Transcript from the Jihad Watch thread that documents my latest banning from Jihad Watch, September 25, 2010
Fineliving56 Is an apostate living in the US...I know her from another site...She is a good woman...
replied to comment from Buraq | September 25, 2010 9:24 AM | Reply Thanks you Buraq for at least trying to set Hakeem in the right direction. The mentality of some of these animals that can lay judgment on others is amazing. The Jesus that Muhammad added to the Quran was strictly add on verbage from a profit that was more out for himself than inspired by any angel. How people buy into this speaks volumes.
which seem harsh, or "barbaric" to you outside observers.....
A bit. Huh?
And to hakeem. Not all Christians subscribe to the concept of the Trinity. What about them? Are they shirkers too? The Trinity is a mystical concept and not logical. But all religion contains illogic so what's yer point? Or do you not think it illogical that mohametan beliefs include the Virgin Birth or the idea that Jesus returns at some future date, as in from the "other side"? Or in the case of the Shia, that a hidden person will pop out of the well after being in there for 1000 years? Sure sure dude. That's totally logical.
And what exactly is the sound of One Hand Clapping? Religion is faith and not logic. Allah has 99 attributes. Does that define allah completely? If not please define allah precisely so that we may have a logical discussion. Oh can't be defined by us mortals eh? Well then logic does not apply to things which can not be defined.
nabi ZK (pbum)
replied to comment from traeh | September 25, 2010 10:06 AM | Reply to Hesperardo ….
Like Duh said I am ax Muslim living in US for the last 30 years who suffered from living in a household crushed under the un forgiveness of Islam and the complications of it …I joined the conversations in anti Islam sits this year to vent, no one around me understand or care to listen ,I am surrounded by two faced mild muslims who understand 9/11 like Ahmahiyjad did in the UN just recently .
When I sow that video of stoning I revolted ,I cried, I cussed,I went around the house in circles like a mad woman in reaction even my family tried to console me and tried to say it is only isolated incidents which only got me more angry …..I now it does not help to get angry …but I have the feeling that I am going through the time that you went through before and may be I will get to the point of mild reaction to the horror of Islam like you do now .
I normally do not cuss like that ..I apologies ….thank you Duh for understanding .
replied to comment from hakeem | September 25, 2010 10:26 AM | Reply "hakeem" wrote, believing he was replying to a comment from Traeh:
As I predicted, "hakeen" was not referring to the Jesus of the Bible at all, but to the ugly Islamic figure of "Isa". "Isa's" main role in the Qur'an is to castigate Christians for "associating partners with Allah" by believing in his divinity.
well i respect your opinion and at the same time i agree with you in sum aspect and i disagree with you in sum.
firstly...
.....................
Actually, that was my comment, not Treah's. It can be difficult, at times, in a long comment stream, to be sure who wrote what, and who is commenting on something written by someone else. Easy mistake, and one I have made many times myself.
As a rule, as an act of courtesy, I try to reply to anyone who has addressed a post of mine at some length. I will not do so here.
"hakeem" seems under the impression that I have an interest in calmly debating the differences between Christian and Muslim views of the the trinity, or the role of Mary, or some other fine point of theology—and that I would wish to do so with *an apologist for dragging a woman into a field, throwing her into a hole, and stoning her to death*.
I have no such interests.
Just as Robert Spencer will often use "do you condemn Hamas?" as a litmus test, I believe *stoning* is even more basic.
Many things about Shari'ah law are disturbing—the terrible enshrined oppression of Infidels, and women, and children, the prosperity-killing tenets of "Shari'ah-compliant finance", the arbitrary nature with which it is all enforced—but these can seem subtle or vague to many Infidels, who find it difficult to imagine the repercussions of something as seemingly minor as the allowance of "Islamic family law" in cases of custody or divorce or inheritance.
So here is the baseline litmus test: are you a Muslim who condones a victim being dragged into a field, buried up to her waist, and *stoned to death* by a ravening mob?
If the answer is yes, then the person is no longer to be considered a moral actor. The person is not someone one would wish to discuss minor theological matters with—or, indeed, any matters at all.
It would be like having a civilized conversation about politics or art with a cannibal or an especially brutal SS concentration camp guard.
Along with the appalling "Dank", who also wants "Allah" to "Bless America" with the savagery of stoning, "hakeem" has put himself beyond the pale. One does not have discussions with such a person. one can only regard him with abject horror—and realize how many of his co-religionists are just like him—outwardly seemingly rational, while at heart a companion to those men in the field holding bloodied stones in their hands.
Human sacrifice is an integral part of the Cult of the Damned.
muslims caught on tape - again. Here we have more revolting reveals about the "religion of peace". islam is more the religion of serial killers. Criminal behavior like this is par for the course where evil islam & company are concerned. Yeah this was a very hard video to watch, and it's shocking that this type of barbaric injustice is still being practiced today. One would expect to see this sort of heinous act carved out on the inside of a cave, not caught on modern day video tape. Nope, this is going on today, folks. Hard to believe, but true.
The risk of talking to someone who supports something morally disastrous like Islam, is that one can give undeserved prestige to that point of view and that prestige can have destructive ramifications. But it is possible to dialogue with Muslims in a kind way without covering any of the ugly truth. The advantage of dialoging in that way is that some Muslims do learn, though it may take years of continuous drip of argument on the stone. And mainstream infidels are more likely to be open to the ugly truth if it is wrapped in kindness. If all we do is point out the ugliness, that's an important service, but it's not enough, and it won't be the most effective path for us. A positive alternative should be presented for Muslims along with unvarnished criticism, even if the positive alternative is only implicit in the kindness one shows.
Those who, like Hesperado, say we should spare no feelings whatsoever for Muslims -- but I encourage people to read his comment above, in case I've misread it -- those like Hesperado perhaps do not consider Father Boutros, who dialogues via his television show with Muslims all the time, and quite possibly has converted more Muslims away from Islam than anyone else on the planet. He does not cover up the uglyness of the hadiths and Koran. But he is kind. I think that as long as one does not cover up any of the uglyness of Muhammad and Islam, kindness is the most effective way to make inroads against Islam. Boutros is proof, unless the reports are incorrect of huge numbers of conversions away from Islam, due to Boutros. I gather there is a multi-million dollar price tag on Boutros head.
graven. Thank you. How correct. The nabi lost his head there for a moment and tried to engage with a knuckle dragging supporter of the vile mohametan act depicted in the video. There is no point. You are correct.
nabi ZK (pbum)
"Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity - God being Three-in-One - is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don't revere just One God, they revere three." -- hakeem
To the extent that this is supposed to represent the Islamic understanding of the Trinity, it illustrates about as well as anything a mindset that attaches literal meaning to words but fails to perceive the underlying concepts. It is the mind of one who reads a poem about the beauty of a forest but misses the point by getting hung up on the poet's description of the leaves of a particular tree. Or one who fixates on the wild hair of the conductor of the symphonic orchestra and fails to hear the music. Or of one who will view a painting and see only dabs of paint. It is the mind of one who reads the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) but fails to detect the underlying meaning. It is a mind which does not understand the power of symbolism, analogy, similes, or allegories, not to mention satire, sarcasm or parody, to capture concepts that the simple stringing together of simple words like "See Spot run" alone cannot. It is the mind of a child.
But as regarding the Trinity, even as a child I learned an analogy that, as much as anything, helped me understand this central concept of Christianity.
There are several different interpretations, all of which rely on analogy to illustrate. In one, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit represent three aspects of a single reality comprising, respectively, the physical world, sentient but unillumined man born into the physical world, and the transcendent spirit of man. In another one, more akin to Buddhism or Hinduism, the three elements are the ultimate Universal Reality, creation of the physical world out of that reality, and the self-organization out of that physical world a sentience able to reflect on itself and perceive the Ultimate Reality from which it sprang. There are others, but an analogy applicable to all of them is how water (H2O) can manifest itself in three separate phases, solid ice, liquid water and steam, and still be of the same substance.
Note that this is an analogy, so to understand how it attempts to capture the Three-in-One concept of the Trinity requires a mind capable of detecting the connections, making the necessary links, and understanding the analogy at a conceptual level. The Islamic conception of the Christian Trinity completely misses the subtlety of the real concept, and is akin to a child asserting that water exists only in liquid form because it had never seen snow or ice, or realized that steam is also water.
Dank said "Adultery SPECIFICALLY is seen as a heinous crime because it is an attack against the family unit, which is the nucleus of any society. It is only in a society that holds the right of an individual to do whatever they want with impunity over the welfare of the society as a whole that such reasoning would be seen as barbaric."
--------------------------------
But yet the Quran considers Islam to be above the Family nucleus. It consorts its followers to tattle on even brothers or other family members if they stray from Islam. Isn't this hypocrisy in a religion that considers the family the nucleus? I guess the family is only the nucleus up till the point you stray from Islam at which point Islam supersedes even your own family. How cohesive is the family going to be in an atmosphere like this? This kind of behavior is very CULT like.
In a culture and religion that considers all women to be property of one male or another, does not allow women to discover their "true love" or have their own self identity (the burqas and other obtuse identity erasing mechanisms), allows the male to have 3 other wives or even a child bride. Then wouldn't you think there are far more incidents of adultery that go unnoticed or unfounded? Who the hell would want to be in a family where you are just one of three females getting attention, loving and sex from the one male in the household? Many western women would be repulsed at the idea.
It is human nature for someone to want to be loved. Most people want to be in a relationship where they are appreciated, loved and given a voice to let others know what they feel or think. When this voice is silenced, they seek out through other means.
Someone has rightly called this hideous savagery "Muslim human sacrifice." Or, to coddle the more sensitive, "Islamist human sacrifice."
What do you expect when you are dealing with low-IQ inbred savages? Google "muslim inbreeding," and you will discover that some 70% of Pakistanis are inbred. Pakistanis in Great Britain are overwhelming the medical system with their first-cousin marriage offspring with birth defects. These children often have lower IQs. And, as we can see from this vile video, THESE Muslims are savages. They may or may not be Pakistanis, but I wager that a similar percentage of Afghans are likewise inbred.
So, there you have it in a nutshell: Low-IQ inbred savages engaging in human sacrifice. That's the best Islam can produce in these parts.
To the person who calls himself "Buraq," you have inspired this image:
http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/406-buraq-obama
My numerous liberal friends are not at all fond of the image, despite that fact it's just art and satire. (Not to mention a little truth, especially in consideration of Obama's obsequious bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia and his unending Islam-smooching commentary.)
replied to comment from Fineliving56 | September 25, 2010 12:03 PM | Reply FineLiving56, I certainly think your reaction to this video is better than those who find it unremarkable or worse yet those who cannot see the Islam behind it. But I think there is one more step to take beyond anger.
Indeed, we can list on a scale all the possible reactions and rank them, from Worst to Best (as the numbers rise, they get better and better):
Worst: Islamic defense of stoning and support for the stoners of the video.
2: Disapproval of the stoning -- but identification of the stoners as motivated by "culture" and having nothing to do with Islam.
3: Disapproval of the stoning -- and grudging acceptance of something vaguely resembling Islam in the stoning, but only of the "tiny minority of extremists who are hijacking peaceful Islam" variety.
4: Repugnance and dismay at the stoning, and a growing sense that there is something seriously wrong with Islam -- but not with Muslims since, of course, most Muslims are still ordinary "moms and pops like the rest of us just trying to live daily life" and nice people.
5: Horror and repulsion at the stoning, with a redoubled sense that Islam is thoroughly evil -- but still, there are many nice Muslims out there who are either "secularized" or who are "ignorant" of their own faith.
6: Outrage and fury at the stoning (the reaction of FineLiving56) and for all things Islamic -- but... does there still linger here an unconditional granting of humanity to Muslims? As I claimed in my previous comment, to be angry at such Muslims is to implicitly expect that they could do otherwise. (And then we have the problem of all the Muslims around the world who are not stoning anyone: what do we think about them? That some/many/most of them are ordinary "moms and pops like the rest of us just trying to live daily life" and nice people?)
Best: I no longer feel anything about Muslims -- because I have had the epiphany that they are not human. It would be irrational to get angry at an inhuman maelstrom of evil, would it not? One simply seeks ways to protect oneself, and one's loved ones, from that maelstrom.
(As I said in my previous comment, this is not an ontological judgment, but a pragmatic one: any given Muslim may reclaim and earn his humanity by abjuring Islam/Mohammed/Allah/the Koran -- though he should remain suspect even after that.)
replied to comment from Fineliving56 | September 25, 2010 12:27 PM | Reply This is a good site to vent the truth...people are listening...keep posting... :)
There's nothing like a good stoning before breakfast to raise feelings of lust for women. These animals have to seen to be believed. Is it really 2010, obviously it's still AD900 in Pakistan. They could do with some modern camera equipment out there so we could send crystal clear images for re-transmission on the BBC News channel.
replied to comment from Courreges W | September 25, 2010 12:40 PM | Reply "Wilde never wrote about Islam or Muslims."
Perhaps true; but Wilde at least got close, with his play Salomé -- about Herod, a petty king of the Middle East Before, During and After Christ whose father was an Edomite, and whose mother was an Arab.
Herod, according to the book of Matthew of the New Testament, had all the babies of Bethlehem massacred, out of some obsessive anxiety that there was one baby among them considered to be teh "King of the Jews" and the "Christ".
Also according to the New Testament (Matthew and Mark), Herod was seduced by his step-daughter's belly-dancing to grant her wish to have John the Baptist beheaded.
In Oscar Wilde's play Salomé, we find the titular character saying to a Syrian who has a crush on her:
I look at you through muslin veils...
And later, Hérodias, her mother, reproaches Herod thusly:
...thy father was a camel driver! He was a thief and a robber to boot!
replied to comment from Eastview | September 25, 2010 12:51 PM | Reply Jehovah Witnesses also have trouble with the subtlety of the Holy Trinity as well as the Christian emblem of the cross. Hindus on the other hand revere the many and varied natures of a single god with a vast array of colourful and imaginative depictions of his moods, desires and power. Surely of all the ancient religions Hinduism must be the closest to Christianity.
"Muslim do have the tendency in being selective when being vocal about history...They can remember ancient text in the Bible about stonings, but seem to forget that Israel has always been Jewish land..."
It is even historical fact in the Quran, that Jews lived in what is now known as Saudi Arabia. Muslims deny this and seek to keep even "people of the book" out of their "holy land".
Such hypocrisy
replied to comment from Hesperado | September 25, 2010 1:15 PM | Reply "...Oscar Wilde's play Salomé..." and the quotes.
Excellent catch, Hesp!
replied to comment from Steffen Larsen | September 25, 2010 1:16 PM | Reply Someone mentioned Dante?
Dante's Hell, Mohammad depicted
Depictions of Mohammad in this vein are why they wanted to burn down this one church that had Dante's Hell painted within.
-----------------------
"A cask by losing centre-piece or cant
Was never shattered so, as I saw one
Rent from the chin to where one breaketh wind.
Between his legs were hanging down his entrails;
His heart was visible, and the dismal sack
That maketh excrement of what is eaten.
While I was all absorbed in seeing him,
He looked at me, and opened with his hands
His bosom, saying: "See now how I rend me;
How mutilated, see, is Mahomet;
replied to comment from traeh | September 25, 2010 1:24 PM | Reply ...kindness is the most effective way to make inroads against Islam.
Kindness was not an option against the Japanese during WW2 -- the Japanese who had, in the years before WW2, massacred millions of Chinese, Koreans and other SE Asian (over 100,000 Filipinos); and who attacked us, who had designs to conquer us because they thought themselves superior, and who allied themselves with Hitler.
I'm not done yet. One more thing to consider: In terms of evil and dangerous fanaticism & hostility to the world, Muslims are worse than the Japanese were.
replied to comment from Hesperado | September 25, 2010 1:35 PM | Reply Hesperado,
One thing to keep in mind with the point that "kindness is the most effective way to make inroads against Islam.".
If you remember the Son of Hamas, Mosab Hassan Yousef? he was imprisoned in Israeli jail cell after having been caught doing something. While there he saw the distinction between the Israeli Jailers who handled the prisoners with kindness vs his own people (hamas) who abused and killed his own people in the jail cells. It was this that made him turn on his own people and religion so that he became a "spy" for Mossad. He also turned away from terror and violence and became a Christian.
So yes, we should seek to encourage kindness towards Muslims in the hopes that they see by our examples the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is true that some may be a lost cause. In this case, there is not much more that can be done for them.
replied to comment from dumbledoresarmy | September 25, 2010 2:07 PM | Reply Actually, the real quote is "A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal." - Oscar Wilde
Someone in our current Islam-saturated age thought substituting "Islam" for "sincerity" would work - and yes, it certainly does!
Wilde never wrote about Islam or Muslims. The real quote from Wilde is:
"A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal." - Oscar Wilde
replied to comment from Hesperado | September 25, 2010 2:21 PM | Reply That's fine about Wilde's play, "Salome," the two sentences.
However, his witty quotation (among many) is:
"A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal." - Oscar Wilde
Someone substituted "Islam" for "sincerity" on the 'net, which is what leevy saw.
So, two lines in "Salome." That's it about Muslims for Wilde.
Wilde satirized Victorian English society, as in "The Importance of Being Earnest," and "Lady Windermere's Fan."
replied to comment from Hesperado | September 25, 2010 2:45 PM | Reply "I no longer feel anything about Muslims -- because I have had the epiphany that they are not human."
Of course they're human. Which is why we feel for the Muslim woman being stoned by her countrymen - she's human. She's not an alien from Planet Zorg - she's a human on Earth. Amina and Sarah Said, Muslim girls' murdered by their warped-by-Islam father - they were human. So is their evil father. Perverted by an evil ideology. Human, nonetheless.
Fascists' and Nazis' are human, too - they've been warped by an evil ideology, just as Muslims' have.
But, they're human. So, your "epiphany" is completely bogus.
replied to comment from Hesperado | September 25, 2010 3:14 PM | Reply Small correction, Hesperado,
The Herod who was supposed to have the babies in Bethlehem killed, was Herod the Great (living # 70 to 4 BC), ruler of the whole of Palestine (then called Judea/ Samaria/ Galilee and Edom and then some extra) as a Roman vassal. And he hardly could have had all those babies killed at the time of Jesus'Birth, as he was supposed to be dead 4 years already then. But that's another discussion.
Herod was the son of Antipater, some Edomite "general" under the Jewish king Hyrcanus, ally of the Romans.
The Herod of the play, the husband of Herodias and mother of Salome, was Herod the Greats son Herod Antipas, vassal-ruler of only Galilee, so yes, HE was petty.
replied to comment from demsci | September 25, 2010 3:20 PM | Reply Cprrection Herod Antipas was of course husband to Herodias and SHE was mother of Salome.
The MOST DANGEROUS Muslim
EVERY Muslim fits into one of the 3 below categories
a) The Muslim. This is the law-abiding, very decent fellow. May be varying degrees of pious, the more pious, the more he/she writes off the innumeralbe kill verses in the Koran, emphasizing its early moral verses in an effort to ascribe to a more modernistic interpretation - in any event all religions seem to have a few kill verses. Or may not give a rat's behind about any of it. In any case, zero interest in installing Sharia because it would make little no difference to their lives or too apathetic to care. Can be a very congenial fellow, friend to members of other religions.
This Muslim is every bit as horrified and repulsed by the video as anyone posting on this board.
b) The political Muslim. Is committed to overthrowing the government and installing Sharia by making use of Muhammed's prescrited edict to lie to the infidels. There is ABSOLUTELY no difference discernable to a non-Muslim between a Muslim of type "a" and a Muslim of type "b". In lying to infidels, the political Muslim will blend in perfectly with the Muslim of type "a" above.
c) The military Muslim. This is the frothing, brainless mass pictured in the video. This mass reverberates the KILL in the instruction book in every automatated, spasmoidic movement, in every impulse springing from its gonads to its appendages.
Thie is what needs to be understood.
The MOST DANGEROUS Muslim..the one that will stare you in the face while eating your children -
is "a" above.
What a cowardly bunch of pigs these "men" are. What an awful religion that demands such cruelty.
replied to comment from Hesperado | September 25, 2010 5:45 PM | Reply Individuals who so horrifically violate such basic forms of human decency and who subject their victims to such outrageous cruelty are void of the one distinguishing characteristic unique to our species and that is having conscience.
So I agree with Hesperado and his frank and sober assessment. Converting muslims is a noble cause and if done in significant numbers, it holds the potential perhaps of reversing the trend but at this point in time,to rely on this happening, is folly. The tide against us is immense and approaching too fast, it is time firstly to ensure our own survival.
replied to comment from B | September 25, 2010 5:57 PM | Reply ".. we should seek to encourage kindness towards Muslims in the hopes that they see by our examples the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Yes, my friend, do seek whatever you think is good to seek, just please refrain from the "WE SHOULD" form.
We know what we should seek. Namely, we seek to fulfill our natural duty to ensure safe and free world for our children, grandchildren and their descendants by restoring a muzzlem-free West.
On the basis of what 1400 years taught us about Islam it has at least as much chance to make muzzlums embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ as kindness.
replied to comment from Courreges W | September 25, 2010 6:03 PM | Reply Personally I choose not to define as human any callous unrepentant murderer or any one subscribing to the same ideology no matter how mildly or moderately loyal they claim to support it, it is still support. It is always the seemingly innocuous fruits which hide the pestilence creating the plague we all need to quarantine.
replied to comment from Thomas_h | September 25, 2010 6:15 PM | Reply Which doesn't mean we need to be unfair to muzzlems in our everyday encounters. I try to be correct, but never more than that so they never have reason to think that I like, or welcome them.
replied to comment from wakingwest | September 25, 2010 6:27 PM | Reply Personally I choose not to define as human any callous unrepentant murderer or any one subscribing to the same ideology no matter how mildly or moderately loyal they claim to support it, it is still support.
I think the best definition of human advanced by Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas etc., and, I think, never challenged is (potentially)rational animal. Unrepentant murderer may be a moral monster, but he is rational nevertheless.
replied to comment from Hesperado | September 25, 2010 7:13 PM | Reply Hesperado,
Soldiers can kill with utmost effectiveness and yet still feel a little compassion for the enemy, though that might be difficult sometimes. Kindness does not preclude doing what is necessary to defend oneself. I doubt that fiercely fighting the Japanese required abandoning all compassion for them. But maybe I'm not being realistic.
There seems no doubt that in many past wars, American soldiers were encouraged to dehumanize the enemy. Doing that is so common among fighting forces everywhere that maybe one must assume it is a psychological necessity for an effective fighting force.
But I don't think that's obvious. And I'll bet some of the most effective soldiers have had some compassion for the enemy. In fact Americans are perhaps an example of that: Americans surely dehumanized their enemies less than did the Nazis or the Imperial Japanese, but we beat them both.
No doubt a certain kind of compassion can be foolish and paralyzing -- the kind of compassion that extends primarily to the bad guy, while paying little attention to his victims. I don't see why one cannot have compassion for both the bad guy and his victims, and in light of that, kill the bad guy when necessary, but without hatred or joy.
I have to admit that perhaps if I were more closely a witness to some of the horrors done in the name of Islam, I might find the notion of any compassion toward the perpetrators ridiculous or even monstrous.
Still, there is that line from Terence (the writer of Latin comedies in the 2nd century B.C.). The line is also inscribed on Montaigne's library ceiling: "I am a human being, and nothing human is foreign to me."
Since we all have a dark side, perhaps many of us could have become as spiritually corrupt as an Islamic supremacist, if we had been born into an Islamic setting. There but for the grace of...X, go I.
Probably more than one approach to these matters is advisable anyway. Different approaches can accomplish different things, many of them necessary. By analogy, a traditional father's approach might be, say, admirably tough and realistic, but not always particularly understanding. A traditional mother's approach might be quite loving, but, shall we say, too understanding. Such polarities can balance one another not just outwardly, but within each individual. That might even be a decent definition of sanity.
As for social sanity, we have some modicum of it because people check and balance each other, at least in free societies.
replied to comment from zonie kafir | September 25, 2010 7:32 PM | Reply Thank you for your kind words, Nabi.
replied to comment from Thomas_h | September 25, 2010 7:47 PM | Reply Sometimes the sage's wisdom comes not from the extent of what he knows but from realizing the infinity of what he knows not.
While it is impressive to cover one's opinion by casually alluding to the greats such as Plato and to many of the other notable philosophical giants of the past,I will dare to bare myself naked ,boils and all to cpmprehaned the truth of what I really am and not appearing vain.
As great as Greek civilization was remeber that philosophical knowledge or not, it crumbled despite what Plato learned form Socrates of whom he was his boy toy.
Sophistry is capable of convincing idiots the rationality of drinking urine, it's what is now called spin and at this point venturing into a discussion of the definition of what rational means and much less adding animal to it is not only beyond my ability to copy and paste or remember philosophy 101 but most importantly time-wise unaffordable.
replied to comment from traeh | September 25, 2010 8:58 PM | Reply Soldiers can kill with utmost effectiveness and yet still feel a little compassion for the enemy, though that might be difficult sometimes. Kindness does not preclude doing what is necessary to defend oneself.
This is quite correct. I think fighting forces need to do what is necessary to fight the enemy and win. When the enemy has been subdued, we need to reign in our compulsion to humiliate and antagonized. In other words, at this point we should be the model of our society and treat the prisoners as we would want to be treated if we were in their shoes.
When I saw the pictures and actions from Abu Gharab prison (sp?) I was horrified that our own forces were doing stuff like that. It certainly gave credence to Muslims that we were immoral and inhuman. Many of the Muslims that may have been sitting on the fence or against fighting Americans became pissed off enough to do something about it. It was an unnecessary provocation from our own fighting forces. We should treat them with respect and kindness that we would hope for from them. Follow the Geneva Conventions and who knows maybe they will come to see their religion for what it truly is, despicable.
To the loathsome Dank: You defend Sharia and its barbaric punishments as deterrents to protect society and the 'family', and you sneered that we ignorant rednecks are too obtuse to appreciate the subtle genius of these savage practices. This ignorant redneck appreciates individual liberty but islam is all about the collective, the tribe, the ummah, the SUPERIOR MALE. You call the family the backbone of every society and I agree, the family is very important to every society but the islamic family is an aberration, a freak, a farce designed to provide the MALE husband with sexual variety. The islamic 'family' is a dysfunctional nightmare and is largely responsible for stagnated, impoverished islamic societies, radicalized young males, and neurotic, miserable women. Polygamous societies create the chaos and fanaticism seen in Pakistan and other islamic backwaters. The islamic family is not worth preserving or defending and that isn't why women accused of adultery are stoned. They are stoned for dishonoring their male owners and their tribes because they are chattel, easily replaced and totally dispensable. They are stoned in public to show 'society' what happens to errant slaves and because the male executioners enjoy inflicting pain and suffering on evil females.
To Hesperado: I have often questioned the humanity of muslims myself. They lack certain basic characteristics found in most human beings, although anatomically they are human. There is more to being human than outward appearance and muslims are missing something crucial on the inside---love, compassion, empathy, the ability to discern good from evil? I have heard it said that 'human nature is universal' but muslims blew that theory to hell. Civilized human beings with a conscience and average IQ could not believe and practice the filth and perversions found in islam and consider these abominations the epitome of piety, the word and will of God, nor could they revere muhammad as a prophet and the 'perfect human'. Islam is evil any way you look at it; it has no redemptive qualities. But I think the most ironic aspect of islam/muslims is their certitude that they are superior because they believe this demonic heresy! The only thing extraordinary or unique about islam is its ability to inexorably brainwash people and turn many of them into homicidal drones for allah.
replied to comment from Fineliving56 | September 25, 2010 9:52 PM | Reply Fineliving
you identify yourself as an apostate from Islam.
If that really is the truth, then: may you be blessed and protected.
Have you thought of getting in touch with 'Former Muslims United'?
replied to comment from Hesperado | September 25, 2010 9:56 PM | Reply I have had the epiphany that they are not human. - Hesperado
Joint decision between Robert and me: this is enough. There are two issues here, Hesperado: your role as longtime sideline sniper, and posts like this that make you sound like a sociopath, playing into the hands of CAIR. Really, you're getting into Goebbels' territory here.
If what you've "adumbrated" above is the criterion for Approval by Hesperado, we're not buying.
That brings us to the great Office Space question: "What would you say... you do here?"
You have your own blog. Go "be the change you want to see in the world" there.
Marisol said "Joint decision between Robert and me: this is enough. There are two issues here, Hesperado: your role as longtime sideline sniper, and posts like this that make you sound like a sociopath, playing into the hands of CAIR. Really, you're getting into Goebbels' territory here."
I agree and I think anyone lurking these boards or posting need to learn what Taqiyya means and how to spot it being used among Muslims. This will make you more assured of your dealings with Muslims and less afraid to engage Muslims in your own personal life.
The goal with sites like Jihad Watch is to educate people about Islam, specifically the dangerous portions of Islam. Are all Muslims dangerous? No. Learning to recognize a Muslim who could be a valuable partner in the community and learning to trust them (but understanding Taqiyya and knowing what to watch for) is advantageous for all of us.
Many Muslims in the American community have acted as informants to let Law enforcements know when something is going wrong or when Jihadists are present in the community or Mosque. They wouldn't be doing this if they felt like they were going to be stabbed in the back by us. When some people on this board make a blanket statement about "Muslims" without first identifying which Muslims you are referring to, I cringe. If you are doing this, you need to continue to educate yourself about Islam and Muslims. The information provided on Jihad Watch is there for a reason. Use it.
I am against Jihadists Muslims or Islamic Supremacists. These are the people who embrace the violent parts of Islam and follow Jihad in all its variant forms (both peaceful and violent). I am not against peaceful Muslims who simply want to live and provide for their families. I am friends with many of them, and more specifically know many Iranians. Their wish is to practice religious Islam but not the political. Some Muslims I know are only Muslims in name only (MINO, if you will.)
So please be careful on this distinction about Muslims.
Its not about which religion is better its about self introspection. Iam an hindu and i know there were several evil practices in my religion mostly abrogated but some still exist even now. i as a civilised human being identify those practices and deplore them. i neverdefend them just because its my religion whereas i know most muslims always defend their religion as if their life depends on it.Why cant we just call spade a spade. is that religion so worthy? worth more than human lives? islam and muslims have lost their souls and believe me its not in their quran.
replied to comment from B | September 25, 2010 11:26 PM | Reply Amongst your lecture to those you may believe are the less knowing you state; "This will make you more assured of your dealings with Muslims and less afraid to engage Muslims in your own personal life."
Are you kidding, you are missing then essence of the problem and worse your tact or lack of mirrors the obama approach.
At least when Hesperado happens to have a dissenting view, worng or not, he substantiates his opinion and one can only hope more of us could poses his logical skills to consrtuct his viewpoint.
You also state as an axiom of universal law the following opinion "Are all Muslims dangerous? No"
The next time someone here goes to the trouble of presenting to you the contrary opinion please jump in an disprove them point by point. I'll be all ears.
the last thing I'll quote from you is the following warning, al imam rouf"So please be careful on this distinction about Muslims."
Since when has anyone here have to be careful offending muslims?
People everywhere are frightened to tell the truth about Muslims - they are as human as anybody; however, they follow a book that sanctions cold blooded murder, and even rewards it. But we cannot burn Muslims because they are so very close to being cured of their attachment to a deeply flawed bible called the Koran - why is it flawed? Simply because it justifies murder. I know you would burn Hitlers book because of the many psychotic things it says. But the Koran is ten times as murderous as Hitlers best seller. So, why hypocritically say you are against book burning big time but in the interest of free speech it should go unpunished except for harsh scoldings leveled against those people who would dare to do such an unpopular thing? It is very good to burn the Koran, and very bad to scold those who do bravely burn this book that justifies and rewards out and out murder! They are heroes, and what they do will, in the long run, save many lives. We only have one enemy here, and that is the Mighty Koran, the enemy of all freedom, even the freedom to live an innocent life.
replied to comment from wakingwest | September 26, 2010 1:25 AM | Reply For people who makes a blanket statement like "f*** all muslims, they deserve (whatever punishment that person thinks of) are the ones I'm trying to address. Be more reasoned about who you are targeting in the Muslim community. Not all Muslims are Jihadists. To those Muslims we need to get their support in either reforming Islam or abandon it.
Do you want to identify the enemy and deal with them? Or are you just going to tell all Muslims to f*** off and leave the US?
Let's not kid ourselves that our culture is other than immeasurably superior to that of these psychopathologically-hesperophobic bloody barbarians or that short of their mass conversion to Christianity, Muslims in any numbers, colonies and/or ghettos are assimilable into Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilization.
For every minute of the past 1400 years and culminating in the atrocities of September 11 2001 and in that week's Islamics' dancing in their streets and souks and alleys, we have been taught everything we will ever need to learn about Islam. We will allow ourselves to be convinced otherwise only at deadly risk to our nation and to the very civilization that, without us, has neither vanguard nor guard -- nor any chance of survival -- nor of independent life.
replied to comment from B | September 26, 2010 2:00 AM | Reply B replied to comment from wakingwest
.... Not (every Muslim is a) Jihadist ....
Wrong.
By the explicit directive of the Muslims' false fuhrer's Mein Kampf, every Muslim is.
But -- to be perfectly fair -- not all jihadists are psychopathologically-hesperophobic gutlessly-cowardly mass murderers.
Only about one hundred and fifty million of the evil bastards fit that description.
replied to comment from B | September 26, 2010 3:14 AM | Reply Hello B,
My distinction inside the Ummah, the Muslim commonwealth, would NOT be moderate or radical, but Democratic or Theocratic.
I mean, the PCMC-people keep assuring the world that Muslims by and large are no threat and mean us and our Democratic system no harm. But that only the radical Muslims do that.
I like to take them up on that and find out, point by point when Democracy and Islam contradict, which side Muslims take.
Hell, even if they take up Theocratic positions openly, that at least shows honesty and clarity, instead of them constantly trying to shut down investigation, information, knowledge and patient dialoque. When people are justifiable very suspicious because of Theocratic holy texts and declarations of Islamic leading people and followers alike.
I in this stage do not think we have any use for those Muslims who claim to be moderate but who are really in essence still allied to Supremacists/ Theocrats more than with us/ Democracy-loyalists.
Although I do understand that the whole Islam-Democracy-controverse is complex and that there is much I do not know or understand. That's why I am in favor of huge informed dialoque and clarity given by Democrats and Muslims alike.
So let us, Democracy-loyalists, ask them Questions, Muslims in Democratic countries, in a way they can't avoid real choices.
Take note that no moslem country goes to the help of moslems under the Taliban - or when Saddam was in power - or now with Ahmadinejad, etc. Not one.
No moslem country stops their zakat from going to Saudi Arabia who sends part of it to fund their violent jihadists.
No moslem country does anything to stop the violence or what is behind the violence.
And moslems DO NOTHING to stop it from their cushy couches in the West.
replied to comment from Dank | September 26, 2010 3:59 AM | Reply Dank - Frankly, any time anyone talks about "family values" as a way of stifling the individual, I want to barf on their shoes.
The fundie xtian version is bad enough - you're not a family unless you have a pack of snot-nosed children running around. Given how much trouble kids can get you into, it's amazing anyone even wants to have anything to do with the things any more.
Yours is even worse, though. If that vid is an example of Islamic family values in action, then I say down with the family completely, the concept isn't even worth that shit.
Oh, and Dank, about your sub-IQ woman - if she committed a capital crime in the US, it means she committed murder. It shouldn't matter how smart or dumb someone is, if they commit murder.
When a dog mauls someone, do they stop to consider its assumed low-IQ before they kill it? No, they don't. In fact, it's precisely because the dog is seen as having a low IQ that it IS killed. Having a low IQ means to people that rehabilitation is not possible.
Me, on the other hand, I think vicious dogs are far more rehabilitable than most humans, especially Muslims.
And again, take your family values and shove them down a deep dark hole where the sun doesn't shine - preferably your own anus.
replied to comment from Courreges W | September 26, 2010 4:29 AM | Reply I don't think he means "human" in the genetic sense. I think he means more along the lines of "person" in the legal sense.
Not all persons are humans - corporations can be persons, too. There was a case in Germany a while ago, where a zoo that was shutting down was suing for personhood for a chimp, for rehoming reasons, but I don't know how that went. The chimp and his advocates most likely lost, unfortunately.
As not all persons have to be human, the converse can be true, too - a human needn't necessarly be considered a person.
And yeah, I would be all for classing chimps, gorillas, and orangs as persons, and removing Muslims from that class.
Learn about Islam so that one can differentiate....
There never was this differentiation among other threats. No good Nazis. No good Ku Klux Klan members. The assumption was the contract was clear to both those inside and outside the organization.
In learning about Islam, one finds out about Islam. That Mahammed was a guy who thought of not one insight into the human condition. He was a base example of a human speciman - thief, pervert, sex hedonist, liar, and ESPECIALLY murderer and power-over-others pursuer. And also a blatant fraud as the root story is a corrupted plagiarism of the Talmud and Bible, and the "revelations" coordinate perfectly in Mahammed's capacity to pursue these vices.
In other words, once a rational person studies Islam, the contract becomes clear.
Most(?) Muslims are not in on the contract, ie, are good Muslims. I suppose that's an accurate statement, as one would stay with the religion one was borne into without compelling reasons to exit. There is absolutely no way to tell a good Muslim from a bad Muslim who is perfectly aware of the contract.
However these good Muslims serve a vile person.
They are the jungle providing cover and refuse.
They are the thermostat keeping the temperature acceleration gradual enough to keep the frog in the pan.
replied to comment from Susanp | September 26, 2010 5:17 AM | Reply Well, the nature of humanity is universal - you just have to know what "universal" values to look for.
Islam celebrates what I consider to be the "natural human" - the natural human being nothing more than a killer ape.
This is why I distinguish between "human" (a strictly biological term), and "person". A person is one who has raised himself up from natural humanity.
So the question isn't "are Muslims human"* but rather, "must they continue to be considered persons"?
*Considering the genetic defects running through Muslim society due to inbreeding, that would be an open case for a biologist or taxonomist. I'm not even fully convinced, from a strictly biological point of view, that someone with human parents who was born with too many or few chromosomes can be considered "human", in the biological sense. But we do anyway, because our psychology requires taxonomic pigeonholing of that sort (even in creatures that are downright confusing, such as wolves, coyotes, and dogs, which are considered different species, but can and do freely interbreed, and should really be considered "races" of one species) and PC/MC won't even let biologists recognize and investigate racial differences in the same way we would investigate breed or subspecies differences in other creatures.
posted by Hesperado at 7:51 AM
Re: Fineliving56's fulmination against the Muslims in the video -- e.g.:
ANIMALS……ANIMALS……ANIMALS ….
THEY ARE THE DOG Sh#@*T that stuck on the bottom of a shoe … .they are pig sh#@*t that coming out of it's a@#*ss ……I absolutely despise , detest , loathe ,and hate the blackest hate ever all directed to these filth ...
I understand Fineliving56's emotion, but something has happened to me over the years of reviewing the mountain of ghastly ghoulish gruesome shit that Muslims have been churning out just in the last decade (of which this one video is but one instance out of literally thousands), let alone the last fourteen centuries: I feel no emotion about Muslims any longer -- no anger, no hatred. I suppose that is because anger and hatred is pertinent only against other humans whenever they might anger one, or make one hate them. Id est, Muslims have abdicated their humanity in my eyes. All I care about now is how to protect myself and my society from them. (This is not an ontological abdication: any Muslim may regain his humanity by abjuring Islam, the Koran, Mohammed and Allah, and by proving they have done so.)
I'm sorry. I have given up on Muslims. They have simply done too much horrific evil, and the ones who apparently are not sawing off heads, sawing off clitorises, torturing people, exploding in order to mass-murder, etc. ad bottomless nauseam, are countenancing and enabling those unspeakable evils and then adding insult to injury by tap-dancing and evading and tu-quoquing whenever we dare to condemn the "religion" they continue follow.
Any reader (or editor or writer) here who has not similarly given up on Muslims has simply not been really truly fully digesting the data churned out at this Mountain of Horror called Jihad Watch over the years. Even Fineliving56's anger does not go far enough, and betrays a misplaced sentiment that misconstrues our enemy. At a pack of hyenas surrounding our farmhouse endangering our family, for example, or at a hurricane threatening to destroy our town, or at an army of robots, no one of us would feel "anger" or "hatred": we would only know they pose a danger, and we would try to stop them from killing us. That should be our sole concern. Fulminating in anger is as useless with regard to the danger Muslims pose as is sentimentality and hope. Only steely determined pragmatism, focused like a laser on the one thing that matters -- the safety and preservation of our societies -- is relevant.
I do, however, feel anger, hatred, loathing and positive fury -- at my fellow Westerners who continue to bend over backwards and salaam forwards in order to "respect" and defend Muslims. There, those negative emotions are pertinent, because their objects remain human, even if they exhibit some of the more unfortunate characteristics of human ineptitude and obtuseness and grievously misplaced conscience.