One Muslim government.nlsme1 wrote:
So you are agreeing that MOST muslim governments take this stance? Wich I doubt.
Was that during the reign of the Coaltion Provisional Authority by any chance....?JohnG@lt wrote:
I seem to remember quite a few people being beheaded while I was in Iraq... I can look it up on Al-Jazeera if you want me to.
It was a mix of both. The transition took place while I was there.CameronPoe wrote:
Was that during the reign of the Coaltion Provisional Authority by any chance....?JohnG@lt wrote:
I seem to remember quite a few people being beheaded while I was in Iraq... I can look it up on Al-Jazeera if you want me to.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Are you familiar with how Islam actually operates in reality? Are you serious on this? Do Jews stone gays? The Islamic scripture on what you're talking about is incredibly debatable, borne out by the fact that beheading is only part of law in Saudi Arabia and only happens elsewhere in stone age countries like Afghanistan.JohnG@lt wrote:
Is the government beholden to Islam?
Yes: Beheadings
No: No beheadings
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-05-31 09:43:59)
Wasn't the Saddam regime nominally secular?JohnG@lt wrote:
It was a mix of both. The transition took place while I was there.CameronPoe wrote:
Was that during the reign of the Coaltion Provisional Authority by any chance....?JohnG@lt wrote:
I seem to remember quite a few people being beheaded while I was in Iraq... I can look it up on Al-Jazeera if you want me to.
Oh wow, you can't talk about moral high grounds and Muslims being bad and Jews being good when you start off by saying you would have killed everyone on the ships.ATG wrote:
protip;
if guys with automatic weapons come to your house or boat, don't hit them with anything as you might get killed.
And, if I were an Israeli commander and I knew what kind of shit storm was coming down I would have sunk the boat straight away and killed everybody on board to keep the thing quiet.
The fact that there are survivors indicates the Jewish moral high ground. Muslim dogs would have cut the heads off any jews, if the situation were reversed, and posted the video of the screaming victims having their heads slowly hacked off and idiots around the world would have said " good, dirty jews deserved to get their heads hacked off.
And yeah, keep playing the anti-Semitic "everyone hates Jews" card. You're not even aware of your irony, you paint hatred towards all Muslims and then you cry about people hating Jews. Make up your mind, do you dislike bigotry or not?
Well then am I really a moron for saying not many? Or am I a moron for thinking that was directed at me?CameronPoe wrote:
One Muslim government.nlsme1 wrote:
So you are agreeing that MOST muslim governments take this stance? Wich I doubt.
Nominally yes, he hardly needed trials in order to massacre people though. I haven't studied him so I have no idea if beheadings happened under his regime.CameronPoe wrote:
Wasn't the Saddam regime nominally secular?JohnG@lt wrote:
It was a mix of both. The transition took place while I was there.CameronPoe wrote:
Was that during the reign of the Coaltion Provisional Authority by any chance....?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Maybe I misunderstood your post - I interpreted it that you were saying this was normal everday Islam the world over.nlsme1 wrote:
Well then am I really a moron for saying not many? Or am I a moron for thinking that was directed at me?CameronPoe wrote:
One Muslim government.nlsme1 wrote:
So you are agreeing that MOST muslim governments take this stance? Wich I doubt.
Saddam abolished the Sharia courts that existed before his reign. Beheadings only started when Iraq was invaded as tool of shock and terror.JohnG@lt wrote:
Nominally yes, he hardly needed trials in order to massacre people though. I haven't studied him so I have no idea if beheadings happened under his regime.CameronPoe wrote:
Wasn't the Saddam regime nominally secular?JohnG@lt wrote:
It was a mix of both. The transition took place while I was there.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-05-31 09:52:52)
Using gas, shooting people with a bullet, cutting off their head, does it really matter? Dead is dead.CameronPoe wrote:
Saddam abolished the Sharia courts that existed before his reign. Beheadings only started when Iraq was invaded as tool of shock and terror.JohnG@lt wrote:
Nominally yes, he hardly needed trials in order to massacre people though. I haven't studied him so I have no idea if beheadings happened under his regime.CameronPoe wrote:
Wasn't the Saddam regime nominally secular?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The point you were making was a religious one. Saddam did all that in the name of ethnic cleansing and political repression.JohnG@lt wrote:
Using gas, shooting people with a bullet, cutting off their head, does it really matter? Dead is dead.
It was disagreeing with atg saying "muslim dogs would have cut the heads off any jews". Considering this was an Isreali GOVERNMENT action, I wanted to know if he really felt that way.nlsme1 wrote:
Not many muslim "governments" would do as you say "all" would. Broad brush makes ugly art.ATG wrote:
protip;
if guys with automatic weapons come to your house or boat, don't hit them with anything as you might get killed.
And, if I were an Israeli commander and I knew what kind of shit storm was coming down I would have sunk the boat straight away and killed everybody on board to keep the thing quiet.
The fact that there are survivors indicates the Jewish moral high ground. Muslim dogs would have cut the heads off any jews, if the situation were reversed, and posted the video of the screaming victims having their heads slowly hacked off and idiots around the world would have said " good, dirty jews deserved to get their heads hacked off.
Sure, but he falls outside of the criteria I named anyway. He wasn't beholden to Islam.CameronPoe wrote:
The point you were making was a religious one. Saddam did all that in the name of ethnic cleansing and political repression.JohnG@lt wrote:
Using gas, shooting people with a bullet, cutting off their head, does it really matter? Dead is dead.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I read the first sentence as if there was a comma before "all". D'oh.nlsme1 wrote:
It was disagreeing with atg saying "muslim dogs would have cut the heads off any jews". Considering this was an Isreali GOVERNMENT action, I wanted to know if he really felt that way.nlsme1 wrote:
Not many muslim "governments" would do as you say "all" would. Broad brush makes ugly art.ATG wrote:
protip;
if guys with automatic weapons come to your house or boat, don't hit them with anything as you might get killed.
And, if I were an Israeli commander and I knew what kind of shit storm was coming down I would have sunk the boat straight away and killed everybody on board to keep the thing quiet.
The fact that there are survivors indicates the Jewish moral high ground. Muslim dogs would have cut the heads off any jews, if the situation were reversed, and posted the video of the screaming victims having their heads slowly hacked off and idiots around the world would have said " good, dirty jews deserved to get their heads hacked off.
And my point is that out of a total of probably more than 20 predominantly Islamic nations your interpretation of what passes as Islamic is not borne out in reality.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sure, but he falls outside of the criteria I named anyway. He wasn't beholden to Islam.CameronPoe wrote:
The point you were making was a religious one. Saddam did all that in the name of ethnic cleansing and political repression.JohnG@lt wrote:
Using gas, shooting people with a bullet, cutting off their head, does it really matter? Dead is dead.
Yemen? UAE? Iran is run by it's military, the religion is just a tool. Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan are primarily secular. Egypt tolerates pogroms of all non-Muslims etc.CameronPoe wrote:
And my point is that out of a total of probably more than 20 predominantly Islamic nations your interpretation of what passes as Islamic is not borne out in reality.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sure, but he falls outside of the criteria I named anyway. He wasn't beholden to Islam.CameronPoe wrote:
The point you were making was a religious one. Saddam did all that in the name of ethnic cleansing and political repression.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
"Live fire was used against our forces. They initiated the violence, that's 100% clear," [Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev] said.ruisleipa wrote:
5) People didn't have guns on the boat, the only people who brought guns there were the Israelis (at least that's what the consensus is now)
rdx-fx wrote:
So, yeah.. that's what the consensus is if you're prone to completely ignoring what the other side says outright. As expected, Ruis already has his mind made up before all the information is in.
Not at all. I'm taking issue with Ruis' claim of "at least that's what the consensus is now" when at least one of the sides directly contradicts this.Mekstizzle wrote:
You seem to have also made your own consensus too regarding the official Israeli government response. I don't get it, you're just as bad as Ruis. Making your mind up because you're assuming the Israeli government response is all the information that's needed.
Now, if the Israelis were saying, "Yeah, we lit them up. We don't like them much, they pissed us off, so we opened fire" THEN you would have a clear consensus.
Also:
I don't believe beheading is practiced in the laws of Yemen, UAE or Iran. Egypt has a 10% Coptic Christian population.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yemen? UAE? Iran is run by it's military, the religion is just a tool. Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan are primarily secular. Egypt tolerates pogroms of all non-Muslims etc.
CameronPoe wrote:
I don't believe beheading is practiced in the laws of Yemen, UAE or Iran. Egypt has a 10% Coptic Christian population.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yemen? UAE? Iran is run by it's military, the religion is just a tool. Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan are primarily secular. Egypt tolerates pogroms of all non-Muslims etc.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 07696.htmlA few weeks ago in the coastal city of Marsa Matrouh, an enraged mob of some 3,000 angry Muslims gathered after Friday prayers. After the mosque's imam exhorted them to cleanse the city of its infidel Christians, called Copts, they went on a rampage.
The toll was heavy: 18 homes, 23 shops and 16 cars were completely destroyed, while 400 Copts barricaded themselves in their church for 10 hours until the frenzy died out.
This was only the latest of more than a dozen such attacks during the past year, including in the village of Kafr El-Barbary on June 26, the town of Farshout on Nov. 21, and the village of Shousha on Nov. 23. Then came Naga Hamadi, where passengers in a drive-by car fired at random into Christians leaving a Coptic Christmas service on Jan. 6. The massacre killed seven and left 26 seriously wounded.
Although the Copts have long been the target of sporadic attacks, the violence of the last few years is more like a purge, as waves of mob assaults have forced hundreds, sometimes thousands of Christian citizens to flee their homes. In each incident the police, despite frantic appeals, invariably arrive after the violence is over. Later the injured are coerced by the special security police forces into accepting "reconciliation" with their attackers, in order to avoid the prosecution of the guilty. No Muslim to date has been convicted for any of these crimes.
The state's lack of regard for the Copts has encouraged anti-Christian feelings among many Muslims in all walks of life. Even Al-Azhar, the world's preeminent Sunni Islamic institution, has contributed its share to this widespread hostility by publishing a pamphlet declaring the Bible a corrupted document and Christianity a pagan religion.
Al-Azhar's textbook for its high-school students, called "Al Iqna'," states that killing a Muslim is punishable by death, but if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim he is not subject to capital punishment since the superior cannot be punished for killing the inferior (p. 146). It also states that the blood money (compensation for manslaughter) rates for a woman is half that for a man, but for a Christian or Jew it is one third that of a Muslim (p. 187); and that there can be no stewardship (such as a superior in work) of a non-Muslim over a Muslim (p. 205).
Thus the hundreds of thousands of Azhar schools, which are monitored by the state, indoctrinate and then discharge annually into Egyptian society hundreds of thousands of young Muslims with an ideology of intolerance, contempt and hatred toward Copts (and even more intensely toward Jews).
Egypt's Christian Copts, about 12% of the population, have long been subject to customary and official discrimination. No church, for example, can be built or even repaired without a presidential decree. Copts are excluded from the intelligence and security services because they are deemed a security risk. This discrimination springs from a belief deeply grounded in the social psyche of the ruling elite and large sectors of the Muslim community that it is unreasonable in an Islamic society to expect strict equality between Muslims and the infidels.
In effect, the Copts today are treated as dhimmis—the age-old inferior status of Christian and Jewish minorities in Muslim lands. Dhimmi status is no longer legalized but continues to operate as a traditional social norm. Thus, for example, an individual offense by a dhimmi against a Muslim warrants retribution for the entire dhimmi community.
Despite the long-standing suffering of the Copts, the Egyptian government cynically insists that there is no sectarian problem and brands as traitors those who draw international attention to the Copts' plight. So far the United States and the rest of the Western democracies, despite repeated Coptic appeals, have done little besides calling upon the Egyptian regime to foster greater tolerance.
But the dhimmi status of the Copts will not be changed by sweet persuasion. It will only change by persistent domestic struggle supported by vigorous international pressure. The Copts do not demand the tolerance of Muslims but equal rights with them.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-31 10:14:42)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I know that Copts have problems, I wasn't aware of these types of attempted purges. Not really any beheading in there though. Incidentally I've actually been in the Al-Azhar mosque.JohnG@lt wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
I don't believe beheading is practiced in the laws of Yemen, UAE or Iran. Egypt has a 10% Coptic Christian population.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yemen? UAE? Iran is run by it's military, the religion is just a tool. Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan are primarily secular. Egypt tolerates pogroms of all non-Muslims etc.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 07696.htmlA few weeks ago in the coastal city of Marsa Matrouh, an enraged mob of some 3,000 angry Muslims gathered after Friday prayers. After the mosque's imam exhorted them to cleanse the city of its infidel Christians, called Copts, they went on a rampage.
The toll was heavy: 18 homes, 23 shops and 16 cars were completely destroyed, while 400 Copts barricaded themselves in their church for 10 hours until the frenzy died out.
This was only the latest of more than a dozen such attacks during the past year, including in the village of Kafr El-Barbary on June 26, the town of Farshout on Nov. 21, and the village of Shousha on Nov. 23. Then came Naga Hamadi, where passengers in a drive-by car fired at random into Christians leaving a Coptic Christmas service on Jan. 6. The massacre killed seven and left 26 seriously wounded.
Although the Copts have long been the target of sporadic attacks, the violence of the last few years is more like a purge, as waves of mob assaults have forced hundreds, sometimes thousands of Christian citizens to flee their homes. In each incident the police, despite frantic appeals, invariably arrive after the violence is over. Later the injured are coerced by the special security police forces into accepting "reconciliation" with their attackers, in order to avoid the prosecution of the guilty. No Muslim to date has been convicted for any of these crimes.
The state's lack of regard for the Copts has encouraged anti-Christian feelings among many Muslims in all walks of life. Even Al-Azhar, the world's preeminent Sunni Islamic institution, has contributed its share to this widespread hostility by publishing a pamphlet declaring the Bible a corrupted document and Christianity a pagan religion.
Al-Azhar's textbook for its high-school students, called "Al Iqna'," states that killing a Muslim is punishable by death, but if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim he is not subject to capital punishment since the superior cannot be punished for killing the inferior (p. 146). It also states that the blood money (compensation for manslaughter) rates for a woman is half that for a man, but for a Christian or Jew it is one third that of a Muslim (p. 187); and that there can be no stewardship (such as a superior in work) of a non-Muslim over a Muslim (p. 205).
Thus the hundreds of thousands of Azhar schools, which are monitored by the state, indoctrinate and then discharge annually into Egyptian society hundreds of thousands of young Muslims with an ideology of intolerance, contempt and hatred toward Copts (and even more intensely toward Jews).
Egypt's Christian Copts, about 12% of the population, have long been subject to customary and official discrimination. No church, for example, can be built or even repaired without a presidential decree. Copts are excluded from the intelligence and security services because they are deemed a security risk. This discrimination springs from a belief deeply grounded in the social psyche of the ruling elite and large sectors of the Muslim community that it is unreasonable in an Islamic society to expect strict equality between Muslims and the infidels.
In effect, the Copts today are treated as dhimmis—the age-old inferior status of Christian and Jewish minorities in Muslim lands. Dhimmi status is no longer legalized but continues to operate as a traditional social norm. Thus, for example, an individual offense by a dhimmi against a Muslim warrants retribution for the entire dhimmi community.
Despite the long-standing suffering of the Copts, the Egyptian government cynically insists that there is no sectarian problem and brands as traitors those who draw international attention to the Copts' plight. So far the United States and the rest of the Western democracies, despite repeated Coptic appeals, have done little besides calling upon the Egyptian regime to foster greater tolerance.
But the dhimmi status of the Copts will not be changed by sweet persuasion. It will only change by persistent domestic struggle supported by vigorous international pressure. The Copts do not demand the tolerance of Muslims but equal rights with them.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-05-31 10:21:00)
i think the arabs have learned that picking fights with israel is not a good idea. just because you hate them with such passion doesnt mean they should do anything.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. Jewish moral high ground. There were some Jewish people on the fucking boats ffs. Not familiar with Israel I take it... why do you think boats were taking cement to Gaza in the first place! There is no moral high ground in that region of the world. I notice Gilad Shalit still has his head. I hope Turkey use this as a pretext to embargo Israel, it's about time the racist/expansionist Lieberman/Netanyahu regime get taught a lesson. Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert were like Mother Theresa and Mohatma Ghandi in comparison.ATG wrote:
protip;
if guys with automatic weapons come to your house or boat, don't hit them with anything as you might get killed.
And, if I were an Israeli commander and I knew what kind of shit storm was coming down I would have sunk the boat straight away and killed everybody on board to keep the thing quiet.
The fact that there are survivors indicates the Jewish moral high ground. Muslim dogs would have cut the heads off any jews, if the situation were reversed, and posted the video of the screaming victims having their heads slowly hacked off and idiots around the world would have said " good, dirty jews deserved to get their heads hacked off.
LMFAO. You're sooo funny.JohnG@lt wrote:
You forgot brainless but yeah, that describes you to a T.ruisleipa wrote:
There's now plenty of vids on youtube, some showing the IDF rappelling down and getting stuck into the passengers, one at least from IDF an infrared camera showing some soldiers being attacked. personally I don't think the second vid means fuck all but I guess I'm a biased jew hating anti-american liberal bleh blah
I thought the boundary is 200 miles like we have here in the US?Mekstizzle wrote:
The one thing that needs to be drilled into the heads of people who don't understand the situation.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 195838.stmIt happened about 40 miles (64 km) out to sea, in international waters.
We can completely ignore the fact that they have killed anyone, if you want because it doesn't actually change things, it just changes the magnitude.
Read the post below thatHarmor wrote:
I thought the boundary is 200 miles like we have here in the US?Mekstizzle wrote:
The one thing that needs to be drilled into the heads of people who don't understand the situation.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 195838.stmIt happened about 40 miles (64 km) out to sea, in international waters.
We can completely ignore the fact that they have killed anyone, if you want because it doesn't actually change things, it just changes the magnitude.