Clear and Understood

[It's Snake Pliskin]

From the following article it is clear what the intent of Islamic fundamentalism is. These fools are getting weirder everyday.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21948708-5006003,00.html

Religious Affairs Minister Mohammad Ejaz-ul-Haq, son of the late military president Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq, told the assembly that if someone committed a suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammad, his act was justified.

 

[Sean K]

From the following article it is clear what the intent of Islamic fundamentalism is. These fools are getting weirder everyday.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21948708-5006003,00.html

That is justified of course, as is death to Rushdi for writing something that made the Prophet look uncool.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

That is justified of course, as is death to Rushdi for writing something that made the Prophet look uncool.

Do you support their stance on this Kennas? The death of Rushdie? Suicide bombing?

 

[tybutler]

I think Kennas was being sarcastic. Issuing a death warrant for merely writing (truthfully or not) about a religion is definitely uncool.

 

[Sean K]

Do you support their stance on this Kennas? The death of Rushdie? Suicide bombing?

Of course!!!!! It's the future of human morals. The only way we can have some justice, and live in peace and harmony. I want peoples hands cut off for stealing too! And, I would have loved to have been able to say, 'I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you', to get rid of my 1st wife. Is that clear enough?

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Of course!!!!! It's the future of human morals. The only way we can have some justice, and live in peace and harmony. I want peoples hands cut off for stealing too! And, I would have loved to have been able to say, 'I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you', to get rid of my 1st wife. Is that clear enough?

Judging by the photos on your blog I totally disagree with your comments Kennas.

 

[new girl]

Of course!!!!! It's the future of human morals. The only way we can have some justice, and live in peace and harmony. I want peoples hands cut off for stealing too! And, I would have loved to have been able to say, 'I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you', to get rid of my 1st wife. Is that clear enough?

Sean,

If you say I divorce you once, then you can have your wife back, no questions asked.

However, if you say it three times then she has to marry another man and of course divorce him in order for you to have her back. This was done to teach men a lesson!! Stuff the woman and the kids for that matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Stan 101]

Do you support their stance on this Kennas? The death of Rushdie? Suicide bombing?

It's no different to the innocent Iraq folk who have been caught up in the "coalitition of the willing." It's just that the innocent Iraq folk weren't the main target. The result is still the same. The US, UK and Australians, amongst others, considered a certain number of Iraq nationals' deaths to be acceptable before chasing their weapons of non existance.
It's all death by slaughter. Does it really matter how one dresses it?


To answer the quoted question, though.
No I don't agree. Nor do I agrre that any death is acceptable. It is all deplorable. Don't forget sick extremeist christians have been killing people since it's inception. Hell, our monarch was still killing innocent peasants up until several generations ago...You have hit the nail on the head of this whole shamozzle without realising it, Snake.
Westerners don't like muslim followers because muslims dress, eat and embrace culture differently to us. Muslims believe we are polluting the earth with evil; and damn it, they have a fair point, to an extent. When we take into account the deviant quotient of any population, there will be nutbags, lunitics, and mentally unstable people.

Why is western religion right and eastern wrong? What if we are all infidels and we aren't the cowboys in white? Personally I think we a all part of a sick bastardized, selfish race. You only need look in a playground at children playing and study their actions to others for a short time to see that.

I wonder what the cubans thought of Kennedy after the US cocked up the assasination of their leader all those years ago?
What about the last on the New Guinea tribes who have had their culture stolen and had western religion forced down their throat?


and on and on...

It's not at stab at anyone, just a reply..

cheers,

 

[disarray]

It's no different to the innocent Iraq folk who have been caught up in the "coalitition of the willing." It's just that the innocent Iraq folk weren't the main target. The result is still the same. The US, UK and Australians, amongst others, considered a certain number of Iraq nationals' deaths to be acceptable before chasing their weapons of non existance.
It's all death by slaughter. Does it really matter how one dresses it?

don't be a muppet. by far the largest amount of innocent iraqi deaths have been at the hands of fellow muslims. while some iraqis have been killed during the occupation by the coalition, the bulk have been murdered by fellow muslim arabs.

and weapons of mass destruction DO exist, they are currently in syria. the coalition knew they existed because the coalition sold them to saddam and they were used against kurds in the north and shia arabs in the south.

islam needs a reformation and fundamentalists need a good kick up the ass (which they are getting to some extent - mujahadeen are butchered in record numbers, no great loss)

 

[wayneL]

don't be a muppet. by far the largest amount of innocent iraqi deaths have been at the hands of fellow muslims. while some iraqis have been killed during the occupation by the coalition, the bulk have been murdered by fellow muslim arabs.

Sources please.

and weapons of mass destruction DO exist, they are currently in syria. the coalition knew they existed because the coalition sold them to saddam and they were used against kurds in the north and shia arabs in the south.

Better invade all countries with WMD then.... ooops no oil.... ooops is US.

islam needs a reformation and fundamentalists need a good kick up the ass (which they are getting to some extent - mujahadeen are butchered in record numbers, no great loss)

Fundamentalist everything needs a kick up the ****. Unfortunately because of our cognitive biases, we only see the transgressions of others. And that includes terrorism, we don't see our own.

 

[rederob]

don't be a muppet. by far the largest amount of innocent iraqi deaths have been at the hands of fellow muslims. while some iraqis have been killed during the occupation by the coalition, the bulk have been murdered by fellow muslim arabs.

Oddly enough the majority of innocent deaths of civilians in the USA are by Christians.
Don't you just hate those Christians!

 

[Stan 101]

mujahadeen are butchered in record numbers, no great loss)

No great loss? so you are saying it's okay for some humans to kills other humans that you don't happen to like? Thanks for backing up my point.

I certainly cannot condone the actions of people who are in guerrila type warfare in Iraq. I can certainly understand why they are doing it.
Would we have laid down our arms and accepted being taken over if the Japanese had managed to infiltrate our shores back in WW2? I think not.
Take a walk through the Shogun museum in Japan to get a perspective on why they actually entered WW2. It's actually quite interesting.




cheers,

 

[2020hindsight]

...
1. and weapons of mass destruction DO exist, they are currently in syria.
2. the coalition knew they existed because the coalition sold them to saddam and they were used against kurds in the north and shia arabs in the south.
3. mujahadeen are butchered in record numbers, no great loss

disarray
1. be interested in your source for that claim
2. sure we knew they had them - we still have the receipts
3. gotta try to be more accurate with your generalisations there. AQ ("the database") are the problem - - a new religion which is quite happy to kill anyone anywhere -

probably these days AQ is synonymous with Taliban - but there are pro-Taliban and anti-Taliban mujahideen

Incidentally ??? I thought you said elsewhere that AQ were little more that a trumped up scare campaign ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambo_III
The film depicts Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) on a mission to Afghanistan. Colonel Trautman (Richard Crenna) has been captured while trying to supply weapons to the anti-Soviet Afghan Mujahideen, .. With the help of the Mujahideen, Rambo is able to rescue Trautman and eliminate the homicidal Soviet commander of that region. Ironically, Soviet troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan ten days before the film was released (starting in May 15, 1988).
Trivia
• The film depicts the CIA-supported mujahideen resistance to Soviet occupation in a heroic light, as it was viewed in the 1980s. In an example of blowback, the mujahideen movement formed the basis for al-Qaeda, as many battle-hardened veterans of Afghanistan joined the jihadist ranks, most famously Osama bin Laden. The mujahideen movement later split into Taliban and anti-Taliban movements, forming the two sides in Afghanistan's civil war.
• At the end of the movie the words "This film is dedicated to the gallant people of Afghanistan" can be seen.

as I said above, maybe you should stop generalising there disarray
and any evidence you've got of syria having Iraq's old WDM's, I'm sure Hans Blix would be interested to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix Iraq disarmament crisis (2002-2003)
During the Iraq disarmament crisis before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Blix was called back from retirement by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to lead United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in charge of monitoring Iraq. Kofi Annan originally recommended Rolf Ekéus, who worked with UNSCOM in the past, but both Russia and France vetoed his appointment. Hans Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games [4] and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission [5].

In his report to the UN Security Council on February 14, 2003, Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament -- under resolution 687 -- could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided." [6]

Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the Bush administration, [7] and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Newt Gingrich stated that approving Hans Blix as chief U.N. weapons inspector was one of the biggest mistakes ever made.

In an interview with London's Guardian newspaper, Hans Blix said, "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media" [8].

In 2004, Blix published a book, Disarming Iraq, where he gives his account of the events and inspections before the coalition began its invasion. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found.

lol, a Swedish diplomat, and still quite happy to refer to 'detractors in Washington' and "bastards" if not in the same sentence, in the same paragraph - do you suspect maybe he figured he'd been verballed ?

 

[disarray]

No I don't agree. Nor do I agrre that any death is acceptable. It is all deplorable.

agreed

Don't forget sick extremeist christians have been killing people since it's inception. Hell, our monarch was still killing innocent peasants up until several generations ago

this is the kind of thing people always go on about out when topics such as these are raised. instead of confronting a current problem they play the relativism game to shift focus (and blame) from the source of criticism. the way people keep pulling up the crusades, the inquisition or whatever is pointless because our society now bears almost no resemblance to the society at that time.

we (as in westerners) are now a secular, modern, democratic, 21st century, multicultural, technologically advanced, highly educated, and extremely healthy global civilisation. we are NOTHING like we were 50 years ago, let alone 300+. so instantly turning straight to the western past that bears little relevance to today, to excuse or place blame for the middle eastern present, is weak.

Westerners don't like muslim followers because muslims dress, eat and embrace culture differently to us.

rubbish. westerners don't like muslims because many muslims make a big song and dance about exclusion. instead of settling down and building the society like other immigrants, many muslims think they are super awesome and special and we should all bend over backwards to accomodate them. this pisses people off because, to be honest, we don't care what they do, as long as they just shut the fk up and get back to work like everyone else.

hundreds of cultures have set up shop in australia and we've had almost no problems all things considered. they all dress, eat and embrace culture differently to us but thats not a problem. but this time somehow its everyone else that is in the wrong because no one could ever be pissed off at the super awesome muslims could they?

Muslims believe we are polluting the earth with evil; and damn it, they have a fair point, to an extent. When we take into account the deviant quotient of any population, there will be nutbags, lunitics, and mentally unstable people.

thats got nothing to do with race, religion or culture. that is a defect at the species level.

Personally I think we a all part of a sick bastardized, selfish race.

whats with the racial self-loathing? i think an edit might be more accurate. how about ...

Personally I think we a all part of a sick bastardized, selfish species

how about that? then that can slot in nicely with your following sentence about childhood behaviour and all.

What about the last on the New Guinea tribes who have had their culture stolen and had western religion forced down their throat?

and how they had to give up cannibalism. and come to terms with the fact that the world was bigger than just their surrounding area, and that there were in fact billions of other people on the planet, some of whom would like to come and dig up their dirt. in exchange for this they would give them money which they could exchange for things like a healthy diet, reasonable life expectancy, education and modern medicine. and they wouldn't have to sell their daughters for pigs any more. how terrible for them

Sources please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Iraq

A 2006 study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimated that more than 601,000 Iraqis have died in this violence and that fewer than one third of these deaths came at the hands of Coalition forces

and of course thats just the reported violence.

i also found http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ but its message is rubbish because they say ...

This is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion

... because the coalition is responsible for a bunch of sunnis blowing up a bus full of shia civilians

Better invade all countries with WMD then.... ooops no oil.... ooops is US.

uh yeah. i've said repeatedly that iraq was about oil and the euro / $US.

Fundamentalist everything needs a kick up the ****. Unfortunately because of our cognitive biases, we only see the transgressions of others. And that includes terrorism, we don't see our own

dude thats wrong. i will happily sit here and criticise american foreign policy, the howard government or the hillsong church. the level of critical attention we place upon ourselves is vast. with the massive amounts of communication we generate nearly everything we do is recorded, displayed and criticised. people with eyes see very clearly the utter greed that is driving the american occupation of iraq.

social and political commentators attack everything they don't agree with, and this is the sign of a healthy society with a respectable level of free speech. our transgressions and terrorisms are broadcast 24/7 on the media of your choice to read if you wish. open and honest racial discussion is taboo though.

Oddly enough the majority of innocent deaths of civilians in the USA are by Christians.
Don't you just hate those Christians!

dude we aren't talking about christians. we aren't talking about america. we are talking about iraq.

ps. the majority of "innocent" deaths of civilians are among blacks. it's common among family and friends too.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

No great loss? so you are saying it's okay for some humans to kills other humans that you don't happen to like? Thanks for backing up my point.

i'm saying its no great loss that extremist muslims, who travelled to iraq SPECIFICALLY to to attack coalition forces and blow up civilians, are being killed in record numbers by the coalition. if christians were rampaging around blowing things up and murdering tens of thousands of civilians then i wouldn't care if they got killed either.

I certainly cannot condone the actions of people who are in guerrila type warfare in Iraq. I can certainly understand why they are doing it.

no you can't. you are completely missing the point. this is not some noble struggle for self-determination. this is not a spirited people rising up against a tyrannical oppressor to throw off the shackles of bondage and sup on the milk of their rightful native land. it's a bunch of fanatical muslims from the sunni and shia sides fighting to see who gets to enforce their own psycho brand of islam on the shattered remains of the civilian population.

there are foreign sunni fighters coming in from the west at the behest of al-quada to blow up the coalition and shias, and foreign shia fighters coming in from the east at the behest of iran to blow up the coalition and sunnis. this has become a big secular mess with the coalition desperately trying to keep the lid on (by pouring in more troops) so they can hold on to their precious precious oil.

america botched iraq. HUGELY. i find it hard to conceive a way they could possibly fark up the occupation of iraq more than they did, but they managed it. from the outset it was very clear - iraq is 3 main faction made up of tribes that was kept in place through the iron fist of saddam. america came in for the oil and tried to impose some totally alien, unworkable framework on the situation. it was clear at the outset but they are just so avaricious it makes them stupid.

be interested in your source for that claim

evening hindsight. dude its everywhere, just google "iraq mwd syria". you'll find various news articles and a few lefty sites all offering conflicting opinions. go form yours.

I thought you said elsewhere that AQ were little more that a trumped up scare campaign

no i said AQ weren't a major threat to us in the west because they lack force projection and sophistication. they can cause headaches in the middle eastern though.

as for that whole generalising / rambo thing, mujahadeen isn't just afghani. mujahadeen is arabic for someone fighting / in a struggle. all muslim fighters are mujahadeen.

 

[Stan 101]

no you can't. you are completely missing the point.

Your hubris is astonishing. That's a bold statement considering you have no idea of life, my nationality, my beliefs ancestry.
T'was interesting reading your point of view, though..

 

[nizar]

Here we go again

 

[rederob]

dude we aren't talking about christians. we aren't talking about america. we are talking about iraq.

ps. the majority of "innocent" deaths of civilians are among blacks. it's common among family and friends too.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Well.
"I" am part of "we".
And I was talking about the US, and making the point that most people there are of the Christaian faith, and they kill other US citizens who are predominantly also Christians.
Just as in Iraq it is difficult to find too many Iraquis that are not moslem. So moslems are killing moslems in Iraq: What a surprise!
Mind you, the number of US solders in Iraq that have killed civilians is a bit frightening.
And then we have NATO peacekeepers in Afghanistan that have killed 240 civilians so far this year - sample http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6762549.stm

On the issue of US homicides, whites comprise 51% of the victims.
So disarray is in disarray with his figures, yet again.

 

[2020hindsight]

not sure what "clear and understood" means / is supposed to mean lol - but since everyone here ( I assume) accepts that the Iraq War was totally unproductive with respect to bolstering the numbers of AQ/ Taliban / "muja of the hostile variety as against those fighting on our side"

then to talk of Iraq in terms of "killing a few of 'them', so what" is strange logic indeed, because masses of US soldiers are dying as well.

Anyone who says "killing a few of 'them', so what"
should be asked to come up with an answer
a) to tell the mother of a GI or Aus soldier who died over there
what he was fighting for, and hence what he died for, and
b) to help the govt explain the fact that the enemy numbers swell with every one of 'them' that is killed

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

All generalised rubbish devoid of intelligent reason and thought.

Why do you confuse skin colour, race and ideology? Read the article.

 

[wayneL]

dude thats wrong. i will happily sit here and criticise american foreign policy, the howard government or the hillsong church. the level of critical attention we place upon ourselves is vast. with the massive amounts of communication we generate nearly everything we do is recorded, displayed and criticised. people with eyes see very clearly the utter greed that is driving the american occupation of iraq.

social and political commentators attack everything they don't agree with, and this is the sign of a healthy society with a respectable level of free speech. our transgressions and terrorisms are broadcast 24/7 on the media of your choice to read if you wish. open and honest racial discussion is taboo though.

Dude,

Dude is one of those annoying Americanisms plaguing Australian English; but I digress:

Certainly there are those who are inward looking in our culture. But those cognitive biases I mentioned are real. Scarcely anyone in our culture considers the actions of the western military as terrorism. But by any objective examination, many of the military misadventures of the west could only be termed terrorist. (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, for a start, plus hundreds of covert operations around the world, right up to "shock and awe")

Shock and Awe; that's a good one. In other words, we are going to terrorize Iraq.

Were the Free French terrorists? Of course they were. However our conitive biases don't recognize it. I'm not saying they weren't justified, but by logical extrapolation.... well, you figure it out.

open and honest racial discussion is taboo though.

Because discussions on race are a nonsense and not rooted in scientific fact. Supposed biological differences in race have long since been discredited, so to remove every trace of any cultural considerations would reveal that humans are all essentially the same.

Hence discrimination based on race is clearly nothing more than bigotry and/or xenophobia and has no place in an enlightened society. Unfortunately, not all members of enlightened society are in fact enlightened, and so persist with discredited notions to further some other agenda.

The presumption of the bigot is that there own race/culture/nation is inherently superior; another cognitive bias.