Some countries/people are not interested in following the rules.
They will do whatever they want to achieve their undemocratic aims.
The democratic world stands by wringing our hands, hoping to not "offend" anyone.

Idiots we are .



"IRAN'S latest missile tests show the threat posed by the Islamic republic is not "imaginary", US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today.

"It's evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one," Ms Rice told journalists at a news conference in the Bulgarian capital Sofia when asked about Iran's latest test of its Shahab-3 missile.

The Shahab-3 was among a broadside of nine missiles fired off early today from an undisclosed location in the Iranian desert, state-run Arabic channel Al-Alam and its English counterpart Press-TV reported.

The missile is capable of reaching Israel.

"It's time for Iranians to stop violating their Security Council obligations and start fulfilling them," Ms Rice said.

She was in Sofia to receive a medal for her role in obtaining the release a year ago of Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor jailed in Libya.

During her brief stop, Ms Rice met with Foreign Minister Ivaylo Kalfin, Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev and President Georgy Parvanov.

Earlier, Washington had already condemned Iran's test of a missile that puts Israel within reach and warned the Islamic republic to abandon its ballistic missile program "immediately".

"Iran's development of ballistic missiles is a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions and completely inconsistent with Iran's obligations to the world," said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

"The Iranians should stop the development of ballistic missiles, which could be used as a delivery vehicle for a potential nuclear weapon, immediately," he warned on the margins of the Group of Eight summit in Japan."


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23995368-12377,00.html

Israel already has nuclear weapons, but they're playing by the rules?

Another case of Democracy and her Hypocrisy.

"....Iran's development of ballistic missiles is a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions ......"

Adu - another case of "extremist" muslims doing anything they want and a socalled moderate (yourself) saying that is good.
iran has been ignoring the UN for a very long time.  
But that is quite ok if it is a muslim country

scratch a muslim, find an islamic.

Are you normal?

Did you completely miss my post, read something from your own mind, and then respond to it, mistakenly believing it was posted by me???

1) Please answer about Israel.

2) Nowhere did I say it was good, unless you'd like to quote me?

3) Not that there's actually any such noun in the English language as "islamic" (It's an adjective) but wouldn't it make sense for a Muslim to be Islamic? Kinda like mentioning that a Jew might be Jewish.

You are a perfect example of why people such as myself reject Christianity and embrace Islam, you're completely devoid of any logic or reason whatsoever.

Abu - no, I am not normal.
Not for one second did I like ABBA or blieve ruddys populist shams.

I assume israel are playing by the rules.
you never came out hard agaisnt iran - complicit approval.
As is the norm.

thanks for confirming my beliefs on all muslims being islamics and therefore being against freedom of sppech and thought.


Where's your head at ??

I assume israel are playing by the rules.

Why do you assume that?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 10^th, 2008 at 10:46am:

you never came out hard agaisnt iran - complicit approval.

"Qui tacet consentire videtur" ~ Canon Law

http://ozpolitic.com/funny/photos/mad_bunnies.gif

sprint,


Quote:

I assume israel are playing by the rules.

Please enlighten us why Israel developing nuclear weapons is "playing by the rules" yet Iran testing a missile isn't?? You can give no other reason than Party A is our friend, whilst we don't really care for Party B all that much.

You're really nothing but a hypocrite.


Quote:

you never came out hard agaisnt iran - complicit approval.

Come out hard against them for what? What have they done??? When Israel tested missiles, did you come out hard against them?? When they actually developed nuclear weapons, did you come out hard against them???

"Tehran test puts Israel within range   Correspondents in Tehran | July 10, 2008
Iran yesterday test-fired a missile whose range puts Israel within reach, angering the United States amid growing fears that the standoff over the contested Iranian nuclear drive could lead to war.

Arabic-language state channel al-Alam said the missile was a "Shahab-3 with a conventional warhead weighing one tonne and with a 2000km range".

The test prompted a sharp rebuke from the White House, which warned the Islamic republic yesterday to immediately abandon its ballistic missile program.

"Iran's development of ballistic missiles is a violation of UN Security Council resolutions and completely inconsistent with Iran's obligations to the world," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

The test, which included firing several other missiles, comes at a time of growing tensions over the Iranian nuclear program, which Tehran says is only for peaceful power generation, but the West fears could be aimed at making an atomic bomb.

"The aim of these war games is to show we are ready to defend the integrity of the Iranian nation," al-Alam quoted Revolutionary Guards air force commander Hossein Salami as saying.

"Our missiles are ready for shooting at any place and any time, quickly and with accuracy. The enemy must not repeat its mistakes. Enemy targets are under surveillance."

In total, nine missiles were tested, the state-run Press-TV reported. The station showed pictures of the Shahab-3 being launched at an undisclosed desert location inside Iran.

"This is a show of Iran's military muscle in the region in the face of threats from countries who said they would target Iran's nuclear facilities," the broadcaster said.

The US and its regional ally Israel have not ruled out launching an attack on Iran over its nuclear program.

There has been international concern an attack on Iran could be imminent after it emerged that Israel had carried out manoeuvres in Greece that were effectively practice runs for a potential air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

The test-firing comes a day after an aide to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned that Iran would "set fire" to Israel and the US warships in the Gulf as its first response to any US attack on the country over its nuclear program.

"The first US shot on Iran would set the US's vital interests in the world on fire," said Ali Shirazi, who is Khamenei's representative to Iran's Revolutionary Guards. "Tel Aviv and the US fleet in the Persian Gulf would be the targets that would be set on fire in Iran's crushing response."

His comments intensified a war of words that has raised fears of military confrontation and helped boost world oil prices to record highs.

The firing was part of The Great Prophet III war games by the missile and naval sections of the Revolutionary Guards.

US and British warships yesterday completed a five-day military exercise aimed at rehearsing protection of oil installations in the Gulf.

G8 leaders have expressed serious concern at the proliferation risks posed by Iran's nuclear program. "



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23996576-15084,00.html

Not as though they give a toss.  
They either will dominate, or be with 77 eternal virgins .
Given their repressed religion/politics, easy choice !!!

This is like pumping air into a punctured tyre..

Lucky you, you can still pump.

Nonmuslims in a muslim chatroom get banned.
Well before the stage of what you have said.
There is no having your say there.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 10^th, 2008 at 9:05am:

"....Iran's development of ballistic missiles is a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions ......" Adu - another case of "extremist" muslims doing anything they want and a socalled moderate (yourself) saying that is good. iran has been ignoring the UN for a very long time.   But that is quite ok if it is a muslim country scratch a muslim, find an islamic.

Israel is playing by the rules? they have nuclear weapons and no one does anything about it. they have not once had weapons inspections. that is AGAINST your so called international law..

sprint the security council can go to hell. they were created to keep the status quo after WW2 so that the victors of WW2 could have all of the power in the world. that is why Russia, UK, China, US and France are on there. they have veto powers and can vote any way they want, making them undemocratic.

in addition to that, they have no right to dictate to other countries what they should do.. they don't have sovereignty to do whatever they want..

So protecting your country is arrogant! thats BS! Australia does wargames in the asia pacific all the time to show its military might to its neighbours, its a deterrent.. oh i forgot, you don't believe muslims have the right to do that.. we arent human to you.. Iran has absolutely every right to stand up for itself and show it's might, the US has sent 3 carrier battle groups and at least one nuclear sub to the persian gulf.. in addition to that the US has invaded one country on each side of Iran which leaves iran vulnerable.. in addition to that the US has threatened to attack iran and so has israel, do you expect them to just let that happen without fighting back? of course you do.. muslims don't have the right to defend themselves according to your twisted 'logic'

just goes to show if you scratch a Sprintcyclist you find a delusional retard..

and watch people, now he'll have a sook about it.. crocodile tears i say! he's clearly a racist who's only intention is to create trouble and not have productive dialogue..

sprint you get banned in muslim forums because it's blatantly obvious that you are only trying to cause trouble like the troll you are and no one wants to waste their time with you because of that.. they'd rather fruitful dialogue which gets somewhere.. i suggest you get a life.. either that or be put away somewhere for the rest of your miserable one..

Abu, I will try to paraphrase the situation in a way you can understand.

Imagine a US crime show, the two suspects are, Israel,the respectable neighbour, who bought a gun to protect his property and, Iran, which  is like the petulant teenager who says, you just wait 'til I get a gun, yo dis'in on ma bitch and I am gonna bugger you up.

Who is going to get the sympathetic viewing?

As the show progresses, the detectives find out that Israel is actually a bit of a hothead vigilante, he was seen carrying a baseball bat to deal with the elements he did not like in his neighbourhood, and even is known to have beaten up on some of Iran's cousins.

Well that is different, thinks the cop, I better tread warily here.

Unfortunately, Iran is not the sharpest pencil in the box, and does a drive by shooting at Israel's house, to let Israel know he means business.

Now the cop thinks, stupid cracker head, he is going to get himself put down if he keeps this sh!t up, doesn't he know that Israel is friends with that redneck sheriff, 'Dubya', his bitch(Evangelical Christianity) is as pushy as Iran's bitch(Islam), and they are so jealous of each other, they have been stirring up trouble for years.

Now Iran has been doing a bit of martial arts training, and thinks he is pretty tough, he even has some of his bitch's other friends saying that they will back him up, so he decides to hang tough.

Ol' Dubya, is still smarting from that last case where he shot the kid because he thought he saw a gun in his hand, but it was actually just his phone, and he lost a lot of respect over that.
He is coming up to retirement, and he sure would like to go out with a bang, and his bitch really wants him to shut that other smart mouthing bitch up, but he can't afford another scandal.

He tells his old friend, I can't stop you from just protecting your property, but I can't do it for you.
If I just happen to be in the neighbourhood, and I see a wild ass cracker head shootin' up the place, then as a police officer, it is my duty to bring him down.

Thanks Dubya, we can all sleep safer knowing you are on the job.

When the investigating detective hears of all this he says, Stupid rednecks and cracker heads, they are going to start a gang war, but what the heck can I do, they are all fvckin' crazy.
He then catches a plane to the bahamas to take a holiday.

To be continued....

I wouldn't regard Israel as the respectable neighbour. There is a lot of rabble rousing going on there at the moment. A lot of people are almost resigned to first strike, and the Iranians have this position that a strike by Israel is a strike by the US. They don't differentiate.

Don't forget they have 200 nuclear warheads to Iran's one - two? (we don't know if they have any), so unless the Iranian leadership is totally stupid (and I don't think they are any stupider than our politicians), it won't come down to a first strike from Iran.

It's similar to the  India- Pakistan fiasco. There will be no good guys and no bad guys - just a lot of dead guys. While they collectively get hot under the turban (or the kippah), the rest of the world will be drawn into it.  WWIII

On one side we have Hossein Salami (Known as the big Salami to friends)

"the exercise will demonstrate our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with a harsh language."...

On the other side we have Shaul Mofaz (Darth Shaul). Who can blame the Iraqi's for their recent missile tests when we have such rhetoric as this:

“If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack,” Mr. Mofaz said in the interview published on June 6, the day after the unpublicized exercise ended. “Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/washington/20iran.html


Who's right and who's wrong?.............. Who cares?

The situation must be defused. That's what's important now. The stupidity on both sides must stop.

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11708204

Be afraid - be very very afraid.

"I wouldn't regard Israel as the respectable neighbour."

Yeah, the guys who the respectable 'LOOKING' neighbour took the baseball bat to, would agree with you their muso, and the detective came to the same conclusion.

The thing is, to those who are only interested in  taking a passing glimpse, they just see a respectable looking neighbour, but the cracker head, always looks like a cracker head, even at a cursory glance.


It is hard to see a peace maker in this situation, the increasing polarisation of the Islamic world, has seen them become more extreme, and many are seriously looking for a spark to ignite their holy jihad.
Similiarly, the fundamentalist christians have a highly disproportionate representation in US politics, and they are up for a crusade as well.

Who can talk sense to two of the stupidest groups in history?

I do not see anyone on the scene that would be able to expect a respectful hearing from both sides.

Each side needs to have voices of reason from within speak up.

In the US we have the 75% of the population who are not nutty fundamentalists, who will be a potential voice of reason, but can we expect similiar from the Islamic world?
I can't see it.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 9^th, 2008 at 11:51pm:

Some countries/people are not interested in following the rules. They will do whatever they want to achieve their undemocratic aims. The democratic world stands by wringing our hands, hoping to not "offend" anyone. Idiots we are .

Yeah right. Never mind the fact that the Iranians conduct these missile tests several times a year. They test them in the deserts of Iran (i.e. their own country) and given that it is 20 years ago this month that the US Navy cruiser Vincennes shot down an Iranian Passenger airliner in the Persian Gulf killing all on board, these tests are particularly important to the Iranian people. It demonstrates to the nation that Iran can defend itself in the event of something like that happening again. As for using them to deliver a nuclear weapon... that is apparently an enormous technical challenge.

In other words this is one of the Bush Administration's last gasp efforts to provoke a war with Iran before the administration ends.

What are your thoughts on Russia that has directly warned the US that building a defense shield in the Czech Republic will be resisted with military force if it is ever deployed?

malik -  
Quote:

sprint the security council can go to hell. they were created to keep the status quo after WW2 so that the victors of WW2 could have all of the power in the world. that is why Russia, UK, China, US and France are on there. they have veto powers and can vote any way they want, making them undemocratic.

Nice quote - "the security council can go to hell. "
Classic - reminds me of the phrase on a protesting muslims banner - "Freedom of speech can go to hell"
Sure it should not be "everyone nonmuslim can go to hell " ??


What do the members of the security council have in common ?
Not all are xian countries, not all are democracies (till recently).
Oh, I see it now !!!
They are all non muslims - no wonder you say they can go to hell.


don't worry - Jesus loves you.  :-)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 11^th, 2008 at 10:25am:

Nice quote - "the security council can go to hell. " Classic - reminds me of the phrase on a protesting muslims banner - "Freedom of speech can go to hell" Sure it should not be "everyone nonmuslim can go to hell " ?? What do the members of the security council have in common ? Not all are xian countries, not all are democracies (till recently). Oh, I see it now !!! They are all non muslims - no wonder you say they can go to hell. don't worry - Jesus loves you.

"They can go to hell"??... well Bush said as much himself when he knocked up the "Coalition of the Grovelling"

The UN is fundamentally flawed by the Security council veto and hopelessly weak because of it.

Speaking for Jesus again? You're gonna have to get off those pills.

Coalition of the grovelling?

I preferred the quote from my old philosophy professor, Peter Singer.
When asked about the disgusting US, ultra right wing, fundamentalist christian, mercenary army, 'Blackwater', professor Singer called them;
"The Coalition of the Billing"

It is funny, but these guys are as seriously scary as the Islamists, if not more so, they are just as nutty, but have lots of US taxpayers money, and carte blanche from the worst president in US history.

Many people fear that they have got to the point where they have enough force to stage an ultra right wing christian coup, if they decide they do not like the next president, now that is a seriously worrying development.
Emperor Eric Prince.

Maybe those 25% of americans who believe that we are in the "End Times", of biblical prophecy, and that they will be seeing Jesus' return to earth to take them to heaven any time now, should consider that he may actually be 'THE PRINCE OF DARKNESS', that they worry about,  and they are playing into his hands.

Why is it that the most evil bastards in the world, are so deeply religious?

mozzaok wrote on Jul 11^th, 2008 at 11:22am:

Coalition of the grovelling? I preferred the quote from my old philosophy professor, Peter Singer. When asked about the disgusting US, ultra right wing, fundamentalist christian, mercenary army, 'Blackwater', professor Singer called them; "The Coalition of the Billing" It is funny, but these guys are as seriously scary as the Islamists, if not more so, they are just as nutty, but have lots of US taxpayers money, and carte blanche from the worst president in US history. Many people fear that they have got to the point where they have enough force to stage an ultra right wing christian coup, if they decide they do not like the next president, now that is a seriously worrying development. Emperor Eric Prince. Maybe those 25% of americans who believe that we are in the "End Times", of biblical prophecy, and that they will be seeing Jesus' return to earth to take them to heaven any time now, should consider that he may actually be 'THE PRINCE OF DARKNESS', that they worry about,  and they are playing into his hands. Why is it that the most evil bastards in the world, are so deeply religious?

Yes, I agree with you on all points. End Times? Bloody hell. Maybe they should hit the history books and check out the Great Depression or WW2 or the crisis points during the Cold War. How many times more frightening were those days compared to today?

Peter Singer? What illustrious company you keep!

mozzaok wrote on Jul 11^th, 2008 at 11:22am:

.... from my old philosophy professor, Peter Singer.

Wow! You knew Peter Singer. Cool. That means that you've studied in either Melbourne U, Monash U or Princeton U - tell me it's NOT Princeton!

What are your thoughts about his position that killing handicap newborns is justified and that its a form of eugenics? This, possibly should be another thread.

:)

Singer is not my friend, he was my philosophy teacher at LaTrobe uni, back in the mid 70's.

To be totally honest, he always seemed a bit of a goose.

Look I agree in principle with some of the more extreme philosophies, but only in theory, the sad fact is I have never come across a system I trust enough to administer such life and death decisions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1y47K29J1o

Iranians Tested Missiles AFTER Israel had conducted exercises that would be practicing an attack on Iran

http://jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com/2008/05/hot-persian-iranian-babes-why-muslim.html

Leave Iran alone!!!

Look at the one in the pool. She is hot without being a tart.

wwhhhoooo hhhoooo !!

Yasmin Chauri

darn, it's good to be a man when there is such eye candy !!!!!!!

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 18^th, 2008 at 10:50pm:

wwhhhoooo hhhoooo !! Yasmin Chauri darn, it's good to be a man when there is such eye candy !!!!!!!

And THAT is the EXACT reason why Muslim women are supposed to cover up, so they don't get objectified by pigs like you.  :)

Thanks for proving it.

Yep sprint and easel have validated the fact that good chaste women are right in covering themselves.

That one in the pool...... I just want to cover her in.... kisses.

What's wrong with looking? Good on God for making beautiful women for us to look at.

It's not like he's tempted to rape her.

Men get objectified by women also. Why not have men covered head to toe?

I think I have to move to Iran for some of these Persian princesses.  :o

easel wrote on Jul 19^th, 2008 at 12:13am:

That one in the pool...... I just want to cover her in.... kisses. What's wrong with looking? Good on God for making beautiful women for us to look at. It's not like he's tempted to rape her. Men get objectified by women also. Why not have men covered head to toe? I think I have to move to Iran for some of these Persian princesses.  :o

Women are not there for you to look at to be your 'eye candy' they are not sexual objects and your objectification of them disgusts me.

Hey who said I have considered her a sexual object? I am just admiring her beauty like you would a sunset. And I really want to kiss her, but not sex her.

Also, some women view men as sexual objects.

easel wrote on Jul 19^th, 2008 at 12:24am:

Hey who said I have considered her a sexual object? I am just admiring her beauty like you would a sunset. And I really want to kiss her, but not sex her. Also, some women view men as sexual objects.

Oh please! What rubbish. Your objectifying the women and your trying to justify it.

Get real mate.

You and Sprint are pigs.

I'm not a pig.

Is there something wrong with wanting to kiss girls?

In that case, I change my mind. I want to kiss the guy riding the motorbike.

Also, in Iran, where it is illegal to be gay, they help you get sex changes so you can be straight.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/muslim_women.htm

Muslim men, those lusty critters! They save their ogling and objectifying for heaven!

easel wrote on Jul 19^th, 2008 at 12:13am:

I think I have to move to Iran for some of these Persian princesses.  :o

I must admit that she's pretty spectacular. I agree totally. You can appreciate a beautiful woman without having sexual feelings for her.

I've been totally faithful to my wife all my life, and I've worked with some  very nice looking women at work.

I've never been to Iran, but I've worked in Qatar and the Emirates. The problem is that men there are not used to seeing women dressed in Western garb. From stories from western women who have ventured out to the markets alone, there are some really sick puppies over there. They complained about having their bottoms pinched and worse. On another occasion a girl was buying some clothes. The male assistant deliberately rubbed up against her and to quote 'it wasn't a gun in his front pocket' and she was totally grossed out.

That kind of thing just illustrates how unhealthy that kind of society is. Many Arab men smuggle pornography in regularly. They don't actually swear in Arabic. It's quite funny to hear them on the phone. They switch from Arabic to English and back. They manage to fit in quite a few swear words that way. The point is that with so much repressed sexuality, it's  driven underground, and men seem to have difficulty just speaking to women without getting all aroused. They avoid eye contact in some cases.

I'm not saying that all men are like that over there. It's just that there seems to be a higher proportion of (for want of a better expression) perverts who just seem totally ignorant of how to speak to a woman face to face, or see her as another human being.  

I remember way back when I was at school. I went to a private school. that had recently turned co-ed. In year 11 of school, boys and girls were segregated in common rooms. In year 12, we were mixed.  The strange thing was that the girls has a civilizing influence on us in year 12. The society was unbalanced in year 11. It wasn't a sexual thing.  Girls spoke about the same thing.  I had many girls who were just friends. I somehow wonder if that kind of thing would be possible in the  Gulf.

Indonesia is different of course. I found Indonesian society to be much healthier, but then many women there go on to Tertiary qualifications    .

muso,


Quote:

The problem is that men there are not used to seeing women dressed in Western garb. From stories from western women who have ventured out to the markets alone, there are some really sick puppies over there

That's because they're losers who think that any western woman dressed like that is 'easy'.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 19^th, 2008 at 9:30pm:

That's because they're losers who think that any western woman dressed like that is 'easy'.

Muslims who think that Western women are easy by the way they dress should not feel indignant about the same kind of generalising that the West make of Muslim culture.

If Indonesian and Malaysian Muslim men can have self control why can't Middle eastern Muslims?

Acid,

If one truly understands why some Arab men are the way they are, then it'd be obvious why the contrast exists between Indonesians for instance and Arabs.

Arabic society (Christians as well as Muslims) suffers from a disease which is called EDS or Excessive Dowry Syndrome. Most Arabic fathers demand exorbitantly high dowries of any prospective young lad that might be considering marrying their daughter. this sickness means that most Arab men cannot afford to marry until they are well into their 30's. the same sickness luckily does not exist in Indonesia.

Although some others on here would have us believe the reason some Arab men are obsessed with sex and scantily clad Westerners is that they don't get to see women walking around half naked all the time, it's clearly just a fiction from their own minds that would help to feed their lust for exotic Persian women (which we've seen demonstrated in this thread already).

Muslims have lived by rules of covering and fidelity before marriage for well over 1000 years, and they didn't have the problems they have today. Those problems do not stem from the Islamic social system, they stem from people in the post-Islamic period adhering to non-Islamic traditions relating to marriage and dowries.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 1:56am:

Arabic society (Christians as well as Muslims) suffers from a disease which is called EDS or Excessive Dowry Syndrome. Most Arabic fathers demand exorbitantly high dowries of any prospective young lad that might be considering marrying their daughter. this sickness means that most Arab men cannot afford to marry until they are well into their 30's. the same sickness luckily does not exist in Indonesia.

Yeah. That's something I wasn't aware of, but what you say makes perfect sense. It's definitely an Arab thing and not an Islam thing.  It fits with my experience.

With such frustration in Arab countries, I can almost see how the tradition of covering up women originated among the Arabs, and of course, the Arabs are at the core of Islam.

The tradition has never been well accepted in Malaysia and Indonesia until more recently, and even now it's resisted. They have much healthier societies.

Get real you guys, why the hell do rational people wish to accept ludicrous justifications for bad behaviour from religious nutters?

Appeasement?

The thing that is wrong with that is, the fwits who are doing the wrong thing, have the decent people making allowances for them, I used to do the same, it is reverse prejudice at work, where you make greater allowances for people who are different.
Eventually I saw that this is just another form of prejudice which some choose to exploit.

Have you ever watched an aboriginal work a trendy pub?
I did, and from then on I decided to try and ignore imposed acquisition of guilt, and just treat all on an individual basis, on individual merit.

Abu's attempt at absolving Islam from any association to sick sexual attitudes is a case in point, any system which subjugates, segregates and stereotypes women as either chaste or sluts, is always at the root of bad behaviour.
Christianity still has remnants of the madonna or whore attitude to women, in the modern world, religious bastions of sexual dysfunctionality should not be tolerated, they are wrong, and sick.

Although some others on here would have us believe the reason some Arab men are obsessed with sex and scantily clad Westerners is that they don't get to see women walking around half naked all the time

It's not that Abu. They watch plenty of porn. It's just that they are taught that women are sex objects, for example by being told that the onus is on women to cover up to prevent men assaulting them.

Muslims have lived by rules of covering and fidelity before marriage for well over 1000 years, and they didn't have the problems they have today.

Yes they did. Europe used to oppress women also. It was only relatively recently that the middle east stopped selling their women as slaves. The middle east of today is actually far better, not worse than it used to be.

Those problems do not stem from the Islamic social system, they stem from people in the post-Islamic period adhering to non-Islamic traditions relating to marriage and dowries.

No, the problems were always there. It's just that Islam is keeping them in the dark ages. Malaysia etc also reject the more extreme elements of Islam.

muso,


Quote:

Yeah. That's something I wasn't aware of, but what you say makes perfect sense. It's definitely an Arab thing and not an Islam thing.  It fits with my experience

It's not even really an Arab thing. They never used to it until recently. Prior to the past 100-200 years, a dowry would often consist of the lad memorising a certain long chapter of the Qur'an or other such religious achievement.


Quote:

With such frustration in Arab countries, I can almost see how the tradition of covering up women originated among the Arabs, and of course, the Arabs are at the core of Islam.

This is totally wrong. As I said above, this frustration situation didn't exist before. Arabs used to marry in their early teens almost all the time. I have a friend from Jordan, whose grandfather (so we're talking less than 100 years ago now) married at age 12, and this was common in his time, but is becoming very uncommon in the last few generations.

Covering up, for both men and women is an Islamic religious requirement, and has nothing to do with Arabs.


Quote:

The tradition has never been well accepted in Malaysia and Indonesia until more recently, and even now it's resisted. They have much healthier societies

This is just plain wrong also. Indonesians and Malaysians always covered up when they accepted Islam. It was only when the secularists came to power and then the secularists came to power that it became less of a requirement. But now people are waking up and returning to it.

freediver,


Quote:

It's not that Abu. They watch plenty of porn

Do they? And how do you know this?

Doesn't sound like a very empirically based statement.


Quote:

It's just that they are taught that women are sex objects, for example by being told that the onus is on women to cover up to prevent men assaulting them.

This is just rubbish, please leave garbage like this where it belongs, in sensationalised tabloid headlines.


Quote:

Yes they did. Europe used to oppress women also.

Society covering themselves up isn't oppression, so this statement just contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion.


Quote:

It was only relatively recently that the middle east stopped selling their women as slaves

Are we talking about the middle east, as in the real physical tangible location on planet earth? Or the fictional setting in the writings of the famous orientalists?

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 11:39am:

Covering up, for both men and women is an Islamic religious requirement, and has nothing to do with Arabs.

Mate, Islamic religious requirements have everything to do with Arabs. It has a fair bit of Arabic baggage including some pre-Muslim elements such as the Jinn.

Mozz- All I was saying is that what Abu said was consistent with my observation that Arab men are (in some cases) a bunch of sexually frustrated perverts, but that Indonesian men (in most cases) are relatively normal.

I think he's right in this case, that it's not directly related to Islam.  

I think we have different paradigms when it comes to religions in general. It's not appeasement. I genuinely think that personal religions have more positives than negatives, and I don't think that they are more deluded, or any less rational than you or me.  

I think that religions have the function of a personal focus mechanism and motivational tool. They feed the spiritual part of the brain. You don't need to have a religion to do all this, but for millions of people worldwide, they are incapable of focusing any other way.

I'm not your typical atheist. You'd probably be appalled, but I have taken part in religious services and have even offered my prayers. Of course I don't believe that my prayers go to some supernatural being, but they did have a motivational purpose for the individual concerned. I'm quite comfortable with most religions, including Islam, although at this point in time, the positive aspects of Islam probably need to be emphasised over others.

More bulldust  from Abu.

He should know a lot about the middle east shouldn't he, 'cause he is always in da nile! ::)

Pretend all you like that Islam treats men and women equally, NOBODY ON EARTH believes it.
Even muslims know it is a line of bull, but insist on trotting out the usual trite justifications, but the fact remains that their religion promotes a barbaric, outdated view of relationships and sexuality, and THAT has very much to do with the gross, sexist behaviour displayed too often to be ignored, by too many muslims to discount it as being unrepresentative.

Is BARBARIC too strong a word to describe forced female circumcision?
No civilised person would think so.
These puppies are so sexually dysfunctional that they mutilate female children, to lessen the likelihood of them being able to enjoy a healthy sex life, but it is God's will of course.

Pretending these sick perversions of MEN, has anything to do with god, or his will, is perverse.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 11:44am:

freediver, Quote: It's not that Abu. They watch plenty of porn Do they? And how do you know this?

LOL. It wouldn't surprise me for some people I met in the Emirates, but it would be totally in secret if they do. They're likely to get an extremity cut off otherwise.

Quote:

Mate, Islamic religious requirements have everything to do with Arabs. It has a fair bit of Arabic baggage including some pre-Muslim elements such as the Jinn.

Jinn, or non-corporeal beings have been mentioned in most other religions not just in Islam and not just from the Arabs. Islam came and destroyed the pre-existing Arabic culture, that's why they fought so hard against it.

Islam has far more in common with the other Abrahamic religions than it does with pre-Islamic Arabic culture. Especially things like dress standards, I know people like to imagine that Arabs were always these robed/cloaked desert dwellers, but the fact is pre-Islamic Arabs had no qualms with their women walking around half naked or being shared around amongst their fellow gents, these moralistic traits of Islamic culture have nothing at all to do with Arabs, apart from the fact an Arab (Muhammad (Pbuh)) happened to deliver the message.

mozza.


Quote:

Is BARBARIC too strong a word to describe forced female circumcision?

As usual we find you at the bottom of the barrel attempting to scrape together some pathetic argument or another.

FGM is not permitted in Islam, Muhammad (pbuh) specifically forbade damaging anyone's sexual organs.

The only Muslims who really practise this sick ritual are Africans who have a pre-Islamic custom of performing this. And in their countries you'll usually find Muslims and non-Muslims alike performing it.

Again your display your ignorance for all to see.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 1:13pm:

Is BARBARIC too strong a word to describe forced female circumcision? No civilised person would think so. These puppies are so sexually dysfunctional that they mutilate female children, to lessen the likelihood of them being able to enjoy a healthy sex life, but it is God's will of course. Pretending these sick perversions of MEN, has anything to do with god, or his will, is perverse.

FGM is completely forbidden in Islam, in fact my understanding of hadith whoever commits the crime on a girl gets the death penalty in Islam. What you fail to see through that cloud of stupidity and hate that you always seem to be influenced by is that FGM is a tribal practice which was around way before Islam, if you go to Egypt and other places in Africa where it's practiced you'll find that it's done by Christians and Jews as well. Thus the problem is not Islam, in fact it's the lack of Islam and the excess of primitive tribal cultural practices in the area.

So how about you get your facts right so you don't look so retarded next time okay?

Women and islam ??
how this thread has gone offtopic.


abu and malik - your personal abuse directed to others does not help your cause.
Your inability to accept any fault any muslim has done shows a disturbing mindset.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 4:55pm:

Women and islam ?? how this thread has gone offtopic. abu and malik - your personal abuse directed to others does not help your cause. Your inability to accept any fault any muslim has done shows a disturbing mindset.

Sprint, the fact remains that you and Mozza both come up with outlandish accusations about Islam, not just the actions of some Muslims. I accept that all Muslims make mistakes and some outright try and do the wrong thing and they should be condemned for it. But  You blame the problems on Islam when it's not the fault of Islam so quite frankly I couldn't care less what you think of my comments. You both intentionally try and incite hate in Islam by misrepresenting the facts on the matter. It's either because you just believe everything you hear without checking the facts, making you gullible and stupid. Or you know it's not true and you just try to make it look like it is in an attempt to incite hate in Islam and Muslims, making you far worse..

So which one is it? Are you stupid and gullible or are you deceitful?

If you wanna act stupid or deceitful, I'll treat you like it and ridicule you for it.

One day however, if you change your ways and start discussing matters appropriately without outlandish accusations without truth to them and start applying the same standards on judging Islam that you use for your own belief systems then perhaps I wont ridicule your stupid and deceitful comments and we can actually have productive discussions. I have no faith that either of you will do the right thing, especially you Sprint, you are like a snake when it comes to sticking to your word on these things because thus far you've already burnt the olive grove down.

Quote:

abu and malik - your personal abuse directed to others does not help your cause

Care to quote where I directed any personal abuse at anyone?

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 2:43pm:

FGM is not permitted in Islam, Muhammad (pbuh) specifically forbade damaging anyone's sexual organs.

I thought all muslim guys had to be circumcised?

easel wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 6:00pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 20th, 2008 at 2:43pm: FGM is not permitted in Islam, Muhammad (pbuh) specifically forbade damaging anyone's sexual organs. I thought all muslim guys had to be circumcised?

Yes, but male circumcision is different than FGM, that is why it's called FGM, that's FEMALE genital mutilation

Quote:

Muhammad (pbuh) specifically forbade damaging anyone's sexual organs.

I was just going by what he wrote there. I for one, am happy to be left exactly the way as God intended me to be. I feel more spiritually whole for it.

Circumcision is not the same as mutilation.

Circumcision is when small incisions are made which do not damage the function of the sexual organs, and Islam encourages this for both male and female, but not the mutilation some people do in Arican countries, which is what we know as FGM.

circumcision is a 500 year regression from Jesus.


"Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised.
The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ.
Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh."

Galations 6:12, 13

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 7:35pm:

circumcision is a 500 year regression from Jesus. "Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh." Galations 6:12, 13

LOL, so why do so many Christians in Africa do it?

I might add that even the Bible recognises those as NOT being Christ pbuh's words

[url][/url]http://www.indonesiamatters.com/648/female-circumcision/

The Ulema Council, Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI), says female circumcision is necessary for Muslims.
                                  And more
It's Indonesia's biggest secret. Most of its women have been subjected to an operation which the World Health Organisation says is unnecessary. Matthew Moore and Karuni Rompies report.
                                  And more
Dhimmitude in Europe advances apace. Hot on the heels of a Swiss court's reinstating Hani Ramadan to his teaching position despite his advocating stoning for adultery, a mosque in the Netherlands has come out with a pamphlet advocating female genital mutilation. From Expatica, with thanks to "Allah.
                                  And finally
Where is FGM Practised?

The majority of cases of FGM are carried out in 28 African countries. In some countries, (e.g. Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan), prevalence rates can be as high as 98 per cent. In other countries, such as Nigeria, Kenya, Togo and Senegal, the prevalence rates vary between 20 and 50 per cent. It is more accurate however, to view FGM as being practised by specific ethnic groups, rather than by a whole country, as communities practising FGM straddle national boundaries. FGM takes place in parts of the Middle East, i.e. in Yemen, Oman, Iraqi Kurdistan, amongst some Bedouin women in Israel, and was also practised by the Ethiopian Jews, and it is unclear whether they continue with the practice now that they are settled in Israel. FGM is also practised among Bohra Muslim populations in parts of India and Pakistan, and amongst Muslim populations in Malaysia and Indonesia.

As a result of immigration and refugee movements, FGM is now being practiced by ethnic minority populations in other parts of the world, such as USA, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. FORWARD estimates that as many as 6,500 girls are at risk of FGM within the UK every year.
Consequences of FGM

So, while we see it crosses religious boundaries, and countries have moved to ban it, the ignorance and barbarity continues, and Islam is one of those ignorant forces behind it's continuance.

I think perhaps it is time to clarify what you define as FGM.

The World Health Organization defines FGM as the following:


Quote:

Female genital mutilation is classified into four major types: *Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, rarely, the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris) as well. *Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are "the lips" that surround the vagina). *Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, and sometimes outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris. *Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.

All four of these are considered forbidden in Islam and are punishable by death, in particular infibulation.

What is considered 'female circumcision' in the Islamic world at least is the removal or reduction of the clitoral hood to promote cleanliness, it is not harming any of the woman's genitals at all and doesn't take away a woman's ability to have sexual satisfaction. It promotes cleanliness just as male circumcision does and in fact can increase a woman's pleasure during sexual intercourse.

This practice is also done by many doctors in the West including the two following:

http://www.altermd.com/clitoropexy_clitoral_hood_reduction.htm

http://www.drkarenboyle.com/clitoral_hood_reduction_clitoropexy.html

That is not FGM and is acceptable in Islam. Unlike Christianity, Islam encourages sex with ones wife/husband and even to the extent of it being something that one receives blessings from God for.

Mozzaok - mind if I copy that to the "women in islam" thread ?

Quote:

The Ulema Council, Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI), says female circumcision is necessary for Muslims

If you actually did some proper research you'd find female circumcision is not the same as FGM, that's why they coined that acronym, to prevent confusion. Female circumcision as practised in Islam (which it's hardly even practised, those figures about Egypt are just ridiculous, perhaps amongst some tribal groups in the south) forbids the mutilation of the genital organs, and is just as safe and harmless as male circumcision.

Quote:

Mozzaok - mind if I copy that to the "women in islam" thread ?

If you wanna make yourself look as foolish as he did, why would he mind?

Sure sprint, you don't have to ask, if I don't mean it, I don't say it, except for jokes of course.

Good you cleared that up Malik, I can see how I, and several million muslims have it all wrong, please don't stone us.

I wish monty python were still around, they would have a ball taking the piss out of your silly religion,

You are charged with littering, DEATH,Next.
You are charged with jaywalking, DEATH, Next.
You are charged with rape, what's that, she had part of her arm showing, and a wisp of hair, DEATH, to the whore, you are free to go.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 9:44pm:

Quote: Mozzaok - mind if I copy that to the "women in islam" thread ? If you wanna make yourself look as foolish as he did, why would he mind?

My theory is that Sprint doesn't get bothered by humilitation, in fact I think he's a sadist and loves being intellectually bitchslapped across the forums with the truth.. That's why he makes so many stupid comments without any facts behind it, just because he knows that he is going to be corrected and when he is corrected, it will be with style.

Sprint, you should seriously seek some help.

that's quite a collection of personal abuse you have hurled at me malik.

I'ld probably be charged with "turning the other cheek" - DEATH.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:08pm:

You are charged with littering, DEATH,Next. You are charged with jaywalking, DEATH, Next. You are charged with rape, what's that, she had part of her arm showing, and a wisp of hair, DEATH, to the whore, you are free to go.

Mozz, I'm sure that Malik and Abu won't feel the same way, and this being an emotionally chraged subject and all... but that's quite funny. It's very Monty Python - I can almost hear Eric Idle or John Cleese saying the lines.

;D ;D ;)

Quote:

Care to quote where I directed any personal abuse at anyone?

Sprint, are you just selectively missing certain posts here or what?

Please back up your false and untrue accusations against me that I used personal abuse in my discussions in this thread.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:34pm:

that's quite a collection of personal abuse you have hurled at me malik. I'ld probably be charged with "turning the other cheek" - DEATH.

No, they'll probably find you too stupid to be charged with anything because it seems your mentally incapable of comprehending the facts on anything and just ignore the truth.

I think your mensa status is not true and in fact you got a minus score on your IQ test

moved my response to the women in Islam thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/19#19

back to the topic.



"BRITISH Prime Minister Gordon Brown will today increase the pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear programme by condemning as "totally abhorrent" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats against Israel.

Tehran faces a series of sanctions against its oil and gas industries unless it halts attempts to develop its atomic capability within two weeks, senior British diplomats said last night.

Mr Brown is to use a speech to the Knesset in Jerusalem - the first by a British Prime Minister - to make his strongest attack so far on the Iranian regime while pledging an “unbreakable partnership” with Tel Aviv.

“To those who question Israel’s very right to exist and threaten the lives of its citizens through terror, we say: the people of Israel have a right to live here, to live freely and to live in security,” he will say.

“And to those who believe that threatening statements fall upon indifferent ears, we say in one voice: that it totally abhorrent for the President of Iran to call for Israel to be wiped from the map of the world.”

Mr Brown will say Tehran must end its nuclear ambitions or face concerted international action. “Iran now has a clear choice to make: suspend its nuclear programme and accept our offer of negotiations or face growing isolation and the collective response not of one nation but of many nations.”

Sanctions aimed at disrupting Iranian oil refineries and gas facilities are being prepared in case Iran fails to respond satisfactorily to demands that it suspends uranium enrichment within two weeks, senior British sources said.

The Prime Minister’s remarks are part of a coordinated effort to increase pressure to accept a so-called “freeze for freeze” offer, under which further international action is suspended in return for a moratorium on enrichment.

Javier Solana, the European Union’s special envoy, said that Iran had made insufficient progress during talks with Saeed Jalili, its chief nuclear negotiator, over the weekend. The US, which sent a representative to the talks for the first time, said that Iran now faced the prospect of confrontation unless it accepted the offer.

Mr Brown’s speech to the Knesset comes at the end of his first visit to Israel as Prime Minister, during which he also sought to add impetus to restarted peace talks with the Palestinians.

Speaking with President Abbas in Bethlehem, Mr Brown pledged an additional £30 million package of economic and security help for the Palestinian National Authority.

He said that the security wall erected by Israel was “graphic evidence of the urgent need for justice for the Palestinian people” and called on Tel Aviv to stop the spread of settlements.

“We want to see a freeze on settlements. Settlement expansion has made peace harder to achieve,” the Prime Minister said. “It erodes trust, it heightens Palestinian suffering, it makes the compromises Israel will need to make for peace more difficult.”

His appeal came as a human rights group released a video of an Israeli soldier shooting a rubber bullet at a Palestinian man who had been arrested and bound during a demonstration against the wall that Israel has built inside the West Bank to stop attacks on its territory.

- The Times"



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24050156-2703,00.html

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008 at 3:13pm:

back to the topic.

About time.  :)

Why should Iran stop it's enrichment program? It's not illegal at all and they are a signiatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

The hypocrisy is astounding that the West would allow Israel to create nuclear weapons and allow them to have the missles with the range that would easily allow them to hit Iran with, but then attacks iran like savage dogs on a nuclear enrichment program designed and used for civilian purposes. Even the IAEI have stated that Iran has been compliant with all inspections and requests for information.

It just goes to show that the UN Security Council has been created to maintain the status quo of imperialism for the victors of WW2.  

The UN has lost all of it's credibility of being a fair organization and I advocate that the UN and in particular the UN Security Council should be dissolved and in it's place a forum for all nations to have diplomacy and dialogue to prevent wars and that's it, the world has had enough of the injustices caused by the UN.

The UN and most of the free world has requested the volatile iran to cease their nuclear "enrichment" program.
Given irans statements to wipe israel off the world, it is not at all surprising.

iran are far too dangerous with firecrackers, let alone anything that can endanger those in other countries.
iran exhibits the typical muslim mindset.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008 at 9:11pm:

The UN and most of the free world has requested the volatile iran to cease their nuclear "enrichment" program. Given irans statements to wipe israel off the world, it is not at all surprising. iran are far too dangerous with firecrackers, let alone anything that can endanger those in other countries. iran exhibits the typical muslim mindset.

Sprint, you continually show how much of a tool you really are. You know for a fact that Iran NEVER threatened to wipe Israel off of the 'world' or 'map' and I've shown that to you many times. It just goes to show that your only intention is to incite hate of Iran and also of Islam.

Furthermore, the UN has no authority to tell Iran to stop enriching uranium, providing that it falls within the guidelines and of the NPT the rest of the world can't do anything, and the IAEA has confirmed that Iran has not only fallen within the guidelines but is completely compliant with inspections and releasing of information about it's program.

The UN doesn't have the authority to intervene and Iran is a sovereign state, it has been proven that Iran's enrichment program is purely peaceful and for civilian power purposes and the fact of the matter is that the West has no evidence whatsoever that Iran is using it for weapons.

Iran doesn't have to suspend enrichment and only did so previously as a goodwill gesture but even then the Security Council put sanctions on it, so why should Iran bother with wasting it's time with the Security Council? It's obvious that the only intention of it is to make Iran subservient and make it submit to the whims of the West as if Iran somehow had less rights than other countries.

You have the typical Extremist Christian mindset that Muslims don't deserve the same rights as you enjoy.

malik - yes yes, I read your glossing over of irans comments to wipe israel from the earth.
islam has refused to recognise israel for decades, if not more.

the rest of the world disbelieves that hurried coverup by muslims for another muslim.
he's a nutter, the sooner other muslims say that, the better.
course, you cant, cause he is a muslim too, hence he is right.

Of course the UN has rights - get real
libya came clean on their nukes because the free world went into iran.
they saw the writing on the wall.

muslim countries are 3rd world, 3rd rate, nondemocratic, arrogant, nofreedom of speech, poverty stricken and backward.
had they not lucked it on oil, they'ld all be holding out beggers hands to democratic capitalist societies.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008 at 9:40pm:

malik - yes yes, I read your glossing over of irans comments to wipe israel from the earth. islam has refused to recognise israel for decades, if not more.

Not recognizing israel is not tantamount to having the intention of wiping it off the map. There is a big difference and the Arab world has offered to recognize Israel if they accept the fair Arab Peace initiative.

The West refuses to recognize Turkish Northern Cyprus does that mean they want to wipe it off of the map too?



Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008 at 9:40pm:

the rest of the world disbelieves that hurried coverup by muslims for another muslim. he's a nutter, the sooner other muslims say that, the better. course, you cant, cause he is a muslim too, hence he is right.

It's not Muslims who acknowledged this, it was the West who acknowledged it, except people like you who only want to incite hate.



Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008 at 9:40pm:

Of course the UN has rights - get real libya came clean on their nukes because the free world went into iran. they saw the writing on the wall.

You mean they attacked Iraq, not Iran right?


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008 at 9:40pm:

muslim countries are 3rd world, 3rd rate, nondemocratic, arrogant, nofreedom of speech, poverty stricken and backward. had they not lucked it on oil, they'ld all be holding out beggers hands to democratic capitalist societies.

Really? Hmmm.. Actually most countries in the Gulf have much lower crime, better health care, better job prospects and better economies than the western countries do.

Again,proved to me that Australia is totally  full of indoctrinated slaves.And have no idea about thr REAL geopoltical situation.Pakistan look out it looks your the boogy man now,the imperial US and UK(us) are on your doorstep AGAIN.I'm an Australian but i do see the hard times all of you in middleast face.I am sorry,it is not going to stop for a while yet,my prayers are with you all and your families abroad.

Thank you likeo, nice to see some fellow Australians, who like myself have become aware of the treachery that the West has caused in the Muslim lands.

I would also like to say ,I am a white Australian,but nor Rudd-puppet for the Queen,( who has to make an oath to her and not to the Australian people)and the US admin (not the US people)are not my leaders.My oath is to freedom and fairness to all nations.They have their oath's, i have mine.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008 at 9:40pm:

malik - yes yes, I read your glossing over of irans comments to wipe israel from the earth. islam has refused to recognise israel for decades, if not more.

We can understand the depth of your knowledge by the 'wipe map' comments. The original comment was that Zionism should be wiped from the pages of history.

As for the idiocy of "islam" not recognising Israel...

"Islam" is a religion, not a group of people and the vast majority of people world wide support a two state settlement, that the US and Israel have unilaterally blocked for decades.


Quote:

muslim countries are 3rd world, 3rd rate, nondemocratic, arrogant, nofreedom of speech, poverty stricken and backward.

The U.S have, historically, undermined and destroyed Arab secular nationalism and bolstered Islamic fundamentalism.

As the most obvious but by no means the only example; The U.S have crushed the people of Saudi Arabia for decades in their struggle to bring about a more democratic society.


Quote:

had they not lucked it on oil, they'ld all be holding out beggers hands to democratic capitalist societies.

Capitalist societies aren't democratic.

Exotic Cheese,


Quote:

The U.S have, historically, undermined and destroyed Arab secular nationalism and bolstered Islamic fundamentalism.

I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Ths US and her predecessors were the ones who cultured and nurtured Arab nationalism. The only time they ever backed the Islamists was in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

Do they support the Islamist Hamas? Or the Arab Nationalist Fatah?

Do they support the Islamist Ikhwan? Or the Arab Nationalist Mubarak?

Did they support the Islamists in Iraq? Or the Arab Nationalist Saddam?

There's plenty of other cases. About the only Arab Nationalist they didn't support was Abdul Nasser, because he was very dangerous. His Arab Nationalism was so charismatic and threatened to unite the Arabs, rather than disunite them as most other Arab Nationalism does. But they even worked with him sometimes.


Quote:

The U.S have crushed the people of Saudi Arabia for decades in their struggle to bring about a more democratic society.

The people of Saudi Arabia want to bring about an Islamic society, and that's why the US so strongly back the Saudi family, knowing full well they will prevent it from happening.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 1^st, 2008 at 4:37pm:

Exotic Cheese, Quote: The U.S have, historically, undermined and destroyed Arab secular nationalism and bolstered Islamic fundamentalism. I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Ths US and her predecessors were the ones who cultured and nurtured Arab nationalism. The only time they ever backed the Islamists was in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Do they support the Islamist Hamas? Or the Arab Nationalist Fatah? Do they support the Islamist Ikhwan? Or the Arab Nationalist Mubarak? Did they support the Islamists in Iraq? Or the Arab Nationalist Saddam? There's plenty of other cases. About the only Arab Nationalist they didn't support was Abdul Nasser, because he was very dangerous. His Arab Nationalism was so charismatic and threatened to unite the Arabs, rather than disunite them as most other Arab Nationalism does. But they even worked with him sometimes.

They will support either if it results in a client state ala Saddam but as you have mentioned the US will go to great lengths to undermine unifying Arab nationalism.


Quote:

[quote]The U.S have crushed the people of Saudi Arabia for decades in their struggle to bring about a more democratic society.

The people of Saudi Arabia want to bring about an Islamic society, and that's why the US so strongly back the Saudi family, knowing full well they will prevent it from happening.[/quote]

It's already pretty Islamic even with, or because of, the heel of the Royal boot. There are still progressive democratic and human rights movements in Saudi Arabia who for a while now have been on the receiving end of U.S aid (bullets).

Quote:

They will support either if it results in a client state ala Saddam but as you have mentioned the US will go to great lengths to undermine unifying Arab nationalism.

I think you'd find it very hard to produce an example of them supporting Islamists, except for in extreme cases like the Soviet invasion. And even in that case, they did not support the Islamists directly, in most cases, they just gave the go-ahead for Secular Arab Nationalist governments to let their Islamist elements travel freely to Afghanistan.

An Islamist movement would never accept to be a client state of the US, so that's probably why it could never really eventuate.


Quote:

It's already pretty Islamic even with, or because of, the heel of the Royal boot.

Not really, it's all decoration. Their constitution and state structure is completely unIslamic. All they have are the window dressings, flowing robes, turbans, religious ministries, Friday and Eid as public holidays etc. and of course the capital punishments. But the Islamic state system is far more than just these basic things, and even these things are not implemented properly.

The main issue is sovereignity. In their state and constitution sovereignity is for the Monarchy.

In the Islamic system sovereignity is for the Shari'ah, and the Shari'ah is a very complex set of legislations and systems, not just capital punishments as is portrayed in the media.

So the US are a bunch of dumb dickheads, umm yeah, we knew that.

So Islam's plan is to be total arseholes to fight dickheadedness?

It may just work, but someone is in for a reaming.

Iran to scrap death by stoning
August 06, 2008

IRAN's judiciary has decided to scrap the punishment of stoning convicts to death in draft legislation submitted to parliament for approval.

Judiciary spokesman Ali Reza Jamshidi has been quoted as saying that stoning sentences against several convicts had been suspended, with four commuted to either lashes of the whip or jail terms.

"In the latest version of the Islamic penal codes bill, which has undergone several modifications, such punishments are not mentioned,'' Jamshidi said, the reformist Etemad newspaper reported, referring to both stoning and amputation.

The full article from The Australian here.

I guess that makes them progressive.

Lol. I guess.