Investment

» Normxxx - Islam - Religion of Blood

In response to Islam - Religion of Blood posted by stocktiger:

There was a US General around the early 1900's faced with similar issues in the Phillipines. The details elude me but I have heard he rounded up a bunch of radicals, killed them, and buried them in pigskins

You have it about right! The war with the "civil insurectionists" in the Phillipines, following the Spanish-American war (after which Spain ceded the Phillipines to us) was mostly fought by our Marines and Army versus these muslim "terrorists." Like the ancient berserkers, they would bind themselves up to control any large loss of blood from a single wound and burst into a Phillipine village square, shooting everyone in sight, until they were killed. This "martyrdom" then assured them a place in Paradise, just as our present day terrists believe. However, the muslims (at least of that day) also assumed that (all parts of) their bodies had to receive proper religious burial.

The raids stopped when the Marines and Army hit on the solution of decapitating the corpses, and burying the body and head in separate, secret locations, with the mouths of the head stuffed with pork!

What possible good can Arab-Israeli peace talks do? The Palestinians insist on at least a seperate state, but to date have demonstrated that they are NOT capable of running a state. They are solely organized for war- and their sole motivation is for war; and if they manage to annihilate Israel, will simply turn on each other and/or Europe.

The so-called 'good' Lebanese and Palestinians, i.e., the ones that are not consumed with blood lust, are overwhemingly Christian. In the past, this has led:

1. The muslim Palestinians to periodically attacking and slaughtering the Christian Palestinian villages (like the pogroms in Eastern Europe).

2. To periodic bloody civil war in Lebanon.

-- posted by Normxxx

» javelin - Islam - Religion of Blood

In response to Islam - Religion of Blood posted by doctorj2:

Their is no easy solution to the problems in the ME, maybe I'm just sick of war, the waste of life and children suffering. I may be naive but I still have faith in humanity and have found that know matter how much we are different we are all the same. When we were kids and had a disagreement on the playground what option was more successful in resolving it, a punch in the nose or a discussion? On Thanksgiving Day I found out that my older sister's only son my nephew (more like my younger brother) will be deployed to Iraq on 2/04/07.Yes, I'm sick of WAR.

-- posted by javelin

» stocktiger - Islam - Religion of Blood

In response to Islam - Religion of Blood posted by javelin:

Hey Jav, You are not naive and in a perfect world all disagreements could be talked out. Perfect world were the 2 key words!

When I was a kid there was no talking it over, it was punch or be punched and the strong ruled. Fortunately karma got the best of most of the bullies in the long run. I found a strong kick to the groin was pretty good anti-bully warfare back in the day.

I feel deeply for your nephew going to Iraq, many of my neighbors children are there now and my nieces all serve in the Israeli IDF (of course they are tougher than most Americans).

Big thanks to Norm for clarifying the Philippines story. Now to the present. The only way to deal with the ME issue is to quit screwing around and send a strong message they can understand. Perhaps some strategically placed Neutron bombs would do. Talking won't as they consider this weakness.

Blessings to the soldiers and veterans out there. I pray for peace everywhere but am realistic as to the uphill battle.

-- posted by stocktiger

» permabear - Islam - Religion of Blood

In response to Islam - Religion of Blood posted by Normxxx:

No matter what the terms, no 'peace' is possible with the Arabs.

As a strong supporter of Israel, I feel the same frustration as everyone else on this board. And I blame Arafat and the Palestinians for the endless conflict. But to say that negotiations and peace are hopeless I think is also wrong. The fact is that Israel has negotiated and maintained a successful peace for decades with Egypt and Jordan, amongst other Muslim and Arab nations. If the Palestinians had a leader such as Abbas in power during the Oslo period and Camp David, perhaps a lasting peace could have been negotiated with the Palestinians. As Blair and other world leaders have emphasized, solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is key to getting the Middle East on the path to a peaceful period. We can see how successful going in with military might is to solving these problems with our disaster in Iraq. I believe that Syria could have been brought in years ago if we had made the attempt. Syria has wanted recognition from the U.S. for years. That's why they supported us in Gulf War I. Iran is a more challenging problem. The point is that a combination of diplomacy and carrying the big stick is the best approach to these problems. Unfortunately Bush has so badly botched Middle Eastern policy that the mess will be very hard to repair.

-- posted by permabear

» stocktiger - Islam - Religion of Blood

In response to Islam - Religion of Blood posted by Kirk:

Nice point Kirk but there is major crucial differences between Ireland and the ME. How many factions were involved in Ireland? What is the average educational background in Ireland?

My previous post about neutron bombs was a joke and wouldn't work. Much better to covertly engineer a nuclear accident that appeared to be internal.

I agree with everyone that solving the Israeli issue would be a key turning point but Abbas cannot control the multitude of factions there. Who can?

Maybe we will see peace in our lifetime and an end to this religiously driven nonsense.

-- posted by stocktiger

» Normxxx - Islam - Religion of Blood

In response to Islam - Religion of Blood posted by Kirk:

What lead to a truce in Northern Ireland? It seems the same sort of troubles.
Could it apply in the ME?

No; for several reasons.

1. "Palestine" has no history of local or "national" government that works- only local and regional 'gangs.' As the recent 'truce' demonstrated, who would you negotiate with? Two 'local' Palestinian groups 'opted out' of the truce.

2. NI has no recent history of "vendetta;" if anything, the IRA was 'socialistic' based on the Soviet model- certainly far more civilized than the Arabs. Even the other muslims are (more or less more civilized). Remember, you are dealing with a 14th century mentality.

There were a lot of reasons for peace in NI, including the drying up of support, the 'exhaustion' of the Catholic population, etc. But, NI had no history of 80 year old grandmothers strapping HE to their bodies and blowing themselves up just to take out a few Israelis (as happened recently) or 14 year old, mentally defective boys being instructed to do the same (as happened less recently).

-- posted by Normxxx

» rasputin - Islam - Religion of Blood

In response to Islam - Religion of Blood posted by Normxxx:

--

The "Palestinian issue" is a red herring.

-- posted by rasputin

» rasputin - Top ten rules in the Quran that oppress women

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/t...

-- posted by rasputin

» rasputin - Salafist Islam spawns Islamic terrorism

ISLAM
Salafist Islam spawns Islamic terrorism
Samir Khalil Samir, sj
At the very roots of the violence is an ideological interpretation of the Koran, rather than mere reactions to Western aggressions. The time has come for Muslims to react to this blind and childish style of religion. The first in a series of lessons on Islamism.

Beirut (AsiaNews) - The bloody attacks on Algiers, along with Morocco's' suicide bombers once again show that Islamic fundamentalist violence is born of violence within Islam itself. This is contrary to what some Western observers would have us believe, that it is a reaction to "western aggressions". The root cause lies within a certain current in Muslim thought.

Islamic terrorism is caused by Islamism that is a certain mode of reading the Koran and Sunnah, which has become widespread in Muslim schools and Universities, such as Cairo's Al-Azhar. Islamic terrorism - particularly in the Sunni world - is caused by Salafism, in short a blind attachment to the tradition of the Ancients, to who preceded us (Salaf), a literal and rigid reading, without life and without soul.

Terrorism is nota n Islamic disease: it is merely the manifestation of a far more deeply rooted illness, of a certain way to interpret life and the Islamic religion. As a result, terrorism cannot be fought by force alone, but must be countered with a culture that promotes a more open interpretation of the Koran.

Ideological and Islamic terrorism

Islamic terrorism is neither gratuitous nor brutal violence, it is a religious ideology. It is seen as a sacred duty, the concrete application of divine will, as clearly expressed in certain excerpts of the Koran and in some of the practices and sayings of Islam's Prophet.

Terrorists and Islamists consider the majority of Muslims who do not agree with this point of view to be hypocrites (munâfiqûn), as God himself defines them in the Koran, thus they are not worthy of to be called Muslims.

And the Muslim states? They are not Islamic, but a caricature of Islam: their hypocrisy is far greater, because they founded their constitutions on western standards (which is for the most part true) merely adding Muslim elements. In doing so they have "deceived" their people. They are worse still than the Western States and governments who at least do not deceive Muslims!

These are the type of Islamists we see every day on the streets of Muslim countries. The Algerian Salafists, the Afghan Taliban make up a small part of this giant spider's web, which spawns terror far beyond the Middle East: in Pakistan, Somalia, Northern Nigeria, Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia ... and tomorrow in Europe. My intention is not to alarm. I only wish to underline that the web spreads by its very nature where it finds fertile ground.

The relationship between Islamism and Salafism

It is essential that the intrinsic link between Islamism and Salafism is understood, as well as the difference which separates them.

Salafist thought is rooted in the Koran and the Sunnah, in other words it finds its justification and elaborates its thoughts and way of life within these texts. Salafist thought was not borne of this century, but goes far back to the early years of Islam. This tradition is one of the most interpretative of the Koran and Sunnah.

The Islamist current basis itself on the Salafist interpretation of Islam and it radicalizes it, turning it into a concrete application, through intense propaganda and presenting it as authentic Islam. It renders Salafism extreme, by prescribing precise rules applied to the actions of daily living.

For example it regulates eating and fasting habits, they way to dress and pray according to a series of purification rituals; it indicates how Muslims should relate with others (according to whether they are men or women, Muslim or non Muslim etc..), in the choice of profession and how to exercise it, in the use of money and how to invest it, in sex (how, when and with who it can be done) as with marriage: in short an unending list of every day gestures. Islamism penetrates everything and leaves little space to human freedom or personal choice.

Fatwa and puerile terrorism

A characteristic consequence of this concept of Islam is the widespread social phenomenon of the fatwa. In this picture, the Muslim believer feels ignored by his religion, incapable of discerning right from wrong, of choosing between "Islamic good" and evil. He is afraid of becoming a bad Muslim such as those who surround him, all because the Islamists have nurtured the idea within the believer that he is the only true Muslim. Thus, for any given reason the believer turns to the ulema, asking for a fatwa.

In Egypt this phenomenon has arrived at an extreme: hundreds of thousands of fatwa's are issued each year, often for nothing. Fatwa's can be requested via specialized telephones, or by direct request to the Mufti's, or even by internet, television and radio. This results in reducing the faith and the faithful to a childish, puerile state; making the Muslim believer totally dependent and robbing him of the ability to take on an adult responsibility for his religious or spiritual life.

Islamist thought forms people who have renounced their right to think or make personal judgements, to blindly follow teachings of those who indoctrinate them. It reduces the believer to the state of a docile follower, incapable of critical thought. In the end this docile follower can easily become a terrorist: he only needs to be convinced that what he is about to do is a religious duty, which pleases God and will save the Islamic community (ummah).

It is important not to confuse or identify Islam with Islamism, but is also necessary that we push Muslims to reject Islamism as an alteration of authentic Islam and to fight against this spreading tendency. Western society must defend Muslims from Islamism. For this reason, giving even minimal credence to the demands of the Islamists is a regression which only serves to open new terrorist fronts

-- posted by rasputin

» rasputin - Why is Islam Afraid of History?

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/glo...

Why is Islam Afraid of History?
By Pete Fisher

Recent events around the globe suggest that Islamists are waging a deliberate campaign to abolish all vestiges of our Western Judeo-Christian heritage. FSM Contributing Editor Pete Fisher reports on this alarming agenda. This is vital information for all who are concerned about the survival and preservation of our heritage...and our future.

Muslims are protesting again in Israel over rumors that the Jews are trying to take over the Temple Mount. The prevalent belief that somehow a Jewish temple never existed on that site has become nothing more than a reason to jihad.

I suppose it was ok to destroy millennia old Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, countless holy places in India, and even underneath the Temple Mount. We saw when Palestinians desecrated the Church of The Nativity in Jerusalem by using it as a base for snipers and desecrating the insides while doing so. No big deal. After all, it is a holy site of infidels, not a cartoon of Mohammed. Why waste a good rampage on infidels?

Like Communism banning music and religion, or Nazi book burning, Islam has a way of trying to create its own past and future. The entire world outside of Islam knows that there were Jewish temples on that site. Ancient Babylonian and Roman references to them exist, as well as the actual artifacts beneath the old Temple site. The same artifacts Arafat tried to destroy. Now the Muslims have concocted a story that those Israelis who are unearthing Jewish and Roman artifacts of the time the last temple stood, are plotting to sink the Dome of The Rock. Why would they do this? Because in the huge piles of rubble left by desecrating Palestinians, the Israelis have unearthed more proof that they existed there long before the Palestinians.

In Egypt there are sites the government refuses access, banning archaeological digs at those locations, simply because they do not desire anyone else to find what they already know. That Jews existed in those areas. Not just as bands of wandering nomads, but as civilized and metropolitan people.

Turkey refuses people access to Ararat, the famed site of Noah's Ark. Maybe there is something to it if they do not want the fact published that the Jewish Bible was correct in its passages concerning the Ark.

Along with the changing of this past, many Muslims believe that the Temple Mount is sacred to their faith. If Mohammed went to the Far Mosque, it certainly had to be located somewhere else. The Dome of The Rock was not even built until 60 years after Mohammed died. So the Dome of The Rock cannot be the place where Mohammed went, as there was no mosque in place there when he died. In fact, the expectation that it would become another Mecca or Medina fizzled out, and it went into disrepair less than 20 years after its completion.

Muslims never showed an interest in a Hadj to that place. It was not a Muslim holy place back then, and in my opinion is not one today as far as history is concerned. It has become nothing more than a rallying point for jihad, and a political bargaining chip. In fact, the Quran even says that Allah gave that area to the Jews. So by trying to take it away, they disobey their own god and prophet. They transgress their own holy book. Why would Mohammed claim that Jerusalem is holy, yet turn his back towards the city when he prayed? Muslims are fighting for something that their own prophet turned his back on. Interesting, isn't it?

However, it is a holy place for the Jews. It has been since before the temple was first built by Solomon, after the captivity in Babylon, and throughout the ages. The Wailing Wall is evidence that it once stood. The tunnels beneath, the ramps, the ritual baths, and other artifacts show that it existed when the Bible says it did, and used for the sole purpose of Jewish rituals. The site and the architecture are detailed in the Bible, not the Quran. But somehow it has become a bone of contention to Muslims who claim otherwise.

It is sacred as well to Christians, yet they make no claims to the mount or its ruins. Nor do they protest when Israel decides to as they wish with it. No jihad is waged, no threats, no wars begin over it. Other than the usual stops for touring pilgrims that show places as detailed in the Bible, it is never an issue. To dent that would be to deny ones own faith in Christianity.

So I have to wonder what is it about Islam that thinks it can destroy other religious artifacts, and make claim to sites that they never had any claim to? Just ask those in India who see a mosque sitting atop the site where their temple used to sit. I think Muslims are afraid of history because as it is will show them things they do not want to see. They do not want to see the holes in their own dogma. They do not want to see that the reason they kill Jews is no reason at all. They do not want to admit that the excuse they have been using all these years to exterminate Jews is based on falsehood. And they do not want to have to sit around and find another way to impose Islam on a global level beginning with the Jews.

I think history and archaeology have shown what the rest of the world never really doubted. That Israel has its history and its faith in Jerusalem and on that Temple mount. The heart and soul of Judaism rests in those places, and no matter how many artifacts you destroy, or how many fables you concoct to make people believe otherwise, that will never change the truth. It is similar to the lies of the Holocaust deniers. Their lies will never cover up the branded flesh and great loss of life.

Muslims can believe Mohammed was ignorant enough to visit a mosque that did not exist. They can believe the Jews never had a temple there. They can believe that Islam has the rights to that place. But in the end, it will never change the truth.

The Temple Mount always has and always will be Jewish. Just ask Allah or Mohammed. They said the same thing.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Pete Fisher is a concerned citizen in the Chicago area who has written several articles on the economy, educational system, politics, and religion. He has been featured on several sites such as RenewAmerica.us, Chronwatch.comBlessedcause.com, Michnews.com, mensnewsdaily.com, The NewMediaJournal.us, and has been circulated on various other sites worldwide. He is a 6 year veteran of the Armed Forces. Pete can be contacted at: pfisher2005@aol.com

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

-- posted by rasputin