December 15, 2004
Rusty Shackleford says "Islam is a wicked, vicious faith."
Arrest me. Fascists.
Posted by: Rusty at
03:50 PM
| Comments (81)
| Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Rusty, stand up in class and say that ... then I'll see if you are treated the same way hehehehe.
Posted by: Slamander at December 15, 2004 04:21 PM (D4mP3)
2
To be fair, Rusty, he went far beyond calling Muslims nasty names. He's is scum.
The day after that documentary was aired earlier in the year, I was speaking to my old boss at work, a Muslim. He told me if the guy ended up in Strangeways, our local prison, he could arrange for a few friends of his to kneecap him. To be honest, I don't think I'd have a problem with that.
Posted by: sortapundit at December 15, 2004 04:21 PM (SgQqe)
3
Amend that to *He is scum.*
Posted by: sortapundit at December 15, 2004 04:22 PM (SgQqe)
4
Scum or not, he was arrested for what he SAID. And what he said could in no way be construed as 'incitement'. Criticizing a religion is foundational for freedom of religion.
Posted by: Rusty at December 15, 2004 04:41 PM (JQjhA)
5
Amazing. Muslims are safe to trash Americans, say evil hateful things in their own countries about Jews, Christians, any infidels, and nothing will happen because free speech is non-existent. He said nothing different than that that is preached in Mosques around the world. Does it make what he said right? No. I am not against muslims because they are muslim. I am just against muslims who want to force me to be muslim, force my daughter and wife to wear a burqa. If I speak out against those people, thank God I am in America where people might look down their nose at me like I am a bigot, but they can't arrest me.
Posted by: ScoobyMkay at December 15, 2004 05:50 PM (rnOSt)
6
Kneecap him. Is that a muslim thing? Islam is a cruel, mean religion that is the major problem with the world today. Regardless how you put it. Everywhere around the world on all continents it is trouble, trouble, trouble. Not to admit it is just plain stupid. Eurabia is on the way. Europe will be torn apart. The only solution is mass deportations now. The raghead immigrants will out breed the original inhabitants.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 15, 2004 05:57 PM (VkopJ)
7
They don't need to resort to mass deportations or anything that draconian, they could simply stop immigration from Muslim countries.
Posted by: Rusty at December 15, 2004 05:59 PM (JQjhA)
8
You know, I own that tie the alien is wearing and now I know never to wear it to speak in public. Thanks, Dr. Rusty.
Posted by: See-Dubya at December 16, 2004 01:59 AM (PUZhO)
9
First of all, he has been released without charges so you can rest easy and stop crying.
Second, the guy has been CONVICTED of inciting race crimes before in the past as was the original founder of the BNP, John Tyndall (3 times for him). The group has been known for "forcible repatriation" for non-whites who refuse to return to their land of ethnic origin.
As far as his arrest goes, its seems to me that the police wanted to question Griffin regarding the rallies that he holds in order to spread racial hate and violence. If you read the article you can see what kind of people are in the group:
"Other footage in "The Secret Agent" documentary -- watched by some 4 million viewers -- shows another BNP member expressing a wish to blow up mosques with a rocket launcher and machine-gun worshippers with "about a million bullets."
Another member told how he put dog faeces through an Asian shop's letterbox, while a third described how he beat up a Muslim man. "I'm kicking away...it was fantastic," he said"
Rusty you took one line about him "criticizing" Islam but you failed to note that he has used lines like that to incite his followers before and was obviously doing it again. Please tell me that you are not that naive to think that he was simply expressing his opinion. The shame in all this is that no charges were filed.
Stopping immigration from one country due to the amount of muslims there are in it will only lead to the stopping of immigration altogether. That seems pretty Un-American to me.
greyrooster: Mass deportations? Are you serious??? Europe is not being taken over. The US will never be taken over. Give it a rest.
Slamander: If Rusty stood up in class and said "Islam is a wicked, vicious faith" then the only thing I would expect is for his students and peers to think less of him. Now if he started holding rallies and promoting violence towards non-whites and then used that line, then I would expect the same course of action. That would be no different than the KKK.
Posted by: Jim at December 16, 2004 03:39 AM (PH1UJ)
10
First of all, he has been released without charges so you can rest easy and stop crying.
Wow, Jim. You missed the point entirely. You do realize Rusty gets death threats for writing what he does on this blog, as I'm sure this brit loudmouth does, as well. Death threats that are publicly condoned from mosques in Britain, America and certainly all over the Middle East, which, of course, is just righteous expression of anger towards Imperialist Amerika and the West. And yet, you think criticism of Islam is an arrest-worthy event. Nice. You have a place in the PC reign of terror. Enjoy the veal.
Posted by: SparseMatrix at December 16, 2004 08:02 AM (935pb)
11
All I know is that Roddy Piper was smokin' in those alien-spotting sunglasses.
Posted by: Tongueboy at December 16, 2004 09:08 AM (nug4S)
12
Ahhhhhhhh, yes. The glories of Revolution.
Now and then we have to remember why we fought a Revolution against the United Kingdom, have a bill of rights, and a Constitution (though I wish our politicians would follow it more often).
Scum, dirtbag, idiot, fool, racist, Fascist, Communist, Islamist, Quaker, Puritan, Cavalier, Roundhead, Jew, Catholic, Roma, Socialist, Mormon, Freemason, Scientologist, or hermit. My bloodline has at least a half dozen of the above. All of them came here to speak their mind without being thrown in jail.
Speak often, speak well, speak loud. FREEDOM OF SPEECH means that people are allowed to say what they want to prove to anyone what a fool they are.
You can hate their speech, it can make you sick, it can make you uncomfortable, it can make you question you basic beliefs, or you can walk away, turn off the TV, change the channel, or you can respond in kind.
What a free people do not do is jail those that think differently than they do. That is what Communists and Fascists do. Then again, both of those ideological cancers came from Europe, so what is the surprise?
Why not arrest those that actually make the threats as opposed to the party leader. Arresting someone that says, “I want to kill Muslims” is very different then arresting someone that says, “Islam is a wicked, vicious faith.” Let them say “Islam is a wicked, vicious faith”. If it isn’t true, who cares? If you are secure in the goodness of your faith, it shouldn’t have any traction.
You can call me a “snake handling, backward, evangelical goof ball”, it may or may not be true, but I am secure enough in my beliefs that it is all water off my back.
Anyway, they are not arresting the Islamofascist that are ACTUALLY calling for the death of those that do not believe as they do, so I have even LESS respect for their Fascist laws. Self-hating bed wetters are taking over a once great nation. They will, in the end, get what they deserve.
Indeed, lights are going out all over Europe.
Posted by: CDR Salamander at December 16, 2004 09:33 AM (PJ4Iq)
13
I don't know, it's a tough call. While I agree that you can't really arrest the average person for saying what he said, the fact that he's the LEADER of the BNP and has followers as such, you could make a case that he was trying to incite something, explicitly or otherwise. I agree, the words by themselves don't really amount to much, but I think you have to look at his role within the BNP when making an evaluation.
Anyways, 2 points. 1) This guy basically shares the same views as Hitler. That being said, my sympathies for his "free speech" only go so far (not that it matters or anyone would care). 2) It's hard to really believe that Islam is a "wicked, viscious faith" while at the same time basically "approve" of secular, moderate Muslims. I mean, they all follow Islam. Again, it's people's interpretations of Islam that are causing the majority of the unrest we're seeing these days.
Posted by: Venom at December 16, 2004 09:41 AM (dbxVM)
14
Too many of you are missing a fundamental truth: hate speech is the most important type of speech to protect. Otherwise the right to free speech is absolutely meaningless and moot.
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at December 16, 2004 11:41 AM (5nYes)
15
I don't know enough about the BNP to speak authoritatively on the matter. I do know that a lot people come to my site and say much worse things than the "members" of the BNP. Notice the difference here? How can you justify the arrest of the LEADER of a party by what some of that party's MEMBERS do? Go to any Republican or Democratic Party event and if you look hard enough you will find the same thing.
Whenever I do a post on Islam I get people in the comments section calling for the death of Muslims. Am I responsible for the nutjobs of the world??
Posted by: Rusty at December 16, 2004 12:24 PM (JQjhA)
16
Good point, though your relationship with your readers is different than those of Griffin and his party members (or other people who espouse his beliefs). You're not your readers leader and your relationships with them are different than Griffin and his BNP members. If a person is encouraged by Griffin to go out and hurt/kill Muslims, then Griffin would likely have to share some responsibility. You generally get around it by presenting ideas and opening it up to debate. Sure, you've got a lot of nutjobs here (as you call them, and you know who you are), but I assume they basically keep it to the confines of the comments section and don't actually go out and nuke holy cities or harm Muslims (let alone harm them).
The Republican and Democrat parties aren't generally out there telling people to go and commit crimes. And if they were, I'd say those leaders (or whoever is encouraging it) ought to be held responsible, too. The arrest of leaders for the actions of their parties happens all the time (look at Saddam Hussein). Sure, the crimes committed are far more extreme, but it all comes down to policy, planning, and execution. If a (confirmed) leader tells his followers to do something illegal, he's a part of it.
Posted by: Venom at December 16, 2004 12:54 PM (dbxVM)
17
To those posting about free speech, I totally agree with you but you are still missing the point. For example, I disagree with a lot of the stuff Rusy posts about but if I ever call for violence against Rusty and his supporters then I am guilty of the same thing Griffin is guilty of. I never have and I never will.
Rusty, you are not responsible for the nutjobs of the world but if you disagree with them then you should post saying so. Instead, you let them intrepet your posts the way most people do (by getting angry and calling for blood) and you essentially condone their calls for the deaths of Muslims. All you need to do is make a post here and there saying "that is not my intention" or "killing muslims is not the answer" but you never have and you probably never will. In the end, it seems like you agree with the nutjobs.
A leader that condones the actions of his followers is guilty of the same crimes. Isn't that why the Muslim countries that condone the actions of terrorists within their borders are held responsible?
Keep that in mind the next time you post Rusty.
Posted by: Jim at December 16, 2004 01:03 PM (PH1UJ)
18
I understand that, but from the story it doesn't sound like the leader of the BJP said anything that would incite unlawful action at all. Saying "your religion sucks ass" is a far cry from "kill members of that religion."
Posted by: Rusty at December 16, 2004 02:10 PM (JQjhA)
19
I personally have come to the conclusion that Islam indeed is a "wicked, vicious," destructive faith and one to be very, very afraid of anywhere in this world but especially here at home where we live. I have a real fear of it and what those who believe in it can do to us right here and now.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 16, 2004 03:06 PM (D39Vm)
20
I slam Islam. But I won't eat green eggs and ham. It is not halal.
Is that your picture, Rusty?
Posted by: Mr. K at December 16, 2004 06:26 PM (RuGfS)
21
And the adherents of Islam who don't speak out and condemn the filthy bastards who espouse the death of all "infidels?" What about them, Jim? Your logic is less than flawless here. You want to condemn the BNP and give the ROP imams a pass? That's certainly your call--wrong--but absolutely within your rights. Just keep in mind that your idyllic utopia wherein you frolick in a field of clover, chasing butterflies with nets, will come undone sooner rather than later...sort of like the Dutch got an abrupt taste of the real Islam and decided they didn't like what they had.
Posted by: skh at December 16, 2004 08:33 PM (0xwoN)
22
JIM: your head is in the sand. Europe is already experiencing riots from muslims. I ask you this. Why is it neccessary for Muslims to move to countries based on the Christian religion. Why don't they stay in their own countries? Why? because their countries suck. They suck because of the muslim beliefs, muslim way of doing business, the muslim religion. If they don't like their own countries then they should stay and help make them better. THAT IS THE AMERICAN WAY. Instead they bring the same beliefs and crap with them to other countries. What is the matter with English in England, French in Franch, Iranians in Iran. Seems to me that's the way it should be. Islamic immigrants to Europe do not adopt the way to the better place they moved to. They shouldn't be there if they will not join the society they moved to. KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID. It's not that complicated. Now I'm waiting for some simple minded ass to say (well your ancestors moved to America. Then I will explain the difference between 400 years ago and now.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 16, 2004 09:01 PM (eLjJa)
23
JIM: What's this big concern you have for non-whites? Are you another dingbat who believes white people spend all their time picking on people who are not white? Got news for you buddy, WE DON'T. If we weren't nice caring people their wouldn't be any other color left on this earth. Think about it.
Don't know any KKK members, but they should have the same rights and protection that brown muslims, black muslims or any other white hating assholes have. There's plenty of disillusioned idiots worried about them. Who worries about the white people?
JIM you seem to be overly concerned about white people calling for the death of muslims. Why haven't you mentioned the daily call for death to non muslims. Not only are they calling for it but they are killing innocents daily. The bible doesn't teach killing not Chistians. The Koran calls for killing non muslims. Grow up!! That pie in the sky shit from the sixties don't hunt anymore. Time to tell it like it is.
Have problem? Ask the whites. Hungry? ask the whites. Need technology? borrow from the whites.
Chistians in this day and age aren't to bad.
This is coming from a non Christian.
WHITE PEOPLE ARE GREAT! Anyone who doesn't know it is a jealous little shit.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 16, 2004 09:29 PM (eLjJa)
24
Whenever I do a post on Islam I get people in the comments section calling for the death of Muslims. Am I responsible for the nutjobs of the world??
Nope and to answer someone else's comments, you got plenty of noise from muslims there for awhile that got pretty intense and caused you some concern and a bit of fear. I remember it well; I've been around from the beginning - some of these people are new. I don't care who's quote this is - it's the absolute truth considering all the terrorists in the world are of the Islamic faith - ie Religion of Peace. Peace, my ass, look at what this so called Religion of peace has done to this world. I always wanted to travel but I can't do that because of these Muslims who could blow up anything anywhere in the world. If it wasn't for Islam, they'd be no terrorist activity - think about that one, folks.
Kneecapping a prisoner in jail by Muslim friends? No, they really like to hurt people and consider it a pleasure. Some friend. Violence is ingrained in the Islamic religion; anyone who is not an Islamic Muslim is considered an infidel and worthy of death in their eyes. They take the Koran seriously word for word and good old Allah and Muhammed were warriers and violent men. Instead of people in the good old US of A trying to stop Christians, Christmas trees, Christmas plays and all the wonders of the Holiday season of which they're doing a great job of doing this year and should be stopped, the Muslim faith is the most dangerous, vile, destructive, vicious faith that scares the beejeezes out of me. If they find no remorse or regret for what they do, my opinion is that the Muslim faith should go down the drain along with all the terrorists who kill, maim, behead, kidnap, destroy infrastructure, bomb, blow up things for maximum damage and death; this is not a religion of peace but one you should FEAR with every fiber of your being. There is no redemptive value of that religion or the people who follow it and with all that has been going on in the world, in Europe, etc, then it is indeed a religion of fear - so beware and be careful for they do not care about life but only in ending it.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 16, 2004 11:28 PM (D39Vm)
25
greyrooster: Do me a favor. With all due respect to whatever religion you believe in, I want you to conduct an experiment. I challenge any other reader to do the same if they have the courage or will. Go to your local Mosque and tell them you are interested in converting to Islam. You don't actually have to convert but just see what they teach. Just attend their functions and learn about their faith. You won't be the only non-whites there so don't feel uncomfortable. If you honestly can come back and say that they are teaching their followers to kill non-believers and to commit violence on a daily basis then fine. I won't say another thing. Unfortunately for you, you will not find that. You will be hard pressed to find that even in Muslim countries.
greyrooster, for some reason you can't open your eyes and see that the TERRORISTS are a small group that INTERPRETS the Quran in a violent and horrific manner. They do this to spread hate and anger. They want you to be angry and hate Muslims. That is their goal. Not all Muslims see it that way, just like not all Christians intepret the Bible as others do. You cannot hold an entire race or religion responsible for the actions of extremists. I don't understand why it is so hard for you to understand this. YOUR head is in sand, not mine. Did you hold all WHITE people responsible after the Oklahoma federal building? No you didn't. I have nothing against white people. I am also white for crying out loud. But I have no tolerance for guys like Griffin and the KKK who commit acts of violence against those who are non-white or non-christian. They are no better than the terrorists you hate so much. So answer me this greyrooster, how do you feel about the KKK? I think your response would explain a lot about you.
My last response is for Cindy. You said "I always wanted to travel but I can't do that because of these Muslims who could blow up anything anywhere in the world. If it wasn't for Islam, they'd be no terrorist activity - think about that one, folks."
I want to know how old you are because that statement is just ridiculous. Perhaps you don't remember how about 15 years ago, when people heard the word "terrorists" they thought about the Irish Republican Army. They were NOT Muslim Cindy yet they blew up buildings and cars and killed innocent people.
Ever see Patriot Games? Die Hard? Those aren't "ragheads" killing hostages. Yes Hollywood likes to make movies about the people who threaten the world and in that time they were Irish. During the cold war they made movies about the Russians. Now they are making them about Muslims.
TERRORISM IS A POLITICAL ACT OF VIOLENCE. Yes, political. The only difference between the terrorists in the Middle East and the terrorists in Ireland and other parts of the world is that the terrorists in the Middle East use Islam as a way to incite the rest of the world. It works out in their favor so well that it is disgusting. They want to make this a religious war and have been very successful thus far.
A final thought. Do any of you know that Suddam only "embraced" Islam when he realized that he could get help from Islamic countries. He very effectively used religion as a political tool to spread fear among his people. Even then his faith was all a lie. I guess noone noticed when the US troops invaded his palace and found alcohol everywhere. Yes, VERY MUSLIM of him. He is about as non-muslim as you can get. Yet you associate his regime with Islam. WRONG. He used a radical interpretation of Islam and twisted it to rule his country with an iron fist. He is TRUE EVIL. Not Islam.
"There is no redemptive value of that religion or the people who follow it "-- thats about as closeminded as you get and if you are not willing to open your eyes and do your own research then there is really no hope for you.
Posted by: Jim at December 17, 2004 03:30 AM (PH1UJ)
26
Jim, that was mighty lengthy and thoughtful post, but its you, and not greyrooster, who doesn't get it.
Posted by: Mr. K at December 17, 2004 08:27 AM (Y1YHr)
27
Good post, Jim. It's true, Red Army weren't Muslim but were terrorists. IRA weren't Muslim but were terrorists. Shining Path aren't Muslim either, yet they're terrorists, too. Timothy McVeigh was a mass murderer, but I don't recalle ever reading that he was a follower of the Quran. It never ceases to amaze me that people on here continue to lay blame to the entire Muslim religion for any terrorist act out there. Terrorism is politcal. Terrorism is about power. The fact there are many Muslim countries with very good relations with the US proves that Muslims aren't hell-bent to kill non-Muslims. If so, these relations couldn't be possible.
Also, it's amusing to read Cindy's post about how she's now scared to travel in the world because of terrorism, while each of the terrorist organizations mentioned above have existed much longer than many of the existing Muslim terrorist organization out there today.
Why weren't you scared to travel in the past? Organized crime, drug cartels, domestic acts of terrorism like Oklahoma City, etc. occured in the past, yet you felt safe then, despite the fact that many innocents were killed.
My thought is that you've (and not only you) completely bought into this Muslim conspiracy that they're out to conquer the world, something which makes as much sense as the "Zionist conspiracy" to conquer the world. Both are horseshit and millions of people travel everyday with absolutely no problems at all. And, as we say three years ago, staying at home doesn't exactly isolate you from terrorist acts, either. Terrorists want people to be afraid. The only way to combat this is to show them you're not scared.
Frankly, if you're scared now to travel, you always will be.
Posted by: Venom at December 17, 2004 10:56 AM (dbxVM)
28
Venom,
I don't like you much anyway and wish you'd troll to other places I don't go. Travel for me is difficult anyway and I need help to do so, so going through everything that's required these days makes it almost impossible. Sure there was terrorism before this but now it's there all the time; not a day goes by where muslim terrorists blow something up somewhere - so why take that chance? I'm in a wheelchair, so it's not so easy for me to get up and run like hell and yes, I am more aware of terrorism now than ever and as long as these asshats keep it up in every country they're in, I am staying home - it's that simple. I don't see Christians blowing things up but every day I see Islamics blowing things up and killing anyone who is not of their faith as well as kidnapping and killing those of their color and faith; they don't care. Why put myself in a position of danger like that? That would be stupid, to say the least.
Years ago in my early 20's, with my mother, aunt and cousin, we were going to go to Ireland to visit family members and that was cancelled by the airline because of the problems with Northern Ireland and much to dangerous. The danger THEN is nothing compared to the danger NOW since most of these European countries are Muslamic radicals, insurgents, terrorists hit anywhere, anytime for any reason. Think about it, venom, no one expected Beslan and I blogged on another site for 72 hours straight on what was going on there so I'm not taking that chance.
My sister is part of the state department and lives, schools, works and stays inside what is considered the American embassy because leaving would be too dangerous for her and her kids and she's had to live that way for over 12 years in different countries because of her husband (whom she really wants to leave). The only place she started out that was safe enough for her to leave was when she was in Hungary. So no, even with my problems with travel, I'm not taking that kind of risk - unlike others from our country who go over there to Iraq, I don't have body guards.
And I also believe that the Muslims in this country should turn in ANYONE they know who is up to no good but haven't seen that, either. They are indeed all around us and I think they should just nuke that whole part of the world and get rid of it all forever.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 17, 2004 01:39 PM (D39Vm)
29
Oh, someone mentioned the KKK. Let me tell you that living in NH, that's rarely a problem but in my town there were three who would dress up and stand downtown. The first time I saw them my stomach turned over and I almost got sick in the car and wished they were on the street instead of the sidewalk, I would have run them over. It was such a shock that I could barely concentrate. After awhile, yellow ribbons went on stores where they were not allowed and eventually they left the area - thank God because the sight of them made everyone sick, disgusted and scared in the pit of their stomachs.
It's no different than when it comes to the fundamental Islamists who are trying to destroy this world, many countries and especially OUR COUNTRY - there is all kinds of proof - everyday - of the dangers they post right here at home, never mind abroad where you can't even act like an American.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 17, 2004 01:49 PM (D39Vm)
30
Whatever.
1) You make it sound that what's happening in Iraq is happening across the planet, and it's not. I have friends all over the world, and their lives are very peaceful. You're a product of the fear that MSM has created. When you have a 30 minute broadcast, you're going to see what makes the news. Because a car bomb goes off in Baghdad does not mean that car bombs are going off everywhere in the world. Your comprehension of world events is actually pretty dismal. My guess is you probably haven't really done a lot of traveling, so maybe ignorance is bliss after all.
2) "The danger THEN is nothing compared to the danger NOW since most of these European countries are Muslamic radicals, insurgents, terrorists hit anywhere, anytime for any reason."
This sentence makes no sense at all. I actually have no idea what you're trying to say (though, given your track record, it would probably be wrong anyways).
3) As I said, terrorism will always be around. Whenever you have a dissenting opinion, you're going to have someone who will have an extreme "solution" to whatever problem they see. Your persistent comments on nuking countries with no rational thought makes you no better than a terrorist in my eyes. You have an extreme "solution" that is considered repugnant to most human beings, and with no real argument, arbitrarily decide to use it. Sure, you're not killing people, but then again, neither are 99% of the people over there.
Posted by: Venom at December 17, 2004 02:13 PM (dbxVM)
31
oh man, you are a frigging idiot. I could have sworn I asked you not to comment - because you're always right and everyone else is always wrong. You don't know me at all but I know a troll like you and I'm getting pretty sick of seeing you around.
The last thing I am is ignorant, unknowledgeable and my track record is pretty damn good = just ask Rusty.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 17, 2004 02:48 PM (D39Vm)
32
Why should I ask Rusty? I think he made his opinion pretty clear earlier in this thread:
"Whenever I do a post on Islam I get people in the comments section calling for the death of Muslims. Am I responsible for the nutjobs of the world??"
I mean, it pretty much sounds like you're one of the wackos here.
Posted by: Venom at December 17, 2004 03:05 PM (dbxVM)
33
Name one country in the Islamic world where people who are not Muslims may:
1) Openly practice their religion or display the lack thereof;
2) Are free to proselytize their non-Muslim faith without state fear of a violent end;
3) Are protected by law when discriminated against by Muslims.
Name an Islamic country that has laws that provide for equal opportunity among all people, especially women.
Islam is not only a religion, it is a political ideology, that in its own holy code, the Quran, mandates against these very freedoms. That same holy code also directs the faithful followers to kill non-believers.
The IRA was certainly not Muslim. But unlike Muslim terrorists, they fought for freedom. Muslim terrorist fight to impose their brand of totalitarianism on others.
Right now, we face an ideological and cultural one way street. Muslims enter the west, demand and receive fair and equal treatment under the law. No where on earth does such a condition exist for westerners seeking to emigrate into the Islamic world.
Look at what is happening in the Netherlands, and elsewhere in Europe. Do you read Rusty's posts, and then forget?
This may sound insane, but in some ways I am glad 9-11 happened. That violent, hideous manifestation of the Islamic jihad blew the cover on the greater, more devastating silent jihad that is happening through peaceful immigration, backed up by lawful demand for protection of their right to practice their "religion". I am glad Osama raised our awareness.
When Islam prevails, liberty is lost. Islam will only prevail in this country because of diehard jackasses who simply refuse to read the Quran, read the history, and insist that everything western is evil.
Posted by: Mr. K at December 17, 2004 03:49 PM (SI42N)
34
"Name one country in the Islamic world where people who are not Muslims may:
1) Openly practice their religion or display the lack thereof;
2) Are free to proselytize their non-Muslim faith without state fear of a violent end;
3) Are protected by law when discriminated against by Muslims.
Name an Islamic country that has laws that provide for equal opportunity among all people, especially women."
How about Turkey? It's a Muslim nation, according to its Constitution (http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/anayasa/constitution.htm), freedom of religion is guaranteed, and women actually have special laws in place to protect them in the workplace. Pakistan also had Bhutto as a prime minister for a few years, something relatively unheard of (Muslim nation or not). Their governments are by and large Muslim, yet the freedoms are there.
"Muslim terrorist fight to impose their brand of totalitarianism on others."
Well, yes they do, but so does any terrorist organization. The fact they're Muslim has nothing to do with it. I mean, I doubt the Spanish really think there's a difference in terrorism, considering they've been hit by Basque terrorists and Islamic extremists. It's not like every Basque out there is taking up arms to fight the Spanish, the same way the vast majority of Muslims aren't taking up arms to fight westerners. The fact a few do doesn't mean anything when the majority don't.
"Right now, we face an ideological and cultural one way street. Muslims enter the west, demand and receive fair and equal treatment under the law. No where on earth does such a condition exist for westerners seeking to emigrate into the Islamic world."
This I will concede, and it's not just the "Islamic World." Most societies don't really like having outsiders come in and try to change their way of doing things. Nor should they. But the answer isn't violence. It's laws. BUT, you can't point the finger solely at Muslims. I think ANY immigrant who emigrates to the US demands fair and equal treatment, even though many of their countries probably wouldn't do the same. So, again, it's not really a "Muslim thing."
And Islam is Islam. The Quran is the Quran. The reason you have secular and conservative Muslims out there is because of their interpretations of the religion and the holy text. They're not reading different books, so wouldn't it suggest that the problem is the interpretation rather than the religion itself?
Posted by: Venom at December 17, 2004 04:17 PM (dbxVM)
35
Venom...spare us the 25 cent word bullshit. the the interpretation and the religion are one and the same. if you really feel the need to impress us or yourself go personally to saudi,iraq,or iran and tell the cute, murdering little fucking muslim's how wonderful you think they are....watching your beheading video while eating popcorn and drinking a few beer's would prove to be at least mildly entertaining. jim....get your head out of your ass son. GREYROOSTER...would you please move to michigan and be our governor ?? dude you are awesome and rightous (did i spell that right ?) CINDY..i bet your hot.would you be willing to babysit a 44 year old ex-marine ?? my wife say's i'm almost entirely potty trained and don't spit up alot when burped. i can hit any running muslim out to 300 meters with an m-16 9 out of 10 shots, and am very creative with play-doh. also,am able to do push-ups all day long.
Posted by: bryan fox at December 17, 2004 05:18 PM (6krEN)
36
JIM: I would make a reply but Mr. K's post is the same as I would post.
JIM: I would like you to go to a KKK meeting. Tell them you would like to join. You don't actually have to join, but listen to what they teach. Just attend their functions and learn their faith. You won't be the only white there, so you will be comfortable. If you honestly can come back and say they are teaching their members to kill non-believers and commit violence on a daily basis then fine. I will not say another thing. Unfortunately for you, you will not find that. You will be hard pressed to find that even in Mississippi. The food is great. They mostly talk about who shot the biggest deer last season. They will hand you a beer and say try some of miss hattie's tater salad.
But then any black man or Jew knows what they stand for. Same as we know what the Muslims stand for.
You see Jim, some of us have lived. Been places, experienced first hand. As an engineer who was once broke and just out of school. I worked in Saudi Arabia. I learned something terrible there.
An employee and friend of mine was born in Iran. His last name is Sabour. This means peaceful in Farci. He moved to America because he was a Christian. Not a practicing one. His mother was Russian. He was educated in Germany and Holland. He is brillant. He could not find a job in Iran because his first name is Frederick. That's not Islamic. So he got a one way ticket to America. He's now an engineer for a large city in northern Calif.
You know America? That arrogant country that takes in mistreated people from all over the world.
He went to a mosque in Detroit and told me what they were teaching. He speaks the language. He experienced the same in Texas and California.
I know about the KKK because I went to several of their meetings. I can do it and argue with them because I've got 20 local young bucks that say I can.
You want to try it?
You see when you talk about what Muslims are teaching and what the KKK is teaching I know far more than you. I have the money and balls to experience things. And I do. I've also been to a Black Muslim meeting. I have eaten at their restaurants. You got the balls to walk into a Nation of Islam restaurant and order a burger? Was lousy. Burger on Rye. Yuk. No wonder they are always mad about something.
Think you know shit. You don't. How about this. Tommorrow, I will be spending the day with Roy Jones Jr. Sound racist? Not the champ now but still the best fighter in modern times. His cell phone # is on my cell phone. That sound racist? Sometimes when you tell it like it is you're accused of racism. My black friends know this. To bad you don't. No need to kiss their asses to get respect. Just tell it like it is. They know.
Ask me about the KKK. Tell you what squirt. I'll go to their meeting on the 1st Tuesday of next month if you will. See, I even know when and where. Takes balls to experience life. GET SOME. I know what the KKK is. One of their best speakers mauled me in an disagreement.
And here it goes. Comment made. Too many fights between blacks and whites during professional basketball games. Greyrooster says: Whites need to be more understanding before attacking blacks on the court. This is their world. You know the socio ecomomic thing.
Lecturer: Name one time a white MAN ever hit a black man first during a professional basketball game?????????
Shit!
Thought, I knew something. Then he said let's add football and baseball to the equation.
A racist just beat the shit out of me. Got even by drinking as much of their beer and possible without contributing to the collection box.
Lesson learned. Don't agrue with fanatics. They are ready for you.
Jim, I believe you mean well. Not preaching to you. But listen.
Viet Nam during tet. Been there. Middle East, been there. KKK, been there. Black muslims, been there. Lived in NY City. Lived in Miami. Lived in Hawaii. Lived in Calif. Lived in Virgina. Got drunk in Mexico for 3 weeks. Been to 49 states. Missed North Dakota. Been to Iceland and 47 other countries.
Once I threw dice of ten grand in Vegas. Just to see how it feels. Tell you something else. My grandson will be born in late January. My son, a proud Marine officer in Iraq should be home shortly. I hope? When they are here I plan to do it all over again.
I contribute by meager experiences to many sites.
Try Rodnreel.com as see what they think of me.
In final: What do I think of the KKK? Shit. I don't know. The ones I know are a bunch of good ole boys that use it for a gripe session. When the beer runs out they go home. They have their nutsos. I guess. Haven't run into any of them. And don't plan to. But it is nice to have someone say white folks are okay for a change.
As a white man I seem to bear the sins of the world and need a break. Never intended to be Jesus.
Overall, I believe they are wasteing their time. Remember most don't have the education to react any other way. I also think they have an internal problem that prevents them from ever becoming a major force. You see, most of them are Christians. This puts them in a quandary. Hard to hate when your religion says to love.
Nay, nothing to fear here. Grossly exaggerated. Little shits use the word KKK as a means to an end. They will go away all by themselves.
Strange I wasn't asked what I think about Islamics, Black Muslims and other white hating shits.
One thing my experience has taught me. AGAIN. WHITE FOLKS ARE GREAT. Doesn't mean others arn't great too. Just celebrating my people. Smart, pretty, inventive, clever, brave and most of all caring. We care and show it. Others don't. Piss on you who don't know it.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 17, 2004 10:02 PM (HGBYm)
37
Venom:
Pakistan and Turkey? Both are defacto dictatorships. Women do not enjoy equal treatment in either country.
Here is how the police in Pakistan defend Christians:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38716
Turkey? The only thing we have to thank Turkey for is causing discord in the Islamic world, by establishing brutal Ottoman rule in the Middle East. Part of the reason the EU is having a hard time admitting Turkey is a cultural memory of fighting against the Islamic onslaught of the 16th and 17th centuries...a tide that was finally stemmed with the Ottoman's failed seige of Vienna.
Anyone who says Islam is a religion of peace, was spread throughout its realm by peaceful means, is a liar and needs to be hung upside down by their withered testicles and shot.
Yes, there are secular muslims. The world needs a few hundred million more muslims to become secular, or they will provoke their own doom...this is another subject that has been frequently debated on this website.
Posted by: Mr. K at December 18, 2004 07:45 AM (senVm)
38
Bryan Fox - I've heard that joke before - in the classifieds of a llama magazine of all things. If you were single, I just might think about it. :-) Don't date married men. Could you handle a "gimp?" Am I hot? Once I definitely was and probably could be again with the right incentive. :-) Are you hot?
Grey Rooster, this post from you really enlightened me - not sure if that's good or bad since we're usually on the same page with our comments but it was one hell of a rant but some of it actually made me a little uncomfortable. Just being honest and I hope you take that just as my own problem and not against you because I like you.
and I really appreciate you guys trying to stand up for me. Grey Rooster, I left a message for you somewhere on this site saying something like just bypassing any post Venom makes and not reading it which just might save our sanity. I also sent a note to my friend, Rusty, and asked him to do something about this troll, Venom.
I've been on this site just about since the time Rusty started it and for awhile there I was one of his "sources." We have the same view. And I helped get him up there to the top by being several steps ahead of everyone else and sending him the info. I have definitely enjoyed that role in the background. Venom, if you go through the archives, you'll see that on some posts he actually hat tips me for which I am grateful; most of the time he doesn't for he wants to get the info out there as fast as possible and sooner than others.
But he's on vacation and even the news from today won't be put here unfortunately. More kidnappings, more deaths, a lot more. But I promised myself I'm not going to let Venom get under my skin - I'm not going to read anything he posts and he'll probably post almost immediately after I post this - that's been his style lately. Don't let him win. If we ignore him, maybe he'll go elsewhere. (one can only hope)
Take care
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 18, 2004 09:49 AM (D39Vm)
39
I didn't forget you Mr K; there was nothing more to add to your perfect post.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 18, 2004 09:57 AM (D39Vm)
40
With Regards to Turkey:
Venom, you failed to name a country that meets Mr. K's standards.
1) Openly practice their religion.
Yes, Turkey's constitution deas allow you to practice your religion. But not publicly. All churches are sequestered behind wallswhere they are not visible from the outside.
2) Are free to proselytize their non-muslim faith
Nope, wrong, sorry. You can BE a Christian in Turkey, but you may NOT legally convince someone else to BECOME one.
I don't agree completely with Mr. K's assessment of Turkey, but you have not met the criteria he laid out. Sorry.
Posted by: Brian B at December 18, 2004 01:11 PM (PuHU/)
41
The only thing that keeps Turkey somewhat quasi-semi-democratic and remotely secular is its military...and the good work done by Attaturk is wearing off.
Pakistan is a nuclear powderkeg. But India will be dealing with that.
Posted by: Mr. K at December 18, 2004 04:27 PM (LsSWx)
42
another key point I almost forgot to mention...the only remotely "liberal" muslim states are not Arab...Islam simply provided the support of Allah for Arab expansionism and their backward culture.
Posted by: Mr. K at December 18, 2004 06:21 PM (aDoqG)
43
2 trolls - Jim and Venom. Wonder where they hatched from?
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 18, 2004 09:10 PM (D39Vm)
44
Cindy,
I have not been following every post by Venom and Jim...but these arguments concerning Islam have been hashed out a gazillion times on the internet. I get sick of regurgitating them, but I have come to see commentary sections such as this one as minor battlegrounds in a huge ideological war.
Some people choose to believe that everything we in the United States do is motivated by greed or some other evil, hedonistic ulterior motive. The same people will look at another ideology or culture, and whitewash and explain away every violent or oppressive action that is associated with that culture or in this case "religion". The explanation usually involves either all or partial self-blame.
Really such introspection is a great thing and the world would be a better place if everyone was that way. But the fact is, it is not. I happen to think we need to liberalize the Islamic world now, so we don't have to vaporize it later. I believe we went to war in Iraq for that reason. I also think that if we lose the ideological war, it will not be because of a lack of military power. It will be because we have been undermined from within. Rusty's blog is just one little bulwark to prevent that very thing from happening.
Maybe Jim and Venom are trolls. Maybe they are just looking to engage in debate to refine their own opinions. Maybe they just like to argue for argument's sake; I do that myself. Maybe they are misguided zealots. Maybe they are fools. Maybe they are just assholes. Whatever, they will eventually succumb to a river of cold, hard, undeniable facts.
Posted by: Mr. K at December 19, 2004 08:18 AM (WDTKt)
45
Amen, Mr K.
~C
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 19, 2004 02:00 PM (D39Vm)
46
Amen to that one from Mr. K. He definitely has skills I wish I had.
Just got back from Los Angeles. My 1st trip to downtown L.A. in twenty years. People actually go there now. The fights were great. Staples Center was great. We should not have stopped in Vegas on the way back. Disney World for old farts. I hate lines. Stood in line at airport in New Orleans. Stood in line for baggage in Los Angeles. Stood in line at Staples Center. Then again at LAX. Then at MGM, Vegas. Then at Airport in Vegas. Then for baggage In New Orleans. Half of trip was standing in line.
Going to bed now. Later.
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 20, 2004 08:22 AM (+9o+2)
47
Mr. K,
This article: "http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38716"
doesn't really prove your case at all, unless you're only going by the headline. Just reading the article itself, I can state that: First, the officer who committed the beating has been charged with murder, something I doubt would be possible if Pakistan (as a Muslim country) actually supported this killing. Second, there's this section of the article:
"According to human rights groups, Pakistan's blasphemy law is much abused and frequently used to settle personal grudges. Where convictions are made, most are overturned on appeal."
Third, the article clear states that Musharraf is looking to repeal the blasphemy law, as well as overhaul the Islamic law system that currently governs Pakistan. How is any of this possible if the government of Pakistan isn't supportive of religious tolerance? Don't get me wrong, I know there are religious fanatics in that country that would hope to quash religious freedoms, but it's clear that their actions and the government's are not the same. Which was the whole point. One police officer doesn't reflect the actions of the whole force, or the whole country. Sure, Pakistan is a dictatorship, but if the Bush administration can live with it, then so can I. And Turkey, not really a dictatorship. Free elections, and actually is still in the process of reforming. It's pretty much a requirement to join the EU to not be a dictatorship, de facto or otherwise.
"Part of the reason the EU is having a hard time admitting Turkey is a cultural memory of fighting against the Islamic onslaught of the 16th and 17th centuries...a tide that was finally stemmed with the Ottoman's failed seige of Vienna."
I'm happy to see you know a little about history, but it actually has very little to Turkey's current EU application. As usual, it concerns over Turkey's recognition of the Greek side of Cyprus (which, in essence, would imply non-recognition of the Turkish side) and their economic qualifications more than anything.
I'm sure NATO had a tough time admitting some of former East Block countries to its organization, what with their decades of bitter hatred about each other - but, in the end, it was in the past, much like the Ottoman Empire. Trust me, no one in the EU is concerned over what the Ottomon Empire did 400 years ago. The same way Turkey isn't concerned EU crusaders will be knocking on their doors anytime soon.
Bryan Fox, spare us the 25 IQ intelligence and get bent. Find me one post where I've said I enjoy the killing of innocents, including people kidnapped and murdered in Iraq. You dumb twit. And wishing for my death? Damn, looks like you're no better than the Islamic terrorists who can't stand hearing a different point of view. Seriously, you could be a jihadi, and I'd never know it over these forums. And hitting on a woman on a public forum? What are you, 10 year's old? What a joke you are. Go back to jerking off over Easyrider magazines because a guy like you would never pick up a woman with charm like that.
Cindy, I think it's pretty sad that you feel you need to go to Rusty about me. It's pretty clear you're insecure and can't handle differing opinions. Much like most people here. They make their case, I make mine. People may not agree with me, but instead of debating, most people get violent. They act EXACTLY like the criminals in Iraq, all the while complaining that I'm not villifying them (which, I state again, I have been). By the way, a troll is not a person with a different opinion in a debate. If that's what you think, then too bad.
Brian B, as to the churches in Turkey, I think at this point it comes down to semantics. Mr. K's comment was about openly practising one's religion. I can't comment on your assertion that churches are behind walls in Turkey because I don't have an answer, though I'll assume you're correct regarding this (i.e. the walls). However, I would say that despite this, Christians (and Jews) in Turkey are free to practice their respective religions, which is pretty much the crux of this argument. They are not persecuted by the government.
As for the proselytization of religion, there is actually no law in Turkey that explicitly forbids this. In fact, according to the 1996 US State Department Report on Human Rights, these cases are usually dismissed if they actually reach the courts.
By the way, I find it interesting how no one really comes out and admonishes a guy like greyrooster who openly admits how racist he is. I mean, for people who preach about how intolerant Muslims are, you sure are looking pretty hypocritical when he publicly states his appreciation of the KKK (as intolerant and anti-Jewish as they are) and you say nothing.
Posted by: Venom at December 20, 2004 10:59 AM (dbxVM)
48
Venom:
Musharraf was only giving lip service. See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/751803.stm
Ever wondered why we can't get bin Laden? Why can't Marines and Spec Ops troops cross the border? Musharraf has to appease the large population of fanatics. We are lucky we get what we can from him.
As for trusting you with Turkey, well, I ain't the only one who sees Turkey's attempt to get into the EU, as well as the whole war on terror and the war on Iraq, in the context of a larger, longer clash between civilizations:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3703560.stm#opik
yes, I do know a little about history...and the quran...and the hadiths...and I encourage you to learn a little about these things yourself.
Posted by: Mr. K at December 20, 2004 02:07 PM (RuGfS)
49
Venom:
This being the holidays, I just can't leave Turkey alone...more on why many Eurpoean countries are having a problem with Turkey. Almost all of these refer to some issue with Islam. The same Islam that compelled the Turks to expand into Europe at the height of the Ottoman empire.
http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/867.cfm
Posted by: Mr. K at December 20, 2004 02:27 PM (RuGfS)
50
As I stated, most *convictions* of the blasphemy law (i.e. it is still in effect) are overtuned. In other words, the government keeps it on the books to appease the religious fanatics, but basically quashes the sentences of the majority of people who are convicted of it. I also said that he was Musharraf was looking to repeal the law (again implying that the law is still on the books). At any rate, think about the tightrope this guy is walking. He's an ally to Washington in a country that quite likely has bin Laden hiding in it, an ally in a country that typically has resisted engaging in relations with Washington. Do you really want this guy appearing un-Islamic so he's killed off, only to have religious fanatics take over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? He has to tread VERY carefully. In fact, I'm more than mildly impressed at the work his security forces have done in the remote regions of Pakistan. Countless Al Quaeda operatives have been captured in Pakistan by Pakistani forces, and each arrest dismantles the terror network that much more. Repealing the blasphemy law could very well be a Pyrric victory - religious freedom would be touted by conservatives like yourself, only to have the worst happen. Pakistan would once again fall under the hands of religious zealots. But hey, at least they'd have that religious freedom, however fleeting it might be. While I couldn't say for certain, I'd say this is why that law hasn't been repealed - yet. It will take time.
As for Turkey, yes, its culture is different from other EU member countries, but again, that is a minor (pun not intended) consideration (if any) considering the EU is already a mish-mash of 25 different cultures. The red flags being raised over Turkey's membership reside (as I stated) in economical factors, specifically their economy and the predicted influx of Turkish labor in Europe, as well as the recognition (or current lack thereof) of Greek Cyprus. Assuming that it's because Turkey is Muslim is, in a word, wrong. The Cyprus issue alone has prevented Turkey from entering the EU long before the GWOT and all this "Muslim conspiracy" talk ever started. It's an economic union among countries of different ethnicities. In the end, religion doesn't play a role for acceptance or rejection.
And yeah, I actually know a fair bit about Balkan history, which is how I know you're wrong on this particular issue.
Oh, and my opinion on the Quran is as valid as yours. Again, it's all about interpretation. You can't say one interpretation is right and another is wrong on a philosophical text.
Posted by: Venom at December 20, 2004 02:45 PM (dbxVM)
51
That should have read: "...reside (as I stated) in economic factors..."
Posted by: Venom at December 20, 2004 02:53 PM (dbxVM)
52
We can quibble on and on about the blasphemy law but the original point was to name Muslim countries where the rights of non-Muslims are protected under the law. You named Turkey and Pakistan, and have now in your own circuitous way conceded that this is not the case in either country.
Musharraf is not a friend by choice. He is caught between a rock and a hard place, and our government must step softly or that nuclear powder keg may explode. Will it take a long time to repeal the blasphemy law there? Yes, I'd say forever constitutes a long time. Musharraf has no reason to do so. I guess the fact he said he would, and then changed his mind, simply means he is a complex, nuanced fellow.
I never stated that Islam was the sole reason that Turkey is having difficulty getting into the EU. I stated that is an important consideration and still maintain that is so. Proclamations of Balkan history expertise notwithstanding, it is you who is wrong. The article I cited presents summaries of editorial articles from all over Europe that support this notion. I absolutely agree that economic considerations are also largely important. But, as our last election here demonstrated, not all political decisions, by voters or world leaders, are made based solely on economic factors.
Posted by: Mr. K at December 20, 2004 03:52 PM (RuGfS)
53
Turkey definitely fits the criteria you were looking for:
1) Muslims, Christians, Jews...all are allowed to practice their religion without persecution. Synagogues and churches are protected and preserved by the Turkish government. Now, if you want to discuss semantics of the term "openly," then whatever. The fact is, the government allows all of followers of all these religions to practice their faith in Turkey. Which is pretty much the fundamental aspect of your argument.
2) Turkey has no law forbidding proselytizing of religion.
3) Your third point was that non-Muslims "are protected by law when discriminated against by Muslims." As stated in the Turkish Constitution,
"All individuals are equal without any discrimination before the law, irrespective of language, race, colour, sex, political opinion, philosophical belief, religion and sect, or any such considerations."
As for the rights of women, in January 2002, Turkey passed sweeping reforms giving women the same rights as men.
I don't recall ever conceding that your points weren't met regarding Turkey. Pakistan is also close, but I agree, the freedom to proselytize isn't there yet.
"I guess the fact he said he would, and then changed his mind, simply means he is a complex, nuanced fellow."
If you think the reason he's not moving on this issue is his personality, I'd say that's pretty simplistic of you. You pretty much agreed with me at the start of your paragraph when you commented on his light treading regarding what he does and doesn't do. Then you resolve it all at the end by assuming he's a "complex" person? C'mon, even I know you're not that obtuse. Any first-year student can observe his inaction on this issue is because of fear of retribution/retaliation by the religious fanatics in that country. He doesn't want to appear anti-Islam, since his cozying up to Washington would probably send those fanatics over the top. And Washington wouldn't want that either, for obvious reasons. Who cares if he's a friend by choice or not? When has that ever directed US foreign policy?
And, regarding EU membership, you're wrong again. The European Union is an economic union among countries. So what if editorials show some people cite Islam as being their main concern? Editorials are opinions and not reflective of membership criteria. Most people who have a problem with Turkey joining are voicing the argument of the cheap labor that will suddenly hit Europe taking jobs. Islam isn't their concern.
Here's a link regarding membership in the EU:
http://eu2001.se/static/eng/eu_info/utvidgning_villkor.asp
You'll note that Islam isn't mentioned once. Opinions of people in the press don't constitute the membership process. Will some people not want Turkey in because it's a Muslim country? Obviously. Will Turkey's existence as a Muslim country disqualify it from gaining membership? No. EU member countries basically have no problem admitting Turkey into the fold as long as the criteria in that link are met, as well as the Cypress issue.
Posted by: Venom at December 20, 2004 04:50 PM (dbxVM)
54
I actually responded to this but somehow, lost all of it somehow. I will reconstruct it and post a reply in time for Christmas; your "facts" need extensive qualification.
Maybe I will post it on my own little blog.
Posted by: Mr. K at December 20, 2004 09:25 PM (Ips8K)
55
venom...typical liberal bullshit response i expected...never answer the point of a comment..just make one up and respond..moron. never said i wanted you killed..i SAID..take your stupid shit over to where it count's and spout it. i did, and my marine shit got me home in one piece..(mostly).so save your mindless babbling for your mommy's bingo night. also, is there any reason why your so intimidated by a man flirting with a women ??......hmmmmmm...methink's your pee pee burn's alot when you go potty. and relax stupid,you won't grow hair on your hand cuz mommy catche's you beating off to biker mag's..beside's...what do you have against pretty girls in easyrider ??...is it the burning pee pee thing again ??..or just that your mommy disaproves.
Posted by: bryan fox at December 20, 2004 10:28 PM (+7VNs)
56
Venom is a curdemdgmen and it not let him get in yout hair; he's not worth it. Just ignore him.
Cindy
ps guess he doesn't know what a troll is...
cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 20, 2004 11:13 PM (D39Vm)
57
Greyrooster,
How witty you are to repost my "challenge" to you and replace the institution with the KKK. How original of you. How cool. You really are cool. I guess you have to be if you have experienced all of the amazing things that you claim you have. You were drunk for three weeks in Mexico? Man, I have to try that one. Sounds funÂ…and cool. High-rolling in Vegas just to see how it feels? Wow you are a "baller"Â…not to mention cool. How am I supposed to compete with that? Your two word sentences really make an impact. Must be educated. And smart. And cool. I guess you won this round champ! You are cooler than me. I'm a squirt. Said so yourself.
Unfortunately, somewhere in between you name-dropping Roy Jones Jr. and stroking your ego, you proved my point. You have no problem with the KKK and thus, have no problem with racial hatred and violence. I can't say I am surprised. I asked that question because I already knew the answer and I deduced it by simply reading your previous posts. Funny how you need to brag about your money, friends, and experiences to make everyone believe how cool you are but the fact that you are a RACIST was evident to me long before you expressed your feelings about the KKK.
About your Iranian friend, you said, "he speaks the language." Does he speak Arabic? Since he is Christian then I am guessing he does not know the language. You said, "He went to a mosque in Detroit and told me what they were teaching." So what are they teaching? Which Mosque in Detroit? All of this aside, you did not experience these things yourself. Instead you are talking about the words of a man who was supposedly discriminated against by an Islamic government. No chance that he might be biased and tell you lies? So I ask once again, why don't you go there yourself? Oh wait, you said you do know what they are teaching because you "have the money and balls to experience things." I don't see how money has anything to do with it but obviously you didn't have the balls to go to the Mosque yourself. Or is the "black Muslim" function you attended your "experience" of a Mosque? You do realize that the Nation of Islam members are not even recognized as true Muslims by Islam? It doesn't take money or balls to know that. Then again all you mentioned about them was how their burgers tasted. It would help if you actually attempted to form an argument in between your silly claims and stupid jokes.
How was your day with Roy Jones Jr.? Did you two go to a KKK meeting together and shoot the shit around with the "good ole boys"? Oh wait, do Roy and your other supposed black friends know that you have gone to KKK meetings and have no problem with them? If Jones Jr. knew you went to KKK meetings would he give you his cell phone number or is he cool with that? Is the hatred of another human being because of their race or religion "telling it like it is"? Have you dropped that beauty on your black friends before? Did you at any point throughout your novel try to argue a point? Can you develop your own position on an issue and effectively argue your own view instead of copping out with a simple "JIM: I would make a reply but Mr. K's post is the same as I would post." Lots of balls there manÂ…or lack of brains.
I really do regret making this post. You see I have tried to refrain from personal attacks (unlike some people here) when posting because I believe that is the trait of a "troll". Instead I have tried to present an alternate view on the subjects discussed here that I feel have been overlooked or misunderstood. Unfortunately GREYROOSTER doesn't understand that concept. He tries to attack people's character while trying to blow up his own. It is very pathetic.
In leaving I will be clever like Greyrooster and modify one of his racially biased rants: ALL RACES ARE GREAT. Smart, pretty, inventive, clever, brave and most of all caring (if shown the same in return).
Oh and one more thing, BRYAN FOX, I am not your son so don't call me son. Got it?
Posted by: Jim at December 21, 2004 02:34 AM (PH1UJ)
58
JIM: (1). My point was I base my feelings on experience. You are probably still living with mommy and working for some branch of the government.
(2) My second point was it is as ridiculous of you to suggest I go to a Muslim mosque as for me to suggest you go to the local KKK meeting. Me screaming at the KKK would be stupid of me, because I know they are not dangerous to me and mine. Idiots bring up the Oaklahoma bombings with the KKK are stupid. Apples and oranges. Give the Oaklahoma bombers and their supporters to the KKK and they will hang them.
(3) Little shits like you are constantly referring to the Nazis and KKK as if they are as much a threat as the fanatical Islmaics. They aren't, you know it and its pure bullshit.
(4) If you and that rag head hugging VENOM wish to believe I am a racist fine. OK. I am a racist. I believe my people are the best. I also believe my dog is the best. My children are the best. If you ain't American you ain't shit. How's that. I make little of the KKK because they are not threat to me or mine. I am a thousand times more likely to be attacked and robbed by a black man/men in New Orleans than by the KKK. So I say it. Don't choose to be like you and stick my head in the sand. Read the papers dummy. I am a million times more likely to be hurt in a Islamic terrorist attack than by the KKK. As far as Nazis. I've never seen one. When I listen to the news everyday the people doing the beheading and bombing and murders are not Nazis. They are Islamics. How many people were killed this year by Nazis and KKK? This whole nazi, KKK thing is pure bullshit brought to you by the same simple minded shits that cried when the traitor Kerry lost the election.
(5)Is hatred of another person because of the race of religion telling it like it is? You are a LIAR. Much the same as VENOM is a liar. Where have I ever said I hate other races? Same as those who have said I am for nukeing our enemies. They are liars. I have never said such. I hate Islamofacists and their supporters. I place you as one of their supporters. Therefore I hate you. You are my enemy, Venom is my enemy. You give support to this gutter religion that brings death, slavery, pain and suffering to millions. You so called liberal pricks are really the uncaring ones. Those that care wish to stop it. Stop the murderers that are spawned by this religion. Stop the humiliation of women. Stop making second hand citizens of non muslims. Stop their call for conquest. Stop the threats to our children.
As far as Roy is concerned. I'll ask him, his girlfriend, uncle Danny and Roosevelt in two weeks when I see them again. Let me see. I believe the questions is. If I tell it like it is does that make me a racist? News for you asshole. He wouldn't go to parts of New Orleans either. They wouldn't take the KKK any more serious as I. When I first met Roy he came to our club with body guards. He doesn't anymore. He brings his family. Our club is 95% white rednecks who tell it like it is.
My Iranian/American friend Fred does speak Farci, Arabic, German, Dutch and English. I assumed even a nitwit like you would assumed he spoke their language if he went to their mosques. He was also forced to go to mosque by his Iranian father while growing up.
How could I attack your character when you have none?
Just a little shit, never been anywhere, never experienced anything, talk, talk, talk. Nothing inside except a coward who believes kissing the enemy ass will make you safe. Piss on you.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 21, 2004 08:00 AM (K/qjk)
59
Bryan Fox,
No, I think you did say you wanted me killed when you wrote:
"watching your beheading video while eating popcorn and drinking a few beer's would prove to be at least mildly entertaining."
So, go fuck yourself.
Also, flirting is done with a woman you actually know. Get it? Trust me, it's no intimidation by a halfwit like yourself. Any woman you could land would have to be blind and stupid.
Posted by: Venom at December 21, 2004 08:49 AM (dbxVM)
60
Venom: Go to hell.
cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 21, 2004 10:09 AM (D39Vm)
61
Wow, your plan to ignore me is working like a charm, isn't it?
Grow a brain.
Posted by: Venom at December 21, 2004 12:59 PM (dbxVM)
62
Venom:
Thanks for the information on Turkish law, but I know from first hand accounts that while that may be true in theory, proselytizing is still a dangerous activity in Turkey. As for the churches, they are behind walls, I've visited them.
I do agree with you, Turkey is a far cry better than some hard core Islamic states, but it still has issues. My point was that Mr. K set forth a specific set of criteria, and while you made a point, you did not necessarily address his. But yes, that is a point of Semantics.
Mr. K,
You're right that there's little more than the Army that protects Turkey from Sharia. Culturally, however, there's a huge dichotomy between Asian Turks and European Turks, and if it ever comes to that, you may see Turkey split in two. The Turks in Istanbul and to an extent the rest of Thrace likes their secularism and the things it allows (particularly beer and miniskirts) to give in quietly. Anatolia is a different story, and while my time in Turkey WAS spent in Asia, it was in a waterfront suburb of Istanbul, so my familiarity with the rest of the Asian side is even less than my knowledge of Turkey in general.
Posted by: Brian B at December 21, 2004 01:19 PM (CouWh)
63
Good points, Brian. It's clear that Turkey is still a country in transition, and who knows what the future may bring for it. Here's hoping whatever it is that it's peaceful.
Posted by: Venom at December 21, 2004 02:09 PM (dbxVM)
64
greyrooster:
What I got out of that last post was this: You don't care about anything else besides yourself. The KKK are not a threat to you? What about your black friends? What about Roy? What if a racist shot him one day, then what would you say? Oh and if some crazy member of the KKK found out that you have black friends, then those odds of you getting attacked by them increase. You see they don't teach violence to non-believers at Mosques but they do teach violence against non-whites and non-christians, and non-straights at KKK. But I guess since you don't fit into any of those non categories then everything is peachy. You are a great human being.
Just the simple fact that you refuse to distinguish between normal muslims and the terrorists shows how much of a close-minded idiot you are. As far as your other claims I don't believe a single one of them. You are living in some fantasy world induced by too much alcohol or old age. You don't know my character because up until now I haven't shown it so don't pretend like you do. Thus your attacks are laughable. You on the other hand have already shown that you are not educated, a racist, and a jackass. You even succeeded in making Cindy uncomfortable. Just shut your hole and let the people who want to hold an educated discussion continue. You don't see Mr. K and Venom resort to shit like "piss on you" do you? Just shut the fuck up. I am tired of you.
Posted by: Jim at December 21, 2004 06:27 PM (PH1UJ)
65
Jim starts by kissing the muslims asses.
Then he goes to black asses.
Then Mr. K's ass.
Now its Cindy's ass.
Now how about kissing my ass too. Punk.
If an educated discussion was held you would not be part of it.
Again, piss on you. Just a little shit full of meaningless talk. a liar and excuse maker. Making excuses for the muslims makes you worse than them.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 21, 2004 10:46 PM (FtnlD)
66
JIM: What if a racist shot one of my blacks friends? It would be terrible. What you failed to mention is what if one of my white friends was killed by a black racist? A scenario that is a 100 times more likely. Read the papers asshole. How many blacks were attacked or killed by whites this year? How many whites were attacked or killed by blacks this year? Accept to truth. Or does your stupid liberalism prevent you from accepting the obvious? Get your head out of your ass. It doesn't hurt to admit the truth.
I'm not worried about Nazis or KKK because they are a thing in the past. They haven't killed any of my people so I'm not concerned about them. The muslims that you constantly defend are doing the killing. Get real.
Liberalism is a religion, pure and simple. They have no proof of most of their beliefs but continue to blindly believe in them. With this racist, KKK, Nazi bullshit you fall right in that classification. Talk about uneducated. Your the most uneducated idiot ever on this blog. If you weren't so pitiful you would be laughable. Muslims eat shit and so do you.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 21, 2004 11:11 PM (FtnlD)
67
ENOUGH ALREADY, PEOPLE - MOVE ON!!!
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 22, 2004 01:30 PM (D39Vm)
68
I have never voted for the BNP... I do belive that they have a valid point but they are nothing but thugs.
However, the charge was "Inciting Racial Hatred".
When will people wise up that this has NOTHING to do with race.
There are Muslims here in England who were bron here. They are English (even if they prefer to call themselves Pakistanis - or whatever).
It is not about race or colour.
It is to do with ideals.
A person of Pakistanii origin born in England is English and if he/she adopts the English way of life and respects the traditions of England then he/she will be welcome.
Anyone who originates from another country and then criticises their adopted country deserves nothing but contempt.
The planes fly both ways.
There is more than a feeling that Muslims wish to make this an Islamic country.
The fact that there are pressure groups such as The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) says an awful lot about the state of affairs here in the UK.
That by it's very name should be illegal to my mind.
We are English citizens and we should all adhere to the laws of England... not Islam.
As far as I am aware, there isn't a "Christian Council" and if there is, nobody listens to it or knows about it.
The BNP, no matter how repugnant you find their views, are perfectly entitled to their views and to express them vocally.
When they start getting physical, arrest them.
Captain Hook of Finsbury Park (Abu Hamsa) got away with this kind of shit for years before he was actually arrested on REAL terrorist charges.
He held a weekly religious-hatred speech funded by the UK taxpayer for years.
I know it's the dumbest of questions but if people don't like living in the UK, why don't they go back to Pakistan (or wherever)?
That's not being racist, I don't hate these people. I welcome them. So long as they embrace the culture and customs of the country they are seeking to settle in.
We don't worship Allah. We don't build mosques. We drink alcohol. We smoke cigarettes. We allow our women to go to work. We allow our children to have relationships with who they choose to... we don't arrange their marriages. We don't insist on our women covering 95% of their flesh in public. We don't have a national holiday for Ramadan but we generally accept that Christmas is special.
We will sing Christmas Carols, we will have Nativity Plays, we will put up lights and decorations every Christmas, we will have Santa in Grottos up and down the country.
You must have KNOWN all this before you decided to settle here? You must have surely realised this after you'd been here for 12 months? If you've been here more than 5 years and you still feel insulted by our behaviour, well, maybe this wouldn't be a good place to set up home for you?
This is part of the BNP stance albeit in my own words.
The UK is a tiny speck on the world but it is deeply steeped in tradition.
But we could be over-run by Muslims within our life-time.
No one here (except the Muslims) wants this.
It has perhaps reached a crucial point and pussy-footing around is no longer good enough. We need to get our message across more strongly.
As I say, I don't vote BNP. I do think they are thugs but they have grown in popularity recently because people are feeling threatened by what they see as their country being overtaken by Muslims.
Especially at this time of year.
When Father Christmas and Nativity plays and any mention of the word Christmas is being banned by certain councils for fear of offending our "Muslim community".
Therein lies the problem... "Muslim Community".
There's no such thing.
UK Citizens it should read.
And UL Citizens do all of these things and have done for many, many years.
The Muslim Community can go fuck itself.
If the "Muslim Community" wishes to live in a Muslim Country then they still exist ... but they chose to leave them because life is shit there and move to the UK... don't turn the UK into a cesspool of disease and poverty like every other Muslim Country.
That is probably also the BNP's stance but not their words.
Posted by: Red Devil at December 22, 2004 06:59 PM (QfHcT)
69
Red Devil, this is what I mean about the one way street of Islam. They immigrate to the west, then demand protection for their way of life....and get it. But westerners cannot expect the same treatment in the Islamic world...by the way, as a construction guy, I strongly recommend Red Devil epoxy anchors for concrete.
Venom, your reply is posted here:
http://roomforrant.blogspot.com/2004/12/follow-up-to-comment-debate-at.html
Posted by: Mr. K at December 22, 2004 07:03 PM (aIqhN)
70
Can I also just say that comparing the BNP to the KKK is absurd.
The KKK hate a man because of the colour of his skin.
Religion hates a man because of his convictions.
This is NOT a racist discussion.
A black person could easily be a member of the BNP.
A white person could easily convert to Islam.
The country of origin is irrelevant.
What this discussion concerns is people of a Pakistani origin coming to England and saying, "I will embrace the English way of life and live like they do."
If they fail to do that, they are not welcome here.
That isn't racism, it is about retaining national identity.
No one here in the UK is denying these people their heritage or their culture or their religion but we just don't want it to impact upon us, the indogenous population.
If it does, we just want them to take it elsewhere. Don't moan that the UK is intolerant.
When you come along and try to illegalise everything that is English, expect intolerance.
And in the case of certain sections, expect that intolerance to manifest itself in the form of a boot in your face.
Posted by: Red Devil at December 22, 2004 07:10 PM (QfHcT)
71
Red Devil, I agree with you on this.
Posted by: Mr. K at December 22, 2004 08:03 PM (TsG5r)
72
So do I but how did you move venom's response? heh
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 23, 2004 10:38 AM (D39Vm)
73
Mr. K,
For whatever reason, the two times I tried to reply in your blog, Blogger tried to get me to sign up for a blog of my own (which I'm not interested in, at least at this time anyways).
So, with apologies for continuing the enormously long thread, my reply:
---
Ok, I fully answered all three of your criteria regarding Turkey. The fact I have to do it again is either a testament to your stubborness or your inability to admit when you're wrong. But again, for the record, you asked me to name a country where one can:
"1)Openly practice their religion or display the lack thereof;"
I answered this question by pointing out that all religions are free to practice their faiths. Semantics aside, this is true.
"2) Are free to proselytize their non-Muslim faith without state fear of a violent end;"
I pointed out that Turkey has no law against proselytizing of religion. In other words, it's not against the law to proselytize.
"3) Are protected by law when discriminated against by Muslims."
I quoted the Turkish Constitution which gurantees that non-Muslims are protected by Muslims.
Your "criteria" were met. Coming up with an example where property rights may or may not be the same for each religion doesn't validate your argument. It only shows that you had to come up with a different "criterion" to try and come out on top. You're doing the debating equivalent of changing the goalposts. If you don't like the outcome, then I'm sorry. But, I answered your points with three clear-cut examples. Sure, I'd much rather be living in the West than in Turkey where I probably have more freedoms. But, you asked to come up with a country that satisfied those three points. And I did. With proof. I never said Turkey was a shining example for us all to follow. I simply came up with a country that answered your points.
You then quoted a State Dep't report regarding religious restrictions in Turkey Are there some restrictions on religion in Turkey? Of course, but this applies to all religions, not just non-Muslims. Religious fundamentalism (including Islamic) is not permitted in Turkey. Maybe that's a good thing, I don't know. But it's universal and it's not discriminatory against a particular group of religions.
Regarding the status of women in Turkey, the article you linked had this quote in it (it talks about the adultery law):
"I'm totally against such a ban, but the problem is that it has overshadowed the fact that women's rights are improving there - slowly but surely. Some of us EU members might do well to remember where we were when we joined all those years back." - Anna Karamanou, the former Greek head of the European Parliament's women's committee.
Clearly, women's rights are improving. Maybe not as fast as you would like, but reversing cultural norms takes time to take hold. And many of the hardships experienced by women are societal, not legal or governmental. Cultural mores take a lot longer to change, but the laws are there to help protect women. Also, my point has always been that religion isn't a criteria for acceptance into the EU. I never said that women's issues weren't a concern or would not have a significant impact. In fact, I pretty much stated the opposite when I gave you this link regarding the criteria for joining the EU:
http://eu2001.se/static/eng/eu_info/utvidgning_villkor.asp
It pretty much states there that human rights must be respected for joining the EU (which would include the respect of women's rights). It also states that minority rights must be respected, too. Which, going back to the original comments about religious freedoms in Turkey, would also have to be met if Turkey is going to join the EU. But no where does it say that a country will be excluded based on its religious make-up, which is what you were trying to prove by quoting opinions in editorial articles. Poor choice of proof, by the way. The opinions of a few people in the media isn't what the EU uses when it determines membership. It surely reflects the opinions of some people in the population, but opinions aren't the litmus test for membership.
Anyhow, you do acknowledge that economics is a significant factor on EU membership. However, you neglect to mention the Cypress issue, which is a much bigger concern for the EU than Turkey as a Muslim country. This is a fundamental point to Turkey's inclusion to the EU and it alone will cause more delays in that inclusion than many other factors. The impact of Turkey's labor on the European continent is also a major concern for member countries, as it has the potential of destabilizing many of these countries markets. Again, a much bigger concern than the religion of Turkey. Turkey's human rights record in the past has been spotty at best, and while improving, will also have to change (which is what I think we both agree on, here).
Also, could you provide examples that Islamic fundamentalism is winning in Turkey? I'm not saying you're wrong at all, but I've just been hearing the opposite. If this isn't the case, I'd love to know.
As for Pakistan, ok, poor choice of words on calling the fanatics "religious" as opposed to Islamic. You're right, they are Islamic. I was referring to Islamic fanatics when I was commenting on them, but I guess figured that it was pretty clear who I was talking about considering they're the only kind of "religious" fanatics in that country. It wasn't an attempt to whitewash, and it wasn't an attempt to underscore their brutality.
I disagree that Musharraf is cowtowing to them. As I stated before, Pakistan is an active ally in the GWOT. It has, with its own security forces, delivered a number of high-ranking Al Quaida members to US intelligence. It has put its own troops in harm's way to find Osama. Musharraf may not have the resources the US has, but it's clear Pakistan is on the US's side. With a sizeable ISLAMIC fundamentalist population, you don't just rush headlong into actions against them. Otherwise, you risk undermining all the good work that's been done.
Also, when I said Pakistan was "close," I was referring to your list. Not to how the country stacks up to your ideal utopia. I came up with examples that satisfied several of your points, but conceded that the proselytizing criterion wasn't met.
Oh, and I never said that Pakistan doesn't enforce the blasphemy law. I said that most convictions end up being overturned. Oh, and it was you, by the way, who didn't want to quibble about the blasphemy law because I was coming up with facts to prove what I was saying. You coming up with another example proving my case isn't helping you, either. Again, as I STATED, the blasphemy law IS still on the books. Convictions are most of the time OVERTURNED. It is LIKELY still on the books because Musharraf is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to ISLAMIC fundamentalists. Get it? The policeman who killed that Christian you mentioned wasn't acting on the state's orders. It was his opinion that led to his actions. And while it is tragic that a murder occurred by someone who is entrusted to uphold the law (rather than execute vigilante justice), it hardly is indicative of the judicial process in Pakistan. Otherwise, incidents like this would happen much more frequently.
"lets just blame the big, evil, greedy USA and its policies."
And where am I blaming the US? Is this you putting words in my mouth again? If anything, I said Pakistan is helping the US in the GWOT. How does that imply blame? Seriously, changing the format of an argument makes your own position look pretty weak.
"My original challenge was to name a Muslim country where all people enjoy basic liberties and are equally protected under the law. You coughed up Turkey and Pakistan. Turkey sucks, at best in these regards."
Nope, I came up with answers to your criteria. The fact you don't like it doesn't change the fact that your answers were met. If you don't like Turkey for OTHER reasons, then that's a whole other kettle of fish. But all three of your points were met with concrete examples.
Pakistan, as I conceded in my previous post, is not there yet and doesn't meet your treasured criteria.
Posted by: Venom at December 23, 2004 10:52 AM (dbxVM)
74
Right on RED DEVIL. Well said. That goes ditto for here in the states. If they wish to be Americans fine. Show it. If not. Go back to the ignorant, backward, cruel, stupid countries you came from. And by the way. There's a reason your countries are ignorant, backward, cruel and stupid. It's called Islam. Face it Islamics. It's either the religion or the people. Which one?
Posted by: greyrooster at December 23, 2004 01:01 PM (visY3)
75
Supressing property rights is the way the Turkish government limits the spread of non-muslim faiths. According to the International Society on Human Rights, you are simply dead wrong. Facts, Venom, just facts. Read the whole thing.
http://www.ishr.org/activities/religiousfreedom/turkey_2004.htm
"In practice, Sunni Islam is under the administration and protection of the state. Â….In 2000, it had a budget of 471 million Euros. The budget is used to build and maintain mosques, employ muftis, the pilgrimage to Mecca and Sunni religious instruction in schools. In his study "Laicism = Religious Freedom?", which was published in 2002, the human rights representative off Missio (one of the Catholic Pontifical Mission Societies), Dr Oehring speaks of a rudimentary "Islamic" or "Sunni" Republic. The State takes position in favour of Islam, discriminating non-Muslims."
On women in Turkey, Amnesty International has this to say:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/turkey/document.do?id=0078D0B2EB67630785256EA7000ADC90
"Amnesty International is concerned that the Turkish government has failed to ensure effective implementation of existing legislation and fears that there is the potential that further reforms will also be resisted by the courts and other parts of the criminal justice system. The government has a duty to protect women from violence committed not only by state officials but also by private individuals and groups. Under international human rights law, officials must secure women's rights to equality, life, liberty and security, and freedom from discrimination, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment."
When you read “traditional” read Islamic into this…they are dealing with oppression of non-muslims and women that is written as law in the Quran and Hadiths.
A well studied article on the rise of Islamism in Turkey
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:FipqxP51yLoJ:www.cpsa-acsp.ca/paper-2003/mellon.pdf+Islamism+in+Turkey&hl=en
here is an article about discussion on the rise of Islamic parties in Turkey, held at BU.
http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/2003/02/10/News/Experts.Debate.Rise.Of.Turkish.Religious.Party-365404.shtml?page=1
btw, Erdogan is a “former” fundamentalist Muslim. Here is an interesting quote from NPQ on Turkey, Muslims, and the EU
"NPQ | Following last year's tragedy, most Americans regard Islam as the most dangerously reactionary force in the world today, while Europeans find the American fear a bit exaggerated. Yet, it is an open secret in Europe that one of the main reasons the EU so far considers the prospect of Turkey's membership as thorny is not simply the human rights record but the threat of 60 million Muslims who will bring their troubled heritage into Euroland.
PAMUK | There are two questions there. Let me point out a few more things about America. It's reasonable that Americans are angry and worried after Sept. 11. But then intellectual Americans should be able to make a distinction between political Islam, fundamental Islam and Islam as a religion like Christianity, which essentially is not different from Christianity."
This last statement regarding Christianity and Islam is simply incorrect. Nowhere do the core teachings of Christianity direct its followers to kill non-believers. So our debate on Turkey and Islam in general can be distilled down to this exchange. In fact, I consider PamukÂ’s remark part of the problemÂ…that is, denial of the distinction between fundamental and political Islam. There are very few movements among muslims to deny the validity of the violent, suppressive aspects of the religion and keep it out of politics. It is a tiny, tiny minority of the population.
Posted by: Mr. K at December 23, 2004 01:14 PM (MW/qV)
76
Ignorant to equate what is written in law to what really happens. Secular or religious, reality is that what is written in law is not always followed. Some countries have laws merely to appease other countries so they can borrow money, technolgy etc: Doesn't mean they adhere to them.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 23, 2004 01:26 PM (visY3)
77
I quit now; taking Cindy's advice and moving on.
Posted by: Mr. K at December 23, 2004 02:48 PM (0lphO)
78
You've brought up some good points, which I think, in a sense, exemplifies the historical dichotomy that is Turkey. Bluntly, and of course quite obviously, it always seems to have 1 foot in Europe and 1 in the East - geographically, culturally, and religiously.
Funny enough, that article from the International Society for Human Rights makes Turkey sound more like a communist country than an Islamic country. At any rate, the property rights issue is debatable, though I'm not denying that what you're describing could occur (i.e. denying non-Muslim faiths from spreading - though I will point out that churches are opening in Turkey, something that technically shouldn't be possible if there are concerted attempts to limit the proliferation of non-Muslim religions).
The whole issue was to satisfy the three points you brought up, and I still think I did. Of course, there are many other things that are wrong with Turkish society, and these things could easily be correlated to Turkish policy regarding religion. But, all religions may be worshipped, no law against proselytization, and non-Muslims are protected by law (i.e. the Constitution) from Muslim discrimination. Does discrimination occur at a societal level? Of course, absolutely. But that's not what was initially brought up, nor was it what I was asked to disprove. Factor in the fact that Turkey has to meet specific human rights criteria to enter the EU means that, if anything, said societal discriminations will have to be dealt with even more going forward.
Interesting article from Amnesty International. I was unaware that the percentage of women that faced abuse was so high. Anyhow, the original request you made was "Name an Islamic country that has laws that provide for equal opportunity among all people, especially women." As I mentioned, the Turkish Constitution has such laws. Whether or not they are regularly enforced is a different issue altogether. However, I agree, much needs to be done.
Thanks for providing the links on rising Islamism in Turkey. The first link, though, doesn't seem to work. But the second link was interesting. I did say, though, that there are no doubt people who will consider Islam a major issue in deciding whether or not Turkey will enter the EU. However, going by what I've read in the press and that EU link I provided, I still think that there are other, much more important issues surrounding this debate. I will, though, acknowledge that any possibility of rising Islamic fundamentalism entering the EU needs a serious look. I think the Turkish government has always had the mindset of being wary of bringing religion into its politics, long before 9/11 ever happened. The military is another tool the government will keep Islamic fundamentalism from having a significant impact in Turkish politics and political decision making. Turks have been a secular society for too long. They enjoy their creature comforts and they will not want to willingly give them up in bringing in a Islamic fundamentalist party to full-scale power. The odd political victory will for such parties will be simply that: an odd occurrence.
And it's true, nowhere does Christianity tell its followers to engage in the killing of non-believers. However, I still contend that this is an issue relating to interpretation. While there is no specific mention of Christians to go out and kill non-believers, that is exactly what Christians have done throughout history. The Crusades, the Inquisition, missionaries in North America several centuries ago...wrought with killings done in the name of Christianity. If Christian text doesn't advocate this, why did they commit these acts in the name of Christianity? And why don't the vast majority of Muslims commit acts of murder against non-Muslims? Is it because they recognize that the Quran was written 14 centuries ago and that a lot of what's written in it shouldn't be taken literally? It all comes down to interpretation. We all don't mind getting our photos taken, yet there are Amish sects out there who take the literal interpretation in forbidding graven images. Their interpretations regarding their monotheistic beliefs are different from ours because their interpretations are different. I'm not saying I have the absolute answer, but I am coming up with examples as to why it seems to me 99.9% of Muslims out there cutting our heads off.
Anyhow, thanks for providing the links, and despite what you might think, you have actually given me some things to ponder.
Posted by: Venom at December 23, 2004 03:16 PM (dbxVM)
79
http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/paper-2003/mellon.pdf
try that, or google Islamism in Turkey.
The last time a Christian government set upon Muslims, the USA intervened and stopped the carnage, against the wishes of the UN.
When will Muslims take up arms against fellow Muslims who kill non-muslims in the name of ethnic cleansing or religious purity?
interpret this: http://www.submission.org/suras/sura9.htm
Posted by: Mr. K at December 23, 2004 06:16 PM (xDbpz)
80
Regarding "http://www.submission.org/suras/sura9.htm", sure, there are definitely passages in there that are violent towards "idol worshippers" and non-believers. However, I think Pat Buchanan of all people probably sums up best what I've been trying to say here for the last couple of months, including why Muslims in America can live peacefully with non-Muslims. The article was written in 2002 but it still valid from today's perspective:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29838
In essence, he argues that these conflicts with Muslims are essentially power and territorial struggles. Using the words of the Quran to achieve their goals is just one tactic to wage war. They could use any kind of rallying call to try and get other "disaffected" people to join their cause.
Thanks for providing the corrected link.
Posted by: Venom at December 24, 2004 09:33 AM (dbxVM)
81
The main reason for the hate of islam is the fact that terrorists attacking america and Europe. And they just happen to be muslim. dont hate muslims because some terrorists are muslims. Terrorist arent real muslims anyways, they were raised from birth to see islam in a specific way which is basically some Psycho's way of misinterpretting Islam,
Assalaam alaikum
Allah Hafiz
peace out
Nate
Posted by: Nathan at August 03, 2005 12:01 PM (0n+Vl)
Wonder Woman vs. Mighty Isis
But isn't the real question Flea, "Who would be better for the Global War on Terror: The Mighty Isis or Wonder Woman?"
Posted by: Rusty at
03:17 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Mighty Isis, only because too many bright colors scare me.
Posted by: Wine-aholic at December 15, 2004 02:34 PM (Wsn+K)
2
Wonder Woman, because:
1. I've never heard of Mighty Isis before.
2. Linda Carter as Wonder Woman was the object of 50% of my adolescent "Mrs. Robinson" fantasies.
Posted by: Brian B at December 15, 2004 03:22 PM (CouWh)
3
I'll have to go with a write-in from the big screen and go with Supergirl, because I am pretty sure bin Laden does not possess Krytonite and she cold locate him with her x-ray vision.
Posted by: Tig at December 15, 2004 04:09 PM (JCxVY)
4
Heh. In 2nd grade there was this wierd guy who was totally in love with Wonder Woman. We all thought he was crazy. Now, looking at the pictures of what she looked like back then...I'm trying to figure out how I ever could have missed that boat.
Posted by: King of Fools at December 15, 2004 04:10 PM (ktIW6)
5
OOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHH.....Gotta love dat Wonder Woman!!!
I have to agree with Brian B. W.W starred in many
of my adolescent Rosie Palm productions.....Isis
does have have some nice legs though.
Posted by: Mighty Whitey at December 15, 2004 04:15 PM (l//r6)
6
Hey, I had that Wonder Woman poster (big shock, I know) but Mighty Isis is an archaeologist and that pretty much decides the issue for me. No wait, you were talking about the war on terror or something.
Posted by: Flea at December 15, 2004 04:20 PM (NtEYw)
7
Oh, absolutely Wonder Woman - every time. 
No idea who Mistress Isis is - think Lynda Carter knew how to dress better.
No idea who Mistress Isis is - think Lynda Carter knew how to dress better.
Posted by: PMC Office at December 15, 2004 04:40 PM (RpjvM)
8
There's a joke there about hands while viewing this, but I'm sure the point has been made before...
In the 70s, my vote would have been for Lynda Carter. Sort of like my idea of what I would like once I knew what "it" was all about. But today my vote definitely goes for Isis (Joanna Cameron?). And no, I still have no idea what "it" is all about...
Posted by: Chrees at December 15, 2004 04:55 PM (RZfsx)
9
Wonderwoman could put a big hurt on any man out there. She get's my lust...er..ah...I mean vote.
Never heard of the other one.
Posted by: Iggy at December 15, 2004 04:59 PM (1Z4Aq)
10
Here I go asking a legitimate War on Terror question and all you guys can think of is their looks!! I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya!!!!!
Posted by: Rusty at December 15, 2004 05:29 PM (JQjhA)
11
/sarcasm
Posted by: Rusty at December 15, 2004 05:51 PM (JQjhA)
12
Well, Wonder Woman does have experience fighting fascism in WWII. On the other hand, Isis presumably has more experience with the region, given her Egyptian roots, so that's a wash.
They both look ridiculous flying- WW in her "invisible jet" and Isis, the only superhero who flys _standing up_.
Ultimately, I guess I'm going to go with Isis. WW may use her golden lasso, but undoubtedly Amnesty International would probably make out golden lasso interrogations to be a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Isis, however, knows how to handle a staff.
Posted by: Eric at December 15, 2004 09:35 PM (EGPsr)
13
I gotta throw out props to the ancient-Egypt-themed Isis, if only to support the home town candidate.
Posted by: Sobek at December 15, 2004 11:17 PM (zKQ1y)
14
I have to vote for Isis because of all those days Wonder Woman made me waste, glued to the television hoping beyond all hope that just once she would spin too many times while changing.
Posted by: Dusty at December 16, 2004 02:01 AM (4ok/F)
15
Mighty Isis kinda has that Washingtonienne look in the USA jacket picture, where she's looking over her shoulder at you...
I think that's a bad thing, but your mileage may vary.
Posted by: see-dubya at December 16, 2004 02:26 AM (PUZhO)
16
Linda Carter is still a hot chick. So is Barbara Eden. And Racquel Welch. That Isis hag needs to eat something and develop a real woman's body instead of aiming for the "crack whore" look.
Posted by: skh at December 16, 2004 08:37 PM (0xwoN)
17
I don't know who will win. But I'll take the loser anytime.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 16, 2004 09:32 PM (eLjJa)
18
Easy on Isis there, nutlap. She's no crack whore, she's my momma!
Posted by: Uncle Mikey at December 17, 2004 01:22 PM (kqBJN)
19
Though she'll never know it (the Court prohibits me from writing letters) WonderWoman made this boy a man. Just think how she could inspire our fighting men and lesbians today. I vote WonderWoman by a cup size, at least.
Posted by: Spoons at December 18, 2004 09:51 PM (X4FCJ)
20
Is there a question here? Wonder Woman...hands down. She has the experience. She has a freaking invisible plane! And bullet bouncing bracelets. And ehm other parts. On a more personal note...many of my friends used to write Santa Claus letters before Christmas. I used to write Wonder Women love letters. True story. So King of Fools...we probably went to school together.
Posted by: Kin at December 19, 2004 01:28 AM (L0Jaw)
21
Joanna Cameron, aka The Mighty Isis, did it for me when I was a kid, she still does it for me now. (It's gotta be those cute Egyption costumes...)
Posted by: EdWonk at December 21, 2004 08:35 PM (bQbts)
22
Wonder woman all the way hey her magic lasson makes people tell the truth(use it on bill clinton)and what about her invisible jet? how dose she manage to find it?
Posted by: sandpiper at December 24, 2004 03:19 PM (fvObb)
23
This is a no brainer, because Wonder Woman can "make a hawk a dove, stop a war with love".
If she can stop a war with love, surely she can stop world terror with a sideways glance.
Posted by: Jamey at March 05, 2005 07:44 PM (QUGyQ)
24
Wonder Woman defeated a gal named Osira, but she didn't use all of isis powers in the story. Isis is the Egyptian equivalent of Hera the most powerful of the greek Goddesses, so I think Isis should win.
Posted by: Avion at April 05, 2005 02:59 AM (6mUkl)
25
Wonder Woman would win, no question. She is immortal; an Amazonian Princess, heir to the thrown. Her golden belt gave her supernatural strengh, her braclets stoped anything, her lasso could make anyone tell the truth and her tiara came in useful more than once.
Posted by: Brian E. at July 16, 2005 01:14 AM (KAPZj)
26
Hard to decide, for I loved BOTH these ladies. Wonder Woman for being an Amazon, and Isis, for the Egyptian angle (my favorite ancient civilization is ancient Egypt.). But why Wonder Woman OR Mighty Isis? I'd rather team the two together to stop terror. Maybe add Captain Marvel to the group and at least have one GUY on the team. (I'm female, By-the-way.)
Posted by: Draka Dracula at September 18, 2005 06:09 PM (Qxdri)
What is a Christian?
One who believes that Jesus atoned for sin. That is all. Carry on.
Posted by: Rusty at
03:11 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Thanks for the linkage. And for your thoughtful contribution. It is a deep question to ask. And one for which terms may actually have some meaning.
Posted by: The Maximum Leader at December 15, 2004 04:08 PM (jmfvP)
2
Well, technically, that's not the case, Rusty. It is one who ACCEPTS that atonement for himself (yeah, yeah - herself, too). Even the demons know WHO Jesus is and what he did, according to scripture.
For instance, in Matthew 8:28-31 it is clear the demons understood who they were up against:
28When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs. They were so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way. 29 And they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?" 30 Now there was a herd of many swine feeding at a distance from them. 31 The demons began to entreat Him, saying, "If You are going to cast us out, send us into the herd of swine."
(This is also recorded in Mark 5 & Luke 8.)
Then, in ACTS 9:15, Jesus's authority is again recognized by an "evil spirit" who was being confronted by a mystic exorcist who was unfaithfully using Jesus's name to attempt to cast it out of the man, since he witnessed Paul doing it.
15And the evil spirit answered and said to them, "I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?"
There are even satanic worshipers who will recognize who Jesus is. You still have to choose sides - just like any war.
But who's counting?
Posted by: Editor at December 16, 2004 10:45 AM (adpJH)
3
Thanks for the linkage, Rusty. I am finding the comments most interesting as well, both here and on my own post.
Posted by: Bill at December 16, 2004 12:09 PM (uQhDM)
4
I think it's a little (LOT) more than that Rusty. What concerns me right now is what this country is doing when it comes to the Christian way of celebrating Christmas - and the worst thing is, these people are winning. That's scary and if this trend continues, it may come down to never having mangers in the town hall or Christmas trees up or any "Christian" way of celebrating Christmas anywhere in this country. Why is this happening? Whats going to happen in the future? If anyone doesn't see this as a problem they better open their eyes real soon.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 16, 2004 03:14 PM (D39Vm)
5
Iain Hook's killing a planned Targeted Assassination to send a warning to Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan.
by Dr. Jack Shepard
According to an article published in the Guardian, May 7, 2003 written by Chris Mc Geal from Jerusalem, "No one believed the Israeli story that the sniper thought Iain was holding a gun, said one UN official close to the investigation. this solder was a trained commando. he had sights that magnified at least three times and he was only 20 meters (65ft) away.
Why was the Targeted assassination of a top British UN Official by the Israeli defense force Covered up by Prime Minister Tony Blair?
The message that goes out to every Israeli solder is that it is OK to kill the UN staffers working in Palestine.
Until the murderer of Iain Hook is convicted of his crime there never can be peace between the Israeli and Palestinian people. Tony Blair, knew all the facts that an Israeli Sniper was ordered to trap and later in the day assassinate Iain Hook, a former paratrooper from Felixstowe who was employed by the crown Agents and paid for by the British department for International development to head the UN project to reconstruct the Jenin Refugee camp as a warning to the secretary General Kofi Annan.
Tony Blair was well aware of the facts that many other UN staff members both International and Palestinian alike have been verbally abused, stripped, beaten, shot and killed by the Israeli soldiers, including attacks on UN ambulances, Medical Personal, UNWRA schools, Health Clinics and Offices have been hit by bombs, rockets, tank shells and gunfire by Israeli soldiers endangering the lives of UN staff and prime Minister Tony Blair continues to cover up these facts and even remains silent to his knowledge of the intelligence reports convening the planning and later assassinations of fellow British UN Staffer who was trapped for hours in his UN Office Compound before he was shot in the back on Nov. 22, 2002.
Blair continues to cover-up the targeted assassination of Iain Hook and his lack of criticism of the policies of the Ariel Sharon Government; shows his complicity.
Dr. Jack Shepard is a past American Service officer and Middle East Specialist. Dr. Shepard has had articles published in both military and civilian Newspapers over the past 34 years. www.shepardusgov.com
Posted by: Dr. Jack Shepard at December 21, 2004 03:30 PM (pL4nL)
Ayatollah Khomeini: "Islam is not a Religion of Peace"
Robert Spencer in Front Page Mag (via LGF) quotes Ayattollah "I like sex with 9 year olds, just like Muhammed" Khomeini:
“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”
Posted by: Rusty at
03:08 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Leave it to the Ayatoilet to encourage muslims to bring a sword to a gunfight.
Posted by: Rob at December 15, 2004 04:30 PM (ushkA)
2
Micks, Dego Whops, same thing!!!
Posted by: Rusty at December 15, 2004 04:45 PM (JQjhA)
3
Amen. Can't argue with the raghead bible.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 15, 2004 06:05 PM (VkopJ)
Racist Terrorists
Why was I taken hostage? Dark skin.
Posted by: Rusty at
02:44 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.
1
And some assholes complain about the way we treat them that tried to kill before being captured.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 15, 2004 06:11 PM (VkopJ)
2
Best part of the story - and I hope it is a spin from the journalist, but Stockholm Syndrome and all that - he is left upset at the U.S. because he wasn't interviewed. I would be interested in talking to the man. Knowing how journalists work I wouldn't be surprised if this quote is twisted to communicate something that the real conversation wouldn't support.
Posted by: slickdpdx at December 15, 2004 10:29 PM (fLlQ8)
3
George Carlin (who is GAY) makes that same statement in his recent stand up comedy piece If you get picked up, you must be a very dark I-talian!!
:-)
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 15, 2004 11:07 PM (D39Vm)
4
"George Carlin (who is GAY)??"
George is gay?? Well how do you know this? I've never heard this. You must truly be special..
Posted by: bob at January 01, 2005 11:03 PM (9qPYl)
Turkish Hostage in Afghanistan Released
A Turkish engineer and two Afghans held hostage by Taliban allied terrorists since yesterday have been released unharmed today.
Posted by: Rusty at
02:43 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
Abdulkareem al-Khaiwani Censored
Yemeni journalist Abdulkareem al-Khaiwani is in prison. Jane Novak has this essay published in three newspapers in the Muslim world. From Pakistan's Daily Times:
He is not allowed a pen in a country of 60 million guns. Sentenced to one year at hard labour, he is in prison where he has been beaten, his jaw broken. His friends and colleagues may not speak with him. He is a newspaper editor...Read the whole thing.Abdulkareem al-Khaiwani spends this night in a Yemeni prison because his inquiring pen is deemed a greater threat than the 60 million guns, when it is his pen that is among his nationÂ’s greatest assets.
Posted by: Rusty at
02:30 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Thank you.
Posted by: Jane at December 15, 2004 05:33 PM (6krEN)
2
The shocker of the day. The article was also picked up from the Daily Times by the Iran Daily in Tehran.
They dropped my name but kept the article verbatum.
Posted by: Jane at December 15, 2004 07:46 PM (6krEN)
3
Thank for Jane,Pakistan's Daily times,and Jawa Report for that.
Also I will translate the Essay to Arabic and Yemeni newspaper or web sites with the the name of the Best Journalist Jane Novak In the Header of the article.
thank you Jane.
Posted by: sami at January 05, 2005 01:52 PM (u91pc)
Iran Supporting Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq?
Syria and Iran accused of aiding insurgency. Interestingly enough, Iran is accused of aiding Abu Mussab Zarqawi's al Qaedi in Iraq movment. Via Chad at In the Bullpen this from the AP:
Iraq's defense minister on Wednesday accused neighboring Iran and Syria of supporting terrorists in his war-ravaged country.I noted the capture of the leader of the Jaish Mohammed group, Moayad Ahmed Yasseen, also known as Abu Ahmedon Nov. 15th here with a biographical sketch on him at this post.Hazem Shaalan also accused Iran of backing the al-Qaida in Iraq terrorist group headed by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and said his country's opponents want "turbaned clerics to rule in Iraq."
Shaalan said Iraqi authorities obtained information about Iran's role in Iraqi's insurgency after last month's arrest of the leader of the Jaish Mohammed (Mohammed's Army) terrorist group during U.S.-led operations in Fallujah.
"When we arrested the commander of Jaish Mohammed we discovered that key to terrorism is in Iran, which this the number one enemy for Iraq," Shaalan told reporters in Baghdad.
It is unlikely that the strict Sunni followers of Zarqawi would like an Islamic Republic modeled after Iran. But they are actively cooperating with the Shia terrorist organization the Islamic Army in Iraq which patterns itself after the Iranian backed terrorists Hezboallah and Hamas. Zarqawi's ideal state would be pre-war Afghanistan, not Iran. However, the two groups do share the same goal of the Islamist state ruled by Sharia law. Further, both groups see a common enemy in the Great Satan of the US.
Iran, then, may be helping al Qaeda based on either the shared goal of the Islamic state or as simply a practical matter of shared interest in ousting the US from the region.
Update: Great analysis by McQ on Iran's involvement in the upcoming elections. Wretchard is equally skeptical that the elections will solve many problems. I agree.
Posted by: Rusty at
02:00 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Come on Rusty. We have known Syria and Iran have been helping the terrorists for years. Stability in Iraq is the end of the Islamic nutsos in Iran. Caught between a democratic Iraq and a democratic Afghanistan they will be finished. Syria with a democratic Iraq on one side and Israel on the other, puts them in the same situation. Who knows what Pakistan will become. However, placed between Afghanistan with US Bases and India may cause them to do some serious thinking concerning their future.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 15, 2004 07:10 PM (VkopJ)
Taxi Driver Shoots Man in Bin Laden Mask
You can't make this stuff up!! AP:
A startled taxi driver shot and wounded a jokester wearing a plastic mask of the al-Qaida leader, police said Tuesday. Leonel Arias, 47, told police he was playing a practical joke by donning the Bin Laden mask, toting his pellet rifle and jumping out to scare drivers on a narrow street in his hometown, Carrizal de Alajuela, about 20 miles north of San Jose.About all those dead hookers in my basement....you didn't notice those Zarqawi masks on them? Hat Tip: James JoynerArias had startled several drivers that way on Monday afternoon. But when he jumped out in front of taxi driver Juan Pablo Sandoval, the motorist reached for a gun and shot him twice in the stomach. He was hospitalized in stable condition. "For me and I think for anybody else at a time like that one thinks the worst and so I fired my gun," Sandoval told Channel 7 television.
Police declined to detain Sandoval, saying he had believed he was acting in self-defense.
Posted by: Rusty at
01:37 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.
Bonfire of My Homophobia
This week's Bonfire of the Vanities is up at Feste's blog. The Bonfire is a showcase for the worst posts written by some of the worst bloggers out there. I, of course, am featured weekly. I recommend all new bloggers check it out and participate in next week's shin dig.
Posted by: Rusty at
01:27 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Rusty,
What I want you to do is go out and rent TORCH SONG TRILOGY, BIRDCAGE and AS GOOD AS IT GETS and PHILADELPHIA - then come back and talk to me about your homophobic fears and how these movies changed your opinion instead of lumping them all into one group. There are others but start with these ASAP - please do me that favor; you'll thank me for it later.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 15, 2004 11:03 PM (D39Vm)
Office Party
Second office party in a week. One more to go. I hate these things. The highlight of the afternoon will be those little tiny hot dogs in barbeque sauce. We have a copy machine. If we only had a few drunks things might get interesting. We don't. After the party I'm going to grade. Light blogging.
Posted by: Rusty at
11:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.
December 14, 2004
Murder and Warfare
Ok, IÂ’ve been dodging writing, which is just no good at all, so time to pick up the keyboard once again and get to work, so to speak.
So, where to begin? Well, this bit about the Marine shooting that guy in Fallujah brings to mind a whole lot of things about the nature of warfare that, I think, get lost in the airy-fairy discussion of the mechanics of killing people and breaking things. Donald Sensing, in this post, points out the first, and by far, the most disturbing, class of error made in understanding warfare. The notion that war isnÂ’t about killing people, but rather some sort of arcane (possibly obsolete) form of political expression, is not just stupid, but downright deadly. For it ignores not only what the point of warfare is, but completely obscures the very features of warfare that distinguish it from mass murder. In fact, this kind of mistaken thinking is entwined with barracks lawyering about just war theory and the Geneva Convention.
The second, fairly pervasive misunderstanding is that war is only about killing people. Oddly enough, these two errors are often spouted by the same people (although not at the same time). On one hand, when war is thought of in the abstract, these folks will tend to view it as some sort of clinical form of the application of pressure, but once the balloon goes up, then they quite often revert to the industrialized slaughter view of warfare, particularly when confronted by images of the very real cost of the butcher’s bill. I suspect that the core of this is due to the fact that the Second World War generated so much film footage, that for many people, they can make no fundamental distinction between armor battles involving panzers and T-34s at Kursk, and the drive to Baghdad. Or to look at it another way, two noted futurists, Alvin and Heidi Toffler assert that, essentially, the lethality of weapons systems has increased by an order of magnitude every decade since the end of the Second World War. Thus, current systems would be more than six orders of magnitude – or a million times – more lethal than their Second World War counterparts.
There are a huge numbers of other common misperceptions on the nature and qualities of soldiers themselves, the purposes and effectiveness of weapons, the costs of war, and reasonable expectations about the realities of the battlefield. All these and more are things that are sources of error that pollute discussion about current events in Iraq, and, more generally, the employment of force in conflicts. But this incident in Fallujah effectively highlights the dangers of the first two kinds of errors. more...
Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at
09:42 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 2226 words, total size 15 kb.
1
Gee, I think I already said that myself. The wounded combatant, insurgent or terrorist could have still had the capability of shooting that soldier when he got closer to him. As I stated before, a dead insurgent, a dead terrorist, is better than a live one and in war, if that Marine had not shot that person, he, himself could have been killed, and that would have been a tragic loss. It certainly does not help that most of them dress in normal garb so you can't tell the difference between a civilian. And if the civilians only stood up to these insurgents, these terrorists that have taken over their country, trying to kill as many as possible, breaking down the infrastructure of not only the govt but of the oil which is all they have to trade for goods from other countries since they can't grow anything there and even the animals have no feed. They don't clean up after themselves so outside of every smelly hut, it stinks something awful.
Now there is a guy over here in the US who is asking for cigarettes for the troops to put in their care packages and he's getting a little/lot flack about it. But our cigarettes are better than the ones they can buy over there. All that waste, all those chemicals and everything you could possibly think of that's in the ground, are in those awful cigarettes so adding them to CARE packages is a good idea.
Didn't realize it was you, Bravo Romeo Delta - welcome aboard. I applied as a guest writer for Rusty's Christmas relief but I don't have a website, so I guess I don't count. See you around BRD - always running into you, too.
Good piece.
Cindy
Rusty is right here and does a very good thoughtful piece. I appreciate that a lot.
(see I'm almost back in full throttle again :-). This is excellent, I applaud you.
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 15, 2004 12:13 AM (D39Vm)
2
BRD, Good post!
Posted by: Jane at December 15, 2004 07:28 AM (+7VNs)
3
Yikes! I think somebody needs a skilled editor...
Posted by: Sandall at December 15, 2004 11:38 AM (mwXE8)
4
No way, excellent post BRD!!! I love how you bring Clausewitz in.
Posted by: Rusty at December 15, 2004 01:09 PM (JQjhA)
5
As a former Marine who has some direct experience with both killing people and the use of tear gas to expedite the killing process I want to critique the referenced post. It is about the Marine action in Fallujah, “After watching some news of the fighting in Fallujah” Joel’s wife asks why did they not use tear gas to make them surrender.
The Major/PastorÂ’s response is tactically wrong. These people are not soldiers they are *MARINES* His response may be good for soldiers but not for Marines. HereÂ’s his response verbatim
“The first is that she sees using tear gas as a way to take the terrorist fighters prisoner. But getting a lung full of tear gas doesn't drive soldiers to surrender; it drives them to go bonkers. They are just as liable to run out firing furiously as anything else. So no surrender is assured. However, it may have the benefit of driving them into the where our troops could kill them more easily.
Unfortunately, in close quarters urban combat, our troops would be sucking their own tear gas, too, meaning that our soldiers would have to fight gas-masked. That seriously degrades their effectiveness in endurance, visibility and hearing, not desirable. “
Marines train in the use of tear gas in close quarters. We had buildings we would throw the CS(tear gas) in and them weÂ’d go in and look for bad guys. Frequently a DI would sneak up behind you and rip of your gas mask so you could get a few lungs full of CS. We trained over and over, just like a football team, until we got it right. Then we would go for right ten straight times.
In Nam I participated in a few ops using tear gas. They all went well because we all knew what was to be done depending on the bad guys actions.
This explains why I get mad at my friends when they refer to me as a soldier. I was never a soldier I was a Marine and the Major/PastorÂ’s explanation points out one of the many differences.
*TEAR GAAS COULD HAVE BEEN USED SAFELY AND EFFECTIVELY HERE*
He then make a comment that further irritates me: “No gas can distinguish between combatants and civilians. Its use would endanger noncombatants unacceptably. They would be probably more liable to be driven into lines of fire than the insurgents.”
There are no civilians there any more. We started telling them in early Sep to get out we were coming in. If you are not a terrorist leave. Even the MSM noted that the first week of Nov Fallujah was a ghost town. Anyone still there is a terrorist!
He then gives the REAL reason the Marines did not use CS, “Finally, in 1997, the United States signed an international treaty banning wartime use of chemical weapons. Although tear gas is not classified as a chemical agent (it is a riot-control agent) the treaty we signed specifically forbids use on RCAs in battle: "Each state party undertakes not to use riot-control agents as a method of warfare."” We did not use CS because the politicians wont let us. Not that we don’t know how to use it safely. Maybe soldiers don’t but Marine do. I state this with first had experience 37 years ago and I lived through it to rant.
The Major/Pastor then addresses the issue of bombing/ psychological warfare. He had some grad students over “had dinner with one night just after the air campaign began against the Afghan Taliban. They apparently thought that our bombing was a form of posturing, a symbolic display, intended to yield psychological, not lethal, effects on the enemy.
One guest said that the bombing "wouldn't intimidate" the Taliban.
"We're not trying to intimidate them," I said.
"Then why are we bombing them?" came the question.
"To kill them," I answered. There was a long silence at the table. The concept seemed not to have occurred to them.”
The reason his grad students had the wrong impression is because it is what we said in ’02 and ’03. Rummy called it “Shock and Awe”. We were told over and over again we would intimidate them with our shock and awe campaign.
Of course it did not work. It did not work in the Baslkins and it din not work for the Socialists from 1939-1943. But I can understand why the grad students were confused. Blame the MSM and the Sec of Def.
The Major/Pastor then make another statement that further highlight the difference between a soldier and a Marine. He references a Marine Major(but leaves it anonymous) the link give us the MarineÂ’s name
“From Major Chris, in Fallujah
There is no negotiating or surrender for those guys. If we see the position and positively ID them as bad guys, we strike. When they run, we call it maneuver and we strike them too. Why? Yesterday the muj attacked an ambulance carrying our wounded. The attackers were hunted down and killed without quarter. These guys want to be martyrs.....we're helping.”
As a former marine NCO I am in complete agreement with this officer. I helped as many Commies as I could be martyrs. These folks are committed and so are the Marines! In the Old corps we called it “up close and personal”.
Now regards to the Toffler BS. Weapons are better and so are counter measures. Check the KIA’s in both the Balkans and in the War on Terror. The counts are not very high on a monthly basis or on a yearly basis. “Smart Bombs” are not smart. They really don’t work. Milosevic did not think about giving up until *AFTER* the Brits put boot on the ground!
A former Jarehead
Rod Stanton
Cerritos
Posted by: Rod Stanton at December 15, 2004 02:06 PM (tHUgl)
6
My father was a "jarhead" too, Rod and a Marine's entire attitude is totally different than any soldier I know. My dad was very proud to have been a Marine, as if it was separate from the rest of the military and indeed it is. Glad you're still around.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 15, 2004 03:31 PM (D39Vm)
7
Rod,
I am not going to cross a Marine with combat experience on particulars with two minor exceptions, to your otherwise well thought out post.
First, the dinner Major Pastor had with the grad students was before Shock and Awe was part of the national vocabulary - it was shortly before the Taliban collapsed completely.
Second, the Tofflers don't make the argument that countermeasures are the same. But when you start looking at things like ammunition carry load, unrefuelled reach of aircraft, and bomb accuracy - yes things have gotten more efficient over the last 60 years. With respect to the Balkans and whatnot, that's an entirely different and much thornier question. But can we agree that something like a B-52 is a better tool to spread ill-will and discontent than a B-17?
Third point that bears mention about CS, is that due to one of the perversities of "the law of war" is that use of riot-control agents, such as CS in a wartime environment is in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. And if you think that we couldn't catch any more flak from the world at large by using CS, then you may need to re-evaluate the world's supply of flak to give us.
Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at December 15, 2004 04:07 PM (kiA+F)
8
As a marine who was at Khe son during Tet, I can tell you the B-52 can be a bringer of good will between the Air Force and the Marine Corps.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 15, 2004 07:35 PM (VkopJ)
9
Hey greyrooster what's your unit!
I was in Hue in Jan 1968
Rod Stanton
1/5 Nam 1967+1968
Posted by: Rod Stanton at December 16, 2004 08:56 AM (tHUgl)
10
BRD thanks.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at December 16, 2004 09:04 AM (tHUgl)
11
Cindy God bless your dad. That's the nicest remark I ever heard about my attitude.
Rod Stanton
Cerritos
Posted by: Rod Stanton at December 16, 2004 10:42 AM (tHUgl)
12
ROD STANTON: 1st Batt, 26th Marines. Nam 67/68 Khe Sanh, stepped on every foot of Hill 881. Wish Venom had been there.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 16, 2004 10:40 PM (eLjJa)
13
HAHAHAHA Grey Rooster - Venom couldn't have handled it but it sure would be nice not to have to put up with that creep. I wish I knew where my late husband's unit and info was and the missing last two years when he was in Vietnam .... he was a Captain, Green Beret, Special Forces and no one knew where he was for six years. His papers are with my other son now but as a Special Forces op, I doubt they'd say where he was. The VA and whatnot keep saying he was discharged in 1969 but his papers show 1971. He was wounded twice, the second time, he was blown to bits and somehow survived. He was a strong man inside and like my Dad being a Marine, that strength, that attitude kept him young, alive, healthy. He was also a fireman, Rod and Grey Rooster, for 45 years and passed away in February. My dad has a lot of good done under his name. I am very proud of him and you're welcome about the "attitude" because its that attitude that makes you different and special and a Marine defintely has a different attitude but it's a good one.
If you want to know what happened to my husband, in 1978, he died as a result of a motorcycle accident. It took 5 days but that's because at that time we had to wait for a transplant team. We had a 5 year old son who is now 30 and living in Florida. After this particular experience, like my father before me, who brought the entire concept of paramedics and EMT's to the New England area, I also became one but never worked as one. Instead, I spent time in ICU's with families of people who were probably not going to make it and stayed with the patient during the night sitting in a chair by the bed, crocheting to keep my hands busy. I also had a website and chat room on mIRC to counsel disabled people, especially newly disabled people. I don't do any of that anymore, so I just hang around here (and other places) pajama commenting and stuff.
God Bless you both and thank you for your service.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 18, 2004 08:47 PM (D39Vm)
Enemies Among Us: or Where is Rowdy Roddy Piper when you need him?
Enemies are all around us, we just cannot see them. Not all Muslims in America are our enemies, but a substantial minority are. Perhaps only a tiny subset supports terrorism as a means to an end, but it is the end which I fear more than the means. That end is the imposition of Islamic law. As long as American Muslims support Sharia, or Islamic Law, they are our enemies.
Earlier I posted on an event scheduled by the Metroplex Organization of Muslims in America in Irving, Texas celebrating the man who coined the phrase 'Great Satan' to describe the United States, the Ayattollah Komeini. I made fun of Khomeini in that post for being a child molester. He was. Like the Prophet Mohammed before him he married and had sex with a 9 year old girl. By definition that is a child molester.
But if Khomeini were only a child molester he would be much less dangerous than he remains to this day. Khomeini's legacy is one of oppression, death, and terror. 25 years ago Khomeini began an Islamist revolution that inspired the likes of Ossama bin Laden. The ideas of the Islamic revolution outlive Khomeini's personal crimes. The Islamist idea itself is a crime.
The Islamist ideal is one with no seperation of church and state. This goes far beyond the Christian Right's demand for recognition of religious life--such as prayer in school--but would extend to all aspects of society. The Christian Right, as far as I can tell, wants a value system that hearkens back to the 1950s. Islamists want a value system that hearkens back to the 1350s. The Christian Right wants to outlaw abortion, the Islamists want to outlaw fornication. The Christian Right wants to reassert the right to speak openly about God in public, the Islamists want to outlaw the conversion of Muslims to other religions. The Christian Right might look down upon you for having a kid out of wedlock, the Islamists want to put you in jail for it (or worse).
The values of Islamism are incompatible with the values of American liberalism.
When I hear that Shia Muslims in Texas are about to celebrate this man, I quiver at their stupidity. When I hear that Shia Muslims around the country will join in unity to celebrate the Islamic state, I tremble with fear. These people are the enemies of liberty. These people are the enemies of freedom. These people are the enemies of the United States.
Most American Muslims of Persian background came here fleeing Khomeini. They are secularists. They fled the chaos of the Iranian Revolution and have relatives who have lived through the nightmare that is the Islamic Republic. They are our friends, neighbors, and allies against the totalitarianism that is the ideal Islamic state.
But what of the Islamists? For years we have been hearing of the threat of Wahhabism. Wahhabism is an extreme sect of Sunni Islam. We've been keeping an eye on these guys for awhile. But what if the threat runs deeper than Wahhabis? What if the threat is found in other branches of Islam? What if the threat of Islamism is in moderate mosques? What if it is even in Shia mosques?
It is. The Irving Mosque is just an example of what many of us have known for some time--the tendency for Muslims of all stripes to be unified around the goal of imposed Sharia law and the uniting of Muslims in an Islamic state. What that state would look like is much disputed--some prefer a return to a Caliphate, others to an Islamic Republic such as in Iran. What Sharia would look like is much disputed--some prefer a Taliban like Sharia while others believe in the most liberal interpretation of Sharia possible. One that would, say, fine you for blasphemy rather than sentence you to death.
But Sharia, liberal or conservative, is still religious law and therefore un-American. A democracy set up along the lines of an Islamic Republic is still a religious state and is therefore un-American. There is such a thing as un-American. This is it.
Rowdy Roddy Piper Where are you when we need you?
Islamist and secularist look alike. They celebrate the same holidays and observe the same dietary restrictions. Islamists don't beat their wives more than secularists. They mow their lawns. They take out their garbage. They wave to you in the morning. They go to work. They have prosperous businesses. They pay their taxes. They are nice people. You cannot tell who they are by looking at them. Some are black, some are white, some are Middle Eastern, some are Asian. You will not know one when you meet one. Still, they are your enemy.
One of my favorite movies of all times is John Carpenter's They Live. In that movie 'Rowdy' Roddy Piper finds a pair of glasses. The glasses allow him to see the reality of the crumbling world around him. The truth was that aliens were in control. They looked just like the rest of us, but with the glasses you could see them. You could see the propaganda and lies behind what they were saying. You could see the enemy amongst us.
If we only had those glasses things would be so much easier. If we only had those glasses we could isolate the enemies within. If we only had those glasses we could keep an eye on the danger.
We have no glasses. Until we get some it will be up to Muslim Americans themselves to isolate not only those that support violent jihad, but also those that support the Islamist ideal. If they do not, the enemies will go unchecked.
Rowdy Roddy Piper Where are you when we need you?
Posted by: Rusty at
04:45 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 986 words, total size 6 kb.
1
He's all out of bubblegum.
Posted by: Christopher Cross at December 14, 2004 05:29 PM (U0AXy)
2
VERY SCARY. Saw several pieces of this same type of discussion on tv and it was also very scary. Seeing it laid out like this makes me tremble in fear but Christopher Cross, out of bubblegum or not, what Rusty is talking about is a very real possibility. The discussion went on to say how many of us are actually white american and how many of us actually speak English! VERY FRIGHTENING, let me tell you.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 14, 2004 05:55 PM (D39Vm)
3
This totally pisses me off! American Muslims had better
start showing their fellow American citizens a little
good will. Start by turning in some of those Al-Quada
boys.We know that you know who they are
Posted by: Mighty Whitey at December 14, 2004 07:23 PM (vNibA)
4
If you go back into the way-back machine, you'll recall that the big threat during the 80s was, in fact, the Shia, not the Sunni.
Telling.
Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at December 14, 2004 10:13 PM (hIdkY)
5
I could have used Roddy to help me beat the bejeebus out of MT 3.allscrewedupsonow I'mrunning WordPress
Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at December 15, 2004 12:57 AM (kiH79)
6
I wonder what happened to you to make you so paranoid. Special glasses that reveal the enemy? You sound like the people who went out and shot Punjabis (who are not Muslims) after 9/11 because they wear turbans like the Taliban.
As I commented before in your "my letters to terrorists" post, any sort of interaction or cooperation with Muslim Americans (or any Muslims) that you speak of is complete bullshit. As long as you denounce their faith and insult it with garbage like "I pissed on the Koran" or make ridiculous (and somewhat psychotic) suggestions such as "bomb Mecca", your cause will find little help and in fact turn people of all religions away. The Muslim Americans that you feel are responsible for preventing this supposed uprising will read your words some might even turn to the extremists as a response. Can you honestly blame them? Is this how you want to reach out to them?
As long as you portray yourself as a paranoid racist who has nightmares about America turning into a Taliban state, you will not be taken seriously.
Posted by: Jim at December 15, 2004 03:32 AM (PH1UJ)
7
With all due respect Rusty...that movie sucked. Point taken though.
Posted by: Kin at December 15, 2004 03:50 AM (ZQldT)
8
Sharia law is only religious law in the same way American laws stem from the Torah - specifically the Ten Commandments. All modern legal systems and laws are routed in the religious culture from which they derived.
Posted by: Monjo at December 15, 2004 05:52 AM (TmM0X)
9
The point made by Jim is the truth. Also I loved the statement made by Mighty Whitey. I think we as white people should talk to our "dressed in white" cross burning friends, then go to the police and turn them in because we is white and we should know some cross burning fag's.
To tie those two points togeather the FBI and the Government didnt break the back of the kluker's or the militia's by bashing the people that followed them, they infiltrated them to the point of making prosecution easier and easier. The same method is being used by the Fed's minus the massive capability of infiltration due to the lack of interest until 9/11 to employ large amounts of agents with the cultural background.
Posted by: Salamander at December 15, 2004 09:29 AM (W2YA6)
10
The funniest scene in "They Live" was the very end scene. Some woman is riding her boyfriend when she looks down and SCREAMS! Her "boyfriend" is an ALIEN.
"What's the matter baby?" Heheheheheheh....
Posted by: Macker at December 15, 2004 09:49 AM (DjbYJ)
11
Mighty Whitey--that's the point, it's not just al Qaeda supporters. We have mainstream Muslim groups who really hate al Qaeda because of al Qaeda's METHOD, but still support the general goal of al Qaeda which is the imposition of Islamic law.
BRD-you're alive.
Jim--I'll let the politicians "reach out", smile, and lie. They are necessary. But not on my watch, not here.
Kin--I will forgive all sorts of sin, but not hating on They Live!
Monjo--there is a difference between deriving values from religion and then applying them in a secular legal system and "Religious Law." Under the law of Moses the death penalty was given for breaking the Sabbath. I would opppose that too, but as far as I can tell I haven't heard any clamoring by Jews to go back to that.
Jim--useful fool. Religion is an idea, not a race.
Salamander--uh, ok. Let's start infiltrating every mosque in America. That's a plan I can live with.
Macker--wrong. The best scene is the fight scene. Come on!!
Posted by: Rusty at December 15, 2004 11:16 AM (JQjhA)
12
If YOU being a Braves fan from Atlanta on a vacation went to a bar in New York where it was dead middle of Playoff's and you are the only one there that is not a Yankee's fan. What you gonna do? You can't cheer for your team cause the majority will kick your ass. So, you sit there and say nothing... but, we know what team you are really rooting for. Same thing with muslims here in the USA. They know they can't root for their own religion or HOME team on American soil...
Now me for example... hehehe Being Coonass, cajun and redneck I ain't skeert to root for any team...!!
Andrea
Posted by: Andrea at December 15, 2004 11:28 AM (6krEN)
13
I totally disagree, Jim - even though now they are killing their own people - if you are not a Muslim, you're dead meat in their eyes. They are a violent religion and people; there is no question about that at all - or haven't you been paying attention?
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 16, 2004 11:40 PM (D39Vm)
14
Holy incenteration batman it looks like dan rather after his last stint on TV and what the viewers did to him afterwards
Posted by: sandpiper at December 24, 2004 03:23 PM (fvObb)
15
LOOK YOU IDIOTS...WHY THE HELL ARE JUDGING PEOPLE WITHOUT EVEN BARELY KNOWING THEM? WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? WE MUSLIMS, FOLLOW PROPHET MOHAMMED, ayotollah, and all the other important muslim leaders? oh, and 1 more thing...next time dont even dare judge others by their religion...did u know tat all of our religions are connected...DID U KNOW TAT ALL OF OUR RELIGIONS ARE BASED ON EXACTLY 1 RELIGION!!??? HUH...WELL U DIDNT GOOD FOR U!! AND HOW THE HELL DO U DARE JUDGE JUDGE OUR LEADER, OUR PROPHET! DID U EVER MEET HIM IN THE PAST!?? I am sure no...so dont give us crap..about ur "stupidty"
Posted by: bilal haidar at April 20, 2005 07:03 PM (6krEN)
Wizbang Stole from My Site!
I accuse the crew at Wizbang of copyright infringement.
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
03:29 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Wizbang is absoloutly rubbish anyway Rusty, perhaps thats why they feel they have to steal from you....Screw their assess off. I would. Keep it up Rusty.
Posted by: karl at December 14, 2004 04:13 PM (PM/BC)
2
I read your whole rant, Rusty and I've also read Wizbang - earlier today - and I have never seen nothing about what you're talking about my friend. You are losing it, pal. When does your plane leave? :-)
It's gonna be cold up here this week, bring warm clothes.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 14, 2004 04:25 PM (D39Vm)
3
Guys, another joke. Seriously, when you read my stuff do so with heavy sarcasm in mind.
Posted by: Rusty at December 14, 2004 04:52 PM (JQjhA)
4
Rusty, the joke is too subtle for some. It has to be self-evident, like IMAO's contuing slander of Instapundit & the Puppy Blender(tm).
Posted by: BigFire at December 14, 2004 04:56 PM (S6QRd)
5
I guess you had to be 'in' on this one. Go read Kevin and Paul's posts about that asshat Dr. Hailey accusing them of stealing from his site.
Posted by: Rusty at December 14, 2004 04:59 PM (JQjhA)
6
Rat bastards!
I am never reading their site again. Well, maybe not until tomorrow. Or maybe this evening.
Posted by: Steve L. at December 14, 2004 05:21 PM (1xIWm)
7
I KNEW it was a joke!! geesh!! I came back just to make sure that Karl figured it out yet and if he hadn't, I was going to tell him it was just a joke between you guys who are also friends.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 14, 2004 05:44 PM (D39Vm)
8
Hey, hey, hey! Since when do we use "guilt by association?" The whole Professor Phony crap has been Kevin and Paul EXCLUSIVELY! My whole contribution has been to eat my heart out in envy over the whole thing!
Time to rectify the situation. Rusty, if you'll kindly point me to some of your images that have not yet been stolen, I'll appropriate them posthaste.
For some people, it's "don't do the crime if you can't do the time." For me, it's "if you're gonna do the time, you might as well do the crime."
J.
(will whine for linkage and comments)
Posted by: Jay Tea at December 14, 2004 09:28 PM (2Msv9)
9
Interesting. I've been meaning to talk to you about just this issue, RS.
Posted by: George Lucas at December 15, 2004 12:07 AM (6oRZf)
10
Jay Tea, I have some naked pics of your wife you might like to post (baseball humor).
George Lucas, I am your father!!
Posted by: Rusty at December 15, 2004 11:18 AM (JQjhA)
11
Yeah, Rusty, I'd be DAMNED interested in those pictures. I wanna see the woman who claims she's my wife, considering I'VE NEVER BEEN MARRIED!!!
Oh, hell, who am I kidding. I'll take nearly any pictures of naked women.
J.
Posted by: Jay Tea at December 15, 2004 10:05 PM (6UL+D)
12
Hehehehe J.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 16, 2004 03:21 PM (D39Vm)
13
It's Rick's fault...never did trust him!
Posted by: ginabina at December 17, 2004 06:24 AM (O1ig/)
14
All right, <fingers making quotey marks>Rusty Shackelford</fingers making quotey marks>, let's you and me have a little talk about <fingers making quotey marks>copyright infringement</fingers making quotey marks>, shall we?
Posted by: Dale Gribble at December 17, 2004 07:25 AM (S504z)
15
No, Rusty, that won't happen until Episode III.
Posted by: -S- at December 17, 2004 09:05 AM (qoiTW)
16
isnt rusty shakelford from king of the hill?? thats what dale uses as a fake name to get out of trouble haha
Posted by: Taryn at December 17, 2004 01:32 PM (SRe8a)
17
What are you looking for in a womaN?
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 19, 2004 12:18 AM (D39Vm)
Site Problem
I'm aware of the commenting problem and working to fix it. Drop me a line if you need me.
Posted by: Rusty at
03:01 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.
1
COMMENT PROBLEMS?! That's it! The Jawa Report has just been...
...DE-LINKED by me! What are you thinking, Dr. Rusty?
(I really don't want to have to do with, but in light of reading other comments made on other threads I better put up the disclaimer now: The above comments made by Editor are sarcastic.)
Posted by: Editor at December 14, 2004 05:38 PM (adpJH)
Weblog Awards and Defining 'Blogger'
The votes are in and the 2004 Weblog Awards race is over. Congrats to Ace of Spades Headquarters, the only blog endorsed by me to win. So much for the crucial Rusty Shackleford endorsement.....
I have one bone to pick. I am pretty pissed about NRO's Kerry Spot winning for Best New Blog. Geraghty runs a great internet site, but it's not a blog. A blogger, by definition, doesn't have a boss. He might get paid through advertisements or donations, but he doesn't fill out a W-2. Geraghty is a columnist, Bill Ardolino is a blogger.
Kudos to Kevin Aylward who did his best to vet the process. I guess I'm partially to blame for some of the undeserving nominees making the final cut--I had promised him I'd help with the awards and then sort of cheesed out. Sorry, finals take a lot out of a guy. I had to decide whether to help with the awards or keep blogging. I chose the latter.
In the future, though, let's make sure blog awards go to, you know, bloggers. Not everyone who has a website is a blogger. Not everyone who writes online is a blogger. Bloggers are a community of the unprofessional. We are the pajamahadin. We are media entrepreneurs. We are what democracy looks like. We are the voice of the people.
We need to come up with a better definition for 'blog' and 'blogger'.
Ok, end pontification.
It was enough for me to make the final cut for Best New Blog of 2004. Thanks for the many endorsements--I lost track of them a day or so after the voting began. Shout out to all of you who didn't vote for me as instructed. Some props, too, for the homies who gave me their own awards. For instance, I received an award for Best Blog By A College Professor Who Can't Spell While Live Blogging During A Final Exam (in your face Llama Butchers) and one for Blogger most likely to appear under the headline 'Man Kills 5, Shoots Self' (update: read that one wrong earlier---I'm much happier with this one!!). I gladly accept those awards and thank all the little people that made this great occasion possible.....
Posted by: Rusty at
12:34 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 3 kb.
1
We are the pajamahadin.
Ironic, isn't it, considering Geraghty was the first recorded instance of "pajamahadeen". This does not mean I disagree with you. Geraghty is good, but is he a blogger? And more importantly, does anyone care?
Posted by: Editor at December 14, 2004 12:39 PM (adpJH)
2
I"m afraid that you didn't quite pick up the right award statue from sortapundit. He actually named you the "Blogger most likely to appear under the headline 'Man Kills 5, Shoots Self'" and not the kind gay one.
That's not quite so good, I don't think...
Posted by: Jimmie at December 14, 2004 12:46 PM (LIkgw)
3
Jimmie's right, Rustmeister.
I mean it in a good way, though. You're a little, er, unbalanced - but funny with it.
P.S. Frank J wants that gay statue back.
Posted by: sortapundit at December 14, 2004 01:04 PM (SgQqe)
4
On the contrary, that is a blog. A corporation can have a blog and it's still a blog.
However, Best of the Web Today, while wonderful, is a column, not a blog. It shouldn't have been a nominee, never mind a winner. Nor should it and other non-blogs ever be in the Ecosystem.
Posted by: Jay at December 14, 2004 01:59 PM (7RCzM)
5
Hm. There are a lot of people out there who are being paid to blog, but none of them are right-of-center. That said, there is something vaguely oxymoronic about calling something a "blog" that is part of an established media website.
And something a little weird about the Kerry Spot still being a web presence anyway. Election's over, you know?
The Best of the Web thing is a little the the Drudge Report thing: they both seem to be to be blog precursors. Taranto once called his thang a "bloglike column," and I liked that.
Personally, I'd love to be paid to blog, even if it meant that you'd never regard me as a True Blog again. I'll bet my husband would like it, too.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 14, 2004 02:18 PM (SuJa4)
6
Jay, I just don't see it that way. It's like calling the Dallas Cowboys a great college football team. And I'm not knocking Geraghty, he's great, he's just not a blogger.
Posted by: Rusty at December 14, 2004 02:36 PM (JQjhA)
7
Exactly Beth.
Posted by: Rusty at December 14, 2004 05:13 PM (JQjhA)
8
Rusty,
I think that's exactly what Jay was saying - the winner should not even have been on the list, should never have won because it's not a real blog nor is it done by a blogger under "Best of the Web." Either I'm mistaken but you both said the same thing, just differently.
I know, happens all the time. And Rusty, I did vote for you!!
Couldn't vote for you Jay because I couldn't find your name anywhere; maybe next year will be different and like the llamas, you'll have a partnership on a blog. (hint)
You're both great as far as I'm concerned.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 18, 2004 10:56 PM (D39Vm)
9
By the way, it's good to see you out and about, Jay.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 18, 2004 10:58 PM (D39Vm)
10
I agree Rusty but doubt that'll happen.
The TV calls us "pundits."
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 19, 2004 12:20 AM (D39Vm)
11
ok, I saw Michelle Malkin as a guest on FOX. They said she was a "syndicated columnest" not a blogger, so when it comes to blogging, she can't count.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 24, 2004 01:53 AM (D39Vm)
Victor Davis Hanson on Terrorism as Propaganda
John Hawkins has more of the best of VDH 2004. Here is a teaser.
"The improvised explosive device is a metaphor for our time. The killers cannot even make the artillery shells or the timers that detonate the bombs, but like parasites they use Western or Western-designed weaponry to harvest Westerners. They cannot blow up enough Abrams tanks or even Humvees to alter the battlefield landscape. But what they can accomplish is to maim or kill a few hundred Westerners in hopes that our own media will magnify the trauma and savagery of their attack — and do so often enough to make 300 million of us become exhausted with the entire "mess." The message of Arabic television is that the Iraqis are supposed to blame us, not their brethren who are killing them, for the carnage. Not our power, but our will, is the target."
Posted by: Rusty at
11:54 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You're right. But they can build those car bombs and IED's quite well but most of the time they are killing Iraqi's and what we hear from MSM and other sources is how bad it is. It is bad in some places but its not bad everywhere. You talk to soldiers there, who've been or are there now or on their second duty and everyone of them will tell you it's a lot different on the ground with the IRAQI people, who welcome us wholeheartedly. The soldiers constantly say this every chance they get despite how busy and brutal it can get in an area for others. It's not as bad as the MSM makes it out to be. Our will cannot be broken, first because we're American's, second, it would mean the terrorists win and that cannot be allowed by any means and our troops will stay there as long as is necessary. Just wish they'd stop killing those trained police officer's, Iraqi soldiers, et al by blowing up police stations, lines of Iraqi men signing up to be trained. It is time for the Iraqi's to stand up to the plate and end this terror and insurgency but that's hard when they are being killed and bombed before or after the fact. But even that can't stop the USA or other members of the coalition for trying and continuing to train or the Iraqi's signing up for training. They also need to protect their assets, their infrastructure, their oil lines because those oil lines is all they have to offer the world for trade in goods that they need and they need a lot. People all over this country not only have wonderful programs for our troops but their request is for goods for the children of Iraq.
There was a video recently of the Marines fighting the insurgents and they were in this newly built building pissed off because they were going to have to come back and fix it and all it's bullet holes. People in Fallujah will be coming back home sometime this week and now the mess is in Badhdad and Mosul. We keep pushing and bombing and killing, maybe some will only make it to the porous section of mountain where Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan meet. One can only hope but we can still never forget - and never forget our troops.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 18, 2004 11:26 PM (D39Vm)
Rockeffeller and Wyden to be Kicked Off Intelligence Committee??
If I'm reading between the lines correctly that is what's going on beyind the scenes now. A criminal investigation is also under way into the good Senators' offices over a leak about a secret spy satellite. (Hat tip: Ace)
Posted by: Rusty at
11:37 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.
Child Molester Ayatollah Khomeini Called 'Visionary'
Incredible. If Muslims in America support this sort of thing than we are in far more danger than even I, a self-proclaimed alarmist, could have imagined. This conference not only celebrates Ayattollah Khomeini but his vision of a world ruled by Sharia law. Notice that one of the keynote speakers will be a representative of C.A.I.R. This is frightening. (Hat tip: Charles Johnson)
Others: Michelle Malkin, Gary Cruse
Posted by: Rusty at
11:22 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Ya know, I'm way too close to this place for their comfort.
Maybe I'll go.
Posted by: Iggy at December 14, 2004 11:35 AM (1Z4Aq)
2
Dude, if you get a fatwa issued against you before I get one issued against me you're banned from the site!!!
Posted by: Rusty at December 14, 2004 11:39 AM (JQjhA)
3
Don't worry too much Rusty. If I go, they'll never even notice me there. (6'1", 215lbs, blonde hair, blue eyes, cowboy boots and wranglers.) Heh.
Posted by: Iggy at December 14, 2004 11:58 AM (1Z4Aq)
4
Too funny Rusty. Iggy, I'm sure there are lots of guys who would join you on this venture. But they are moving in, buying up property that should not even be considered on anyone's list and what they are going to do with that property or what they are going to be doing in that property and there's no question that it will be a good thing, so we also need to keep our eyes and ears open at all times and watch out for fencing around these properties. My inner self trembles at the thought and my outer self says NOTHING should be sold to them no matter what.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at December 18, 2004 11:39 PM (D39Vm)
5
bla
Posted by: dad at May 18, 2005 04:11 PM (aSJEk)
6
Hail Ala: You shall all Burn under the Cresnt Moon You infadels
Posted by: dad at May 18, 2005 04:13 PM (aSJEk)
Book by George Bush Banned in Egypt
It's true. Just a different George Bush. You want the truth? You can't handle the truth. Reuters:
The censors at al-Azhar, Cairo's center of Islamic learning, have recommended the government ban a 19th century biography of the Prophet Mohammad by a scholar portrayed in the Arabic media as an ancestor of President Bush.Hat tip: Robert SpencerAn al-Azhar official, who asked not to be named, said on Monday the ban applied to the original English version of The Life of Mohammad by the scholar George Bush, first published in 1830 and reissued in the United States in 2002.
He did not give a reason but press articles on an Arabic translation of the book have criticized its account of early Islamic history. They quote Bush as saying Muslims spread Islam by force and persecuted Christians, for example.
Posted by: Rusty at
11:13 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.
1
George Bush was right about everything in the book , and tht is what Muslim have for the world an ugly invasion by all wicked ways
Posted by: ++++++ at June 29, 2005 08:56 AM (sRcu9)
230kb generated in CPU 1.4548, elapsed 1.5614 seconds.
134 queries taking 1.4771 seconds, 476 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
134 queries taking 1.4771 seconds, 476 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
