"Peaceful Islam" Report -- 17 November 2009
Planet Visitor II
Item 1 --
17 November -- Rockets fired by Muslims slammed into a market killing
12 Muslims, and injuring 30 Muslims, 20 of them seriously, in a failed
attack trying to target a French NATO General.
Item 2 --
17 November -- A pickup truck laden with explosives planted by Muslims
blew up outside a police station in Pakistan killing 4 other Muslims
and injuring 30 other Muslims.
Item 3 --
17 November -- Muslim gunmen in Iraqi army uniforms abducted and
murdered 13 other Muslims whose bodies were found today, including
that of a local leader of Iraq's largest Sunni party, which once
helped fight al-Qaeda.
<sarcasm>
Of course Islam is not to blame for those murders. Since all the
murderers are simply "disturbed," absolving all responsibility anyone
might claim Islam has for those murders. Or.. as an alternate
excuse... western civilization, and especially the U.S., is
responsible for kicking the rock under which Islam rested
"peacefully."
</sarcasm>
Let's all be _politically correct_ and not question the motives of
those Muslims who murder other Muslims. Because it might
embarrass "moderate" Muslims, rather than bring the point
that Islam needs to modify the behavior patterns of its
members if it expects to find sympathy toward those who
practice Islam. "Islamophobia" is not the reason Muslims
murder other Muslims. "Islamophobia" is instead the
shock and nausea felt by those who see Muslims killing
other Muslims and killing non-Muslims in what they call
a "jihad" against western civilization every day.
Planet Visitor II
yitzhak in eretz isreal (sic)
><sarcasm>
ROFL!!!!!
Poor beaten and defeated spastic, Nazi Spastic Noles has to _tell_ us when
he's using sarcasm ...
Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!
You. Fucking. Moron.
Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
AADP's 'left-wing Israeli intellectual'
'The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones
who attacked us in America on September the 11th'
(George W. Bush, 12 July 2007)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
Donna Evleth
> From: Planet Visitor II <na...@earthlink.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:52:05 -0500
> Subject: "Peaceful Islam" Report -- 17 November 2009
Forget about "politically correct". My practical mind asks why it is not
possible to contain the fanatical Muslims who murder other Muslims. The
examples you give all seem to have occurred in Muslim countries. If they
continue to carry out their "jihad" against each other, and the West does
not continue to intervene, perhaps the moderates among them - and really and
truly, there are some - will get fed up and act against these fanatics.
I truly believe that they are going to have to be the ones to do their own
policing against their fanatics, and that anything we try will probably make
things worse. Think martyr complex. They have to learn for themselves.
It is not easy to stand aside and see people massacre each other in the name
of fanatical religious beliefs. But I think they have to get tired of it by
themselves. Otherwise, they will blame the outsiders who try to stop them
as foreign heretical lesson givers.
Donna Evleth
Donna Evleth
>
>
>
> Planet Visitor II
Runge17
"yitzhak in eretz isreal (sic)" <yit...@yahoo.com> a �crit dans le message
de news:008c8391$0$26886$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Gregory Morrow
> Talking about evleth, we suppose
Strange that Earl almost *never* discusses *you*, scRunge...
--
Best
Greg
Planet Visitor II
wrote:
So it's all _our fault_. I suppose we should get out the
self-flagellating chains to punish ourselves for Muslims killing other
Muslims. Of course I agree that we should exit Iraq and Afghanistan,
but I do so with great reluctance, since those particular moderate
Muslims are being specifically targeted for murder every day,
and I don't see that power struggle between fanatics and moderates
will abate if we leave.
My problem is that I've just grown weary of seeing so many Americans
being killed because of Islam's failures. But I don't see the problem
with fanatics in Islam going away in the western world. Sooner or
later it will spread like a festering sore more and more into western
civilization. I fear we are playing the role of Chamberlain in the
long term by not aggressively dealing with the virus of fanatics in
Islam, since I doubt seriously that Islam has any idea of just how
those fanatics are encouraged by passivity. so I do not believe Islam
will be able to independently deal with those Muslim fanatics, both
foreign and domestic.
In any case, we in our 70s will be dust before any real threat arises
to western civilization from Islam. But as a human being I cannot
help but feel a vast well of pity for future generations, in my belief
of what is to come in the next hundred years.
>I truly believe that they are going to have to be the ones to do their own
>policing against their fanatics, and that anything we try will probably make
>things worse. Think martyr complex. They have to learn for themselves.
And that also works with mothers and fathers dealing with unruly
children? Just let them _work it out for themselves_?
It hasn't seemed to work in Pakistan where they are trying to deal
with Islamic fanatics by themselves. Moderate Pakistanis are
still being slaughtered every day. Today a Muslim suicide bomber
murdered 19 other Muslims. In the past two weeks in Pakistan more
than 80 Muslims have been murdered in 7 attacks by Muslim
fanatics.
Think about it, Donna. Fanatics tend to gravitate toward other
fanatics, and in that way grow only stronger if not confronted. That's
what it happening right now in many Muslim dominated
countries.
While in the western world there is a continued division among
moderates, most of whom hope unreasonably that Islamic fanatics
will somehow come to the realization of how destructive they are
to our species, if we just give them enough space, and other
moderates are booed down by those moderates as being
"Islamophobic." There is certainly no cohesion among western
"moderates," about how to deal with fanatics in Islam, but there
is a lot of finger pointing among those same moderates.
>It is not easy to stand aside and see people massacre each other in the name
>of fanatical religious beliefs.
You're right.
> But I think they have to get tired of it by
>themselves. Otherwise, they will blame the outsiders who try to stop them
>as foreign heretical lesson givers.
Most certainly we already have Muslims in western civilization who are
killing non-Muslims and even killing their own daughters and sisters.
Are we also supposed to let Islam do its own policing against
religious Islamic fanatics who live in the western world? What I do
see is Islam in the western world blaming non-Muslims for the excesses
of Islam even in the western world, insisting that fanatic Muslims who
kill others in the name of "Allah," in western civilization would not
do so if non-Muslims were not so "Islamophobic." Also insisting that
those who murder in the name of "Allahu Akbar," are not _really_
Muslims.
Of course my point was to demonstrate that Islam as a religion is far
from the peaceful religion that moderate Muslims insist it is. Yet we
shrink from the responsibility of _profiling_ a religion. Drastic
action may be costly, but it can be less expensive than continued
inaction.
Just because there is a "right" to practice a religion does not mean
there is not a "right" to both criticize that religion and condemn
excesses committed in the name of that religion. Yet current
_politically correct thinking_ is that there is no right to criticize
or condemn excesses committed in the name of Islam, for fear
of being called a bigot, and Islamophobic. Just as there is thinking
in this group that there is no right to criticize a fanatic
pseudo-Zionist among the members of this group who insists
that G-d has intended the Jews to murder every Arab (who he
calls "scum") from the Nile to the Tigris.
Planet Visitor II
>Donna Evleth
Donna Evleth
> From: Planet Visitor II <na...@earthlink.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:49:19 -0500
> Subject: Re: "Peaceful Islam" Report -- 17 November 2009
I don't believe the power struggle between fanatics and moderates will end
anytime soon, but I am less pessimistic than you. I think the moderates
will be more active when they know that they have to do it themselves.
I don't for one minute think it's "all our fault". It certainly is not.
But our intervention doesn't seem to have done much to stop it, either.
>
> My problem is that I've just grown weary of seeing so many Americans
> being killed because of Islam's failures. But I don't see the problem
> with fanatics in Islam going away in the western world. Sooner or
> later it will spread like a festering sore more and more into western
> civilization. I fear we are playing the role of Chamberlain in the
> long term by not aggressively dealing with the virus of fanatics in
> Islam, since I doubt seriously that Islam has any idea of just how
> those fanatics are encouraged by passivity. so I do not believe Islam
> will be able to independently deal with those Muslim fanatics, both
> foreign and domestic.
>
> In any case, we in our 70s will be dust before any real threat arises
> to western civilization from Islam. But as a human being I cannot
> help but feel a vast well of pity for future generations, in my belief
> of what is to come in the next hundred years.
>
>> I truly believe that they are going to have to be the ones to do their own
>> policing against their fanatics, and that anything we try will probably make
>> things worse. Think martyr complex. They have to learn for themselves.
>
> And that also works with mothers and fathers dealing with unruly
> children? Just let them _work it out for themselves_?
When the kids are dealing with each other, not adults, often it does work.
As you know, I come from the generation before all the adult-organized team
sports for children. The kids formed their own teams, made their own rules.
I don't remember any mayhem of any kind. I also feel that when parents did
not have to take a lot of responsibility for organizing these sports and
transportation to them, they had more time to relate to their own kids on a
one to one basis.
>
> It hasn't seemed to work in Pakistan where they are trying to deal
> with Islamic fanatics by themselves. Moderate Pakistanis are
> still being slaughtered every day. Today a Muslim suicide bomber
> murdered 19 other Muslims. In the past two weeks in Pakistan more
> than 80 Muslims have been murdered in 7 attacks by Muslim
> fanatics.
>
> Think about it, Donna. Fanatics tend to gravitate toward other
> fanatics, and in that way grow only stronger if not confronted. That's
> what it happening right now in many Muslim dominated
> countries.
How do we "confront" them? On the occasions we have tried it, it hasn't
gone all that well. I do wish we wouldn't supply these countries with quite
so many weapons.
>
> While in the western world there is a continued division among
> moderates, most of whom hope unreasonably that Islamic fanatics
> will somehow come to the realization of how destructive they are
> to our species, if we just give them enough space, and other
> moderates are booed down by those moderates as being
> "Islamophobic." There is certainly no cohesion among western
> "moderates," about how to deal with fanatics in Islam, but there
> is a lot of finger pointing among those same moderates.
>
>> It is not easy to stand aside and see people massacre each other in the name
>> of fanatical religious beliefs.
>
> You're right.
>
>> But I think they have to get tired of it by
>> themselves. Otherwise, they will blame the outsiders who try to stop them
>> as foreign heretical lesson givers.
>
> Most certainly we already have Muslims in western civilization who are
> killing non-Muslims and even killing their own daughters and sisters.
> Are we also supposed to let Islam do its own policing against
> religious Islamic fanatics who live in the western world? What I do
> see is Islam in the western world blaming non-Muslims for the excesses
> of Islam even in the western world, insisting that fanatic Muslims who
> kill others in the name of "Allah," in western civilization would not
> do so if non-Muslims were not so "Islamophobic." Also insisting that
> those who murder in the name of "Allahu Akbar," are not _really_
> Muslims.
I believe that we have to keep a careful eye on fanatical Muslims in the
western countries. So many people have been influenced by radical imams in
certain mosques.
One of the problems with Islam is that it has no hierarchy. Mosques spring
up without any sanction from a higher Muslim authority. I believe this is
why we have Muslims calling other Muslims' practices and beliefs "not the
true Islam". In this regard, I approved of Sarkozy's creation of a Muslim
council here in France. An official body of moderate Muslims is needed as a
dialogue partner.
>
> Of course my point was to demonstrate that Islam as a religion is far
> from the peaceful religion that moderate Muslims insist it is. Yet we
> shrink from the responsibility of _profiling_ a religion. Drastic
> action may be costly, but it can be less expensive than continued
> inaction.
What drastic action would you suggest?
Donna Evleth
John Rennie
So what do we do? I think you've made a decent effort above
in presenting the true dilemma the 'west' faces when struggling
to contain Islamic extremism. Does its struggles encourage
extremism or will it further encourage extremism if it ceases
to struggle against it. One endeavour is pointless, trying
to fork out blame. Karl Marx said that colonialism was
inevitable because the strong always overcome the weak and
he was right. The struggles we have today with Islam are a
direct result of colonialism whether of the British or French
type or of the equally strong American version. Without
us conquering Islamic territories either by armed force
or by financial imperialism we would have stayed where
we were born and they would have been content to stay where
they were born. Again I'm not blaming ourselves - if
something was inevitable how can we equate blame? However
I do see that those that were so badly treated might have
a different view. Do you agree that they are justified
in having a different take, Jim? Actually I don't think
you do? I believe deep down you believe that the west
spread decency in its wake. But I digress - the question
is what do we do now? My answer is to withdraw from
Afghanistan although there will be chaos there and in
Pakistan when we do. I believe the Taliban will regain
power in Afghanistan although the war lords will put up
some resistance no doubt aided by the CIA. I happen to
believe that al Qaida will not regain its previous standing
there. Their presence did not bring the Taliban much good
fortune before. As for Pakistan I think the army, always
the ruling power there, is strong enough to reject the Taliban
militarily at least. Which brings us to the madrassas the
hotbeds of Wahhabism. Now we all know who funds these
establishments, Saudi Arabia. How does the west deal with
the country that has the greatest amount of oil deposits
in the world and yet finances the most extreme form
of Islam? Do we ignore it? We probably will - only
the Arabs can remove one of the most corrupt monarchies
the world. So problems are only partially solved by
withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan but soldier lives
are saved and that's all we can hope for for the present.
Donna Evleth
> From: John Rennie <john-...@talktalk.net>
> Reply-To: john-...@talktalk.net
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:57:15 +0000
> Subject: Re: "Peaceful Islam" Report -- 17 November 2009
>
> But I digress - the question
> is what do we do now? My answer is to withdraw from
> Afghanistan although there will be chaos there and in
> Pakistan when we do. I believe the Taliban will regain
> power in Afghanistan although the war lords will put up
> some resistance no doubt aided by the CIA. I happen to
> believe that al Qaida will not regain its previous standing
> there. Their presence did not bring the Taliban much good
> fortune before. As for Pakistan I think the army, always
> the ruling power there, is strong enough to reject the Taliban
> militarily at least. Which brings us to the madrassas the
> hotbeds of Wahhabism. Now we all know who funds these
> establishments, Saudi Arabia. How does the west deal with
> the country that has the greatest amount of oil deposits
> in the world and yet finances the most extreme form
> of Islam? Do we ignore it? We probably will - only
> the Arabs can remove one of the most corrupt monarchies
> the world. So problems are only partially solved by
> withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan but soldier lives
> are saved and that's all we can hope for for the present.
John, your question is my question. What indeed do we do now?
I agree that we should withdraw from Afghanistan, and that we should let the
Pakistanis sort it out for themselves. Our military aid has thusfar not
done much good.
As to Saudi Arabia. I agree with your analysis. The basic, most crucial
problem is that Saudi Arabia has lots of oil. And the western countries
want and need it. And as long as this is true, and it will be for your
lifetime and mine, John, we in the West will continue to ignore its Islamist
extremism. We will conntinue to bow and scrape.
Will the Saudis remove their corrupt monarchy? I think not. It is an
absolute monarchy, thus has absolute power. I don't think they are ready
yet for a French type revolution.
Donna Evleth
John Rennie
Grand Mosque was taken over forcibly by militants and held for
nearly two weeks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_Seizure
(You'll note members of the bin Laden Family were involved)
Granted security has been tightened up since then but
such regimes are very vulnerable compared to western
type autocracies. Medina and Mecca aren't Moscow
or Washington. Saudi Arabia's population of thirty
million or so is scattered in a few cities lost in
an enormous desert. Another interesting aspect is
that it's oil is virtually confined to one specific
area and the particular Muslin religion of the people
who live in that area? Shia - simply amazing in
a largely Sunni country. It really does seem as
if oil follows the Shias. They aren't that happy
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0427/p06s04-wome.html
Saudi Arabia also imports a huge proportion of its
food, a commodity that it will have to compete for
in a world that's running short on food.
All in all Saudi Arabia is not that stable; a
al Qaida attack, a Shia uprising or a world
food shortage could shake it.
Planet Visitor II
"It," as do all possessive pronouns and adjectives, takes on
no apostrophe. [courtesy of you-know-who, who is one of
the most knowledgeable uneducated posters to AADP]
> virtually confined to one specific
>area and the particular Muslin religion of the people
>who live in that area? Shia - simply amazing in
>a largely Sunni country. It really does seem as
>if oil follows the Shias. They aren't that happy
>
>http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0427/p06s04-wome.html
>
>Saudi Arabia also imports a huge proportion of its
>food, a commodity that it will have to compete for
>in a world that's running short on food.
>
>All in all Saudi Arabia is not that stable; a
>al Qaida attack, a Shia uprising or a world
>food shortage could shake it.
Planet Visitor II
Planet Visitor II
What do WE do??? The better question is what should Islam do?
Since when are WE responsible for murders committed by
Islamic fanatics in western countries???
I've already pointed out what I believe WE should do in western
countries in dealing with terrorists who murder innocent people
in the name of Allah in democratic countries, in a post to Donna.
> I think you've made a decent effort above
>in presenting the true dilemma the 'west' faces when struggling
>to contain Islamic extremism. Does its struggles encourage
>extremism or will it further encourage extremism if it ceases
>to struggle against it. One endeavour is pointless, trying
>to fork out blame.
Why shouldn't we blame Imams in western countries who preach
hate and jihad against non-Muslims? Why shouldn't we blame
Islam itself for the backward religion that it is? See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Islam.html
As I pointed out... people have a right to both be stupid and to
practice any religion they wish if it doesn't harm anyone else. Is
Islam such a religion? Or is it closer to a religion that sacrifices
virgins to the Sun God? After all, it promises to sacrifice 72 virgins
to every Muslim who murders as a presumed "martyr" to Islam.
While if people have a right to be stupid and practice any religion
they choose, why don't we have a right to mention that we believe
they are stupid, and that their religion is stupid? Of course we
can't do that, can we? It's not _politically correct_ and it also
carries the threat of being murdered by one of those very same
religious fanatics. Like the cartoonists in Denmark were threatened
with murder. See --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
No wonder our mutually friend is so anxious to mention my new
address. I imagine he's been sending my negative-to-Islam comments
to the local Muslim jihad club in Marseilles.
As I said... I've wearied of our entire military presence in
the Middle East and Afghanistan. I favor withdrawal and
use drones to bomb the shit out of them. Including razing
their poppy crop where our satellites and drones find them.
Why waste the cream of our youth on those idiots?
This is the help we should give to "moderate" Muslims in
the Middle East. Not money which ends up buying weapons
for the wrong side, and not weapons which end up on the
wrong side. Use our drones to drop propaganda leaflets
including Bibles. Shit, we have more religious fanatics
than they have who would gladly buy Bibles if we air dropped
them in the Middle East. Just that our "Bible religious
fanatics" are not going around killing others to the extent
that Muslims are. Drop pig shit. I want to drive them
out of their friggin' minds.
Give our assistance and a lot of it to UN forces that are
providing food and clothing to those made refugees by
Muslim fanatics. But not to the UN in general, which appears
to ME to be on the side of Muslim fanatics (while you are
as usual -- entitled to your own opinion). And don't
bother providing U.S. warm bodies to go where they go,
since an American physical presence only offers more
than the target they already have on their backs when
they try to help others.
I also would not oppose breaking diplomat relations with
Iran, and kicking every Iranian diplomat out of the U.S.
And don't think I would cry if Israel bombed the shit of
those nuclear facilities in Iran. Although Israel would
probably get a bit bruised in the process. The longer
we wait, the more the threat grows, IMO.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is simply a replacement
for the Shah's Savak. Except it is even more brutal and
sadistic. They are the REAL power in Iran. Ask
Maziar Bahari, held for 118 days by that Revolutionary
Guard. See the video of his interview by 60 minutes
which was broadcast just this evening --
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/19/60minutes/main5712199.shtml
Unlike the overthrow of the Shah, the overthrow of an Islamic
oriented regime in Iran is a non-starter, IMO. They'll kill as
many as necessary to maintain power. That's religion for
you... when it becomes a power of the state.
As to Saudi Arabia... that's a place where we cannot seem to
do anything, unless we decide to go back to the horse. I
personally feel that the monarchy is perhaps the lesser evil
in that particular part of the world. If we do discover and
implement a substitute for petroleum, I feel that this would
not really help us solve the problem in Saudi Arabia, because
that would propel the fanatics who we know are very strong
in Saudi Arabia to overthrow the monarchy if the monarchy
could no longer pay for the vast apparatus which is in place
to control those fanatics as best as I see possible. It is not
in the interest of the monarchy to support Islamic terrorists,
even though we know that Saudi Arabia is a cesspool of Muslim
fanatics.
Lots of things we COULD do... but _political correctness_,
and economic gratification gets in the way, doesn't it, John???
Planet Visitor II
Planet Visitor II
wrote:
There are quite a few things that could be done. All requiring more
refining then I could define successfully. It is when we throw up our
hands and insist that NOTHING can be done that we paint a big "L"
for "Loser," on our collective foreheads. Surely I don't believe that
you could not come up with something rather than shrug your shoulders
and accept Islamic terrorism as simply a "way of life" that we have
to accept as OUR burden, and not the burden of Islam itself.
But to offer a rough idea of one of the things that could be done
would be to firmly insist that Islam in the western world DOES bear a
vastly greater responsibility for terrorism in the name of Islam than
non-Muslims in the western world,and thus DOES bear a great
burden to working toward eliminating Islamic terrorism.
With that as a bedrock, even Muslims should see it as reasonable to
consider profiling Muslims without breaking any "right" to be a
Muslim, or freely practice that religion, as a religion, and not as a
way to run a country. Islam in the western world should acknowledge
that religion and any of its "laws," takes a back seat to the laws of
the state. It needs to start at the very grass roots of Muslim
thinking and be preached as that during prayers by Imams. Islam
in the western world has shown that it presently is not capable of
successfully dealing with radicals. In fact it refuses to even
accept there are such radicals. After-the-fact apologies by
Imams do not successfully prevent the next terrorist attack by such
fanatics in Islam.
The time to stop blaming non-Muslims for the actions of Muslims has
long passed, IMO. "Islamophobia" has now become a more
meaningful mind-set, given that Muslims have the right to practice
their religion but they do not the right to overthrow a democratic
government or murder both Muslims and non-Muslims indiscriminately.
IMO.
yitzhak in eretz isreal (sic)
> "It," as do all possessive pronouns and adjectives, takes on no
> apostrophe.
'Not unlike it's user'
<http://minilien.fr/a0k89p>
ROFLMAO !!!!!
You. Stupid. Fuck.
Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
AADP's 'left-wing Israeli intellectual'
'The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of
one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that
oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the
beginning if it is to be stopped at all'
(H.L. Mencken)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
deconstructing desmond coughlan
the Nile to the Tigris" Coughlan <yit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2009-11-22, James 'Jew lover' Noles <na...@earthlink.net> wrote ...
>
>> "It," as do all possessive pronouns and adjectives, takes on no
>> apostrophe.
>
> 'Not unlike it's user'
> <http://minilien.fr/a0k89p>
>
>ROFLMAO !!!!!
>
"There can be no legitimacy in the Arab claim to land that was never
their's." See --
http://tinyurl.com/2q67u8
Did I mention that pronouns do not take on an apostrophe in the
possessive? His -- hers -- theirs. etc... etc... etc... And of
course... its. But then I'm not an English major. That's your
claim.
>You. Stupid. Fuck.
Right back at ya, my uneducated little fruitcake. Jesus, desi... in
the ONLY subject you know anything about... you can't even help
fuckin' that one up, can you?
In my previous profession if you fucked it up even once there was
hell to pay, and maybe a life as well. While you're just a pedantic
school marm who can't even get his own basic grammar correct..
Remember how you admitted that the laws of thermodynamics
were too complicated for that pathetically meager number of
brain cells nature has cursed you with?
A Jew deconstructing desmond coughlan
>Y.