13 posts tagged “western culture”
A few
days ago President Barack Hussein Obama gave a Ramadan message. Simplistically
Ramadan is the month that big Al began revealing his divine message to
old Mo. The
reality is Ramadan was initiated by Mo whooping up on the Meccan Arab tribe of
the Quraish at a plundering caravan raid which evolved into the Battle of Badr.
The battle was significant because Mo learned that the peaceful spread of Islam
as attempted in Mecca
was not as successful as inspiring non-Muslims to convert by the sword of
Islam. (Read Always On Watch)
You can listen to the President here:
Ben’s Blog refutes the understanding which President BHO surreptitiously attempted to emanate. Ben is a bit brutal but is still worth the read.
JRH 8/23/09
I just finished reading a tirade from a blogger upset that the British National Party (BNP) members are being selectively banned from jobs and governmental services.
Evidently the BNP has a historical timeline that goes back to thuggery aspects of pro-Nazi and Hitler-philes. This means the BNP heritage is a history of white supremacy and anti-Semitism.
Apparently the BNP has disavowed that past in their official writings but now take a controversial stand of anti-immigration. The focus of this anti-immigration is the growing population of Mohammedans in the UK.
The BNP anti-Mohammedan immigration stands no doubt derive from Britain diluting British rule of law by allowing Sharia Law courts to have legal jurisdiction over the culturally Mohammedan. Incredibly the Sharia Law acquiescence is even supported by the England’s State Church – The Church of England (aka Anglican Church and in America the Episcopalian Church).
Since the Brits have adapted the continental European stand that speaking against a religion is hate speech, an anti-Mohammedan immigration stand is considered racism by the government.
The HUGE irony is that Mohammedan mullahs and apologists speak the most vile hate speech first against Jews and next against practicing Christians. The British government and EU government nary lift a hand against the Mohammedans that preach their hatred of Jews and Christians.
Robert Locke writing for Think-Israel gives a good history of the BNP racist past. Now check this out: Locke is not sympathetic to the BNP past however he views the current BNP stand against Mohammedanism as something Israel should promote. There is an understanding that Mohammedanism has zero in common with the Liberty and Rights that exists in Western nations (and America in particular).
Since the BNP has a racist past and has renounced anti-Semitism, white supremacy and the fascist leanings of neo-Nazism; today the BNP is still a racist party by virtue of repatriating and preventing future Mohammedans from the UK.
Due to this media portrayal of racism there is a movement to ban BNP British citizens from certain jobs such as the police, nurses and the Anglican clergy.
Imagine that: A British citizen this wishes to uphold the British tradition of the rule of law or worship and minister for the Christian God are being prohibited from their positions. Could it be the traditional power brokers of Britain are trying to ensure the BNP’s growing popularity does not turn into British votes that translated into MPs in Parliament? I ask this question for the website for BNP is more popular than the power broker political parties combined.
Under the Obama Administration is this the kind of dilution of Liberty to expect in America?
Read the anger of the British citizen. (Do note this blogger oozes a bit of the BNP white supremacist past while simultaneously realizing the threat of Islamic culture to Western culture.)
JRH 3/30/09
Bill Warner has placed a FrontPage interview conducted by Jamie Glazov on his Political Islam blog.
In the interview Warner speaks of a kind of Orwellian new order being placed on America (I would include all Western style Representative Governments). Warner even uses Orwell-speak by calling this emerging new order the “Newstate.”
Essentially the interview line of thought is the “Newstate” is in the tank for Mohammedanism to such a degree that American Free Speech is being anesthetized to squelch anti-Jihad free speech while accommodating Muslim Supremacism in American society.
It is an enlightening interview to read. I suggest you do so.
JRH 3/14/09
In Western politically Democratic secular nations religious interaction with taxpayer operated agencies is usually frowned upon, especially when linked to educational instruction.
In Europe (more so) and America religious instruction or practice is particularly frowned upon in Public Schools. This is abundantly the case with the Christian faith.
In America the practice of prayer and Christian interaction was a normal part of life until Secular Humanists and atheists gained the aid of Left Wing lawyers to convince the Supreme Court to reinterpret the First Amendment in which disestablishment clause states “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion”. The Supreme Court used an atheist suing about prayer in school to reinterpret the Disestablishment Clause from meaning the Government cannot establish a State Church to religion must be totally separate from the Government; i.e. the old myth of Separation of Church and State. The Supreme Court totally ignored the grammar of the First Amendment which follows the Disestablishment Clause by a comma and states “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Thus the Supreme Court single handily prevented hundreds of years of American practice prior to the 1960’s with the paradox of prohibiting religion in Government yet not prohibiting the Freedom of Religion. The paradox is by prohibiting zero religious interaction in Government (i.e. schools, Universities, Courts, taxpayer supported social programs et al) in effect prohibits the “free exercise” of religion.
Now here comes the real rub! Western nations are now expressly prohibiting the practice of anything Christian however with some kind of twisted thinking of diversity are forcing Public School students to learn the faith of Mohammedanism even to the extent of forcing the practice of its rituals. American Universities are even providing special Mohammedan exceptions that would be considered Leftist blasphemy for Christians to practice their faith on the taxpayer dime.
Now I am reading in the UK that two students were punished and reprimanded for refusing to practice an academic exercise that would force them to pray like Mohammedans. The article also mentions how American-Mohammedan organizations like CAIR have gone to Public School assemblies to preach the Mohammedan theology (which denigrates Christian Theological beliefs) to students on the taxpayer dime.
This is outrageous Left Wing allowed practices that I believe is perpetrated on American students and European students to undermine Christianity as the foundation of Western Culture.
If the free exercise of the Mohammedan religion is allowed on the public dime then BY GOD our cultural heritage of Christianity MUST be allowed as it indeed was prior to the 1960’s.
Here is a YouTube of Pastor Rod Parsley preaching God created the United States of America to destroy Islam. I suspect the vid was created to show Parsley as a hater or a bigot; however I got to tell you Parsley’s words may just be prophetic.
I realize a number of people have found peace in Islam. I find that delusional since I am a Christian and I realize the converse is true about what Muslims think of Christianity; i.e. we are delusional for rejecting Allah and his last prophet Mohammed.
Here is the thing: comparing core tenets of Islam with that of Christianity, Islam comes out on the side of evil.
It is very simple. Evil is not good.
Compare the core tenets of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism and so on with Islam. You will discover the same thing: Islam comes out on the side of evil. Evil is not good.
Check it out: as a Christian I believe Christianity is the one true way to God. By the 21st century most Christians would use Godly persuasion and the power of God (I know that sounds silly if you are a doubter but hang with me) to win Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. The days of forced conversions by political leaders who are Christians is a thing of the past for most enlightened Christians understand that is not the way of Christ.
Islam may use persuasion in nations in which they are the minority in the 21st century to win converts however wherever Islam is the majority forced conversions occur all the time. This is particularly the case of kidnapped women. And if a Christian or Jew convert to Islam and realize their mistake and repent and turn back to their faith, that person faces a death penalty and that person’s family is doomed to Islam. Islamic apostates deserve death according to Islamic core teachings.
My thought is that Rod Parsley is not a hater or a bigot, he is a truth teller. Take a couple of minutes and Listen to him.
Link to Part TWO.
AMERICA WAS A SUPPORTER OF TERRORISTS IN AFGHANISTAN IN THE 1980s. AMERICA SUPPORTS DICTATORS AND MONARCHS ALL OVER THE WORLD. SHOULD AMERICA THEN, BE ATTACKED. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH APPROVED THE CRUSADES,WHICH, INVOLVED MASSIVE VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS. SHOULD THE CHURCH BE ATTACKED?
THE FACT ABOUT SADDAM IS THAT NO LINK WAS ESTABLISHED BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL-QAEDA. NO SUCH LINK EXISTS STILL. NO LINK WAS ESTABLISHED BETWEEN SADDAM AND TERRORIST SUPPORT.
AND LASTLY, WHO WAS IT THAT INSTALLED A DICTATOR LIKE SADDAM? OH THATS RIGHT IT WAS AMERICA TO BEGIN WITH. DONT U LIKE DEMOCRATIC AMERICA.
SO NO LINK WAS ESTABLISHED
Let’s see, how can I respond to “SO NO LINK WAS ESTABLISHED”?
Here is a link: Saddam's al Qaeda Connection.
The Tenet letter declassified CIA reporting on weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's links to al Qaeda.
…
We have credible reporting that al Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." In sum, the letter said, "Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent US military actions."
That this assessment came from the CIA--with its history of institutional skepticism about the links--was significant. CIA analysts had long contended that Saddam Hussein's secular regime would not collaborate with Islamic fundamentalists like bin Laden--even though the Baathists had exploited Islam for years, whenever it suited their purposes. Critics of the administration insist the CIA was "pressured" by an extensive and aggressive intelligence operation set up by the Pentagon to find ties where none existed. But the Pentagon team consisted of two people, at times assisted by two others. Their assignment was not to collect new intelligence but to evaluate existing intelligence gathered by the CIA, with particular attention to any possible Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration. A CIA counterterrorism team was given a similar task, and while many agency analysts remained skeptical about links, the counterterrorism experts came away convinced that there had been cooperation.
…
And there are reports of more direct links between the Iraqi regime and bin Laden. Farouk Hijazi, former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey and Saddam's longtime outreach agent to Islamic fundamentalists, has been captured. In his initial interrogations, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994. According to administration officials familiar with his questioning, he has subsequently admitted additional contacts, including a meeting in late 1997. Hijazi continues to deny that he met with bin Laden on December 21, 1998, to offer the al Qaeda leader safe haven in Iraq. U.S. officials don't believe his denial.
For one thing, the meeting was reported in the press at the time. It also fits a pattern of contacts surrounding Operation Desert Fox, the series of missile strikes the Clinton administration launched at Iraq beginning December 16, 1998. The bombing ended 70 hours later, on December 19, 1998. Administration officials now believe Hijazi left for Afghanistan as the bombing ended and met with bin Laden two days later.
There are loads of more information in this 2003 story linking Saddam and al Qaeda. I can here the quip now: But later reports say there was no links. The latest report to date is the Pentagon Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) which draws vehement conclusions there was no link between Hussein and al Qaeda. The MSM nearly jumped in ecstatic joy, here is one example: No link between Saddam and Al Qaeda: Pentagon (published 3/14/08). This latest DIA report is supposed to represent information analyzed from Saddam Hussein Government Documents.
It becomes evident from the DIA wording and non-Pentagon examination analysis of the captured Documents that a different conclusion could be arrived at. It is no secret that there elements within the Defense Department, the State Department and the CIA that want to continue operating America’s National Interests in the old Cold War style that does not take into consideration of the rules tactics of engagement of the enemy Western Culture, i.e. radical Islamism.
So in affect, the DIA Report is unreliable on its conclusions.
I have to emphasize that the connection discovered between Saddam’s Iraq and AQ’s Number 2 Zawahiri is more than enough of a smoking gun to realize AQ and Saddam’s Iraq were poised to bring on future 9-11s together - if they wanted to. And all indications are they wanted to, as long as it could not be traced back to them.
The problem with the bureaucracy of the federal government is the higher up you go the more you find people playing president. Their tenure has gone to their head as the skills have atrophied. Clearly whoever wrote the executive summary and picked the phrase “no smoking gun” had a presonal agenda. No one but someone trying to cover up the detailed findings would say a long term relationship between Zawahiri’s organization and Saddam’s regime would result in ‘no connection’ between al Qaeda and Iraq, when that other organization became al Qaeda when it was formed. Zawahiri led an organization Saddam trained and funded - they knew each other. They may not have talked, but their groups worked together for over 10 years at least. And to say that once Zawahiri’s group joined Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda this all ended is BS. Without proof to the contrary there is no reason to assume things have changed.
...
First off I want to note that the materials analyzed are not the complete set of information known to the US government. As a section up front clearly notes there are other sources of intelligence not accessible to the study group:
This paper summarizes a detailed review of a unique source-the captured documents and media files from the Harmony database, which have been translated and analyzed. While Harmony holds most of the documents captured in Iraq, it is not an exhaustive list. Other documents were not available for this phase of the IPP study, e.g., those under the control of other US government agencies or others still being processed.
To translate, this means highly sensitive classified materials may exist which would could dramatically change the results of this study. However, in terms of the risk Saddam posed post 9-11, and remembering this is 20-20 hindsight which was a cloudy blur of intelligence bits and pieces before the war, the case is made that Saddam did pose a major threat.
...
As with most strategic decisions, the greater the potential pay off the more risk some will take on. Saddam was not risk adverse, as his invasion of Kuwait clearly demonstrates. So we begin with the fact he supported terrorists across the spectrum and provided training and other critical resources to these groups:
• On occasion, the Iraqi intelligence services directly targeted the regime’s perceived enemies, including non-Iraqis. Non-Iraqi casualties often resulted from Iraqi sponsorship of non-governmental terrorist groups.
• Saddam’s regime often cooperated directly, albeit cautiously, with terrorist groups when they believed such groups could help advance Iraq’s long-term goals. …
• State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor progress and accountability in the recruiting, training, and resourcing of terrorists.
So would a post 9-11 world believe there was no chance he would reach out to al-Qaeda with its newly demonstrated credibility? Would any sane person trying to be sure America was safe assume that the one and only group Saddam would not support was the world’s new top terrorist organization?
THE US IS THE BIGGEST FINANCIER OF THE UN. HOW MANY "DESPOTIC" EASTERN NATIONS HAVE VETO POWER IN THE UN. OH, THAT'S RIGHT...ZERO.
Communist China has always been despotic and Putin is currently leading Russia back on a road of despotism. Both nations are Permanent Members of the U.N. Security Council and it only takes ONE veto from a Permanent Member to toss out a Security Council Resolution. Both China and Russia tried to be involved in the Oil for Food Scandal. They knew what was really happening.
P.S. CALLING THE UN CHIEF WRONG FOR THE "OIL FOR FOOD" SCANDAL IS LIKE MAKING BUSH RESPONSIBLE FOR SPITZER. NOW THAT WUDNT MAKE MUCH SENSE WOULD IT?
This comment point has much validity as little green men from Mars. Bush actually has very little oversight over State Governors while Kofi Anan was the Executive Administrator of the U.N. Budget. Annan knew what was happening and was lying when he said he didn’t.
OH WELL DONE. UR STANCE READS LIKE: "NOW THAT SUPPORTING USA IS NOT IN MY FAVOR, I'LL JUST DEBUNK IT TEMPORARILY AND MOVE ON." I HAVE ALREADY OUTLINED THE SCRIPTURAL PLAN FOR ISLAMIC BATTLE, WHICH PROTECTS THE ELDERLY, THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN, EVEN GREEN TREES, AMONGST OTHER THINGS.
Which is obviously not practiced by Islamists who use human shields (some willing and some unwillingly) to murder and hope retaliation is limited. And 9/11 shows this is a lie for the kafir.
YES IRAN WAS ESPECIALLY BLESSED BY USA'S PRESENCE WHEN THE USA TRIED TO OVER THROW THE GOVT ESTABLISHED BY A POPULAR BLOODLESS COUP. GO SEE THE DOCUMENTARY "FARENHEIT 9/11" BY MICHEAL MOORE TO SEE HOW THE USA SUPPORTS THE CORRUPT MONARCHS OF SAUDIA. PLUS, LOOK AT PAKISTAN WHICH HAS BEEN DESTABILIZED BY ITS RAMPANT FOLLOWING OF THE USA POLICY ON "TERROR" (READ: PROGRAM FOR OIL AND GLOBAL DOMINATION). (AMERICA IS NOT THE MESSIAH OF THE WORLD. GET IT THROUGH UR HEAD. PLUS, LOVELY HOW NOW U LIKE AMERICA BACK, ALL OF A SUDDEN)
It appears you are the victim of Mohammedan propaganda:
It was announced that any spreading of corruption would be punished by death. A variety of the Shah's former friends, colleagues and generals were seized, and after trials of a few minutes they were executed - to prevent news spreading to the others who were detained. The bodies of the prisoners were loaded into meat containers and dumped into mass graves. Khomeini dismissing international protests, saying that criminals did not need to be tried, just killed. (Iranian Revolution)
After Khomeini toppled the U.S. supported dictator – the Shah – there was NO such thing as BLOODLESS:
Because Mr. Carter withdrew U.S. support and unleashed Mullah fury, the Shah was toppled. Did this liberate the 3,000 political prisoners? No. The new theocratic dictatorship of the Ayatollah Khomeini put many of these “godless Communists” up against walls alongside more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians and liquidated them all by firing squads. Women were sent back into servitude. Citizens were arrested merely for owning satellite dishes that could tune to Western programs. And, of course, American diplomats were taken hostage. (Carter’s Appease Prize)
LOVELY JUDGMENT ON PART OF THE ABU-GHRAIB DETAINEES. KUDOS TO U FOR ONCE AGAIN FAILING TO SEE THE HUMAN SIDE OF THE OPPONENT. ALL OF THESE DETAINEES R POWs AND POWs HAVE RIGHTS. RIGHTS GRANTED BY MUTUALLY AGREED DECLARATIONS SIGNED BY ALL ISLAMIC, CHRISTIAN, JEWISH, SECULAR, ETC. NATIONS OF THE WORLD. BUT GUESS WHO ABROGATES THEM? Y, DO I CONSTANTLY FORGET, THE USA OF COURSE.
Incidents like Abu Ghraib are anomalies not normalities of American held POW’s. I doubt that not a single nation in the world is as close to following the Geneva Conventions during war than America. Contrarily America’s enemies rarely if ever follow the Geneva Conventions during war. You need to get past Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, I assure you prisoners are better treated than American, Israeli or Western soldier captives, even during the press frenzy of showing American soldiers doing reprehensible acts of humiliation. Regardless of what the Quran says, this is what actually happens to captured POW’s in the Middle East - Prisoners of War: Iraq's Horror Picture Show.
YES, AND U SUPPORTED IT AND THEN DEBUNKED IT AND SUPPORTED IT AND NOW DEBUNK IT AGAIN. LET ME KNOW WHEN U NEXT PLAN TO DEBUNK / SUPPORT IT!
You are darn right I support this Global War on Terrorism against a craven enemy that has no rules of engagement other than to terrorize and murder more civilians than soldiers. God Bless the American Democracy whose leaders emphatically made the correct choice.
AND WAT EXACTLY IS THE DIFFERENCE IN EFFECT BETWEEN AN "OFF WITH THE HEADS" EXECUTION AND "ELECTRIC i'll fry ur butt CHAIR" EXECUTIONS OR "POISONED" EXECUTIONS. U ONCE AGAIN FEEL TO SEE THE POINT. BUT, NO MATTER, I AM GETTING USED TO IT NOW.
Talha you are very good at comparing apples to oranges in a vain attempt to justify Mohammedan brutality. In American States that have the death penalty, the convicted often has ten to twenty years of appeals. Thus there is a certainty the crime was heinous enough for a formal execution.
In Mohammedan lands often times the certainty is vague or related to a medieval code of sharia law in which hands or lopped off for stealing and heads are lopped off for adultery. I understand Iran hangs their homosexuals and stones adulterous women or the victims of rape. And let’s not forget this terrible Capital Crime in Mohammedan lands: renouncing Mohammedanism for Christianity, another religion or atheism.
Yeah I’d say there was a big difference in the legal process between America and the Middle East.
PLUS U STILL DONT TELL Y THE CHURCH BELIEVES THE ACT OF DROPPING BOMBS IS NOT INTRINSICALLY EVEN. I LOVE JESUS, BUT I LIKE DROPPING BOMBS TOO, WHERE'S THE SENSE IN THAT.
Its called self-defense. The greatest mistake America has made since winning WWII is not fighting to win completely, fighting to win political correctly. This is why this Global War on Terror has dragged on. Yeah, I’m for ending the war – COMPLETELY.
SHOW ME THE HYPOCRACY IN THE STATEMENT. I HAVE GIVEN U THE RULES OF ENGAGAMENT EARLIER, SO UR ALLEGATION OF INDISCRIMINATION IS NON-FACTUAL. THE BRUTALITY IN AMERICAN PRISONS, I HAVE ALSO MENTIONED, AND U HAVENT COUNTERED. HERE THEY R AGAIN:
You miss the point! I did not say or at least mean to imply that Mohammedanism may not have rules of engagement. I am saying if Mohammedanism does have War Scriptures in their holy writings that protect civilians, they are not even close to be followed.
Personally the holy writings that call for the abject killing of unbelievers, Christians and Jews are the writings the Islamists follow. NOT the ones you provide.
Here are 164 Quranic verses advocating violence and death as a rule of engagement in spreading Islam by Jihad.
HOW IS THE RAPE VICTIM SUPPOSED TO BE AT FAULT IN ISLAMIC LAW. AS FOR ALIENATION AFTER RAPE, THAT MIGHT OCCUR, BUT IT HAS NO SCRIPTURAL FOUNDINGS. JUST, AS IT MAY OCCUR IN AMERICA OR ISRAEL.
Ex-Muslim Ali Sina has an explanation that agrees with Talha that a rape victim is not at fault in the Quran or the Hadith. Nonetheless Sina’s explanation can be extrapolated that “Honor Killings” of women (of which rape is one of many dishonorable acts) occur because of the Hadith concept of ‘awrah:
Honor killing is neither in the Quran nor is it specified in any hadith. It is however the natural outcome of the Islamic ethos of misogyny.
Women in Islam are regarded as sources of shame. Muhammad said they are awrah which can be translated as object of shame.
"Ali reported the Prophet saying: 'Women have ten ('awrah). When she gets married, the husband covers one, and when she dies the grave covers the ten." [1][1]
What is awrah? The Encyclopedia of Islam defines 'awrah as pudendum, that is the external genitals, especially of the female. [2] Pudendum derives from the Latin pudor which means sense of shame and modesty. So awrah signify an object of shame that needs to be covered. [3][2]
According to the following Hadith, women not only have ten 'awrah, but the woman herself is perceived as 'awrah:
"The woman is 'awrah. When she goes outside (the house), the devil welcomes her." [4][3]
If a woman loses her awrah by e.g. through rape, she becomes the object of shame for her family and the only way to remove that shame and restore the honor is to remove that defiled woman.
So you can say honor killing is cultural, but it is a culture that is deeply rooted in Islamic mindset and derives from it. It is practiced in all Islamic countries. The more religious is a country, the more is widespread the honor killing.
Women are asked to; “stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display” Quran 33.33
A woman who transgresses these orders becomes the source of shame to her family. She will not be marriageable, she and her family become the object of gossip of everyone. The entire family can lose prestige. No one would give a daughter to the brothers of that girl in marriage and no one would marry her sisters. The family and even the extended family are maligned and become outcasts. This can only stop if the family cleanses that stain with blood. The woman thus defiled must be sacrificed even if she is a victim of rape.
But you don’t have to be raped to become an exposed awrah and bring shame to your family. If you disobey your father who has consented that you marry a certain person you dishonor him. If you escape from your home for any reason including abuse, you have brought shame to your family and you could be haunted by your own brothers or even your mother and killed. If you reject a suitor, his pride can be injured and he may feel the urge to throw acid at your face to avenge and restore his honor.
If you are a female you have to remember that you have brought shame and disgrace to your father and everyone else in your family the day you were born and you must cover this shame, You are awrah, a pudendum, something to be ashamed of, something to hide. When you go to your husband’s house, your parents can breathe a sigh of relief. But from there on you become the awrah of your husband. Only the grave will cover all the shame that you have brought to this world. But as long as you are alive, it is your religious duty to be modest and cover this shame and not disgrace your qayyuums (male guardians). Your male kin, (father, brothers, husband, sons and even uncles) are your qayyuums and you are their awrah. If you make a dazzling display of yourself, the honor of all these "honorable" male relatives is injured and all of them have a right to burry you to restore their honor.
Muslim men have very low self esteem but they compensate the smallness of their selfhood by inflating their ego. If you are a women related to them, they feel as if they own you. Whatever you do affects their gigantic ego. They are possessive and feel dishonored if you make a "dazzling display" of yourself. And of course if you are deflowered, this is an affront to their humongous pride. The damage is irreparable and the only way to restore that pride is to get rid of you. (There is more if you choose to read it)
PLAINLY AND SIMPLY, U GET THE WRONG IMPRESSION. THERE WAS NO THREAT. THERE WAS AN ALLOWANCE ON BEHALF OF THE SLAVE TO BE ABLE TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THE MASTER, BASED ON THE SLAVE'S CONSENT. ARABIAN SLAVERY OF THE 600s, I HAVE ALREADY SHOWN, WAS FAR MORE HUMANE THAN UR CATHOLIC HERITAGE SLAVERY IN THE MIDDLE AGES, UR AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT, AND PAST THAT IN THE 1800s.
Yeah, Abul Kasem demonstrates that the treatment of sex-slaves was not as enlightened as you vainly attempt to portray. Kasem gives history and Quranic verses. Perverted buggers these Mohammedans.
This is more of the same continued from Commentary Battles. This time I am writing in blue italics while the commentator is black. The bold black is a point of interest in which I answer.
nice to see that v r finally getting into some constructive debate here. although i must admit the limelight does baffle me a bit.
but lets get to the arguing:
nice to see the catholic concept of just war. although, how they reconcile "en eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek", i fail to understand. but no matter, lets analyze the just war concept; here r the stipulations for just war.
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; wat lasting, grave and certain damage did iraq inflict on america?
Are you serious! Saddam Hussein was a supporter of Terrorists, even if no direct link was between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 was engaged with talks with al Qaeda and he continually gave aid to Terrorists that call themselves Palestinians (but really are Arab thugs) who have attacked American civilians abroad and the American military. Also I must mention he gave blood money to families of homicidal suicide attackers that killed families of our staunchest ally (and only real Western Style Democracy with Liberty and Freedom) Israel.
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;the UN was not exhausted in the iraq war.
The UN is a joke. It is now manipulated by a combination of corrupt Middle Easter despots, Third World despots and Powerful Nations lacking civil liberty such as Russia and China. Can you say “Oil for Food Scandal?” That is the scandal that the Muslim Secretary-General looked the other way while Saddam Hussein provided oil to West Europeans while pocketing money for weapons and personal wealth and allowing his people to starve to breed hatred of America. The UN is corrupt and is not even close to operating under the Charter which was established by the Democratic Liberty loving winners (excluding the USSR) that founded the organization.
there must be serious prospects of success; and my personal favorite: serious prospects of success. who in the world goes to war if there r no "serious" prospects of winning? so r all wars allowed?
btw, the very "serious" prospects of success in iraq, seem to have been substituted by the very "distant" prospects of success. is the war a non-Just war now that there r no longer serious prospects of war?
(funnily enough, when u read the fine print from ur source, this whole concept is discarded altogether with the very clearcut and eloquent directive "all that is required is a substantial possibility of success")
Wake up to reality. America is not a nation in which the Christian Church is Established, officially America is a Democratic Republic based on secularism with a heritage of Christianity. I only alluded to the “Just War Theory” of Christianity to point out that you were deluded that you believe Mohammedanism has a well planned out system of war that is beneficial when in fact it is heinous. America is not a Christian nation; however its heritage is Christian.
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.hmm... another good one. was the iraqi economy in such shambles before america took over. was there ever rampant looting in the streets of baghdad before the US invasion, or terrorist bombings, or political instability?
There is rarely rampant looting in a despotic nation in which genocide is a form of the rule of law and the Supreme Leader’s sons cruised the streets looking for women to ravish, rape, and torture and often kill. With such evil residing in the middle of Mohammedan dominated lands, it blows my mind that a non-Mohammedan nation – America – was the nation that put a stop to form of rule of law. O that’s right – Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey and Iran do the same thing just to a lesser degree: Mohammedan States all.
general snaps from the page:
1. "Unlike many countries, America has a strong commitment to this principle. The U.S. is famous for its humane treatment of non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners of war. Indeed, America is renowned for turning former wartime enemies -- such as Germany, Japan, and Italy -- into friends."
Wonderful! now lets look at the naked, sexually harrassed POWs from Abu Gharaib, the water-boarded POWs from Gitmo and the countless others who r in captivity without trial in admitted CIA "black cells" around the globe.
Abu Gharaib was inexcusable! However many of the humiliated detainees probably experienced child’s play compared to Saddam Hussein’s heinous usage of Abu Gharaib. Possibly many of the humiliated detainees carried out Saddam’s torture and executions. Is it possible you support the actions of Saddam Hussein above America’s removal of him?
( " US President George W Bush did acknowledge the existence of black sites in 2006." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7292974.stm)
( "ex-CIA officer John Kiriakou...acknowledged that water-boarding, used in that case, does amount to torture."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7138144.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6093298.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7144075.stm)
2. "Governments are privy to information gathered by intelligence services and other means that the general public does not possess. Because the public is not in possession of this information, the public is not in as advantaged a position to determine whether the conditions are met. As a result, the public must in significant measure be prepared to trust its leaders to make the right decision."
so much for democracy. lets just trust the govt to do the "right thing" whether it be leading us into war or hell.
Yeah, I’ve already debunked this one just above.
3. "...the law of double-effect. According to this law it is permissible to undertake an action which has two effects, one good and one evil, provided that certain conditions are met."
so, if v percieve good to come out of public beheading of warmongerers, it is ok? hey, i am not for the violence, apparently the Catholic church is.
Of course you are alluding to Christian nations’ unenlightened past rather than to Mohammedan unenlightened past and present – right? Middle Eastern Nations still practice “off with their heads” executions in the 21st century. Which nations with a Christian heritage still do that? Hmm … the answer is ZERO.
4. "...the cases of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. In these situations though the act (dropping bombs) was not intrinsically evil"
WOW! the act of dropping bombs is not evil. wow!
Let’s not mention the German Nazis killing 12 million (plus) men, women and children (6 million of those were Jews) or the millions of civilians in China, Korea and the Philippines that experienced death and rape at the hands of the Japanese.
funny, also, how the death penalty (which equals the death of one human) is an issue for christians, even when it comes to convicted criminals; but the act of war (which equals the death of hundreds) is not an issue and might actually be just.
This is a hypocritical statement relating to the brutality of prisons in Mohammedan lands and the evil rules of engagement that does not distinguish a military from a civilian population.
i said: rape is not allowed in Islamic scripture.
u reply: but it is happening in scandinavia
check out rape statistics in america:
" Rape is a serious problem in the United States today. The United States has the highest rape rate among countries which report such statistics. It is 4 times higher than that of Germany, 13 times higher than that of England and 20 times higher than that of Japan."
(http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php)
(http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm)
(http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/frequency-of-sexual-assault)
(http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims)
All women: 17.6%White women: 17.7%Black women: 18.8%Asian Pacific Islander women: 6.8%American Indian/Alaskan women: 34.1% <----
Mixed race women: 24.4% <----
Notice the high rate for ppl of color
(http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims)
i say: if its abt mudslinging regarding wat happens in real life, then both of us have enough evil in our communities to fill blogs with. here's a taster:
"Why are the 'Bible Belt' regions of the US so much higher in murder, poverty, unmarried mothers and welfare?"http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061024203457AAz4pxe
http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/adaptation/222/4.html
I suspect statistics on rape are accurately kept in Mohammedan lands since the victim there is assumed to be at fault and if survives stands a huge chance of her own family killing her out of some warped conception of honor.
As you alluded rape happens in America, thank God Almighty the Mohammedan population in America is not the size as in Europe or the statistics of rape would be higher.
as for the sex with the slaves, u should notice that no where is it permitted to rape or have forced sex with one's slave girl. slavery was very common in arabia in the 600s (in fact, it was common in the US in the 1800s.) so, this ruling of allowing a person to have sex with a slave is basically allowing one to have sexual relations with a slave, with the basic principle of rape not coming into play at all. in those times, if one had a slave girl willing to engage in physical intimacy with her master, they were allowed to do so. however, before u start quoting me, understand the concept of a slave in those times:
a highly regarded act of piety amongst muslims was to free slaves. so, islam in spirit, is for the emancipation of slaves.
Right … I get the impression sex was a choice of give it up willingly or it will be taken by force. The existence of threat to give sex willingly is just as much a rapist violation as if it was by force.
one was supposed to cloth ones slave, as one clothed one's self. feed her/him as she/he fed himself, provide her/him with living quarters similar to one's own. so basically a slave was like hired help, but with equal rights and complete support from u. if there is such a woman living with one's self that she is clothed, fed, housed, and completely taken care by u, is this not similar to the position of a wife? also, u cannot demean a slave, or berate her/him. so much so that the slave should be substituted with "hired help" at a much more inclusive level. thereby, in my view, sexual relations r allowed with a helper.
also see that slavery was an institution in arabia on the wane since the advent of islam. muslims emanciated a lot of slaves and gave the slaves so many rights that it became a much more demanding task to ensure a slave all of his/her rights and priviledges. so, islam changed the nature of slavedom.
however, u have brought forth an important question, and one that requires further elucidation. i will search more into the issue and add further details to the issue.
the same goes for the banu quariza incident. i have links that provide justifications on the issue and links that crtiticize it. however, their authencity, as it pertains to historical veracity, is doubtful. once again, after consulting more recognized sources (which i will ofcourse share with u), i'll answer the issue in more detail.
I would be fascinated to see those links that justify the beheading of the defeated males of the Jewish tribe while the women became sex slaves.
meanwhile, kudos from my side on initiating a constructive debate based on issues and not mere hearsay. good job. u'll hear from me soon.
salam and peace
Fjordman is a noted European blogger that is my kind of guy for he is an expert on radical Islam and its agenda to infiltrate as a Fifth Column into Western Culture (meaning Europe and America).
Think-Israel has recently posted one of Fjordman’s essays that originally were written in 2006 about the Muslim Brotherhood and its agenda of infiltration.
I am delighted to receive Think-Israel’s E-Newsletter which has made me aware of Fjordman’s excellent concise history of the Muslim Brotherhood.
JRH 3/13/08
Western civilians and Lefties in particular need to understand that a new “paradigm” needs to exist in the fight of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). The Western thought of the rules of engagement are far different than the Islamic thought.
Western thought is to wage war if possible with the least possible collateral damage to civilians. In Western history, the nations that warred with disregard to the collateral damage of civilians had their political and military leaders prosecuted for War Crimes when they lost.
Islamic thought is to wage war with the full inclusion of the civilian populace as the army of Allah and Mohammed. The civilian populace may not be trained militarily or even wish to be involved in the actual fighting; however their deaths are considered glorious for Allah and not at all as collateral damage.
This is why on September 1, 2001 after radical Islamic terrorists crashed jets into buildings murdering thousands of Americans, a media pan of Islamic Arab and Iranian conclaves saw Muslims dancing in the streets shooting weapons in the air like fire works in celebration. This was particularly the case among Arabs that call themselves Palestinian.
As Alan Dershowitz points out, radical Islamists (and increasingly Middle Eastern Muslims in general) are death oriented and Western Culture is life oriented.
The U.S. Military and America’s coalition of the willing must change their rules of engagement to match the enemy’s ruthlessness. This way the false accusations of the Leftist media of massacres such as never happened in Haditha, Iraq cannot disrupt America’s goal of eradicating radical Islamist vermin in the GWOT. It will not be a case of striking fear in Middle Easterners, it will be a case that Middle Easterners will understand and America will derive respect as an opponent. Thus Middle Easterners that do not appreciate horrid measures of radical Islamists murdering their own as punishment will move from respect to believing that America is a friend and not a foe. In essence this is why The Surge has brought on an Iraqi Awakening and Iraqis are ejecting their support for al Qaeda Iraq (AQI) and aiding the American military and the new Iraqi Government in defeating AQI.
Act For America has sent an email excerpt of Dershowitz’s The Wall Street Journal article entitled, “Worshipper’s of Death.” Dershowitz writes of this paradigm of death among Middle Eastern Muslims. Dershowitz eloquently demonstrates Islam’s culture of death. (Unfortunately Act For American did not provide WSJ link for me to cite so you will have to go SlantRight.com at the end of this post to read Dershowitz’s article which I am referring to or wade through a WSJ search.)
JRH
Janet Levy writing for the American Thinker has an excellent post entitled, “The Fallacy of Shared Values.” The post examines the myth that Western Values and Islamic Values are shared merely because Academics have Islam, Judaism and Christianity as from a common thread.
It is a must read!
