Israeli and European lawmakers form anti-Islamic coalition
simple.lan...@gmail.com
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ixRc4RoTlSH6uhrIXC86mTBN5Q0w
The organizer, Knesset Member Arieh Eldad explains the purpose of the
coalition:
The conflict that Israel and the Arabs are involved in during the last
hundred years is not a local disease, but it's a kind of symptom of a
global disease. The issue here is not a territorial conflict between
us and the Palestinians, but Israel is only the front fortress of
Western civilisation in the Middle East. The spread of Islam threatens
the foundations of Western civilization. There are 60 million Muslim
immigrants in Europe, and they have not necessarily come there to be
assimilated into society, but rather to resist it from the inside. The
feeling in Europe is that the time has come to stop jihadist Islam,
and this may be the last opportunity. The level of awareness of
Islam's real character is very low, not only in Europe but also in
Israel. Many in Israel live in the eye of the storm and conflict, but
don’t understand the difficult reality. It's time to shatter axioms
and conventions. The conference will serve as a first opportunity for
the new coalition of lawmakers to work in coordination and cooperation
in order to deal and fight against Europe's conversion into Eurabia.
If Jerusalem capitulates, Europe will follow in its footsteps and
fall. I don't want to offend the Muslims, I just want to expose the
true nature of Islam and to educate Europeans and Israelis..
Michael Laudahn eOpposition
Thanks for the info.
Good on the jews. Still, why don't they admit that it was their cabale in
the first place which led to the third-world and especially mohammedan
invasion of the first world, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald#On_Jews_and_immigration_policies ,
excerpt of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald ?
<simple.lan...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:a9ef9318-a382-4a6d...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Don H
news:a9ef9318-a382-4a6d...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
# One problem of religious fanaticism is: indoctrination, instead of
education. If any private school wants State Aid, then it should be
mandatory that method of teaching change, so nothing is taught as absolute
truth, never to be questioned, and that rival creeds also be taught -
General Philosophy and Comparative Religion.
The other main problem of religious fanaticism is injustice, and
Westerners occupying Muslim nations, eg. Iraq and Afghanistan, and yes,
Israel occupying Palestine - is a cause of grievance. Your intentions might
be noble, or self-justifying, but that's not how it is perceived by the
natives.
If the standard-of-living at home is alright, then few would want to
migrate to, eg, Britain, Europe, or elsewhere.
Maybe things are better in Iraq than they were - or have the natives
merely changed strategy? and once shown they can govern themselves will ask
Coalition forces to go home? Provided oil supplies are secure, the
Coalition just might oblige - but if military bases, for encirclement of
Russia, is a covert aim, then, maybe not.
Duncan Patton
"Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> - but if military bases, for encirclement of
> Russia, is a covert aim, then, maybe not.
There's an argument to be made that NATO's intervention
in Afghanistan is a benefit to Russia insofar as there
is some actual increase in the area's political stability:
the SU's military intervention there began as a "hot persuit"
issue involving banditry over the Turkmenistan (?) border.
But it appears that there is some confusion as to the purposes
of the "other" western military command operating in Afghanistan.
Operation Enduring Freedom claims to be hunting OBL but their
major accomplishments to date seem to have been only to empower
Pasthu "solidarity" and further destabilize Pakistan's northwest
frontier.
Dhu
TomTom
Duncan Patton <camp...@neotext.ca> typed:
> On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:46:04 GMT
> "Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> - but if military bases, for encirclement of
>> Russia, is a covert aim, then, maybe not.
>
> There's an argument to be made that NATO's intervention
> in Afghanistan is a benefit to Russia insofar as there
> is some actual increase in the area's political stability:
Really? By what measure have you determined that actual increase?
> the SU's military intervention there began as a "hot persuit"
> issue involving banditry over the Turkmenistan (?) border.
Bull-shit, but irrelevant.
> But it appears that there is some confusion as to the purposes
> of the "other" western military command operating in Afghanistan.
> Operation Enduring Freedom claims to be hunting OBL but their
> major accomplishments to date seem to have been only to empower
> Pasthu "solidarity" and further destabilize Pakistan's northwest
> frontier.
Hmmm. As of now, what are the objectives of the military interventions in
that country? By what measures can it be assessed whether those objectives
are met? On any rational basis, can those oblectives ever be met?
>
> Dhu
Duncan Patton
"TomTom" <t...@invalid.com> wrote:
> In news:20080903173621.4...@neotext.ca,
> Duncan Patton <camp...@neotext.ca> typed:
> > On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:46:04 GMT
> > "Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> >> - but if military bases, for encirclement of
> >> Russia, is a covert aim, then, maybe not.
> >
> > There's an argument to be made that NATO's intervention
> > in Afghanistan is a benefit to Russia insofar as there
> > is some actual increase in the area's political stability:
>
> Really? By what measure have you determined that actual increase?
>
I provide only the measure. You judge the resulting "actual increase".
Be careful when interpreting present tense verbs in English.
> > the SU's military intervention there began as a "hot persuit"
> > issue involving banditry over the Turkmenistan (?) border.
>
> Bull-shit, but irrelevant.
Not irrelevant. Soviet (Central CCP) meddling had destabilized
what was left of the old monarchy: a bungled assasination got
the wrong guy, and the resulting anarchy fostered bandits preying
on soviet bordertowns and hiding out in the hills. The place is
a viper pit and the Russians know it.
>
> > But it appears that there is some confusion as to the purposes
> > of the "other" western military command operating in Afghanistan.
> > Operation Enduring Freedom claims to be hunting OBL but their
> > major accomplishments to date seem to have been only to empower
> > Pasthu "solidarity" and further destabilize Pakistan's northwest
> > frontier.
>
> Hmmm. As of now, what are the objectives of the military interventions in
> that country? By what measures can it be assessed whether those objectives
> are met? On any rational basis, can those oblectives ever be met?
Well, as I've said, we hear all about NATO's "intentions" but then there's
this "Operation Enduring Freedom" (Orwellian name noted) that does not
answer to NATO and seems bent on some kind of Helot-bashing excercise.
Dhu
> >
> > Dhu
>
TomTom
Duncan Patton <camp...@neotext.ca> typed:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:56:31 +1000
> "TomTom" <t...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> In news:20080903173621.4...@neotext.ca,
>> Duncan Patton <camp...@neotext.ca> typed:
>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:46:04 GMT
>>> "Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> - but if military bases, for encirclement of
>>>> Russia, is a covert aim, then, maybe not.
>>>
>>> There's an argument to be made that NATO's intervention
>>> in Afghanistan is a benefit to Russia insofar as there
>>> is some actual increase in the area's political stability:
>>
>> Really? By what measure have you determined that actual increase?
>>
> I provide only the measure.
Sure, but what is it?
> You judge the resulting "actual
> increase". Be careful when interpreting present tense verbs in
> English.
You have ESL?
>>> the SU's military intervention there began as a "hot persuit"
>>> issue involving banditry over the Turkmenistan (?) border.
>>
>> Bull-shit, but irrelevant.
>
> Not irrelevant. Soviet (Central CCP) meddling had destabilized
> what was left of the old monarchy: a bungled assasination got
> the wrong guy, and the resulting anarchy fostered bandits preying
> on soviet bordertowns and hiding out in the hills. The place is
> a viper pit and the Russians know it.
You have been reading Tin-Tin, haven't you? The place has changed.
Honestly.
>>> But it appears that there is some confusion as to the purposes
>>> of the "other" western military command operating in Afghanistan.
>>> Operation Enduring Freedom claims to be hunting OBL but their
>>> major accomplishments to date seem to have been only to empower
>>> Pasthu "solidarity" and further destabilize Pakistan's northwest
>>> frontier.
>>
>> Hmmm. As of now, what are the objectives of the military
>> interventions in that country? By what measures can it be assessed
>> whether those objectives are met? On any rational basis, can those
>> oblectives ever be met?
>
> Well, as I've said, we hear all about NATO's "intentions" but then
> there's this "Operation Enduring Freedom" (Orwellian name noted) that
> does not answer to NATO and seems bent on some kind of Helot-bashing
> excercise.
Can you interpret the present tense in an evasive response?
>
> Dhu
>
>>>
>>> Dhu
Duncan Patton
"TomTom" <t...@invalid.com> wrote:
> In news:20080903212247.b...@neotext.ca,
> Duncan Patton <camp...@neotext.ca> typed:
> > On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:56:31 +1000
> > "TomTom" <t...@invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In news:20080903173621.4...@neotext.ca,
> >> Duncan Patton <camp...@neotext.ca> typed:
> >>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:46:04 GMT
> >>> "Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> - but if military bases, for encirclement of
> >>>> Russia, is a covert aim, then, maybe not.
> >>>
> >>> There's an argument to be made that NATO's intervention
> >>> in Afghanistan is a benefit to Russia insofar as there
> >>> is some actual increase in the area's political stability:
> >>
> >> Really? By what measure have you determined that actual increase?
> >>
> > I provide only the measure.
>
> Sure, but what is it?
>
> > You judge the resulting "actual
> > increase". Be careful when interpreting present tense verbs in
> > English.
>
> You have ESL?
>
No. But you need it.
> >>> the SU's military intervention there began as a "hot persuit"
> >>> issue involving banditry over the Turkmenistan (?) border.
> >>
> >> Bull-shit, but irrelevant.
> >
> > Not irrelevant. Soviet (Central CCP) meddling had destabilized
> > what was left of the old monarchy: a bungled assasination got
> > the wrong guy, and the resulting anarchy fostered bandits preying
> > on soviet bordertowns and hiding out in the hills. The place is
> > a viper pit and the Russians know it.
>
> You have been reading Tin-Tin, haven't you? The place has changed.
> Honestly.
"Honest, Ma. We didn't _know_ the dog had Rabies when we fed him all
that speed an' vitamins. Honestly."
>
> >>> But it appears that there is some confusion as to the purposes
> >>> of the "other" western military command operating in Afghanistan.
> >>> Operation Enduring Freedom claims to be hunting OBL but their
> >>> major accomplishments to date seem to have been only to empower
> >>> Pasthu "solidarity" and further destabilize Pakistan's northwest
> >>> frontier.
> >>
> >> Hmmm. As of now, what are the objectives of the military
> >> interventions in that country? By what measures can it be assessed
> >> whether those objectives are met? On any rational basis, can those
> >> oblectives ever be met?
> >
> > Well, as I've said, we hear all about NATO's "intentions" but then
> > there's this "Operation Enduring Freedom" (Orwellian name noted) that
> > does not answer to NATO and seems bent on some kind of Helot-bashing
> > excercise.
>
> Can you interpret the present tense in an evasive response?
>
Still evading the question of WTF OEF is sposed to be doing, are ye?
Dhu
> >
> > Dhu
> >
> >>>
> >>> Dhu
>
simple.lan...@gmail.com
BikeFan
> More info and a short video: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/127488
Strange, since we are not at war with Islam, but with terrorists. You
are trying to make us all go to war with an entire religion that has its
members in our armed services, police, intelligence etc.
Can't we lock you up for hate speech?
--
BikeFan
simple.lan...@gmail.com
> Strange, since we are not at war with Islam, but with terrorists.
"Terrorism is not the enemy. The enemy is Islam… For example, if
someone is throwing rotten eggs at you, it is not the “rotten eggs”
but rather the “person” throwing them who is the enemy… Take an atomic
bomb, write the letters R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N on it, and we, gullible
Americans, will welcome it as a religion… The militant Muslim is the
person cutting the head off the infidel while the moderate Muslim
holds the victim's feet… History proves that both militant and
moderate Muslims are invaders working as a team to conquer America…
The war cannot be won unless we clearly identify the enemy as Islam,
and the American government makes a formal declaration of war against
the Religion of Islam." - "Martel Sobieskey" source:
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1646
“Muslims who share the same goals as Osama bin Laden but are pursuing
them through non-violent means are celebrated by gullible Westerners
as moderates.” - Robert Spencer
65.2% Muslims favor Caliphate, 65.5% Muslims favor strict Sharia law
in every Islamic country: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28064
(Only the Caliph can wage offensive jihad and offensive jihad is his
main duty.)
"Islam's borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental
problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a
different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority
of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their
power." - Samuel P. Huntington
"The real intentions of Euroislam must be concealed from the general
public." - Tariq Ramadan
“I have been made victorious with terror.” - Muhammad (according to
Bukhari: 4.52.220)
"To say that moderate Islam is the solution to radical Islam implies
several things: that moderate Islam exists; that it represents the
true (though perhaps currently disregarded) norm of Islam; and that
radical Islam is a departure from that norm." - Lawrence Auster
"There is no such thing as “radical Islam”, since by its true
definition Islam is nothing but radical. Those who espouse a “liberal”
view of Islam should be forced to back up their nouveau interpretation
with unabrogated scriptural facts. Unless such would-be “reformists”
can categorically denounce Islamofascisim based on sound evidence from
the Qur’an, they prove to be the true radicals… The terrorists are
faithful and true to what is written in the holy Qur’an. A Muslim is
forbidden to think critically about the Qur'an. He must blindly obey
it and accept it passively and should memorize all of it… The terror
and death inflicted on humanity is not the work of radical Islam,
neither the political Islam, nor the militant Islam. It is Islam,
period… To be a moderate Muslim demands that a person explicitly
renounce much of the violent, exclusionary, and radical teachings of
the Quran. By so doing, the individual issues his own death warrant in
Islamic countries, is condemned as an apostate if he lives in a non-
Islamic land, and may even earn a fatwa on his head… The so-called
moderate Muslims, even if they exist, are complicit in the crimes of
the radicals either by providing them with funds, logistics, and new
recruits or simply by failing actively to confront and unequivocally
renounce them… Moderate Islam is a wedge that will jam open the door
to Jihad. The great majority of Muslims are not adherents of the
radical line. Yet, because the Islamists wage their war under the name
of Islam, they receive immense direct and indirect support from the
rank-and-file ordinary Muslims. It is this support of moderate Muslims
that keeps the Jihadists alive. And it is the Jihadists who intend to
show no mercy to any and all who do not share their theology, be they
Muslims or not… It is a mentality of enslavement that drives Islam…
Man subdues other men in order to establish a kingdom of oppression
and hatred on earth… Since its inception fourteen hundred years ago,
Islam has been at war with the people of this planet. Millions of
people have been literally butchered with the sword of Islam… Islam
lives, breaths and grows on blood. Once we take away this red element
from Islam, Islam will vanish completely." - Amil Imani
"There does not exist an identifiable body of Muslims, substantive in
number or an outright majority, who could be described as "moderate"
by their repudiation of Muslim extremists. Violence has been an
integral part of Muslim history, irrespective of whether it is
sanctioned by Islam, and Muslims who unhesitatingly use violence to
advance their political ambitions have created a climate within their
faith culture that any Muslim who questions such practice is then
deemed apostate and subject to harm. Consequently, what might pass for
"moderate" Muslims, the large number of Muslims unaccounted for as to
what they think, in practical terms constitute a forest within which
extremists are incubated, nurtured, given ideological and material
support, and to which they return for sanctuary." - Salim Mansur
"A Muslim apostate once suggested to me a litmus test for Westerners
who believe that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance: try
making that point on a street corner in Ramallah, or Riyadh, or
Islamabad, or anywhere in the Muslim world. He assured me you wouldn't
live five minutes." source: http://citizenwarrior2.blogspot.com/2007/10/taqiyya-religious-deception.html
"People don't simply wake up one day and commit genocide. They start
by setting themselves apart from others, diminishing the stature of
those adhering to dissenting beliefs in small, insidious steps. -
Michael Newdow
> You are trying to make us all go to war with an entire
> religion...
I do not. My favorite response to the Muslim invasion of the West:
1. Deportation to countries of their origin.
2. Deportation to Muslim-only towns guarded by the police.
3. MY FAVORITE IDEA: One child per family policy reinforced with
sterilization.
4. Mandatory lessons about Muslim atrocities.
5. Very strict control of Muslim clergy (mullahs).
6. Tax on Muslims to recompense us for all the harm they have done to
us.
7. Sermons (khutbah) and religious instructions must be conducted in
the local language, rather than Arabic, so that hate speech can be
easily identified.
8. Incarceration of all Salafi, Wahhabi, Deobandi, and Jamaat al
Tabligh mullahs.
1 and 2 are controversial because they border on abusing Muslims, but
they are necessary as long as Muslim immigrants wage jihad against our
freedom of speech.
> ...that has its members in our armed services,
> police, intelligence etc.
Yes. Muslim infiltration is a problem, but I do not like the idea of
simply kicking them out without compensation. Muslims deserve respect
because they are human beings even if they dance in the streets every
time kuffar women and children are killed. Our enemy is Islam rather
than Muslims. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is our hero and a former Muslim.
> Can't we lock you up for hate speech?
You cannot because I do not hate anybody. If you read my old posts,
you will not find any suggestion to harm or to impoverish Muslims.
What you interpret as my "hate speech" is a criticism of Islamic
ideology. Criticism of political ideas is not regarded as hate speech
in the West. If I were you I would study the messy origins of Islam
and its shaky foundations. When you understand that Islam is a big
mess, you will understand that your best guide is your own brain.