Steyn on Fort Hood and Ramifications, leadups..............
FACE
November 7, 2009 6:00 AM
The Hole at the Heart of Our Strategy
We’re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives
terrorism.
By Mark Steyn
Thirteen dead and 31 wounded would be a bad day for the U.S. military in
Afghanistan, and a great victory for the Taliban. When it happens in
Texas, in the heart of the biggest military base in the nation, at a
processing center for soldiers either returning from or deploying to
combat overseas, it is not merely a “tragedy” (as too many people called
it) but a glimpse of a potentially fatal flaw at the heart of what we have
called, since 9/11, the “War on Terror.” Brave soldiers trained to hunt
down and kill America’s enemy abroad were killed in the safety and
security of home by, in essence, the same enemy — a man who believes in
and supports everything the enemy does.
And he’s a U.S. Army major.
And his superior officers and other authorities knew about his beliefs but
seemed to think it was just a bit of harmless multicultural diversity — as
if believing that “the Muslims should stand up and fight against the
aggressor” (i.e., his fellow American soldiers) and writing Internet
paeans to the “noble” “heroism” of suicide bombers and, indeed,
objectively supporting the other side in an active war is to be regarded
as just some kind of alternative lifestyle that adds to the general
vibrancy of the base.
But he didn’t really need to “ it up” at all. He could pretty much say
anything he liked, and if any “red flags” were raised they were quickly
mothballed. Lots of people are “anti-war.” Some of them are objectively on
the other side — that’s to say, they encourage and support attacks on
American troops and civilians. But not many of those in that latter
category are U.S. Army majors. Or so one would hope. Yet why be surprised?
Azad Ali, a man who approvingly quotes such observations as “If I saw an
American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would
kill him because that is my obligation” is an adviser to Britain’s Crown
Prosecution Service (the equivalent of the U.S. attorneys). In Toronto
this week, the brave ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish mentioned en passant that, on
flying from the U.S. to Canada, she was questioned at length about the
purpose of her visit by an apparently Muslim border official. When she
revealed that she was giving a speech about Islamic law, he rebuked her:
“We are not to question sharia.”
That’s the guy manning the airport-security desk.
In the New York Times, Maria Newman touched on Hasan’s faith only
obliquely: “He was single, according to the records, and he listed no
religious preference.” Thank goodness for that, eh? A neighbor in Texas
says the major had “Allah” and “another word” pinned up in Arabic on his
door. “Akbar” maybe? On Thursday morning he is said to have passed out
copies of the Koran to his neighbors. He shouted in Arabic as he fired.
But don’t worry: As the FBI spokesman assured us in nothing flat, there’s
no terrorism angle.
That’s true, in a very narrow sense: Major Hasan is not a card-carrying
member of the Texas branch of al-Qaeda reporting to a control officer in
Yemen or Waziristan. If he were, things would be a lot easier. But the
pathologies that drive al-Qaeda beat within Major Hasan too, and in the
end his Islamic impulses trumped his expensive Western education, his
psychiatric training, his military discipline — his entire American
identity. One might say the same about Faleh Hassan Almaleki of Glendale,
Ariz., arrested last week after fatally running over his “too Westernized”
daughter Noor in the latest American honor killing. Or the two U.S.
residents — one American, one Canadian — arrested a few days earlier for
plotting to fly to Denmark for the purposes of murdering the editor who
commissioned the famous Mohammed cartoons. But Noor Almaleki’s brother
shrugs that’s just the way it is. “One thing to one culture doesn’t make
sense to another culture,” he says.
Indeed. To infidels, Islam is in a certain sense unknowable, and most of
us are content to leave it at that. The vast majority of Muslims don’t
conspire to kill cartoonists or murder their daughters or shoot dozens of
their fellow soldiers. But Islam inspires enough of this behavior to make
it a legitimate topic of analysis. Don’t hold your breath. We’d rather
talk about anything else — even in the Army.
What happened to those men and women at Fort Hood had a horrible
symbolism: Members of the best trained, best equipped fighting force on
the planet gunned down by a guy who said a few goofy things no one took
seriously. And that’s the problem: America has the best troops and
fiercest firepower, but no strategy for throttling the ideology that
drives the enemy — in Afghanistan and in Texas.
When it emerged early on Thursday afternoon that the shooter was Nidal
Malik Hasan, there appeared shortly thereafter on Twitter a flurry of
posts with the striking formulation: “Please judge Major Malik Nadal [sic]
by his actions and not by his name.”
Concerned Tweeters can relax: There was never really any danger of that —
and not just in the sense that the New York Times’s first report on Major
Hasan never mentioned the words “Muslim” or “Islam,” or that ABC’s Martha
Raddatz’s only observation on his name was that “as for the suspect, Nadal
Hasan, as one officer’s wife told me, ‘I wish his name was Smith.’”
What a strange reaction. I suppose what she means is that, if his name
were Smith, we could all retreat back into the same comforting illusions
that allowed the bureaucracy to advance Nidal Malik Hasan to major and
into the heart of Fort Hood while ignoring everything that mattered about
the essence of this man.
Since 9/11, we have, as the Twitterers recommend, judged people by their
actions — flying planes into skyscrapers, blowing themselves up in Bali
nightclubs or London Tube trains, planting IEDs by the roadside in Baghdad
or Tikrit. And on the whole we’re effective at responding with action of
our own — taking out training camps in Afghanistan, rolling up insurgency
networks in Fallujah and Ramadi, intercepting terror plots in London and
Toronto and Dearborn.
But we’re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives a man
to fly into a building or self-detonate on the subway, and thus we have a
hole at the heart of our strategy. We use rhetorical conveniences like
“radical Islam” or, if that seems a wee bit Islamophobic, just plain old
“radical extremism.” But we never make any effort to delineate the line
which separates “radical Islam” from non-radical Islam. Indeed, we go to
great lengths to make it even fuzzier. And somewhere in that woozy blur
the pathologies of a Nidal Malik Hasan incubate. An army psychiatrist,
Major Hasan was an American, born and raised, who graduated from Viriginia
Tech and then received his doctorate from the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, which works out to the best
part of half a million dollars’ worth of elite education. But he opposed
America’s actions in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and made approving
remarks about jihadists on American soil. “You need to lock it up, Major,”
cautioned his superior officer, Col. Terry Lee.
But he didn’t really need to “lock it up” at all. He could pretty much say
anything he liked, and if any “red flags” were raised they were quickly
mothballed. Lots of people are “anti-war.” Some of them are objectively on
the other side — that’s to say, they encourage and support attacks on
American troops and civilians. But not many of those in that latter
category are U.S. Army majors. Or so one would hope. Yet why be surprised?
Azad Ali, a man who approvingly quotes such observations as “If I saw an
American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would
kill him because that is my obligation” is an adviser to Britain’s Crown
Prosecution Service (the equivalent of the U.S. attorneys). In Toronto
this week, the brave ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish mentioned en passant that, on
flying from the U.S. to Canada, she was questioned at length about the
purpose of her visit by an apparently Muslim border official. When she
revealed that she was giving a speech about Islamic law, he rebuked her:
“We are not to question sharia.”
That’s the guy manning the airport-security desk.
In the New York Times, Maria Newman touched on Hasan’s faith only
obliquely: “He was single, according to the records, and he listed no
religious preference.” Thank goodness for that, eh? A neighbor in Texas
says the major had “Allah” and “another word” pinned up in Arabic on his
door. “Akbar” maybe? On Thursday morning he is said to have passed out
copies of the Koran to his neighbors. He shouted in Arabic as he fired.
But don’t worry: As the FBI spokesman assured us in nothing flat, there’s
no terrorism angle.
That’s true, in a very narrow sense: Major Hasan is not a card-carrying
member of the Texas branch of al-Qaeda reporting to a control officer in
Yemen or Waziristan. If he were, things would be a lot easier. But the
pathologies that drive al-Qaeda beat within Major Hasan too, and in the
end his Islamic impulses trumped his expensive Western education, his
psychiatric training, his military discipline — his entire American
identity. One might say the same about Faleh Hassan Almaleki of Glendale,
Ariz., arrested last week after fatally running over his “too Westernized”
daughter Noor in the latest American honor killing. Or the two U.S.
residents — one American, one Canadian — arrested a few days earlier for
plotting to fly to Denmark for the purposes of murdering the editor who
commissioned the famous Mohammed cartoons. But Noor Almaleki’s brother
shrugs that’s just the way it is. “One thing to one culture doesn’t make
sense to another culture,” he says.
Indeed. To infidels, Islam is in a certain sense unknowable, and most of
us are content to leave it at that. The vast majority of Muslims don’t
conspire to kill cartoonists or murder their daughters or shoot dozens of
their fellow soldiers. But Islam inspires enough of this behavior to make
it a legitimate topic of analysis. Don’t hold your breath. We’d rather
talk about anything else — even in the Army.
What happened to those men and women at Fort Hood had a horrible
symbolism: Members of the best trained, best equipped fighting force on
the planet gunned down by a guy who said a few goofy things no one took
seriously. And that’s the problem: America has the best troops and
fiercest firepower, but no strategy for throttling the ideology that
drives the enemy — in Afghanistan and in Texas.
Earl Evleth
"FACE" <AFaceIn...@today.net> wrote:
> We�re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives
> terrorism.
Terrorism is driven by a number of factors. How does one categorize
the terrorism used by the French resistance against the Nazi
occupiers. Is defending one's country natural or due to
some complex ideology?
The territorial imperative is practice by many animals, they
never developed an ideology on anything.
Is the terrorist opposition to the Israelian occupation
of their territory due to an ideology, or it naturally
expected in that and other similar cases?
Many of man's socalled rational actions are driven by
deeper urges, ideology sometimes after that fact when
people try to make sense of the actions.
The targeting of the USA by Al Qaeda was initially
caused by US presence (Christian) on Moslem turf.
That American "threat" However "ill" Hasan is found to be,
he first of all did not want to go contribute to a war against fellow
Moslems. The Army should have realized this and not
force the issue and let him go. He also had the possibility
of just walking away from it. So his responsibility for
what he did to innocent people remains, he did not have
to do that any more that the 9/11 terrorist had to do
what they did. Criminal acts are committed when innocent
are killed purposefully.
The situation is different when the intruder is in your
territory as is the case of Israelis and their occupation
of the west bank. These are seen as intrusions, just
as American presence on Iraq and Afghanistan is seen
as that by some.
abelard
wrote:
>The situation is different when the intruder is in your
>territory as is the case of Israelis and their occupation
>of the west bank. These are seen as intrusions, just
>as American presence on Iraq and Afghanistan is seen
>as that by some.
are you promoting euro-suicide bombers in burnley and marseilles?
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earl Evleth
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
> are you promoting euro-suicide bombers in burnley and marseilles?
No, I am not promoting anything, I am explaining
abelard
wrote:
>On 8/11/09 19:13, in article pg2ef5dqfnlefeccf...@4ax.com,
not anywhere that i can see
Earl Evleth
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
> not anywhere that i can see
Takes intelligence to understand the teacher.
abelard
wrote:
>On 8/11/09 19:29, in article qg3ef55fqn45v1597...@4ax.com,
it also takes intelligence to notice when a teacher is incompetent
Iconoclast
> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVmN2E4MjQwZTZkMDgyNTZiMTIxNzhj...
It seems that the TSA employees at JFK and Newark Airport are largely
of Middle Eastern origin as well. It's like the fox guarding the hen
house.
Excellent piece. Thanks for posting. Scroll up to see comment midway-
through the piece.
abelard
wrote:
>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVmN2E4MjQwZTZkMDgyNTZiMTIxNzhjYzcxZTAxNzI=
>
>November 7, 2009 6:00 AM
thanx for posting it...
for assistance i've removed the section you duplicated
regards
FACE
<icono...@nym.hush.com>, wrote
>> What happened to those men and women at Fort Hood had a horrible
>> symbolism: Members of the best trained, best equipped fighting force on
>> the planet gunned down by a guy who said a few goofy things no one took
>> seriously. And that’s the problem: America has the best troops and
>> fiercest firepower, but no strategy for throttling the ideology that
>> drives the enemy — in Afghanistan and in Texas.
>
>Excellent piece. Thanks for posting. Scroll up to see comment midway-
>through the piece.
Glad you enjoyed it. The official US response to this clear and present
danger should be a Monty Python skit. I recall when mention was made of
the muslims in the TSA crews. It exceeds ridiculous................
It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were not
terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim. He was so obviously
correct.
FACE
FACE
<abel...@abelard.org>, wrote
>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:35:23 -0500, FACE <AFaceIn...@today.net>
>wrote:
>
>>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVmN2E4MjQwZTZkMDgyNTZiMTIxNzhjYzcxZTAxNzI=
>>
>>November 7, 2009 6:00 AM
>
>thanx for posting it...
>for assistance i've removed the section you duplicated
>
>regards
Thank you. I felt that something did go wrong in my cut and paste but
from the below it appears that you also removed page 2 which begins "But
he didn’t really need to “lock it up” at all. ..."
I was rather hoping that people would just go to the URL to read
it........
FACE
William Black
> It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were not
> terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim. He was so obviously
> correct.
Well, except for the Irish and Basque ones...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
abelard
wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:01:43 +0100, in alt.politics, abelard
><abel...@abelard.org>, wrote
>
>>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:35:23 -0500, FACE <AFaceIn...@today.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVmN2E4MjQwZTZkMDgyNTZiMTIxNzhjYzcxZTAxNzI=
>>>
>>>November 7, 2009 6:00 AM
>>
>>thanx for posting it...
>>for assistance i've removed the section you duplicated
>>
>>regards
>
>Thank you. I felt that something did go wrong in my cut and paste but
>from the below it appears that you also removed page 2 which begins "But
>he didn�t really need to �lock it up� at all. ..."
yeah well...you'll find you'd already put that in as para 3 :-)
>I was rather hoping that people would just go to the URL to read
>it........
i went to check when it go muddled
regards
--
FACE
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk>, wrote
>FACE wrote:
>
>> It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were not
>> terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim. He was so obviously
>> correct.
>
>Well, except for the Irish and Basque ones...
Read all the words William
William Black
'Almost all'.
I assume you have some figures about how many terrorists there are in
the world today.
FACE
<abel...@abelard.org>, wrote
>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:58:56 -0500, FACE <AFaceIn...@today.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:01:43 +0100, in alt.politics, abelard
>><abel...@abelard.org>, wrote
>>
>>>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:35:23 -0500, FACE <AFaceIn...@today.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVmN2E4MjQwZTZkMDgyNTZiMTIxNzhjYzcxZTAxNzI=
>>>>
>>>>November 7, 2009 6:00 AM
>>>
>>>thanx for posting it...
>>>for assistance i've removed the section you duplicated
>>>
>>>regards
>>
>>Thank you. I felt that something did go wrong in my cut and paste but
>>from the below it appears that you also removed page 2 which begins "But
>>he didn’t really need to “lock it up” at all. ..."
>
>yeah well...you'll find you'd already put that in as para 3 :-)
LOL! (at me)
>
>>I was rather hoping that people would just go to the URL to read
>>it........
>
>i went to check when it go muddled
Always a Good Thing (tm).
FACE
<abel...@abelard.org>, wrote
>yeah well...you'll find you'd already put that in as para 3 :-)
I finally looked back and yes, I made quite a dog's breakfast of
it........
FACE
FACE
<AFaceIn...@today.net>, wrote
>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVmN2E4MjQwZTZkMDgyNTZiMTIxNzhjYzcxZTAxNzI=
>
REPOSTED (and hopefully, straightened out)
November 07, 2009, 6:00 a.m.
The Hole at the Heart of Our Strategy
We’re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives
terrorism.
By Mark Steyn
Thirteen dead and 31 wounded would be a bad day for the U.S. military in
Afghanistan, and a great victory for the Taliban. When it happens in
Texas, in the heart of the biggest military base in the nation, at a
processing center for soldiers either returning from or deploying to
combat overseas, it is not merely a “tragedy” (as too many people called
it) but a glimpse of a potentially fatal flaw at the heart of what we have
called, since 9/11, the “War on Terror.” Brave soldiers trained to hunt
down and kill America’s enemy abroad were killed in the safety and
security of home by, in essence, the same enemy — a man who believes in
and supports everything the enemy does.
And he’s a U.S. Army major.
And his superior officers and other authorities knew about his beliefs but
seemed to think it was just a bit of harmless multicultural diversity — as
if believing that “the Muslims should stand up and fight against the
aggressor” (i.e., his fellow American soldiers) and writing Internet
paeans to the “noble” “heroism” of suicide bombers and, indeed,
objectively supporting the other side in an active war is to be regarded
as just some kind of alternative lifestyle that adds to the general
vibrancy of the base.
When it emerged early on Thursday afternoon that the shooter was Nidal
~~~~
FACE
FACE
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk>, wrote
>FACE wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:07:36 +0000, in alt.politics, William Black
>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk>, wrote
>>
>>> FACE wrote:
>>>
>>>> It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were not
>>>> terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim. He was so obviously
>>>> correct.
>>> Well, except for the Irish and Basque ones...
>>
>> Read all the words William
>>
>
>'Almost all'.
>
>I assume you have some figures about how many terrorists there are in
>the world today.
Oh please............. (dripping with sarcasm)
John Rennie
> FACE wrote:
>
>> It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were
>> not
>> terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim. He was so obviously
>> correct.
>
> Well, except for the Irish and Basque ones...
>
>
Iconoclast
> FACE wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:07:36 +0000, in alt.politics, William Black
>
> >> FACE wrote:
>
> >>> It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were not
> >>> terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim. He was so obviously
> >>> correct.
> >> Well, except for the Irish and Basque ones...
>
> > Read all the words William
>
> 'Almost all'.
>
> I assume you have some figures about how many terrorists there are in
> the world today.
>
> --
> William Black
>
A proud graduate of Diversity Training joins the fray to let his
superiors know that his indoctrination in anti-Western thought was a
success.If the Muslims nuked London, William would immediately attempt
to minimize the horror of the holocaust by spouting out that the
Americans, long ago, nuked Hiroshima or some such PC nonsense.
repo
> FACE wrote:
> > It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were not
> > terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim. He was so obviously
> > correct.
>
> Well, except for the Irish and Basque ones
There are No "Irish or Basque ones" Ect out of their
respective regions..... However,
Islamist terrorists are world wide in every country and region.
FACE
<Kcaj...@yahoo.com>, wrote
>On Nov 8, 12:07 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> FACE wrote:
>> > It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were not
>> > terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim. He was so obviously
>> > correct.
>>
>> Well, except for the Irish and Basque ones
>
>There are No "Irish or Basque ones" Ect out of their
>respective regions..... However,
>Islamist terrorists are world wide in every country and region.
>
>
Good point. A strained case could be made that "Shining Path"(if still
around) in Peru operates cross-border with Columbia and sometimes FARC
goes cross border -- but as i say, "strained".
(I believe it was Shining Path with the 'suicide donkey' a few years ago.)
Probably the most media-visible international terrorist who was not muslim
was Carlos the Jackal -- who, captured and while imprisoned in France,
converted to Islam. (Wonder what that says......)
I am wondering if this is the origin of the paraphrase I used (he makes
the qualification in the longish first sentence)..........
~~~~
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1941.cfm
The Sad Truth Is That All Terrorists Are Muslim
Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid, September 23, 2004
It is certainly true that not all Muslims are terrorists, however, sadly
we say that the majority of terrorists in the world are Muslims. The
kidnappers of the students in [the city of Beslan in the Russian state of]
Ossetia were Muslim. The kidnappers who killed the Nepalese chefs and
laborers [in Iraq] were also Muslims. Those who perpetrate acts of rape
and murder in Darfur are Muslims, and their victims are Muslim also. Those
who blew up civilian housing complexes in Riyadh and Khobar [Saudi Arabia]
were Muslims. Those who kidnapped the two French reporters [in Iraq] were
Muslim. The two women who blew up those two planes a week ago [in Russia]
were Muslim.
Bin Laden is a Muslim and [the rebel cleric in Yemen, Husayn Badr al-Din]
al-Hawthi is a Muslim, and most of those who carried out suicidal acts
against buses, schools, houses, buildings all over the world in the past
ten years also were Muslims. What a terrible record—doesn’t that say
something to us about ourselves, our societies and our culture?
These images are grim, shameful and despicable for us when we gather them
and lay them out together in one day [here in this article], however
instead of ignoring and justifying them we must first recognize the
validity [of this sad truth] and not compose articles and speeches
declaring our innocence. It makes it easier for us to treat ourselves if
we recognize the sickness. [For] self-treatment begins first by
recognition. Then it is incumbent on us to repudiate our terrorist
offspring, as they are a natural result of a distorted culture. Listen to
what television sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi said, publicly issuing a fatwa
giving permission to kill American civilians in Iraq. Imagine that, a
religious scholar urging the killing of civilians, a sheik who belies the
wisdom that old age supposedly brings, inciting the tender youth to kill
civilians, [and] all the while he has two daughters who are studying in
the safety of British protection in the infidel United Kingdom.
Article Continues
~~~~
William Black
When they ran about doing terrorist stuff they were getting thrashed.
When they got organised and bought some uniforms and hired a Germans to
teach them some drill and discipline they thrashed the arse off us...
William Black
> On Nov 8, 1:18 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> FACE wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:07:36 +0000, in alt.politics, William Black
>>> <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>, wrote
>>>> FACE wrote:
>>>>> It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were not
>>>>> terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim. He was so obviously
>>>>> correct.
>>>> Well, except for the Irish and Basque ones...
>>> Read all the words William
>> 'Almost all'.
>>
>> I assume you have some figures about how many terrorists there are in
>> the world today.
>>
>> --
>> William Black
>>
>
> A proud graduate of Diversity Training joins the fray to let his
> superiors know that his indoctrination in anti-Western thought was a
> success.
Goodness, that was a mouthful...
Got any more gems like that lot?
If the Muslims nuked London, William would immediately attempt
> to minimize the horror of the holocaust by spouting out that the
> Americans, long ago, nuked Hiroshima or some such PC nonsense.
Nope, just the usual bollocks...
William Black
> On Nov 8, 12:07 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> FACE wrote:
>>> It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were not
>>> terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim. He was so obviously
>>> correct.
>> Well, except for the Irish and Basque ones
>
> There are No "Irish or Basque ones" Ect out of their
> respective regions.....
Well except for those IRA men who turned up in South America, the USA
and Germany.
FACE
<evl...@wanadoo.fr>, wrote
You repeatedly refer to "their country". Whose country were they
defending at Bali? At the African Embassy bombings? etc......
FACE
FACE
<evl...@wanadoo.fr>, wrote
>On 8/11/09 19:13, in article pg2ef5dqfnlefeccf...@4ax.com,
From your explanation, euro-suicide bombers in burnley and marseilles
would be equally explainable and therefore as defendable as the French
resistance.
In what way is this not true?
FACE
cornholio
Just think about muslime fucks in law enforcement and our judiciary
protecting us kafirs/infidels from muslime fuck terrorism and global
jihad. Kinda gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling doesn't it?
cornholio
> repo wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 12:07 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> FACE wrote:
> >>> It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were not
> >>> terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim. He was so obviously
> >>> correct.
> >> Well, except for the Irish and Basque ones
>
> > There are No "Irish or Basque ones" Ect out of their
> > respective regions.....
>
> Well except for those IRA men who turned up in South America, the USA
> and Germany.
>
Forgive me for asking, but when was the last time the IRA committed
ANY act of terrorism?
I'd also like to see a list of all acts of terrorism committed by the
IRA since it's inception. Why? Because I'm betting the muslime
fucks have committed MANY more acts of terrorism over the last
fifty years than the IRA committed in its entire history. Ditto for
the number of victims involved
Furthermore, the IRA deliberately made it a goal to minimize
civilian casualties -- something your muslime pals never do.
Planet Visitor II
wrote:
>On 8/11/09 18:35, in article 190ef5pplivlemeq0...@4ax.com,
>"FACE" <AFaceIn...@today.net> wrote:
>
>> We�re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives
>> terrorism.
>
>Terrorism is driven by a number of factors.
And so your argument is that Islam played no role in the murders being
discussed, Earl? Why are you trying to change the subject from the
ideology that was responsible for the murders being discussed? Shall
we now discuss the ideology that drove the murder of Archduke
Franz Ferdinand, which precipitated a divided Europe attempting to
commit suicide and all that followed which led to Europe committing
self-immolation? Is it relevant to the case at hand? Hardly. Shall
we discuss the ideology that led to Joan of Arc's burning at the
stake? Is it relevant? Hardly.
This is about the murders at Fort Hood. The ideology in question is
Islam. Please don't try to muddy the waters to ignore the basic
"explanation" of those murders. As politely as possible, let me
observe that you use this method of muddying the waters far too often.
My polite advice is for you to try harder to stay on topic and not
flounder without direction.
> How does one categorize
>the terrorism used by the French resistance against the Nazi
>occupiers. Is defending one's country natural or due to
>some complex ideology?
Irrelevant to the case in question. Please don't try to change
the subject.
>The territorial imperative is practice by many animals, they
>never developed an ideology on anything.
Irrelevant to the case in question. Please don't try to change
the subject.
>Is the terrorist opposition to the Israelian occupation
>of their territory due to an ideology, or it naturally
>expected in that and other similar cases?
Irrelevant to the case in question. Please don't try to change
the subject.
>Many of man's socalled rational actions are driven by
>deeper urges, ideology sometimes after that fact when
>people try to make sense of the actions.
Irrelevant to the case in question. Please don't try to change
the subject.
>The targeting of the USA by Al Qaeda was initially
>caused by US presence (Christian) on Moslem turf.
Pardon me, but what particular "God" gave a particular piece
of land to Islam in perpetuate? Ethnic and Christian French lived
in what is now France long before there even was an Islam. Does
that mean that there can be no Muslim presence in what
is now France? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the
Gander.
>That American "threat" However "ill" Hasan is found to be,
>he first of all did not want to go contribute to a war against fellow
>Moslems. The Army should have realized this and not
>force the issue and let him go. He also had the possibility
>of just walking away from it. So his responsibility for
>what he did to innocent people remains, he did not have
>to do that any more that the 9/11 terrorist had to do
>what they did. Criminal acts are committed when innocent
>are killed purposefully.
Irrelevant to the case in question. Please don't try to change
the subject.
>The situation is different when the intruder is in your
>territory as is the case of Israelis and their occupation
>of the west bank. These are seen as intrusions, just
>as American presence on Iraq and Afghanistan is seen
>as that by some.
Irrelevant to the case in question. Please don't try to change
the subject.
Planet Visitor II
Planet Visitor II
wrote:
>On 8/11/09 19:13, in article pg2ef5dqfnlefeccf...@4ax.com,
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
>> are you promoting euro-suicide bombers in burnley and marseilles?
>
>No, I am not promoting anything, I am explaining
It's already been explained in one word, Earl. ISLAM.
Don't make excuses for the core explanation of his actions.
I'm saddened by so many who appear apologists of murder in the name of
Islam. The focus should be less on how _victimized_ the murderer
felt, and more focused on the real victims of this tragedy. Who in
the world would argue that _being insulted_ "explains" murdering
others, much less even"explains" reacting with violence toward another
because of being directly insulted?
If you are actually looking for an "explanation," rather than your
silly vendetta against the right to bear arms, or making excuses for
murder, look no further than Islam.
Plus, I suggest you please stay focused on the murders in question,
and not make excuses for them by listing other murders. We already
know that people commit murder. In this case we are trying to
"explain" the reasons behind THESE PARTICULAR murders. The
explanation is clear... ISLAM.
Planet Visitor II
Earl Evleth
"John Rennie" <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
> And what about those buggers in 1776?
You mean those who illegally seized private property and
destroyed it
"In December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return three
shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships
and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor."
A rabble at work. And still at work.
Earl Evleth
"FACE" <AFaceIn...@today.net> wrote:
> You repeatedly refer to "their country". Whose country were they
> defending at Bali?
It is my understanding that the Bali terrorist attacks were by
Indonesians. However, the country is not occupied by foreign
military, the Indonesians took care of the Dutch colonialists
right after WWII.
The conditions do not match those in the occupied countries
of Europe during WWII and the activities of the various
resistances or guerilla groups.
> At the African Embassy bombings? etc......
Again, the US was not present militarily in Africa so
attacking the US Embassy has no justification from
that standpoint. Before Iraq Al Qaeda could only
target outside the area of Arabo-Islam. Their
main purpose is to get the west out of Islamic
countries. We eventually provided them with plenty
of targets in Iraq.
The American presence in Afghanistan resembles on some
ways the Russian presence. The USSR intervene to protect
an existing communist regime, they did not want still
another unfriendly nation along their border. One difference
is the fact that the US also has NATO troop support.
The major difference is that Afghanistan was used
to support 9/11. So even within the context of the values
of those nations are revenge is understandable by
the tribal ethics mainly practice in that country.
However, in equating the Taliban with Al Qaeda
we lost the opportunity of driving a wedge between
the two. Certainly many Afghans realize that Al Qaeda
brought about foreign intervention in their own
affairs. We have not found a way to expoit that
sentiment.
We currently appear to have been a bad situation
even worse.
Earl Evleth
"FACE" <AFaceIn...@today.net> wrote:
> From your explanation, euro-suicide bombers in burnley and marseilles
> would be equally explainable and therefore as defendable as the French
> resistance.
>
> In what way is this not true?
No, I saw no defense of the attack on 9/11.
The French resistance targeted Germans and French collaborators.
Innocents were involved only in the sense that the Germans
shot hostages and the French Vichy malice went after
political targets and killed them.
Since the French "resistance" was comprised of a political
mixture and was not monolithic it did not have coherent
political agenda for after the war. The communist resistance
wanted to increase the power of their group, the Gaullists
wanted to make sure that they could take administrative
power immediately and avoid an Allied takeover of the
country (the famous AMGOT program, which DeGaulle sabotaged)
The Gaulists were successful, DeGaulle succeeded in immediately
disarming the resistance and the incorporation of able
resistance into the French army. In each city and town
liberated, there was a team to take over administration,
the ordinary civil servants did not even have to catch
their breath.
The Us played a role in financing a moderate French union to opposed the
French dominated CGT. The Marshall plan helped a lot.
So the role of the US was constructive after it was
forced to abandoned any dream of an administrative
takeover and teaching the French the "proper way
to do things".
The US avoided a big problem in Japan too by avoiding
as they did not avoid, the multipowered administration
of Germany.
abelard
wrote:
>Again, the US was not present militarily in Africa so
>attacking the US Embassy has no justification from
>that standpoint. Before Iraq Al Qaeda could only
>target outside the area of Arabo-Islam. Their
>main purpose is to get the west out of Islamic
>countries. We eventually provided them with plenty
>of targets in Iraq.
then what's against getting the islamics out of the eussr and usa?
like so many disorganised 'intellectuals' you seem to have a belief
that anything you have picked up, must somehow be relevant...
it isn't...
try to concentrate
>The American presence in Afghanistan resembles on some
>ways the Russian presence. The USSR intervene to protect
>an existing communist regime, they did not want still
>another unfriendly nation along their border.
don't be silly, the russian empire was expanding for 400
years before it collapsed...
virtually all socialist regimes attempt to expand by conquest
the usa presence is not in the slightest interested in
running the countries...as long *reality* history
indicates...
you look very much like you're projecting...while also
indulging the usual socialist apologetics for disgusting
behaviour
> One difference
>is the fact that the US also has NATO troop support.
nominal for most participants...
>The major difference is that Afghanistan was used
>to support 9/11. So even within the context of the values
>of those nations are revenge is understandable by
>the tribal ethics mainly practice in that country.
>However, in equating the Taliban with Al Qaeda
>we lost the opportunity of driving a wedge between
>the two.
the police action is ongoing...
> Certainly many Afghans realize that Al Qaeda
>brought about foreign intervention in their own
>affairs. We have not found a way to expoit that
>sentiment.
both groups of nutters are steadily being flattened
>We currently appear to have been a bad situation
>even worse.
don't be daft....
developing modern civilisation among backward peoples
is never 'worse'...
red indians with winchesters are a pain in the rear....
let along primitives with modern weapons....
further, the advanced societies are all dependent of
the resources they developed in the middle east
you really should put your sloppy relativism in the
rubbish bin where it belongs
Earl Evleth
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:05:34 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> countries. We eventually provided them with plenty
>> of targets in Iraq.
>
> then what's against getting the islamics out of the eussr and usa?
Most living in the US are citizens. Those that came here did it by
choice and most are not a problem.
> the usa presence is not in the slightest interested in
> running the countries...as long *reality* history
> indicates...
The Middle East still has plenty of oil.
> both groups of nutters are steadily being flattened
The Afghans reproduce at a rate far in excess of
our being able to kill them. Al Qaeda is another matter,
like most terrorist organizations they will fade away
and be replaced by another. Or they could go political
like the PLO, Hammas and the Hezbollah.
Ultimately terrorism is politics by other means.
John Rennie
> On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> repo wrote:
>>> On Nov 8, 12:07 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> FACE wrote:
>>>>> It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were not
>>>>> terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim. He was so obviously
>>>>> correct.
>>>> Well, except for the Irish and Basque ones
>>> There are No "Irish or Basque ones" Ect out of their
>>> respective regions.....
>> Well except for those IRA men who turned up in South America, the USA
>> and Germany.
>>
>
> Forgive me for asking, but when was the last time the IRA committed
> ANY act of terrorism?
>
> I'd also like to see a list of all acts of terrorism committed by the
> IRA since it's inception. Why? Because I'm betting the muslime
> fucks have committed MANY more acts of terrorism over the last
> fifty years than the IRA committed in its entire history. Ditto for
> the number of victims involved
>
> Furthermore, the IRA deliberately made it a goal to minimize
> civilian casualties -- something your muslime pals never do.
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/17/newsid_2514000/2514429.stm
FACE
<evl...@wanadoo.fr>, wrote
>On 9/11/09 4:26, in article 6r2ff5lrch6smg6vv...@4ax.com,
All very interesting, but we seem to moving far afield of the subject at
this point.............
How 'bout them Babylonians! :-)
FACE
cornholio
>
> http://www.iraatrocities.fsnet.co.uk/enniskillen.htm
That's 12 people dead retard...over a 50 year period. Muslime
terrorism
killed more people just this week, much less over the last 50 years.
Osric
>
> It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims were not
> terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim. He was so obviously
> correct.
>
Almost all except:
Communist party of India
New People's Army Philipines
Continuity IRA
GRAPO
International Sikh Youth Federation
INLA
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
LVF
Kach
National Democratic Front of Bodoland
National LIberation Army
FARC
National LIberation Front of Tripura
Orange Volunteers
Real IRA
Red Hand Commando
Red Hand Defenders
Revolutionary Nuclei
Revolutionary Organization 17 November
Revolutionary People's Liberation Front
Revolutionary Struggle
Saor Eire
Shining Path
Ulster Defence Association
UFF
UVF
United Liberation Front of Asom
ALF
Tamil Nadu Liberation Front
UNLF
United Self Defence Forces of Columbia
So nothing like almost all.
--
Osric
THE BORDERS OF MY COUNTRY
RUN AROUND THE SOLES OF MY FEET
abelard
wrote:
>On 9/11/09 11:03, in article ojpff51eidiik0ea7...@4ax.com,
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:05:34 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
>> wrote:
>>> countries. We eventually provided them with plenty
>>> of targets in Iraq.
>>
>> then what's against getting the islamics out of the eussr and usa?
>
>Most living in the US are citizens. Those that came here did it by
>choice and most are not a problem.
inasmuch as that is true or makes sense that's because the usa
is an advanced civilisation
>> the usa presence is not in the slightest interested in
>> running the countries...as long *reality* history
>> indicates...
>
>The Middle East still has plenty of oil.
your notion of 'plenty' is panglossian
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.php
>> both groups of nutters are steadily being flattened
>
>The Afghans reproduce at a rate far in excess of
>our being able to kill them.
rubbish...the west just isn't trying...
but then that is not (at least not yet) a prime objective for
the west
> Al Qaeda is another matter,
>like most terrorist organizations they will fade away
>and be replaced by another. Or they could go political
>like the PLO, Hammas and the Hezbollah.
>
>Ultimately terrorism is politics by other means.
so is killing them
Earl Evleth
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> Most living in the US are citizens. Those that came here did it by
>> choice and most are not a problem.
>
> inasmuch as that is true or makes sense that's because the usa
> is an advanced civilisation
France has many more Moslems, % wise than the US so much
be an even more advanced civilization.
John Rennie
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:47:53 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/11/09 11:03, in article ojpff51eidiik0ea7...@4ax.com,
>> "abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:05:34 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> countries. We eventually provided them with plenty
>>>> of targets in Iraq.
>>> then what's against getting the islamics out of the eussr and usa?
>> Most living in the US are citizens. Those that came here did it by
>> choice and most are not a problem.
>
> inasmuch as that is true or makes sense that's because the usa
> is an advanced civilisation
ROTFLMAO
abelard
wrote:
>On 9/11/09 17:43, in article qahgf5l9r2kf6tt7g...@4ax.com,
france has put many moslems into ghettos...
but certainly france is more advance than most of the m.e.
now what's going to be your next subject change
Earl Evleth
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> France has many more Moslems, % wise than the US so much
>> be an even more advanced civilization.
>
> france has put many moslems into ghettos...
Not that I have seen. Those bedroom cities in the
Parisian region have a mixed population of North
Africans, Black Africans and poorer ethnic French.
I have never seen segregation of the type you
see in the USA. They are not "put" there, their
low incomes put them there. Paris proper is a city
for the relatively well off. In our arrondissement`
(the 6th) there are not many North Africans.
Most of those whom came here originally came by choice,
attracted by better job and higher income than in
North Africa. Some came as a results of the Algerian
war, those that sided with the French had to leave.
Tunisians and Moroccans did not have that trouble.
FACE
<os...@nospambtinternet.com>, wrote
You are such an stupid ass. Yes, shit-for-brains, it is almost all. If
you, dumbfuck, would take all of the various names of the *established*
muslim terrorist groups -- like Army of Aden, Hamas, Hezbollah, et al, and
listed them you would need plenty of pages. If you toted up body counts,
you would display even more the fool you are.
Asswipe, you are a fucking idiot, and continue to show how fucking
childish you are..................
OM,
FACE
abelard
wrote:
>On 9/11/09 18:50, in article aglgf51j6vitlfpqe...@4ax.com,
input to google..even in english
ghetto france paris
874,000
on the first page
http://infidelsunite.typepad.com/counter_jihad/2009/10/the-muslim-ghetto-called-france.html
"From the Boulevarde St Germain, take a metro about 15 minutes north
to the 18th arrondissement. Here there are a few white faces, but not
many. There are some Chinese, but most of the people come from the
Maghreb, Morocco or Algeria, or from sub-Saharan Africa. The streets
are scruffy. Many women have their heads covered, and groups of young
black men stand around on corners. Further north, beyond Paris's city
limits, are ghettos where no white face is seen. There are five or six
million Muslims in France out of a total population of 64 million,
almost all from Africa. Many are successful French citizens, but the
levels of unemployment, disadvantage and alienation in the ghettos are
strikingly high."
...
"Tandonnet (advisor to sarkozy) sees the greatest problem as the
clustering of immigrants into racially exclusive neighbourhoods - the
ghettos.
"You'll see suburbs of Paris where there are only blacks, or people
from the Maghreb. It's a disaster for French society - there is no
melting pot."
The idea that the machinery of integration has broken down is widely
held in France. It is certainly the view of MP Thierry Mariani, a
trim, steel-haired, energetic and forceful Sarkozy confidant, best
known for his trenchant views on immigration.
"If I am honest, I have to say the situation has got worse in France,"
the special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan tells me."
on french version of google...366,000 hits
repeat, you're panglossian...you see what you want
to believe
FACE
<os...@nospambtinternet.com>, wrote
> Osric
>
>
>
>
>THE BORDERS OF MY COUNTRY
>RUN AROUND THE SOLES OF MY FEET
What an arrogant bastard you are.
Earl Evleth
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
> "From the Boulevarde St Germain, take a metro about 15 minutes north
> to the 18th arrondissement. Here there are a few white faces, but not
> many. There are some Chinese, but most of the people come from the
> Maghreb, Morocco or Algeria, or from sub-Saharan Africa. The streets
> are scruffy. Many women have their heads covered, and groups of young
> black men stand around on corners. Further north, beyond Paris's city
> limits, are ghettos where no white face is seen. There are five or six
> million Muslims in France out of a total population of 64 million,
> almost all from Africa. Many are successful French citizens, but the
> levels of unemployment, disadvantage and alienation in the ghettos are
> strikingly high."
That is a small area around the Goutte-d'Or.
I used to work and live next to it, even arranged for a Canadian
Professor (White) to rent an apartment there. It is
not exclusively Arab. We have lived off and on in Paris
since are first stay in 1966, then we lives in the 18th , which
is mixed. There are now also a Pakistani-Indian groups there.
We also have a restaurant we go to in that area. Paris is not
a high risk city.
abelard
wrote:
>On 9/11/09 19:39, in article u1ogf5dhrk8mbeb3l...@4ax.com,
and yet again you change the subject....
and of course you know better than your own government
you effectively run continuously away from reality
yitzhak in eretz isreal (sic)
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:27:19 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
>>On 9/11/09 17:43, in article qahgf5l9r2kf6tt7g...@4ax.com,
>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> Most living in the US are citizens. Those that came here did it by
>>>> choice and most are not a problem.
>>>
>>> inasmuch as that is true or makes sense that's because the usa
>>> is an advanced civilisation
>
>>France has many more Moslems, % wise than the US so much
>>be an even more advanced civilization.
>
> france has put many moslems into ghettos...
Eh ?
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/>
yitzhak in eretz isreal (sic)
I googled for 'Tandonnet' and 'ghetto', and cannot find any mention of his
using that term. The word appears in articles concerning him, but nowhere
is he quoted as having referred to 'ghetto[es]'.
In <http://www.polemia.com/article.php?id=1446>, he is quoted as commenting
on the problems of integration of minorities in France. But I believe that
'ghetto' is the journalist's term.
Which, unless I'm mistaken, was what Professor Evleth said.
abelard
<yit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
never intended to suggest otherwise....
the term is not relevant...the realities are
>Which, unless I'm mistaken, was what Professor Evleth said.
he's so slippery i'd make no hypothesis
abelard
<yit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2009-11-09, abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:27:19 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/11/09 17:43, in article qahgf5l9r2kf6tt7g...@4ax.com,
>>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Most living in the US are citizens. Those that came here did it by
>>>>> choice and most are not a problem.
>>>>
>>>> inasmuch as that is true or makes sense that's because the usa
>>>> is an advanced civilisation
>>
>>>France has many more Moslems, % wise than the US so much
>>>be an even more advanced civilization.
>>
>> france has put many moslems into ghettos...
>
>Eh ?
would you prefer 'they put themselves in'?
or
'economic conditions put them there'
or
'political conditions put them there'
or as your imagination generates
yitzhak in eretz isreal (sic)
> On 09 Nov 2009 19:42:58 GMT, "yitzhak in eretz isreal (sic)"
><yit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-11-09, abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:27:19 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 9/11/09 17:43, in article qahgf5l9r2kf6tt7g...@4ax.com,
>>>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Most living in the US are citizens. Those that came here did it by
>>>>>> choice and most are not a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> inasmuch as that is true or makes sense that's because the usa
>>>>> is an advanced civilisation
>>>
>>>>France has many more Moslems, % wise than the US so much
>>>>be an even more advanced civilization.
>>>
>>> france has put many moslems into ghettos...
>>
>>Eh ?
>
> would you prefer 'they put themselves in'?
> or
> 'economic conditions put them there'
> or
> 'political conditions put them there'
>
> or as your imagination generates
Well I'd prefer 'fact', rather than 'imagination'.
There's a lot to criticise about France (especially since 17 May 1995), but
no way does France 'put [anyone] into ghetto[es]'.
If you look back at a lot of the riots which have taken place in these
'ghettoes', a lot of the rioters were white, working class French people'.
abelard
<yit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2009-11-09, abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On 09 Nov 2009 19:42:58 GMT, "yitzhak in eretz isreal (sic)"
>><yit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2009-11-09, abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:27:19 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 9/11/09 17:43, in article qahgf5l9r2kf6tt7g...@4ax.com,
>>>>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most living in the US are citizens. Those that came here did it by
>>>>>>> choice and most are not a problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> inasmuch as that is true or makes sense that's because the usa
>>>>>> is an advanced civilisation
>>>>
>>>>>France has many more Moslems, % wise than the US so much
>>>>>be an even more advanced civilization.
>>>>
>>>> france has put many moslems into ghettos...
>>>
>>>Eh ?
>>
>> would you prefer 'they put themselves in'?
>> or
>> 'economic conditions put them there'
>> or
>> 'political conditions put them there'
>>
>> or as your imagination generates
>
>Well I'd prefer 'fact', rather than 'imagination'.
you enjoy your pedantry...but i am content you work with facts
>There's a lot to criticise about France (especially since 17 May 1995), but
>no way does France 'put [anyone] into ghetto[es]'.
i'm not interested in 'criticising france'...i believe it presently to
be far better run than the uk under socialism....
i vote with my feet...
>If you look back at a lot of the riots which have taken place in these
>'ghettoes', a lot of the rioters were white, working class French people'.
now you wish to raise irrelevance...?
further, the frog fossil media also bows to pc....
Earl Evleth
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
> he's so slippery i'd make no hypothesis
I am direct and hyper analytical.
Osric
"FACE" <AFaceIn...@today.net> wrote in message
news:fpmgf5hfu5lng80vf...@4ax.com...
Terrorist organisations that happen to be Muslim take up something over
half, but far less than half are pan-Islamic. Most of them are fighting long
standing nationalist causes, motivated by long standing aspirations of
autonomy. If you take out nationalist terrorist organisations, i.e. those
with precisely the same aspirations as non muslim terrorist organisations
like ETA, the number of terrorist organisations motivated primarily by
pan-Islamic aims like Al Qaida are very small indeed.
This of course doesn't suit your fascist sectarian bigotry, but then
sectarian bigots aren't too smart, even the ones who think they're Islamic
scholars.
--
Osric
THE BORDERS OF MY COUNTRY
RUN AROUND THE SOLES OF MY FEET
>
Earl Evleth
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
> 'economic conditions put them there'
Mostly that. Few really want to live in the burbs unless
it is a nice house. But the HLMs are depressing to look at,
they are like the projects in the USA.
The poor have to live there.
FACE
<os...@nospambtinternet.com>, wrote
No. You are wrong as usual. The body count of islamist terrorist groups
is far in excess of the others. The adherents of islamic terrorist groups
is far in excess of the others. The muslim writer was right when he said
that though all muslims were not terrorists almost all terrorists were
muslim. The fact that you are too fucking stupid to realize that is your
own fault -- you keep yourself blinkered with your face in the chunder
bucket.
It's always humorous to see a fucking socialist piece of shit like
yourself call someone a fascist, since fascism is just another flavor of
socialism.
Btw, you are a lying asshole as well as an arrogant, self-serving bastard.
FACE
> Osric
>
>
>
>
>THE BORDERS OF MY COUNTRY
>RUN AROUND THE SOLES OF MY FEET
What an idiotic fool you are, ozzie, you're an international socialist who
thinks he is the center of the universe..................
Osric
Muslim and Islamist are not interchangeable terms. As someone who who make
the bold assertion "Oh, on islam, the religion of death? I know more about
it -- in detail that you or most muslims could ever dream about knowing."
you'd think you'd know that. The proportion of terrorist organisations that
are Islamist is even smaller and certainly not "almost all"
The muslim writer was right when he said
> that though all muslims were not terrorists almost all terrorists were
> muslim.
I've demonstrated otherwise. Its a bullshit statement not borne out by the
facts. As you're incapable of your own opinion you appear unable to offer
anything other than continue to parrot someone else's catchphrase. Polly
wanna cracker? A cut and paste contribution from a cut and paste mind.
The fact that you are too fucking stupid to realize that is your
> own fault -- you keep yourself blinkered with your face in the chunder
> bucket.
>
> It's always humorous to see a fucking socialist piece of shit like
> yourself call someone a fascist, since fascism is just another flavor of
> socialism.
Your attempt to distort the truth in order to smear an entire cultural
identity with the accusation of inveterate evil is the road to Auschwitz.
Fascism always needs an enemy to whip morons like you into a rabid paranoid
xenophobic frenzy.
--
FACE
<abel...@abelard.org>, wrote
>On 09 Nov 2009 19:42:58 GMT, "yitzhak in eretz isreal (sic)"
><yit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-11-09, abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:27:19 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 9/11/09 17:43, in article qahgf5l9r2kf6tt7g...@4ax.com,
>>>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Most living in the US are citizens. Those that came here did it by
>>>>>> choice and most are not a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> inasmuch as that is true or makes sense that's because the usa
>>>>> is an advanced civilisation
>>>
>>>>France has many more Moslems, % wise than the US so much
>>>>be an even more advanced civilization.
>>>
>>> france has put many moslems into ghettos...
>>
>>Eh ?
>
>would you prefer 'they put themselves in'?
>or
>'economic conditions put them there'
>or
>'political conditions put them there'
>
>or as your imagination generates
I am not all that imaginative myself, but i do understand from seeing the
demonstrated actions that muslims have a tendency to be self-segregating.
FACE
abelard
wrote:
it is known sociology that groups will self arrange...
this is a problem for certain theories!
regards
FACE
<os...@nospambtinternet.com>, wrote
What a vicious little motherfucker you are.
Spitting on the screen yet?
LOL!!!!!!!
FACE
<abel...@abelard.org>, wrote
>>I am not all that imaginative myself, but i do understand from seeing the
>>demonstrated actions that muslims have a tendency to be self-segregating.
>
>it is known sociology that groups will self arrange...
>
>this is a problem for certain theories!
>
>regards
LOL!! Yes. I know.
Even with similar cultures, the first immigration waves will create their
own compounds and some prefer to remain in that compound and some blend
into the greater society........
Yet all of us are supposed to subscribe to some strain of doublethink -- a
logical dissonance -- and even though realizing that 2 + 2 equal 4, we
know that we should publicly proclaim that 2 + 2 equal five so that the
gods of social engineering will smile on us......
(In our case, the 2 + 2 equation is reality vs multiculturalism)
FACE
abelard
wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:37:53 +0100, in uk.politics.misc, abelard
><abel...@abelard.org>, wrote
>
>>>I am not all that imaginative myself, but i do understand from seeing the
>>>demonstrated actions that muslims have a tendency to be self-segregating.
>>
>>it is known sociology that groups will self arrange...
>>
>>this is a problem for certain theories!
>LOL!! Yes. I know.
>
>Even with similar cultures, the first immigration waves will create their
>own compounds and some prefer to remain in that compound and some blend
>into the greater society........
>
>Yet all of us are supposed to subscribe to some strain of doublethink -- a
>logical dissonance -- and even though realizing that 2 + 2 equal 4, we
>know that we should publicly proclaim that 2 + 2 equal five so that the
>gods of social engineering will smile on us......
>
>(In our case, the 2 + 2 equation is reality vs multiculturalism)
this may interest you
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonathan/rauch050802.asp
Osric
You expect to come on this NG foul mouthing everyone and fomenting sectarian
hatred of the genocidal variety and not get a slice of your own pie? Grow
up.
There's a butchers bill for the shit you preach, so wise up and try to find
a way forward other than stoking the fires, if for no better reason than
eventually chickens have a habit of coming home to roost.
--
Osric
THE BORDERS OF MY COUNTRY
RUN AROUND THE SOLES OF MY FEET
>
>
> LOL!!!!!!!
>
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:02:16 -0500, FACE <AFaceIn...@today.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:37:53 +0100, in uk.politics.misc, abelard
>> <abel...@abelard.org>, wrote
>>
>>>> I am not all that imaginative myself, but i do understand from seeing the
>>>> demonstrated actions that muslims have a tendency to be self-segregating.
>>> it is known sociology that groups will self arrange...
>>>
>>> this is a problem for certain theories!
>
>> LOL!! Yes. I know.
>>
>> Even with similar cultures, the first immigration waves will create their
>> own compounds and some prefer to remain in that compound and some blend
>> into the greater society........
>>
>> Yet all of us are supposed to subscribe to some strain of doublethink -- a
>> logical dissonance -- and even though realizing that 2 + 2 equal 4, we
>> know that we should publicly proclaim that 2 + 2 equal five so that the
>> gods of social engineering will smile on us......
>>
>> (In our case, the 2 + 2 equation is reality vs multiculturalism)
>
>
> this may interest you
> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonathan/rauch050802.asp
>
> regards
>
The conclusion they did not draw is that a pre-requisite for genocide is
a multicultural society. The elephant in the room.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
John Rennie
FACE
<os...@nospambtinternet.com>, wrote
>
>"FACE" <AFaceIn...@today.net> wrote in message
>news:8ighf5diojc5pvlli...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:09:32 -0000, in alt.politics, "Osric"
>> <os...@nospambtinternet.com>, wrote
>>
>>>
>>>"FACE" <AFaceIn...@today.net> wrote in message
>>>news:ba0hf5lnn5ggb8n29...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:17:15 -0000, in alt.politics, "Osric"
>>>> <os...@nospambtinternet.com>, wrote
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"FACE" <AFaceIn...@today.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:fpmgf5hfu5lng80vf...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:29:13 -0000, in alt.politics, "Osric"
>>>>>> <os...@nospambtinternet.com>, wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was a muslim imam or whatever who said that though all muslims
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> terrorist, almost all terrorists were muslim. He was so obviously
>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>
<snipped unread>
Your sole purpose here is to be an ass.
In that, you are doing a wonderful job.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
FACE
<abel...@abelard.org>, wrote
>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:02:16 -0500, FACE <AFaceIn...@today.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:37:53 +0100, in uk.politics.misc, abelard
>><abel...@abelard.org>, wrote
>>
>>>>I am not all that imaginative myself, but i do understand from seeing the
>>>>demonstrated actions that muslims have a tendency to be self-segregating.
>>>
>>>it is known sociology that groups will self arrange...
>>>
>>>this is a problem for certain theories!
>
>>LOL!! Yes. I know.
>>
>>Even with similar cultures, the first immigration waves will create their
>>own compounds and some prefer to remain in that compound and some blend
>>into the greater society........
>>
>>Yet all of us are supposed to subscribe to some strain of doublethink -- a
>>logical dissonance -- and even though realizing that 2 + 2 equal 4, we
>>know that we should publicly proclaim that 2 + 2 equal five so that the
>>gods of social engineering will smile on us......
>>
>>(In our case, the 2 + 2 equation is reality vs multiculturalism)
>
>
>this may interest you
>http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonathan/rauch050802.asp
>
>regards
An interesting article.
FACE
cornholio
> "FACE" <AFaceInTheCr...@today.net> wrote in message
Yes "nationalist" causes like the deliberate, systematic persecution
of people of other faiths or no faith at all, as practiced to varying
degrees
in EVERY islamopig shitocracy on the face of the globe Abdul.
> This of course doesn't suit your fascist sectarian bigotry, but then
> sectarian bigots aren't too smart, even the ones who think they're Islamic
> scholars.
> --
>
> Osric
>
Your real name wouldn't happen to be:
Abdul, Farid, Fuckwit, Fuckwad, Ali, Ahmed,
Aladdin, Osama, Osman, Nidal would it?
cornholio
> "FACE" <AFaceInTheCr...@today.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ba0hf5lnn5ggb8n29...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:17:15 -0000, in alt.politics, "Osric"
> > <os...@nospambtinternet.com>, wrote
>
Gee the ideology of pislam, as practiced currently as well
as in the past has NEVER been anything less than intolerant,
genocidal and supremacist Ali Al Fuckwad.
FACE
<andx...@gmail.com>, wrote
>the number of terrorist organisations motivated primarily by
>> pan-Islamic aims like Al Qaida are very small indeed.
>>
>
>Yes "nationalist" causes like the deliberate, systematic persecution
>of people of other faiths or no faith at all, as practiced to varying
>degrees
>in EVERY islamopig shitocracy on the face of the globe Abdul.
What blinkered, shit-for-brains, socialist idiots like ozzie the fool here
fail to realize --- or more likely purposefully overlook -- is that many
of the apparent nationalist groups like the Moroccan Combat Unit and
whatever the Russian islamist gang in Ossetia calls itself these days are
actually funded, armed and largely run by international islamist groups.
One of the largest and mostly silent supporters of islamist terror all
over the world is the Muslim Brotherhood. When it comes to taqiyya,
those guys are masters............
FACE
yitzhak in eretz isreal (sic)
> On 09 Nov 2009 19:47:12 GMT, "yitzhak in eretz isreal (sic)"
><yit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Which, unless I'm mistaken, was what Professor Evleth said.
> he's so slippery i'd make no hypothesis
Oh he's a bit of a twonk, that's for sure. The two areas in which he
should be completely ignored are Israel, and guns. He's an anti-Semitic
arabist, and is terrified of guns. His arrogance thus makes him talk down
to anyone who disagrees, in the belief that his views are innately
'superior' to others'.
I've known Earl and his posts since he first arrived here on the group (I
refer to news:alt.activism.death-penalty), and it pains me to say it, but
age has exacted a heavy toll on his ability to debate. He waffles on about
'land grabs' in Israel, and completely ignores it when the truth is pointed
out to him, i.e. that it is logically and jurisprudentially impossible to
'grab land' on sovereign territory that you own. This is the case with all
of Judea and Samaria (what the HBC refers to as 'The West Bank'), which has
been (legally) sovereign Jewish land since the Sam Remo Conference of 1920
(and morally sovereign since at least 1500 BCE), and which in fact was
unlawfully annexed by Jordan in 1948 (an illegal act recognised only by
Pakistan). Building Jewish towns in this area is no more a 'land grab'
than is the Paris council erecting a park bench in the Parc Monceau. When
it comes to guns, Earl admits he (quite literally) shot himself in the foot
with a pistol when he was a younger man. This seems to have contributed to
the rather asinine, almost Orwellian chant of 'all guns bad' that runs
through his posts. He'll quote dubious statistics, and when the truth
about guns, i.e. that they _save_ more lives than they take is put forward,
he'll call that 'dubious statistics', apparently blissfully unaware of the
irony.
He's best ignored, now.
Earl Evleth
"yitzhak in eretz isreal (sic)" <yit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2009-11-09, abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On 09 Nov 2009 19:47:12 GMT, "yitzhak in eretz isreal (sic)"
>> <yit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Which, unless I'm mistaken, was what Professor Evleth said.
>
>> he's so slippery i'd make no hypothesis
>
> Oh he's a bit of a twonk, that's for sure.
Twank? Not an American English word, I had to look it up.
> The two areas in which he should be completely ignored are Israel,
> and guns.
I am an expert on both.
> He's an anti-Semitic arabist,
A lie. My wife will testify to that fact. Nor am I a racist.
> and is terrified of guns.
Especially in the hands of others.
> His arrogance thus makes him talk down to anyone who disagrees,
> in the belief that his views are innately 'superior' to others'.
Beliefs have nothing to do with it, knowledge does. If I have
superior knowledge I automatically show it in the contents of
my post. I am not a Mike or Jiggy for instance. And I was
right on WMDs. Few Americans were.
Much of the rest is on Ersatz Israel.
> it comes to guns, Earl admits he (quite literally) shot himself in the foot
> with a pistol when he was a younger man.
No quite, I was never wounded. Advice, be sure your safety is on. Actually
I brag about the incident in the sense that I felt the terrible power of a
mere 22 caliber bullet glancing off my boot. Impressive. I like most
Americans had a number of guns and did not know how to handle them.
Americans believe they are born having a the instinct how to handle
guns. That belief I dropped.
Note that unlike Cheney, I never shot somebody else. He was a step
higher on the gun incompetence index. At the top you have members
of the NRA, r is for rotters.
poor baby sucking on a pacifier
you confuse social democracy with communism because you are as STUPID AS
SHIT.
deconstructing desmond coughlan
Coughlan <yit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2009-11-09, abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On 09 Nov 2009 19:47:12 GMT, Desmond Coughlan
>><yit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>Which, unless I'm mistaken, was what Professor Evleth said.
>
>> he's so slippery i'd make no hypothesis
>
>Oh he's a bit of a twonk, that's for sure. The two areas in which he
>should be completely ignored are Israel, and guns.
ROTFLMAO. Let's look at three of Herr Coughlan's past comments --
1) "Yes, your frustration with Israel's butchery, financed by the
United States, is understandable."
2) "Israel does not need to kill children, to ensure its survival.
Israel does not need to target the innocent families of suicide
bombers, to ensure its survival. Israel does not need to engage in
daily humiliation of innocent men and women, to ensure its survival"
But guess who argues that Israel does need to target the families of
suicide bombers these days?
3) "Thanks to your ludicrously lax firearms legislation, Richard, a
90-year- old cripple can 'do damage'; that's not an argument in favour
of the death penalty; it's an argument in favour of 'LWOP'. Not to
mention <drum roll> ... gun control."
But guess who argues against gun control these days?
<clipped puerile and mindless attack on Earl Evleth>
A Jew deconstructing desmond coughlan
>Y.