This is the post I said I would start a new thread with in another thread.


Yadda wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 2:45pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 26th, 2012 at 9:25am: The question, when using a religious ideology as the "reason" to commit an atrocity is is it really the motive or just an excuse? If it is really the motive, if the individual really believes the voices or the book or what ever told them to then they are prolly legally insane... otherwise no imo If we want to understand moslem terrorism, we must seek to understand what justifies moslem terrorism [in the moslem mind]. The fact is that moslems define all aparent circumstances [which we also see in front of our eyes] differently to us [non-moslems], so as to justify their violence against non-moslems. Q. Are we [non-moslems] attacking moslems and ISLAM ? OR, are we non-moslems defending ourselves [and our communities] from ISLAMIC violence [a violence which is 'religiously' justified by moslems and ISLAM] ? If you listen to moslems talking among themselves, moslems claim and express the belief [in their minds] that the West is oppressing moslems who live in the West, because, we are forcing moslems to obey Western secular law. Therefore; Can moslems rightfully claim that we non-moslems are oppressing those moslems who live among us ? Because that is the claim which moslems make [among themselves], against us ! We non-moslems are the 'oppressors'. And moslem violence against we non-moslems is justified [in the eyes of moslems] ! And that, is the twisted 'logic' which moslems use, to see themselves as the 'victims', who are justified in fighting and using extreme violence against their 'oppressors' [we non-moslems]. Moslems want Sharia law. And where there is no Sharia law in a society, THAT, moslems view that circumstance as the oppression of moslems ! We non-moslems are 'criminals', in the eyes of moslems. That is how ISLAM categorises non-moslems. +++ The self evident 'religious' paradigm which ISLAM intends to eventually 'communicate' to the whole world, is that 'unbelief' [in Allah] is a crime [against Allah,  ...and, against humanity!]. And good moslems want you 'unbelievers' to understand, that that crime of 'unbelief', >> must << attract 'justified' moslem violence. You can see that, can't you!? /sarc off Koran 2.98 Koran 47:8-11 Koran 4.74-76 The content of those three Koran verse groups, together, form a 'virtuous circle'. Each verse group firstly confirms and then reinforces the ISLAMIC 'religious' paradigm, that, 1/    unbelief [in man] is a serious 'religious' crime, and that, 2/    good moslems are 'rightly guided' 'crime fighters', and that, 3/    the 'criminals' deserve everything they get [...because Allah states that unbelievers are in league with SATAN]! Those arguments [above] are 'logically' demonstrated... 1/    "...Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith." [i.e. 'Unbelief' [in man] is a crime.]. Koran 2.98 [ - - The enemy of moslems is identified. All of 'unbelieving' mankind, are the declared enemy of moslems.] 2/    "...those who reject Allah have no protector." Koran 47:8-11 [ - - Here, it is clearly stated to every good moslem, that moslem enmity, violence, and warfare, against 'those who reject Faith', is morally justified, and 'lawful'. /sarc off] 3/    "...And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah...Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan:...." Koran 4.74-76 [ - - Those who reject 'Faith' are ipso facto, 'rightly' deemed as being innately evil by ISLAM, and by Allah. Therefore those who reject 'Faith', are the rightful targets of moslem enmity, violence, and warfare. ...'those who reject Faith' are also described [Koran 4.74-76], as 'oppressors' and as, 'the friends of Satan'.] Once again... 1/    'Unbelief' [in man] is a crime. 2/    The crime of 'unbelief' >> must << be punished. 3/    Punishment of 'unbelief' is morally justified, because, 'unbelief' is a crime. +++ ISLAM, imo, creates a mental pathology, in those persons who choose to embrace it. i.e. ISLAM creates a mental instability [a state of insanity] in those people who choose to embrace it. ISLAM creates a mental instability [a state of insanity] in those people who choose to embrace its doctrines of hatred. A hatred directed towards ALL people, and ALL ideas, and ALL concepts, which are deemed to be non-ISLAMIC. And Western countries, and overwhelmingly the intellectuals in the West, and politicians in the Western countries, see no problem in allowing those persons who embrace the 'ISLAMIC worldview' [who embrace a culture of violence, and ISLAMIC supremacism], moslems, to live and walk among us. Our intellectuals and politicians, imo, are mad, and morally blind. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, our Western intellectuals and Western politicians still claim that they are certain that ISLAM is a benign and peaceful and socially healthy philosophy. IMO, the people who are making such claims are either mad, or morally blind [i.e. morally bankrupt].

Look I am not an expert on Islam so maybe others will join in here. I read the koran a long time ago but my memory isnt the best.

I think the problem here is that you are generalising and using too wide a brush yadda. Not all muslims are the same. In fact most muslims think of the "jihad" as figurative and an introspective thing. Of course there are radicals who take it literally just like another religion we know of.

All sharias may be muslim but not all muslims are sharia.

Islam does not cause mental illness. Radical religion is a symptom of mental illness though.

"In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, our Western intellectuals and Western politicians still claim that they are certain that ISLAM is a benign and peaceful and socially healthy philosophy."

The ppl making these claims have to say that because their religion is also very violent and they claim it is taken figuratively and its actually a peaceful religion. If you want your religion to be accepted you have to accept others religions. (thats their thinking imo).

SOB

The essential difference between Islam and Christianity today is the separation of the personal and the political.

In the West, personal liberty trumps religious affiliation, although political correctness  is pushing us towards the kind of confluence we see in Islam where the political is about religion and it trumps the personal every time.

Soren wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

The essential difference between Islam and Christianity today is the separation of the personal and the political. In the West, personal liberty trumps religious affiliation, although political correctness  is pushing us towards the kind of confluence we see in Islam where the politics is about religion and it trumps the personal every time.

Yes. For the most part.

http://cdn.nearlyfreespeech.net/jandmstatic/strips/2012-04-25.png

All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t

http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/piechart2-1024x1024.jpg
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%).  These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion.  These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.

Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two.  It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group.  The reason that Muslim apologists and their “leftist dhimmi allies” cannot recall another non-Islamic act of terrorism other than Waco is due to the fact that the media gives menial (if any) coverage to such events.  If a terrorist attack does not fit the “Islam is the perennial and existential threat of our times” narrative, it is simply not paid much attention to, which in a circuitous manner reinforces and “proves” the preconceived narrative.  It is to such an extent that the average American cannot remember any Jewish or Latino terrorist; why should he when he has never even heard of the Jewish Defense League or the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros?  Surely what he does not know does not exist!

The Islamophobes claim that Islam is intrinsically a terrorist religion.  The proof?  Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort.  Unfortunately for them, that’s not quite true.  More like six percent.  Using their defunct logic, these right wingers ought now to conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos (or Jews).  Let them dare say it…they couldn’t; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions.

The Islamophobes live in a fantasy world where everyone is supposedly too “politically correct” to criticize Islam and Muslims.  Yet, the reality is the exact opposite: you can get away with saying anything against the crescent.  Can you imagine the reaction if I said that Latinos should be profiled because after all they are the ones who commit the most terrorism in the country?  (For the record: I don’t believe in such profiling, because I am–unlike the right wing nutters–a believer in American ideals.)

The moral of the story is that Americans ought to calm down when it comes to Islamic terrorism.  Right wingers always live in mortal fear–or rather, they try to make you feel that way.  In fact, Pamela Geller (the queen of internet Islamophobia) literally said her mission was to “scare the bejeezus outta ya.” Don’t be fooled, and don’t be a wuss.  You don’t live in constant fear of radicalized Latinos (unless you’re Lou Dobbs), even though they commit seven times more acts of terrorism than Muslims in America.  Why then are you wetting yourself over Islamic radicals?  In the words of Cenk Uygur: you’re at a ten when you need to be at a four.  Nobody is saying that Islamic terrorism is not a matter of concern, but it’s grossly exaggerated.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/

Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06/muslim.radicalization.study/

I am not convinced that religion is the reason for terrorism by muslim terrorists. Religion provides them a motivation in a reward of virgins or whatever but i dont think its the reason for most "terrorism". Certianly not in thier own countries. They arent killing "infidels" there are they.

SOB

SOB,

Terrorism is just the propaganda term coined by the Western powers to de-legitimise the struggle of the Muslim peoples they are occupying, invading and slaughtering.

Yes Islamic militant groups exist, and their methods are sometimes quite severe, but merely in response to what they have suffered. They did not initiate such rules of engagement, they merely matched those of the Western armies that have been attacking them for an extended period stretching back over several decades to a few centuries.

The Western propaganda machine would like us all to become docile to their policies by using fear to scare us into accepting their actions. That is why we are told Muslims are terrorists, lest we ask our governments why they are causing all this grief throughout the world, that eventually comes back to haunt us.

falah wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 11:13pm:

All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/piechart2-1024x1024.jpg Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%).  These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion.  These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company. Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two.  It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group.  The reason that Muslim apologists and their “leftist dhimmi allies” cannot recall another non-Islamic act of terrorism other than Waco is due to the fact that the media gives menial (if any) coverage to such events.  If a terrorist attack does not fit the “Islam is the perennial and existential threat of our times” narrative, it is simply not paid much attention to, which in a circuitous manner reinforces and “proves” the preconceived narrative.  It is to such an extent that the average American cannot remember any Jewish or Latino terrorist; why should he when he has never even heard of the Jewish Defense League or the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros?  Surely what he does not know does not exist! The Islamophobes claim that Islam is intrinsically a terrorist religion.  The proof?  Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort.  Unfortunately for them, that’s not quite true.  More like six percent.  Using their defunct logic, these right wingers ought now to conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos (or Jews).  Let them dare say it…they couldn’t; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions. The Islamophobes live in a fantasy world where everyone is supposedly too “politically correct” to criticize Islam and Muslims.  Yet, the reality is the exact opposite: you can get away with saying anything against the crescent.  Can you imagine the reaction if I said that Latinos should be profiled because after all they are the ones who commit the most terrorism in the country?  (For the record: I don’t believe in such profiling, because I am–unlike the right wing nutters–a believer in American ideals.) The moral of the story is that Americans ought to calm down when it comes to Islamic terrorism.  Right wingers always live in mortal fear–or rather, they try to make you feel that way.  In fact, Pamela Geller (the queen of internet Islamophobia) literally said her mission was to “scare the bejeezus outta ya.” Don’t be fooled, and don’t be a wuss.  You don’t live in constant fear of radicalized Latinos (unless you’re Lou Dobbs), even though they commit seven times more acts of terrorism than Muslims in America.  Why then are you wetting yourself over Islamic radicals?  In the words of Cenk Uygur: you’re at a ten when you need to be at a four.  Nobody is saying that Islamic terrorism is not a matter of concern, but it’s grossly exaggerated. http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/

I wonder how it would look if they ranked them by death toll?

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:16am:

SOB, Terrorism is just the propaganda term coined by the Western powers to de-legitimise the struggle of the Muslim peoples they are occupying, invading and slaughtering.

So 9/11 was not terrorism because it was 'legitimate'?

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:16am:

SOB, Terrorism is just the propaganda term coined by the Western powers to de-legitimise the struggle of the Muslim peoples they are occupying, invading and slaughtering. Yes Islamic militant groups exist, and their methods are sometimes quite severe, but merely in response to what they have suffered. They did not initiate such rules of engagement, they merely matched those of the Western armies that have been attacking them for an extended period stretching back over several decades to a few centuries. The Western propaganda machine would like us all to become docile to their policies by using fear to scare us into accepting their actions. That is why we are told Muslims are terrorists, lest we ask our governments why they are causing all this grief throughout the world, that eventually comes back to haunt us.

Yeah I know. However ppl here seem to take issue when you use the wrong word. The proper propaganda term is "terror" whereas terrorism has a different (political) meaning which does fit better.

It suits the ameircans to get everyone int he world to associate the word "terror" with "muslims". It creates fear (especially int eh gullible masses) and allows them to get away with invasions and stuff.

SOB

Quote:

It suits the ameircans to get everyone int he world to associate the word "terror" with "muslims".

Osama did that, not the Americans. There had been plenty of attacks by Muslim extremists prior to 9/11, but Osama was the one who caught the world's attention - not Bush.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:37am:

Quote: It suits the ameircans to get everyone int he world to associate the word "terror" with "muslims". Osama did that, not the Americans. There had been plenty of attacks by Muslim extremists prior to 9/11, but Osama was the one who caught the world's attention - not Bush.

lol. As far as I know usama didnt ever use the word "terror".

SOB

What else did you expect people to call it? A slight over-reaction?

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:19am:

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 28th, 2012 at 9:16am: SOB, Terrorism is just the propaganda term coined by the Western powers to de-legitimise the struggle of the Muslim peoples they are occupying, invading and slaughtering. So 9/11 was not terrorism because it was 'legitimate'?

I dunno... was nuking the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a 'legitimate' reaction to Pearl Harbour?

Let us weigh these kinds of actions up on an actual scale, rather than just by using emotive terms that have very little concrete meaning.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:37am:

[quote]It suits the ameircans to get everyone int he world to associate the word "terror" with "muslims".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W6LdB24-wU

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


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvNaIOs8rZo

Former Israeli PM Ehud Barak starts Bin Laden rumour on 9/11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFC94AI-rzw




https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9/11:Israel_did_it

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

freediver wrote on Apr 28th, 2012 at 9:19am: abu_rashid wrote on Apr 28th, 2012 at 9:16am: SOB, Terrorism is just the propaganda term coined by the Western powers to de-legitimise the struggle of the Muslim peoples they are occupying, invading and slaughtering. So 9/11 was not terrorism because it was 'legitimate'? I dunno... was nuking the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a 'legitimate' reaction to Pearl Harbour? Let us weigh these kinds of actions up on an actual scale, rather than just by using emotive terms that have very little concrete meaning.

I remember you used to be pretty sure they were illegitimate. Have you softened your opposition to terrorism? Is this something to do with your belief that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century?

Regarding Hiroshima, this was far more than a response to Pearl Harbour. We were at war. This was a real war, not the century long imaginary war between the west and the Muslim world. If you want the right answer, it helps to start with the right question. Hiroshima is usually weighed up against alternative future scenarios at the time, rather than as some kind of revenge.

Perhaps this is the problem with militant Islam and their supporters and excusers such as yourself. They always consider militant action as a reaction to the past, rather than in the context of what it might bring in the future. I doubt Osama's intended outcome of 9/11 was the west invading Afghanistan, deposing the Taliban and setting up a democracy. Yet it was fairly obvious. Maybe it has something to do with fatalism - it was their fate to retaliate against past actions with 9/11, and whatever the long term consequences are, that is also fate (and an inevitable victory?), rather than something they have to take responsibility for. You need some serious mental block to think that picking a fight with the most powerful nation on earth is a good idea.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

I remember you used to be pretty sure they were illegitimate.

I did? I'd like to see that.

I did not pass any judgement on the legitimacy of anything. I personally don't believe an accurate scale exists on which to judge such things in the current geo-political climate.



freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

Have you softened your opposition to terrorism?

I have not softened anything, the issue is around what is defined as terrorism. My position has always been, and will always be, that the U.S and their proxies like the Zionist entity are the primary perpetrators of terrorism throughout the world. I don't know of any Muslim organisation that bases its actions on an ideology called terrorism.

The question for you fd, is do you consider it terrorism to respond to an aggressive and hostile entity that is in your land?


freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

Is this something to do with your belief that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over a century?

I've provided numerous times lists of hostile actions the Western states have carried out against the Muslim world, and continues to carry out against the Muslim world over the past century or two, and still you try to frame this as "your belief"???? It's a well established fact. The only problem you have is, you think Muslims should just accept those hostilities as a natural part of the West's "energy security" and live with it.

You are a peddler of tyranny, an excuser of inhumanity and in the end an ardent supporter of terrorism.


freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

Regarding Hiroshima, this was far more than a response to Pearl Harbour. We were at war. This was a real war, not the century long imaginary war...

What you're really saying here is "We had governments to actually carry out a co-ordinated response to the Japanese hostilities, therefore our actions were more justifiable, whilst Muslims are acting individually, because their governments are all sold out puppets, and therefore no actual war is officially declared, and their responses are illegitimate".

You might think pissing in your own pocket to keep yourself warm is smart, but others will obviously not be so impressed by it.


freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

Hiroshima is usually weighed up against alternative future scenarios at the time, rather than as some kind of revenge.

Hiroshima was an outright deliberate attack of massive annihilation on a civilian population using WMD. Plain and simple. You can sugar coat it all you like, but at the end of the day it is what it is. 9/11 isn't even a drop in the ocean compared to Hiroshima & Nagasaki. If the 9/11 perpetrators were terrorists, then the U.S government must be the most abominable entity on earth.


freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

They always consider militant action as a reaction to the past, rather than in the context of what it might bring in the future.

Right, because we don't believe in just attacking people for no reason, or for greedy reasons like "energy security". Therefore the only paradigm in which we understand hostility to make any sense is in response to hostility. You on the other hand are quite comfortable with hostility for it's own sake, or for securing the energy wealth of others.

You present yourself well in this statement fd.


freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

I doubt Osama's intended outcome of 9/11 was the west invading Afghanistan, deposing the Taliban..

Right... it was just a nice way of saying "get the hell out of our land you mongrels".


freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

and setting up a democracy.

You still believe this tripe?  ;D

Btw did anyone here happen to catch Restrepo the other night? Was a very interesting watch, especially at the end when they mentioned when the valley finally was taken back over by the Talibaan.


freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

You need some serious mental block to think that picking a fight with the most powerful nation on earth is a good idea.

You will learn one day, the Muslim fears nothing but his Creator. Powerful nations come and go.

Quote:

I did? I'd like to see that.

I thought you said that acts like 9/11 went against Islamic principles.


Quote:

I did not pass any judgement on the legitimacy of anything. I personally don't believe an accurate scale exists on which to judge such things in the current geo-political climate.

In other words, who is to say what is right and wrong in this topsy turvy world? It really is not like you to doubt yourself Abu.


Quote:

The question for you fd, is do you consider it terrorism to respond to an aggressive and hostile entity that is in your land?

Terrorism is first about the methods used Abu.


Quote:

I've provided numerous times lists of hostile actions the Western states have carried out against the Muslim world, and continues to carry out against the Muslim world over the past century or two, and still you try to frame this as "your belief"???? It's a well established fact.

Correct. It is 'your belief', and a rather absurd one at that, that the west has been at war with the Muslim world for over 100 year. Osama for example declared war on the west many years before 9/11. Most people didn't even notice at the time. It wasn't until he managed to drag the US and Afghanistan into it that there was a real war happening.


Quote:

You are a peddler of tyranny, an excuser of inhumanity and in the end an ardent supporter of terrorism.

Says the guy who doesn't know whether 9/11 was a good thing or a bad thing.


Quote:

What you're really saying here is "We had governments to actually carry out a co-ordinated response to the Japanese hostilities, therefore our actions were more justifiable, whilst Muslims are acting individually, because their governments are all sold out puppets, and therefore no actual war is officially declared, and their responses are illegitimate".

That sounds very similar to the reason you gave for why 9/11 was wrong from an Islamic perspective.


Quote:

You can sugar coat it all you like

I am not sugar coating anything Abu. Just giving you the facts.


Quote:

Right... it was just a nice way of saying "get the hell out of our land you mongrels".

Are you disagreeing with me Abu? It is hard to tell.


Quote:

You will learn one day, the Muslim fears nothing but his Creator. Powerful nations come and go.

Abu, it is you, not me, who complains so bitterly that so many Muslims are stuck in the middle of a nation coming and going.

Islamic terrorist have blood on their hands of many women and children.

When you see Hamas celebrates deaths of little children it shows the world the animals they are.

Israeli Jewish terrorists promoting killing pregnant women:

http://unitedcats.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/one_shot_two_kills.png

Imagine his surprise when the 'stomach' of the pregnant 'woman' exploded with the impact of the bullet.

You have a really f.cked up sense of humour, FD.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:38pm:

Imagine his surprise when the 'stomach' of the pregnant 'woman' exploded with the impact of the bullet.

What a poor excuse for a human being you are.

Making a joke about gunning down pregnant women is a cause for amusement in your sick little world is it?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 9:53pm:

You have a really f.cked up sense of humour, FD.

Arab terrorists has pretend to be pregnant women before so as to get pass checkpoint.
See Annie you has say to me before that on checkpoints we can be tough to pregnant women this is why!

"Is that a stick of gelignite under your burqa or are you just happy to see me?"

That's not particularly funny either, but at least it's not making light of a tshirt designed to advocate the (unauthorised) 1 shot 2 kills philosophy of certain members of the IDF. Shooting pregnant women - what a hoot.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:16am:

That's not particularly funny either, but at least it's not making light of a tshirt designed to advocate the (unauthorised) 1 shot 2 kills philosophy of certain members of the IDF. Shooting pregnant women - what a hoot.

It does not happen, it is only a tee shirt.

I get it now. I thought it was just bad English - I shot 2 kills.

Thanks for sharing Falah.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:21am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:16am: That's not particularly funny either, but at least it's not making light of a tshirt designed to advocate the (unauthorised) 1 shot 2 kills philosophy of certain members of the IDF. Shooting pregnant women - what a hoot. It does not happen, it is only a tee shirt.

If I wore a tshirt of a pregnant woman being ushered into a gas chamber at Auschwitz, would that you say that's "only a tee shirt" then too?

No, because it's bullshit.

You should kill every other human you see.

They could be some kind of terminator style deathbot under that skin. Or have their bones replaced by C4 I dunno.

Self defence man, self defence.

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:24am:

I get it now. I thought it was just bad English - I shot 2 kills. Thanks for sharing Falah.

You really are a hypocrite.

How do you shoot kills? Some kind of bullet doctor? TODAY FOR YOUR GASTIC BYPASS I WILL EMPTY A FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPON INTO YOUR GUT.

Falah is the one who posted it, not me. If you posted a tshirt cartoon of a pregnant jew being ushered into a gas chamber as a cheap shot against a German, how would people respond? Why is it OK for some but not others, and who is the real hypocrit here?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:33am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:21am: Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:16am: That's not particularly funny either, but at least it's not making light of a tshirt designed to advocate the (unauthorised) 1 shot 2 kills philosophy of certain members of the IDF. Shooting pregnant women - what a hoot. It does not happen, it is only a tee shirt. If I wore a tshirt of a pregnant woman being ushered into a gas chamber at Auschwitz, would that you say that's "only a tee shirt" then too? No, because it's bullshit.

It is not policy and it is not something we do.
Annie if you were in the training I had you would know we are told to treat women with respect in our civil inter-actions.

So Avram,

You wouldn't mind a t-shirt which shows a pregnant Jewish lady being pushed into a gas chamber with a quote saying "Price of gas is getting too high to wait"?

You'd think it was all in jest and just some light hearted humour?

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:55am:

It is not policy and it is not something we do. Annie if you were in the training I had you would know we are told to treat women with respect in our civil inter-actions.

Are Israeli soldiers taught how to rape women in a respectful way?

IDF colonel-rabbi implies: Rape is permitted in war
http://972mag.com/idf-colonel-rabbi-implies-rape-is-permitted-in-war/39535/

Ah Falah - the guy who I read was defending stoning of women after they were raped.

You stay up on that women's moral ground mate....

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:55am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:33am: Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:21am: Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:16am: That's not particularly funny either, but at least it's not making light of a tshirt designed to advocate the (unauthorised) 1 shot 2 kills philosophy of certain members of the IDF. Shooting pregnant women - what a hoot. It does not happen, it is only a tee shirt. If I wore a tshirt of a pregnant woman being ushered into a gas chamber at Auschwitz, would that you say that's "only a tee shirt" then too? No, because it's bullshit. It is not policy and it is not something we do. .

I never said it was a policy.



Quote:

Annie if you were in the training I had you would know we are told to treat women with respect in our civil inter-actions

Yeah I've seen loads of footage of the respect you guys have for Arab women.

Quote:

If you posted a tshirt cartoon of a pregnant jew being ushered into a gas chamber as a cheap shot against a German, how would people respond? Why is it OK for some but not others, and who is the real hypocrit here?

The tshirt was worn and made by IDF soldiers. Posting and drawing attention to it is not a cheap shot at Israelis, it's highlighting an example of the barbarism of the IDF.

It's not okay for anyone at all to promote the murder of pregnant women.


Yeah, I'm petty sure the hypocrite is still you. If this was an Islam related shirt advocating the murder of pegnant Jews, you'd be ramming it down Abu and Falah's throats.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 12:25pm:

Quote: If you posted a tshirt cartoon of a pregnant jew being ushered into a gas chamber as a cheap shot against a German, how would people respond? Why is it OK for some but not others, and who is the real hypocrit here? The tshirt was worn and made by IDF soldiers. Posting and drawing attention to it is not a cheap shot at Israelis, it's highlighting an example of the barbarism of the IDF. It's not okay for anyone at all to promote the murder of pregnant women. Yeah, I'm petty sure the hypocrite is still you. If this was an Islam related shirt advocating the murder of pegnant Jews, you'd be ramming it down Abu and Falah's throats.

But to be fair Annie you're pretty quick on the front foot for the IDF.
I read Avram clearly tell you it wasn't supported and even condemned by his seniors.

Yet you kind of tip toe around the repugnant behavior of Muslims.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 12:25pm:

Quote: If you posted a tshirt cartoon of a pregnant jew being ushered into a gas chamber as a cheap shot against a German, how would people respond? Why is it OK for some but not others, and who is the real hypocrit here? The tshirt was worn and made by IDF soldiers.

How do you know?


Quote:

If this was an Islam related shirt advocating the murder of pegnant Jews, you'd be ramming it down Abu and Falah's throats.

Actually no, first I would ask Abu and Falah whether Islam supports it, like Islam supports rape. After about ten pages I would get a straight answer. Then I'd remind them of it whenever they had a go at someone else for the same thing. There is plenty in Islam that Abu and Falah actually support that I do not have to go trawling the internet for dregs to hurl at them like they do with Avram. I have pulled Avram up on a few things already - but they were his own views, not someone else's.

If IDF soldiers were seen wearing them, they would have been suspended.

Annie kinda leaves that bit out.

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 12:50pm:

How do you know?

Doesn't everybody know?


Quote:

The Israeli army is at the centre of a second controversy over the moral conduct of its soldiers in as many days. The revelations centre on t-shirt designs made for soldiers that make light of shooting pregnant Palestinian mothers and children and include images of dead babies and destroyed mosques. The t-shirts were printed for Israeli soldiers at the end of periods of deployment or training courses and were discovered by Israeli newspaper Haaretz. One, printed for a platoon of Israeli snipers depicts an armed Palestinian pregnant women caught in the crosshairs of a rifle, with the disturbing caption in English: "1 shot 2 kills". Another depicts a child carrying a gun also in the centre of a target. "The smaller, the harder," read the words on the t-shirt. According to a soldier interviewed by the newspaper, the message has a double meaning: "It's a kid, so you've got a little more of a problem, morally and also the target is smaller." Another shows an Israeli soldier blowing up a mosque and reads "Only God forgives". Israeli T-Shirt Furore See pictures of Israeli Army T-shirts at the centre of a row over the moral conduct of soldiers. Above a ninja figure, yet another shirt bears the slogan "Won't chill until I confirm a kill". The revelations, coming so soon after Israel's offensive in Gaza in which hundreds of civilians were killed - many of them women and children - are causing outrage. Perhaps the most shocking design shows a Palestinian mother weeping next to her dead baby's grave, also in the crosshairs of a rifle. It suggests it would have been better if the child had never been born, with the slogan "Better use Durex".

How amusing.


http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15245946


I have nothing against Avram at all. He knows that perfectly well.


Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 12:51pm:

If IDF soldiers were seen wearing them, they would have been suspended. Annie kinda leaves that bit out.

Only after a huge outcry.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 12:25pm:

Quote: If you posted a tshirt cartoon of a pregnant jew being ushered into a gas chamber as a cheap shot against a German, how would people respond? Why is it OK for some but not others, and who is the real hypocrit here? The tshirt was worn and made by IDF soldiers. Posting and drawing attention to it is not a cheap shot at Israelis, it's highlighting an example of the barbarism of the IDF.

Some Palestinian women self-detonate in crowded pizza restaurants.
You are kvetching about a T-shirt.


There couldn't be a better illustration of the moral bankruptcy of useful idiots.

Soren wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 7:59pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 12:25pm: Quote: If you posted a tshirt cartoon of a pregnant jew being ushered into a gas chamber as a cheap shot against a German, how would people respond? Why is it OK for some but not others, and who is the real hypocrit here? The tshirt was worn and made by IDF soldiers. Posting and drawing attention to it is not a cheap shot at Israelis, it's highlighting an example of the barbarism of the IDF. Some Palestinian women self-detonate in crowded pizza restaurants. You are kvetching about a T-shirt. There couldn't be a better illustration of the moral bankruptcy of useful idiots.

You're a fine one to talk about being morally bankrupt.

When was the last female suicide bomber in Israel?

You know it's not the shirt itself that is the problem.

Palestinian women are the biggest problem in my experience.
You worry they have bombs at checkpoints and you must treat them professional.
Also when we was call to civil incidents they are always screaming and shouting - always I find it hard to calm them.
At least with men you can point weapon to them and order but I did not like to do with women.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 8:13pm:

Palestinian women are the biggest problem in my experience. You worry they have bombs at checkpoints and you must treat them professional. Also when we was call to civil incidents they are always screaming and shouting - always I find it hard to calm them. At least with men you can point weapon to them and order but I did not like to do with women.

Generally these kinds of issues could be avoided, if you'd just.. GET THE HELL OUT OF THEIR LAND.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 8:13pm:

At least with men you can point weapon to them and order ...

That make you feel like a real man?   ::)

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:09pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 8:13pm: At least with men you can point weapon to them and order ... That make you feel like a real man?   ::)

No it allows to bring order. Remember we often are called to disturbances.
The West Bank we are the police force not just army.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:45pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:09pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 8:13pm: At least with men you can point weapon to them and order ... That make you feel like a real man?   ::) No it allows to bring order. Remember we often are called to disturbances. The West Bank we are the police force not just army.

Nazi

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:45pm:

The West Bank we are the police force not just army.

That make you feel like a real man?

To bring order and stop disturbances?
No it make me feel I am doing my role in IDF.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:02pm:

To bring order and stop disturbances? No it make me feel I am doing my role in IDF.

Does the gun give you an erection?

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:11pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:02pm: To bring order and stop disturbances? No it make me feel I am doing my role in IDF. Does the gun give you an erection?

Why are you being silly?
Imagine if we did not police the zone and the settlers and Palestinians left to themselves?

I did my job and did well too

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:49pm:

Imagine if we did not police the zone and the settlers and Palestinians left to themselves?

I can imagine... the settler menace would pack up and move out within a week.

A few cheap shots going your way Avram...I imagine they've ran out of things to say.

brumbie wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

A few cheap shots going your way Avram...I imagine they've ran out of things to say.

Is that so?

Do you have anything to add to the argument yourself or are you just here to point out the "cheap shots" of people who disagree with Avram?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:20am:

brumbie wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:13am: A few cheap shots going your way Avram...I imagine they've ran out of things to say. Is that so? Do you have anything to add to the argument yourself or are you just here to point out the "cheap shots" of people who disagree with Avram?

So the one liners about the fact Avram carried a gun and depicting him as a Nazi are fair comments are they Annie?

For my mind, Avram displays infinitely more neutrality and moderation than most on here added together.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:21am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:20am: brumbie wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:13am: A few cheap shots going your way Avram...I imagine they've ran out of things to say. Is that so? Do you have anything to add to the argument yourself or are you just here to point out the "cheap shots" of people who disagree with Avram? So the one liners about the fact Avram carried a gun and depicting him as a Nazi are fair comments are they Annie?

I would love for you to point out a significant difference between Israel and Nazi Germany

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:22am:

For my mind, Avram displays infinitely more neutrality and moderation than most on here added together.

Surely Breivik is much more moderate
How many innocent people do I need to kill to become moderate in your eyes?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:47am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:22am: For my mind, Avram displays infinitely more neutrality and moderation than most on here added together. Surely Breivik is much more moderate How many innocent people do I need to kill to become moderate in your eyes?

So a guy who has done national service (along with everyone else in his country) is now automatically guilty of killing innocent people is he?

I'd argue by nature of his experiences, he knows a sh*tload more than you (or I) about the real situation.

Much like I would know a lot more about the city of Bristol than you would by nature of growing up there.

It stands to reason.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:21am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:20am: brumbie wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:13am: A few cheap shots going your way Avram...I imagine they've ran out of things to say. Is that so? Do you have anything to add to the argument yourself or are you just here to point out the "cheap shots" of people who disagree with Avram? So the one liners about the fact Avram carried a gun and depicting him as a Nazi are fair comments are they Annie?

Avram did carry a gun.

Depicting him as a Nazi is inaccurate

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:55am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:21am: Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:20am: brumbie wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:13am: A few cheap shots going your way Avram...I imagine they've ran out of things to say. Is that so? Do you have anything to add to the argument yourself or are you just here to point out the "cheap shots" of people who disagree with Avram? So the one liners about the fact Avram carried a gun and depicting him as a Nazi are fair comments are they Annie? Avram did carry a gun. Depicting him as a Nazi is inaccurate

As do Australian soldiers.
What do you think he should have carried when trying to keep order?
Paper and pen?

The comments of "does it give you an erection?" are purile and I note he didn't rise to it.

Again more a measure of him than the other idiot.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:55am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:47am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:22am: For my mind, Avram displays infinitely more neutrality and moderation than most on here added together. Surely Breivik is much more moderate How many innocent people do I need to kill to become moderate in your eyes? So a guy who has done national service (along with everyone else in his country) is now automatically guilty of killing innocent people is he? I'd argue by nature of his experiences, he knows a sh*tload more than you (or I) about the real situation. Much like I would know a lot more about the city of Bristol than you would by nature of growing up there. It stands to reason.

Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:55am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:21am: Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:20am: brumbie wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:13am: A few cheap shots going your way Avram...I imagine they've ran out of things to say. Is that so? Do you have anything to add to the argument yourself or are you just here to point out the "cheap shots" of people who disagree with Avram? So the one liners about the fact Avram carried a gun and depicting him as a Nazi are fair comments are they Annie? Avram did carry a gun. Depicting him as a Nazi is inaccurate

Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..

Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..
Yet you still cannot differentiate him from a Nazi..

Idiot.

Can't we ban this bloke again?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:58am:

Idiot. Can't we ban this bloke again?

Oh sorry you got me there..
That is a big difference between him and a Nazi.

It is so ridiculously absurd that there is not even a point in discussing.

You're an idiot and an anti-semitic one at that, proven countless time and by your banning on several occasions...

I will be happy to leave this site forever if you can just admit they are the same or prove me wrong

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 12:03pm:

It is so ridiculously absurd that there is not even a point in discussing. You're an idiot and an anti-semitic one at that, proven countless time and by your banning on several occasions...

The Zionist entity is based on an ideology of national socialism. It believes in the supremacy of the Jewish race/culture, and its supposed right to eradicate those whose land it seeks to misappropriate.

The similarities between Nazism and Zionism are striking, and only someone blinded to reality would deny them.

Gee PP you have a problem with Nazi's don"t you?...did I get this right...you are from Bristol,UK?....I just need to be sure before I answer your questions?

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 8:24pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 12:03pm: It is so ridiculously absurd that there is not even a point in discussing. You're an idiot and an anti-semitic one at that, proven countless time and by your banning on several occasions... The Zionist entity is based on an ideology of national socialism. It believes in the supremacy of the Jewish race/culture, and its supposed right to eradicate those whose land it seeks to misappropriate. The similarities between Nazism and Zionism are striking, and only someone blinded to reality would deny them.

The Baath Parties of Saddam's Iraq and Assad's Syria are based on National Socialist ideology.

The Israeli political system is modelled on the Westminster system.

Soren wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 8:54pm:

The Baath Parties of Saddam's Iraq and Assad's Syria are based on National Socialist ideology.

Correct, probably why Western intelligence agencies have always found them easy to work with.


Soren wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 8:54pm:

The Israeli political system is modelled on the Westminster system.

Yeh sure it is... that's why we see all those Bobbies patrolling around with sub machine guns pushing all the coloured Brits into refugee camps.

Abu, the Westminster system is nothing to do with political ideology, unless you get all ideological about how many houses of parliament there should be.

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 9:48pm:

Abu, the Westminster system is nothing to do with political ideology, unless you get all ideological about how many houses of parliament there should be.

Correct, so that statement would be best directed at soren, who shifted the topic from Nazi/Zionist ideology to parliamentary system.

Islamic terrorists are a problem - in the middle east anyway. They are a bunch of hyped up media instilled fear in the rest of the world. Geez the UK has been battling irish terrorists forever and now islam is the focus?

SOB

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 9:50pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 9:48pm: Abu, the Westminster system is nothing to do with political ideology, unless you get all ideological about how many houses of parliament there should be. Correct, so that statement would be best directed at soren, who shifted the topic from Nazi/Zionist ideology to parliamentary system.

Right, we should ignore his furphy and go back to taking your furphy seriously? Israel has the full spectrum of ideologies. The only bit they have in common is survival.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 8:40am:

Islamic terrorists are a problem - in the middle east anyway. They are a bunch of hyped up media instilled fear in the rest of the world. Geez the UK has been battling irish terrorists forever and now islam is the focus? SOB

Catholic terrorists are celebrated in the UK. They have a day to celebrate Guy Fawkes - some say he was the only man to ever enter the British Parliament with honest intentions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chqi8m4CEEY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8UtojJT8ts&feature=youtu.be


Guy Fawkes is not the only terrorist celebrated in the UK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLrrBs8JBQo

Falah, do you support the 9/11 terrorists like Abu?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 5:49pm:

Falah, do you support the 9/11 terrorists like Abu?

Do you support American terrorists?

No.

How about you puppet, do you support the 9/11 terrorists like Abu?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 5:59pm:

No. How about you puppet, do you support the 9/11 terrorists like Abu?

More then I support the US, but that doesn't mean I support them.

Does it mean you oppose them? Or are you having trouble figuring out whether 9/11 was a bad thing or a good thing?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 6:31pm:

Does it mean you oppose them? Or are you having trouble figuring out whether 9/11 was a bad thing or a good thing?

I sympathize for them and wish that they did have another more peaceful option for retaliation.

Does this mean you think they did not have a more peaceful option?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 8:40am:

Islamic terrorists are a problem - in the middle east anyway. They are a bunch of hyped up media instilled fear in the rest of the world. Geez the UK has been battling irish terrorists forever and now islam is the focus? SOB

Libya supplied the IRA with weapons this has been documented.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8241393.stm

Gaddafi even shitcanned his WMD program when he saw what the coalition of the willing did to Iraq.

With Islam the ideology is repulsive enough with child brides,stoning to death, beheading apostates who leave Islam, hanging homosexuals, amputating limbs, death to those who insult Islam with their blasphemy laws on the other hand it is halal for men to have sex slaves so the terror is just the icing on the cake so to speak.

So why can we be critical of judiasm and christianity yet not Islam does their blasphemy law apply here?

I don't think hanging is a sanctioned punishment in Islamic law. It is not entertaining enough. A good stoning can last a long time and really puts terror into anyone else considering being honest about their beliefs (we all know how Muslims feel about keeping the stats good).

Homosexuals get stoned to death or whipped, just like any other non consensual sex (I refer to God's consent of course, not the consent of the people having the sex).

Baronvonrort wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 7:22pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 8:40am: Islamic terrorists are a problem - in the middle east anyway. They are a bunch of hyped up media instilled fear in the rest of the world. Geez the UK has been battling irish terrorists forever and now islam is the focus? SOB Libya supplied the IRA with weapons this has been documented. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8241393.stm Gaddafi even shitcanned his WMD program when he saw what the coalition of the willing did to Iraq. With Islam the ideology is repulsive enough with child brides,stoning to death, beheading apostates who leave Islam, hanging homosexuals, amputating limbs, death to those who insult Islam with their blasphemy laws on the other hand it is halal for men to have sex slaves so the terror is just the icing on the cake so to speak. So why can we be critical of judiasm and christianity yet not Islam does their blasphemy law apply here?

As i said of course they are bad. Thing is the fear campaign is stupid because they arent the problem in the uk are they, They arent a problem here either come to think of it.

SOB

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 6:44pm:

Does this mean you think they did not have a more peaceful option?

Well they don't

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 7:29pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:22pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 8:40am: Islamic terrorists are a problem - in the middle east anyway. They are a bunch of hyped up media instilled fear in the rest of the world. Geez the UK has been battling irish terrorists forever and now islam is the focus? SOB Libya supplied the IRA with weapons this has been documented. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8241393.stm Gaddafi even shitcanned his WMD program when he saw what the coalition of the willing did to Iraq. With Islam the ideology is repulsive enough with child brides,stoning to death, beheading apostates who leave Islam, hanging homosexuals, amputating limbs, death to those who insult Islam with their blasphemy laws on the other hand it is halal for men to have sex slaves so the terror is just the icing on the cake so to speak. So why can we be critical of judiasm and christianity yet not Islam does their blasphemy law apply here? As i said of course they are bad. Thing is the fear campaign is stupid because they arent the problem in the uk are they, They arent a problem here either come to think of it. SOB

Since when did the truth become a fear campaign?

Islamic spin says it is a fear campaign

Quote:

Thing is the fear campaign is stupid because they arent the problem in the uk are they, They arent a problem here either come to think of it.

So the London and Bali bombings were imaginary problems?


bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 7:29pm:

freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 6:44pm: Does this mean you think they did not have a more peaceful option? Well they don't

So you support the 9/11 terrorists?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 7:40pm:

Quote: Thing is the fear campaign is stupid because they arent the problem in the uk are they, They arent a problem here either come to think of it. So the London and Bali bombings were imaginary problems? bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:29pm: freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 6:44pm: Does this mean you think they did not have a more peaceful option? Well they don't So you support the 9/11 terrorists?

Sort of, its not like I would join their cause but I know that its the west who is in the wrong not them.

If they decided to deliberately kill say, 1 million civilians instead of just 10000, would you support that too?

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 7:44pm:

freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:40pm: Quote: Thing is the fear campaign is stupid because they arent the problem in the uk are they, They arent a problem here either come to think of it. So the London and Bali bombings were imaginary problems? bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:29pm: freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 6:44pm: Does this mean you think they did not have a more peaceful option? Well they don't So you support the 9/11 terrorists? Sort of, its not like I would join their cause but I know that its the west who is in the wrong not them.

That us disgust thing to say.

You are to be ashamed! Support 9/11???

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 7:48pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:44pm: freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:40pm: Quote: Thing is the fear campaign is stupid because they arent the problem in the uk are they, They arent a problem here either come to think of it. So the London and Bali bombings were imaginary problems? bobbythefap1 wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 7:29pm: freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 6:44pm: Does this mean you think they did not have a more peaceful option? Well they don't So you support the 9/11 terrorists? Sort of, its not like I would join their cause but I know that its the west who is in the wrong not them. That us disgust thing to say. You are to be ashamed! Support 9/11???

They should have hijacked tomcats and dropped bombs instead, now that would be moral!

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 6:44pm:

Does this mean you think they did not have a more peaceful option?

According to your delusions fd they had no reason to retaliate right? The West has not done them wrong, and they are just "crying over nothing" right?

So discussing with you a peaceful option is moot, since in your beliefs, there's no conflict or hostilities between the West and the Muslim world, except those initiated by al-Qaedah, because of their "hatred of our freedoms", right?

abu_rashid wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 8:31pm:

freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 6:44pm: Does this mean you think they did not have a more peaceful option? According to your delusions fd they had no reason to retaliate right? The West has not done them wrong, and they are just "crying over nothing" right? So discussing with you a peaceful option is moot, since in your beliefs, there's no conflict or hostilities between the West and the Muslim world, except those initiated by al-Qaedah, because of their "hatred of our freedoms", right?

Only Islamists are revolting against democracy because it is against Islam. Other third worlders want democracy and revolt for it.
And when the Muslims want democracy, the Islamists will hijack them, as seen in Egypt and Libya, and will turn ordinary human aspirations into a religious battleground. Islamists will turn everything into a battle between Islam and everyone else. Jihad, innit.
You and falah are Islamists and you have been doing that very jihad here for years.i

Soren wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 8:30pm:

abu_rashid wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 8:31pm: freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 6:44pm: Does this mean you think they did not have a more peaceful option? According to your delusions fd they had no reason to retaliate right? The West has not done them wrong, and they are just "crying over nothing" right? So discussing with you a peaceful option is moot, since in your beliefs, there's no conflict or hostilities between the West and the Muslim world, except those initiated by al-Qaedah, because of their "hatred of our freedoms", right? Only Islamists are revolting against democracy because it is against Islam. Other third worlders want democracy and revolt for it. And when the Muslims want democracy, the Islamists will hijack them, as seen in Egypt and Libya, and will turn ordinary human aspirations into a religious battleground. Islamists will turn everything into a battle between Islam and everyone else. Jihad, innit. You and falah are Islamists and you have been doing that very jihad here for years.

Why should ppl that dont want "democracy" have it then? All it is is voting anyway and thats corrupt in most places.

SOB

Except democracy isn't really democracy any more is it.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 9:11am:

Soren wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 8:30pm: abu_rashid wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 8:31pm: freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 6:44pm: Does this mean you think they did not have a more peaceful option? According to your delusions fd they had no reason to retaliate right? The West has not done them wrong, and they are just "crying over nothing" right? So discussing with you a peaceful option is moot, since in your beliefs, there's no conflict or hostilities between the West and the Muslim world, except those initiated by al-Qaedah, because of their "hatred of our freedoms", right? Only Islamists are revolting against democracy because it is against Islam. Other third worlders want democracy and revolt for it. And when the Muslims want democracy, the Islamists will hijack them, as seen in Egypt and Libya, and will turn ordinary human aspirations into a religious battleground. Islamists will turn everything into a battle between Islam and everyone else. Jihad, innit. You and falah are Islamists and you have been doing that very jihad here for years. Why should ppl that dont want "democracy" have it then? All it is is voting anyway and thats corrupt in most places. SOB

Er... how do you know they don't want democracy?  (careful, it's a tricky question)

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:10am:

Except democracy isn't really democracy any more is it.

But you are still an idiot.

Soren wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:56am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:10am: Except democracy isn't really democracy any more is it. But you are still an idiot.

Well you sure proved me wrong

Soren wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:56am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 9:11am: Soren wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 8:30pm: abu_rashid wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 8:31pm: freediver wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 6:44pm: Does this mean you think they did not have a more peaceful option? According to your delusions fd they had no reason to retaliate right? The West has not done them wrong, and they are just "crying over nothing" right? So discussing with you a peaceful option is moot, since in your beliefs, there's no conflict or hostilities between the West and the Muslim world, except those initiated by al-Qaedah, because of their "hatred of our freedoms", right? Only Islamists are revolting against democracy because it is against Islam. Other third worlders want democracy and revolt for it. And when the Muslims want democracy, the Islamists will hijack them, as seen in Egypt and Libya, and will turn ordinary human aspirations into a religious battleground. Islamists will turn everything into a battle between Islam and everyone else. Jihad, innit. You and falah are Islamists and you have been doing that very jihad here for years. Why should ppl that dont want "democracy" have it then? All it is is voting anyway and thats corrupt in most places. SOB Er... how do you know they don't want democracy?  (careful, it's a tricky question)

Its not "tricky" @ all. If they are protesting against democracy then they dont want it do they

SOB

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:10am:

Except democracy isn't really democracy any more is it.

Not since Abu tried to explain that Islam is democratic.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:03am:

Soren wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:56am: Er... how do you know they don't want democracy?  (careful, it's a tricky question) Its not "tricky" @ all. If they are protesting against democracy then they dont want it do they SOB

Oh!? You have seen them all protesting, have you?

That cat avatar with half of its face burnt off revealing the machine under the natural exterior - it's so you. Quite horrible.

Abu and Falah oppose democracy. The difficulty facing democracy in the middle east is undeniable.

Soren wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:40pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 11:03am: Soren wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:56am: Er... how do you know they don't want democracy?  (careful, it's a tricky question) Its not "tricky" @ all. If they are protesting against democracy then they dont want it do they SOB Oh!? You have seen them all protesting, have you? That cat avatar with half of its face burnt off revealing the machine under the natural exterior - it's so you. Quite horrible.

WTF are you talking about? Why are you trying to insult me? WTF? I was commenting on what someone said about ppl protesting for and against democracy. Wasnt me that said it. Oh look it was you!


Quote:

Only Islamists are revolting against democracy because it is against Islam. Other third worlders want democracy and revolt for it.

SOB

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:02am:

Abu and Falah oppose democracy. The difficulty facing democracy in the middle east is undeniable.

The west is just as far off, we live in a dictatorship

::)

If government is governed by money which is controlled by a dictatorship then how is that democracy?

I can see why you like Islam so much.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:29am:

I can see why you like Islam so much.

Come on answer the question..

See how religion stuffs everything up?

I don't think it makes people any dumber.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:42am:

I don't think it makes people any dumber.

No. They have to be pretty dumb already.

SOB