they are saying is actually "ya Allah". Not sure if you knew that.

Err... not quite.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yalla

There is a big difference between "Yalla" and "Ya Allah". :rolleyes: "Ya Allah" is simply the exclamation "My God!". It is used in the exact same manner as an American might use "My God". If you want a Jihad cry, that would be "Allah O Akbar", or "Sister-Fucker" (people in Pakistan have a foul mouth).

I said before... about the video NBK linked to.... that the guy wasn't going "lalalalala".... he was going "yalla yalla yalla"... "hurry up"... like "Get the fuck out of here!". I have heard Arabs use it quite often... "Get me two cups of coffee.. yalla yalla!" It sounds very different from saying "Ya Allah" (My God).... so I am not mistaken.

As for Pakistan's nukes... Hell we jump-started from nothing... so we stole from everyone.:p The Chinese helped us put it together. Not the nukes... the fuel enrichment process. Or so the Americans claim (we all know the value of American Intelligence... WMDs in Iraq....).

Everyone who has nukes has stolen the designs or the tech from somewhere... except maybe the Frenchies.

Meanwhile, you can search for the satellite pics of the two new giant reactors at Khushab (estimated 1000 Megawatts each) which will be good for making 50 Plutonium bombs a year... each. :p

I have to say, finally... this is the thread that refuses to die. (weak attempt at humor for Picket)

Enkidu

August 4th, 2007, 10:56 PM

I'm very sorry for this random question, but wasn't this thread called How would you stem the tide of the islamic WAR?

Recently, my memory seems to have gone to shit is so many ways. :confused:

nbk2000

August 5th, 2007, 04:30 AM

Yes, it was, but I changed the title of the thread to more accurately reflect the contents of the thread. :)

And if you look carefully at leftist and communist ideologies, you'll find jews behind them. Not all jews have stereotypical jew names, or look 'jewish', because then they couldn't infiltrate goy society to destroy it from within.

Charles Owlen Picket

August 5th, 2007, 12:04 PM

OT alert......

I have to say, finally... this is the thread that refuses to die. (weak attempt at humor for Picket)

I went to a Comedy Club where there was a Muslim comedian (self-billed as such). The poor bastard had to tip-toe around most all his gigs. You could tell a mile away, he was scared about getting some of his co-religionists pissed off.

If a man wants to live in such a world - that's his business. But I want nothing to do with that type of censorship or self conscious reluctance to express what every culture has (humor).

I have seen some strange shit in this world but in the latest round of legal defense elements, many of the lawyers for those who are able to mount a defense in GitMo are of Jewish extraction (or at least their last names seem like that)....go figure(?)

nbk2000

August 5th, 2007, 02:54 PM

...many of the lawyers for those who are able to mount a defense in GitMo are of Jewish extraction...

That's not surprising in the least.

The jew is notorious in his desire to defend destroyers of Western Civilization, even at the risk of cutting his own throat, for such is the nature of the Christ killing servants of Satan.

BTW, Fjordman's blog is VERY relevant to this thread.

Corona

August 6th, 2007, 06:06 AM

OT alert......
I went to a Comedy Club where there was a Muslim comedian (self-billed as such). The poor bastard had to tip-toe around most all his gigs. You could tell a mile away, he was scared about getting some of his co-religionists pissed off.

Picket, get real. It seems you are implying we don't have stand-up comedy in Pakistan? :confused: Or any kind of comedy at all in the muslim world?

Are you nuts? :p

Example... lookup this Pakistani-Norwegian comedian who screwed up a mullah's life. :D

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article783368.ece

Of course, there are people out there without a sense of humor... But that doesn't stop the act from going on, generally speaking. If you have chosen to make comedy a part of your life (one of the most difficult skills to master), you have to be willing to break a few eggs. Trust me, we have plenty of people like that. (Your comedian was probably afraid of the reaction from the American crowd)

If you are saying that muslim comedians are not in the same league as american-jewish comedians... then unfortunately I'll agree with you. Nobody can get you to laugh like a damn Yahoodi. (black people aren't funny, because most of the time I can't understand half of what they say)

I think it is because muslims haven't been killed, hurt, pissed-on throughout history the way the jewish people have. We've had it easy.

About the Yahoodi lawyers... NBK has clarified better than I could... all I can say is, if you want a good lawyer from America..?.. 9 times out of 10, he/she would be a Yahoodi. That is just the way it is.

Btw, one of these Yahoodi geniuses got Abdullah Mesud released from Gitmo... he came back and killed people here until we made him blow himself up with a hand-grenade. So it is not all innocent.

Charles Owlen Picket

August 6th, 2007, 11:05 AM

Corona: you lost me....the link was a reply form (????) Did you want a pm? I thought it was a link to the comedian.

Comedy is complex; it's possible that he was afraid of the American reaction but they knew what they were getting into before he began his act. He probably was on firm ground (unless he made twin-towers jokes, etc). He may have FELT that he would loose his audience and that tripped him up.... However let me point out that we are seeing this free expression of comedy on American soil......do you HONESTLY believe that the same would be accepted within most Islamic nations ???? And the reason I say most is that Pakistan is somewhat unique in that it's cities as I understand are quite a bit more cosmopolitan than others. You see Paki good shipped world wide. Pakistan is a very strong US trading partner, etc.

There are some pictures of Pakistani cities where the shops have many languages in their signs; the streets & media are a flood of various languages. English & Hebrew greet the viewer, the Women's Rights Bill sponsored by R.I. Goldstien, etc....tremendously progressive nation. Quite frankly this nation's (America) heroin addicts would still be buying Mexican garbage if it weren't for the high quality goods from south Asia.

(yes, I'm kidding with you) ...But I really AM interested in checking out Islamic humor. The world often views Islam as humorless; which I know simply can't exist in human beings.

One of the most interesting issues relating the Pakistani population with it's relationship with it Jewish population (about 300 individuals) is in a very interesting article found at:
http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?174622

Apparently there was a Pogrom of Hindus that emulated the Nazi pogrom (the painting of a yellow "H" instead of a star). On a serious note why do you believe there was this phenomenon? Was it propagated from the Indian independence issue or the Palestinian issue ( At one time I believe India was a trading partner of South Africa - which had been Israel's strongest trading partner before it's "revolution")? It it was; do you believe that the Palestinians have had a greater impact than their numbers or situation would indicate? Or Jordan could have dealt with this a long time back but it seems to be a cause celebre' amongst those very nations that could have laid it to rest. According to recent stats there are 300 Jews living in Pakistan. It would seem that such a small population would not even raise an eyebrow as they do not appear to have positions of any importance in the Pak government. Therefore I may suggest that the Palestinian Question has done more manipulation than any Jew influence. In all seriousness, I think the Islamic world is being "played" by those people claiming "victim-hood" and in so doing, have alienated a HUGE religious group from the Christian world population.

Perhaps both the Jews & Palestinians are sucking the world into a mire of destruction that is THEIR business and their's alone! Pakistan is viewed as a Sunni ally of the United States; a precarious but powerful place to be.....

Corona

August 6th, 2007, 12:25 PM

Corona: you lost me....the link was a reply form (????) Did you want a pm? I thought it was a link to the comedian.

I could say that was part of my wicked sense of humor but that would not be the truth. Honest mistake, swear.

I fixed it.

Charles Owlen Picket

August 6th, 2007, 12:41 PM

That was FANTASTIC!

THATS A WOMAN! A fearless one perhaps as well! From a humorist perspective it was hilarious. But would she actually be in danger? Realistically that is really western humor and (from what little I have been exposed to) seems like it could get her into trouble.

I firmly suggest that anyone who has been following this thread to check out the link.....that was a funny stunt and "edgy" stuff!

Corona

August 6th, 2007, 01:27 PM

But would she actually be in danger?

Don't know... the guy she did this to, is a nasty piece of work. I'm not sure how his goons would react... what she did to him was like if I pull someone's pants down in front of everyone else. :p

About your previous post...

What pogrom of Hindus? I don't recall any such thing... or are you talking about the killings that took place when India-Pak became independent?

I totally agree with you that we should keep ourselves away from whatever is happening between Israel and the Palestinians. It is a cesspool everyone should stay away from. Last time a Pakistani soldier (later became President of Pakistan) on a military exchange program to Jordan got involved, many many people died.

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

As for humor... it is different in every country. Which is why I won't call it "Islamic humor". Pakistani humor is really clean when on TV, but very vulgar when on stage. Most Jewish comedians are never vulgar (except Borat :D).

I get Arabic TV on cable here.... they seem to like slapstick a lot. It is different everywhere.

The major difference between Pakistan and everyone else is that we had the British riding our ass for 200 years. They taught us two very important things (among other stuff)... english-language and Cricket. We gave them Tea and the game of Polo in return. They invented Snooker by themselves while they were here.

nbk2000

August 6th, 2007, 03:11 PM

Tell me what's wrong with the following, in the context of a White man ranting about rampaging muslims in his homeland:

...Adding to sermons such as these, Radio Islam, based in Sweden, keeps Nazi hate literature such as Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" online in several languages, including English.

From here (http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/05/is-swedish-democracy-collapsing.html)

I'll tell you what's wrong with it!

A White man, whose country is drowning in a brown sea of mud, is calling Adolf Hitlers book about racial purity and his love of the White race a piece of 'hate literature'! :mad:

Your God damn right it's about hate...hate of the enemies of the White race!

But this fucker has his head so warped by the liberalist dogma that's infected eurabia for so long, that he can't even see it. :(

If rape is such a huge problem in these countries, and if the perps are so often brown, then mayhaps there needs to be some vigilanties stalking brown 'youths'...with pruning scissors. ;)

Once they start being literally emasculated, the fuckers will either get some fear into their 'nads and keep it in their pants, or get uppity enough to finally force the Whites to get serious and handle their business.

Hirudinea

August 6th, 2007, 08:46 PM

I've got it, Muslims have to shave their pubes or go to hell (http://www.understanding-islam.com/rb/mb-049.htm), so we ban the import of Lady Bics into the Western World and all Muslims will have to leave! Problem solved! :D

Corona

August 7th, 2007, 09:52 AM

One doesn't "go to hell" for not doing THAT... but good point.

But then what will the Europeans do when they want to get rid of their hair? Pluck with tweezers? How do you say ouch in german?

"Ich bin ein schwinehund tweezers.... Mein puben hurten..!!!"

Charles Owlen Picket

August 7th, 2007, 11:08 AM

What pogrom of Hindus? I don't recall any such thing... or are you talking about the killings that took place when India-Pak became independent?

I found it through a search on Pakistani population stats..... try a Google on "Pakistan Hindu pogrom" - there are several sides the story of course. Asia Times has one, Asia Truth Journal has one, etc. I am not saying that either has it correct for that matter but for the sake of discussion you'll see where it originated. I don't think it was as far back as the independence era.

As an aside:
When I was a lot younger I worked with a young man from Pakistan. He took one Hell of a lot of grief where we worked. He was called names (Camel Jocky), etc. We were fairly close friends and he took a lot of flack.

People seem to confuse Pakistani individuals with Arabs for some reason. Believe me, it wasn't Jews who were into that (we have about 5 of them in the whole county probably).....It seemed back then it was folks with a British background. There is a lot of passion in these issues.

hatal

August 7th, 2007, 11:17 AM

"Ich bin ein schwinehund tweezers.... Mein puben hurten..!!!"

BINGO!:D(I love the way you speak foreign languages):p

Corona

August 7th, 2007, 11:24 AM

I found it through a search on Pakistani population stats..... try a Google on "Pakistan Hindu pogrom" - there are several sides the story of course. Asia Times has one

That was something that happened in India.

People often confuse the Indian state of Gujarat with the Pakistani city of Gujrat.

The Hindu-fundos killed many people (mostly muslims) in a pogrom in Gujarat (India). This was in revenge for about 50 or so Hindu pilgrims getting killed in a fire on a train in India. Of course, like all nonsense, the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence... Pak's CIA) is blamed by the Fundos and Indian muslims are killed in retaliation. A witness later said in court that the original hindu pilgrims dying was an accident... they set the train on fire because the fools got hungry and started cooking food or something inside the train.

Anyway... Pakistan didn't have anything to do with it. We never killed no Hindoos.

Where are you from? You say there are like 5 jewish people in your country? If folks with a British background are calling Pakistanis, arabs, they are doing it deliberately and are probably blind.. on drugs... Indians... or white BNP supporters. :eek:

Hatal:

Anyone can speak German. That is one hell of a cool language, swear. When you bark orders in German (or Russian) people listen! Some languages were made for swearing and for barking orders in.

Try it out on your dog if you have one. It works.

Urdu, by comparison, is useless. Once upon a time a parade officer tired of barking orders in Urdu, just started using one order on the parade ground... "Straaawwwwwberrrrryyyyy JAM!" That worked.

Charles Owlen Picket

August 7th, 2007, 11:41 AM

COUNTY (a separate sub-section of a state)...not country. The rural south western United States has some rather small COUNTIES.

Corona

August 7th, 2007, 11:50 AM

COUNTY (a separate sub-section of a state)...not country. The rural south western United States has some rather small COUNTIES.

Oh.. I get it.

We don't have "counties".

Charles Owlen Picket

August 7th, 2007, 11:52 AM

The page didn't update and I almost forgot to post this - Check this out: http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_070323.htm Opinions?

Corona

August 7th, 2007, 12:12 PM

Opinion? That's a hindoo-supremacist-fundo Pakistan-hating website, dude.

There are like a million of them out there.

Disregard.

Hirudinea

August 7th, 2007, 10:13 PM

But then what will the Europeans do when they want to get rid of their hair? Pluck with tweezers? How do you say ouch in german?

Europeans? Get rid of their hair? Are you kidding? Have you seen they average French chick? She makes an Orangutang look well groomed, but then I suppose you have to bathe your body before you can even think about shaving it so that leaves the French right out. (As you can tell although I may not have a high opinion of Islam I would ride side by side with Mohammed himself if he was going after the Frogs! :D )

Anyone can speak German. That is one hell of a cool language, swear. When you bark orders in German (or Russian) people listen! Some languages were made for swearing and for barking orders in.

Yea German is one harsh language, just hearing a German order lunch is enough to scare the hell out of anyone, but it makes me wonder how their kids ever grow up without becoming neurotic wrecks? ""SCHLOFFEN ZEE GUTT MEIN KLINE KINDER, NICTH VERLESSEN DER SCHLOFFENSCHACHKBUGGEN BITTEN ZEE! GUTTEN NACTH!!!" Man that would freak me the fuck out!:eek:

Bugger

August 8th, 2007, 05:57 AM

COUNTY (a separate sub-section of a state)...not country. The rural south western United States has some rather small COUNTIES.
The term "county" arose in continental Europe, during the feudal period, in the form of divisions of territory which were subject to rule by lords, or seigneurs (France), of various ranks, who constituted an hereditary landed nobility. The feudal system was introduced from France into the U.K. by the Normans after the Norman conquest of 1066, with all the lords being Norman-French-speaking Normans who were given lands by William I. It was also copied for a time in French-speaking Canada. Of highest rank were Dukes, who ruled duchies, which were largely independent or at least autonomous states; within which were Marquises, who ruled marquessates; and within which again were Counts (Earls in the U.K., Comptes in France) and Viscounts (Vicomptes in France), who ruled counties. Inside counties were Barons, who owned small fiefs or feudal estates occupied by tenant farmers; this still exists in the Channel Islands, where the big landowners are still called Seigneurs.

JohnSmith

August 9th, 2007, 10:39 AM

On muslim humour,

They have humour al right! Unfortunately, it is not the kind, that anybody with a glimmer of intelligence can be amused by.
I saw, with my own eyes, the exuberance and joy, of the occupying hordes, when they took to the streets, after the two towers collapsed.
That was so funny.....

It was also a 'hoot' when in Holland, Pim Fortyun was shot dead, by one of their leftist agents, who claimed "he did it because Fortuyn was a racist" Joy and laughter in the streets of Amsterdam and Brussels.

But the punchline was the ritual slaughter of Film-maker Theo van Gogh. Never more outburst of pleasure an fun where to be witnessed in the Low Countries as then...

Does it truly matter what they find funny? I have no desire what so ever, to 'live in harmony' with these thugs and cut-throats
It only matters, if it gives us insights into the minds of our enemy, our tyrants to be.
Or do some, in this panel, believe we should conform to their idea of wit too?

I suggest, that every Westerner, leaves these "alibi-comedians" to their own devises. Their is nothing about islam, that can be seen as funny. It only brings grief and death or slavery.

To those who believe, that there be a difference between Pakistanis and Arabs,I have this to say. They are both muslims, and that means, that the Paki's knife will be as sharp on your white gullet, as the Arab one will be.
By its very nature, there can be no "moderate" islam. All who subscribe to this insane cult, wish us ill.
I find it not significant, whether the jihadist, that strikes me down, as the odd one in his company, that has ,what appears to be, a sense of humour!

I will tell you what is funny. It is funny, that these stone-agers have a weapon of mass destruction, built by the very scientists, that we should have thrown in jail, instead of allowing them in our nuclear installations (specifically Belgium and Holland)!
It is very funny indeed, that no politicians head has rolled,who has condoned these military and industrial thefts.
The other lunatic of Iran, is now making nuke's, with the same technology, coming from the exact same source,very funny isn't it?

It is also side-splitting, that our streets fill up with these creatures of fanaticism, who's woman cowardly hide their faces.
What I do really find funny (no irony or sarcasm) is that they believe they have to hide their woman from us...even muslims can't be that deluded, that they believe that any white man would look at them with anything but contempt and repugnance...

To have a sense of humour, one has to be capable to understand the concept of reason. It is only, when one is capable to measure the reasonable, that one is capable of grasping the concept of humour, in which elements of the reasonable are replaced, by accident or design, by the unreasonable.
If you do not get the first part, it is physically impossible to get a handle on the second part.
That muslims do not get the 'first part' has been conclusively established on account of 1400 years of bloodshed , mayhem,war and oppression of everybody who doesn't buy into their insane idea's

Charles Owlen Picket

August 9th, 2007, 12:04 PM

Ahhh come on....the chick grabbing the Mullah's ass was pretty funny! She will die for it of course. But it was pretty funny. There was a reason I asked that question. In the very expression of a very human thing; humor.....someone may DIE or be threatened with death. THAT says more about what the nature of Islam is than anything could be said to defend it. Shit, someone writes a book (Satanic Verses) and has to run for his life for the rest of his days!!!! These things are defenseless in the eyes of reasonable men.

Isn't it a better to hate Jews though? After all they usually wind up hating themselves to such a degree that they willingly support Muslim Fundi psycho shit to the point that they would defend them in court with their last dying breath (& defend them damn well mind you!).

If you watch the way the discussion usually flows, the hate felt toward the terroristic actions of the Islamic fundamentalist is deflected onto the Jew. Their crime is always something somewhat obscure like owning world banking, directing a cartel of media mogles that pump filth into the lives of everyday people, they are the lawyers who defend sub-human garbage - therefore they are sub-human, & they are the sponsors of inter-racial marriage as a plot to destroy the culture of whatever....Do I personally love Jews? No, I really don't give a shit about the whole Jew issue. but when the point is made that they become scape-goats, I have to believe that THEY themselves put themselves there.

Jews are easy targets I think because they hate themselves. They simply won't stand up and walk away or more appropriately burn to ashes the people that are trying to kill them...they actually have PEACE movements in Isreal - trying to have dialog with their enemies! They actually want to talk to the very people who wish them dead! What sort of person would do that? They don't seem stupid as a people; in fact they appear to be on the upper level of the Bell Curve!. Personally I don't understand that shit. But getting back to the subject....Islam is hip, it's cool.....notice that the National Organization of Women (made up of many Jewish women) won't fucking touch this issue of the Burka, the place of women in Islamic society, etc. They won't even say anything about Rap music wherein they are just a "Ho" and bitches.

No, there is something much deeper in western society that has taken hold. The self-hating Jew who backs the very people who would feed him to the oven is indicative of much of western society. In that example the self hatred spreads. The average white American or European is so fucking afraid that they will march to the camps or whatever themselves. So; did the Jewish influence make the Christians hate themselves or did this exist along side every one affected by it through out the centuries? What is the very nature of Christian teachings about "turning the other cheek" or "loving thy enemy"?

Individuals here make the point that the whites NEED to stand up and preserve their society....I ask rhetorically; what society? Whites are no longer a race! And that is due to thousands (yes, thousands) of years of inter marriage. It's actually many blacks who have purer blood and a more dominant gene pool. That's easy to see in a simple mixed marriage wherein the offspring has more black characteristics.

Yes, this world will one day be one race but it won't be black or white. And it won't be Christian (or Jew). Because we hate ourselves much, much more than those Islamic hoards that would enslave us.

Last one out, please turn off the lights.

Defendu

August 9th, 2007, 04:46 PM

Whites are no longer a race! And that is due to thousands (yes, thousands) of years of inter marriage.

Races are properly defined by those who don't fall for neo-Marxist bullshit as a collection of traits, not gene markers that could have come from an ancestor 2,000 years back. Thus, blacks should be defined by their uglyness, and whites by their Caucasoid skeletal structure and "European" appearance.
See: http://www.freetheorder.org/PyramidProphecy/whoiswhite.html

Leftists and Jews love to argue the definition of the white race, in order to avoid their fear of whites organizing on a racial basis being realized.

It's actually many blacks who have purer blood and a more dominant gene pool. That's easy to see in a simple mixed marriage wherein the offspring has more black characteristics.

Just by comparing the number of whites you see in public who have noticable mixed traits to blacks who have lightened skin and/or light patches of skin, it should be ridiculously obvious who's less "pure".
Besides, you should take into account that the products of interracial marriages usually intermarry back into the black genepool, since black/white racemixing is still something mainly engaged in by whiggers and drug addicts.

Hirudinea

August 9th, 2007, 09:55 PM

By its very nature, there can be no "moderate" islam. All who subscribe to this insane cult, wish us ill.

While I agree there can be no "moderate" islam as islam is such a harsh, uncomprimising creed of arabic supremisim and conquest, rather a 6th century "araborg" philosophy but there are "moderate" muslims, being moderate by ignoring 99% of the content of islam and aping the rituals. The "moderarte" muslims better wake up though, because through their support of real muslims, who wish nothing more that to slit every kaffir throat, conquer dar al harb they will turn on their "brothers" declare takfir and then kill the new kaffirs with equal glee, again until there is just one pure muslim left, who will no doubt find sufficent fault in him self to eliminate the last kaffir.
All I can say is that if the moderate muslims want to survive they'ed better dump the the Koran and the Hadith and and the Sharia, come up with a Neo-Islam and get their asses out of the 14th century and into the 21st or they will be wiped away in the storm that (hopefully) is brewing in the west.

Charles Owlen Picket

August 9th, 2007, 10:14 PM

Besides, you should take into account that the products of interracial marriages usually intermarry back into the black genepool, since black/white racemixing is still something mainly engaged in by whiggers and drug addicts.

You know that one of the biggest problem when discussing this subject is that since it's so damn politically incorrect, there really is little research done on a modern level.

I once knew a man who was an archaeologist and had a legit study of genetic traits and their effect on civilizations. He was teaching and had some tenure. You can guess what happened to his funding from the university.....

Another thing I always thought was interesting was that I was never attracted to black women. Something very deep inside me found them a turn off. I really can't explain it; but I just never felt sexual attraction to black women the way I did white women. I didn't despise them as people; I was simply neutral socially. I just didn't feel any physical attraction to them on any level.

If you were to ask me if I was a racist my 1st impulse would be to say no (but that's PC-bullshit talking). But if I were to be gut-level honest, I would say that is something that is a factor in my dating as a young adult. I don't look at that today as "bad" or "good" but simply if it's a reality and what it's impact (on my relationship) to society is therefore.

JohnSmith

August 10th, 2007, 12:08 PM

While I will agree, that racial purity, to some extent, has a lot to recommend it, I do believe, that the subject is not as black and white as that.
Does the panel not agree, that the connotations adhering to the statement 'racially pure' has a cultural dimension too?
I too, would never engage in a relationship (my wife would object:)) that has a 'mixed blessing' to it. It has never occurred to me, not now or in the past, I am sure I would have employed the services of a doctor, specializing in the 'noodle' department or I would have started a rigorous regime of ice cold showers,until cured, if it had...

But race is more, in the present day meaning, then skin colour. One does not have to be, in my view, capable of proving one's lineage down the centuries, to confess to a certain race (for those who doubt: I can!)
It is not because great-great grandpa, had a fling with the domestic, and brought,thus, some foreign DNA in the family, that one is now hispanic or black, or worse arab!

I believe that race is ,next to your skin tones, also a matter of the culture that you have made your own. The self evident fact of growing up from parents and surroundings that hand down the morals that you have embraced.
That doesn't mean, that I would, in any way be in favour of mixed relationships, specially not nowadays!
But differences need to be made.

On the subject of "moderate islam" (LOL)
Hirudinea has a point, but is, in my opinion , forgetting a crucial fact.
These "moderate fanatics" will be put before a choice ,sooner or later.
The choice of stabbing me in the heart, or be stabbed in the heart, by "less moderate fanatics". I can, and it sounds coy I know, predict, with a very high degree of certainty, what their choice will be.
I do not believe, that we have the right to take such a chance, just on the belief, that we might get lucky with some of them.

I also believe it to be a contradiction or just a plain lie, if somebody would call them self a "moderate muslim" because, then they are not a muslim any more ,are they? If they are afraid, of what could happen to them, for turning their back on such an insane 'faith', and I can well believe it, they should be on our side! They should openly seek refuge and help , because the 'mad mullah' (God knows they have enough of them!) is after their hide! They too, would then become a victim of this demonic cult, that is starting to darken our planet.

As long as somebody calls them self a muslim, of whatever 'dilution' it may be, he should be considered an enemy of reason and of civilized mankind. They should be, like the madness it is, confined to the sandpit, that their child molesting chief ,messed around in ,with the little girls he called his wives.
This lunatic was an imperialist, of the first order,who ,in his megalomania, has infected the body of civilization itself.
There is nothing to be learned from islam, not now, not in the past.

Please, let the panel not forget, that a muslim, is ,by their manual of hate, the koran, compelled to lie to the infidel, if it furthers the cause of their crazy teachings! So what is the worth of a statement, made by a muslim, that he is a moderate?
Such a statement would be as valuable as any statement made by any muslim: worthless ...(lest we learn something which might aid in our defence of course)

A law enforcement officer told me, not so long ago : "I never take note of the statements made by any of them (sic: muslims) as they would deny the light of the sun, if they thought it would exonerate them of the crime they stand accused of. Some of them are so used to being dishonest,I can't listen to it any more and I go out of the interview room when they speak"
The conversation, was longer, but the panel will get the idea.

We should show them the mercy and leniency that they show us: none!
We should treat the muslim culture (what ever passes for it) with the same regard as they treat Western civilization: utter rejection!
We own their faith the same respect as they show upon Christianity:treat it like a disease!
We should see their claim of moderation for what is truly is: a vicious and dangerous lie!

Addendum:
It has just come to my attention, that and anti islam protest, planned to be held in Brussels, has been forbidden by the mayor of the capital.
For those who read Dutch : http://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/commotie-rond-anti-islambetoging/site72-section24-article7068.html#commentspost

Bugger

August 10th, 2007, 02:38 PM

On muslim humour,(cut)
But the punchline was the ritual slaughter of Film-maker Theo van Gogh. Never more outburst of pleasure an fun where to be witnessed in the Low Countries as then..
Especially because he was the great-great-great-grandnephew of Vincent Van Gogh, whom they would have perceived as an icon of European civilization. And the Muslims did it in the name and allegedly on orders from of their false Dog-Spelled-Backwards, who is clearly not the God worshipped by Europeans.

hatal

August 10th, 2007, 03:43 PM

Especially because he was the great-great-great-grandnephew of Vincent Van Gogh, whom they would have perceived as an icon of European civilization. And the Muslims did it in the name and allegedly on orders from of their false Dog-Spelled-Backwards, who is clearly not the God worshipped by Europeans.

HA! Got you! You said GOD....one, two, three...you're out!;)

Hirudinea

August 10th, 2007, 08:11 PM

On the subject of "moderate islam" (LOL)

Yes is is an oxymoron, in that morons believe that most muslims are moderate.

Hirudinea has a point, but is, in my opinion , forgetting a crucial fact.
These "moderate fanatics" will be put before a choice ,sooner or later.
The choice of stabbing me in the heart, or be stabbed in the heart, by "less moderate fanatics". I can, and it sounds coy I know, predict, with a very high degree of certainty, what their choice will be.
I do not believe, that we have the right to take such a chance, just on the belief, that we might get lucky with some of them.

Maybe I didn't make my point correctly, let me explain. Moderate Islam is a sort of cover your ass religion, these moderate muslim, if they know it or not are the product of conquered peoples who, having chosen the Koran over the Sword, decided to ape the rituals of their conquers, and pay lip service to their religion, hey it beats death. Add to this westerized muslims and you have moderates, but I can assure you that given the choice by their true muslim "brothers" they will support the jihad.

I also believe it to be a contradiction or just a plain lie, if somebody would call them self a "moderate muslim" because, then they are not a muslim any more ,are they? If they are afraid, of what could happen to them, for turning their back on such an insane 'faith', and I can well believe it, they should be on our side!

Which is what I said if "Moderate Muslims" find anything of value in Islam (and I don't know what?) they should write a "Neo-Koran" form a "Neo-Islam" become "Neo-Muslims" and join us against the scourge of the Meccan Pedophile.

Charles Owlen Picket

August 11th, 2007, 04:15 AM

There is nothing to be learned from islam, not now, not in the past.

I would disagree in that my meaning of this would be to ignore something like reading the Koran. I believe there is a great deal to learn from reading the Koran.

Without knowing the teachings, the inherent "message", the issue of "how to stem the tides", etc becomes one of simply dealing with the behaviours that one witnesses on an individual (or even collective) basis.

To make a point with greater depth and clarity I believe a person needs to see where and how the population in question originates and organizes their actions. The more I know about how someone thinks or their interpretation of their world view; the better I am equipped to deal with them. Some would refer to this as "knowing the enemy".

The "enemy" may not be the individual per se' for I have known Muslims that I would not consider such. However I am ready to believe that they may NOT feel that way about me, an infidel, white Christian. And were I to be convinced that collectively they would harm me or mine - I would erase them.

That is exactly WHY I have quoted the Koran directly and sited source and statute in past posts.....I have yet to hear that I was incorrect! Islam WOULD attempt to erase me & I have done NO harm to any of them. In fact I have (perhaps stupidly) attempted to befriend and defend them on occasional individual basis stemming from my own concepts of human decency. For that I would be repaid with death (?)....

Jacks Complete

August 13th, 2007, 02:36 PM

As regards the existence of anything "moderate", time and history show us that unless people are prepared to die to defend the rights of others, or they have a boogyman to use, everything becomes extremes.

Let us play a thought experiment. We have 500 people. 250 of them believe one thing (A), and 250 believe the other (B). It can be something real, if you want, but things that are invisible and/or non-existent, like gods, probably work better.

Now, say we have one man who will kill himself for his (A) belief, and he is sure that as long as he is trying to "convert" unbelievers when he dies, he is fine. Let's call him A#.

There can be two reactions. One is that side (B) bans the other side. But that's hard, since that's not very fair, and they are all moderate, and not prepared to die for what they believe, especially if they aren't 100% sure, or they can feel for the other side.

The other is that side A, emboldened by the fire and passion of the nutcase, decides to put the B's out of action.

We can see there can be almost no middle ground. The only middle ground that can actually exist, would be if the A's themselves stopped the nutcase.

Of course, this isn't stable. All that has to happen is for the nutcase to decide that he can kill even those who believe in A, if they don't believe it as much as he does (A#). Once A# has killed a few other A's, some A will come to him, and pander to him, for protection. This means the moderate A's, who had been keeping things calm, are rapidly scared to talk or to try to restrain A#. And they are hardly going to support B!

Now, you arrive at pretty much where we are today. The West are the B team. The fundamentalist A (A#) are the Mad Mullahs, and the "silent majority" of A's will say nothing, because the A# guys will kill them just as dead as they will kill the B guys. (And they live closer)

From here, there are again only two options. The B's grow a backbone, and defend themselves, and the A's from the A#'s, before it is too late, or the A's convert or kill all the A's into A#'s, and then start on the B's.

Once all the moderate voices in the A team are gone, the B's had better be able to defend themselves, and, perhaps more importantly, have the will to survive.

That's how I see it. I think storming the middle east has, unfortunately, removed a lot of the A's from the stack, and either killed them, or turned them into A#'s. A targeted action to remove the A#'s "surgically" would have had a far better result, at far less cost.

JohnSmith

August 13th, 2007, 05:21 PM

I would disagree in that my meaning of this would be to ignore something like reading the Koran. I believe there is a great deal to learn from reading the Koran.

That is exactly, why I added in brackets "unless it learns us better to defeat our enemy"
I know that there is, at least in that sense ,a lot to be learned from reading these awful teachings.
As I write these lines, that cursed piece of print is on my desk, so I too, can reference to it should the occasion arise.
In the past, I have read it cover to cover, and it was one of the most arduous tasks I ever had to undertake.
These verses are the ultimate of tedium and nobody should be made to go trough that, but like you stated, "know your enemy"

In writing, that there is nothing to be learned from islam, I meant two things.

The first is, that muslim teachings are parasite teachings, in the sense, that they are a stranger to original thought.
Everything that was ever attributed to them, was done wrongly so, as they stole it elsewhere. For instance, we have "arab" numbers, because the arabs nicked them from the Greeks, not because the arabs where so bent on improving the Roman system.
In its own right, there isn't much wrong with that, but have the honesty to admit it, at least.

The second meaning of the expression is, that in the teachings of islam, there is absolutely nothing to be found, that could further us as a species. It is an imperialistic survivor guide for dessert scavengers, of less than average intelligence.
Like every other scavenger, islam has to expand, in order to secure its survival.

The advent of modern man and the industrial and cultural development has learned us, that there are more things then mere survival, for its own sake. It is obvious, that islam has missed the last 600 to 800 years of history and is bent on going on for the sake of the survival of its own teachings,not because it has anything to offer, which might result in progress or understanding.

Personally, I couldn't care less, as long as they do their "dessert-dwelling" and scavenging in the places where they have desserts, and not in my backyard.
Although islam, is an example, of what happens,when a species ,categorically refuses to evolve and is therefore a nasty stain on the human list of endeavours, I believe we should leave it alone.
That is, until ,in a couple of centuries, they have come to their senses, and decide to join humanity, or they have all caved each others heads in; whatever comes first.

This "head caving" or sulking in their corners has to happen "not here" . They need to be confined to the sorry part of the planet, that spawned them. The territories, that they have infected, outside that 'sandpit' need to be taken back, by force if there is no other way.
We need to find a way, to de program the people that have succumbed to this tyranny, and we need to be able to do it on a large and unprecedented scale.
We do not need to do this, because another faith is 'better' (whatever that may be!), no, we need to do this, because islam stops the evolution of mankind, in fact it turns it backwards!

It is a sad and sorry affair, that in the second millennium, we still have 'holy wars'! If somebody can find me one of these wars, that do not have muslims as the root cause, please let me know.

Every continent, is infected by this vile disease, and we are doing nothing more, than debating how the accommodate the infecting agent, instead of eradicating it. Everywhere you look, there are muslims committing the worst crime of them all : decomposing the progress of human endeavour!
Like small infants, you can't coexist, if you do not let them be the boss, or let them decide the rules of the game, whatever the consequences.
This has to stop. To much is at stake. We need to save ourselves before it is too late.

Charles Owlen Picket

August 13th, 2007, 05:52 PM

@Jacks: The model is appropriate. The politics of the B's however vary and that variable make the model more complex....see below....

@John: The ISLAMBURG issue is extremely disturbing in that superficially our own "rights & humanity" will be our undoing. ISLAMBURG may be the most serious issue socially we are facing in the light of this discussion.

nbk2000

August 13th, 2007, 08:04 PM

I forgot where I saw it, but I saw a site that had forensic infrared photographs of one of the oldest korans in existence, that showed that the text had been erased and overwritten (changed) so many times that the pages appeared as solid black lines...with NO margin notes anywhere.

What does this tell us?

That the text of the Koran was changed to suit the needs of those in power at the time, who would erase the previous text and replace it with what they wanted, to show that what they commanded was was indeed 'Holy Scripture'...rather than adding margin notes to make commentary on the text, as seen in ancient Christian Bibles.

Also, I don't remember where I read this, but it's extremely relevant to your post, Charles:

When I am weak, I will plead for your mercy, for such is your nature.

When I am strong, I will show you none, for that is my nature.

When they are weak, they're 'moderates', When they are strong, they're fundamentalists.

We see this in EVERY country they've ever been in, throughout history. Yet somehow there are still fools who think their country, or muslim acquaintances, will be the exceptions.

It's actually many blacks who have purer blood and a more dominant gene pool. That's easy to see in a simple mixed marriage wherein the offspring has more black characteristics.

Purity is something easily corrupted.

Take a pinch of cigarette ash and put it in a cup of milk. Nasty, isn't it?

Now add a gallon of milk. Still taste the pollution?

How much milk would you have to add to dilute the taste of the contamination below detectability?

Now, try pouring a cup of milk into a gallon of ash. Notice any difference in the ash, other than it's wet?

This is why White racial purity is a must, as only White-White pairings result in White children.

ANYTHING else results in filthy mud.

Charles Owlen Picket

August 14th, 2007, 12:26 PM

@ NBK: I want to think about the material a bit longer before I respond to some of it as it is food for thought in an area that I am still quite undecided....however, on one topic, if I am to assume that all Muslims are antagonistic to my being, my people; what am I do do with those who profess no such antagonism? - We have those who openly profess to hate me, my race, my religion (or lack thereof), my country.... I can deal with that. What of those who simply live and work in my midst & profess no hatred?

In WWII we used the "Camp" solution to the Japanese and (to a much lesser extent as they were hard to identify) German question. Eventually we were forced by circumstance to deal with that whole complication. I don't think we even have that option now.....In our very country we have "ISLAMBURG"(s) & we sit back and let them flourish!

Years ago I could never imagine we would become a nation of impotent, fearful narcissists. Yet here we sit; allowing a group of medieval thinking religionists to call the shots!

Addendum---->
I believe I have said this before however it bear some relevance to our discussion...I have never been attracted to black women. I don't really know why. I just have never had any physical attraction to black women. When younger my sexual appetite was quite intense (...those were the days) but I never had any desire for black women, no matter their apparent attractiveness to others or what was taken as beauty in a commercial sense. I find this fascinating. I had many black women around me at work and at school, etc. But I just had no feelings for them they way I did toward white women. Thinking back on this I remember that I worked next to a young lady who I got along with quite well. We often had lunch together and She had an enjoyable sense of humor. She was black and I had no antipathy toward her what so ever....however I had no feelings toward her in a sexual manner the way I felt toward others in that office. I imagine that, in context, she would be considered quite pretty. We got along well and I certainly could have dated her. It just was not the same however in terms of sexual attraction....Looking back I find that quite fascinating because I was one of those fellows how was very active in getting involved with women (& was quite lucky to a great degree). I suppose to some that makes me a racist, sexist, pig .

JohnSmith

August 14th, 2007, 03:54 PM

Charles, asks himself, what to think of those muslims, that live next to him, and seemingly abide the law, and work for a living.

I spoke of this earlier and it is my firm belief, that we should, under no pretext be fooled by this 'normal' behaviour.
In an earlier post, I addressed this issue, and I stand by my convictions, until shown otherwise ; he who calls himself a follower of islam, however tolerant and placid he may seem, is an enemy of Reason and Civilization itself, for when the time comes, we know the choices that these individuals will make.
These choice all involve sharp implements, and white throats....

For the love of Sanity! It is the year 2007, and we are still asking ourselves if we should tolerate a belief system, that involves more, then just the private thoughts of an individual!

I would never renounce my heritage, but I have trouble enough with so called die hard Christians, let along anything else, that does not have any cultural links with my own race and people. On top of that, these people means us harm, make no mistake about that. I wouldn't presume to tell others what to think, but do we really want to take any risks, in pussy-footing about, because some of these muslims MIGHT not be so blood thirsty as their brethren?

I would not advocate any solutions, that would involve any violence, unless we are forced to defend ourselves or we are met with resistance in clearing our lands and shores of this plague. We do not want to make martyrs out of them, just like the Germans did with the Jews, and leave a whole continent with a false sense of guilt. Which is exactly the reprehensible sentiment, that these muslims abuse, in crying racism all over the place...

If we ever want to put an end to this blackmail, this invasion, then we will have to show resolve, and stop debating about the niceties of how we can get them out. We will need mass deportations, we can not afford to flinch, and show misplaced mercy as we are acting on behalf of our very survival.
Every little muslim girl, is nothing more then the mother to be of next subway/WTC/ train bomber!
Every little muslim boy ,is nothing more then the son of the above...

If we start believing the propaganda of the 'sandal walkers' we might as well take the blade to our own throats

Hirudinea

August 14th, 2007, 07:32 PM

Take a pinch of cigarette ash and put it in a cup of milk. Nasty, isn't it?
Now add a gallon of milk. Still taste the pollution?

I think that is a paraphrase of a voltare quote,

"Take a drop of wine and put it in a barrel of sewage and you have a barrel of sewage. Take a drop of sewage and put it in a barrel of wine and you have a barrel of sewage."

same idea, but sounds classier. :cool:

When I am weak, I will plead for your mercy, for such is your nature.

When I am strong, I will show you none, for that is my nature.

And if you can remember who originally said that quote please tell me, its one of my favourites.

Charles Owlen Picket

August 15th, 2007, 12:17 PM

~-=DEVIL'S ADVOCATE TIME=-~

Suppose we do deal with those Islamic individuals as a group. Do we not set ourselves up for making martyrs out of those very people?

Definitions taken from various sources:

"In the Christian context, martyr generally indicates a person who is killed for maintaining his or her religious belief, knowing that this will almost certainly result in imminent death (though without intentionally seeking death). An example is the persecution of early Christians in the Roman Empire. Christian martyrs sometimes decline to defend themselves at all, in what they see as an imitation of Jesus' willing sacrifice.

Islam is considered to have a much broader view of what constitutes a martyr, generally including any Muslim who is killed in relation to Islam, e.g. in battle. Generally, some seek to include suicide bombers as a "martyr" of Islam, however, this is widely disputed [citation not supplied via W] in the Muslim community. However this much wider usage of "martyr" is also not uncommon among Arab Christians (i.e. anyone killed in relation to Christianity or a Christian community, e.g. Pierre Amine Gemayel), indicating that the English word "martyr" may not actually be a proper equivalent of its commonly ascribed Arabic translation.

Though often religious in nature, martyrdom can be applied to a secular context as well. The term is sometimes applied to those who use violence, such as those who die for a nation's glory during wartime. It may also apply to nonviolent individuals who are killed or hurt in the struggle for independence, civil rights etc.

-------> In the above examples it appears that it would be our political undoing to "collectivize" the issue. Now one may ask "So fucking what? We have a solution to the Islamic Question" The National Guilt that Germany functions under has resulted in laws that we would find reprehensible in the context of the 1st Amendment, etc. What's more, since it has such stark similarities I propose that this issue continue to be discussed as the "Islamic Question" in that it reminds us of the political ramifications of making the same mistakes as Germany. For no matter what one's take on Jews may be, the results for the country were quite significant. I remember history and would not like to repeat it.

JohnSmith

August 15th, 2007, 12:50 PM

Charles,
I do respect your opinion on the matter, and I am do understand the concepts you are putting forward.
In spite of this, I have to disagree in the strongest possible way.

Any 'former' muslim, can and should be taken into protection, as it testifies to both courage and common sense, those however, who do not renounce this apocalyptical theorem, will have to take their luck with their cohorts of the more, overt, fanatical ilk for the simple reason, they can not be trusted!

I did not, and do not advocate making martyrs out of them, for the reasons described in other posts,but they will have to be removed, from our lands. They will go peacefully, or not. The consequences of that choice are their own responsibility, not ours.

I believe, that after 30 odd years of being subjected, to ever increasing, muslim crime and pressure, the total bankruptcy of the so called "multi cultural" society is more then evident.
After paying and suffering for 3 decades, it is, in my opinion, foolhardy, to suggest any other solution, then a definite one, without any room for the concept of compromise.

It has now come so far, that a peaceful demonstration, the 'sum mum' of democratic behaviour, organized by a multinational European forum, is forbidden, by the mayor of Brussels! As the protesters want to give testament to their resistance to the further islamisation and the sharia law in the EU, trouble is predicted. That the trouble will no doubt comes from those who want to subject us to this brutal and animal like regime, is, apparently not important.
This proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the very hart of European democracy has fallen to the Saracens' blade and is lost!

Thielemans (that is the name of the criminal, who is lord Mayor of the city of Brussels) has capitulated to the islamic hordes, that can't be stopped any more for they are already here...
Please know and note, that he did this in all our names!

Knowing this, are we then going to argue over a small ,'moderate' minority ??
We will see , how moderate they are, when "push comes to shove".
When is 'enough' , enough?

Addendum/ in as far as it is my place to do so at this forum, I do agree, with the proposal,to start a new thread, under the heading "Islamic Question" or "The curse of primitive religion in the West" or some such a title....

Charles Owlen Picket

August 15th, 2007, 09:16 PM

-(Picture a wry smile; for I am smiling)-
Remember I was playing Devil's Advocate...... so what would you specifically propose and how would this be implemented? -It's not that I would disagree with collectivization of reaction but rather how to avoid the political repercussions that would tie the very hands that protect the nation.... Because we have seen too clearly how those hands may be tied.

Repercussions? Repercussion be damned you may say. This is survival! ... Could I doubt that? Not after reading the Koran; no, I don't doubt that the Islamic element would kill me, my family, etc. I do not doubt that no matter how much I would want to be friendly; compassion would be taken for weakness. No matter how many times I would stand "fairness" that would be misconstrued as weakness. I am far, far from weak. I could stand with my fellows and protect my own.

The biggest problem is that of a man too large to fight in a phone booth. The solution appears to get the Hell out of the phone booth!

Enkidu

August 15th, 2007, 10:11 PM

... and thus moves a step closer to direct conflict with Iran.

Interestingly enough, I read somewhere that the IRGC has a lot of economic backing. It owns businesses in Iran and funnels the profits from those businesses into it military goals, such as the export of weapons and explosives to other terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah.

The new designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization will allow the US to seize its assets.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/qods.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401662_pf.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/15/africa/iran.php?page=1
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/15/iran.terror/?iref=mpstoryview

nbk2000

August 16th, 2007, 06:07 AM

I found this rather humorous. Emphasis is mine.

Muselmann - Muslim.This expression was used for inmates who were too weak for work. The next state was to be "Lunatik". The "muslims" died very fast.

From http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/General/LanguageEng.html

In all cases of demographic invasion, the first wave is always the most acceptable, in appearance/behavior/mannerism, to the targeted population.

In the case of the US, the mexicans were polite/hard-working/respectful...until they became numerous enough to become uppity and vote for welfare benefits for themselves.

Same with the niggers.

The first wave are practically white in behaviour.

Then comes the slightly more 'black' working class relatives, who bring their 'disadvantage' relations in from da 'hood. And so it goes until, eventually, your neighborhood is da 'hood.

Once you let them in, no matter how 'moderate' or 'tolerant' they may seem NOW...they will, once they become numerous enough, become intolerant of YOU...demanding that YOU leave YOUR home to make room for THEM. (search 'aztlan' or 'la raza' for examples)

The only reason the Germans have any guilt about their actions during WWII is because they lost, and the jews in charge of America have had a half-century to browbeat guilt into the Aryan people through their control of the european and western media.

But you can't hide the truth from people by lying to them through the television, when the truth is living next door and across the street from them.

Jew media can talk about tolerance and diversity all they want, but White people see the truth once they have to deal with the muds face-to-face, screaming Allah Akbar! and Viva La Raza!, and terrorizing their neighborhoods with their little thug offspring.

It's going to come to a head soon.

And at that point, it won't be the government taking a collective action to defend its citizens from the alien outsiders...it'll be the government defending the alien invaders from it's own citizens!

Then it's a civil war between the remaining natives versus it's treasonous government and their dark masters.

It's up to the White citizens of europe (eurabia?) to stand up NOW, while they still can, and take individual direct action against the invaders.

Don't think your government will do it for you, because if they were going to stand up for you, and your nation, they never would have let the brown hordes into the country in the first place.

JohnSmith

August 16th, 2007, 01:56 PM

Charles et al,

I do understand, that you where playing the devils advocate,so I apologize for the vigor of my response. From your earlier postings, I understand you to be a citizen, of the last country in the world, that has some semblance of freedom in its constitution. For me, I am afraid, the whole affair is rather 'closer to home'.
What would I suggest you ask? Well, I would start, by implementing the laws, that are already in existence, for starters! We need to stop, giving the muslims a preferential treatment.

An absolute and 'watertight' immigration stop, needs to be implemented immediately.
Immigration, (from outside the EU) is to be considered exception, not the rule.

That wouldn't stop the problem, but it would make a nice start, and would force their hand, in showing their true colors to those who are still delusional enough, to believe there is such a thing as a 'multicultural' society .
Simultaneously I would stop the system of family re-unification. This is abused, wholesale, to bring up to 20 people into our countries, as the result of one marriage!
I would insist, on the self supporting qualities of the import bride/groom and the demand for language skill and useful qualifications.This should be backed up, by a deposit in a bank of the host country, a bond if you wish.

Nationality, would be given, only after ten years and a pledge of allegiance to the host county and its culture and laws.Dual nationality would only be possible for EU citizens.
This needs to be addressed on a EU scale,rather then be a matter for the individual nations of the EU. In the meanwhile, the 'freedom of movement" in the EU only applies to non-naturalized citizens.
The country that granted the nationality bears the responsibility for the individual,until there is a EU laws, that governs immigration.
The immigrant, can, while not being a citizen yet, never take more out of a local social security system, than he/she put in.
A number of rules, are enforced, to prohibit the naturalization, such as number of offenses during the ten year waiting period. Offenses, once proved, can only result in deportation.

Economic migration is only allowed, in as far, that there is no possibility of 'in house' EU migration.

The abuse of political asylum, can be lessened by using a list of "safe" countries. it should not be impossible, to be granted asylum if you come from a country, that knows no political persecution.
Only cases, that can conclusively supply proof of persecution, are to be regarded as definite, and even then the same rules apply as in a case of economic migration, less the financial aspect.
The denial of political asylum, results in removal from EU soil within a maximum of seven days. Economic migrants await their permission to enter the EU outside its borders.

Illegals are pro actively prosecuted and deported, no trials, appeals or whatever...
Helping illegals,avoiding deportation, should be severely prosecuted and punished.
Repeat employment of illegals, done knowingly can lead to closure of business.

Islam, is by law, defined in its true sense; as a dangerous and reprehensible cult

Any religion, is of course granted the freedom, as is the case in a democratic society, but is a matter of the individual. In the "public" space, any overt signs of religious belief are not tolerated if it concerns a public official,broadcaster on a state network,teacher....No tax money is spent on subsidizing any religious groups. The Napoleonic agreements are considered fulfilled.
The cultural identity of Europe and Europeans, is recognized as a blend of Judeo-Christian heritage in its foundation.The role of the 'enlightenment' is also recognized in this matter.

Freedom of speech is absolute.

Any crime/ offense against the State, by an immigrant, even after naturalization, is considered a crime against all the member states of the EU, and is grounds for deportation/ revoking of the nationality.
Behavior, contradicting the "pledge of allegiance" is considered treason, and prosecuted accordingly.
Immigrants, who go on 'holidays' or send funds to the very regimes, they claim to flee from, are deported.
Once denied entry in one EU country, one is denied entry in the EU as a whole.

Resident 'aliens' can not legally own fire arms.The ownership of property is restricted to the domicile.
Investments are welcomed, but will not be a reason for the grating of citizenship.

A Europe wide body needs to be created , with powers similar to the US 'Homeland security' ministry.
Europe is not a typical immigration area, like the US is, this needs to be recognized.
In matters of EU law,relating to nationality, Europeans need to be able to let themselves be heard, on the 'one man, one vote' principle
A European constitution needs to be implemented in all matters pertaining immigration/nationality ,after a binding referendum, this constitution supersedes national law.

Military alliances can not be made, with non democratic countries. Weapons of a strategic nature can not be sold to them.
An effort, unlike one seen before by mankind, needs to be made in matters of energy. We need to be totally independent from oil coming out of the Middle East, or allied regimes.
The US and EU and other democratic nations will work together on this in a spirit of 'full disclosure' .
Subsequently the islam dictatorships can be isolated, to evolve, until they choose to take part in a secular and democratic civilization.If they choose not to, that is fine with me too!
So called 'developmental aid' can not be given to regimes, hostile to the EU. The US should be encouraged to do the same. As a matter of fact, the developmental aid, should only be given, via voluntary non governmental channels, never out of the taxpayers purse,after permission by a legislative body,supervising the statues governing the law on these matters.

The united nations need to be reformed and only allow nations as members, if they have a democratic system.
All governmental institutions in any EU country, that claims to enforce the belief in the 'multicultural' society need to be disbanded. Freedom of thought becomes fact and is absolute.
A charter of rights needs to drafted, and become law after a binding referendum, if need be even on the individual articles.
The ius sanguinus is considered valid, the ius solus is deemed irrelevant and dangerous.

Slowly but surely EU law starts to supersede national law. The European law, fundamentally starts from a trust in Europeans' abilities and their intellectual vigor, not from the institutionalized distrust in people or the belief, that the Europeans would be unable to decide their own fate.
Although solidarity and subsidiarity remains a valid motivation; retributional systems of social security, are replaced by capitalization systems, including a transfer between heirs.

People need to start believing that being a European means something, and that obtaining the nationality of a member state and in time a European nationality is a worthy goal.
Immigrants who are needed, and are willing to subscribe to OUR principles and laws and are willing to be 'European amongst the Europeans' can be welcomed, those who do not share this conviction, should seek solace elsewhere, are better still, stay where they are.

It will take a long time, but we need to work toward a U.S.E. , which has a constitution, and a bill of rights modeled on the ones the the Americans enjoy.Times have changed, and the world in 1776 was very different to the one we know now, but if certain things where "self evident" and "inalienable" then, so they are at the present.
The EU citizens are of the same worth and intellect as their American brethren,so they should enjoy the same freedoms.
One of these freedoms is not to be overrun, by a bunch of aggressive and intellectually inferior zealots, that have nothing to offer but murder and crime.

Economic and scientific progress should be the drive of every European,while also keeping a grasp on the 'finer' things in life. He who chooses not to subscribe to these principles, has no place on this continent,or need not count on support of any kind.
Religious motivation, that has a goal other then values that where part of the Enlightenment such as compassion and self betterment, are to be deemed unfit for human contemplation.
We need to live in the present, with a high regard for the past, if it were only to stop making the same stupid mistakes again.

Individual member states can lead by example, but will not achieve much on their own. That should not stop them!

If Europeans start to truly see these contemplations as a 'way forward' on the road to a better understanding between the EU nation states an the US and they see the true benefits that they bring, they will be much more inclined to fight their corner and to defend the ways of their fathers.
This alone would in a short time make the muslim plague a thing of history, that is told to our children as a warning, that freedom needs to be fought for every day and by all civilized men.
Reason and intellect needs to be our beacons, not the tolerance for those that would destroy are enslave us.

Some of these suggestions may seem very evident to some of you, then be sure, that they are not in Europe,or at least in big parts of the Old Continent. this will show you how low we have sunk....
Some, myself included, might perish in our struggle for freedom and Reason, but know that we will not give up.We also need help,as the net is closing,even on freedom of thought. Any support to our cause will never go unrewarded, as a victory of Reason and true freedom over Europe,would benefit all of mankind....in the long run it would even benefit those who,now, want us gone or in chains...

Addendum:
One of the very important things, I forgot to mention, was the course of action towards politicians, that have collaborated with the enemies of sanity itself!
We need to make sure, that the repulsive characters, that are selling us out,at the present time and did so in the past, never hold office again!
Every politician, who had, how ever remote,anything to do,with documents like the "Barcelona" declaration and subsequent treachery, needs to be punished in the severest possible sense.
They need to be impeached from even local office. Those who are to old, are have retired need to be placed under house arrest, and his/her property put under curated supervision.
Treason of this kind can not be forgiven, as it endangered our survival as a species.
One might even ask , if their sanity is not in question....
Whatever the case may be, they need to be made into an example,so others will not be so easily persuaded to sell out their own in such a show of self indulgent arrogance

Charles Owlen Picket

August 16th, 2007, 08:59 PM

In tune with this discussion I would like to point out something I find very amusing. When a Politically Correct individual describes someone who happens to be Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban they often use the term “Spanish”. EXAMPLE: “That Spanish girl has many children”. When what they mean is “That Mexican Girl….” I find this really quite amusing. They choose to use the European lineage instead of the proper nationality; as if the term “Mexican” is a smear. -{Here's that smile again!}-

In this context I have thought about the issue of race and reason. I would not describe myself as a racist. Rather I choose to describe myself as a “Culturalist”. I love my European culture and am proud of it. I find when I examine my thinking of my relationship to others and their race; as one of pride in my OWN heritage [and encourage others to do the same].

I choose not to hate others so much as love that of my own background (European-American). The emphasis I place on interpersonal relationships centers not on focused hatred of others of a different nationality but rather frame this in an appreciation of my own (culture & background). In the contextual element of of our discussion we really can not become multi-cultural. We will simply LOOSE the cultures that make up our world. When I say "can't" I really mean that as it seems not to be possible. Star Trek is fantasy.

Politically Incorrect? You bet! But not as foolish as to confuse a racial mix with a White European (Spanish) when speaking of the above mentioned nationalities….. What Gaul! What a ridiculous thing, to frame a person as a White European (Spaniard) as if that takes some of the “sting” out of calling a spade a spade. (All puns intended)!

@John Smith......And here is what's tough....I totally agree with the proposals, they appear well thought out. Politically they may be suicidal for the individual or political party making the first move in that direction. How can we begin that momentum? For surely if the momentum is begun it may well continue as Islamic hatred of European & Americans will fire the engine of change once it has started. etc. -- But HOW to "press that start button?" What would be the most efficient 1st steps to move in those directions? The solutions proposed are reasonable & effective ones. But the major question is one of timing and method. Sadly it seems we need more punishment to come to terms with the various destructive issues and complex answers facing our world!

metallicash

August 16th, 2007, 11:39 PM

It's up to the White citizens of europe (eurabia?) to stand up NOW, while they still can, and take individual direct action against the invaders.

Does that mean I have to get off my lazy arse, and actually do something? :eek: What if I miss the 'new' episodes of The Simpsons and I am looking forward to HL2 Episode 2, certainly don't want to miss that. So, no thank you. I would prefer to stay at home where it is warm and I will be safe and sound. Besides I have enough of a hectic life as it is, I remember just last night I had to decide between eating a chicken pie or fish.

Seriously though, no one is going to do a fucking thing about it or anything else that involves going against something (unless of course it's guns, fireworks or other 'dangerous and evil' items):( .

When I have talked to people about the government and England's problems (which a lot of it is illegal and legal immigrants) the usual replies are:

"What can I do about it?"
"It's not my problem"
"They (the government) know what they are doing" :D
"That's racist"
and my personal favourite "I hate people like you".

I saw this earlier today:
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/16309 How kind of them. :mad:

I honestly don't know how the fuck someone can take offence to something as lame as that. If they must live here (they do make good doctors, but they are rather rude and very culturally unaware themselves, hypocritical bastards) then, as mentioned, they shouldn't enforce their religion on anybody whether directly (preaching) or indirectly (laws and regulations), especially in the workplace.

I mostly agree with John smith on his ideas of controlling immigrants, I think the main argument against your ideas would be basic human rights. So a simple way to combat this, is to give a better definition of what is human and what isn't. :).

nbk2000

August 17th, 2007, 04:27 AM

This is about the most foolish thing I've seen lately:

After the homegrown violence this year we should be asking ourselves what we can do to better integrate our Muslim citizens. It is not as if British civilisation is going to collapse from a few accommodations to make Muslims less self conscious about their unique status.

Unfortunately this latest move did not help enough. It created new problems. Now that meal carts and working lunch is banned Muslims will be left alone in the office while their coworkers go out to eat together. Muslim health care workers will be missing out on important social networking opportunities that their non-Muslim coworkers receive. We need a solution for that. We should instead encourage non-Muslims to try sharing their Muslim coworkers' experience of fasting. It might be difficult the first year or two but eventually it will become familiar.

Homegrown? How about imported?

They don't want to be integrated, they want to take over.

British civilization IS collapsing under a policy of appeasement that is slowly destroying it's culture, replacing it with an alien infection.

Encourage Whites to adopt the raghead act of fasting? WTF?! We don't have to train ourselves to withstand starvation, having taken care of that with the invention of agriculture many millennium ago.

Charles Owlen Picket

August 17th, 2007, 10:40 AM

"After the homegrown violence this year we should be asking ourselves what we can do to better integrate our Muslim citizens. It is not as if British civilization is going to collapse from a few accommodations to make Muslims less self conscious about their unique status."

Dear Lord....all we have to do is examine Islamic dialog from their book! Truth is DAMNING!!!! In the USA when we read garbage like that some of us call it cowardice.... "their unique status" is that they are elitists and honestly believe that we must all be Islamic.... The British must remember what they once were. They must stop to listen to the sound of the Pipes as they once walk bravely into death's door on the battle field. GOD DAMN IT! There are still some left who when they hear the skirl of the Pipes; shed a tear. Where the hell are those souls now? All dead?

"Muhammad is Allah's Apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another". - Qur'an 48:29

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah & his Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of The Book (Jews & Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission & feel themselves subdued". - Qur'an 9:29

nbk2000

August 17th, 2007, 03:02 PM

Seems the brits are already feeling themselves subdued. :rolleyes:

If you have to wait for someone else to do it, maybe you really WANT to be a dhimmi.

There are always more people willing to support the brave ones actions, than have the courage to do it themselves.

JohnSmith

August 17th, 2007, 03:46 PM

To address " metallicash " concern, about the definition of 'a human being' I believe, that Reason itself, will bring truth in this matter.
A 'human being' is defined by its surroundings, its culture, its beliefs and above all ;its place in the social structure,and evidently, by the type of 'animal' he is(in the Darwinist sense)
By this I mean, that this definition, will be different,in every part of the world, yes even in every country, even those countries, closely allied and near in proximity.
An Englishman,will have different views on the matter, than an Irishman, or (god forbid! :D) a Frenchman! There are things, that can be seen as the common denominator.
The fact, that we are of the same species,is one of those.
But is this enough? I believe this to be a minimalistic view, that is strongly 'anaemic'.It is the view, that is used by leftists, to rally us to their mad cause.
Beside being a member of the same species, I do believe, that we need to be of a similar belief in civilized value scales.
These 'value scales' are already being provided for us. A couple of thousand years of Philosophy and a love of freedom, and the very strong will to determine ones own fate, is part and parcel of the 'thinking Westerners' set of values.
According to that same definition, one can't really take muslims into that same group.According to those very same muslims, we are the ones that are the 'untermensch'.
I believe,that this proves my point.
Different groups of beings, on this planet, have evolved to a different rate, by accident, or design. It is therefore wrong, and completely beside the point, to insist on measuring all with the same scale,as far as value is concerned
The need of those, who will be the undoing of us all, in trying to create a "constructible" society, is the drive for these 'universal truths', that have created monsters like 'the universal rights of men' declarations.
These inept constructs are either minimalistic and of no use, or the are all encompassing and eat away at freedom like a vile acid...

By all the above, on can come to the conclusion, that these kinds of definitions are an 'organic' concept, that grow within a society, within cultures of the same background etc..
It is therefore counter productive, to insist, on a 'one size fits all' concept, and we should abandon restrictive treaties like the UDRM,simply because they have no use and are an imminent threat to Freedom and Liberty.

Charels' concerns,however, are a whole different 'proposition'.
I am aware, that "bellowing out" the 'how-to-instructions' and the 'what-should-doctrines' is easy. I too, would be dumbfounded if I would have to explain how it should be made to happen.
The only few things I can say to that is,first of all, we will get nowhere with an uneducated public. I do not mean this in the strictest academic sense, but we should all be adepts of Aristotels' logic.
Even the illiterate man, can reason out an 'if - then' structure.
Too many,nowadays, have themselves led by an emotional rhetoric,that plays right in the hands of those who have sold us to the Saracen slave masters. The belief,that somehow we owe others,whatever their opinions and goals are, consideration at the expanse of our selves is rampant. This needs to be addressed first.
Americans are a lot less ill in this respect than Europeans are.

Secondly, I truly believe, that it will have to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Where I live, the government has succeeded ,again ,in alienating, yet another, big segment of the population by more restrictive fire arms laws. Too many are still not disgruntled enough, to actively do something about it, but it is a slow process, and the group is growing...
Other groups, will be targeted, with more insane and dangerous legislation, you can be sure about it.
Too many people still fight disparately, to survive, and hang on to the few things they have achieved,understandably so .

And third : some day, they will go too far. many of us, already look upon the law, as an inconvenience that needs to be circumvented (not just gun laws, believe me!).
It is only a matter of time, before everybody, old ladies with schnauzer dogs excepted, will find it morally wrong,if not impossible to have any regard for the governmental "do's and don'ts' .
Then it is the moment, to find out what really binds us. Then we can rise up and demand to be heard!
It will be something small, I am sure. Something insignificant will make the 'bucket runneth over',but it will happen.
I can only hope to live to see the day and in the mean while help to 'spread the word' and make people see what is really happening.
This can't be forced, as the individual has to come to these conclusions by his own reasoning.
So it is a process of 'spoon feeding' data, wait until digested and then some more....rather then 'soapbox' declarations of a 'serious nature'
A conviction grown as described above, can't be overturned by emotional rhetoric or emotional blackmail.

Now,please do not misunderstand, my rants as a plea for general lawlessness. we have to work within the framework of the law (most of them anyway)
Some laws, can not be upheld,or the risk to life and future freedom, is so vast, that nobody can take the risk,not to disregard or circumvent the legal 'secretions' of our dictators
Most of the laws, that govern Freedom of speech and Freedom of thought,however, are ramshackle in their nature and flawed in their construction, and are,more often then not,easy to challenge.
Mind you, that does not mean, that the 'powers that be' can afford to acquit you!
For instance, if "the man" really wanted to have my hide,my ramblings on this forum would be more then enough, to put be behind bars for a while,for I am not permitted to speak my mind, or disagree with current policy.No matter how well my arguments are, for logic and common sense, are dead and buried in this country (and the dug up,cremated and buried again)

Since the invention of racism, 'Saracens' little helpers' have it easy.
Everything, that does not conform to the ideal of the "multicultural society" is racist and despicable and can therefore not be tolerated.
This is now the universal passkey to discourage free speech and the challenge of the 'legalistic' insanity.
I have never seen or heard of a politician, that stood up and said "I was wrong, that law was not right, it should be revoked",nor do I believe there ever will be such a politician.
So the road is long and hard and dangerous,but what choice do we have? We can hardly let us be manhandled by those goons,can we?

We do not have to convince those, that sell us out(and themselves,but the fools don't even know it)
We have to encourage those that are convinced to realize it, speak,stand up and be counted...when the moment is there and the time is right.

Possible? I hope.... Easy? hell no!

black mamba

August 17th, 2007, 06:41 PM

The link below is a video blog that adds to NBK's comments. It does not offer great solutions, but does plead for Europeans to stand up to Islam and the author makes some good points.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=33c_1187358686

nbk2000

August 17th, 2007, 06:48 PM

Want some pictures to show you just how fucked up they are'

http://militaryvideo.ru/eng/forum/viewtopic.php't=23

Also, an intersting article by the guy who runs the Global Guerrillas (http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/) blog:

From http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_urban_terrorism.html

The Coming Urban Terror
/Systems disruption, networked gangs, and bioweapons/
*John Robb*
Summer 2007

For the first time in history, announced researchers this May, a
majority of the world's population is living in urban environments.
Cities'efficient hubs connecting international flows of people, energy,
communications, and capital'are thriving in our global economy as never
before. However, the same factors that make cities hubs of globalization
also make them vulnerable to small-group terror and violence.

Over the last few years, small groups' ability to conduct terrorism has
shown radical improvements in productivity'their capacity to inflict
economic, physical, and moral damage. These groups, motivated by
everything from gang membership to religious extremism, have taken
advantage of easy access to our global superinfrastructure, revenues
from growing illicit commercial flows, and ubiquitously available new
technologies to cross the threshold necessary to become terrible
threats. September 11, 2001, marked their arrival at that threshold.

Unfortunately, the improvements in lethality that we have already seen
are just the beginning. The arc of productivity growth that lets small
groups terrorize at ever-higher levels of death and disruption stretches
as far as the eye can see. Eventually, one man may even be able to wield
the destructive power that only nation-states possess today. It is a
perverse twist of history that this new threat arrives at the same
moment that wars between states are receding into the past. Thanks to
global interdependence, state-against-state warfare is far less likely
than it used to be, and viable only against disconnected or powerless
states. But the underlying processes of globalization have made us
exceedingly vulnerable to nonstate enemies. The mechanisms of power and
control that states once exerted will continue to weaken as global
interconnectivity increases. Small groups of terrorists can already
attack deep within any state, riding on the highways of
interconnectivity, unconcerned about our porous borders and our
nation-state militaries. These terrorists' likeliest point of origin,
and their likeliest destination, is the city.

Cities played a vital defensive role in the last major evolution of
conventional state-versus-state warfare. Between the world wars, the
refinement of technologies'particularly the combustion engine, when
combined with armor'made it possible for armies to move at much higher
speeds than in the past, so new methods of warfare emphasized armored
motorized maneuver as a way to pierce the opposition's solid defensive
lines and range deep into soft, undefended rear areas. These incursions,
the armored thrusts of /blitzkrieg/, turned an army's size against
itself: even the smallest armored vanguard could easily disrupt the
supply of ammunition, fuel, and rations necessary to maintain the huge
armies of the twentieth century in the field.

To defend against these thrusts, the theoretician J. F. C. Fuller wrote
in the 1930s, cities could be used as anchor or pivot points to engage
armored forces in attacks on static positions, bogging down the
offensive. Tanks couldn't move quickly through cities, and if they
bypassed them and struck too deeply into enemy territory, their supply
lines'in particular, of the gasoline they drank greedily'would become
vulnerable. The city, Fuller anticipated, could serve as a vast
fortress, requiring the fast new armor to revert to the ancient tactic
of the siege. That's exactly what happened in practice during World War
II, when the defenses mounted in Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad
played a major role in the Allied victory.

But in the current evolution of warfare, cities are no longer defensive
anchors against armored thrusts ranging through the countryside. They
have become the main targets of offensive action themselves. Just as the
huge militaries of the early twentieth century were vulnerable to supply
and communications disruption, cities are now so heavily dependent on a
constant flow of services from various centralized systems that even the
simplest attacks on those systems can cause massive disruption.

Most of the networks that we rely on for city life'communications,
electricity, transportation, water'are overused, interdependent, and
extremely complex. They developed organically as what scholars in the
emerging field of network science call 'scale-free networks,' which
contain large hubs with a plethora of connections to smaller and more
isolated local clusters. Such networks are economically efficient and
resistant to random failure'but they are also extremely vulnerable to
intentional disruptions, as Albert-Laszlo Barabasi shows in his
important book /Linked: The New Science of Networks/. In practice, this
means that a very small number of attacks on the critical hubs of a
scale-free network can collapse the entire network. Such a collapse can
occasionally happen by accident, when random failure hits a critical
node; think of the huge Northeast blackout of 2003, which caused $6.4
billion in damage.

Further, the networks of our global superinfrastructure are tightly
'coupled''so tightly interconnected, that is, that any change in one has
a nearly instantaneous effect on the others. Attacking one network is
like knocking over the first domino in a series: it leads to cascades of
failure through a variety of connected networks, faster than human
managers can respond.

The ongoing attacks on the systems that support Baghdad's 5 million
people illustrate the vulnerability of modern networks. Over the last
four years, guerrilla assaults on electrical systems have reduced
Baghdad's power to an average of four or five hours a day. And the
insurgents have been busily finding new ways to cut power: no longer do
they make simple attacks on single transmission towers. Instead, they
destroy multiple towers in series and remove the copper wire for resale
to fund the operation; they ambush repair crews in order to slow repairs
radically; they attack the natural gas and water pipelines that feed the
power plants. In September 2004, one attack on an oil pipeline that fed
a power plant quickly led to a cascade of power failures that blacked
out electricity throughout Iraq.

Lack of adequate power is a major reason why economic recovery has been
nearly impossible in Iraq. No wonder that, in account after account,
nearly the first criticism that any Iraqi citizen levels against the
government is its inability to keep the lights on. Deprived of services,
citizens are forced to turn to local groups'many of them at war with the
government'for black-market alternatives. This money, in turn, fuels
further violence, and the government loses legitimacy.

Insurgents have directed such disruptive attacks against nearly all the
services necessary to get a city of 5 million through the day: water
pipes, trucking, and distribution lines for gasoline and kerosene. And
because of these networks' complexity and interconnectivity, even small
attacks, costing in the low thousands of dollars to carry out, can cause
tens of millions and occasionally hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.

Iraq is a petri dish for modern conflict, the Spanish Civil War of our
times. It's the place where small groups are learning to fight modern
militaries and modern societies and win. As a result, we can expect to
see systems disruption used again and again in modern conflict'certainly
against megacities in the developing world, and even against those in
the developed West, as we have already seen in London, Madrid, and Moscow.

Another growing threat to our cities, commonest so far in the developing
world, is gangs challenging government for control. For three sultry
July days in 2006, a gang called PCC (Primeiro Comando da Capital,
'First Command of the Capital') held hostage the 20 million inhabitants
of the greater São Paulo area through a campaign of violence. Gang
members razed police stations, attacked banks, rioted in prisons, and
torched dozens of buses, shutting down a transportation system serving
2.9 million people a day.

The previous May, a similar series of attacks had terrified the city.
'The attackers moved on foot, and by car and motorbike,' wrote William
Langewiesche in /Vanity Fair/. 'They were not rioters, revolutionaries,
or the graduates of terrorist camps. They were anonymous young men and
women, dressed in ordinary clothes, unidentifiable in advance, and
indistinguishable afterward. Wielding pistols, automatic rifles, and
firebombs, they emerged from within the city, struck fast, and vanished
on the spot. Their acts were criminal, but the attackers did not loot,
rob, or steal. They burned buses, banks, and public buildings, and went
hard after the forces of order'gunning down the police in their
neighborhood posts, in their homes, and on the streets.'

The violence hasn't been limited to São Paulo. In December 2006, a
copycat campaign by an urban gang called the Comando Vermelho ('Red
Command') shut down Rio de Janeiro, too. In both cases, the gangs
fomenting the violence didn't list demands or send ultimatums to the
government. Rather, they were flexing their muscles, testing their
ability to challenge the government monopoly on violence.

Both gangs had steadily accumulated power for a decade, helped in part
by globalization, which simplifies making connections to the
multitrillion-dollar global black-market economy. With these new
connections, the gangs' profit horizon became limitless, fueling rapid
expansion. New communications technology, particularly cell phones,
played a part, too, making it possible for the gangs to thrive as loose
associations, and allowing a geographical and organizational dispersion
that rendered them nearly invulnerable to attack. The PCC has been
particularly successful, growing from a small prison gang in the
mid-nineties to a group that today controls nearly half of São Paulo's
slums and its millions of inhabitants. An escalating confrontation
between these gangs and the city governments appears inevitable.

The gangs' rapid rise into challengers to urban authorities is something
that we will see again elsewhere. This dynamic is already at work in
American cities in the rise of MS-13, a rapidly expanding transnational
gang with a loose organizational structure, a propensity for violence,
and access to millions in illicit gains. It already has an estimated
8,000 to 10,000 members, dispersed over 31 U.S. states and several Latin
American countries, and its proliferation continues unabated, despite
close attention from law enforcement. Like the PCC, MS-13 or a similar
American gang may eventually find that it has sufficient power to hold a
city hostage through disruption.

The final threat that small groups pose to cities is weapons of mass
destruction. Though most of the worry over WMDs has focused on nuclear
weapons, those aren't the real long-term problem. Not only is the vast
manufacturing capability of a nation-state required to produce the basic
nuclear materials, but those materials are difficult to manipulate,
transport, and turn into weapons. Nor is it easy to assemble a nuke from
parts bought on the black market; if it were, nation-states like Iran,
which have far more resources at their disposal than terrorist groups
do, would be doing just that instead of resorting to internal production.

It's also unlikely that a state would give terrorists a nuclear weapon.
Sovereignty and national prestige are tightly connected to the
production of nukes. Sharing them with terrorists would grant immense
power to a group outside the state's control'the equivalent of giving
Osama bin Laden the keys to the presidential palace. If that isn't
deterrent enough, the likelihood of retaliation is, since states, unlike
terrorist groups, have targets that can be destroyed. The result of a
nuclear explosion in Moscow or New York would very probably be the
annihilation of the country that manufactured the bomb, once its
identity was determined'as it surely would be, since no plot of that
size can remain secret for long.

Even in the very unlikely case that a nuclear weapon did end up in
terrorist hands, it would be a single horrible incident, rather than an
ongoing threat. The same is true of dirty bombs, which disperse
radioactive material through conventional explosives. No, the real
long-term danger from small groups is the use of biotechnology to build
weapons of mass destruction. In contrast with nuclear technology,
biotech's knowledge and tools are already widely dispersed'and their
power is increasing exponentially.

The biotech field is in the middle of a massive improvement in
productivity through advances in computing power. In fact, the curves of
improvement that we see in biotechnology mirror the rates of improvement
in computing dictated by Moore's Law'the observation, borne out by
decades of experience, that the ratio of performance to price of
computing power doubles every 24 months. This means that incredible
power will soon be in the hands of individuals. University of Washington
engineer Robert Carlson observes that if current trends in the rate of
improvement in DNA sequencing continue, 'within a decade a single person
at the lab bench could sequence or synthesize all the DNA describing all
the people on the planet many times over in an /eight-hour day/.' And
with ever tinier, cheaper, and more widely available tools, a large and
decentralized industrial base that is hiring lab techs at a double-digit
growth rate, and the active transfer of knowledge via the Internet (the
blueprints of the entire smallpox virus now circulate on the Web),
biotech is too widely available for us to contain it.

In less than a decade, then, biotechnology will be ripe for the
widespread development of weapons of mass destruction, and it fits the
requirements of small-group warfare perfectly. It is small, inexpensive,
and easy to manufacture in secret. Also, since dangerous biotechnology
is based primarily on the manipulation of information, it will make
rapid progress through the same kind of amateur tinkering that currently
produces new computer viruses. Terrorists also have a growing advantage
in delivering bioweapons. The increasing porousness of national borders,
size of global megacities, and volume of air travel all mean that the
delivery and percolation of bioweapons will be fast-moving and
widespread'potentially on several continents at once.

It is almost certain that we will see repeated, perhaps incessant,
attempts to deploy bioweapons with new strains of viruses or bacteria.
Picture a Russian biohacker who, a decade from now, designs a new,
deadly form of the common flu virus and sells it on the Internet, just
as computer viruses and worms get sold today. The terrorist group that
buys the design sends it to a recently hired lab tech in Pakistan, who
performs the required modifications with widely available tools. The
product then ships by mail to London, to the awaiting 'suicide
vectors''men who infect themselves and then board airplanes headed to
world destinations, infecting passengers on the planes and in crowded
terminals. The infection spreads quickly, going global in days'long
before anyone detects it.

It's very possible that many cities will fall in the face of such deadly
threats. Megacities in the developing world'which often, because of
their rapid growth, widespread corruption, and illegitimate governance,
aren't able to provide security or basic services for their citizens'are
particularly vulnerable. However, cities in the developed world that
properly appreciate the threats arrayed against them may devise
startlingly innovative solutions.

In almost all cases, cities can defend themselves from their new enemies
through effective decentralization. To counter systems disruption,
decentralized services'the capability of smaller areas within cities to
provide backup services, at least on a temporary basis'could radically
diminish the harmful consequences of disconnection from the larger
global grid. In New York, this would mean storage or limited production
capability of backup electricity, water, and fuel, with easy connections
to the delivery grid'at the borough level or even smaller. These backups
would then provide a means of restoring central services rapidly after a
failure.

Similarly, cities may combat networked gangs by decentralizing their own
security. Cities have long maintained centralized police forces, but
gangs can often overwhelm them. Many governments are responding with
militarized police: China is building a million-man paramilitary force,
for example; and even in the United States, the use of SWAT teams has
increased from 3,000 deployments a year in the 1980s to 50,000 a year in
2006. But militarized police may too easily become an army of
occupation, and, if corrupt, as they are in Brazil, they may become
enemies of the state along with the gangs.

A better solution involves local security forces, either locally
recruited or bought on the marketplace (such as Blackwater), which can
be powerful bulwarks against small-group terrorism. Such forces may
become a vital component in our defense against bioterrorism, too, since
they can enforce local containment'and since large centralized services,
like the ones we have today, might actually accelerate the propagation
of bioweapons. Still, if improperly established, local forces can also
become rogue criminal entities, like the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia
and the militias in Rio de Janeiro. Governments need to regulate them
carefully.

In the future, we probably won't know exactly how we will be attacked
until it happens. In highly uncertain situations like this, centralized
solutions that emphasize uniform responses will often collapse.
Heterogeneous systems, by contrast, are unlikely to fail
catastrophically. Moreover, local innovation'supplemented by a
marketplace in goods and services that improve security, detection,
monitoring, and so on'is likely to develop responses to threats quickly
and effectively. Other localities will copy those responses that prove
successful.

In June 2007, the FBI and local law enforcement halted a plot to blow up
the John F. Kennedy International Airport's fuel tanks and feeder
pipelines. This was another great example of how police forces, if used
correctly, can defuse threats before they become a menace [see 'On the
Front Line in the War on Terrorism
</html/17_3_preventing_terrorism.html>']. However, our current level of
safety will not last. The selection of the target demonstrated clearly
that future attackers will take advantage of our systems' vulnerability
to disruption, which will sharply increase the number of potential
targets. It also showed that these threats can emerge spontaneously from
small groups unconnected to al-Qaida. More and more attempts will come,
with higher and higher rates of success. Our choice is simple: we can
rely exclusively on our current security systems to stop the threats 'and
suffer the consequences when they don't' or we can take measures to
mitigate the impact of these threats by exerting local control over
essential services.

The tactics used by these groups would work for any other group. ;)

Corona

August 18th, 2007, 03:40 AM

sends it to a recently hired lab tech in Pakistan, who performs the required modifications

I heard that!

Pakistan seems to have gripped the imagination of a few people as full of folk always on the lookout to tweak something in some kind of lab and who can't wait to spread it around like marmalade on toast.

Why couldn't he write "some Arab tech in some Arab or Iranian lab"? :confused:

Even if true, what's so bad about that? We believe in sharing stuff. We are Asians and we don't have the same concepts of privacy and private property and intellectual property that Americans or Europeans might have. :cool:

We share good stuff too. For example, this guy in Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atta_ur_Rahman) created an easier process to get the anti-cancer drugs Vinblastine and Vincristine from the extract of the Madagascar periwinkle. Kids dying from leukemia have a better chance now because of this guy. He didn't profit from his patents. (British Patent No. 1551054, dated 7-5-1976.) http://www.hec.gov.pk/htmls/chairman/publication5.htm

Sharing is good. Never diss sharing.

JohnSmith

August 18th, 2007, 11:11 AM

I have done some more thinking and contemplating,in order a give a better answer to Charles' question.
In the hope, that I have addressed some of his concerns,I will limit the content of this posting to some suggestions, that,I believe, might make the difference between death or enslavement and victory.
The previous posting I made spoke of "getting nowhere with an uneducated public". I explained what I meant by that,but I left out a somewhat important aspect of this.
What I should have added,was that the need for 'real world skills' will be paramount.

Millions of people go on with life in the EU, like there is nothing going on. They believe, that the shops will always be full, and that the government will be there to save their 'skinny white béhinds' when the trouble starts.Of course, anybody, with an IQ ,one higher than the average room temperature,can figure out, that this is a dangerous delusion.
We will be left, to or own,sorry, devices,as no preparations for war, especially not a domestic one, are made.
One country after another,succumbs to the hysteria of the 'gun grabbers',and law abiding citizens are left defenceless.

Technical education,has become a farce,and there are now people calling themselves 'technician' or 'engineer', who are just capable of replacing 'a part' or a 'module' in a piece of equipment, providing the 'diagnostic system' does the thinking for them.This to the dismay of 'old timers' like myself,who were thought to think for them selves and to know how 'stuff works'.
It is virtually impossible to find a machinist, that can work a lathe or a milling machine. The odd one can do some routine work with a CNC machine, but there the 'national skills collection' endeth.

A young woman,that has some semblance of 'cookery skills' and knows how to 'run a house' is impossible to find. The 'education' of children is limited to bringing overweight 'butterballs' to ballet class or driving 'Johnny' to football practice, in spite of the fact, that the child is out of shape, and doesn't even know, that the ball is made of leather.

I could go on,but the Panel,will 'get my drift'...
It is up to us, the people,who are aware of the up oncoming world inferno,and make no mistake,it will be a global conflict that is more brutal and cruel then anything humanity has witnessed before,to make sure that a number of us survive this mess.
We owe that,at least, to those who came before us and made Western civilization,what it is.

A number of things can be done, to ensure that we emerge victorious out of the struggle, that is ahead of us.
Most things we can do,involve knowledge. Something I believe, the members of this forum, need no convincing of!
We can only read so many books in a lifetime,so we have to be selective.

We need to know, how weapons are manufactured, and we need to be able to manufacture them.
Stockpiling is one thing,but what is between the ears, can't be taken away.
In order to manufacture a decent amount of weapons, that are worth using and can be relied upon, we need skills,metalworking skills; there is no law anywhere, that prohibits a man from learning how to use a lathe and a milling machine.
In the past, and in a country, that had a more democratic regime, a small number of us took up the challenge of making a number of machine guns,in a set time. We were able to make 5 sub machine guns a week, for 3 weeks rolling.
These were exact copies of a know Israeli product,and could not be distinguished from the commercial article.
For legal reasons, the weapons were destroyed after testing.
We managed a production of 0.7 sub machine guns a day per machinist,with the first finished product available after 8 days.
The equipment was one lathe and one miller and some home brew contraptions made on the two former machines.
Only recycled metal was used! Sources where scrapyards and car wrecks

Guns need ammo! So a subsequent project, was the manufacture of ammo,from scrap.
An arbor press was made an used to press anvils and casings for primers. A number of designs of casings were spun on the lathe and pressed with makeshift dies and a 20 ton bottle jack.
Chemical mixes were made and tried; most of them worked satisfactory.
A primitive, hand cranked plastic moulding machine was even fabricated to make shells for 12 gauge shotguns.

We will need power for our workshops, so we need to be able to run and maintain a diesel generator.
If we do not have a generator, we will have to build one.This to requires some skill and both electrical and mechanical knowledge.
We need to understand the concept of diesel engines and the fact that they run on a variety of fuels, which can be made in the home workshop, if need be.

In some cases we will have to cast metal. This too, is something that hundreds of people do on a regular basis, in pursuit of a variety of hobby's and is both interesting and reasonable easy to overcome.

We need a very good understanding of chemical principles, as we will have to make propellants,primers, explosives and a host of other things, going from shampoo, to bug spray
We will have to preserve food and manufacture medicine.

We also, will need, and this a the saddest part of all, a working knowledge of police procedure and of local law.
As the numskulls in authority usually take side against their own,you could be hassled by them in learning these skills in preparation of events to come. So beware!

A lot of books, printed by popular houses, that specialize in 'survival' techniques and all sorts of 'expedient fire arms' are amusing, but incorrect or inadequate. It pays off, to get your hands on the 'proper' stuff.
Victorian textbooks, are a great source of intel, in which one would find working propositions of chemistry,weapons manufacture etc,that can be done and made with relative 'primitive means'.
There are plenty good machining books about,and there is the odd useful 'survival' book.

I too, was compelled to buy literature from the know houses if 'ill repute',but I have since learned a lot.You will pick up the odd thing here and there, but never enough to organize a proper and effective resistance movement.
Just remember, that wars are not won on the battlefield, they are won in the factories and workshops.
And since we will have none of the above in a few years, it is up to us, to make sure,that a 'cottage industry' in weapons manufacture and chemical works of all sorts ,survives and can serve us in the ultimate conflict that is ahead of us.

If we overlook these facts,we will be done for and we might as well pack it in right here and right now.
Because some day,sooner or later, we will have to put our 'skinny white posteriors' on the line, to drive the Saracen out of the civilized world,and I would rather do that with a fire arm, then with a garden hoe.

Charles Owlen Picket

August 19th, 2007, 01:21 PM

There is a concept known as leaderless resistance. This may be where you are going, I believe. But more to the point when popular opinion is controlled via political commercialization we are in a sorry state. The "Two Party System" or it's equivalent may actually be one of the major issues facing us and our timidity to act in a rational, self-preservationist manner.

Leaving alone the "nuts and bolts" approach to securing the future of our children for a moment; I believe we need to find what is inhibiting us from acting on rational threats to our survival.

The actual business of a politician today is to stay in office; not to lead the people and do what's best for the nation.

The EU and, to a lesser extent, the USA has some 3rd party candidates but they rarely get elected. When they do they often yield to pressure to maintain their power by widening their base thus appealing to the commercial masses.

These "commercial masses" are those lead by their noses by popular culture expressed by marketing hype. It becomes a self destructive cycle. Then we get quite excited when we are hit by terrorism, etc. At that point the marketing garbage starts anew & we are lulled back to complacency.

More people died in 911 than in Pearl Harbor. The USA reacted to being attacked by the Japs by going to war in the 1940's. After 911 we made a feeble attempt to react by doing whatever we are doing in Iraq.

I can fault President Bush for many things. But what I cannot forgive him for is being the worst communicator in Presidential history! Our country is not being lead. It is wallowing in decadency due to lack of leadership. During Clinton's term in office the nation was wallowing in decadency due to the leader's decadency and desire to maintain power-base, etc. We have had very, very few real leaders.

I don't follow EU politics the way I should to have a more precise understanding of the issues there. However I do know that our enemies have leaders that inspire them. And this (IMO) is one major issue surrounding our lack of ability to get off 'skinny white posteriors'.

JohnSmith

August 19th, 2007, 02:40 PM

I can, of course only speak for myself, and to an extent, for a part of my own country.
But there is of course a valid point, in the analysis that Charles has put forward, in that political systems serve on, and only one purpose : to keep the status quo!
The two party system in the US, might even be a bit less 'diseased' that the politics of most of the EU countries.
The surest way to never ever get anything to change, is 'proportional representation'.
Every election, there are some minor shifts in the amount of reps, that a political colour sends to parliament, but the same 'big vegetables' keep coming back,and after them their sons and daughters.
Almost like dynasties!

I am not exaggerating, if I say, that the EU, consists of a number of de facto police states.
This is maintained in a childishly simple and effective manner.

Social security being the major demonic component in this. People never make enough 'net' income to save for themselves and to work out a decent pension plan,the State takes a colossal amount of money out of your wages and claims to insure you for all possible disasters. You are insured for unemployment, illness and old age.
It is only, when the time is there to 'enjoy' any of these benefits, that one finds out, one has been robbed, as the replacements incomes, are just too little to live, and just too much to starve. They are of course in no relation to the vast amounts of money that you were forced to pay!

On top of that, there is no way to 'step out of the system'. And also, every social position, is a factor in these taxes.
If I tell you, that a young man, making a gross salary of 30 000 Euro, is left with a net salary of about 17 000,you should know enough.
On top of that daylight robbery, he pays an average of 20% VAT on everything he buys and lets hope he doesn't need to much fuel in a month, as a liter of the stuff now nears prices of 1,4 Euro! 80% of which are taxes.

Every misstep one takes, be it in traffic or against minor penal offences gives rise to huge fines.
A lot of these youngsters get a mortgage, and that is usually the end of them, because now they can keep their mouths shut for the next 20 year or so, as an unemployment ristorno, would never pay the mortgage and put food on the table.

So,pure and simple, it is blackmail on an unprecedented scale, and most of us walk into it, with our eyes wide open, because we are thought: there is no other way....
Needles to say, that people who are institutionalized in this way, are not the type, that are going to provide trouble, even for the most scandalous of governments.

If there is a bit of unrest, a lightning rod, is usually found strait away. Some pedo-scandal, or some financial trouble with some lowlife politician who can be sacrificed.
That is why I am sure, that it will be something small, and totally unforeseen, that will kick start the whole affair.
If I could find out what that 'unforeseen' thing would be, trust me, I would have found some way of 'launching' it!!

This population is tired, really and truly tired. As a people, and as individuals. We almost need a private secretary, to keep up with the obligatory paperwork, it is costing us money and time, and we can't afford to mess it up, once it is in order..
We are the most productive workforce on the planet,which is another thing that takes its toll.
And to my great shame, I have to admit, that we are becoming less and less well educated,in the academic sense.
This last point, is one of infamy, as this is part and parcel of the governments' plan to keep us controlled.

Add to this the constant harassing of people with these fabricated racial issues, and you have a picture,that isn't very pretty.
I do not get discouraged easily, but,on reflection, one has to be made of stern stuff, to look at the whole mess, and not hang your head.

Here and there, we see the odd, small hopeful token event, but it is usually for the wrong reason and dies down, even before something can be done with it. The control is absolute, and there are contingency plans, against every possible form of resistance.
The government, in my case, has been working on this for over a century and a half, and there is no man alive in this country, who even knows what the taste of freedom is like.

As I have repeated over and over again: even writing on this forum, is not without its risks. We have no privacy, no personal freedoms, no rights except some vague concepts,that are good to man nor beast...how the hell are we supposed to fight?
Most of the youth, is not even aware of the disaster that unfolds on them, let alone that they would be prepared to sacrifice time and effort, let alone 'life and limb' to make Europe a better place.

I always believed, and still do, that I should be able to do what I want, as long as I do not touch upon the freedom and integrity of my fellow man. I accept that rules need to be in place because of a number of practical issues and that laws are needed, as not everybody grasps the first concept of what I am describing here. But if a government goes further than this, then it is a dictatorship.

To an American, this will sound pretty normal and 'self evident'.

Over here, it is blasphemy and heresy...