OT: For our UK friends
aelfwina
prayers, and if possible, let us all know if you are okay?
Barbara
Raven
news:11cqg12...@corp.supernews.com...
> I was shocked to hear the news. Please know you have my thoughts and
> prayers, and if possible, let us all know if you are okay?
Yes, the walking abortions strike again.
Jon Lennart Beck.
Pete Gray
jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam says...
I'm a long way from the appalling carnage in London, but I was moved and
impressed by the eloquence of Ken Livingston, the Mayor of London:
"This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It
was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at
ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and
Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate
attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for
class, for religion, or whatever...
"In the days that follow...even after your cowardly attack, you will see
that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will
arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and
achieve their potential.
"They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they
come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be
able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they
should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us
you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and
where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do,
however many you kill, you will fail."
<http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayor_statement_070705.jsp>
--
Pete Gray
Say No to ID Cards <http://www.no2id.net>
<http://www.redbadge.co.uk/no2idcards/>
Öjevind Lång
>aelfwina" <aelfw...@cableone.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:11cqg12...@corp.supernews.com...
>> I was shocked to hear the news. Please know you have my thoughts and prayers, and if possible, let us all know if you are okay?
>Yes, the walking abortions strike again.
Horrible. Unspeakable. My deepest condolences as well.
Öjevind
Christopher Kreuzer
>> "aelfwina" <aelf...@cableone.net> skrev:
>>
>>> I was shocked to hear the news. Please know you have my thoughts
>>> and prayers, and if possible, let us all know if you are okay?
<snip>
> I'm a long way from the appalling carnage in London
I was quite a bit closer (I travel to work on London Underground, and
[along with thousands of others] have almost certainly travelled on some
of the tube trains that were blown up today), but I'm OK as well. Sadly,
others were not so lucky.
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Sam's the little guy
Raven wrote:
> "aelfwina" <aelf...@cableone.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:11cqg12...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > I was shocked to hear the news. Please know you have my thoughts and
> > prayers, and if possible, let us all know if you are okay?
Indeed - on my behalf of myself and my family my profound sympathy goes
out to all those involved.
Tar-Elenion
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> Pete Gray <ne...@redbadge.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "aelfwina" <aelf...@cableone.net> skrev:
> >>
> >>> I was shocked to hear the news. Please know you have my thoughts
> >>> and prayers, and if possible, let us all know if you are okay?
>
> <snip>
>
> > I'm a long way from the appalling carnage in London
>
> I was quite a bit closer (I travel to work on London Underground, and
> [along with thousands of others] have almost certainly travelled on some
> of the tube trains that were blown up today), but I'm OK as well. Sadly,
> others were not so lucky.
>
Good to know you are OK.
Sympathy and well wishes to all effected.
--
Tar-Elenion
He is a warrior, and a spirit of wrath. In every
stroke that he deals he sees the Enemy who long
ago did thee this hurt.
Ty
news:MPG.1d37b5793...@news.zen.co.uk...
> I'm a long way from the appalling carnage in London, but I was moved and
> impressed by the eloquence of Ken Livingston, the Mayor of London:
> "This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It
> was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at
> ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and
> Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate
> attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for
> class, for religion, or whatever...
> "In the days that follow...even after your cowardly attack, you will see
> that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will
> arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and
> achieve their potential.
> "They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they
> come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be
> able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they
> should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us
> you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and
> where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do,
> however many you kill, you will fail."
> <http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayor_statement_070705.jsp>
As an American, I want to offer my condolences to our British friends. I can
assure you that America is behind you and will back you up, just as you have
backed us up in the past.
However, I must comment on the outrageous hypocrisy of the insane Mr.
Livingstone.
Isn't this the same terrorist-coddler who once characterized the IRA as
"freedom fighters", rather than murderous savages?
Isn't he the same one who condemned the Israeli campaign against terrorists
as "genocide" and has not seen fit to condemn Palestinian terrorist attacks?
Or does Ken only consider it terrorism when non-Jews are murdered by
terrorists?
Didn't this kook also demand that the British press apologize to sheikh
Yusuf Al-Qaradawi for seeking to "blemish his reputation during his visit to
London" in July of 2004? The scumbag that Ken so adamantly defended is the
same fanatic who called for the murder of Americans in Iraq as a sacred
Islamic duty. He also claimed that Palestinian terrorist attacks against
Israeli civilians "...are not in any way included in the framework of
prohibited terrorism, even if the victims include some civilians." In a
sermon following the Al-Qa'ida attack in Bali on October 18, 2002, he
explained, "Islam does agree to such acts." *This* is the kind of swine that
Ken defends. Yet for some reason, he is shocked, *shocked*, that a terrorist
attack was carried out in his town. What a worthless, hypocritical twit.
A much more competent Englishman once said "all that is necessary for the
triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Or to justify the actions of
murderous savages, then pretend to be shocked when they commit savage
murders.
--Ty
Tux Wonder-Dog
of it - kinda like Tar Elessar i Telcontar (Aragorn) going into Mordor and
setting up Barad Dur as his base of operations, and rehiring Gorbag and
Shagrat - the Muslims _don't_ _have_ a right to be boiling with fury?
Are you suggesting that the Human Right of vengeance doesn't belong to Arabs
and Muslims - just because you say so? I thought you Americans believed in
the Rule of Law. Perhaps not - you seem to believe more in the "Golden
Rule" - "He who has the gold, rules".
There have been at least 100 000 Iraqi deaths confirmed as a result of the
US-UK collaboration in invading Iraq, and a proportional magnitude of
disablings and maimings. 32 deaths and a related proportion of injuries
from the London bombings - that's light! _And_ your President Bush has
called it a _WAR_ - _people_ _die_ _in_ _wars_ . Didn't you know?
But of course, they're Arab, they're Muslim, and you've already indicated
you don't see them as human. Lynch Law. US Federal Lynch Law. Jim Crow.
Snivelling self-pitying .... "The nasty brute dared hit me back! Stop him,
Mummy!"
Pull your head out of your arse, and try to regain your humanity!
Wesley Parish
Ty wrote:
--
"Good, late in to more rewarding well." "Well, you tonight. And I was
lookintelligent woman of Ming home. I trust you with a tender silence." I
get a word into my hands, a different and unbelike, probably - 'she
fortunate fat woman', wrong word. I think to me, I justupid.
Let not emacs meta-X dissociate-press write your romantic dialogs...!!!
Ty
news:42ce...@clear.net.nz...
> Might I ask, with the US re-opening Abu Ghraib the instance they got ahold
> of it - kinda like Tar Elessar i Telcontar (Aragorn) going into Mordor and
> setting up Barad Dur as his base of operations, and rehiring Gorbag and
> Shagrat - the Muslims _don't_ _have_ a right to be boiling with fury?
Before I address this absurd question, what does this have to do with the
contemptible hypocrisy of Ken Livingstone?
On to your "question"...
<shrug> Well, the Muslim world is characterized by torture, brutality, a
lack of even the most basic human rights, a lack of consensual secular
governance, lack of free speech, homophobia, misogyny and religious
intolerance. Therefore, I wonder why the Muslims would be angry at the US
when *Muslim* leaders have engaged in *far* worse human rights violations
than what the Americans are accused of? Why is that? If human rights abuses
were the real reason for Muslim fanaticism, then one would expect almost all
of the terrorist attacks to take place in explicitely Muslim countries. Yet
for some reason, the Muslims seem to be attacking the West. Why is that?
And do I understand you to mean that you feel that Muslim terrorist attacks
against civilians are somehow justified?
Somehow, I suspect that you won't answer these questions...
> Are you suggesting that the Human Right of vengeance doesn't belong to
> Arabs
> and Muslims - just because you say so?
"Right of vengeance"?
Well, I don't think that the Arabs and other Muslims really want to tangle
with the West in an unrestricted war. The West has, for some 2000+ years,
generally obliterated nonwestern foes on the battlefield. From Marathon to
Iraqi Freedom, the same thing happens. Tens of thousands of nonwesterners
are killed while only a very few westerners are killed. The few memorable
exceptions are memorable precisely because they are so rare. To that must be
added the fact that the Arabs are among the worst soldiers in history. They
make WWII France and Italy look like Patton's Third Army.
So *if* the West did not restrain itself, and chose instead to use the same
moral code as the Muslims, the Muslim world would be annihilated. Quickly
and utterly.
That's what makes you terrorist-coddling lefties so pathetic.
You excuse and justify the acts of psychopathic murderous savages, thereby
encouraging the savages to commit more such acts. See, they hate you just as
much as they hate me. The difference is that they consider your appeasement
to be a sign of weakness -- which it is. Oddly enough, that's about the only
thing the Islamists have figured correctly. Yet in your zeal to excuse the
acts of savages, you make it far more likely that the West will eventually
tire of such things and will decide to annihilate the very folks you claim
to sympathize with. The Japanese and Germans can attest to how pitiless an
enraged Western democracy can be in wartime.
> I thought you Americans believed in
> the Rule of Law. Perhaps not - you seem to believe more in the "Golden
> Rule" - "He who has the gold, rules".
This from someone who alleges that the Muslim fanatics have some right to
target women and children for murder? Amazing.,
> There have been at least 100 000 Iraqi deaths confirmed
A fact not in evidence. Endless critique have been made about the
methodology used by that loon. Even the morons at Iraqibodycount.org have a
far lower number. But even if it was true, it is a fact that Saddam caused
the deaths of far more people. Yet curiously, you moralizing lefty
hypocrites opposed the removal of Saddam on, of all absurd grounds, *moral*
grounds. How did you people *ever* become so morally corrupt?
> ... 32 deaths and a related proportion of injuries
> from the London bombings - that's light! _And_ your President Bush has
> called it a _WAR_ - _people_ _die_ _in_ _wars_ . Didn't you know?
Oh yes I do.
But are you saying that you would support the West using the same definition
of "legitimate target" as the Muslim lunatics?
Go ahead, answer the question. Are you actually implying that the West
should target and murder Muslim civilians?
And before you start whingeing about casualties in Iraq, I assume that even
you know the difference between collateral damage and intentional targeting
of civilians. Even a three year old understands the difference between being
kicked and being stumbled over. Admittedly, I am assuming that you have an
insight that is at least a competent as that of a three year old, but such
assumptions are required.
> But of course, they're Arab, they're Muslim, and you've already indicated
> you don't see them as human. Lynch Law. US Federal Lynch Law. Jim Crow.
Heh. There are few things on the earth as hypocritical as being lectured
about such things by *anyone* from Europe or descended from Europeans. It's
like being called arrogant or cowardly by the French. Or being lectured on
imperialism by a European...
And, uh, there are no Jim Crow laws in the US, nor are there.
And, um, weren't there indigenous people in New Zealand before the Europeans
showed up?
> Snivelling self-pitying .... "The nasty brute dared hit me back! Stop
> him,
> Mummy!"
Oh, you are a card. I am snivelling about nothing. I want the bastards dead,
and sooner rather than later. I want the regimes who support them destroyed.
I want the people who support them punished.
And I would *love* to make their fawning western apologists live in the
Muslim world for awhile and listen to *their* whining. I'd love to see you
smug morons try to emote and intellectualize your way out of being tortured
for criticising the regime, or saying something unflattering about The
Prophet.
> Pull your head out of your arse, and try to regain your humanity!
> Wesley Parish
I see nothing humane, admirable or moral about excusing, appeasing and
justifying evil. And that is exactly what folks like you are doing.
Exactly what the hypocritical mayor of London did, which makes his purported
*shock* that his terrorist party friends actually killed people in his town
*so* hypocritical. Lefties who defend a culture that holds values that
Lefties *claim* to be utterly opposed to are just as bad. I find such
conduct to be contemptible, reprehensible and disgusting.
I am very curious as to why lefties seem to leap to the defense of a culture
that is characterized by the same things lefties constantly *claim* to
oppose -- homophobia, misogyny, brutal despotisms, lack of human rights,
extreme religious intolerance, capital punishment, lack of legal due process
and torture. If lefties *truly* opposed these things, they would have
applauded the removal of Saddam and demanded that the West remove the other
Muslim autocrats in the Middle East. Yet they still self-righteously defend
some of the vilest regimes on the earth.
Why are you folks so utterly hypocritical?
<nonanswer predicted>
--Ty
John Jones
news:11cqg12...@corp.supernews.com...
> I was shocked to hear the news. Please know you have my thoughts and
> prayers, and if possible, let us all know if you are okay?
> Barbara
>
>
Underground at the time; he is OK.
Derek Broughton
> "Tux Wonder-Dog" <wes.p...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:42ce...@clear.net.nz...
>> kinda like Tar Elessar i Telcontar (Aragorn) going into
>> Mordor and setting up Barad Dur as his base of operations, and rehiring
>> Gorbag and Shagrat -
Very clever :-)
>> the Muslims _don't_ _have_ a right to be boiling
>> with fury?
I do wish people would stop saying "the Muslims". It's not "the Muslims",
any more than the invasion of Iraq was "the Christians". Iraqis might have
the right to be boiling with fury. You and I have exactly the same right
to feel that way as "the Muslims". No amount of fury, however, gives one
the right to take it out on innocents.
> <shrug> Well, the Muslim world is characterized by torture, brutality, a
> lack of even the most basic human rights, a lack of consensual secular
> governance, lack of free speech, homophobia, misogyny and religious
> intolerance.
And you're just as bad as Tux. _Most_ of the world is, unfortunately,
characterized by most of those. Your statement is probably true, but
calling it a "Muslim" problem doesn't help anybody, and merely helps your
average Muslim to believe that we're attacking their religion, rather than
their leaders unislamic human rights abuses.
>
>> Are you suggesting that the Human Right of vengeance doesn't belong to
>> Arabs
>> and Muslims - just because you say so?
>
> "Right of vengeance"?
Ack. Very scary. Almost American...
> The West has, for some 2000+ years,
> generally obliterated nonwestern foes on the battlefield.
??
Really? Let's see - Persia vs Greece: pretty much a draw (that gets rid of
the "+" part of 2000+).
Rome? No doubt. Crusades? Mostly a win for the Islamic side. Turks &
Moors? Clear win on the Islamic side. Eventually the Europeans managed to
drive the Moors out of Spain, but it took a world war to get the Turks out
of Eastern Europe - which they occupied for _hundreds_ of years.
Napoleon? Stopped dead when he tried to get east of Europe.
> From Marathon to
> Iraqi Freedom, the same thing happens. Tens of thousands of nonwesterners
> are killed while only a very few westerners are killed. The few memorable
> exceptions are memorable precisely because they are so rare. To that must
> be added the fact that the Arabs are among the worst soldiers in history.
TE Lawrence didn't think so.
> That's what makes you terrorist-coddling lefties so pathetic.
I resent that. I'm a left-wing, bleeding heart, knee-jerk liberal. I can
still identify a terrorist when he throws a bomb at me. Funny how the US
is incapable of actually finding any evidence to use against all the people
in Gitmo, though.
>> I thought you Americans believed in
>> the Rule of Law. Perhaps not - you seem to believe more in the "Golden
>> Rule" - "He who has the gold, rules".
They love the rule of law. They just haven't yet figured out how few rights
they have since they passed the PATRIOT law.
> Go ahead, answer the question. Are you actually implying that the West
> should target and murder Muslim civilians?
Definitely not.
> Heh. There are few things on the earth as hypocritical as being lectured
> about such things by *anyone* from Europe or descended from Europeans.
I'm sorry, I'm not even responsible for the sins of my father, let alone the
excesses of prior centuries.
> It's like being called arrogant or cowardly by the French. Or being
> lectured on imperialism by a European...
More bloody generalizations...
>
> And, uh, there are no Jim Crow laws in the US, nor are there.
!! boggle...(perhaps it would have been more believable if you'd finished
the sentence).
> Oh, you are a card. I am snivelling about nothing. I want the bastards
> dead, and sooner rather than later. I want the regimes who support them
> destroyed. I want the people who support them punished.
But you can't even figure out who supported them (hint - it was never Iraq).
> If lefties *truly* opposed these things,
> they would have applauded the removal of Saddam and demanded that the West
> remove the other Muslim autocrats in the Middle East. Yet they still
> self-righteously defend some of the vilest regimes on the earth.
LOL. So, instead, we should support the Pinochets, the Contras, Saddam
(when he was fighting Iran). You're in no position to complain about
"self-righteousness'.
>
> Why are you folks so utterly hypocritical?
Just human nature, as you're demonstrating...
--
derek
Michael Starosta
> homophobia, misogyny, brutal despotisms, lack of human rights,
> extreme religious intolerance, capital punishment, lack of legal due process
> and torture. If lefties *truly* opposed these things, they would have
> applauded the removal of Saddam and demanded that the West remove the other
> Muslim autocrats in the Middle East.
Saddam was anything but a *muslim* autocrat or a friend of Bin Laden.
He was as much a muslim fanatic as Hitler was a communist. Have you ever
heard about "Arabic Socialism" or the Baath Party?
But of course, this is way OT here.
Staso
--
Schizophrenic? I'm bleeding quadrophenic.
Prai Jei
message <44ize.65311$G8....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
Here in Cardiff, about 150 miles west of London, we have had our own
security alert which has closed the main rail and bus stations. No details
have been released of the nature of the alert.
As something of a railway enthusiast, I have tried to gradually "do" the
entire Tube network on my occasional visits to London, mostly by travelling
circuitous routes e.g. Paddington-Hammersmith via Rayners Lane. In this way
I have travelled most of the lines, with only a few extreme ends
(Piccadilly beyond Wood Green, Central from Woodford to Epping) still to
do. So I have definitely travelled through all the sites that are now
"tainted" in my mind.
One of our customers in central London phoned up today with a computer
problem, requiring us to send a service engineer there on Monday. I shall
be praying for a safe-conduct for him.
--
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Tar-Elenion
says...
follow up set to:
alt.fan.tolkien
> > news:42ce...@clear.net.nz...
>
> >> I thought you Americans believed in
> >> the Rule of Law. Perhaps not - you seem to believe more in the "Golden
> >> Rule" - "He who has the gold, rules".
>
> They love the rule of law. They just haven't yet figured out how few rights
> they have since they passed the PATRIOT law.
>
Have you read the PA?
If so would you please explain to me all the 'rights' I have lost
because of its passage?
Ty
> of it - kinda like Tar Elessar i Telcontar (Aragorn) going into Mordor and
> setting up Barad Dur as his base of operations, and rehiring Gorbag and
> Shagrat - the Muslims _don't_ _have_ a right to be boiling with fury?
Before I address this absurd question, what does this have to do with the
contemptible hypocrisy of Ken Livingstone?
On to your "question"...
<shrug> Well, the Muslim world is characterized by torture, brutality, a
lack of even the most basic human rights, a lack of consensual secular
governance, lack of free speech, homophobia, misogyny and religious
intolerance. Therefore, I wonder why the Muslims would be angry at the US
when *Muslim* leaders have engaged in *far* worse human rights violations
than what the Americans are accused of? Why is that? If human rights abuses
were the real reason for Muslim fanaticism, then one would expect almost all
of the terrorist attacks to take place in explicitely Muslim countries. Yet
for some reason, the Muslims seem to be attacking the West. Why is that?
And do I understand you to mean that you feel that Muslim terrorist attacks
against civilians are somehow justified?
Somehow, I suspect that you won't answer these questions...
> Are you suggesting that the Human Right of vengeance doesn't belong to
> Arabs
> and Muslims - just because you say so?
"Right of vengeance"?
Well, I don't think that the Arabs and other Muslims really want to tangle
with the West in an unrestricted war. The West has, for some 2000+ years,
generally obliterated nonwestern foes on the battlefield. From Marathon to
Iraqi Freedom, the same thing happens. Tens of thousands of nonwesterners
are killed while only a very few westerners are killed. The few memorable
exceptions are memorable precisely because they are so rare. To that must be
added the fact that the Arabs are among the worst soldiers in history. They
make WWII France and Italy look like Patton's Third Army.
So *if* the West did not restrain itself, and chose instead to use the same
moral code as the Muslims, the Muslim world would be annihilated. Quickly
and utterly.
That's what makes you terrorist-coddling lefties so pathetic.
You excuse and justify the acts of psychopathic murderous savages, thereby
encouraging the savages to commit more such acts. See, they hate you just as
much as they hate me. The difference is that they consider your appeasement
to be a sign of weakness -- which it is. Oddly enough, that's about the only
thing the Islamists have figured correctly. Yet in your zeal to excuse the
acts of savages, you make it far more likely that the West will eventually
tire of such things and will decide to annihilate the very folks you claim
to sympathize with. The Japanese and Germans can attest to how pitiless an
enraged Western democracy can be in wartime.
> I thought you Americans believed in
> the Rule of Law. Perhaps not - you seem to believe more in the "Golden
> Rule" - "He who has the gold, rules".
This from someone who alleges that the Muslim fanatics have some right to
target women and children for murder? Amazing.,
> There have been at least 100 000 Iraqi deaths confirmed
A fact not in evidence. Endless critique have been made about the
methodology used by that loon. Even the morons at Iraqibodycount.org have a
far lower number. But even if it was true, it is a fact that Saddam caused
the deaths of far more people. Yet curiously, you moralizing lefty
hypocrites opposed the removal of Saddam on, of all absurd grounds, *moral*
grounds. How did you people *ever* become so morally corrupt?
> ... 32 deaths and a related proportion of injuries
> from the London bombings - that's light! _And_ your President Bush has
> called it a _WAR_ - _people_ _die_ _in_ _wars_ . Didn't you know?
Oh yes I do.
But are you saying that you would support the West using the same definition
of "legitimate target" as the Muslim lunatics?
Go ahead, answer the question. Are you actually implying that the West
should target and murder Muslim civilians?
And before you start whingeing about casualties in Iraq, I assume that even
you know the difference between collateral damage and intentional targeting
of civilians. Even a three year old understands the difference between being
kicked and being stumbled over. Admittedly, I am assuming that you have an
insight that is at least a competent as that of a three year old, but such
assumptions are required.
> But of course, they're Arab, they're Muslim, and you've already indicated
> you don't see them as human. Lynch Law. US Federal Lynch Law. Jim Crow.
Heh. There are few things on the earth as hypocritical as being lectured
about such things by *anyone* from Europe or descended from Europeans. It's
like being called arrogant or cowardly by the French. Or being lectured on
imperialism by a European...
And, uh, there are no Jim Crow laws in the US, nor are there.
And, um, weren't there indigenous people in New Zealand before the Europeans
showed up?
> Snivelling self-pitying .... "The nasty brute dared hit me back! Stop
> him,
> Mummy!"
Oh, you are a card. I am snivelling about nothing. I want the bastards dead,
and sooner rather than later. I want the regimes who support them destroyed.
I want the people who support them punished.
And I would *love* to make their fawning western apologists live in the
Muslim world for awhile and listen to *their* whining. I'd love to see you
smug morons try to emote and intellectualize your way out of being tortured
for criticising the regime, or saying something unflattering about The
Prophet.
> Pull your head out of your arse, and try to regain your humanity!
> Wesley Parish
I see nothing humane, admirable or moral about excusing, appeasing and
justifying evil. And that is exactly what folks like you are doing.
Exactly what the hypocritical mayor of London did, which makes his purported
*shock* that his terrorist party friends actually killed people in his town
*so* hypocritical. Lefties who defend a culture that holds values that
Lefties *claim* to be utterly opposed to are just as bad. I find such
conduct to be contemptible, reprehensible and disgusting.
I am very curious as to why lefties seem to leap to the defense of a culture
that is characterized by the same things lefties constantly *claim* to
oppose -- homophobia, misogyny, brutal despotisms, lack of human rights,
extreme religious intolerance, capital punishment, lack of legal due process
and torture. If lefties *truly* opposed these things, they would have
applauded the removal of Saddam and demanded that the West remove the other
Muslim autocrats in the Middle East. Yet they still self-righteously defend
some of the vilest regimes on the earth.
Why are you folks so utterly hypocritical?
<nonanswer predicted>
--Ty
Ty
news:e2g2q2-...@othello.pointerstop.ca...
> I do wish people would stop saying "the Muslims". It's not "the Muslims",
> any more than the invasion of Iraq was "the Christians". Iraqis might
> have
> the right to be boiling with fury. You and I have exactly the same right
> to feel that way as "the Muslims". No amount of fury, however, gives one
> the right to take it out on innocents.
Well, not to be pedantic, but it pretty much *is* the Muslims. More
accurately, self-identified Muslim terrorist groups are responsible for
about 90+% of all deaths from international terrorist attacks these days.
More specifically, a self-identified Muslim group targetted and murdered a
bunch of British civilians.
Now, of course this does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists. But I
don't think that we can get very far by ignoring the *fact* that Muslims --
not Hindus or Buddhists -- are directly responsible for most terrorist
murders. And that -- by their own admission -- they commit these murders
because of their belief in a religious duty to slaughter infidels. Hiding
behind misguided notions of political correctness or a feckless desire to
appease is unhelpful in understanding how best to defeat and annihilate
these scumbags.
>> <shrug> Well, the Muslim world is characterized by torture, brutality, a
>> lack of even the most basic human rights, a lack of consensual secular
>> governance, lack of free speech, homophobia, misogyny and religious
>> intolerance.
>
> And you're just as bad as Tux. _Most_ of the world is, unfortunately,
> characterized by most of those.
So you at least agree that my characterization is accurate. But we aren't
discussing Tibetan or Tahitian terrorists. We are discussing a despicable
act committed by self-identified *Muslim* terrorists.
And those who claim that these animals are motivated by purported American
human rights violations should be able to explain to us all why these
Muslims are only troubled by relatively mild violations by the Americans. If
human rights violations were their real motive, they'd be blowing up the
entire Muslim world first.
But ... *if* they are *actually* motivated by religious intolerance,
fanaticism and by a bloodthirsty desire to slaughter infidel civilians, then
we would expect them to act just as they have acted and aim most of their
attacks against infidels.
So, I think it is reasonable to ask those who appear so eager to defend
these animals to reconcile this.
And my observation that the Muslim world is a wretched hellhole is highly
relevant when pointing out the apparent hypocrisy of so many on the left.
They sanctimoniously *claim* to oppose misogyny, homophobia, religious
intolerance, torture, etc. And they certainly whine about it when they even
imagine it to exist in the US. Yet these same self-righteous twits fall all
over themselves to defend and justify some of the most execrable regimes on
the Earth. Even more disgustingly, they actually opposed the removal of the
worst mass murderer of Muslims in the last hundred years. On -- believe it
or not -- *moral* grounds. In other words, their deeds are in direct
contradiction to their claimed motives. And I learned a long time ago that
what someone *does* is a far more reliable indicator of his beliefs than
what he says. Talk, as they say, is cheap.
And I still want to know (a) how they can be so morally bankrupt and (b) how
they can delude themselves into thinking that no one notices their
hypocrisy.
> Your statement is probably true, but
> calling it a "Muslim" problem doesn't help anybody, and merely helps your
> average Muslim to believe that we're attacking their religion, rather than
> their leaders unislamic human rights abuses.
I refer you to the various UN Arab Human Development reports over the last
few years. Its analysis -- by Arab scholars incidentally -- shaows that the
Muslim world -- particularly the Arab-Iranian-Pakistani-Afghan part -- is
worse than anywhere else in the Third World except for parts of Subsaharan
Africa. This despite the considerable oil wealth in that part of the world.
The Muslims have done far less with far more than (for instance) most of
Asia, India and South America.
>>> Are you suggesting that the Human Right of vengeance doesn't belong to
>>> Arabs
>>> and Muslims - just because you say so?
>> "Right of vengeance"?
> Ack. Very scary. Almost American...
I just love it when sanctimonious Canadians throw stones like this.
>> The West has, for some 2000+ years,
>> generally obliterated nonwestern foes on the battlefield.
> ??
> Really? Let's see - Persia vs Greece: pretty much a draw (that gets rid
> of
> the "+" part of 2000+).
You really need to read about the battles before opining on the subject. It
is a historical fact that the West has generally dominated the battlefield
for the last few thousand years. Yes, there are exceptions - exceptions that
are remembered because they are comparatively rare.
But regardless of the historical facts, the reality is that no non-Western
military can stand toe to toe with a typical Western army.
> Napoleon? Stopped dead when he tried to get east of Europe.
Uh, Russia is part of the West. Which of course illustrated the fact that
for the most part, Western militaries have only had to fear other Western
militaries.
>> From Marathon to
>> Iraqi Freedom, the same thing happens. Tens of thousands of nonwesterners
>> are killed while only a very few westerners are killed. The few memorable
>> exceptions are memorable precisely because they are so rare. To that must
>> be added the fact that the Arabs are among the worst soldiers in history.
> TE Lawrence didn't think so.
So?
Lawrence was a romantic idealist. And of course that was a long time ago.
Despite outnumbering Israel by a factor of 30+ to 1, despite being lavishly
supplied with Soviet, French and Chinese weaponry, and despite tremendous
oil wealth, the Arabs have been utterly humiliated time and time again by
the only real democracy in the region - Israel. 6 million Israelis manage to
completely dominate some 150 million+ Arabs and you claim that the Arabs are
competent? Over the last 50 years the Arabs have been routed by everyone
they've fought -- Israelis, Americans, British, Chadian tribesmen. Heck,
even the French have stomped them.
Indeed, I particularly enjoyed it when a US military police unit -- composed
largely of and led by a woman -- utterly routed the fearsome Warriors of
Allah awhile back. Gee, do the misogynistic Warriors of Allah get the full
complement of virgins if they are killed by infidel women? In any case, this
is the strongest reason yet to allow women into combat units.
If the West finally tires of Islamic fanticism and decides to use the Muslim
definition of "legitimate target", the Muslims will be very quickly
annihilated. And before you whine that Muslims don't support terrorists,
please reconcile the fact that these purported Muslim opponents of terrorism
seem to be very quiet.
And it doesn't look good for Muslims who would like to moderate the
extremist parts of Muslim theology. For evidence of this, see Salman
Rushdie, who is *still* under a death sentence by the crackpot mullocracy of
Iran. Funny how the lefties seem untropubled by this. I like this article
condemning such "moderate" Muslims:
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=SP90505 . The
title says it all: "Muslims in Name, Apostates in Fact". And as anyone
familiar with Islam know, the sentence for apostacy is usually death. A
similar article appears here
(http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=IA20805)
"Accusing Muslim Intellectuals of Apostasy". "In an interview... Sheikh
Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, one of the most prominent clerics in Sunni Islam and
among Islamist circles and a spiritual leader for the Muslim Brotherhood
movement, discussed the view of modern religious law on carrying out the
punishment for ridda, and permitted the murder of free Muslim intellectuals
whose views differ from those of Islamist clerics." Nice.
And of course, there was the communique of twenty-six gibbering Saudi
clerics (published in November 2004 and posted at one time at
http://www.islamtoday.net/) sanctioning Jihad against the U.S. in Iraq. Of
course, "gibbering Saudi clerics" is kinda like saying "tall giants", but I
digress. Embarassed by this, the feckless Saudi lunocrats trotted out a few
purported religious authorities who claimed that it was wrong to encourage
Saudis to go to Iraq and slaughter infidels. The reason -- because it was
against the Saudi ruler's command, thereby violating the purported Muslim
duty to obey the ruler. So it's only okay for Muslims to slaughter
"infidels" and fellow Muslim women and children if the ruler says it's okay.
As an aside, it's interesting how much enthusiasm the Saudi fanatics have
for murdering their fellow *Iraqi* Muslims. The Saudis had better hope that
the Iraqis don't carry a grudge...
This goes on and on and on. The antisemetic jeremiads spewing from the
Muslim world are even more insane, rivaling anything Goebels ever put out.
Here are some examples:
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP90805
"(Muslims) Will Rule America; Israel is a Cancer; Jews are a Virus
Resembling AIDS; Muslims Will Finish Them Off"
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP78204
-- "We were Educated from Childhood that the Holocaust is a Big Lie"
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP76304
-- "The Jews [are] Slaughtering Non-Jews, Draining their Blood, and Using
it for Talmudic Religious Rituals".
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP70004
-- "The Jews are Behind Every Disaster or Terrorist Act"
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP37002
-- a rather touching sermon from one of the clerics of the Religion of
Peace, ended by the following tolerant and peaceful prayer:
"Oh Allah, show the Jews a black day."
"Oh Allah, annihilate the Jews and their supporters."
"Oh Allah, raise the flag of Jihad across the land."
"Oh Allah, forgive our sins..."
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP21201
-- Egyptian columnist thanks Hitler (again): "[Insistently] for the second
time, thanks to Hitler, of blessed memory, who on behalf of the
Palestinians, revenged in advance, against the most vile criminals on the
face of the earth. Although we do have a complaint against him for his
revenge on them was not enough." Yeah, bobby, these are the Good Guys.
Nor do these folks limit their insane bigotry to adults. They inculcate
Muslim children into it as well. This site
(http://www.edume.org/reports/4/1.htm ), has numerous antisemetic quotes
from Arab textbooks, like:
-"One must beware of the Jews, for they are treacherous and disloyal." 9th
grade Palestinian text
-"Concerning these deceptive, treasonous Jews, they received the recompense
for their treason and their scheming against their allies the Muslims: Allah
(gave) the Muslims their land, houses and property...'' Syrian 10th grade
Of course, such things do not surprise me given that they are written by
people who encourage children (though seldom their own children) to become
suicide bombers. Where's the renowned lefty concern for children?
Anyhow, for every muted, equivocal. "yes but", pseudo-condemnation of Muslim
terrorism (usually in English and seldom in Arabic) by "moderate" Muslims,
we get hundreds of these kind of rants from everywhere in the Muslim world.
Yet still, lefties hypocritically whine about purported American bigotry and
confidently assert that the extremists represent a very tiny fraction of
Muslims.
Well, maybe so. But the extremists sure do seem to include a huge proportion
of the Muslim leaders in the Middle East, don't they?
Indeed, the Middle East is just crawling with tolerant, open minded Muslim
clerics, leaders and intellectuals, isn't it?
>> That's what makes you terrorist-coddling lefties so pathetic.
> I resent that.
<shrug> I call 'em as I see 'em.
> I'm a left-wing, bleeding heart, knee-jerk liberal. I can
> still identify a terrorist when he throws a bomb at me. Funny how the US
> is incapable of actually finding any evidence to use against all the
> people
> in Gitmo, though.
Well since I don't have a top secret clearance, I can't assess your
confident assertion that the US is incapable of finding evidence against the
unlawful combatants at Gitmo, most of whom were captured on the battlefield
in Afghanistan. But -- if it makes you feel better, I'd be quite happy for
the US to treat them per international law. See, it is permissable under
international law to summarily execute unlawful combatants...
>>> I thought you Americans believed in
>>> the Rule of Law. Perhaps not - you seem to believe more in the "Golden
>>> Rule" - "He who has the gold, rules".
> They love the rule of law. They just haven't yet figured out how few
> rights
> they have since they passed the PATRIOT law.
I think that you Canadians might be better off contemplating the rights I
have that you do not. You will find that your self-righteousness is
unwarranted.
>> Go ahead, answer the question. Are you actually implying that the West
>> should target and murder Muslim civilians?
> Definitely not.
Well, that's what he seemed to say. He seemed to argue that it was
permissible for Muslims to target and murder civilians. If so, then there's
no reason why it wouldn't be equally permissible for the West to do the
same...
>> Heh. There are few things on the earth as hypocritical as being lectured
>> about such things by *anyone* from Europe or descended from Europeans.
> I'm sorry, I'm not even responsible for the sins of my father, let alone
> the
> excesses of prior centuries.
And I was born after the Jim Crow laws and the lynchings that this idiot
referenced.
>> It's like being called arrogant or cowardly by the French. Or being
>> lectured on imperialism by a European...
> More bloody generalizations...
But accurate ones for the most part.
>> And, uh, there are no Jim Crow laws in the US, nor are there.
> !! boggle...(perhaps it would have been more believable if you'd finished
> the sentence).
Yep, meant to say that there are no laws restricting the rights of blacks to
vote in the US. Such laws were struck down as unconstitutional 50 years ago.
>> Oh, you are a card. I am snivelling about nothing. I want the bastards
>> dead, and sooner rather than later. I want the regimes who support them
>> destroyed. I want the people who support them punished.
> But you can't even figure out who supported them (hint - it was never
> Iraq).
What has Iraq got to do with finding the bastards responsible for London?
Oh, I get it. The self-identified Muslim terrorists murdered British
civilians because the Brits are in Iraq -- but not because they're in
Afghanistan? Well darn. <slaps forehead with palm> Why didn't we just keep
our troops out of Iraq before 9-11-01? Why, if we hadn't invaded Iraq, all
the acts of Islamic terrorism over the last 30 years could have been
avoided! Heck, we better stop making these terrorists mad. Otherwise, they
might do something really mean, like crash some airliners into one of our
major cities and kill thousands. Gee, it's so simple when I look at it your
way...
Are you actually asserting that Saddam did not fund, train and support
Islamic terrorists? Or are you merely trying to draw a hypertechnical and
artificial meaningless distinction between various Islamist terrorist
groups -- "Well yes, he did support many Islamist terrorists, and he did
encourage Islamic terrorism, but he did not aid *anyone* who was linked to
9-11. And we know exactly who all was involved..."
Yeah, right.
Me, I'm content to target all the Islamist death cultists. That way, we'll
be sure to get the right ones. And I really don't think I'll miss the others
much.
Of course, there were numerous other good reasons to take him down -- and no
good reasons to leave him in power.
>> If lefties *truly* opposed these things,
>> they would have applauded the removal of Saddam and demanded that the
>> West
>> remove the other Muslim autocrats in the Middle East. Yet they still
>> self-righteously defend some of the vilest regimes on the earth.
> LOL. So, instead, we should support the Pinochets, the Contras, Saddam
> (when he was fighting Iran). You're in no position to complain about
> "self-righteousness'.
The key difference that you are intentionally trying to evade is that *I*
did not justify the removal of Saddam on moral grounds. So therefore, I
cannot be accused of hypocrisy on this point. I believe that there were
numerous reasons to remove him -- any one of which was sufficient. The fact
that we were also removing a murdering monster was a nice bonus.
Buy *you* and your ilk opposed Saddam's removal on purportedly moral
grounds. You sanctimoniously whinged on about the purported "immorality" of
removing a brutal despot. Therefore it is reasonable to ask how anyone who
*claims* to be morally motivated could possibly oppose the removal of one of
the vilest despots in recent times. To do this seems the height of hypocrisy
and I note that you have failed to explain it to us.
Of course, you *might* oppose Saddam's removal for far less admirable
reasons. If you can't reconcile your apparent hypocrisy, then I can see no
other reasonable explanation...
>> Why are you folks so utterly hypocritical?
> Just human nature, as you're demonstrating...
Non-answer noted.
--Ty
Ty
news:1gze4m9.d61...@hurricane.homelinux.org...
> Ty <tybea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> homophobia, misogyny, brutal despotisms, lack of human rights,
>> extreme religious intolerance, capital punishment, lack of legal due
>> process
>> and torture. If lefties *truly* opposed these things, they would have
>> applauded the removal of Saddam and demanded that the West remove the
>> other
>> Muslim autocrats in the Middle East.
> Saddam was anything but a *muslim* autocrat or a friend of Bin Laden.
Ah yes, Saddam the secular ruler.
Well, it is true that he was one of the great mass murderers of Muslims in
the last hundred years. And that's saying something, given the enthusiam
that Muslim lunocrats have for slaughtering their fellow Muslims. One might
think that this alone would be enough to disqualify him from being a "muslim
leader". But, as the Communists showed, one can be ideologically committed
and still commit mass murder.
Curious, though, that the "secular" Saddam identified himself with the Sunni
Arab minority in Iraq. A group that is distinguishable from the Shite
majority primarily because it holds a different interpretation of Islam than
the Shites. Curious also that a "secular" leader like Saddam spent all that
money openly supported self-identified *Muslim* terrorist groups. Curious
behavior for a purportedly non-Muslim leader, wouldn't you say?
And since 95% of the population of Iraq is Muslim and since Iraq is a member
of the Oragnization of Islamic States (and other self-identified Muslim
organizations), I find your statement to be less than convincing. I think
the facts speak for themselves. The set of nations that are majority Muslim
are characterized by all the things that Western lefties *claim* to oppose.
Yet curiously, these same lefties seem remarkably unwilling to criticise the
Muslim word -- their empty, self-righteous moralizing notwithstanding.
And you forgot to tell us how anyone who *truly* opposes these things could
rationally oppose the removal of one of the leading mass murders of Muslims.
So please, enlighten us.
> He was as much a muslim fanatic as Hitler was a communist. Have you ever
> heard about "Arabic Socialism" or the Baath Party?
Well, that's why many refer to Islamofascism...
--Ty
Michael Starosta
> Curious also that a "secular" leader like Saddam spent all that money
> openly supported self-identified *Muslim* terrorist groups.
What's your source for this statement?
> And you forgot to tell us how anyone who *truly* opposes these things
> could rationally oppose the removal of one of the leading mass murders of
> Muslims. So please, enlighten us.
Why should I proof something I never claimed?
Ty
> Ty <tybea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Curious also that a "secular" leader like Saddam spent all that money
>> openly supported self-identified *Muslim* terrorist groups.
>
> What's your source for this statement?
Is this really in dispute? Well, here's a list of some of the more
noteworthy Muslim terrorists that Saddam supported (you can google them if
you want more info):
Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was indicted for mixing the chemicals for the bomb
used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six New Yorkers
and injured over 1,000. Yasin fled to Baghdad after the attack, where he was
given sanctuary and lived for years afterward.
Khala Khadar al-Salahat, a top Palestinian deputy to Abu Nidal, who
reportedly furnished Libyan agents with the Semtex explosive used to blow up
Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. The attack killed all 259 passengers,
including 189 Americans. Al-Salahat was in Baghdad April 2003 and was taken
into custody by U.S. Marines.
Abu Nidal, whose terror organization is credited with dozens of attacks that
killed over 400 people, including 10 Americans, and wounding 788 more. Nidal
lived in Baghdad from 1999 till August 2002, when he was found shot to death
in his state-supplied home.
Abu Abbas, who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise
ship, during which wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was pushed
over the side to his death. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad on April
14, 2003. He died in U.S. custody later. Hopefully, his death was painful
and long.
Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who ran an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in
northern Iraq and reportedly arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S.
diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan. Al Zarqawi is still at large and is
gleefully blowing up Iraqi women and children for Allah. However, he may
have suffered a stomach wound; we can hope it leads to a long and painful
death.
Ramzi Yousef, who entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport and was the
architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as well as Operation
Bojinka, a foiled plot to explode 12 U.S. airliners over the Pacific.
Bojinka's plan was later adopted by Yousef's cousin Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
as the blueprint for the Sept. 11 attacks. Khalid was last seen meekly being
hauled out of his home in a bedshirt with a bad case of bed head. As an
aside, I am often struck by the dissonance between the lurid rhetoric of the
Islamist leaders ("...drown the infidels in great seas of blood...") and
their cowardly conduct when their butt is on the line ("I surrender; please
don't shoot me; George Bush a-ok").
Mahmoud Besharat, the Palestinian businessman who traveled to Baghdad in
March 2002 to collect funding from Saddam for the Palestinian Intifada.
Besharat and others disbursed the funds in payments of $10,000 to $25,000 to
West Bank families of terrorists who died trying to kill Israelis.
After Saddam announced his Intifada reward plan, 28 Palestinian death
cultists killed 211 Israelis in suicide attacks that also killed 12
Americans. A total of 1,209 people were injured. This would be
proportionately like about 10,000 dead Americans.
Saddam involved in terrorism? Oh say it ain't so!
A footnoted chronology of Saddam's rather extensive involvement with Muslim
terrorist groups can be found at
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq%20Terror.htm . Among the groups
he supported are groups named Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas (aka
Islamic Resistance Movement), Islamic Jihad, Islamic Unification Movement,
etc. Curious names for "non-Muslim" groups, wouldn't you say? The site also
documents (with supporting citations) the contacts between Saddam and
various Al Queda fanatics.
Hope this helps.
>> And you forgot to tell us how anyone who *truly* opposes these things
>> could rationally oppose the removal of one of the leading mass murders of
>> Muslims. So please, enlighten us.
>
> Why should I proof something I never claimed?
I'm only asking lefties who opposed the removal of Saddam on "moral" grounds
to explain the apparent hypocrisy of their position. The nonanswers and
evasions so far do not bode well for their ability to produce a benign
explanation for what would appear to be rank hypocrisy.
If you did not oppose the removal of Saddam on moral grounds, then you may
ignore the question as it is not directed at you.
--Ty
Michael Starosta
> >> Curious also that a "secular" leader like Saddam spent all that money
> >> openly supported self-identified *Muslim* terrorist groups.
> >
> > What's your source for this statement?
>
> Is this really in dispute? Well, here's a list of some of the more
> noteworthy Muslim terrorists that Saddam supported (you can google them if
> you want more info):
<snip>
So all these guys lived in the Iraq for some time. If that is a reason
for invading a country, you've got to start bombing Germany right now.
> After Saddam announced his Intifada reward plan, 28 Palestinian death
> cultists killed 211 Israelis in suicide attacks that also killed 12
> Americans. A total of 1,209 people were injured.
Saddam sometimes tried to look like a muslim fanatic to gain support in
the Middle East, I admit. Hitler tried to look like a friend of the
poor.
> Saddam involved in terrorism? Oh say it ain't so!
He was just as involved as every leader of an islamic country.
> A footnoted chronology of Saddam's rather extensive involvement with
> Muslim terrorist groups can be found at
> http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq%20Terror.htm . Among the
> groups he supported are groups named Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas
> (aka Islamic Resistance Movement), Islamic Jihad, Islamic Unification
> Movement,...
These groups sent envoyes to a meeting in Bagdad. I never claimed Saddam
didn't trie to get together with terrorism. I think he wanted to change
his image.
But as you can see: To invade countries where terrorists live is no
solution. I don't think the world has become safer after the attack on
Iraq.
If you don't want to stop the discussion, please e-mail me. It would be
inpolite to disturb the newsgroup any longer.
Flame of the West
> "aelfwina" <aelf...@cableone.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:11cqg12...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>I was shocked to hear the news. Please know you have my thoughts and
>>prayers, and if possible, let us all know if you are okay?
Condolences from the U.S. We know the feeling, but
we also remember how London made it through the Blitz.
It'll take more than a few primitive barbaric cowardly
scumbags to get to the Londoners.
-- FotW
"If you must read newspapers and magazines at least
give yourself a mouthwash with The Lord of the Rings."
-- C.S. Lewis
Ty
> Ty <tybea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> Curious also that a "secular" leader like Saddam spent all that money
>> >> openly supported self-identified *Muslim* terrorist groups.
>> > What's your source for this statement?
>> Is this really in dispute? Well, here's a list of some of the more
>> noteworthy Muslim terrorists that Saddam supported (you can google them
>> if
>> you want more info):
> <snip>
> So all these guys lived in the Iraq for some time. If that is a reason
> for invading a country, you've got to start bombing Germany right now.
Heh. If the German government was providing known terrorists with money,
arms and training, then I'd agree with you.
>> Saddam involved in terrorism? Oh say it ain't so!
> He was just as involved as every leader of an islamic country.
Which seems to be "quite a lot". Those incompetent Muslim lunocrats can't
seem to do anything except kill people and export fanaticism. Makes me
wonder why the West has let them hang around for so long...
> These groups sent envoyes to a meeting in Bagdad. I never claimed Saddam
> didn't trie to get together with terrorism. I think he wanted to change
> his image.
Whatever. I am not interested in speculating about the psychological
motivations of a murdering butcher. You asked for specifics on my statement
that Saddam was involved with Muslim terrorists, so I provided them.
> But as you can see: To invade countries where terrorists live is no
> solution.
Oh, I strongly disagree with your formulation. I think the *only* effective
solution is to invade countries whose governments provide material support
to terrorists. Apparently you fail to see any difference between a
government that gives sanctuary, money and training to terrorists and a
government that merely has citizens who commit terrorist acts (and which
punishes those citizens when apprehended).
Seems to me that you are being intentionally obtuse.
> I don't think the world has become safer after the attack on
> Iraq.
Once wonders what would have had to happen for you to conclude that the
world is indeed safer.
Also, it is usually unclear how a war is actually going until years later. I
don't think that the American and British troops who desparately fought
through the Battle of the Bulge realized that Germany was almost completely
exhausted. I am willing to trust in the military, technological and economic
superiority of the West, and in particular, the US. The only way we'll lose
this war is if we follow the counsel of those who are more interested in
appeasing the terrorists than in killing them. Or if we are persuaded by the
cynical defeatism of those who only oppose this war because they hate the US
and/or Bush. The French, for example.
> If you don't want to stop the discussion, please e-mail me. It would be
> inpolite to disturb the newsgroup any longer.
They'll live.
--Ty
Tux Wonder-Dog
> "Michael Starosta" <Staso.S...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:1gzeosv.1fb...@hurricane.homelinux.org...
>> Ty <tybea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>> >> Curious also that a "secular" leader like Saddam spent all that money
>>> >> openly supported self-identified *Muslim* terrorist groups.
>
>>> > What's your source for this statement?
>
>>> Is this really in dispute? Well, here's a list of some of the more
>>> noteworthy Muslim terrorists that Saddam supported (you can google them
>>> if
>>> you want more info):
>
>> <snip>
>
>> So all these guys lived in the Iraq for some time. If that is a reason
>> for invading a country, you've got to start bombing Germany right now.
>
> Heh. If the German government was providing known terrorists with money,
> arms and training, then I'd agree with you.
>
>>> Saddam involved in terrorism? Oh say it ain't so!
>
>> He was just as involved as every leader of an islamic country.
>
> Which seems to be "quite a lot". Those incompetent Muslim lunocrats can't
> seem to do anything except kill people and export fanaticism. Makes me
> wonder why the West has let them hang around for so long...
Well, when you're supplying oil at the price the West wants, and your
domestic opponents want it priced at more realistic market rates ...
Answers itself, doesn't it?
>
>> These groups sent envoyes to a meeting in Bagdad. I never claimed Saddam
>> didn't trie to get together with terrorism. I think he wanted to change
>> his image.
>
> Whatever. I am not interested in speculating about the psychological
> motivations of a murdering butcher. You asked for specifics on my
> statement that Saddam was involved with Muslim terrorists, so I provided
> them.
>
>> But as you can see: To invade countries where terrorists live is no
>> solution.
>
> Oh, I strongly disagree with your formulation. I think the *only*
> effective solution is to invade countries whose governments provide
> material support to terrorists.
Fine. the US provided support to the various butchers of the poor in El
Salvador.
So that would obligate the Rest of the World to invade the US of A.
> Apparently you fail to see any difference
> between a government that gives sanctuary, money and training to
> terrorists and a government that merely has citizens who commit terrorist
> acts (and which punishes those citizens when apprehended).
Oliver North. Ronald Reagan. the Reagan Administration. Contragate.
Notice how the US managed to squirm out of taking responsibility for its
actions? Notice how this individual is going to squirm out of his similar
dilemma.
He's already given his solution - invade and slaughter.
I worry that people may at some time in the future, actually decide to take
him up on it, and he'll be too scared to face the music.
>
> Seems to me that you are being intentionally obtuse.
If you're looking in a mirror, that's what you'll see.
>
>> I don't think the world has become safer after the attack on
>> Iraq.
>
> Once wonders what would have had to happen for you to conclude that the
> world is indeed safer.
>
> Also, it is usually unclear how a war is actually going until years later.
> I don't think that the American and British troops who desparately fought
> through the Battle of the Bulge realized that Germany was almost
> completely exhausted. I am willing to trust in the military, technological
> and economic superiority of the West, and in particular, the US. The only
> way we'll lose this war is if we follow the counsel of those who are more
> interested in appeasing the terrorists than in killing them. Or if we are
> persuaded by the cynical defeatism of those who only oppose this war
> because they hate the US and/or Bush. The French, for example.
Or the American public, who are getting sick of being lied to?
>
>> If you don't want to stop the discussion, please e-mail me. It would be
>> inpolite to disturb the newsgroup any longer.
>
> They'll live.
Unless you intend to "Shock and Awe" us.
>
> --Ty
Wesley Parish
Tux Wonder-Dog
> "Tux Wonder-Dog" <wes.p...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:42ce...@clear.net.nz...
>> Might I ask, with the US re-opening Abu Ghraib the instance they got
>> ahold of it - kinda like Tar Elessar i Telcontar (Aragorn) going into
>> Mordor and setting up Barad Dur as his base of operations, and rehiring
>> Gorbag and Shagrat - the Muslims _don't_ _have_ a right to be boiling
>> with fury?
>
> Before I address this absurd question, what does this have to do with the
> contemptible hypocrisy of Ken Livingstone?
Well, for one thing, it addresses the question of "whose hypocrisy?" quite
adequately. It levels the playing field.
>
> On to your "question"...
>
> <shrug> Well, the Muslim world is characterized by torture, brutality, a
> lack of even the most basic human rights, a lack of consensual secular
> governance, lack of free speech, homophobia, misogyny and religious
> intolerance. Therefore, I wonder why the Muslims would be angry at the US
> when *Muslim* leaders have engaged in *far* worse human rights violations
> than what the Americans are accused of? Why is that? If human rights
> abuses were the real reason for Muslim fanaticism, then one would expect
> almost all of the terrorist attacks to take place in explicitely Muslim
> countries. Yet for some reason, the Muslims seem to be attacking the West.
> Why is that?
Because the West has been invading and making a nuisance of themselves for
quite some time. Because the West - ie, Western Europe - fucked around
with Spheres of Influence while promising the Arab World, for one part, its
independence. It's part of the recent history of the Middle East.
>
> And do I understand you to mean that you feel that Muslim terrorist
> attacks against civilians are somehow justified?
Do I understand you to mean that US Armuy attacks against civilians are
somehow justified? You haven't answered that in the slightest.
>
> Somehow, I suspect that you won't answer these questions...
>
>> Are you suggesting that the Human Right of vengeance doesn't belong to
>> Arabs
>> and Muslims - just because you say so?
>
> "Right of vengeance"?
>
> Well, I don't think that the Arabs and other Muslims really want to tangle
> with the West in an unrestricted war. The West has, for some 2000+ years,
> generally obliterated nonwestern foes on the battlefield. From Marathon to
> Iraqi Freedom, the same thing happens. Tens of thousands of nonwesterners
> are killed while only a very few westerners are killed. The few memorable
> exceptions are memorable precisely because they are so rare. To that must
> be added the fact that the Arabs are among the worst soldiers in history.
> They make WWII France and Italy look like Patton's Third Army.
I see. That's a number of serious logical errors you're committed there.
"The West, for 2000+ years"?
What "West" do you mean? Italy was the East to the Gauls. Greece was the
East to the Britons.
Again, what "West" are you referring to? In relation to which America?
North or South?
Are you condoning the genocide of Native Americans? While condemning the
genocide of European Jews?
And please define the West in such a way as to encompass the wildly
differing states of democratic Athens, fascist Sparta, republican Rome, the
feudal Norman empire, the religiously intolerant and abusive Spanish
empire, etc.
>
> So *if* the West did not restrain itself, and chose instead to use the
> same moral code as the Muslims, the Muslim world would be annihilated.
> Quickly and utterly.
I see. That's how Salah Ad Din behaved? Why when the Crusaders took
Jerusalem, they murdered everyone, male, female and child, while Salah Ad
Din didn't.
Please explain.
You're ignorant of history, and fascist to boot.
>
> That's what makes you terrorist-coddling lefties so pathetic.
That's what makes you state terrorist coddling rightists so pathetic.
>
> You excuse and justify the acts of psychopathic murderous savages, thereby
> encouraging the savages to commit more such acts. See, they hate you just
They do? They? Which ones? Come on, let's get specific. Name names.
Ironically, none of the Israeli peace groups I've been in touch with, seem
to have anything like your sense of paranoia towards the Muslims.
Perhaps that's because they actually meet and talk to them on a regular
basis. Perhaps that's because they don't mistake paranoia and psychosis
for wisdom.
> as much as they hate me. The difference is that they consider your
> appeasement to be a sign of weakness -- which it is. Oddly enough, that's
> about the only thing the Islamists have figured correctly. Yet in your
> zeal to excuse the acts of savages, you make it far more likely that the
> West will eventually tire of such things and will decide to annihilate the
> very folks you claim to sympathize with. The Japanese and Germans can
> attest to how pitiless an enraged Western democracy can be in wartime.
Yes. How many thousands of innocent Japanese Americans can attest to how
democratic the US of A is in wartime. And how robust the American sense of
decency is. Jim Crow Resurgens.
>
>> I thought you Americans believed in
>> the Rule of Law. Perhaps not - you seem to believe more in the "Golden
>> Rule" - "He who has the gold, rules".
>
> This from someone who alleges that the Muslim fanatics have some right to
> target women and children for murder? Amazing.,
Surprisingly, I found The Times, London, UK, arguing that since the bombs
were exploded at the end of the rush hour, not at the start, it was obvious
that its primary purpose was disruption, not casualties.
>
>> There have been at least 100 000 Iraqi deaths confirmed
>
> A fact not in evidence. Endless critique have been made about the
> methodology used by that loon. Even the morons at Iraqibodycount.org have
> a far lower number. But even if it was true, it is a fact that Saddam
> caused the deaths of far more people. Yet curiously, you moralizing lefty
> hypocrites opposed the removal of Saddam on, of all absurd grounds,
> *moral* grounds. How did you people *ever* become so morally corrupt?
Simple. If the sanctions hadn't been imposed, but instead the Iraqis had
been allowed to get on with life, then there's a fair chance that the
Iraqis would've built enough robust internal power structures to remove
Saddam themselves.
However did the barons bring King John under control without the aid of the
United States of America?
>
>> ... 32 deaths and a related proportion of injuries
>> from the London bombings - that's light! _And_ your President Bush has
>> called it a _WAR_ - _people_ _die_ _in_ _wars_ . Didn't you know?
>
> Oh yes I do.
Oh no you don't. You expect the Muslims to accept their deaths without
complaint. You refuse to accept the deaths of Westerners. You make a
distinction between Muslim and Western lives - Muslim lives are _always_
collateral damage, no matter what it is you're targetting.
That's the essence of Jim Crow.
>
> But are you saying that you would support the West using the same
> definition of "legitimate target" as the Muslim lunatics?
Well, if the Muslim mujahideen used the same definition of "legitimate
target" as the West ... perhaps we should examine the West's conduct in war
a little more closely?
>
> Go ahead, answer the question. Are you actually implying that the West
> should target and murder Muslim civilians?
I'm accusing the West of doing precisely that.
>
> And before you start whingeing about casualties in Iraq, I assume that
> even you know the difference between collateral damage and intentional
> targeting of civilians. Even a three year old understands the difference
> between being kicked and being stumbled over. Admittedly, I am assuming
> that you have an insight that is at least a competent as that of a three
> year old, but such assumptions are required.
A three year old is not likely to carpet bomb a town, nor to use a weapon as
indiscriminate as napalm. Nor is a three year old likely to man
checkpoints and shoot at people.
A three year old is not likely to invade a country with the avowed reason
being Weapons of Mass Destruction - no, wait, Democratising the Region -
no, wait ... "You Klingon son, you killed my bastard! No, wait ...!"
If you elect to invade a country in that way, with any number of excuses to
hide the real reason, then the distinction between "collateral damage and
intentional > targeting of civilians" doesn't apply. You put yourself in
harm's way, you deliberately lied to put yourself there, so all the blame
for whatever happens rests firmly on your shoulders.
Trying to hand it off to "Muslim terrorist savages" sounds rather like the
Nazi German excuse of "orders".
>
>> But of course, they're Arab, they're Muslim, and you've already indicated
>> you don't see them as human. Lynch Law. US Federal Lynch Law. Jim
>> Crow.
>
> Heh. There are few things on the earth as hypocritical as being lectured
> about such things by *anyone* from Europe or descended from Europeans.
Yes. About seventy-five per cent of all Americans of the US of A, apart
from those descended from the survivors of the African slave trade, and the
immigrants from Asia. So if an American of European descent were to
lecture an American of African descent on such matters ...
Get a grip, man, you call that an argument?
> It's like being called arrogant or cowardly by the French. Or being
> lectured on imperialism by a European...
Ad Hominem Attack in response to Ad Hominem Attack.
Yes. Like Americans _ever_ learnt to behave better. Now tell me what
Increase Mather meant when he justified the slaughter of the Pequod for
defending their territory. Or were they "Terrorists" for having the
audacity to defend themselves? Is the right of self-defense genetically
determined?
And how many Filipinos a year were killed by the US Army when "Manifest
Destiny" extended to the Philipine Islands? Come on, Rudyard Kipling wrote
his "The White Man's Burden" about the US fiasco in the Philipines. They
were "Terrorists" weren't they?
Come on, Adolf Hitler used the American conquest of and extermination of the
Native Americans as an inspiration to do the same thing to the Slavs, the
Gypsies and the Jews.
>
> And, uh, there are no Jim Crow laws in the US, nor are there.
>
> And, um, weren't there indigenous people in New Zealand before the
> Europeans showed up?
I know so much more than you about this topic. Run along, kiddo, before you
get hurt. Oma, rapeti, oma! Oma! Oma!
>
>> Snivelling self-pitying .... "The nasty brute dared hit me back! Stop
>> him,
>> Mummy!"
>
> Oh, you are a card. I am snivelling about nothing. I want the bastards
> dead, and sooner rather than later. I want the regimes who support them
> destroyed. I want the people who support them punished.
You're snivelling, and you're self-pitying, and you're afraid to take
responsibility.
>
> And I would *love* to make their fawning western apologists live in the
> Muslim world for awhile and listen to *their* whining. I'd love to see you
> smug morons try to emote and intellectualize your way out of being
> tortured for criticising the regime, or saying something unflattering
> about The Prophet.
>
>> Pull your head out of your arse, and try to regain your humanity!
>
>> Wesley Parish
>
> I see nothing humane, admirable or moral about excusing, appeasing and
> justifying evil. And that is exactly what folks like you are doing.
>
> Exactly what the hypocritical mayor of London did, which makes his
> purported *shock* that his terrorist party friends actually killed people
> in his town *so* hypocritical. Lefties who defend a culture that holds
> values that Lefties *claim* to be utterly opposed to are just as bad. I
> find such conduct to be contemptible, reprehensible and disgusting.
I would say it is the right of the people holding those views to be allowed
to make the changes _they_ see fit, when _they_ see fit - not because _I_
want them to.
It's called humility, or plain good manners.
>
> I am very curious as to why lefties seem to leap to the defense of a
> culture that is characterized by the same things lefties constantly
> *claim* to oppose -- homophobia, misogyny, brutal despotisms, lack of
> human rights, extreme religious intolerance, capital punishment, lack of
> legal due process and torture. If lefties *truly* opposed these things,
> they would have applauded the removal of Saddam and demanded that the West
> remove the other Muslim autocrats in the Middle East. Yet they still
> self-righteously defend some of the vilest regimes on the earth.
How can the US remove the autocrats of the Middle East when they fund them
in the first place to get oil at mates rates?
>
> Why are you folks so utterly hypocritical?
Why are you USians so convinced of your own Purity Of Essence?
>
> <nonanswer predicted>
>
> --Ty
Wesley Parish
denaldo
>
>> "aelfwina" <aelf...@cableone.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:11cqg12...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> I was shocked to hear the news. Please know you have my thoughts and
>>> prayers, and if possible, let us all know if you are okay?
>
>
> Condolences from the U.S. We know the feeling, but
> we also remember how London made it through the Blitz.
> It'll take more than a few primitive barbaric cowardly
> scumbags to get to the Londoners.
>
>
> -- FotW
<piggy-backing on ForW's post as my server seems
to have dropped the original>
Condolences from south Texas and Good Luck to
Scotland Yard on catching the evil bastards.
--
Dennis is currently having a passionate, if entirely
imaginary love affair with Susan Sto Helit of Discworld.
If you're looking for the spamtrap, get to the 'POINT'.
Ty
> Ty wrote:
> > Before I address this absurd question, what does this have to do with
the
> > contemptible hypocrisy of Ken Livingstone?
> Well, for one thing, it addresses the question of "whose hypocrisy?" quite
> adequately. It levels the playing field.
Uh, what does this have to do with the contemptible hypocrisy of Ken "Hug a
Muslim Terrorist"Livingstone?
> > On to your "question"...
> > <shrug> Well, the Muslim world is characterized by torture, brutality, a
> > lack of even the most basic human rights, a lack of consensual secular
> > governance, lack of free speech, homophobia, misogyny and religious
> > intolerance. Therefore, I wonder why the Muslims would be angry at the
US
> > when *Muslim* leaders have engaged in *far* worse human rights
violations
> > than what the Americans are accused of? Why is that? If human rights
> > abuses were the real reason for Muslim fanaticism, then one would expect
> > almost all of the terrorist attacks to take place in explicitely Muslim
> > countries. Yet for some reason, the Muslims seem to be attacking the
West.
> > Why is that?
> Because the West has been invading and making a nuisance of themselves for
> quite some time. Because the West - ie, Western Europe - fucked around
> with Spheres of Influence while promising the Arab World, for one part,
its
> independence. It's part of the recent history of the Middle East.
Oh, I see. So you're changing your story on us. The Muslim terrorists are
*not* murdering infidel civilians because of human rights violations.
Rather, you now think that they are murdering infidel civilians because they
are mad that the West occupied them and didn;t grant them independence.
Well, your theory is at least a bit more plausible than the absurd theory it
replaces. But once again the facts do not support you. The Muslim world has
been self-governed for about 60+ years now. It has been "independent" and
there are only a tiny percentage of Muslims who can even remember being
ruled by the British and French. In addition, it was Britain and France --
not the US -- who ran the Middle East after WWI. And of course the Turks ran
it for far, far longer before WWI ended. So why aren't these fanatics
blowing stuff up in Turkey and France? Why didn't the 9-11 hijackers hit the
Arc d'Triomphe instead of the WTC?
Hmmn. Sounds most unlikely that your explanation is correct.
However -- if the Muslim terrorists are fanatical jihadi psychopaths
interested only in murdering as many civilians as possible, then we would
expect them to do exactly as they have done.
Still, kudos on your imaginative -- though ultimately vain -- attempt to
justify the acts of murderous vermin.
> > And do I understand you to mean that you feel that Muslim terrorist
> > attacks against civilians are somehow justified?
> Do I understand you to mean that US Armuy attacks against civilians are
> somehow justified? You haven't answered that in the slightest.
You didn't ask that question. And you have failed to answer my question, so
I'll ask it again:
Do you feel that Muslim terrorist attacks against civilians are somehow
justified?
As for your question, I cannot answer it because I cannot read your mind.
However, I do note that collateral damage happens in *all* wars. Therefore
only an idiot would demand that no collateral damage occur. I also note the
brave Muslim terrorist tactic of hiding among other Muslim women and
children. Such tactics will necessarily result in much higher civilian
losses. It seems patently obvious to me that the blame for this should be
placed squarely on the cowardly Warriors of Allah who cravenly hide behind
the skirts of their women. I note that international law clearly places the
blame where it should be -- on the craven terrorist war criminals who hide
behind women and children.
It shocks me that *any* purportedly rational person could see it otherwise.
> > Somehow, I suspect that you won't answer these questions...
Gee, I'm a prophet.
> > "Right of vengeance"?
> > Well, I don't think that the Arabs and other Muslims really want to
tangle
> > with the West in an unrestricted war. The West has, for some 2000+
years,
> > generally obliterated nonwestern foes on the battlefield. From Marathon
to
> > Iraqi Freedom, the same thing happens. Tens of thousands of
nonwesterners
> > are killed while only a very few westerners are killed. The few
memorable
> > exceptions are memorable precisely because they are so rare. To that
must
> > be added the fact that the Arabs are among the worst soldiers in
history.
> > They make WWII France and Italy look like Patton's Third Army.
> I see. That's a number of serious logical errors you're committed there.
> "The West, for 2000+ years"?
Already discussed in another post, so I won't waste time on it here.
> Are you condoning the genocide of Native Americans? While condemning the
> genocide of European Jews?
Genocide of the Native Americans? You mean "Conquest".
Funny, considering you're talking to someone whose maternal great
grandmother was full blooded Cherokee Indian and whose paternal great
grandfather was full blooded Comanche.
It is unfortunate that the Indians were in the way of the European settlers
of North and South America. Sadly, they suffered the fate that historically
befalls primitive people who come into contact with far more technologically
advanced cultures. They were conquered.
In the same way that the Muslims conquered the Middle East, North Africa,
Spain, parts of the Balkans and parts of Asia. Funny, you whingeing lefties
seem untroubled by that...
Only a moron -- or an antisemetic loon -- would equate this to the
systematic, industrialized extermination of a race of people.
<snip of remaining Western Civ -- not interested in going off on a tanget
right now; will be happy to discuss later?
> > So *if* the West did not restrain itself, and chose instead to use the
> > same moral code as the Muslims, the Muslim world would be annihilated.
> > Quickly and utterly.
> I see. That's how Salah Ad Din behaved? Why when the Crusaders took
> Jerusalem, they murdered everyone, male, female and child, while Salah Ad
> Din didn't.
> Please explain.
<yawn>
Irrelevant. We're not talking about 900 years ago. We are talking about
today. Today, over 90% of the deaths from international terrorist acts are
caused by self-identified Muslim terrorists. While I might agree that
Saladin would be shocked at the depravity and cowardice of the latter day
Warriors of Allah, this doesn't get us very far, does it?
> You're ignorant of history, and fascist to boot.
Ah, the dreaded "fascist" word. Do you ignorant lefties actually even know
what a fascist is? The way you idiots throw it around, one would think that
a "fascist" is "someone who holds views that a lefty disagrees with but that
the lefty can't challenge with facts and logic..."
I find it most amusing when witless dullards like you support and defend the
Islamofascist regimes, and then have the nerve to call someone else a
"fascist". It is to laugh!
> > That's what makes you terrorist-coddling lefties so pathetic.
> That's what makes you state terrorist coddling rightists so pathetic.
Heh. If my state chose to define "legitimate target" the way the Muslims do,
there would be no Muslims left alive. In actual fact, the US and UK and
allies scrupulously attempt to follow the Laws of War. When individuals
breach those laws, they are tried and if found guilty, punished. Note that
the Abu Ghraib folks are busting rocks at Leavenworth, which is as it should
be.
By contrast, your beloved Warriors of Allah cravenly hide behind women and
children; shoot from hospitals, schools and mosques; and target and murder
women and children noncombatants. Despite this obviously cowardly and
immoral conduct, morons like *you* seem to think that the cowardly Muslim
terrorists are the Good Guys.
How did you ever become so morally debased?
> > You excuse and justify the acts of psychopathic murderous savages,
thereby
> > encouraging the savages to commit more such acts. See, they hate you
just
> They do? They? Which ones? Come on, let's get specific. Name names.
<yawn>
Members of Al Queda, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas (aka Islamic
Resistance Movement), Islamic Jihad, Islamic Unification Movement, etc. In
other words all of the self-identified Muslim terrorists. And sadly, a
majority of Muslim clerics and leaders, if we are to take their insane,
lurid rants at face value.
> Ironically, none of the Israeli peace groups I've been in touch with, seem
> to have anything like your sense of paranoia towards the Muslims.
Well, I suppose that black members of the Ku Klux Klan might not feel
threatened by white racists either. But I don't think I'd much trust their
judgment. However, here are some recent quotes from Muslim religious
leaders --
Anyhow, I would question the reasoning of *any* Jew who doesn't feel that
these folks are a threat.
Yeah, the Middle East is just crawling with tolerant, open minded Muslim
clerics, leaders and intellectuals, isn't it?
> Perhaps that's because they actually meet and talk to them on a regular
> basis. Perhaps that's because they don't mistake paranoia and psychosis
> for wisdom.
Or perhaps they are not in any personal danger and are therefore willing to
subordinate the truth to their left wing political ideology.
Having done business in the Middle East and Pakistan, I am persuaded that
most of the Muslims in those areas have an unreasoning and insane hatred of
the Jews and of the West. Whether I talked to a cab driver or a member of
the local autocracy, the result was the same. And much of this came from
pre-9-11 contact.
> > as much as they hate me. The difference is that they consider your
> > appeasement to be a sign of weakness -- which it is. Oddly enough,
that's
> > about the only thing the Islamists have figured correctly. Yet in your
> > zeal to excuse the acts of savages, you make it far more likely that the
> > West will eventually tire of such things and will decide to annihilate
the
> > very folks you claim to sympathize with. The Japanese and Germans can
> > attest to how pitiless an enraged Western democracy can be in wartime.
> Yes. How many thousands of innocent Japanese Americans can attest to how
> democratic the US of A is in wartime. And how robust the American sense
of
> decency is. Jim Crow Resurgens.
Heh. Being lectured by a Euro-descendant on decency. Nice. My point -- and I
think you understand it -- is that you ignorant, terrorist coddling lefties
are only encouraging the fanatics. Eventually the West will get tired of
restraining itself. And when that day comes many, many Muslims will die.
Because no civilization in history has mastered firepower like the US. So
you morons are going to cause the deaths of many of the very people that you
claim to support.
> >> I thought you Americans believed in
> >> the Rule of Law. Perhaps not - you seem to believe more in the "Golden
> >> Rule" - "He who has the gold, rules".
> > This from someone who alleges that the Muslim fanatics have some right
to
> > target women and children for murder? Amazing.,
> Surprisingly, I found The Times, London, UK, arguing that since the bombs
> were exploded at the end of the rush hour, not at the start, it was
obvious
> that its primary purpose was disruption, not casualties.
Well, if The Times says it, it must be true, right? Sounds to me like the
Times is following the rest of Old Europe and trying to whistle through the
graveyard. Unfortunately for the brave Warriors of Allah, the Brits are made
of much sterner stuff than the Spanish or French...
> >> There have been at least 100 000 Iraqi deaths confirmed
> > A fact not in evidence. Endless critique have been made about the
> > methodology used by that loon. Even the morons at Iraqibodycount.org
have
> > a far lower number. But even if it was true, it is a fact that Saddam
> > caused the deaths of far more people. Yet curiously, you moralizing
lefty
> > hypocrites opposed the removal of Saddam on, of all absurd grounds,
> > *moral* grounds. How did you people *ever* become so morally corrupt?
> Simple. If the sanctions hadn't been imposed,
You mean the Sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council? Voted
on by France, Britain, China, Russia and the US? But I thought you lefties
*loved* the UN. For that matter, I thought all you lefties opposed removing
Saddam because you wanted to give sanctions a chance to work. I do wish
you'd at least try to be consistent...
And again, we see how you morons twist the facts. Had Saddam merely complied
with the UN Security Council resolutions, there would have been no
sanctions. Saddam refused to do so, knowing that sanctions would be imposed.
So please tell us again why this is not the fault of Saddam Hussein -- the
man whose removal you opposed. <nonanswer predicted>
> >> ... 32 deaths and a related proportion of injuries
> >> from the London bombings - that's light! _And_ your President Bush has
> >> called it a _WAR_ - _people_ _die_ _in_ _wars_ . Didn't you know?
> > Oh yes I do.
> Oh no you don't.
Oh yes I do.
> You expect the Muslims to accept their deaths without
> complaint. You refuse to accept the deaths of Westerners.
Well, now you're simply delusional. I have a degree in History and wanted to
be a professional historian before deciding to go to law school. My ugrad
and graduate studies (24 hours toward my doctorate) concentrated on military
history. I also have several courses in Middle Eastern history. So I am
fully aware that casualties happen in war. Indeed, it is you lefties who
whine all the time about casualties.
I have little doubt as to who will win this war. The US holds an
overwhelming organizational, technological, economic and military edge. It
is very unlikely we will lose to the motley collection of homophobic,
misogynistic, Muslim lunocrats; gibbering Islamist clerics; Muslim
psychopath terrorists who yearn for the return of the Caliphate; the
ignorant and illiterate "Arab street"; and desparate Baathist Party
holdouts. They can only kill women and children, using Western weapons that
they could never design or build. Anytime they tangle with *real* soldiers,
the Warriors of Allah are utterly routed. So they are reduced to murdering
fellow Muslim women and children and making the occasional attack on Western
civilians.
And their primitive, backward, tribal structure can and is being exploited.
See, one thing that Muslims are actually good at is killing other Muslims.
My business dealings in that part of the world have convinced me that each
tribal group utterly distrusts the other. Therefore, they will gleefully
sell one another out. (As an aside, I think that this is one significant
cultural reason that the Arab world is so hopelessly economically backward,
despite considerable oil wealth). If we eliminate enough lunocrats like
Saddam, the survivors will stop supporting the terrorists. See, for
instance, Mr. Khadafy.
Now, there is much fighting to be done. But we will win, unless we allow
ourselves to be persuaded by contemptible terrorist coddlers like you.
Fortunately, the American people and I suspect, the British people, know
that you guys are idiots and are motivated by an anti-Western agenda.
> You make a
> distinction between Muslim and Western lives - Muslim lives are _always_
> collateral damage, no matter what it is you're targetting.
<shrug>
Never said that. What I have said is that it is not coalition policy to
intentionally target civilians. Further, the civilized nations of the West
will punish soldiers who violate the laws of war. By contrast, the barbaric
cowardly psychopaths that *you* support seem to only be interested in
killing women and children. Now, even my basset hound knows the difference
between being tripped over and being kicked. And he's no dog genuis. Since
you *must* be at least as smart as a slightlly dim basset hound, you must
also know the difference. Therefore, I can only conclude that you are
disengenuously attempting to blur the distinction. Your optimism is amazing;
you can't possibly believe that such perfidy will go unnoticed.
Of course, I could be wrong. You might not be as smart as the average basset
hound.
Hmmn. It suddenly occurs to me why the Warriors of Allah are so obviously
deranged. How an utter misogynist hide behind women and children and *not*
become a bit crazed?
> That's the essence of Jim Crow.
So tell us again -- do you think that the attacks in London?
> > But are you saying that you would support the West using the same
> > definition of "legitimate target" as the Muslim lunatics?
> Well, if the Muslim mujahideen used the same definition of "legitimate
> target" as the West ... perhaps we should examine the West's conduct in
war
> a little more closely?
Nonanswer. Try again.Are you saying that you would support the West using
the same definition of "legitimate target" as the Muslim lunatics?
> > Go ahead, answer the question. Are you actually implying that the West
> > should target and murder Muslim civilians?
> I'm accusing the West of doing precisely that.
Non-answer. Try again. Are you actually implying that the West should target
and murder Muslim civilians?
The facts, by the way, do not support your accusation. But then, you
terrorist fanciers are probably used to that by now.
If the US considered Muslim civilians (as distinguished from cowardly Muslim
terrorists who hide behind civilians) as legitimate targets, then there
would be no Muslim civilians left alive by now. Even the moonbats at
Iraqibodycount.org claim a maximum of 25,000 Iraqi deaths, which includes
Iraqi military personnel and insurgents. About 1/3 of these casualties
happened in the initial invasion. The rest have occurred over 27 months and
have been mostly caused by your beloved terrorists.
So... Fewer people have died in Iraq in the last 2.25 years than typically
died in a single year of Saddam Hussein's rule. Most of the casualties are
either (a) Saddam's troops, Baathist holdouts, and Warriors of Allah; or (b)
Iraqi civilians murdered by cowardly terrorists.
Yet you "morally superior" lefties (a) opposed the removal of Saddam and (b)
blame all of the deaths on the US.
You sound as crazy as the terrorists. You're not a wannabe Warrior of Allah,
are you?
> > And before you start whingeing about casualties in Iraq, I assume that
> > even you know the difference between collateral damage and intentional
> > targeting of civilians. Even a three year old understands the difference
> > between being kicked and being stumbled over. Admittedly, I am assuming
> > that you have an insight that is at least a competent as that of a three
> > year old, but such assumptions are required.
> A three year old is not likely to carpet bomb a town, nor to use a weapon
as
> indiscriminate as napalm. Nor is a three year old likely to man
> checkpoints and shoot at people.
Even the village idiot knows that collateral damage is inevitable in
wartime -- and particularly so when your cowardly enemies ignore the Law of
Warfare and hide behind women and children. Therefore, merely whining that
there have been civilian casualties doesn't really get us very far, does it?
Also, you need to learn something about the definition of "carpet bomb". I
refer you to the bombing campaigns against Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg and
Berlin. Since you obviously can't make distinctions that a three year old
can make, let me help you understand. The real "carpet bombing" campaigns
killed tens of thousands of people in each mission. So it is absurd for you
to equate the relatively light collateral damage in Iraq with the deaths of
hundreds of thousands of civilians in WWII. I recommend that you apologize
for such an insulting statement.
You claim to be *so* concerned about Iraqi casualties. Yet you don't seem
overly eager to condemn the murder of Iraqi civilians by Muslim
terrorists -- many of whom are not even from Iraq... So tell us -- are you a
hypocrite, a moron or simply delusional?
> A three year old is not likely to invade a country with the avowed reason
> being Weapons of Mass Destruction
Uh, you mean violations of UN Security Council Resolutions.
>- no, wait, Democratising the Region -
> no, wait ... "You Klingon son, you killed my bastard! No, wait ...!"
Heh. Again, O Pathetic One, if the US
> Trying to hand it off to "Muslim terrorist savages" sounds rather like the
> Nazi German excuse of "orders".
??
Since the *cowardly* Muslim terrorist savages are the ones killing most of
the civilians, I am unable to follow your simile. Nor am I persuaded by your
sanctimonious moralizing. You claim to be concerned about civilian
casualties, yet you defend (or at least refuse to condemn) the Muslim
terrorists who are killing most of the civilians. Tell us again why you are
not being a disgusting hypocrite?
> >> But of course, they're Arab, they're Muslim, and you've already
indicated
> >> you don't see them as human. Lynch Law. US Federal Lynch Law. Jim
> >> Crow.
> > Heh. There are few things on the earth as hypocritical as being lectured
> > about such things by *anyone* from Europe or descended from Europeans.
> Yes. About seventy-five per cent of all Americans of the US of A, apart
> from those descended from the survivors of the African slave trade, and
the
> immigrants from Asia. So if an American of European descent were to
> lecture an American of African descent on such matters ...
Or a European descendant lecturing an American of Cherokee/Comanche
decent...
> Get a grip, man, you call that an argument?
Your pathetic and hysterical whining about laws that *do not exist* really
only deserves ridicule. Of course, the hypocrisy of Europeans lecturing
anyone about such thing is sufficiently entertaining on its own.
> > It's like being called arrogant or cowardly by the French. Or being
> > lectured on imperialism by a European...
> Ad Hominem Attack in response to Ad Hominem Attack.
<shrug>
A quibble. All insults are not necessarily Ad Hominem attacks. They become
Ad Hominem attacks when they are used to respond to an argument (and do not
actually respond to that argument). Since I was not responding to any
argument, my (accurate) appraisal of the French and Europeans is not an ad
hominem attack. It may very well be considered insulting -- especially to a
Frenchman.
Since you are obviously unable to grasp simple definitions, let me give an
example.
You say "Terrorists should not murder civilians because civilians are not
legitimate targets under international law and because it is cowardly to
target civilians."
I reply "Well, you're a fascist."
My response is an insult *and* it does not address the argument you made.
Hence, it is an ad hominem attack.
Compare this to:
You say "Muslim terrorists are justified in intentionally targeting
civilians because Muslim civilians have died from American attacks."
I respond "There's a huge difference between collateral damage (or a
mistake) and intentionally targeting civilians. Most of the Muslim civilian
deaths caused by the US are the result of collateral damage or mistake.
Virtually *all* of the Western civilian deaths are the result of intentional
targeting of civilians by insane and cowardly terrorists. Apparently you are
either too stupid to see the distinction or your are unable to make basic
moral distinctions. Hey, you might be prime terrorist fodder..."
My response is clearly insulting (but, I believe reasonably accurate). It is
not an Ad Hominem attack because I addressed your argument. The insults were
a bonus.
I hope you can see the difference. Though I must admit that I'm not
encouraged by your recent inability to make basic logical distinctions.
> Yes. Like Americans _ever_ learnt to behave better. <snip>
<yawn>
Well, at least we're getting closer to your real motivation. Sad, though. I
really had hoped that you were something more than a hysterical, whining
anti-American lefy...
> > And, um, weren't there indigenous people in New Zealand before the
> > Europeans showed up?
> I know so much more than you about this topic. Run along, kiddo, before
you
> get hurt. Oma, rapeti, oma! Oma! Oma!
<shrug>
Just asking. Seems kinda hypocritical to wail about indigenous people when
you live in a nation that was taken away from indigenous people.
> >> Snivelling self-pitying .... "The nasty brute dared hit me back! Stop
> >> him,
> >> Mummy!"
> > Oh, you are a card. I am snivelling about nothing. I want the bastards
> > dead, and sooner rather than later. I want the regimes who support them
> > destroyed. I want the people who support them punished.
> You're snivelling, and you're self-pitying, and you're afraid to take
> responsibility.
This from someone who (a) justified the act of cowardly Muslim terrorists;
(b) blamed damaged caused by the acts of Saddam Hussein and cowardly Muslim
terrorists on the US; and (c) refused to answer simple and relevant
questions. How funny.
As an aside, I do realize that calling Muslim terrorists cowards is like
calling water wet.
> > And I would *love* to make their fawning western apologists live in the
> > Muslim world for awhile and listen to *their* whining. I'd love to see
you
> > smug morons try to emote and intellectualize your way out of being
> > tortured for criticising the regime, or saying something unflattering
> > about The Prophet.
No comment, O Sensitive One? Don't you want to live in some Middle Eastern
hellhole and be subject to the Sha'ria? If not, why not? I mean, you sure do
spend a lot of energy defending these cultures. Indeed, I wonder why you're
posting from New Zealand. A terrorist coddler like you should be in Syria or
Iran. Cheek to jowl with those you have so much regard for...
> >> Pull your head out of your arse, and try to regain your humanity!
> > I see nothing humane, admirable or moral about excusing, appeasing and
> > justifying evil. And that is exactly what folks like you are doing.
> > Exactly what the hypocritical mayor of London did, which makes his
> > purported *shock* that his terrorist party friends actually killed
people
> > in his town *so* hypocritical. Lefties who defend a culture that holds
> > values that Lefties *claim* to be utterly opposed to are just as bad. I
> > find such conduct to be contemptible, reprehensible and disgusting.
> I would say it is the right of the people holding those views to be
allowed
> to make the changes _they_ see fit, when _they_ see fit - not because _I_
> want them to.
So I assume that you have opposed the removal of Milosevec. And I'm sure
that you have opposed military interventions in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia,
Kosovo, and everywhere else, right? And surely you haven't called for any
intervention in Darfur, Rwanda, etc.
> It's called humility, or plain good manners.
Uh huh.
Do you think that a majority of Iraqis wish that Saddam was still in power?
<non answer predicted>
Funny thing I notice about so many of you self righteous lefties (again,
it's like saying "wet water"). You seem to constantly demand intervention
all over the world for purportedly humanitarian reasons. Many of you
stridently demanded that the West "do something" about Rwanda because we
needed to stop the slaugher. Yet these same sanctimonious twits opposed the
removal of Saddam Hussein -- a brutal despot who was one of the greatest
murders of Muslims in the last hundred years.
Sounds to me like you don't *really* care about the murder of human beings.
If you did, you'd have supported the removal of Saddam -- or at least
refrained from actively opposing his removal. No, I think that what you are
really interested in is being seen by your friends as "moral" and
"concerned". You prefer to see any number of Iraqi die at Saddam's hands or
from suicide bombs rather than see the US (or George Bush) succeed at
anything. You put your own irrational hatred and political biases above the
welfare of the people that you *claim* to be so concerned about.
And this makes you a disgusting hypocrite.
> > I am very curious as to why lefties seem to leap to the defense of a
> > culture that is characterized by the same things lefties constantly
> > *claim* to oppose -- homophobia, misogyny, brutal despotisms, lack of
> > human rights, extreme religious intolerance, capital punishment, lack of
> > legal due process and torture. If lefties *truly* opposed these things,
> > they would have applauded the removal of Saddam and demanded that the
West
> > remove the other Muslim autocrats in the Middle East. Yet they still
> > self-righteously defend some of the vilest regimes on the earth.
> How can the US remove the autocrats of the Middle East when they fund them
> in the first place to get oil at mates rates?
I think you have the US confused with France, Germany and Russia. See,
*they* are the ones with the cushy oil deals. *They* are the one who armed
Saddam. And of course, *they* are the ones who bitterly opposed the removal
of Saddam. Where is the lefty outrage at these despicable acts by the Axis
of Weasels?
Now, if you are saying that the US should conquer its purported "allies"
like Saudi Arabia, well, I'm certainly willing to consider it. But I really
think we should start with France first...
> > Why are you folks so utterly hypocritical?
> Why are you USians so convinced of your own Purity Of Essence?
Now that was an ad hominem. See? You (a) insulted me (well, tried to
anyway); and (b) failed to answer the question.
So, lets try again.
How do you lefties reconcile the apparent hypocrisy of your positions?
> > <nonanswer predicted>
I was correct again. What a shock.
--Ty
Ty
> Well, when you're supplying oil at the price the West wants, and your
> domestic opponents want it priced at more realistic market rates ...
You do understand what a "commodity" is, don't you? And your gibbering is
particularly ill-conceived considering the current high oil prices.
And by the way, market rates are, uh, market rates. There is no such thing
as a "more realistic market rate". Oil sells for exactly what (a) the buyer
is willing to pay; and (b) the seller is willing to sell. And the free
market determines the price of any given barrel of oil, whether it comes
from Texas or Iraq.
> Answers itself, doesn't it?
Nope.
> > Oh, I strongly disagree with your formulation. I think the *only*
> > effective solution is to invade countries whose governments provide
> > material support to terrorists.
> Fine. the US provided support to the various butchers of the poor in El
> Salvador.
And if I were trying to stop El Salvadoran terrorists, I'd go after the US
(if I had the capability, and if your allegations are accurate).
But since we are discussing Muslim terrorists, I think much can be gained by
going after the leaders of nations who support Muslim terrorists.
This is not that complicated. In wartime, you kill the enemy.
> So that would obligate the Rest of the World to invade the US of A.
Uh, why?
I haven't heard of too many El Salvadoran terrorists blowing up London
subways. Did I miss something?
> > Apparently you fail to see any difference
> > between a government that gives sanctuary, money and training to
> > terrorists and a government that merely has citizens who commit
terrorist
> > acts (and which punishes those citizens when apprehended).
> Oliver North. Ronald Reagan. the Reagan Administration. Contragate.
Oh so you only think that we should hold the supporters of terrorists
accountable if those supporters are American?
Doesn't seem to be a particularly rational position, you know.
> Notice how the US managed to squirm out of taking responsibility for its
> actions? Notice how this individual is going to squirm out of his similar
> dilemma.
<blink>
Sorry to prove you wrong again.
I stand by my statement that you must go after the state supporters of
terrorists if you want to defeat the terrorists. This holds true regardless
of which state or which terrorists we're discussing. So *if* the US
sponsored terrorists, then those attempting to defeat the terrorists should
go after the US if they have the ability to do so.
Of course, the assumptions in that argument would have to be correct for it
to be applicable.
> He's already given his solution - invade and slaughter.
Yep. Despite the confident and unsupported assertions by lefties that force
solves nothing, history clearly shows us otherwise. Miliitary force (or the
willingness to use force) ended the 5 great scourges of the last 150
years -- North American chattel slavey, German Nazism, Italian Fascism,
Japanese Militarism and Soviet Communism. I am confident that it will end
the scourge of Muslim fanaticism as well. It's certainly worth a try.
After all, three days at Gettysburg did more to end slavery than 70 years of
talking about it. One day at Normandy Beach did more to end Nazism and
Italian Fascism than a decade or cowardly Western European appeasement.
> I worry that people may at some time in the future, actually decide to
take
> him up on it, and he'll be too scared to face the music.
Heh. Another lurid anti-american fantasy. You morons might do well to
consider what the world would look like without the US. Your tiny nation
would currently be occupied by a brutal and racist Imperial Japan. France
and the other Euroweasels would have 2 alternatives -- domination by a
brutal Nazi Germany or domination by a murderous Soviet Union. So, all
things considered, I'd be happy that the US is around if I were you.
You might also ponder the irony of using the internet -- an American
creation -- to spew your anti-american gibberish.
> > Seems to me that you are being intentionally obtuse.
> If you're looking in a mirror, that's what you'll see.
"I know you are but what am I?"
<sigh>
How mediocre.
> > Once wonders what would have had to happen for you to conclude that the
> > world is indeed safer.
No response? I wonder why? Could it be because the lefties would claim the
world is not safer *no matter what happened*?
> > Also, it is usually unclear how a war is actually going until years
later.
> > I don't think that the American and British troops who desparately
fought
> > through the Battle of the Bulge realized that Germany was almost
> > completely exhausted. I am willing to trust in the military,
technological
> > and economic superiority of the West, and in particular, the US. The
only
> > way we'll lose this war is if we follow the counsel of those who are
more
> > interested in appeasing the terrorists than in killing them. Or if we
are
> > persuaded by the cynical defeatism of those who only oppose this war
> > because they hate the US and/or Bush. The French, for example.
> Or the American public, who are getting sick of being lied to?
<yawn>
Lied? The only ones lying are liberals who are now trying to pretend that
the war was only about WMDs.
I am fascinated by the sudden wave of amnesia that appears to be sweeping
you appeasement lefties and wonder at it's cause. Maybe you need to start
taking your medication again. See, no one *before* the invasion seriously
claimed that Saddam lacked WMDs. For instance, the amnesiac Dr.Hans Blix
stated:
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today -
of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out
to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
"...Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale... UNMOVIC,
however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are also
indications that the agent was weaponised."
" ...13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983
and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during
this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of
chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these
quantities are now unaccounted for."
" The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker
at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This
was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved
there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such
munitions."
" Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000
that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They
could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few
rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands
of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. ..."
"Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological
warfare agent [Anthrax], which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the
summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and
no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications
that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of
this was retained after the declared destruction date."
"Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial
growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq's submission to the
Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration,
Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this
particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table
would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were
renumbered. In the letter of 24 January ... Iraq's Foreign Minister stated
that "all imported quantities of growth media were declared". This is not
evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to
produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax."
" The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of
some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment
of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be
distributed to the homes of private individuals. ... On our side, we cannot
help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements
of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield
documents by placing them in private homes."
***
No one -- not even the feckless, Saddam-loving French -- opposed Saddam's
removal because he lacked WMDs. Everyone agreed that Iraq probably did have
them. The debate was over whether we should give him enough time to actially
develop WMDs.. It is therefore most disengenuous for you hysterical lefties
to now pretend otherwise.
And it is patently false to claim that WMDs were the only reasons for
removing Saddam - as a cursory review of the Congressional resolution
authorizing the use of force against Saddam (and voted for by so many of the
hypocritical hysterical left who now whine about the war being "wrong", such
as Mr. John Kerry Heinz). To wit:
"Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in
the region...[no wmd mention]
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of
American citizens [no wmd mention, and before any lefties start whining
about there being no terrorists in Iraq, I suggest they look up Abu Abbas,
Abu Nidal, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi];...
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of
all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution
660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain
activities that threaten international peace and security, including ...
repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 688, [no mention of wmds]
....and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in
violation of United
Nations Security Council Resolution 949..." Etc., etc.
Hmmn. The resolution passed by both houses of the US Congress and voted for
by most of the Democrats, mentions a great many things besides WMDs. Is it
possible that lefties are so weak minded that they are blissfully unaware
that their representatives and Senators are trying to re-write history?
And regarding Iraq, I think that Mr. John Kerry Heinz said it best:
"[T]hose who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without
Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his
capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be
elected president." --December 16, 2003 rebuttal to Howard Dean.
***
So...are you lefties liars or are you mentally deranged?
You know, such isolationist feelings would be more convincing if lefties
hadn't applauded Bill Clinton for sending US troops all over the globe to
intervene in hellholes where no US interests were at stake. Indeed, can this
be the same group of people who stridently and indignantly demanded US
intervention in (of all places) Rwanda?? It seems clear to me that despite
their hypocritical moralizing, their real objection is that a Republican is
the one committing the troops.
To those lefties who are *so* concerned about the Iraqi people, I have a
single question:
Do you think that a majority of Iraqis wish Saddam were still in power?
For some reason, I can't seem to get the antiwar lefties to answer this
question.<shrug>
Sorry, but it strikes me as utterly hypocritical and morally banktupt for
lefties to claim to be *so* concerned about the Iraqi people, while doing
everything in their power to prevent the removal of the greatest mass
murderer of Muslims in the 20th century...
> > They'll live.
> Unless you intend to "Shock and Awe" us.
Aw, I'm just bouncing the rubble if this is the best you can come up with.
--Ty
the softrat
wrote:
<snipped -- for clarity>
Ty, you would be a lot more convincing if you didn't keep making minor
factual errors (No, I am *not* going to enumerate! I don't want to
have to re-read your crap again.).
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"I woke up one morning and all of my stuff had been stolen...and
replaced by exact duplicates." -- Steven Wright
Steuard Jensen
<11cqg12...@corp.supernews.com>:
> I was shocked to hear the news. Please know you have my thoughts
> and prayers, and if possible, let us all know if you are okay?
You've all been in my thoughts as well; I just haven't known what to
say. My deep sympathy to all who were hurt, directly or indirectly,
and for that matter to your whole nation. We'll make it through all
this together somehow.
Steuard Jensen
TT Arvind
> If the West finally tires of Islamic fanticism and decides to use the Muslim
> definition of "legitimate target", the Muslims will be very quickly
> annihilated. And before you whine that Muslims don't support terrorists,
> please reconcile the fact that these purported Muslim opponents of terrorism
> seem to be very quiet.
They've been quite vocal in their condemnation of the latest attacks -
even the Muslim Brotherhood seems to have condemned the London bombings:
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR3605
--
Arvind
You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely.
Yuk Tang
news:8otvc19td4qei5q7d...@4ax.com:
> wrote:
>
> <snipped -- for clarity>
>
> Ty, you would be a lot more convincing if you didn't keep making
> minor factual errors (No, I am *not* going to enumerate! I don't
> want to have to re-read your crap again.).
Ty isn't remotely convincing at all. Saddam has no connection
whatsoever with any terrorism that concerns Britain or its interests,
and the huge majority of Londoners knew this. That's why we've
elected a mayor who's strongly against the affair in Iraq.
This isn't war with Muslims, just as the IRA troubles wasn't a war
with the Irish. This is a criminal matter, and will be investigated
as such by the police. And to minimise the chances of it happening
again (as Londoners know only too well, reducing it to nil is
impossible), we'll be looking at the root causes of what prompts
people to join these groups, and address them accordingly. To
paraphrase a former shadow home secretary, we'll deal with terrorism,
and we'll deal with the causes of terrorism. This strategy has
worked with N Ireland and everywhere else we've applied it, and it'll
work again.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Yuk Tang
news:MPG.1d3a30ff...@news.individual.net:
>> If the West finally tires of Islamic fanticism and decides to use
>> the Muslim definition of "legitimate target", the Muslims will be
>> very quickly annihilated. And before you whine that Muslims don't
>> support terrorists, please reconcile the fact that these
>> purported Muslim opponents of terrorism seem to be very quiet.
>
> They've been quite vocal in their condemnation of the latest
> attacks - even the Muslim Brotherhood seems to have condemned the
> London bombings:
>
> http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR3605
There seems to have been a sighting of a possible bomber. If his
identity can be confirmed, I suspect that his friends and relatives
will come forward with information. If it's indeed a lone bomber, then
perhaps this is an indictment of the one day travelcard. At least
separate tickets would have made the bastard pay more in fares.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1524563,00.html
--
Cheers, ymt.
the softrat
wrote:
>
>They've been quite vocal in their condemnation of the latest attacks -
>even the Muslim Brotherhood seems to have condemned the London bombings:
>
>http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR3605
Visit London!
It's *safe* now!
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Pave the planet! One world. One people. One slab of asphalt.
Jette Goldie
"the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:11b0d1prufddss0ai...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 20:09:53 +0100, TT Arvind <ttar...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >They've been quite vocal in their condemnation of the latest
attacks -
> >even the Muslim Brotherhood seems to have condemned the London
bombings:
> >
> >http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR3605
>
> Visit London!
>
> It's *safe* now!
>
Saw a great quote about it all - I think I may make it into a sig.
"It's hard to panic the British. They've dealt with the Blitz, the
IRA, the Silurians, the Zarbi, the Daleks, the Cybermen..."
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
INTERACTION - the 63rd Worldcon
"A European Worldcon in Glasgow"
http://interaction.worldcon.org.uk/
Baron Ringler
"TT Arvind" <ttar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d3a30ff...@news.individual.net...
> Wes ğu Ty hal!
>> If the West finally tires of Islamic fanticism and decides to use the
>> Muslim
>> definition of "legitimate target", the Muslims will be very quickly
>> annihilated. And before you whine that Muslims don't support terrorists,
>> please reconcile the fact that these purported Muslim opponents of
>> terrorism
>> seem to be very quiet.
>
> They've been quite vocal in their condemnation of the latest attacks -
> even the Muslim Brotherhood seems to have condemned the London bombings:
>
> http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR3605
>
> --
> Arvind
Yes, seemingly so. But it was done in English. Not ONE of those
condemnations was done in a language from the mideast, so that it was NOT
carried in any media sources in that part of the world,
Baron Ringler
"Flame of the West" <jsol...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5OqdnUvGYrt...@comcast.com...
>
>> "aelfwina" <aelf...@cableone.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:11cqg12...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>I was shocked to hear the news. Please know you have my thoughts and
>>>prayers, and if possible, let us all know if you are okay?
>
> Condolences from the U.S. We know the feeling, but
> we also remember how London made it through the Blitz.
> It'll take more than a few primitive barbaric cowardly
> scumbags to get to the Londoners.
>
>
> -- FotW
However, the French are already trying to find someone to whom they can
surrender
Baron Ringler
"Baron Ringler" <baron...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:vf_ze.226774$3V6.1...@fe04.news.easynews.com...
By the way, I found a great site with a letter to the editor frmo a London
citizen.
http://www.lnreview.co.uk/news/005167.php
Yuk Tang
>> Wes šu Ty hal!
>
>>> If the West finally tires of Islamic fanticism and decides to
>>> use the Muslim
>>> definition of "legitimate target", the Muslims will be very
>>> quickly annihilated. And before you whine that Muslims don't
>>> support terrorists, please reconcile the fact that these
>>> purported Muslim opponents of terrorism
>>> seem to be very quiet.
>>
>> They've been quite vocal in their condemnation of the latest
>> attacks - even the Muslim Brotherhood seems to have condemned the
>> London bombings:
>>
>> http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR3605
>
> condemnations was done in a language from the mideast, so that it
> was NOT carried in any media sources in that part of the world,
Considering that any such operation would have been planned in detail
here, what matters is the investigation of intelligence provided by
the Muslim community in Britain, and specifically London. So why
should it be in any language other than English?
It currently looks as though at least two of the tube bombs were
planted by the same person, with a further lead about a suspicious
looking bloke on the No 30 bus. Witness reports and CCTV footage
will give us further evidence, and I'd imagine that relevant stories
will be volunteered by friends and family once a name is identified.
Btw, these 'condemnations' matter little in the greater scope of
things. What matters is how the relevant community responds, and
that can only be seen over time. What is important is that we help
them to respond in the right way, and things will eventually sort
themselves out.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Ty
> <snipped -- for clarity>
> Ty, you would be a lot more convincing if you didn't keep making minor
> factual errors (No, I am *not* going to enumerate! I don't want to
> have to re-read your crap again.).
Hmmn. You claim that I made factual errors, yet you can't actually tell us
what they are.
Apparently you are motivated by emotion, rather than reason.
<shrug>
You sound like a pretty typical lefty to me.
--Ty
Ty
> the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in
> > Ty, you would be a lot more convincing if you didn't keep making
> > minor factual errors (No, I am *not* going to enumerate! I don't
> > want to have to re-read your crap again.).
> Ty isn't remotely convincing at all. Saddam has no connection
> whatsoever with any terrorism that concerns Britain or its interests,
> and the huge majority of Londoners knew this. That's why we've
> elected a mayor who's strongly against the affair in Iraq.
Perhaps *you* can identify the factual errors that I have made. I am always
interested in increasing my accuracy.
Or, you can refuse to back up your claims like the other guy did. Of course,
his statements pretty conclusively demonstrate that he is an over-emotional
lefty idiot. You have not made such ridiculous statements so far, so perhaps
you can do better than him. (It would, of course, be hard to do worse).
As for the loathesome Ken "Hug a Terrorist" Livingstone -- well, I always
knew *he* was a fool and hypocrite. I just didn't think that his admirers
were *so* empty headed that they would forget his coddling of murderous
vermin just like the ones who murdered British civilians in Old "Hug a
Terrorist's" city. I also didn't think his admirers would be stupid enough
to believe that he was really "shocked, shocked" that his terrorist party
friends would target Londoners.
Obviously, I was mistaken on both points. It appears that his followers are
indeed more empty headed that I thought. And I gotta say, that's pretty bad
when you consider what I thought about them.
> This isn't war with Muslims,
Maybe not, but perhaps you should take this up with the numerous
*self-identified* Muslim terrorist groups who explicitely state that they
are killing infidels. Then, you can visit with the numerous crackpot Muslim
clerics who constantly give inflammatory sermons urging jihad against the
infidels, Jews, etc. Finally, you can show me where leading Muslim clerics
have, in Arabic, condemned terrorist attacks on Israel by self-identified
Muslim terrorist groups.
It seems to me that if Muslims *truly* abhored terrorism, that they would
have condemned Palestinian terrorists long ago.
However, if they instead actually think that Muslim terrorism is fine, then
I'd expect them to only condemn terrorist attacks when it might produce a
political advantage -- say, by taking advantage of ignorant, gullible,
sympathetic Western lefties.
> ...This is a criminal matter, and will be investigated
> as such by the police.
Ah yes. The way to defeat state sponsored terrorism is to issue indictments.
<shakes head> I really don't think that you have thought this one out very
well.
> And to minimise the chances of it happening
> again (as Londoners know only too well, reducing it to nil is
> impossible), we'll be looking at the root causes of what prompts
> people to join these groups, and address them accordingly.
I see. You will go into insular British Muslim communities that have refused
to assimilate (and who have been encouraged not to assimilate by well
meaning but empty headed liberal multiculturalists). You will *reason* with
half-educated fanatics who have been brainwashed by their crackpot mullahs
into blaming all of the Muslim world's self inflicted misery on the West.
Moved by the eloquence of your speech, they will readily put aside a
lifetime of conditioning to blindly hate Jews and the West. The blinding
logic of your words will cause them to ignore the plain and unerring words
of the Prophet to "kill infidels where you find them". Doubtlessly, they
will shake off the debilitating effects of coming from a culture that
systematically refuses to accept any responsibility for any of its
self-inflicted troubles preferring to blame them on Jews and their Western
lackeys.
Yeah, I don't know how I could have been so skeptical. It is so obvious that
what these larval stage terrorists really need is to be talked to. It's so
*easy* when I see it your way...
Still, though, I think I'd rather simply kill the terrorists, kill their
leaders, kill their crackpot mullahs and remove the governments who fund abd
support them. But while the US and UK are doing so, I strongly encourage you
to go to the terrorists and reason with them. Maybe all they really need is
a hug...
--Ty
Ty
great Prof. Victor Davis Hanson. And it even has a Tolkien angle...
The Ents of Europe
By Victor Davis Hanson
One of the many wondrous peoples that poured forth from the rich imagination
of the late J. R. R. Tolkien were the Ents. These tree-like creatures,
agonizingly slow and covered with mossy bark, nursed themselves on tales of
past glory while their numbers dwindled in their isolation. Unable to
reproduce themselves or to fathom the evil outside their peaceful forest -
and careful to keep to themselves and avoid reacting to provocation of the
tree-cutters and forest burners - they assumed they would be given a pass
from the upheavals of Middle Earth.
For Tolkien, who wrote in a post-imperial Britain bled white from stopping
Prussian militarism and Hitler's Nazism, only to then witness the rise of
the more numerous, wealthier, and crasser Americans, such specters were
haunting. Indeed, there are variants of the Ent theme throughout Tolkien's
novels, from the dormant Riders of Rohan - whose king was exorcised from his
dotage and rallied the realm's dwindling cavalry to recover lost glory and
save the West - to the hobbits themselves.
The latter, protected by slurred "Rangers," live blissfully unaware that
radical changes in the world have brought evil incarnate to their very
doorstep. Then to their amazement they discover that of all people, a hobbit
rises to the occasion, and really does stand up well when confronted with
apparently far more powerful and evil adversaries. The entire novel is full
of such folk - the oath-breaking Dead who come alive to honor their
once-broken pact, or the now-fallen and impotent High Elves who nevertheless
do their part in the inevitable war to come.
Tolkien always denied an allegorical motif or any allusions to the
contemporary dangers of appeasement or the leveling effects of modernism.
And scholars bicker over whether he was lamenting the end of the old
England, old Europe, or the old West - in the face of the American
democratic colossus, the Soviet Union's tentacles, or the un-chivalrous age
of the bomb. But the notion of decline, past glory, and 11th-hour
reawakening are nevertheless everywhere in the English philologist's Lord of
the Rings. Was he on to something?
More specifically, does the Ents analogy work for present-day Europe? Before
you laugh at the silly comparison, remember that the Western military
tradition is European. Today the continent is unarmed and weak, but deep
within its collective mind and spirit still reside the ability to field
technologically sophisticated and highly disciplined forces - if it were
ever to really feel threatened. One murder began to arouse the Dutch; what
would 3,000 dead and a toppled Eiffel Tower do to the French? Or how would
the Italians take to a plane stuck into the dome of St. Peter? We are nursed
now on the spectacle of Iranian mullahs, with their bought weapons and
foreign-produced oil wealth, humiliating a convoy of European delegates
begging and cajoling them not to make bombs - or at least to point what
bombs they make at Israel and not at Berlin or Paris. But it was not always
the case, and may not always be.
The Netherlands was a litmus test for Europe. Unlike Spain or Greece, which
had historical grievances against Islam, the Dutch were the avatars of the
new liberal Europe, without historical baggage. They were eager to unshackle
Europe from the Church, from its class and gender constraints, and from any
whiff of its racist or colonialist past. True, for a variety of reasons,
Amsterdam may be a case study of how wrong Rousseau was about natural man,
but for a Muslim immigrant the country was about as hospitable a foreign
host as one can imagine. Thus, it was far safer for radical Islamic fascists
to damn the West openly from a mosque in Rotterdam than for a moderate
Christian to quietly worship in a church in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Algeria.
And yet we learn not just that the Netherlands has fostered a radical sect
of Muslims who will kill and bomb, but, far more importantly, that they will
do so after years of residency among, and indeed in utter contempt of, their
Western hosts.
Things are no less humiliating - or dangerous - in France. Thousands of
unassimilated Muslims mock French society. Yet their fury shapes its foreign
policy to the degree that Jacques Chirac sent a government plane to sweep up
a dying Arafat. But then what do we expect from a country that enriched
Hamas, let Mrs. Arafat spend her husband's embezzled millions under its
nose, gave Khomeini the sanctuary needed to destroy Iran, sold a nuclear
reactor to Saddam, is at the heart of the Oil-for-Food scandal, and revs up
the Muslim world against the United States?
Only now are Europeans discovering the disturbing nature of radical Islamic
extremism, which thrives not on real grievance but on perceived hurts - and
the appeasement of its purported oppressors. How odd that tens of millions
of Muslims flocked to Europe for its material consumption, superior standard
of living, and freedom and tolerance - and then chose not merely to remain
in enclaves but to romanticize all the old pathologies that they had fled
from in the first place. It is almost as if the killers in Amsterdam said,
"I want your cell phones, unfettered Internet access, and free-spirited
girls, but hate the very system that alone can create them all. So please
let me stay here to destroy what I want."
Turkey's proposed entry into the EU has become some weird sort of Swiftian
satire on the crazy relationship between Europe and Islam. Ponder the
contradictions of it all. Privately most Europeans realize that opening its
borders without restraint to Turkey's millions will alter the nature of the
EU, both by welcoming in a radically different citizenry, largely outside
the borders of Europe, whose population will make it the largest and poorest
country in the Union - and the most antithetical to Western liberalism. Yet
Europe is also trapped in its own utopian race/class/gender rhetoric. It
cannot openly question the wisdom of making the "other" coequal to itself,
since one does not by any abstract standard judge, much less censure,
customs, religions, or values.
So it stews and simmers. Not to be outdone, some in Turkey dare the
Europeans, almost in contempt, to reject their bid. Thus rather than
evolving Attaturk's modernist reforms to match the values of Europe, the
country is instead driven into the midst of an Islamic reactionary revival
in which its rural east far more resembles Iraq or Iran than Brussels. So
the world wonders whether Europe is sticking a toe into the Islamic Middle
East or the latter its entire leg into Europe.
Everyone gets in on the charade. The savvy Greeks discovered that they
didn't want to be tarred with the usual anti-Ottoman obstructionism and so
are keeping very quiet about their historic worries (legitimate after a near
400-year occupation) as a front-line state. And why not, when EU money
pouring into Turkey might jumpstart the Eastern Mediterranean economy and
lead to joint Greek-Turkish deals? With the future role of NATO and the 6th
Fleet undetermined, is it not better to have the Turkish military inside the
tent than for poor Greece to have a neighbor's ships and planes routinely
violating Hellenic air and sea sovereignty - while it waits for the Danish
air force or the French army to provide a little deterrence in the Aegean or
Cyprus?
Of course, we are amused by the spectacle. Privately, most Americans grasp
that with a Germany and France reeling from unassimilated Muslim
populations, a rising Islamic-inspired and globally embarrassing
anti-Semitism, and economic stagnation, it is foolhardy to create 70 million
Turkish Europeans by fiat. Welcoming in Turkey will make the EU so diverse,
large, and unwieldy as to make it - to paraphrase Voltaire - neither
European nor a Union. Surely Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia will wish to get
in on the largess. Were they not, after all, also part of the historical
Roman mare nostrum, and did they not also enjoy long ties with France and
Italy?
So, to our discredit I suppose, we are enjoying schadenfreude after our
recent transatlantic acrimonies: Europe preached a postmodern gospel of
multiculturalism and the end of oppressive Western values, and now it is
time to put its money (and security) where its mouth is - or suffer the
usual hypocrisy that all limousine liberals face. The United States has its
own recent grievances with the Turks - its eleventh-hour refusal to allow
American troops to come down from the north explains why the now red-hot
Sunni Triangle never saw much war during the three-week fighting. Recently a
minister of a country that gave rise to the notion of 20th-century genocide
slurred the United States for resembling Hitler, who in fact was an
erstwhile Turkish near ally. Still, our realists muse, how convenient that
Europe may carry the water in bringing Turkey inside the Western orbit and
prevent it from joining the radical Islamic fringe. Knowing it is in our
interest (and not necessarily in the Europeans') and will cost them lots and
us nothing, we "on principle" remonstrate for the need to show Western
empathy to Turkish aspirations.
But gut-check time is coming for Europe, with its own rising unassimilated
immigrant populations, rogue mosques entirely bent on destroying the West,
declining birth rate and rising entitlements, the Turkish question, and a
foreign policy whose appeasement of Arab regimes won it only a brief lull
and plenty of humiliation. The radical Muslim world of the madrassas hates
the United States because it is liberal and powerful; but it utterly
despises Europe because it is even more liberal and far weaker, earning the
continent not fear, but contempt.
The real question is whether there is any Demosthenes left in Europe, who
will soberly but firmly demand assimilation and integration of all
immigrants, an end to mosque radicalism, even-handedness in the Middle East,
no more subsidies to terrorists like Hamas, a toughness rather than
opportunist profiteering with the likes of Assad and the Iranian theocracy -
and make it clear that states that aid and abet terrorists in Europe do so
to their great peril.
So will the old Ents awaken, or will they slumber on, muttering nonsense to
themselves, lost in past grandeur and utterly clueless about the dangers on
their borders?
Stay tuned - it is one of the most fascinating sagas of our time.
***
--Ty
Flame of the West
>>It'll take more than a few primitive barbaric cowardly
>>scumbags to get to the Londoners.
>
> However, the French are already trying to find someone to whom they can
> surrender
*LOL!*
-- FotW
Ty
> "TT Arvind" <ttar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > They've been quite vocal in their condemnation of the latest attacks -
> > even the Muslim Brotherhood seems to have condemned the London bombings:
> > http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR3605
> Yes, seemingly so. But it was done in English. Not ONE of those
> condemnations was done in a language from the mideast, so that it was NOT
> carried in any media sources in that part of the world,
The article also noted that most Friday sermons were silent about the
attack.
And your observation reinforces the point that I made previously in another
forum:
***
<snip of numerous anti-semetic and anti-western quotes from Muslim clerics
and intellectuals>
Anyhow, for every muted, equivocal. "yes but", neo-condemnation of Muslim
terrorism (usually in English and seldom in Arabic) by "moderate" Muslims,
we get hundreds of these kind of rants from everywhere in the Muslim world.
Yet still, lefties hypocritically whine about purported American
bigotry and confidently assert that the extremists represent a very tiny
fraction of Muslims.
Well, maybe so. But the extremists sure do seem to include a huge proportion
of the Muslim leaders in the Middle East, don't they?
Yep, the Middle East is just crawling with tolerant, open minded
Muslim clerics, leaders and intellectuals, isn't it?
***
--Ty
Ty
> However, the French are already trying to find someone to whom they can
> surrender
Is there anyone they *haven't* surrendered to?
--Ty
Apteryx
"Jette Goldie" <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote in message
news:TtZze.66471$G8.1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> It's *safe* now!
>>
>
>
> Saw a great quote about it all - I think I may make it into a sig.
>
> "It's hard to panic the British. They've dealt with the Blitz, the
> IRA, the Silurians, the Zarbi, the Daleks, the Cybermen..."
I don't like to quibble (well yeh, OK, I do) but I don't think that the
Zarbi ever attacked London. And while the plans of the Silurians and
Cybermen for wiping out humanity must have impacted badly on Londoners if
successfully implemented, I don't recall them directly attacking London
(except perhaps in the plague spread by the Silurians which was seen in one
shot to reach London, as well as being said to have reached Paris and other
cities).
--
Apteryx
the softrat
<j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>
>Saw a great quote about it all - I think I may make it into a sig.
>
>"It's hard to panic the British. They've dealt with the Blitz, the
>IRA, the Silurians, the Zarbi, the Daleks, the Cybermen..."
".... the Americans, the Irish..."
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
My mechanic told me, "I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made
your horn louder." -- Steven Wright
the softrat
wrote:
>
>You sound like a pretty typical lefty to me.
>
*ever* to call me a 'lefty', much less a 'typical lefty'. My (former)
John Birch Society acquaintances laughed two quarts of beer through
their noses, and now are out for *your* blood!
When you accuse people of making emotional, not factual, responses,
you might check out your reflection in the mirror if you can see that
far beyond your nose.
Actually, in politics I am closest to a Libertarian: Economic
Conservatism and Personal Freedom.
Of course the Muslim Terrorists and their mealy-mouthed defenders are
wrong -- worse than any other animal -- but your emotion ridden,
factually shaky diatribes are no help: "There goes another Kook!"
AND ....
They don't belong in this newsgroup, 'rec.arts.books.tolkien', anyway.
Go peddle your papers in 'alt.idiot.ranters'.
Good night, good bye, and <plonk>.
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Chairman: Animals for the Ethical Treatment of People
Sam's the little guy
> The article also noted that most Friday sermons were silent about the
> attack.
>
I heard the leaders of the Islamic community in Britain condemn these
latest atrocities, and they certainly seemed to mean it. Much more so,
I might say, than yourself and that other poster going under the
curious psuedonym of "Baron Ringler". You made some feeble remarks in
condemnation of the attacks, but then immediately segued away into the
usal frothy mouthed rants against the French (close allies of the UK,
and sharers in their intelligence) and the Muslim world in general.
Pretty obvious to even the most casual observer who is the most against
acts of terrorism - I'll spell it out - it ain't you.
Sam.
Morgil
>
>>> It'll take more than a few primitive barbaric cowardly
>>> scumbags to get to the Londoners.
>>
>>
>> However, the French are already trying to find someone to whom they
>> can surrender
>
>
> *LOL!*
Maybe some day the muslim community will be as enlightened as FotW
and his fellow catholics, and understand that the only way to deal
with these terrorist attacks is to blame them on *gay* muslims...
Morgil
Yuk Tang
news:Wn0Ae.3290$Ku6....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
> The real question is whether there is any Demosthenes left in
> Europe, who will soberly but firmly demand assimilation and
> integration of all immigrants, an end to mosque radicalism,
> even-handedness in the Middle East, no more subsidies to
> terrorists like Hamas, a toughness rather than opportunist
> profiteering with the likes of Assad and the Iranian theocracy -
> and make it clear that states that aid and abet terrorists in
> Europe do so to their great peril.
Actually, wasn't Demosthenes best known for arguing against the
assimilation of foreigners? Both Philip and Alexander were avid
Graecophiles, but Demosthenes denied them the Greek identity, causing a
war which eventually resulted in the destruction of Philip's beloved
Thebes.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Yuk Tang
"Ty" <tybea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:af0Ae.3289$Ku6....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
> "Yuk Tang" <jiml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in
>
>> > Ty, you would be a lot more convincing if you didn't keep
>> > making minor factual errors (No, I am *not* going to enumerate!
>> > I don't want to have to re-read your crap again.).
>
>> Ty isn't remotely convincing at all. Saddam has no connection
>> whatsoever with any terrorism that concerns Britain or its
>> interests, and the huge majority of Londoners knew this. That's
>> why we've elected a mayor who's strongly against the affair in
>> Iraq.
>
> Perhaps *you* can identify the factual errors that I have made. I
> am always interested in increasing my accuracy.
>
> Or, you can refuse to back up your claims like the other guy did.
> Of course, his statements pretty conclusively demonstrate that he
> is an over-emotional lefty idiot. You have not made such
> ridiculous statements so far, so perhaps you can do better than
> him. (It would, of course, be hard to do worse).
I had you kfed, but the softrat's reply piqued my interest enough to
press 'previous article'. Not so far down, I encountered this bit:
'But since we are discussing Muslim terrorists, I think much can be
gained by
going after the leaders of nations who support Muslim terrorists.
This is not that complicated. In wartime, you kill the enemy.'
This may be your opinion, but as this affair involves London,
shouldn't it be up to us to decide what's best for us? And our past
experience has taught us that treating terrorism as a war doesn't
work.
> As for the loathesome Ken "Hug a Terrorist" Livingstone -- well, I
> always knew *he* was a fool and hypocrite. I just didn't think
> that his admirers were *so* empty headed that they would forget
> his coddling of murderous vermin just like the ones who murdered
> British civilians in Old "Hug a Terrorist's" city. I also didn't
> think his admirers would be stupid enough to believe that he was
> really "shocked, shocked" that his terrorist party friends would
> target Londoners.
>
> Obviously, I was mistaken on both points. It appears that his
> followers are indeed more empty headed that I thought. And I gotta
> say, that's pretty bad when you consider what I thought about
> them.
Quite a litany of libels there. What do you mean by 'Hug a
Terrorist'? Do you mean Nelson Mandela, whom virtually all Londoners
lionise?
>> This isn't war with Muslims,
>
> Maybe not, but perhaps you should take this up with the numerous
> *self-identified* Muslim terrorist groups who explicitely state
> that they are killing infidels. Then, you can visit with the
> numerous crackpot Muslim clerics who constantly give inflammatory
> sermons urging jihad against the infidels, Jews, etc. Finally, you
> can show me where leading Muslim clerics have, in Arabic,
> condemned terrorist attacks on Israel by self-identified Muslim
> terrorist groups.
>
> It seems to me that if Muslims *truly* abhored terrorism, that
> they would have condemned Palestinian terrorists long ago.
>
> However, if they instead actually think that Muslim terrorism is
> fine, then I'd expect them to only condemn terrorist attacks when
> it might produce a political advantage -- say, by taking advantage
> of ignorant, gullible, sympathetic Western lefties.
Islamic leaders will issue 'fatwa' on terrorists
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article298109.ece
Read further down for the details.
>> ...This is a criminal matter, and will be investigated
>> as such by the police.
>
> Ah yes. The way to defeat state sponsored terrorism is to issue
> indictments.
>
> <shakes head> I really don't think that you have thought this one
> out very well.
It's worked before, and it'll work again. What you're advocating has
been seen not to work on previous occasions, and it won't work here
either.
Where do you live, Ty? I live in a London borough, and I regularly
go through the places that were bombed on Thursday, using the
transport that was bombed (and indeed was there or thereabouts only
the day before). Don't you think that I might have a valid view?
I once had a chap from Alaska who had the gall to lecture me on what
London thought of the Iraq war.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Yuk Tang
"Sam's the little guy" <samd...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1120993761.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Ty wrote:
>
>> The article also noted that most Friday sermons were silent about
>> the attack.
>
> I heard the leaders of the Islamic community in Britain condemn
> these latest atrocities, and they certainly seemed to mean it.
> Much more so, I might say, than yourself and that other poster
> going under the curious psuedonym of "Baron Ringler".
The Baron is, of course, BaronjosefR.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Sam's the little guy
I thought it was the fault of French Muslims. At least today - tomorrow
it will probably be Zoroastrian Swedes, and then on tuesday, the
Ugandan Falun Gong.
Baron Ringler
> "Baron Ringler" <baron...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:vf_ze.226774$3V6.1...@fe04.news.easynews.com:
>> "TT Arvind" <ttar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1d3a30ff...@news.individual.net...
>>
>>>> If the West finally tires of Islamic fanticism and decides to
>>>> use the Muslim
>>>> definition of "legitimate target", the Muslims will be very
>>>> quickly annihilated. And before you whine that Muslims don't
>>>> support terrorists, please reconcile the fact that these
>>>> purported Muslim opponents of terrorism
>>>> seem to be very quiet.
>>>
>>> They've been quite vocal in their condemnation of the latest
>>> attacks - even the Muslim Brotherhood seems to have condemned the
>>> London bombings:
>>>
>>> http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR3605
>>
>> Yes, seemingly so. But it was done in English. Not ONE of those
>> condemnations was done in a language from the mideast, so that it
>> was NOT carried in any media sources in that part of the world,
>
> Considering that any such operation would have been planned in detail
> here, what matters is the investigation of intelligence provided by
> the Muslim community in Britain, and specifically London. So why
> should it be in any language other than English?
Many of the miltant idiots, though they CAN read and understand English,
refuse to do so for whatever silly pseudo-religious stupidity that they can
think of. They will only read newspapers or listen to broadcasters that
represent what they consider to be "Islamic" languages. So to make a
condemnation in English, not middle eastern languages, is pointless, as the
people to whom they should be directed aren't going to read them, but at
best get them second hand. In other words, condemnation in English is done
for the PR value to the Western media, and has no other purpose.
Yuk Tang
"Baron Ringler" <baron...@aol.com> wrote in
news:ka8Ae.368120$581....@fe05.news.easynews.com:
If the hardcore nutjobs aren't going to take any notice, why would it
matter what language it is in? Any such appeal isn't designed to
prevent action by the core of any such enterprise, but to stop
waverers from joining them, and encourage friends and family of the
heart to come forward with information. And if these people are
living in the UK, why should the appeal be in any language other than
English?
The upcoming fatwa seems to be designed for precisely this effect,
removing the ideological foundation for such attacks while the
communities work on reconciling them with British society. The
latter is far more important in the overall picture. My dad is
comparing this with the bombing campaigns in Hong Kong in 1967, which
the Brits resolved by political reforms that rendered the bombers
irrelevant.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Ty
>>You sound like a pretty typical lefty to me.
> Factual Error: I am a life-long Republican. You are the first person
> *ever* to call me a 'lefty', much less a 'typical lefty'. My (former)
> John Birch Society acquaintances laughed two quarts of beer through
> their noses, and now are out for *your* blood!
<shrug>
Making emotionally motivated statements and then refusing to back them up is
much more indicative of lefties these days. While it is possible that you
are an aberration, I am finding it difficult to be persuaded by your
statements. See when something waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, I
generally conclude that it is a duck until significant evidence to the
contrary is produced.
You could, of course, simply identify the factual errors you claim I made
and then we can go from there.
> When you accuse people of making emotional, not factual, responses,
Well, I'm accusing you of being apparently unable to back your assertions up
with evidence. When someone does that, the most reasonable explanation is
that they are making an emotional argument. <shrug>
> Actually, in politics I am closest to a Libertarian: Economic
> Conservatism and Personal Freedom.
Okay, so you're *not* a lifelong Republican then?
> Of course the Muslim Terrorists and their mealy-mouthed defenders are
> wrong -- worse than any other animal -- but your emotion ridden,
> factually shaky diatribes are no help: "There goes another Kook!"
Again, you keep asserting that I have made factually inaccurate statements.
And you do so in apparent defense and support of the lefty terrorist
coddlers. Yet you still are unwilling to produce *evidence* to back up your
assertions. While it is certainly possible that I am factually in error, it
will take something more than bald, conclusory and unsubstantiated whining
to convince me.
Now, you could simply tell us what facts I have erroneously stated. If you
are correct, I will happily concede the point and amend my statement
accordingly. But if all you're gonna do is whine "you're wrong, but I shan't
tell you why" then I suggest that you not bother. First, you are giving no
help to the ignorant terrorist-coddlers that I am addressing (and that you,
despite your denials, seem to be defending). Second, you make yourself look
even more foolish and emotional. Just a suggestion you may of course
continue to look foolish if you wish. I just frankly feel a little blase
about shooting so many fish in a bucket...
> Good night, good bye, and <plonk>.
Oh no. I've been plonked by some idiot who refuses to back up his emotional
outbursts with facts. What a terrible loss that is...
--Ty
Ty
news:dar0n3$ir0$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>> *LOL!*
Since Islam proscribes death to homosexuals -- a sentence carried out in
many self-identified Muslim countries -- I think that the Muslims are ahead
in the gay-hating dept...
--Ty
Ty
> "Ty" <tybea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> Perhaps *you* can identify the factual errors that I have made. I
>> am always interested in increasing my accuracy.
>> Or, you can refuse to back up your claims like the other guy did.
>> Of course, his statements pretty conclusively demonstrate that he
>> is an over-emotional lefty idiot. You have not made such
>> ridiculous statements so far, so perhaps you can do better than
>> him. (It would, of course, be hard to do worse).
> I had you kfed, but the softrat's reply piqued my interest enough to
> press 'previous article'. Not so far down, I encountered this bit:
I notice that you failed to respond to my request that you identify the
specific factual errors you accuse me of making. Since my experience
indicates that people usually do this when they *can't* back up their
claims, your stock is dropping like a stone.
> 'But since we are discussing Muslim terrorists, I think much can be
> gained by
> going after the leaders of nations who support Muslim terrorists.
> This is not that complicated. In wartime, you kill the enemy.'
> This may be your opinion, but as this affair involves London,
> shouldn't it be up to us to decide what's best for us? And our past
> experience has taught us that treating terrorism as a war doesn't
> work.
Well, I think that my *opinion* about the best way to exterminate the
Islamist vermin is the correct one. But you may, of course, follow whatever
strategy you wish.
>> As for the loathesome Ken "Hug a Terrorist" Livingstone -- well, I
>> always knew *he* was a fool and hypocrite. I just didn't think
>> that his admirers were *so* empty headed that they would forget
>> his coddling of murderous vermin just like the ones who murdered
>> British civilians in Old "Hug a Terrorist's" city. I also didn't
>> think his admirers would be stupid enough to believe that he was
>> really "shocked, shocked" that his terrorist party friends would
>> target Londoners.
>> Obviously, I was mistaken on both points. It appears that his
>> followers are indeed more empty headed that I thought. And I gotta
>> say, that's pretty bad when you consider what I thought about
>> them.
> Quite a litany of libels there. What do you mean by 'Hug a
> Terrorist'? Do you mean Nelson Mandela, whom virtually all Londoners
> lionise?
I have already identified several examples of terrorist-hugging by Mr.
Livingston. Indeed, that is in the first post I made in this thread...
>>> This isn't war with Muslims,
>> Maybe not, but perhaps you should take this up with the numerous
>> *self-identified* Muslim terrorist groups who explicitely state
>> that they are killing infidels. Then, you can visit with the
>> numerous crackpot Muslim clerics who constantly give inflammatory
>> sermons urging jihad against the infidels, Jews, etc. Finally, you
>> can show me where leading Muslim clerics have, in Arabic,
>> condemned terrorist attacks on Israel by self-identified Muslim
>> terrorist groups.
>> It seems to me that if Muslims *truly* abhored terrorism, that
>> they would have condemned Palestinian terrorists long ago.
No answer here?
Gee, I wonder why. Or is it because you don't think that it's terrorism when
only Jews are targeted? Hmmn?
>> However, if they instead actually think that Muslim terrorism is
>> fine, then I'd expect them to only condemn terrorist attacks when
>> it might produce a political advantage -- say, by taking advantage
>> of ignorant, gullible, sympathetic Western lefties.
> Islamic leaders will issue 'fatwa' on terrorists
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article298109.ece
> Read further down for the details.
Already have. Will the fatwa be in Arabic or only English?
And *if* Islam condemns terrorism, then why are Muslims so remarkably
*silent* about self-identified Muslim terrorists who attack Israel? *If*
Islam really condemned terrorism, then they would have done this decades
ago. Why haven't they done this? <nonanswer predicted>
On the other hand, *if* the Muslim clerics actually think that terrorism is
fine, they would only condemn it when there was some kind of public
relations or strategic benefit. Such as taking advantage of credulous
western liberals who will engage in the most outrageous doublethink and
hypocrisy to avoid criticising Muslim terrorists and those who support them.
Don't you think that it is rather hypocritical for Muslims to condemn Muslim
terrorist attacks in Britain but not in Israel (or the US)?
>>> ...This is a criminal matter, and will be investigated
>>> as such by the police.
>> Ah yes. The way to defeat state sponsored terrorism is to issue
>> indictments.
>> <shakes head> I really don't think that you have thought this one
>> out very well.
> It's worked before, and it'll work again. What you're advocating has
> been seen not to work on previous occasions, and it won't work here
> either.
Well, I hope you don't mind if we just go ahead and kill them while you're
trying to apprehend them.
Only if you can make a logical and reasonable case. You lefties keep
mouthing on about "finding root causes" rather than simply eliminating the
murderous vermin who murder innocent civilians. Well, fine. Please tell me
how you plan to do that. Certainly, the attempts so far to reason with
terrorists and their crackpot shiehks, mullahs and strongmen has not worked
very well. I see no reason now to think that will change. However, I can be
persuaded by logic and facts. Please give us some *specific* things that you
would do to stop Muslim terrorists.
> I once had a chap from Alaska who had the gall to lecture me on what
> London thought of the Iraq war.
I don't know or really much care what you *feel* about the war. I am not a
mindreader and your feelings on the matter aren't really relevant. I would
be interested in the reasons you support or oppose it, though.
And I am interested in the question of how folks who *claim* to be so
concerned about the Iraqi people, can then oppose the removal of a
murdering, brutal despot who was the leading mass murderer of Iraqis and
Muslims over the last few years. Isn't this patent hypocrisy?
Not surprisingly, I can't get any of you lefties to answer that simple
question. Nor can I get you folks to even answer this very simple question:
Do you think a majority of Iraqis wish that Saddam was still in power?
<nonanswer predicted yet again>
You know, if you're unwilling to answer a simple, relevant question about
your ideology because the answer is inconvenient, then perhaps you need to
change your ideology...
--Ty
TT Arvind
> Well, maybe so. But the extremists sure do seem to include a huge proportion
> of the Muslim leaders in the Middle East, don't they?
A good proportion, in all probability, but I have no idea how many.
There are several hundred prominent Muslim leaders in the Middle East,
and we here have heard of barely a handful. I would love to see a study
done as to exactly how many of the prominent leaders support the most
extreme interpretations of Islam, but I am not aware of any such.
But the point to note is that Al Qaradawi, of all people, has condemned
the suicide attacks on London, and in Arabic. For those not familiar
with him, al-Qaradawi is one of the leading extremist Muslim clerics,
who regularly clashes with Tantawi of Al Azhar and is an outspoken
supporter of the use of violent means.
> Yep, the Middle East is just crawling with tolerant, open minded
> Muslim clerics, leaders and intellectuals, isn't it?
I do not think it is, but I doubt the situation is as black as it is
sometimes made out to be.
--
Arvind
There is so much sand in Northern Africa that if it were spread out, it
would completely cover the Sahara Desert.
TT Arvind
> > They've been quite vocal in their condemnation of the latest attacks -
> > even the Muslim Brotherhood seems to have condemned the London bombings:
> >
> > http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR3605
> >
> > --
> > Arvind
>
>
> Yes, seemingly so. But it was done in English. Not ONE of those
> condemnations was done in a language from the mideast, so that it was NOT
> carried in any media sources in that part of the world,
At least some of the religious leaders' statements seem to have been in
Arabic. See, for example, the original of Al Qaradhawi's statement,
linked to by the MEMRI article I posted:
http://www.islamonline.net/Arabic/news/2005-07/07/article15.shtml
MEMRI also links to this page from where you can access the Muslim
Brotherhood's original statement, also in Arabic:
http://www.ikhwanonline.net/poxy/index.php?url=uggc%
2Fjjj.vxujnabayvar.pbz&flags=00110
Tatawi usually makes his statements in Arabic and English. I've not
been able to find the original of this statement, though, so I'm not
sure what language it was made in. Still, at least some of these
condemnations were in Arabic, and that seems to me to be a good thing.
--
Arvind
Morgoth's Curse
wrote:
>The latter, protected by slurred "Rangers," live blissfully unaware that
>radical changes in the world have brought evil incarnate to their very
>doorstep. Then to their amazement they discover that of all people, a hobbit
>rises to the occasion, and really does stand up well when confronted with
>apparently far more powerful and evil adversaries. The entire novel is full
>of such folk - the oath-breaking Dead who come alive to honor their
>once-broken pact, or the now-fallen and impotent High Elves who nevertheless
>do their part in the inevitable war to come.
< blinks>
Slurred rangers? Barliman's beer must have been more potent than we
ever thought.
Incidentally, this editorial is one of the reason why I opposed
Jackson's LOTR movies. Too many people are now using Tolkien's works
to justify and/or illustrate questionable political theories. It is
nothing new, of course, but it is becoming increasingly common and
ultimately it is detrimental to all who love Tolkien's works. :(
Morgoth's Curse
Yuk Tang
news:ee72d1tumamk9f1d9...@4ax.com:
> Incidentally, this editorial is one of the reason why I opposed
> Jackson's LOTR movies. Too many people are now using Tolkien's
> works to justify and/or illustrate questionable political
> theories. It is nothing new, of course, but it is becoming
> increasingly common and ultimately it is detrimental to all who
> love Tolkien's works. :(
Wouldn't this have been the case whatever the project was, if it served
to bring Tolkien's works into mainstream popular culture? People have
always used popular icons to project their theories on. The only way
to prevent it would be to keep them underground, accessible only to
those discerning enough to know how to 'properly' read them. This idea
died with the introduction of the English service, in a language
accessible to the masses, in place of the old Latin.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Ty
> Wes ğu Ty hal!
>
>> Well, maybe so. But the extremists sure do seem to include a huge
>> proportion
>> of the Muslim leaders in the Middle East, don't they?
>
> A good proportion, in all probability, but I have no idea how many.
> There are several hundred prominent Muslim leaders in the Middle East,
> and we here have heard of barely a handful. I would love to see a study
> done as to exactly how many of the prominent leaders support the most
> extreme interpretations of Islam, but I am not aware of any such.
You have assumed a very critical fact not in evidence -- that the terrorists
are actually incorrect in their interpretation of the words of the Prophet.
A couple of years ago, I undertook a detailed and careful reading of the
Koran and the Hadiths. What struck me was how often and how plainly the
Prophet ordered Muslims to kill, conquer, humilate and subjugate infidels.
These works are filled with this stuff. I was surprised to find that the
Prophet never told his followers to love their enemies, forgive those who
trespass against them or turn the other cheek.
And since Muslims hold the words of the Prophet to be both unerring and
*unchangeable* for all time, I am rather perplexed at how the purported
Muslim "moderates" intend to change the plain words of the Prophet without
being killed as apostates. It is perhaps instructive to note the fate of
some Muslims who have tried -- Salman Rushdie, for instance.
So your statement has begged the question -- "are the terrorists really the
ones with the extreme interpretation of Islam?"
> But the point to note is that Al Qaradawi, of all people, has condemned
> the suicide attacks on London, and in Arabic.
Nice. Sounds like he and Livingstone are worthless despicable hypocrites of
a similar degree.
My question is whether lefties are *so* empty-headed that they will ignore
his recent statements calling for the murder of Americans (including
civilians) in Iraq as a sacred Islamic duty. Will they be so stupid as to
forget that he claimed that Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israeli
civilians "...are not in any way included in the framework of prohibited
terrorism, even if the victims include some civilians." Are British lefties
such gullible morons that they will forget that in a sermon following the
Al-Qa'ida attack in Bali, he explained, "Islam does agree to such acts."
Just how stupid and clueless are the lefties? Their response to this
gibbering fanatic will tell us, I think.
> For those not familiar
> with him, al-Qaradawi is one of the leading extremist Muslim clerics,
> who regularly clashes with Tantawi of Al Azhar and is an outspoken
> supporter of the use of violent means.
Well, I would be more persuaded by their condemnations if they condemned
other attacks by Muslim terrorists, such as those who attack Israel. Don't
you agree that if they really believed that terrorism was a violation of
Islamic laws, they'd have condemned the hundreds of terrorist attacks by
self-idntified Muslim terrorists over the last 30 years? Or does Islam allow
terrorist attacks against Jewish women and children, but not British women
and children?
Or do you think that they are probably merely making a PR move and
attempting to swing credulous Western lefties back to their side?
>> Yep, the Middle East is just crawling with tolerant, open minded
>> Muslim clerics, leaders and intellectuals, isn't it?
> I do not think it is, but I doubt the situation is as black as it is
> sometimes made out to be.
Well, if anything, I fear that the situation is even worse. The fundamental
problem IMHO is that Western lefties have simply refused to acknowledge the
fact that their deep anti-Western bias is absurd. This leads them to engage
in all kinds of doublethink, hypocrisies and morally bankrupt
rationalizations to somehow not condemn nonwestern folks whose conduct is
richly deserving of condemnation. The situation is made infinitely worse
because the Islamists are incredibly obtuse, uneducated and irrational. They
interpret the appeasing nature of Western lefties as weakness, rather than
sanctimonious hypocrisy. And so, the Muslim fanatics are emboldened to
continue their mindless and hopeless crusade against the infidels.
Sadly for them, this crusade will fail. The West, particularly the US has an
unmatchable edge in military, organizational, technological and economic
power. I am amazed that it escapes the notice of the apologists that the
Muslim terrorists are reliant on Western weapons and technology that they
could never build or design.
And I think that the people of the US and the UK (and many other nations)
are simply too astute to listen to their own far left appeaseniks. The
Islamists are whistling through the graveyard if they think that American
and British people are as gutless as the French and Spanish.
And sooner or later, the entire West will tire of Muslim extremism and will
launch a *real* war on the Muslims. If a terrorist nuke goes off on the Arc
d'Triomphe, does anyone think that even the feckless, terrorist appeasing
French will just stand idly by and pass down indictments? Will the
sanctimoneous Scandinavians be content to only moralize after a terrorst
attack slaughters hundreds in Stockholm?
How will the US react when cowardly Muslim terrorists slaughter a bunch of
American schoolchildren (like the cowardly Muslim terrorists -- a redundancy
I realize -- did in Russia)?
Eventually, there will be a "last straw". And when there is, the Muslim
world will suffer as it has never suffered before. Morally enraged
democracies make for fearsome and pitiless foes -- ask the Japanese or
Germans.
And the sad part is that the Muslim fanatics are being encouraged to march
toward their destruction by the very same lefties who claim to be so
concerned about Muslims. The Muslim world needs desparately to cut out the
cancer of Muslim extremism, or the West will eventually do it for them. I
don't think that Islam is able to be reformed without a large amount of
bloodshed. The plain words of the Prophet must be altered, which is heresy
and punishable by death. But this already difficult task is made harder when
the fanatics are given encouragement by mealy mouthed, gullible, western
appeaseniks.
Now I know that lefties have, for the last 35 years or so, indulged an
absurd fantasy that military force is ineffective. This is driven almost
entirely by a complete misreading of one war -- Vietnam, and a complete
ignoring of most of the other wars in history. In actual fact, military
force -- when applied seriously and completely -- is quite effective at
eliminating ideologies. Indeed, military force (or the credible threat
thereof) eliminated the four great scourges of the last century (Nazism,
Italian Fascism, Japanese Militarism and Soviet Communism). It eliminated
the evil of chattel slavery in the last century. So I think that it will be
able to eliminate Muslim extremism, though at a very high cost to Muslims.
And the Vietnam lefties are fading. I was 5 years old when Vietnam ended.
There are a lot of adults now that weren't even alive during the Vietnam
War. And these adults will look at history a bit more objectively. They will
note that appeasement usually only encourages evil men. And I don't think
that they will find appeasement credible -- however the lefties try to
disguise it. Ask the Democrats, who have suffered political disaster after
9-11.
--Ty
Pete Gray
tybea...@sbcglobal.net says...
> "Pete Gray" <ne...@redbadge.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d37b5793...@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> [snip]
> > <http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayor_statement_070705.jsp>
>
> As an American, I want to offer my condolences to our British friends. I can
> assure you that America is behind you and will back you up, just as you have
> backed us up in the past.
>
> However, I must comment on the outrageous hypocrisy of the insane Mr.
> Livingstone.
>
Why must you comment? I mean, what's the point? Lord knows, I'm no
supporter of the appalling Labour Party, but I think he summed up very
well why the terrorists won't win -- people everywhere want the
economic, social and political freedom that we in the West still enjoy.
Even people you disagree with may occasionally say and do the right
thing, you know.
--
Pete Gray
Say No to ID Cards <http://www.no2id.net>
<http://www.redbadge.co.uk/no2idcards/>
Ty
>> Still, though, I think I'd rather simply kill the terrorists, kill
>> their leaders, kill their crackpot mullahs and remove the
>> governments who fund abd support them. But while the US and UK are
>> doing so, I strongly encourage you to go to the terrorists and
>> reason with them. Maybe all they really need is a hug...
> Where do you live, Ty? I live in a London borough, and I regularly
> go through the places that were bombed on Thursday, using the
> transport that was bombed (and indeed was there or thereabouts only
> the day before). Don't you think that I might have a valid view?
Perhaps you can comment on this article about how London is becoming a haven
for Islamist fanatics:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/09/AR2005070901390_pf.html
Some relevant quotes:
Abu Hamza Masri, for years a blood-curdling preacher at a North London
mosque allegedly visited by shoe bomber Richard Reid and hijacker trainee
Zacarias Moussaoui, listened silently Friday as his lawyer argued about his
indictment last January on nine counts of incitement to murder for speeches
that allegedly promoted mass violence against non-Muslims. In one speech
cited in a British documentary film, Masri urged followers to get an infidel
"and crush his head in your arms, so you can wring his throat. Forget
wasting a bullet, cut them in half!"
Masri's case is just one of several dozen that describe the venom, sprawling
shape and deep history of al Qaeda and related extremist groups in London.
Osama bin Laden opened a political and media office here as far back as
1994; it closed four years later when his local lieutenant, Khalid Fawwaz,
was arrested for aiding al Qaeda's attack on two U.S. embassies in Africa.
As bin Laden's ideology of making war on the West spread in the years before
Sept. 11, 2001, London became "the Star Wars bar scene" for Islamic
radicals, as former White House counterterrorism official Steven Simon
called it, attracting a polyglot group of intellectuals, preachers,
financiers, arms traders, technology specialists, forgers, travel organizers
and foot soldiers.
Today, al Qaeda and its offshoots retain broader connections to London than
to any other city in Europe, according to evidence from terrorist
prosecutions. Evidence shows at least a supporting connection to London
groups or individuals in many of the al Qaeda-related attacks of the past
seven years. Among them are the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and
Tanzania; the assassination of Afghan militia leader Ahmed Shah Massoud on
Sept. 9, 2001; outer rings of the Sept. 11 conspiracy, involving Moussaoui
and the surveillance of financial targets in Washington and New York; Reid's
attempted shoe bomb attack in December 2001; and the murder of Wall Street
Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002.
...Britain's tolerance of exiled dissidents and terrorist sympathizers has
sometimes frustrated U.S. officials. U.S. intelligence officers say they
respect the sophistication of Britain's intelligence collection among
radicals in London, but some question whether its emphasis on monitoring, as
opposed to the preemptive disruption often favored by the FBI in the United
States, has left the country vulnerable.
"I've been preaching London will get hit long before us," said a former
senior U.S. counterterrorism official who spoke on condition of anonymity
due to the subject's sensitivity. "They have a critical mass of a group of
radicals operating in an open society."
...Although Britain had harbored many of his lieutenants, bin Laden made
clear in a speech not long after the raid why history made the country an
implacable enemy. "The British are responsible for destroying the caliphate
system. They are the ones who created the Palestinian problem. They are the
ones who created the Kashmiri problem. They are the ones who put the arms
embargo on the Muslims of Bosnia so that 2 million Muslims were killed. They
are the ones who are starving the Iraqi children. And they are continuously
dropping bombs on these innocent Iraqi children."
...
One of London's radical Islamic clerics, Syrian-born, Saudi exile Omar Bakri
Mohammed, openly spoke of the time when the city that gave him refuge back
in 1986 would be hit. "It's inevitable," Mohammed, well known for attempting
a public celebration in honor of the Sept. 11 hijackers, told a Portuguese
magazine last year. Among the groups mobilizing for a strike was one calling
itself al Qaeda in Europe. It "has a great appeal for young Muslims," he
said. "I know that they are ready to launch a big operation."
In Finsbury Park, a ragged and lively neighborhood of new immigrants, a
moderate faction has now taken control of the red-brick mosque where Masri
once delivered his fire-breathing sermons. As worshipers arrived for prayers
on Friday, they passed beneath a banner advertising "A New Beginning for the
Mosque" and a "Better Community Image."
Mohammed Nusa, 18, loitered outside, talking about the bombings and the
backlash against Muslims he now feared. That backlash, in turn, may help the
Islamic radicals, Nusa said. He adamantly rejected Masri's ideology but
explained there are always a few among his friends who argue that "if
they're going to make us look like the enemy, we might as well be the
enemy."
***
Comments?
--Ty
Ty
> tybea...@sbcglobal.net says...
>> As an American, I want to offer my condolences to our British friends. I
>> can
>> assure you that America is behind you and will back you up, just as you
>> have
>> backed us up in the past.
>> However, I must comment on the outrageous hypocrisy of the insane Mr.
>> Livingstone.
> Why must you comment?
Uh, because my post was in response to a fawning post about Ken's speech
that sounds like it came from the love child of Bill Clinton (complete with
lip biting) and Capt. Renault from Casablanca ("shocked, shocked").
> I mean, what's the point? Lord knows, I'm no
> supporter of the appalling Labour Party, but I think he summed up very
> well why the terrorists won't win
My point is that his speech represents the height of utter hypocrisy when
you recall that he's been an open terrorist-coddler. Did you actually bother
to read my post? Surely you didn't overlook these paragraphs:
Isn't this the same terrorist-coddler who once characterized the
IRA as "freedom fighters", rather than murderous savages?
Isn't he the same one who condemned the Israeli campaign against
terrorists as "genocide" and has not seen fit to condemn
Palestinian terrorist attacks? Or does Ken only consider it
terrorism when non-Jews are murdered by terrorists?
Didn't this kook also demand that the British press apologize
to sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi for seeking to "blemish his
reputation during his visit to London" in July of 2004? The
[same] scumbag ...who called for the murder of Americans
in Iraq as a sacred Islamic duty [and] that Palestinian terrorist
attacks against Israeli civilians "...are not in any way included
in the framework of prohibited terrorism, even if the victims
include some civilians." [After] the Bali [attack] he explained,
"Islam does agree to such acts." *This* is the kind of
swine that Ken defends. Yet for some reason, he is shocked,
*shocked*, that a terrorist attack was carried out in his town.
What a worthless, hypocritical twit.
I hope that my point is clear now. Ken Livingstone is a contemptible,
morally bankrupt hypocrite. And his admirers must either be complete morons
or equally contemptible.
> -- people everywhere want the
> economic, social and political freedom that we in the West still enjoy.
> Even people you disagree with may occasionally say and do the right
> thing, you know.
Yes, but Mr. Livingstone is a hypocrite who has coddled terrorists in the
past and who now cravenly seeks to escape being held liable for his idiocy.
And any lefty who fails to see that is either an idiot or just as morally
repugnant as Mr. Hug a Terrorist.
--Ty
Tamim
r> I was shocked to hear the news. Please know you have my thoughts and
> prayers, and if possible, let us all know if you are okay?
> Barbara
Yes. condolences.
--
Tamim
> Curious, though, that the "secular" Saddam identified himself with the Sunni
> Arab minority in Iraq. A group that is distinguishable from the Shite
> majority primarily because it holds a different interpretation of Islam than
> the Shites.
Kurds are Sunnis too. He gassed them. He identified himself with a tribe
not with the religion.
Öjevind Lång
wanted to express her grief at the recent outrage and her sympathy with
the people of London. The post was dignified and humane. The first
posters to respond to her message did so in the same spirit. Then
somebody saw fit to turn the thread into a jingoistic, Islamophobic
rant in which the sympathy with the people murdered in London seemed to
be very much pro forma. Others responded, for and against, and the
whole thread swiftly degenerated into a flamefest. I beg everyone to
desist.
Öjevind
Derek Broughton
> "Derek Broughton" <ne...@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:e2g2q2-...@othello.pointerstop.ca...
>
>> I do wish people would stop saying "the Muslims". It's not "the
>> Muslims",
>
> Well, not to be pedantic, but it pretty much *is* the Muslims. More
> accurately, self-identified Muslim terrorist groups are responsible for
> about 90+% of all deaths from international terrorist attacks these days.
>
> More specifically, a self-identified Muslim group targetted and murdered a
> bunch of British civilians.
Not merely pedantic, but wrong. It's not _the_ muslims, it's a group who
identify themselves as Muslim. There are far more British Muslims who
oppose the acts than supported it. By using terms like "The Muslims", you
lump all those who condemn such action in with those who perpetrate it. If
you keep doing that, pretty soon you _really_ end up with the situation
where it's _all_ the persons of that minority who hate you.
--
derek
Yuk Tang
Derek Broughton <ne...@pointerstop.ca> wrote in
news:d638q2-...@othello.pointerstop.ca:
And more importantly, if *Londoners* don't have a grudge against
Muslims after this incident, we'd rather not have anyone else hold
one on our behalf. If Ty wants to rant against Muslims, that's his
right, but not in our name.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Ty
news:das0vh$lnk$4...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
So why did he provide aid to so many self-identified Muslim terrorists?
--Ty
TT Arvind
> You have assumed a very critical fact not in evidence -- that the terrorists
> are actually incorrect in their interpretation of the words of the Prophet.
> A couple of years ago, I undertook a detailed and careful reading of the
> Koran and the Hadiths. What struck me was how often and how plainly the
> Prophet ordered Muslims to kill, conquer, humilate and subjugate infidels.
> These works are filled with this stuff. I was surprised to find that the
> Prophet never told his followers to love their enemies, forgive those who
> trespass against them or turn the other cheek.
>
> And since Muslims hold the words of the Prophet to be both unerring and
> *unchangeable* for all time, I am rather perplexed at how the purported
> Muslim "moderates" intend to change the plain words of the Prophet without
> being killed as apostates. It is perhaps instructive to note the fate of
> some Muslims who have tried -- Salman Rushdie, for instance.
>
> So your statement has begged the question -- "are the terrorists really the
> ones with the extreme interpretation of Islam?"
One finds such statements in the books of many religions, including the
Old Testament, the Bhagavad Gita and the Rg Veda (Christianity - along
with Buddhism - is one of the few religions whose special scriptures do
not contain an express justification of war). What is important, in my
opinion, is not the actual text, but the meaning which believers give
those words. There are those who argue very strongly that what the
Quran says about killing and conquering only applies to a war against
jahilliya, and that jahilliya itself only referred to the pre-Islamic
Arab society. They say that these verses talked about a one-time war
and have no applicability today, just as the Tanakh verses exhorting the
people of Israel to kill and enslave their enemies (or the equivalent
statements from the Bhagavad Gita and the Rgveda) are not seen as
setting standards for behaviour today by most Jews or Hindus. Most
religions tend to evolve towards greater humanism in this way. Islam is
in many parts of the world going through the same process, no matter how
much extremists may dislike it.
Most of my experience with Muslims and Islam has been in the context of
India, and particularly southern (Tamil) India. Indian Tamil Muslims
are a very well integrated lot and tend to be about as moderate and
progressive as Tamil Hindus and Christians. I have not lived in the
Arab world, but the fact that Muslims can have the sort of outlook that
Tamil Muslims do and still remain religious suggests to me that Islam is
not necessarily violent, and the most extreme interpretation is not an
inevitable one.
In my opinion, the history of the rise of Islamic extremism in the 20th
century points to the reasons why a previously obscure interpretation of
the Quran suddenly gained the power it has today, and might also point a
way to trying to fix the problem.
> Nice. Sounds like he and Livingstone are worthless despicable hypocrites of
> a similar degree.
I do not know much about Livingstone - what he said after the attacks
was very well said, but I don't know how it compares to his earlier
statements. I'm not very interested in the man since he (unlike al-
Qaradawi) is not likely to have much impact on my life.
> Well, I would be more persuaded by their condemnations if they condemned
> other attacks by Muslim terrorists, such as those who attack Israel. Don't
> you agree that if they really believed that terrorism was a violation of
> Islamic laws, they'd have condemned the hundreds of terrorist attacks by
> self-idntified Muslim terrorists over the last 30 years? Or does Islam allow
> terrorist attacks against Jewish women and children, but not British women
> and children?
Al-Qaradawi has famously delineated three categories of people who can
be attacked and killed (he includes all Israelis). He recently expanded
that to include Muslim civilians in Iraq killed as "collateral damage"
during attacks on US / UK forces and the Iraqi government. So yes, he
is saying that his version of Islam allows terrorist attacks against
Jewish women and children, but not British. I have not seen any
coherent commentary on why he feels this way. Going by past conduct, he
doesn't really seem to care what people in the West think of him, so I
don't quite think the PR explanation explains it.
Tantawi's condemnation, in contrast, is not unexpected, even though he
is no moderate, because he has consistently drawn a distinction between
attacks on soldiers and civilians. For example, he has said (in Arabic
and English) that civilians (including Israeli civilians) should not be
attacked and that suicide bombings are only justified against soldiers.
Similarly, whilst justifying the Iraqi "resistence"'s attacks on
coalition forces, he has condemned (again, in Arabic and English) the
killing of civilians and the beheadings of foreigners.
> Well, if anything, I fear that the situation is even worse. The fundamental
> problem IMHO is that Western lefties have simply refused to acknowledge the
> fact that their deep anti-Western bias is absurd.
Could you explain what you mean by the "anti-Western bias" of Western
lefties? I am not "Western" in any sense of the word, except that I
happen to live in the UK at present, so I'm afraid I don't quite get the
reference.
> The situation is made infinitely worse because the Islamists are incredibly
> obtuse, uneducated and irrational.
Actually, many of the leaders of the Islamists are very highly educated.
Sayyid Qutb, for example, (whose works are in many ways the intellectual
cornerstones of modern Islamic terrorist ideology, and who was Ayman al-
Zawahiri's teacher) had a master's degree from Colorado State
University. Al-Zawahiri himself has studied medicine and is a qualified
doctor. The footsoldiers tend to be less educated, but even this is not
universal. Recruits from Pakistan, for example, come from all strata of
society.
> And sooner or later, the entire West will tire of Muslim extremism and will
> launch a *real* war on the Muslims. If a terrorist nuke goes off on the Arc
> d'Triomphe, does anyone think that even the feckless, terrorist appeasing
> French will just stand idly by and pass down indictments? Will the
> sanctimoneous Scandinavians be content to only moralize after a terrorst
> attack slaughters hundreds in Stockholm?
>
> How will the US react when cowardly Muslim terrorists slaughter a bunch of
> American schoolchildren (like the cowardly Muslim terrorists -- a redundancy
> I realize -- did in Russia)?
>
> Eventually, there will be a "last straw". And when there is, the Muslim
> world will suffer as it has never suffered before. Morally enraged
> democracies make for fearsome and pitiless foes -- ask the Japanese or
> Germans.
I think the problem is that the enemy is a lot less clear here than it
was in relation to Germany and Japan. Nazi ideology, for example, was
largely confined to one country (the ideology having alienated itself
from the people of most other countries thanks to Germany having
attacked them) where it was supported by the vast majority of people.
Bombing Germany almost to the ground for over six years was enough to
collapse. With terrorist interpretations of Islam, we have a relatively
small foe spread out over a huge area from Indonesia to Morocco, and it
is by no means clear that the majority in that area support it. Just as
the PIRA's post-'75 terrorism would not have solved by bombing
republican areas of Belfast, I think our policy makers are entirely
correct when they say that modern terrorism cannot be fought by the same
means that are used in conventional conflicts.
If a nuclear bomb were, heaven forfend, to strike a major city tomorrow,
which country would we attack?
--
Arvind
mey solli kettavanum illai
poy solli válndavanum illai
Christopher Kreuzer
> Wes đu Ty hal!
<snip>
>> Nice. Sounds like he and Livingstone are worthless despicable
>> hypocrites of a similar degree.
>
> I do not know much about Livingstone - what he said after the attacks
> was very well said, but I don't know how it compares to his earlier
> statements. I'm not very interested in the man since he (unlike al-
> Qaradawi) is not likely to have much impact on my life.
I read an editorial today that neatly summarised what I found worrying
about Livingstone's comment: namely that he put an awful lot of emphasis
on condemning _indiscriminate_ slaughter, followed by a list of those
religions and cultures that the slaughter did not discriminate among.
This sounded all wrong to me, because it failed to make clear that the
emphasis should be on the _slaughter_ rather than the fact it was
indiscriminate. It is worryingly close to saying that slaughter is OK if
you choose the right people.
I feel very strongly that the emphasis should be on how we are all
human, and on what everyone has in common. Instead of labelling people
as being from different religions and cultures, there should be far more
recognition among some of our leaders and politicians that we are all
human. People will always identify with their religion and culture, but
first and foremost they are human. We all know, or will know, or can
know, what it is like to live and die, to mourn others, to be joyful,
happy, sad, angry, and kind, to care about friends and family.
And most people do have the right perspective and recognise this. But
sadly it is all too easy to turn loyalty for the group of people you are
part of, into antagonism towards "other" people.
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Yuk Tang
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:GzKAe.67981$G8.4...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
> TT Arvind <ttar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Wes đu Ty hal!
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Nice. Sounds like he and Livingstone are worthless despicable
>>> hypocrites of a similar degree.
>>
>> I do not know much about Livingstone - what he said after the
>> attacks was very well said, but I don't know how it compares to
>> his earlier statements. I'm not very interested in the man since
>> he (unlike al- Qaradawi) is not likely to have much impact on my
>> life.
>
> I read an editorial today that neatly summarised what I found
> worrying about Livingstone's comment: namely that he put an awful
> lot of emphasis on condemning _indiscriminate_ slaughter, followed
> by a list of those religions and cultures that the slaughter did
> not discriminate among. This sounded all wrong to me, because it
> failed to make clear that the emphasis should be on the
> _slaughter_ rather than the fact it was indiscriminate. It is
> worryingly close to saying that slaughter is OK if you choose the
> right people.
I took the emphasis to mean that the bombers did not distinguish
between cultures, religions, and origins, and thus *all* Londoners
were targeted. The intended meaning being that we should not single
out the Muslim community for revenge, since they too were not spared
from this horror.
> I feel very strongly that the emphasis should be on how we are all
> human, and on what everyone has in common. Instead of labelling
> people as being from different religions and cultures, there
> should be far more recognition among some of our leaders and
> politicians that we are all human. People will always identify
> with their religion and culture, but first and foremost they are
> human. We all know, or will know, or can know, what it is like to
> live and die, to mourn others, to be joyful, happy, sad, angry,
> and kind, to care about friends and family.
>
> And most people do have the right perspective and recognise this.
> But sadly it is all too easy to turn loyalty for the group of
> people you are part of, into antagonism towards "other" people.
More to the point, I feel that if *we* do not feel any antagonism
towards Muslims as a result of this, neither should Ty and his ilk on
our behalf. If he hates Muslims, that's his prerogative. But it's
not something that *London* shares.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Tamim
To whom? Palestinian terrorists aren't primarily fighting for a
religion.
--
Ty
> Ty <tybea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> To whom? Palestinian terrorists aren't primarily fighting for a
> religion.
Yeah, I guess that's why they chose names like "Islamic Jihad", "Islamic
Resistance Movement", etc.
--Ty