Is this merely another example of Muslims trying to redefine words (in this case, both 'Islam' and 'freedom') so that they can say they support human rights and freedom while meaning the exact opposite? Falah seems to have keenly taken on Abu's tradition of changing the meaning of words to suit whatever impression he is trying to give.

Or has Falah actually rejected Islam and acknowledged the universal aspiration to freedom?

Stay tuned.


falah wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 1:30pm:

Once again you are lying Freediver. I do not want slavery for humanity. I want them to have freedom.

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 3:26pm:

By legalising slavery? Doesn't Islam mean submission? Do you want Islam for humanity or freedom? Or is this another sneaky Muslim trick where you change the meaning of a word to make Islam seem slightly less evil?

falah wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 6:06pm:

The word Islam is derived from the Arabic word for peace. It implies that a person has made peace with God, by worshipping Him alone,  and not worshipping false gods.

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 7:03pm:

I was talking about what Islam means, not what another old Arabic word used to mean. Are you denying that Islam means submission? Why is it that Muslims so often revert to talking about the history of language to avoid admitting what words actually mean?

Free diver you will learn how to understand Muslims one time, it takes me everyday all days talking to them on checkpoint at Hebron and is still puzzlement for me,,

Do they try to redefine Hebrew words for you so that they can say nice things about Islam in Hebrew without lying?

Only an absolute git would interpret the word freedom to mean "absolute unqualified freedom in all respects".

fd I can't believe you're so half witted you actually want us to indulge you in a discussion revolving around the idea that if Muslims want to be free from oppression, slavery, torture etc. they therefore must want the exact same set of freedoms the West subscribe to involving sexuality, debauchery, substance abuse and the like.

Freedom is relative to what people want in their lives. Most normal decent people don't want all the crap you define as freedom in their lives, that doesn't mean they don't want freedom.

It is you who holds the skewed view of freedom.

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 7:19pm:

Do they try to redefine Hebrew words for you so that they can say nice things about Islam in Hebrew without lying?

They never learns Hebrew but we learns their Arabic

Quote:

Only an absolute git would interpret the word freedom to mean "absolute unqualified freedom in all respects".

So how would you 'interpret' it Abu? Acknowledging the natural constraints on freedom is not the same as rejecting freedom the way Islam does. You trot out this 'absolute freedom' BS every time this topic comes up. I correct you every single time. Every single time you seem oblivious to the reality.


Quote:

fd I can't believe you're so half witted you actually want us to indulge you in a discussion revolving around the idea that if Muslims want to be free from oppression, slavery, torture etc.

If Muslims want to be free of Slavery why do they want to legalise it? Isn't the best way to get rid of slavery to ban it?


Quote:

It is you who holds the skewed view of freedom.

Again, can you describe what freedom means to you? For example, is stoning someone to death for rejecting Islam an expression of freedom of religion?

Or are you just going to waive your arms in the air and say you know what freedom is but can't define it, except to say it is not what other people say it is?

They stone to death 13 year old girl who say she was raped by men,,

Is a disgrace story to hear.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 7:19pm: Do they try to redefine Hebrew words for you so that they can say nice things about Islam in Hebrew without lying? They never learns Hebrew but we learns their Arabic

That must be hard for you. It is difficult enough trying to get a straight answer from a Muslim in English when we are both native speakers.

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 7:35pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 7:23pm: freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 7:19pm: Do they try to redefine Hebrew words for you so that they can say nice things about Islam in Hebrew without lying? They never learns Hebrew but we learns their Arabic That must be hard for you. It is difficult enough trying to get a straight answer from a Muslim in English when we are both native speakers.

It is for security points, when aske the questions in Hebrew they does not answer to me,

So we do Arabic too but you know too they answer rude and no cooperate many times so slows process and makes the I d more difficult

Quote:

So we do Arabic too but you know too they answer rude and no cooperate many times so slows process and makes the I d more difficult

Do they then get angry at you because it takes so long to get through the checkpoint?

It takes me on average ten pages and a week or two to get a straight answer from Abu or Falah, so I can only imagine what it is like when they really get motivated.

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 7:41pm:

Quote: So we do Arabic too but you know too they answer rude and no cooperate many times so slows process and makes the I d more difficult Do they then get angry at you because it takes so long to get through the checkpoint? It takes me on average ten pages and a week or two to get a straight answer from Abu or Falah, so I can only imagine what it is like when they really get motivated.

Yes every time, they do not says to us where they going, where they come from, who is car occupancies, why they is traveling etc

Then becomes angry why they hold back for searches of car

Crazy peoples

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 7:19pm: Do they try to redefine Hebrew words for you so that they can say nice things about Islam in Hebrew without lying? They never learns Hebrew but we learns their Arabic

You're seriously not in touch with reality are you? The vast majority of Palestinians speak Hebrew, all of those living within the occupied territories do, and those in the West Bank usually know enough to speak fluently, whilst those in Gaza probably don't know so much, but can still understand basics, although less so nowadays that they've been locked up in a big open air concentration camp.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 8:09pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 7:23pm: freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 7:19pm: Do they try to redefine Hebrew words for you so that they can say nice things about Islam in Hebrew without lying? They never learns Hebrew but we learns their Arabic You're seriously not in touch with reality are you? The vast majority of Palestinians speak Hebrew, all of those living within the occupied territories do, and those in the West Bank usually know enough to speak fluently, whilst those in Gaza probably don't know so much, but can still understand basics, although less so nowadays that they've been locked up in a big open air concentration camp.

I am very reality touched,, i live this experience,,

i tell you 100% that most, big most majority, does not reply to us or answer when we speaks to them in Hebrew,

In Hebron, they never answers to us in Hebrew,, never.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 8:13pm:

i tell you 100% that most, big most majority, does not reply to us or answer when we speaks to them in Hebrew, In Hebron, they never answers to us in Hebrew,, never.

Well I'm sure if you speak to a Palestinian living in "Tel Abib" they'll answer you in Hebrew, since most of them were schooled in Hebrew.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 8:30pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 8:13pm: i tell you 100% that most, big most majority, does not reply to us or answer when we speaks to them in Hebrew, In Hebron, they never answers to us in Hebrew,, never. Well I'm sure if you speak to a Palestinian living in "Tel Abib" they'll answer you in Hebrew, since most of them were schooled in Hebrew.

i know and speak with muslims in Tel Aviv -- i was not speaking of these peoples.

I say about the checkpoints we occupys in Samaria where they too has been told to speak Hebrew as well as arabic and many does not speak to us in Hebrew,,

As i also say even in Arabic they causes problems and has very rude behavior.

I do not speak of the Israeli Arabs in Tel Aviv.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 8:32pm:

many does not speak to us in Hebrew,, As i also say even in Arabic they causes problems and has very rude behavior. I do not speak of the Israeli Arabs in Tel Aviv.

Well I guess they consider it the language of occupation, hence their reluctance to give it any validity whatsoever.

Who could blame them?

If they does not like the checkpoints the Palestinians can know that the security fence construction helps to make them less so,,

So is crazy to keep making threats on this constructions of it.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 8:39pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 8:32pm: many does not speak to us in Hebrew,, As i also say even in Arabic they causes problems and has very rude behavior. I do not speak of the Israeli Arabs in Tel Aviv. Well I guess they consider it the language of occupation, hence their reluctance to give it any validity whatsoever. Who could blame them?

It is they who is to blame,,

Hebron is good example. They knows total the rules that cannot enter streets blocked off by IDF because of security and go toward settlements of Jewish land. They must have the ID pass to do so,, so they know is not occupation -- its is rules enforced by army.

Palestinians knows this, this is times when we call to them in Hebrew and they makes pretence that they cannot understand us,

So blame,, is not to us in Hebron as example.

Hate to change the topic on you guys.

Abu, do you see Islam as a rejection of freedom, or just a different 'interpretation' of it?

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 7:39pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 7:35pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 7:23pm: freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 7:19pm: Do they try to redefine Hebrew words for you so that they can say nice things about Islam in Hebrew without lying? They never learns Hebrew but we learns their Arabic That must be hard for you. It is difficult enough trying to get a straight answer from a Muslim in English when we are both native speakers. It is for security points, when aske the questions in Hebrew they does not answer to me, So we do Arabic too but you know too they answer rude and no cooperate many times so slows process and makes the I d more difficult

You occupy their country, steal their homes and farmland, force them to go through checkpoints and they are rude to you?

Do you think that they are being ungrateful?

Western society keeps billions of people in economic chains to use them as slaves, which is actually a lot more effective than direct captivity.
As a result of this billions suffer their entire lives and billions die due to poverty and other things as a result.

But I am sure this would not bother any of you.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 9:55am:

Western society keeps billions of people in economic chains to use them as slaves, which is actually a lot more effective than direct captivity. As a result of this billions suffer their entire lives and billions die due to poverty and other things as a result. But I am sure this would not bother any of you.

Does this mean you would be in favour of an Islamic style return to the legalisation of slavery? Or would you change your tune pretty quickly once the reality sunk in?

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 8:44pm:

If they does not like the checkpoints the Palestinians can know that the security fence construction helps to make them less so,, So is crazy to keep making threats on this constructions of it.

Sorry, but if you waltzed into my country, put up checkpoints and started making my life hell, I'd make sure you suffered every second of it.

Get the hell outta their land, and then they will have no problem with you, I'm sure.

When you're back in Czechoslovakia or wherever you said you hail from, then I'm sure Palestinians would have no problem with you at all. Whilst you're putting up checkpoints in their country, making their lives a misery, then you can expect a little resistance.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 8:51pm:

So blame,, is not to us in Hebron as example.

Ah yes Khalil.. As we can see in this video, the encroaching vermin that are taking over Khalil leave the Palestinians with no choice but to board up their homes to prevent them seeping in through the cracks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idplcNmNr4o

One of these soldiers are you? Enforcing this kind of despicable behaviour? I can see now why you're proud...

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 9:16pm:

Hate to change the topic on you guys. Abu, do you see Islam as a rejection of freedom, or just a different 'interpretation' of it?

First define precisely what you mean when you say "freedom". I'm quite sure each and every one of us here has a different set of delimiters for what they mean when they say "freedom" without a clear context.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 8:13pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 8:09pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 7:23pm: freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 7:19pm: Do they try to redefine Hebrew words for you so that they can say nice things about Islam in Hebrew without lying? They never learns Hebrew but we learns their Arabic You're seriously not in touch with reality are you? The vast majority of Palestinians speak Hebrew, all of those living within the occupied territories do, and those in the West Bank usually know enough to speak fluently, whilst those in Gaza probably don't know so much, but can still understand basics, although less so nowadays that they've been locked up in a big open air concentration camp. I am very reality touched,, i live this experience,, i tell you 100% that most, big most majority, does not reply to us or answer when we speaks to them in Hebrew, In Hebron, they never answers to us in Hebrew,, never.

Your a stooge avram! If you're such a good linguist, why don't you learns de english gooder.

English is my 3. Language jan, tell me how is your Hebrew?
Have you Hebrew better than I write English,,

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 6:16pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 8:44pm: If they does not like the checkpoints the Palestinians can know that the security fence construction helps to make them less so,, So is crazy to keep making threats on this constructions of it. Sorry, but if you waltzed into my country, put up checkpoints and started making my life hell, I'd make sure you suffered every second of it. Get the hell outta their land, and then they will have no problem with you, I'm sure. When you're back in Czechoslovakia or wherever you said you hail from, then I'm sure Palestinians would have no problem with you at all. Whilst you're putting up checkpoints in their country, making their lives a misery, then you can expect a little resistance.

No you are wrong, I can not leave my own country, I am Israeli it is my home,

Czech? No this is not my homeland,  is country of grandparentage before land of Israel homeland,

We can not leave because is our land.

"Take this land for I am the LORD, this land shall be given to the children of Abraham and of Isaac. Take this land in my name."

Exodus

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 6:52pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 9:16pm: Hate to change the topic on you guys. Abu, do you see Islam as a rejection of freedom, or just a different 'interpretation' of it? First define precisely what you mean when you say "freedom". I'm quite sure each and every one of us here has a different set of delimiters for what they mean when they say "freedom" without a clear context.

Abu I am not going to attempt a precise definition for you as this is merely another attempt by you to change the subject. I am not asking you whether Islam conforms to my concept of freedom, or to anyone else's. I am asking you whether you think Islam rejects freedom - obviously this means your own view of freedom. I think it will be bleeding obvious from this whether your 'interpretation' of freedom is actually slavery (or submission). I was actually hoping you might be honest enough to admit that Islam is a rejection of freedom.

The 'delimiters' to freedom do not imply a different definition of freedom - just a different view on where one person's freedom starts to infringe on someone else's. Two people arguing about this do not have different meanings for freedom. All this is a very long way from Islam's outright rejection of freedom.

You can either be honest about Islam and admit it rejects freedom in a fundamentaln way, or you can attempt some rediculous mental gymnastics and try to argue it is merely a different interpretation of where one person's freedom should be delimited in the interest of other people's freedom. None of this requires a precise definition of freedom.


Or perhaps you should leave it to Falah, who professed to personally want freedom for humanity, then ran away when questioned on it. I don't see much point in arguing about what freedom is with someone who does not claim to want it.

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 9:55am: Western society keeps billions of people in economic chains to use them as slaves, which is actually a lot more effective than direct captivity. As a result of this billions suffer their entire lives and billions die due to poverty and other things as a result. But I am sure this would not bother any of you. Does this mean you would be in favour of an Islamic style return to the legalisation of slavery? Or would you change your tune pretty quickly once the reality sunk in?

The only difference here is that one society admits it and the other lies about it..
Both seem bad but I would rather we admit it

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 7:50pm:

Abu I am not going to attempt a precise definition for you...

Right, because as always you prefer to hide behind ambiguous meanings, like with democracy.


freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 7:50pm:

I am not asking you whether Islam conforms to my concept of freedom, or to anyone else's. I am asking you whether you think Islam rejects freedom - obviously this means your own view of freedom.

Ok, according to my view of freedom, no, Islam does not reject freedom, it came to establish it for all mankind.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 7:59pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 12:53pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 9:55am: Western society keeps billions of people in economic chains to use them as slaves, which is actually a lot more effective than direct captivity. As a result of this billions suffer their entire lives and billions die due to poverty and other things as a result. But I am sure this would not bother any of you. Does this mean you would be in favour of an Islamic style return to the legalisation of slavery? Or would you change your tune pretty quickly once the reality sunk in? The only difference here is that one society admits it and the other lies about it.. Both seem bad but I would rather we admit it

So you see no difference between being physically enslaved by other people and having to make some tough choices about how to support yourself?

Quote:

Right, because as always you prefer to hide behind ambiguous meanings, like with democracy.

Democracy is rule by majority. That is simple. You get confused here because you mistake democracy for all the other values (like freedom) that are necessary for it to function. Attempting a precise definition of freedom could go on for ten pages and get nowhere.


Quote:

Ok, according to my view of freedom, no, Islam does not reject freedom, it came to establish it for all mankind.

Can you explain this?

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 8:41pm:

Democracy is rule by majority. That is simple. You get confused here because you mistake democracy for all the other values (like freedom) that are necessary for it to function.

Democracy does involve a certain belief in freedom, because if one trusts in the majority to rule, then one already extends to them the freedom to rule by whatever takes their fancy. This inherently erodes the concept of pre-defined values, which cannot be impinged upon by any interest groups.

Democracy is a failed system for this reason, and one which leads to societal decay.


freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 8:41pm:

Attempting a precise definition of freedom could go on for ten pages and get nowhere.

And yet still never be agreed upon by all, precisely my point... you've been led to it, but you still refuse to drink it.


freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 8:41pm:

Quote: Ok, according to my view of freedom, no, Islam does not reject freedom, it came to establish it for all mankind. Can you explain this?

I asked you to do that first. You refused, and then request the same from me... poor show fd.

Quote:

I asked you to do that first. You refused, and then request the same from me... poor show fd.

I am not asking you for a precise definition of freedom. Nor am I insisting that the issue cannot be discussed until we have such a precise definition. One is a stupid demand from someone with something to hide, the other is the rational way to approach such a debate.

I am asking you how you manage to reconcile Islam with freedom. For example, can you reconcile freedom of religion with stoning someone to death for rejecting Islam (a religion that also makes the claim that there should be no compulsion in religion). How you define freedom should become apparent from your answer, if you have nothing to hide.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 7:43pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 6:16pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 8:44pm: If they does not like the checkpoints the Palestinians can know that the security fence construction helps to make them less so,, So is crazy to keep making threats on this constructions of it. Sorry, but if you waltzed into my country, put up checkpoints and started making my life hell, I'd make sure you suffered every second of it. Get the hell outta their land, and then they will have no problem with you, I'm sure. When you're back in Czechoslovakia or wherever you said you hail from, then I'm sure Palestinians would have no problem with you at all. Whilst you're putting up checkpoints in their country, making their lives a misery, then you can expect a little resistance. No you are wrong, I can not leave my own country, I am Israeli it is my home, Czech? No this is not my homeland,  is country of grandparentage before land of Israel homeland, We can not leave because is our land. "Take this land for I am the LORD, this land shall be given to the children of Abraham and of Isaac. Take this land in my name." Exodus

What utter BS ... you and everyone else knows G-d never said any such thing, Exodus and every other Torah chapter was written by man not god, and those men were zionist JEWS. 

Oh! and BTW Arabs are also children of Abraham ... So give them back "their" Land and their FREEDOM!!!!

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 8:41pm:

Democracy is rule by majority. That is simple. You get confused here because you mistake democracy for all the other values (like freedom) that are necessary for it to function. Attempting a precise definition of freedom could go on for ten pages and get nowhere.

So why are you goading Abu for a precise meaning of what freedom means to Islam?

Why not ask a Saudi that question, they have all the freedom they want and need, curtesy of their oil supplies and the wealth generated via their USraeli friendship and their willingness to accept the US$ as payment ...

Your problem Fd is that you are the one who changes the subject and twist what people say even when it is made totally clear ... You just love muddying the waters like a typical wannabe pollie..

And just when did the "majority" of Australians get to make the rules? Democracy doesn't exist here, in Britain or in the US ... The US is a fascist government, Britain and Australia are communist ... we just haven't woken up yet ... but the time is looming.

Abu, here is a definition for you: Freedom in the political context is the principle that restrictions on a person's thoughts or actions should only be justified based on actual and demonstrable harm to others, or where it infringes on the rights and freedoms of others.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 8:48am:

Abu, here is a definition for you: Freedom in the political context is the principle that restrictions on a person's thoughts or actions should only be justified based on actual and demonstrable harm to others, or where it infringes on the rights and freedoms of others.

Ok, can you clarify then if your concept of freedom involves letting people commit a few specific acts:

incest (consenting adults of course)
bestiality (we don't ask their consent to kill and eat them, so why get all morally bent out of shape about buggerising them?)
drug abuse
assisted suicide
self mutilation

The harm from incest comes in at least two forms. One is abuse of power, which can happen even if both parties are adults. This undermines the concept of consent. There is also obviously harm to the potential offspring. This can theoretically be negated with birth control, though that would then involve the government interfering in your sex life and is unlikely to be effective.

We have all sorts of double standards when it comes to animals. Buggering them does harm them. Plus I suspect it can transmit nasty new disaeases. We generally assign a very limited set of rights to animals, usually along the lines of pain can only be justified for food and must be minimised where practicable.

Many people are harmed by drug abuse. This is an area of very active discussion regarding freedom and other values, as there are plenty of people who use hard drugs without harming others, and a lot of the damage is a result of legislation and not the drug abuse alone.

In assisted suicide, the person assisting does harm to the person they kill, by killing them.

Self mutilation is an act of freedom. People do this sort of thing to varying degrees (starting with piercings and tattoos). I think we only intervene when it appears the person has psychological problems and will end up regretting it when those problems go away.

---

Can you give a rough indication of what your concept of freedom is - as I did above?

How can you reconcile this concept of freedom with slavery, stoning people to death for rejecting Islam, all all the other ways that Islamic law restricts people's choice?

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 8:38pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 7:59pm: freediver wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 12:53pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 9:55am: Western society keeps billions of people in economic chains to use them as slaves, which is actually a lot more effective than direct captivity. As a result of this billions suffer their entire lives and billions die due to poverty and other things as a result. But I am sure this would not bother any of you. Does this mean you would be in favour of an Islamic style return to the legalisation of slavery? Or would you change your tune pretty quickly once the reality sunk in? The only difference here is that one society admits it and the other lies about it.. Both seem bad but I would rather we admit it So you see no difference between being physically enslaved by other people and having to make some tough choices about how to support yourself?

See that’s the problem, because one method is direct so it is obviously bad and people oppose it while one method is indirect so it is not so obvious and people tend not to care about it.
The people at the top in western society have worked out that if you are directly violent and oppressive your regime will tumble soon enough, but if you set up a society where people are oppressed not directly people will stay submissive and un-assured of their situation.
Most people do not have a choice; this form of slavery quite literally puts billions of people into poverty and starves them or uses them quite literally as slaves when you consider that they get 10 cents a day or something like that.
In an obviously oppressive dictatorship your hate goes directly to the state, eventually resulting in an uprising. In a subtle non direct dictatorship your hate becomes misguided and as a society lacks the evolutionary push to create an uprising.
If you really think about it you will realise that both methods of slavery result in exactly the same product.

I really wish I could explain this better but please think about it.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

The harm from incest comes in at least two forms. One is abuse of power, which can happen even if both parties are adults. This undermines the concept of consent.

But it can occur in non-incestual relationships too, so why is it only legitimate in your eyes to curb people's freedom over it in this case?

And how do you justify curbing the freedom of those who have relationships of this nature that clearly don't involve abuse of power?

It seems that, not unlike me, you also disapprove of freedom when it comes to acts you consider to be wrong. You just aren't honest enough to admit it, fearing you'll appear as a hypocrite after harping on about unfettered freedom all this time.


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

There is also obviously harm to the potential offspring. This can theoretically be negated with birth control, though that would then involve the government interfering in your sex life and is unlikely to be effective.

Well I guess that's the choice they can make, no? Also there's plenty of people with inheritable genetic conditions, yet we don't intervene in their family planning choices, why not?


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

We have all sorts of double standards when it comes to animals.

So make yourself consistent then.


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

Buggering them does harm them.

I'm sure there's plenty of cases in which it doesn't. In those cases it should be legalised? For instance a female human pairing with a male horse is obviously dangerous to the human, but I'm sure the opposite way around should be ok in your freedom worshipping utopia shouldn't it?


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

Plus I suspect it can transmit nasty new disaeases.

Same with homosexuality, you don't seem to mind that. As the proponents of homosexuality argued: "If you practice safe sex, then it reduces the risks".


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

We generally assign a very limited set of rights to animals, usually along the lines of pain can only be justified for food and must be minimised where practicable.

I'm sure many animals would prefer to be buggerised than carved up and consumed.


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

Many people are harmed by drug abuse. This is an area of very active discussion regarding freedom and other values, as there are plenty of people who use hard drugs without harming others, and a lot of the damage is a result of legislation and not the drug abuse alone.

How about drinking goom?


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

In assisted suicide, the person assisting does harm to the person they kill, by killing them.

But they asked them to. They call it "mercy killing". So unassisted suicide is alright then?


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

Self mutilation is an act of freedom.

Your kind of freedom, yes, mine, no.


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

People do this sort of thing to varying degrees (starting with piercings and tattoos). I think we only intervene when it appears the person has psychological problems and will end up regretting it when those problems go away.

So people who have amputation fetishes and the like, no go? But if you just like to slash your skin a bit, it's all good?


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

Can you give a rough indication of what your concept of freedom is - as I did above?

My concept of freedom is simple, whatever God has permitted for us is allowed.


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

How can you reconcile this concept of freedom with slavery

Slavery in Islam is abolished except in one case. That of those who wage war against the Muslims. In this case they forfeit their rights to freedom. So it's quite easily reconcilable, as slavery is not something Islam promotes, it merely retains it as a punishment for one certain crime.

Imprisoning people is pretty much the same thing. People are imprisoned for life in this society, yet you don't think it is slavery... why not?


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

stoning people to death for rejecting Islam, all all the other ways that Islamic law restricts people's choice?

Again, do you think capital punishment for treason in the U.S means they don't believe in your vague concept of "freedom"?

Quote:

See that’s the problem, because one method is direct so it is obviously bad and people oppose it while one method is indirect so it is not so obvious and people tend not to care about it.

Who exactly are you accusing of not caring about it? Australia has very generous social welfare preceisly so that people never feel like that have no choice. There is always a choice and there are plenty of people around who think that rejecting wealth, rather than accumulating it is the key to freedom.


Quote:

I really wish I could explain this better but please think about it.

I have thought about it and I think you are wrong about our society.


Quote:

It seems that, not unlike me, you also disapprove of freedom when it comes to acts you consider to be wrong.

I have not made any absolutist moral claims about it. I acknowledged the tradeoffs involved, just as you did. It is not the freedom I disapprove of, it is the abuse of power and the children born with deformities when this could have been avoided.


Quote:

You just aren't honest enough to admit it, fearing you'll appear as a hypocrite after harping on about unfettered freedom all this time.

I am just as critical when westerners attempt to infringe on the rights of Muslims Abu. When have I ever argued that freedom can be 'unfettered'? How many times do I have to correct you on this before you stop lying about it?


Quote:

Same with homosexuality

No it is not the same. It can only transmit diseases already existing in the human population. It cannot transmit new diseases in the way that bestiality can. Note that the emphasis here is on 'new'.


Quote:

My concept of freedom is simple, whatever God has permitted for us is allowed.

This is the opposite of freedom Abu, or the rejection of freedom, not merely a different concept of it, and it is deceptive to attempt to argue that there is any similarity between this and the natural limitations to freedom when people interact with each other and have to take other peoples rights and freedoms into account. Islam is about submission, not freedom, and you cannot equate the two while attempting to impose the same submission on other people.


Quote:

Slavery in Islam is abolished except in one case. That of those who wage war against the Muslims.

According to Falah, children can be born into slavery even if they have never waged war against Muslims.

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 8:41pm:

Quote: Right, because as always you prefer to hide behind ambiguous meanings, like with democracy. Democracy is rule by majority. That is simple. You get confused here because you mistake democracy for all the other values (like freedom) that are necessary for it to function. Attempting a precise definition of freedom could go on for ten pages and get nowhere. [quote]Ok, according to my view of freedom, no, Islam does not reject freedom, it came to establish it for all mankind.

Can you explain this? [/quote]

Why don't YOU explain something for a change Fd? You're fond of this kind of deceit of answering a question with a question, but never never do YOU 'explain' or elucidate ...

Afraid of looking like the idiot you are, or just realise that constant aggravation will eventually drive people away from relentlless veiled insults and inuendo?

You think it's smart and shows superiority but eventually the truth will out and people will wake up to ALL your deceptions on this forum ... How many identities do you have by the way? And how many stooges do you panda to?

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

The harm from incest comes in at least two forms. One is abuse of power, which can happen even if both parties are adults. This undermines the concept of consent. There is also obviously harm to the potential offspring. This can theoretically be negated with birth control, though that would then involve the government interfering in your sex life and is unlikely to be effective.

Can you please explain to Abu why incest is so acceptable to our society ... ie Royal families and the Rothchilds (who enabled the establishment of the State of Israel) practice incest, in some cases they only allow marriage to another family member in order to keep their bloodline 'pure'.

"Mayer Rothschild successfully kept the fortune in the family with carefully arranged marriages, often between first or second cousins (similar to Royal intermarriage). By the late 19th century, however, almost all Rothschilds had started to marry outside the family, usually into the aristocracy or other financial dynasties."


Quote:

In assisted suicide, the person assisting does harm to the person they kill, by killing them.

That's utter crap ... by denying assisted suicide in cases of terminal disease or permanent and unbearable pain is the true HARM ... if you keep an animal alive and in pain you can be prosecuted ... but with humans the zionist medical 'establishment' insist on keeping them alive to continue their suffering so they can continue with their research (virtually treating patients as guinea pigs) until they find a 'cure' that is expensive and 'destroys' the immune system, and provides billions to 'medical science' that patients never benefit from.

"There are more millionaires made from cancer "research"  (mostly funds raised by victims or their families and the general public), than there are people dying from it.

The harm isn't just to patients but to the families as well.

And I know this from FIRST hand not just by googling.

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 7:10pm:

Is this merely another example of Muslims trying to redefine words (in this case, both 'Islam' and 'freedom') so that they can say they support human rights and freedom while meaning the exact opposite? Falah seems to have keenly taken on Abu's tradition of changing the meaning of words to suit whatever impression he is trying to give. Or has Falah actually rejected Islam and acknowledged the universal aspiration to freedom? Stay tuned. falah wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 1:30pm: Once again you are lying Freediver. I do not want slavery for humanity. I want them to have freedom. freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 3:26pm: By legalising slavery? Doesn't Islam mean submission? Do you want Islam for humanity or freedom? Or is this another sneaky Muslim trick where you change the meaning of a word to make Islam seem slightly less evil? falah wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 6:06pm: The word Islam is derived from the Arabic word for peace. It implies that a person has made peace with God, by worshipping Him alone,  and not worshipping false gods. freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2012 at 7:03pm: I was talking about what Islam means, not what another old Arabic word used to mean. Are you denying that Islam means submission? Why is it that Muslims so often revert to talking about the history of language to avoid admitting what words actually mean?

Muslims want not freedom but to be free of Jews. That's it. Islamist politics is about making the world judenfrei. Islamist politics is the oldest national (Arabic) socialism. From the little band of stormtroopers gathering around Mohammed and fleeing to Medina (Munich putch), to the spread by conquest fuelled by the God-ordained destiny of world domination (1000 Year Reich/caliphate). It is a religiously changed national socialist destiny project. The parallels are uncanny.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 8:29pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 7:50pm: I am not asking you whether Islam conforms to my concept of freedom, or to anyone else's. I am asking you whether you think Islam rejects freedom - obviously this means your own view of freedom. Ok, according to my view of freedom, no, Islam does not reject freedom, it came to establish it for all mankind.

ISLAM came to establish freedom for all mankind ???




Quote:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:     Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/002-sbt.php#001.002.025


ISLAM came to establish freedom for all mankind ???

Not so.

What Mohammed says [above], is that no man [and his property] safe from him [Mohammed] unless he becomes a moslem.

Is that freedom ?

Mohammed himself declares, that ISLAM establishes [makes 'lawful'] moslem violence upon [and the robbery of], all mankind, who are not moslems.

Essentially, ISLAM makes moslems 'free' [i.e. 'sanctifies' moslem violence]........to oppress, non-moslems.
/sarc off

Essentially, ISLAM makes moslems 'free'........to become CRIMINALS, and to become the oppressors of non-moslems.


While non-moslems [within close proximity to moslems], are enslaved to forever defend themselves, from 'lawful' moslem violence against them.




ISLAM, brings violence, death, and enslavement to mankind.

And most of all, to moslems.

As we have proof of, daily....


THE RELIGION OF PEACE
http://thereligionofpeace.com/

Quote:

Who exactly are you accusing of not caring about it? Australia has very generous social welfare preceisly so that people never feel like that have no choice. There is always a choice and there are plenty of people around who think that rejecting wealth, rather than accumulating it is the key to freedom.

Out of sight out of mind right, we pay a few bucks through tax and think that we are making a difference but this is not the case.
I think western society as a whole does not care. You can see this by comparing the way they react to islamic slavery and western slavery.
There is not always a choice and please not I am not just talking about in western society. I am talking about the billions of slaves in 3rd world nations around the globe.


Quote:

I have thought about it and I think you are wrong about our society.

It takes a lot to accept it.


Quote:

I have not made any absolutist moral claims about it. I acknowledged the tradeoffs involved, just as you did. It is not the freedom I disapprove of, it is the abuse of power and the children born with deformities when this could have been avoided.

Once again it comes down to being direct. In our slavery there is no obvious benefiritary, although a lot of rich people make a lot of money of them.. Just like a slave keeper in Islam might make a lot of money but you can easily blame him because he is the one doing the whipping or whatever.


Quote:

I am just as critical when westerners attempt to infringe on the rights of Muslims Abu. When have I ever argued that freedom can be 'unfettered'? How many times do I have to correct you on this before you stop lying about it?

What am I lying about?
I just think its weird you focus so much on what the muslims do when we have exactly them same problems x1000.

Quote:

There is not always a choice and please not I am not just talking about in western society. I am talking about the billions of slaves in 3rd world nations around the globe.

Economic slavery has to get pretty bad before it becomes anything like the actual slavery that Muslims want to legalise. If it gets to that stage, you are starving to death anyway so it doesn't really matter - but that is an indication of how bad it has to get before you can compare genuine slavery.

There is always a choice, unless you are a slave. I can only imagine that you cannot appreciate the value of this choice because you have never had it taken away from you.


Quote:

Once again it comes down to being direct. In our slavery there is no obvious benefiritary, although a lot of rich people make a lot of money of them.. Just like a slave keeper in Islam might make a lot of money but you can easily blame him because he is the one doing the whipping or whatever.

It has nothing to do with how direct it is or how jelous you are of those who are richer than you. Instead of focussing on how much less people have than their boss, try to focus on what they actually have. Do they have a choice about going to work? Will they get punished by someone if they run away? Again, I can only assume you do not see this difference because you have never experienced it. You see everything in terms of the disparity of wealth - who has the money, who doesn't, who does the work, who takes it easy. This is only half the story. It is the whole story in the west because we take our freedom for granted and simply cannot comprehend it being taken away. So this leaves us to focus on the more subtle issues. You are mistaking it being taken for granted for it not mattering.


Quote:

What am I lying about?

Please check the quote I was responding to. This (and the previous comment) was actually in response to something posted by someone else.


Quote:

I just think its weird you focus so much on what the muslims do when we have exactly them same problems x1000.

We are allowed to talk about the problems so we talk about them more. This does not mean we actually have it worse. We do not have legalised slavery, which puts us in a completely different league.

Perhaps you need to give some examples of how bad we have it, because I am having trouble fathoming what you are on about. It just sounds like a spoilt brat whining about how tough he has it and romanticising things like slavery without any concept of what it is actually like. It is like a foolish woman who cannot tell the difference between an erotic fantasy or sexual role playing about being raped and actually being raped.

Oh yeah forgot about this.

Quote:

Economic slavery has to get pretty bad before it becomes anything like the actual slavery that Muslims want to legalise. If it gets to that stage, you are starving to death anyway so it doesn't really matter - but that is an indication of how bad it has to get before you can compare genuine slavery. There is always a choice, unless you are a slave. I can only imagine that you cannot appreciate the value of this choice because you have never had it taken away from you.

How does billions of people being in lethal poverty for almost a century now not count as bad? It is about 10000000x worse than Muslim slavery.
How exactly is Muslim slavery worse than the biggest slavery racket on the planet, BILLIONS of people.. I can’t stress the word billion enough.
There is not always choice, and a prime example of this is the billions of people in poverty.
You justify the billions in poverty by the couple of thousand who aren’t? Isn’t that like justifying Muslim slavery by saying well some are treated ok?

Quote:

It has nothing to do with how direct it is or how jelous you are of those who are richer than you. Instead of focussing on how much less people have than their boss, try to focus on what they actually have. Do they have a choice about going to work? Will they get punished by someone if they run away? Again, I can only assume you do not see this difference because you have never experienced it. You see everything in terms of the disparity of wealth - who has the money, who doesn't, who does the work, who takes it easy. This is only half the story. It is the whole story in the west because we take our freedom for granted and simply cannot comprehend it being taken away. So this leaves us to focus on the more subtle issues. You are mistaking it being taken for granted for it not mattering.

I can assure you that directness does play an important part; most human beings are not capable of caring about things unless those things are obvious.
Most of these people do not go to work they go to slave labour.
They will get punished for running away by probably starving to death.
These people do not have freedom to take for granted, you see things from a comfy western lifestyle and could probably not comprehend the level of disparity around our world.
It is easy for you to say you have a choice which we do in Australia, but for us to have the luxury of choice BILLIONS of people live in poverty. And that is a fact.
Once again the methods of slavery are different, but the product is exactly the same.

Quote:

We are allowed to talk about the problems so we talk about them more. This does not mean we actually have it worse. We do not have legalised slavery, which puts us in a completely different league.

I agree but you seem to focus so much on this when there is an elephant in the room.
Of course we don’t legalise slavery I think that is my point.
At least they are honest about it.

Quote:

Perhaps you need to give some examples of how bad we have it, because I am having trouble fathoming what you are on about. It just sounds like a spoilt brat whining about how tough he has it and romanticising things like slavery without any concept of what it is actually like. It is like a foolish woman who cannot tell the difference between an erotic fantasy or sexual role playing about being raped and actually being raped.

Wow really? I am a spoiled brat? Coming from the person who assumes everyone else has a choice because he did.
I admit in Australia most do not have it that bad, although many do.
BUT.
For us to have that luxury, billions of people live in poverty.
This is like the old rancher back in Missisipi who had the luxury of not having to pick his cotton because he had his slaves do the work for him.
Do you think you would have your computer or poo house products if there wasn’t an army of slaves building them in Africa or China?
Just think for a second about what I am saying.

I agree that the Muslim slavery is bad, of that there is no doubt. But what I am talking about is real, is horrible and is a hell of a lot worse.

Puppet, you appear to be arguing that these people are poor and miserable because we buy things off them, and that they would suddenly be 1000 times better off just by becoming slaves. Other than repetition, do you have anything to back this up?


Quote:

How does billions of people being in lethal poverty for almost a century now not count as bad?

You should stick to what I actually say.


Quote:

It is about 10000000x worse than Muslim slavery.

What do you know about Muslim slavery? Did it stop people going hungry?


Quote:

You justify the billions in poverty by the couple of thousand who aren’t?

There are lots of people in the world who are not living in poverty. In any case, you need to stop switching between arguing that there is economic slavery in the west then pretending the discussion is only about third world countries whenever I question you on it.


Quote:

Most of these people do not go to work they go to slave labour.

What people?


Quote:

you see things from a comfy western lifestyle

Didn't you also claim that this was a problem in the west?


Quote:

but for us to have the luxury of choice BILLIONS of people live in poverty. And that is a fact.

Are you suggesting they live in poverty because we are well off? If so, that is certainly not a fact.


Quote:

Of course we don’t legalise slavery I think that is my point.

Abu and Falah would like to. That is my point. They want to take the misery and suffering these people are trying to get out of and institutionalise it.


Quote:

I admit in Australia most do not have it that bad, although many do.

Make up your mind. If you cannot defend your claims about Australia, stiop making them, rather than changing the subject every time I attempt to correct you.


Quote:

I agree that the Muslim slavery is bad, of that there is no doubt. But what I am talking about is real, is horrible and is a hell of a lot worse.

Are you arguing that they would all suddenly become wealthier if they were Muslim slaves? Is that because half of them would be dead so there would be more food to go around?

freediver wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 7:26pm:

Quote: Only an absolute git would interpret the word freedom to mean "absolute unqualified freedom in all respects". So how would you 'interpret' it Abu? Acknowledging the natural constraints on freedom is not the same as rejecting freedom the way Islam does. You trot out this 'absolute freedom' BS every time this topic comes up. I correct you every single time. Every single time you seem oblivious to the reality. [quote]fd I can't believe you're so half witted you actually want us to indulge you in a discussion revolving around the idea that if Muslims want to be free from oppression, slavery, torture etc.

If Muslims want to be free of Slavery why do they want to legalise it? Isn't the best way to get rid of slavery to ban it?


Quote:

It is you who holds the skewed view of freedom.

Again, can you describe what freedom means to you? For example, is stoning someone to death for rejecting Islam an expression of freedom of religion?

Or are you just going to waive your arms in the air and say you know what freedom is but can't define it, except to say it is not what other people say it is?[/quote]

Freedom is haram.

Naughty FD.

Submit, I say, submit!!!

Yes, my friends, submission to the one Gud is the true path to freedom.

Sala'am Aleikum.

Quote:

Puppet, you appear to be arguing that these people are poor and miserable because we buy things off them, and that they would suddenly be 1000 times better off just by becoming slaves. Other than repetition, do you have anything to back this up?

I think its fairly clear this is not what I am saying.

Quote:

You should stick to what I actually say.

Well you are adamant that Muslim slavery is bad yet don’t seem concerned at all about something which is 100x worse and affects 10000000x more people
Quote:

What do you know about Muslim slavery? Did it stop people going hungry?

Enough to know that it does not affect billions of people. It stopped Muslims going hungry, just like economic slavery allows the west to live a life of privilege.

Quote:

There are lots of people in the world who are not living in poverty. In any case, you need to stop switching between arguing that there is economic slavery in the west then pretending the discussion is only about third world countries whenever I question you on it.

As I have explained for these minorities not to live in poverty, billions must.
I have not switched my argument at all, just tried to explain it in different ways.
I am saying that economic slavery is committed by the west, although poverty does happen in the west it is not capitalized on like it is in 3rd world nations.

Quote:

What people?

Mostly people in 3rd world nations, but there are many in all nations.

Quote:

Didn't you also claim that this was a problem in the west?

Well in a way, because for us to live that lifestyle we need to have these billions of economic slaves. Honestly what do you think our life in Australia would be like if we gave all nations in the world an equal shot, with an equal financial system not governed by western corporations etc..
We would not have it as easy as we do today, I can assure you of that.

Quote:

Are you suggesting they live in poverty because we are well off? If so, that is certainly not a fact.

Other way around.
Quote:

Abu and Falah would like to. That is my point. They want to take the misery and suffering these people are trying to get out of and institutionalise it.

Well I praise them for being honest about it, maybe institutionalization would be a good thing. Might provide a steady source of food and water for the slaves at least.
Quote:

Make up your mind. If you cannot defend your claims about Australia, stiop making them, rather than changing the subject every time I attempt to correct you.

Not sure what you mean? Not changing the subject.
Quote:

Are you arguing that they would all suddenly become wealthier if they were Muslim slaves? Is that because half of them would be dead so there would be more food to go around?

I believe I have said that while the method is different the product is the same, so no they would not be better off. Although in a direct form of slavery there is potential for proper allocation of food and water + other essentials.
A lot less people would die in a direct form of slavery then are dying now.
But as I said it is much of a muchness. But when you consider the sheer scale of western slavery it is a lot worse.

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 30^th, 2012 at 9:16am:

Yes, my friends, submission to the one Gud is the true path to freedom. Sala'am Aleikum.

I am sure you are not Muslim.

You would not incorrect spell this most important greeting.

as-salamu 'alaykum


You know we Israeli can also speak Arabic too.

There are a lot of Walter Mitty characters on Ozpolitics.

It would seem that the administrators have invented a lot of characters to suit their agenda.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 30^th, 2012 at 12:49pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 30th, 2012 at 9:16am: Yes, my friends, submission to the one Gud is the true path to freedom. Sala'am Aleikum. I am sure you are not Muslim. You would not incorrect spell this most important greeting. as-salamu 'alaykum You know we Israeli can also speak Arabic too.

Ignore him.
He's a Pakistani arse bandit.

falah wrote on Mar 30^th, 2012 at 3:08pm:

There are a lot of Walter Mitty characters on Ozpolitics. It would seem that the administrators have invented a lot of characters to suit their agenda.

I'm glad someone else has picked up on that little ruse ...

I am leaving them to themselves, and will not play their game anymore by answering with the truth just so they can trash it with the same corrupt lies and insults over and over, and never offering any truth to support their denials.

Avram is a stooge or FD, Soren is either FD himself or his bum buddy, and all the others are doubtful as well.

Truth seekers and genuine activists should leave these idiot to their own devices and let them post to each other in their mutual admiration society.

This forum is a trap. No-one but globalist zionists would deny the obvious concerning USrael and their Regime change and Palestinian attrocities ... They will never admit their guilt.


 

Soren wrote on Mar 30^th, 2012 at 8:12pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 30th, 2012 at 12:49pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 30th, 2012 at 9:16am: Yes, my friends, submission to the one Gud is the true path to freedom. Sala'am Aleikum. I am sure you are not Muslim. You would not incorrect spell this most important greeting. as-salamu 'alaykum You know we Israeli can also speak Arabic too. Ignore him. He's a Pakistani arse bandit.

I do not think Pakistanis would mis spells this greetings?
They language urdu is not too difference from Arabic in lots of ways.

i can not speak urdu but can see similiarities in some of the arabic that has been learned.

Also this greeting (which is similar to what we has in hebrew) would not be mistake by a Pakistani i don not think.

Quote:

It would seem that the administrators have invented a lot of characters to suit their agenda

No Falah, you are real.


Quote:

I am leaving them to themselves, and will not play their game anymore by answering with the truth

So you will follow Abu and Falah's lead?

Puppet:


Quote:

I think its fairly clear this is not what I am saying

No it isn't. Perhaps you merely 'exaggerate' a bit too much. How about you try saying what you actually mean? Then it would be clear what you are saying.


Quote:

Well you are adamant that Muslim slavery is bad

I think we all are, except for the Muslims.


Quote:

yet don’t seem concerned at all about something which is 100x worse and affects 10000000x more people

How can you have any idea at all what concerns me?


Quote:

It stopped Muslims going hungry

How?


Quote:

As I have explained for these minorities not to live in poverty, billions must.

But you have not explained this. Making the claim is not the same thing as explaining it.


Quote:

Honestly what do you think our life in Australia would be like if we gave all nations in the world an equal shot, with an equal financial system not governed by western corporations etc..

I think we would all be a lot wealthier, but some things would be more expensive. The rise of China is a good example. We are a lot better off with a wealthy China competing against us than a dirt poor China. The Chinese are also a lot better off having so many rich people to buy their goods. If they can play along fairly then the benefits to everyone will be enourmous.


Quote:

Well I praise them for being honest about it, maybe institutionalization would be a good thing. Might provide a steady source of food and water for the slaves at least.

There you go again. Can you explain how?


Quote:

I believe I have said that while the method is different the product is the same

That is not what you said. You said Islamic slavery is 1000 times better. Now you say the outcome is identical. Does that mean the method is 1000 times better?

Jan wrote on Mar 31^st, 2012 at 1:39am:

falah wrote on Mar 30th, 2012 at 3:08pm: There are a lot of Walter Mitty characters on Ozpolitics. It would seem that the administrators have invented a lot of characters to suit their agenda. I'm glad someone else has picked up on that little ruse ... I am leaving them to themselves, and will not play their game anymore by answering with the truth just so they can trash it with the same corrupt lies and insults over and over, and never offering any truth to support their denials. Avram is a stooge or FD, Soren is either FD himself or his bum buddy, and all the others are doubtful as well. Truth seekers and genuine activists should leave these idiot to their own devices and let them post to each other in their mutual admiration society. This forum is a trap. No-one but globalist zionists would deny the obvious concerning USrael and their Regime change and Palestinian attrocities ... They will never admit their guilt.

Bozos, just because you come across lotsa people who disagree with you and they all think you are idiots doesn't mean it's just one person. Mebbe you are idiots and lotsa peopl can see that. This has evidently never occured to either of you. But it is a sign, Bozos, a sign.
A sign of you both being unreflecting idiots.

Signed by thousands.

Jan wrote on Mar 31^st, 2012 at 1:39am:

This forum is a trap. No-one but globalist zionists would deny the obvious concerning USrael and their Regime change and Palestinian attrocities ... They will never admit their guilt.

Zionism is some thing to be proud.

Homeland for Jewish people in the land where we belongs.

I has pride to fight for Israel -- like my father and uncles before me.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Apr 1^st, 2012 at 7:23pm:

Zionism is some thing to be proud. Homeland for Jewish people in the land where we belongs. I has pride to fight for Israel -- like my father and uncles before me.

Zionism is nothing but the Nazism of Jews. It's the nationalist supremacist ideology that believes trampling all over an entire other nation just to pursue nationalist goals is fine.

If you're proud of that, then you're a poor excuse for a human.

And what about the global caliphate?

Mattyfisk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2012 at 1:43pm:

And what about the global caliphate?

The Caliphate is the diametric opposite of Nazism/Zionism. It rejects outright the concept of nationalist supremacy. Under Islam, nationalism is considered a disease, that should be eradicated.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2012 at 6:54am:

nationalist supremacist ideology that believes trampling all over an entire other nation just to pursue nationalist goals is fine.

"a nationalist supremacist ideology that believes trampling all over the entire world just to pursue nationalist religious goals".


That sounds just like global jihad.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2012 at 7:47pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 1:43pm: And what about the global caliphate? The Caliphate is the diametric opposite of Nazism/Zionism. It rejects outright the concept of nationalist supremacy. Under Islam, nationalism is considered a disease, that should be eradicated.

Eradicate. You bearded numpties love the concept, dontcha?

SO all this Muslim migration to various democraciies is, ultimately, in service of the eradication of those democratic countries who have not asked you to eradicate them, who took you in or tolerate you on the explicit grounds that you will NOT harm them, let alone aim to eradicate them.

But you are not to be trusted because your heart is set on their eradication.

The hoof is showing, once again.

Soren wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2012 at 9:25pm:

Eradicate. You bearded numpties love the concept, dontcha? SO all this Muslim migration to various democraciies is, ultimately, in service of the eradication of those democratic countries who have not asked you to eradicate them, who took you in or tolerate you on the explicit grounds that you will NOT harm them, let alone aim to eradicate them. But you are not to be trusted because your heart is set on their eradication. The hoof is showing, once again.

Isn't that what you love about the Zionists? Their ability to completely saturate a country through illegal and stealth immigration, then form militias, and take it over by force when the locals wake up to the reality of what's happening? And then to eradicate the original inhabitants?

You should be glad we're adopting the ways of your beloved people. You no like when it happen to you?

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2012 at 11:16pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 3rd, 2012 at 9:25pm: Eradicate. You bearded numpties love the concept, dontcha? SO all this Muslim migration to various democraciies is, ultimately, in service of the eradication of those democratic countries who have not asked you to eradicate them, who took you in or tolerate you on the explicit grounds that you will NOT harm them, let alone aim to eradicate them. But you are not to be trusted because your heart is set on their eradication. The hoof is showing, once again. Isn't that what you love about the Zionists? Their ability to completely saturate a country through illegal and stealth immigration, then form militias, and take it over by force when the locals wake up to the reality of what's happening? And then to eradicate the original inhabitants? You should be glad we're adopting the ways of your beloved people. You no like when it happen to you?

The jews are not 'saturating' any place except their own, Israel. There is no dreaming of a o9rldwide Jewish 'caliphate', there is no killing of Jewish 'apostates' (ie peopl who ask questions), there is no embassy burning if you crack a Jewish joke or draw  hook-nosed caricature. Jewish fathers and brothers do not murder their daughters if she goes out with a goy.

Iran organised a holocaust cartoon competition in recent years. Looney Leunig was the Australian entrant. I didn't hear about embassies being burned down by angry Jewish mobs. Did you?

Stick to the point. You were complaining about Muslims immigrating to Australia and supposedly harbouring secret plans to undermine its way of life.

Just like your mates did to Palestine.

I think you know full well you've not got a leg to stand on with this issue, hence your attempt to now slide it aside and talk about all this global world domination nonsense.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2012 at 7:47pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Apr 2nd, 2012 at 1:43pm: And what about the global caliphate? The Caliphate is the diametric opposite of Nazism/Zionism. It rejects outright the concept of nationalist supremacy. Under Islam, nationalism is considered a disease, that should be eradicated.

Thanks, Abu. That's a relief.

It sounds like Islam has a lot in common with the old boy. He thinks northern Europeans are Aussies.

Seriously though, I didn't see many cheese-eaters joining the crew during the Cronulla riots. Actually, if they had a bit of a tan, I reckon they would have been in for a bit of a touch up along with the curries and the Lebs.

And how many mates would they get to back them up?

Nah, I'm with you, son. Nationalism is a disease that should be erradicated.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 5^th, 2012 at 12:59am:

Stick to the point. You were complaining about Muslims immigrating to Australia and supposedly harbouring secret plans to undermine its way of life. Just like your mates did to Palestine. I think you know full well you've not got a leg to stand on with this issue, hence your attempt to now slide it aside and talk about all this global world domination nonsense.

Israel belongs to the Jews. The Muslim Arabs have been interlopers all along (as are all Muslims anywhere around the Medeterreanen outside Araby.) Islam is an Arab attempt to displace the Jews as God's chosen people. In this, it's only motivating force, it is a cult of resentment and rancour.

Islam has no intrinsic intellectual persuasive force, it has spread only by the sword and by deceit. There is nothing new in Islam, except the compulsion, on pain of death, to take a semi-literate trader at his word.
"Gabriel told me so". Pathetic, childish, fit only for illiterate, hungry, horny tribal warriors.

Islam is a cult of Mohammed. It is based entirely on what Mohammed said and did. No wonder it resembles Stalinism and Hitlerism so startingly.

Soren wrote on Apr 4^th, 2012 at 8:34pm:

[quote author=5A594E64495A4853525F3B0 link=1332061805/67#67 date=1333458966]The jews are not 'saturating' any place except their own, Israel. There is no dreaming of a o9rldwide Jewish 'caliphate', there is no killing of Jewish 'apostates' (ie peopl who ask questions), there is no embassy burning if you crack a Jewish joke or draw  hook-nosed caricature. Jewish fathers and brothers do not murder their daughters if she goes out with a goy.

Apostate (noun) ... a person who forsakes his religion, cause, party, etc.

Of course they don't do those things. They don't have to, they just create more laws to protect them and get involved in their host country's politics.

Intermarriage was historically looked upon with very strong disfavour by Jewish leaders, and it remains a controversial issue amongst Jewish leaders today. In the Talmud, interfaith marriage is completely prohibited

Jews continue to saturate Australian Politics and business.
Australian politics and the Jewish community

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3519

From wiki...
The history of the Jews in Australia dates back to 1788, when a number of Jews were among the convicts brought to the country aboard the First Fleet to establish the first European settlement on the continent, on the site of present-day Sydney. Today, an estimated 120,000 Jews live in Australia. The majority are Ashkenazi Jews, many of them refugees and Holocaust survivors who arrived during and after World War II. There is also a significant Sephardic Jewish population.

Jews have been mayors of nearly all the capital cities of Australia, as well as of many smaller towns. Numerous Jews have sat in the State and Commonwealth parliaments; and, in proportion to the population, a large percentage have held ministerial portfolios. The first Jew appointed to the Colonial Parliament of New South Wales' Legislative Council in 1854 was prominent merchant, Sir Saul Samuel, who subsequently became a member of the Legislative Assembly and Treasurer and the first Jew to become a minister of the Crown.

Several Jews have served as State Governors and as Chief Justices of particular states. Sir Julian Salomons was Chief Justice of New South Wales for a fortnight in 1886; the position of Chief Justice of NSW was held by James Spigelman from 19 May 1998 until 31 May 2011. Mahla Pearlman was Chief Judge of the NSW Land and Environment Court from 1992 to 2003, and she was the first woman chief judge in any (State) jurisdiction in Australia. Jews are especially prominent in the legal profession; for example, in Melbourne alone, the Hon. Michael Rozenes sits as Chief Judge of the County Court of Victoria, Justice Redlich sits on the Court of Appeal, while Justices Raymond Finkelstein, Alan Goldberg, Mark Weinberg and Ron Merkel have all sat in recent years on the Federal Court of Australia.

In 1931, Sir Isaac Isaacs was appointed the first Australian born Governor-General, and was the first Jewish vice-regal representative in the British Empire. Sir Zelman Cowen also served as Governor-General, between 1977 and 1982. Sir John Monash, a distinguished Australian Lieutenant-General during World War I, leading Australian troops both in Gallipoli and on the Western Front. The agent-generalship of New South Wales has been administered by two Jews: Sir Saul Samuel, one of the most prominent and successful Jews in Australian politics, and Sir Julian Salomons.

David Bennett is a Sydney barrister. He was president of the Australian Bar Association from 1995 to 1996 and of the NSW Bar Association from 1995 to 1997. Bennett was president of the Association of Lawyer Arbitrators and Mediates in 1998 and President of the Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences from 1999 to 2001. He was Solicitor-General of Australia from 1998 to 2008. Bennett was awarded the Centenary Medal in 2003. His wife, Annabelle Bennett is a Judge of the Federal Supreme Court.

Leo Port (1922–1978) was an electrical and mechanical engineer. He was elected to the Sydney City Council in 1969 representing the Civic Reform group. He served as Lord Mayor between 1975 and 1978. Port was an advocate of civic design, and was partly responsible for the pedestrianisation of Martin Place and Sydney Square. He revolutionized the system of public works and their contracts in Sydney. He was appointed a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in the New Year's Honours of 1974.

Commerce

Jews in Australia have been successful in business disproportionately to their percentage of the Australian population. Notable for their success in business are Sidney Myer, John Gandel, Richard Pratt, Peter Abeles, the Smorgon family, Marcus Besen, Eddie Kornhauser, Frank Lowy and Joseph Gutnick. The latter, along with Sydney gangster Abe Saffron and Rene Rivkin occasionally through less scrupulous means.

The foremost among the Jews who have figured as business pioneers in Australia was Jacob Montefiore, a cousin of Sir Moses Montefiore. South Australian history records him as one of the founders of the colony; and he was selected by the British government to act on the first board of commissioners, appointed in 1835 to conduct its affairs. His portrait hangs in its National Gallery, and his memory is perpetuated by Montefiore Hill. J. B. Montefiore's activity was not confined to South Australia. With his brother Joseph Montefiore he gave an impetus to the progress of New South Wales. Jacob owned one of the largest sheep-runs in the colony, and founded and for many years acted as director of the Bank of Australasia. The close connection of these brothers with the colony is further evidenced by the township of Montefiore, which stands at the junction of the Bell and Macquarie Rivers in the Wellington valley. Joseph Montefiore was the first president of the first Jewish congregation formed in Sydney in 1832.

V. L. Solomon of Adelaide is remembered for the useful work he achieved in exploring the vast northern territory of his colony, the interests of which he represented in Parliament. M. V. Lazarus of Bendigo, known as Bendigo Lazarus, also did much to open up new parts in the back country of Victoria. Nathaniel Levi, for many years urged the cultivation of beetroot for the production of sugar and spirits owed its brief existence as an industry to Levi's own interest in raw material for his distilling company. In his labours on behalf of this industry he published in 1870 a work of 250 pages on the value and adaptability of the sugar-beet. In Western Australia, the townships of Karridale and Boyanup owe their existence to the enterprise of M. C. Davies, a large lumber merchant.

Arts and culture
Barnett Levy founded an early theatre in Australia. Having been refused a license by then governor Darling in 1828, though in the following year he was permitted to hold approved performances in his Sydney Hotel. A record of that fact is found in the following entry in "Sydney in 1848," a work published in that year: "In the late twenties His Excellency Sir R. Bourke granted Barnett Levy a license for dramatic performances, with a restriction that he should confine himself to the representation of such pieces only as had been licensed in England by the Lord Chamberlain." Levy was at that time the owner of the original Royal Hotel in George Street; and he fitted up the saloon of that establishment as a theatre, where the first representations of the legitimate drama in the colony were given. The encouragement that this undertaking received induced the enterprising proprietor to enlarge his sphere of action. He built a theatre called the Theatre Royal, which was opened in 1833, at a cost which almost bankrupted him.

Isaac Nathan, who emigrated to Australia in 1841, wrote the first Australian opera, Don John of Austria to a libretto by Jacob Levi Montefiore. It premiered on 3 May 1847 at the Royal Victoria Theatre in Sydney.

There have been Jewish contributions to Australian visual arts. [color=#ff0000]Georges Mora[/color], born Gunter Morawski in 1913 in Leipzig, Germany of Jewish/Polish heritage, fled Germany to Paris in 1930, then to Melbourne in 1949. He established the Tolarno Gallery in Melbourne's bohemian St Kilda. This became a venue for exhibitions of Australian Modernist avant garde art. Printmaker and projection artist Ludwig Hirschfeld Mack graduate and professor of the Bauhaus was deported to Australia as an "enemy alien" on the ship HMT Dunera, spending time in internment camps in Hay, Orange and Tatura, before being sponsored for Australian citizenship by (Sir) James Darling, headmaster of Geelong Church of England Grammar School. He was influential in the introduction of Bauhaus principles into visual art and design curricula in Australia. E. P. Fox and Abbey Alston have achieved distinction. Paintings by both these artists have been hung in the Melbourne National Gallery. In the Adelaide Gallery hangs a tribute to the memory of H. Abrahams for the services he rendered to the progress of art in Australia. Two Jews of Australian birth have attained to some distinction as writers, S. Alexander and Joseph Jacobs.

In May 2004, art collector/dealer, Joseph Brown

Jan,

In Soren's little delusional fantasy world, Jews infiltrating Australia are actually an example of how great they are. It's only Muslims who should remain outside. His beliefs are based on supremacy of certain races and cultures, hence the reason he has no problem with Jews "taking over from within". But if a Muslim were to do the same, it would be labelled "Stealth Jihad".

If you look at the map, there is only one Jewish country. Israel.
But there are dozens of Muslim countries, even though Muslim Arabs are indigenous to Araby only. All the other Muslim countries around the mediterraenean have been conquered and taken over by Muslims.


Everywhere else where there are Muslims, there is bloodshed - Africa, India, Indonesia, Philipines, Thailand.
In western democracies, they are blowing up skyskrapers, underground and above ground trains, plot and exceute bloody mayhem - all in the name of Allah, all for the furtherance of Islam - ie jihad. When they are not actually killing and destroying, they are poncing about, issuing fatwahs against anything and everything they don't like.

On the positive side  - well, nothing good has come out of Islam for 800 years. So what's to like about it? Small wonder the whole world is sick of them and eyes them with deep suspicion. ANd to avert the well-founded suspicion from themselves, they are carrying on and on and on about one tiny Jewish country.

You can make an almost endless list of Jewish contribution. Not so about Islam, even though Muslims outnumber Jews 7-8 HUNDRED times over.

Soren wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:49pm:

If you look at the map, there is only one Jewish country. Israel.

Irrelevant. They should've taken part of Northern Australia that was offered to them and had few inhabitants. Instead they demanded to take someone elses homes, and so they are in the predicament they are in today. Bad mistake.


Soren wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:49pm:

But there are dozens of Muslim countries,

Numbers are really irrelevant in this case. Previously the Muslims were in 1 state, does that mean the situation was different? 1 state, 50 states, it's all the same. Doesn't change someone's rights to their home.


Soren wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:49pm:

even though Muslim Arabs are indigenous to Araby only.

"Muslim Arabs" are not indigenous to any piece of land. Islam is a belief system, and as such it arrived at some point in all lands it is now professed. As did Christianity, as did all other belief systems. Your way of thinking is just juvenile really.


Soren wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:49pm:

Everywhere else where there are Muslims, there is bloodshed - Africa, India, Indonesia, Philipines, Thailand.

Yet this bloodshed generally didn't exist until the arrival of European colonists... even though Islam preceded them by many centuries in most cases.


Soren wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:49pm:

In western democracies, they are blowing up skyskrapers, underground and above ground trains, plot and exceute bloody mayhem

Were they doing this prior to all the Western hostilities against them? When you push people enough, they'll usually push back. Some simpletons never realise this though I guess.

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 12:08pm:

Jan, In Soren's little delusional fantasy world, Jews infiltrating Australia are actually an example of how great they are. It's only Muslims who should remain outside. His beliefs are based on supremacy of certain races and cultures, hence the reason he has no problem with Jews "taking over from within". But if a Muslim were to do the same, it would be labelled "Stealth Jihad".

I know!! 'They' actually believe these 'supreme intellects' will benefit them in the long run.

I too believe the zionists are supremely intellectual, after all they have conquered the monetary systems around the world, making them all powerful.

However I am smart enough to realize that these big headed intellects are only smart at 'gaining power' and too dumb to save the planet in the process, they are too egotistical to bother rewarding anyone outside their cabal ... ie those who are dumb enough to follow their rules for reasons of self preservation and gaining kudos. Followers are seen as weak and "servile" (ie slaves rather than leaders).

Zionists Jews will devour their own 'sub-species' when the time comes ...

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 1:26pm:

When you push people enough, they'll usually push back. Some simpletons never realise this though I guess.

Who the bugger is 'pushing' you and the Bebrinkas of Australia, the Andy Chouderys and tube bombers of Britain, the Nidal Malik Hasans of America, the Madrid and Glasgow bombers, Theo Van Gogh murderers, the cartoonist hounding bearded buggers? WHo?

Muslims are given all the opportunities in the west that their brothers could only dream of in 'Muslim lands'. Yet you make it out that you are being 'pushed' and somehow it is our goddam fault that you buggers plot bloody mayhem in the very countries that have taken you in, that tolerate you, give you freedom and opportunities.

Other ethnic minorities, be they Jews, Chinese or Hindus, have somehow managed to both keep their culture and fit into their chosen adopted country, without feeling the need to parade around the streets like big overgrown babies, stamping their feet and ordering fatwas when things displease them.

Soren wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 6:03pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:26pm: When you push people enough, they'll usually push back. Some simpletons never realise this though I guess. Who the bugger is 'pushing' you and the Bebrinkas of Australia, the Andy Chouderys and tube bombers iodf Britain, the Nidal Malik Hasans of America, the Madrid and Glasgow bombers, Theo Van Gogh murderers, the cartoonist hounding bearded buggers? WHo? Muslims are given all the opportunities in the west that their brothers could only dream of in 'Muslim lands'. Yet you make it out that you are being 'pushed' and somehow it is our goddam fault that you buggers plot bloody mayhem in the very countries that have taken you in, that tolerate you, give you freedom and opportunities. Other ethnic minorities, be they Jews, Chinese or Hindus, have somehow managed to both keep their culture and fit into their chosen adopted country, without feeling the need to parade around the streets like big overgrown babies, stamping their feet and ordering fatwas when things displease them.

Soren we have been bombing them for decades now,
they clearly have something to be pissed about

Soren wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 6:03pm:

Other ethnic minorities, be they Jews, Chinese or Hindus, have somehow managed to both keep their culture and fit into their chosen adopted country

Really? So if Australia invaded China, India or Israel like it did with Iraq and Afghanistan, you think all those Chinese or Hindus or Jews would be happy?

When the Jews wanted the British to leave Palestine they committed hundreds of terrorist attacks against Britain.

Ever heard of the King David hotel bombing?

Ever heard of the assasination of Lord Moyne?

Jewish terrorist attacks were also attempted but failed on the British Colonial Office in Whitehall, and a number of British officials were targetted for assassination.

Lord Moyne AssasinatedBy Jewish Terrorists in 1944


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7yyXwwwTiwI/Tij5_Sk6mEI/AAAAAAAAwjs/xxChCoWqG-E/s1600/LordMoyne.jpg



In September 1948, Jewish Terrorists also killed UN mediator Folke Bernadotte in Jerusalem, five months after Israel was established. Yitzhak Shamir personally approved the assassination.
http://i.qkme.me/3539x4.jpg


In July 1946, Irgun terrorists bombed the King David Hotel, massacring 92 Brits, Arabs and Jews, wounding 58 others. Future prime minister David Ben-Gurion approved it as head of the Jewish Agency at the time.
http://www.bollyn.com/public/2BeginKingDavidHotel.jpg


Jewish Terrorists Attack British At king David Hotel
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/KD_1946.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 6:35pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 6:03pm: abu_rashid wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 1:26pm: When you push people enough, they'll usually push back. Some simpletons never realise this though I guess. Who the bugger is 'pushing' you and the Bebrinkas of Australia, the Andy Chouderys and tube bombers iodf Britain, the Nidal Malik Hasans of America, the Madrid and Glasgow bombers, Theo Van Gogh murderers, the cartoonist hounding bearded buggers? WHo? Muslims are given all the opportunities in the west that their brothers could only dream of in 'Muslim lands'. Yet you make it out that you are being 'pushed' and somehow it is our goddam fault that you buggers plot bloody mayhem in the very countries that have taken you in, that tolerate you, give you freedom and opportunities. Other ethnic minorities, be they Jews, Chinese or Hindus, have somehow managed to both keep their culture and fit into their chosen adopted country, without feeling the need to parade around the streets like big overgrown babies, stamping their feet and ordering fatwas when things displease them. Soren we have been bombing them for decades now, they clearly have something to be pissed about

'Them'?

Abu and all the other bearded numpties keep telling us that NONE of these places are truly muslim, they are all Western puppets. So why are they so pissed if we bomb our own puppets??

Because the Muslim mind is so buggered up that it just can't think straight for one minute. We are bad if we support them, we re bad if we bomb them.

They are just completely discombobulated and nothing makes sense to them in what we call reality - except a giant anti-Muslim conspiracy. The whole world is against them - that's what bought Islam into existence and that is it sole motivating force that gives muslims any sense of cohesion. When they forget that for a moment, they are immediately killing each other.

Mohammed came up with his Islam wheeze to unite them againt the outsider, rather than let them grind themselves up in tribal, clannish war. There has never been anything else to Islam in 1400 years.

Soren why do you have so much hatred man?

From Israel with Love.

---

Soren wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 7:43pm:

Abu and all the other bearded numpties keep telling us that NONE of these places are truly muslim, they are all Western puppets. So why are they so pissed if we bomb our own puppets??

Surely you're not this half witted? The West bomb the populace, not the puppets, well not until they're finished with them and they outlive their usefulness anyway.

Wrong - both Israel and the United States target the terrorists.

It is the terrorists who shelter behind the civilians that cause those casualties.

Now compare to the despicable Muslim terrorists who deliberately blow up marketplaces and children's school buses.
Nothing short of scum those people.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6^th, 2012 at 9:34pm:

Soren why do you have so much hatred man?

Because we give them shelter and opportunity and they bomb our cities, tubes, hotels, they plot bloody mayhem, ponce around issuing fatwas like a bunch of psychotics and they slag off the West at every opportunity.

WHat's to like?

Soren wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 9:28am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:34pm: Soren why do you have so much hatred man? Because we give them shelter and opportunity and they bomb our cities, tubes, hotels, they plot bloody mayhem, ponce around issuing fatwas like a bunch of psychotics and they slag off the West at every opportunity. WHat's to like?

Do you have hatred for those who were given shelter and opportunity in Palestine and who eventually went on to bomb hotels and the like? And they didn't even pronounce fatwas in the street, they just went ahead and assassinated anyone they perceived was standing in the way of their goals.

Something tells me such low life scum escape your hatred right?

Soren wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 9:28am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:34pm: Soren why do you have so much hatred man? Because we give them shelter and opportunity and they bomb our cities, tubes, hotels, they plot bloody mayhem, ponce around issuing fatwas like a bunch of psychotics and they slag off the West at every opportunity. WHat's to like?

We have been bombing their cities, tubes, hotels, residential areas, hospitals, mosques etc for decades now.
Killing millions of innocent people
Compared to their killing of a few thousand

We also strangle their economies causing billions to live in poverty and starve to death.

The west is clearly a psychotic society also

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 1:36pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 7th, 2012 at 9:28am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:34pm: Soren why do you have so much hatred man? Because we give them shelter and opportunity and they bomb our cities, tubes, hotels, they plot bloody mayhem, ponce around issuing fatwas like a bunch of psychotics and they slag off the West at every opportunity. WHat's to like? We have been bombing their cities, tubes, hotels, residential areas, hospitals, mosques etc for decades now. Killing millions of innocent people Compared to their killing of a few thousand We also strangle their economies causing billions to live in poverty and starve to death. The west is clearly a psychotic society also

Complete bollocks.

If we really, really wanted to wipe them off the map, it would have been done decades ago.  Muslim 'holy warriors' hide behind the skirts of civilian women and behind the local kindergarten and mosque.

That's what asymmetrical warfare is. They are shooting from civilian areas and when anyone shoots back, they are immediately out on the street wailing and pointing: look, they are shooting at the innocents!
Dishonest scum. Honesty. Is there an Arabic word for that?

abu_rashid wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 1:32pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 7th, 2012 at 9:28am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 6th, 2012 at 9:34pm: Soren why do you have so much hatred man? Because we give them shelter and opportunity and they bomb our cities, tubes, hotels, they plot bloody mayhem, ponce around issuing fatwas like a bunch of psychotics and they slag off the West at every opportunity. WHat's to like? Do you have hatred for those who were given shelter and opportunity in Palestine and who eventually went on to bomb hotels and the like? And they didn't even pronounce fatwas in the street, they just went ahead and assassinated anyone they perceived was standing in the way of their goals. Something tells me such low life scum escape your hatred right?

Israel is for the Jews.
Muslims have been interlopers and occupiers for centuries without any honest claim to the place.
Everyone knows that Israel is Jewish. Even you.

But what is once occupied by Muslims is forever Muslim, so there is no retreat by the bearded numpties, especially not for the Jews. The very existence of the Jews - and a Jewish country! -  is a daily reminder of just how much nonsense Islam actually is.
And that's what ails you.

Opinions are like a-holes, everybody has one and they are all different.

We don't expect all Christians to think alike, why is it that both Christians and Jews claim to know what every single one of 2.2 billion Muslims are thinking and that they all think alike?

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 7:16pm:

Opinions are like a-holes, everybody has one and they are all different. We don't expect all Christians to think alike, why is it that both Christians and Jews claim to know what every single one of 2.2 billion Muslims are thinking and that they all think alike?

This is truth Peter I agrees but my experiences my friend in deal with Palestinians is not so good too.

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 8^th, 2012 at 7:16pm:

what every single one of 2.2 billion Muslims are thinking and that they all think alike?

They all think Mohammed is worth listening to and following. That's bad enough for me. I am not aware of anything that is both new and positive in Islam. Are you aware of anything like that? If not, why bother with Mohamedans?  They will tell you to believe everything Mohammed said. I think that this is asking to violate your own mind and submit to brazen stupidity.

What do you think (thing being the operative word)?