Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

[dutchie]

Islam - the greatest threat to females in the world.

(And only a handful of females see it and call it out)

 

[luutzu]

They possibly have an idea how evil their religion is, they just don't want to admit it.

The Charlie Hebdo massacre was justified ?

Beside ISIS, how many Muslims do you know that justify that murder?

They all do, just don't want to admit it?

Get real man.


Weren't there an Islamic African French citizen one of the guy that help save the lives of a few Jewish shoppers when their Koser store was attacked? No, that guy isn't Muslim deep down?


I just told you that at least 4 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq died from "our" wars on their land. And you justify that with bs like, we're there to help them fight ISIS.

ISIS weren't even around when we first went in.

There is no evidence that the Taliban, horrible as they are, were involved in 9/11. Beside Bush Jr's words, were there evidence? Weren't the majority of the attackers Saudis?

Afghanistan, according to all international humanitarian organisations, was on the edge of starvation. Without some sort of foreign aid, mainly from Pakistan, the people starves and die.

What did we, the noblest imperial power in the world do? We order Pakistan to stop its aids; order humanitarian workers out of the country, and we bomb the living crap out of Afghanistan just as winter is about to hit.

But ey, it's for a good cause.

We better stop being stupid because at least with the Muslims in those countries, they don't have access to objective information and are seeing with their own eyes the kindness of Christian jets and drones. You maybe they can be forgiven for not liking all Christians and Westerners so much.

What's our excuse?

We're noble because our gov't says so? Because we obviously are so no matter what we do?

Seriously, 7 Muslim countries got their world torn upside down, by US.

There are tens of millions of refugees from those wars; the Arab states, ones that are much poorer and have nothing to do with causing these refugee crisis... they're the ones taking in most of the refugees.

That while we in the West tell the refugees to go fark themselves.

Then pat ourselves on the back at how noble we are; what great value we hold. How if only the stupid Muslims can learn to abandon their faith and become just like us.

What he heck is happening to this country?

 

[SirRumpole]

What he heck is happening to this country?

The international politics of Afghanistan is above my pay grade.

What I see in other countries is refugees pouring into European countries and trying to impose their ideologies on others. You can see it it Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and in Australia.

Muslims have their countries, we have ours. Just try expressing anti Islam rhetoric in Iran in the same way you are expressing your opinions here and see what happens to you.

Let Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran etc take in refugees. Iran has accepted not one Syrian refugee. How about having a go at them ?

The following table shows the number of refugees who were resettled in 2015 (assisted by UNHCR):

Country of resettlement Number of persons resettled
United States of America 52,583
Canada 10,236
Australia 5,211
Norway 2,220
Germany 2,097
Sweden 1,808
United Kingdom 1,768
Finland 964
New Zealand 756
France 700
All others 3,550
Grand total 81,893

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...s/rp/rp1617/RefugeeResettlement#_Toc461022112


The "all others" would obviously include all the Muslim countries in the world. Notice a lack of Muslim countries on that list ? A certain reluctance to help their brothers it would seem.

 

[Tisme]

What he heck is happening to this country?

Just the same wholesome Australian bigotry that made our country great. We've been doing it since 1886.

 

[SirRumpole]

Just the same wholesome Australian bigotry that made our country great. We've been doing it since 1886.

The most successful multi cultural nation in the world according to the "Lefties".

But this is a warning of what we could become.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...s/news-story/88ad5f306ba062e07d564f52d7a1c551

 

[luutzu]

The international politics of Afghanistan is above my pay grade.

What I see in other countries is refugees pouring into European countries and trying to impose their ideologies on others. You can see it it Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and in Australia.

Muslims have their countries, we have ours. Just try expressing anti Islam rhetoric in Iran in the same way you are expressing your opinions here and see what happens to you.

Let Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran etc take in refugees. Iran has accepted not one Syrian refugee. How about having a go at them ?

The following table shows the number of refugees who were resettled in 2015 (assisted by UNHCR):

Country of resettlement Number of persons resettled
United States of America 52,583
Canada 10,236
Australia 5,211
Norway 2,220
Germany 2,097
Sweden 1,808
United Kingdom 1,768
Finland 964
New Zealand 756
France 700
All others 3,550
Grand total 81,893

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...s/rp/rp1617/RefugeeResettlement#_Toc461022112


The "all others" would obviously include all the Muslim countries in the world. Notice a lack of Muslim countries on that list ? A certain reluctance to help their brothers it would seem.

Iran took in about 2 million Iraqi and Afghani refugees.

Jordan took in about a couple million; So did Lebanon; So did Syria before it was broken up, by ISIS.

So the "all others" do not obviously include the Muslim world.

Not counting Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan alone have some 6 million people displaced each. They move from one city to the next, just getting out of where the wars are at that moment.

---

And I am not expressing "anti-Western" rhetoric. I'm expressing anti-imperialism rhetoric.

Where do you think I got my news from? Islamic States or the Arabs? I got them from the few honest Western journalists and Western human rights organisations. And they're mostly "White" people to boot too.

We, the people, in the West have fought and won a great deal of civil rights; have become a much more generous and progressive place. These great things are not going to remain if we start to buy the kind of bs that we're being fed by our own gov't. I mean, we're the greatest, kindness, most awesomest civilisation in the world... yet we put spikes on places where our homeless could shelter; we make park benches impossible to lay down on, and we destroy cities and people then pat ourselves on the back for our kindness.

 

[luutzu]

Just the same wholesome Australian bigotry that made our country great. We've been doing it since 1886.

We got a whole lot nicer since the 1970s. But it's starting to go downhill a couple of decades after that and we're now accelerating.

Look at the headlines today in the US. Some 60 bomb threats against Jewish Synagogues; Jewish grave sites having their tombstones kick down.

It doesn't start and end with hatred and bigotry against Muslims and Mexicans.

 

[noco]

For what it is worth, here is a PM I had with the late Julia going back to 2007 explaining how I had been blocked twice for mentioning the the word "infiltration" of the Western World by Muslims to gain world domination.

Two of my posts were deleted......But looking back, how correct I have been proven to what has happened in just 10 years......I could not have used a truer word than 'INFILTRATION".


noco said:
Hello Julia, in reference to your request for examples of Muslims, I have tried to post a reply to you but the Moderator has deleted two of my posts for reasons of discrimination and the interpretation of the word 'infiltration'.

My message on the ASF was to explain to you that I had generalized on the past relevant to world domination. In that message I mentioned the word infiltration and his interpretation was different to mine. It still has not been resolved.
Hello Noco
Thanks for your message. I did in fact read one of your deleted posts before it was removed.

As GG says, freedom of speech has been thrown out the window.
I appreciate that you feel this way, but I think Joe has to be careful not to allow anything that appears to be inciting hate against any race/religion.
It's difficult for Joe. If he allows much in the way of anti-Muslim posts, he gets hate mail from the pro Muslim lobby, and of course vice versa.

As long as we're posting on a privately owned website, I think we have to respect the rules and opinions of the owner of the site, even though we don't always agree.

I don't think I can really make a valid opinion about the presence of Muslims in Australia in that I almost never see anyone in Muslim dress in Hervey Bay.
I might feel more uncomfortable in parts of the big cities.
But I'll never forget an instance several months ago when I was in the Woolworths carpark. A young Muslim woman, veiled but with her face showing, not a burka, was getting out of her car near me. As I looked at her, there was a pathetic cringing back into herself as though she had become accustomed to receiving unpleasant remarks or looks. I felt really sorry for her.

As white people you and I have never known how it feels to be discriminated against. It must be dreadful.

I - like most people - am deeply uncomfortable about radical Islam, the terrorists etc., but even then, we have to accept that had America not gone invading Muslim countries, they may well have confined their activities to their own kind. I don't know.

I wasn't able to watch your Utube video. My computer doesn't play Utube stuff properly.

Thanks for asking about Lucy. She's nearly nine months old now and still quite a handful in that she's hugely outgoing and friendly, wants to rush up to every dog she sees, so I'm constantly having to rein her in. That's largely typical puppy stuff, though, so when she's a bit older she will have a lovely temperament - happy, friendly and sociable.
She's doing well with her training, until she sees another dog!


We are going to be very very sick of the phrase "moving forward together" before this election campaign is over!

Cheers
Julia As my PM is just about full, I was about to delete from the bottom when I reread the above message from you back in July 2010.

My oh my.....how things have changed for the worse since then in respect to the Islamic movement.....but you must admit I have been right about the intentions of the Muslims about Islamic world domination.

The moderator has since let a lot through since then.

 

[Value Collector]

View attachment 70030
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...mage-gallery/ee8a4ef1032a9da5a37c87ecb7f34c5c

Stupid Multiculturalism.

Nice strawman, you might scare some of the crows.

 

[Value Collector]

Like their religion or not, Christianity is less subject to corruption than is Islam. The New Testament moderates the Old, there is no moderation in Islam. Muhammad became more violent as his religion caught on and the Islamists say that his later more violent writings represent the "true" Islam.

As I have said many times, but you fail to accept, Islam wants to be the government and have religious law be the law of the land. You can see this even in so called moderate Islamic countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. Islam is a creeping sickness and even parts of Britain want Sharia Law introduced as part of the law of the land. That will happen here if Islam is allowed to grow too large. The only way to stop it is to restrict the number of Muslim immigrants who are the carriers of the disease.

You look at individuals, I look at the bigger picture. Islam is like Nazism. It appeals to so called "downtrodden" people to rise up against their perceived foe. For the Nazis, the foe were the Jews and eventually everyone who was non Arayan. For Muslims the foe is now everyone who is non Muslim. They will work within the culture of the land while their numbers are small, but once they get big enough they will start demanding their own ways. You only need to look at how barbaric Islamic countries are to know what is in store for us if this disease takes over here.

You keep acting like Islam is one thing, there has been moderation, because we have moderate muslims, a lot of muslims don't accept the violent teachings, they just ignore those parts, just like a lot of christians now ignore the parts that hate on gays.

 

[SirRumpole]

You keep acting like Islam is one thing, there has been moderation, because we have moderate muslims, a lot of muslims don't accept the violent teachings, they just ignore those parts...

That's obviously good. However the hardliners see moderates as traitors to Islam and threaten violence against them, so the moderates are scared into becoming more hardline.

The moderates really are between a rock and a hard place and I genuinely feel sorry for them.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/isis-is-now-spewing-its-hatred-at-australian-muslim-leaders-2017-2

 

[Value Collector]

As explained in the original post, the nukes were unnecessary. It was not the nuke that forces Japan to surrender, it was Stalin and the Soviets coming East.

I don't accept that it was to impress/scare Stalin, I think 3 years of constant loss of American troops had taken its toll on the high command, it can't be easy making decisions that constantly see you lose thousands of your men.

The ability to end the war over night was an extremely appealing concept.

So dropping a couple of new sort of weapons to take out a city each isn't going to convince the warmongers in Tokyo that their people are dying so they better surrender.

Ummm, yes it did.

And even if all of those noble intent were all true, we cannot use the same line of reasoning to justify war and nuclear holocaust.

Let's take Beijing or Moscow... would it be "reasonable" for either of them to drop a nuke or two on anyone else's country? Could they do it for moral reason like they wanted to take over that country but decided it's a lot more humane, relatively, that their troops don't like and "only" one city, or two or three, of their victims need to die. The rest of the country will be in tact.

That's not an acceptable reason is it?

I think when the "Special Bombs" were first designed, the high command underestimated their power.

and I think today, we over estimate their power, the bombs dropped on Japan are no where near as powerful as those available today.

 

[Value Collector]

That's obviously good. However the hardliners see moderates as traitors to Islam and threaten violence against them,

Hence why I say we should do our duty to protect those fleeing from hardline religion, provide a safe place where they can practice their moderate beliefs, see us as the good guys and over generations become more and more moderate, perhaps even atheist.

Treating the moderates badly, is far more likely to push them towards the hardliners, which is the plan of ISIS all along.

 

[SirRumpole]

Hence why I say we should do our duty to protect those fleeing from hardline religion, provide a safe place where they can practice their moderate beliefs, see us as the good guys and over generations become more and more moderate, perhaps even atheist.

Pie in the sky. You don't dilute a religion by making it stronger. The greater the proportion of any group in society the more powerful they feel and the more likely they are to want to exert influence. The Jews have been doing the same thing for decades as has the Catholic church and Muslims are no different.

Treating the moderates badly, is far more likely to push them towards the hardliners, which is the plan of ISIS all along.

I never suggested treating moderates badly. I said we should be nice to the ones already here, but that doesn't mean an open ended invitation to anyone calling themselves refugees. Terrorists have called themselves refugees and we have only found out later what they really are.

 

[Value Collector]

Pie in the sky. You don't dilute a religion by making it stronger. The greater the proportion of any group in society the more powerful they feel and the more likely they are to want to exert influence. The Jews have been doing the same thing for decades as has the Catholic church and Muslims are no different.



I never suggested treating moderates badly. I said we should be nice to the ones already here, but that doesn't mean an open ended invitation to anyone calling themselves refugees. Terrorists have called themselves refugees and we have only found out later what they really are.

How is accepting refugees that are fleeing extremists making a religion stronger.

Banning the Burqa, Banning Halal, banning Mosques, threatening to reject refugees based on their religion, these are all things Australians are suggesting doing which a moderate would see as treating them badly.

 

[luutzu]

I don't accept that it was to impress/scare Stalin, I think 3 years of constant loss of American troops had taken its toll on the high command, it can't be easy making decisions that constantly see you lose thousands of your men.

The ability to end the war over night was an extremely appealing concept.



Ummm, yes it did.



I think when the "Special Bombs" were first designed, the high command underestimated their power.

and I think today, we over estimate their power, the bombs dropped on Japan are no where near as powerful as those available today.

That's what we're told to believe.

It sounds nice and heroic that our noble military and civilian leadership take the hard and difficult road so that both their troops and innocent civilians of the enemy could survive - all except some 200,000 civilians who will have to be sacrificed because.... can't bring peace without wiping out a couple of cities right?


Trust me, I've heard this from at least two different sources. That it was not the nukes that convinces the Japs to surrender. It was Stalin and the Soviet entry into Japanese territories that force them to.

Here's some timeline, see if it's just a coincident:

On August 6, 1945, the U.S. Army Air Forces detonated a uranium gun-type fission bomb nicknamed "Little Boy" over the Japanese city of Hiroshima; three days later, on August 9, the U.S. Army Air Forces detonated a plutonium implosion-type fission bomb codenamed "Fat Man" over the Japanese city of Nagasaki.
-- WikiPedia

Imperial Japan surrender soon after the second bomb of August 9th, yes?


Here's when the Soviets officially fight Japan:
The Soviet-Japanese War of 1945 .... began on August 9, 1945, with the Soviet invasion of the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo
-- Wikipedia

----------------------------

The Allied have pretty much destroy many, many, Japanese cities - killing the equivalent number of civilians in each one of them. So whether they do it with a nice clean nuke or a bunch of firebombs, it does not matter to Japan's high command.

Remember how Hitler would rather all of Berlin be razed to the ground, buying himself a few more days on Earth, rather than having it surrender and maybe kept some part of it unscathed... maybe spare a few German lives.

They weren't the only crazies back then. So Japan's wouldn't give up because they're worried about a city or two being wiped out anyway.


When Stalin came knocking, they then see that in order to keep historic Japan intact - to one day fight back or whatever - it'd be better to surrender to one side rather than both.

To the victor go the spoils of war. You'd want only one victor rather than two and see your country split into two, potentially never being able to be put back together again.

That and I'm guessing that the Yanks promise to not hang the Emperor. We all know what the Soviet did to the Czars.

-----------

Anyway, I think that the only time when it could, maybe, be justified to use nuke is when you see the enemy has just fired their nuke and it's definitely coming towards your city.

To have already had your enemy in a noose and then decides you'd rather end it quickly with two load, killing every single thing in each of the city it's dropped on.

Practicality is not a moral defense against indiscriminate murder man.

And it's not a practical thing now either... not, as you say, when a modern thermal or hydrogen nuke can reduce most major cities to nothing.

I mean, we strike them, they strike back... nuclear winter and it's game over for the human species.

 

[Value Collector]

That's what we're told to believe.

It sounds nice and heroic that our noble military and civilian leadership take the hard and difficult road so that both their troops and innocent civilians of the enemy could survive - all except some 200,000 civilians who will have to be sacrificed because.... can't bring peace without wiping out a couple of cities right?


.

It was estimated that between 250,000 and 500,000 more soldiers would die before the war ended, if you were an American soldier, and new the war could end in a week, what would you want?

Trust me, I've heard this from at least two different sources. That it was not the nukes that convinces the Japs to surrender. It was Stalin and the Soviet entry into Japanese territories that force them to.

So you think it was random chance that the Japanese held meetings to discuss Surrender within hours of the second bomb dropping?

 

[luutzu]

It was estimated that between 250,000 and 500,000 more soldiers would die before the war ended, if you were an American soldier, and new the war could end in a week, what would you want?



So you think it was random chance that the Japanese held meetings to discuss Surrender within hours of the second bomb dropping?

Man, that's what propaganda is for.

Think about it, why must any more American soldiers have to die after the Americans have reach Japan's homeland [say, Okinawa].

The only possible reason that they would have to die would be the US fighting Japan street by street, house by house. True?

Why would the US need to do that?

Japan is a series of islands. It was completely surrounded. No food, no supplies, no fuel, no ammunition, nothing goes in or out of Japan by this time.

I think it's safe to say that Japan has pretty much fallen.

You do not need to commit any more American troops to any more battle with Japan. Just wait and it'll collapse on itself.

But of course they can't tell you that. The world have to know that if the nukes were not drop, 250k or 500k American, plus Japanese, lives will have to be lost. So the lesser of two evil, right?


Can't be sure but I think the American Historian, Howard Zinn, said what I've been repeating from him saying. He was in the US airforce I think. European theatre. This was during his discussion of three American "Holy" wars - i.e. wars the yank would not even argue about how right and noble it was.

----------

The second bomb drop on the same day the Soviet attacked Manchuria right?

I think reason would suggest that the possible Soviet takeover play a major role, if not the only, in Imperial Japan's decision to finally call it quits.

Japan's cities have been bombarded all those months, to burn down a couple more isn't going to change its high command's mind.

I mean, they haven't surrendered when dozens of their cities have been razed, why now? Because nuclear does a faster job?

It's more the case that a burnt city can be rebuilt; but a dead Royal family will end Japan's histories. That and having a united historic homeland could one day unified Japan's nationalism and reclaim its independence. To have it split will seriously weaken and destroy that possibility forever.

 

[Value Collector]

Man, that's what propaganda is for.

Think about it, why must any more American soldiers have to die after the Americans have reach Japan's homeland [say, Okinawa].

The only possible reason that they would have to die would be the US fighting Japan street by street, house by house. True?

Why would the US need to do that?

Japan is a series of islands. It was completely surrounded. No food, no supplies, no fuel, no ammunition, nothing goes in or out of Japan by this time.

I think it's safe to say that Japan has pretty much fallen.

You do not need to commit any more American troops to any more battle with Japan. Just wait and it'll collapse on itself.

But of course they can't tell you that. The world have to know that if the nukes were not drop, 250k or 500k American, plus Japanese, lives will have to be lost. So the lesser of two evil, right?


Can't be sure but I think the American Historian, Howard Zinn, said what I've been repeating from him saying. He was in the US airforce I think. European theatre. This was during his discussion of three American "Holy" wars - i.e. wars the yank would not even argue about how right and noble it was.

----------

The second bomb drop on the same day the Soviet attacked Manchuria right?

I think reason would suggest that the possible Soviet takeover play a major role, if not the only, in Imperial Japan's decision to finally call it quits.

Japan's cities have been bombarded all those months, to burn down a couple more isn't going to change its high command's mind.

I mean, they haven't surrendered when dozens of their cities have been razed, why now? Because nuclear does a faster job?

It's more the case that a burnt city can be rebuilt; but a dead Royal family will end Japan's histories. That and having a united historic homeland could one day unified Japan's nationalism and reclaim its independence. To have it split will seriously weaken and destroy that possibility forever.

Ok so you think the Japanese surrender had nothing to do with a second Japanese city being destroyed by a nuclear weapon with the threat the third one would drop on Tokyo, but instead then surrendered because the Russians invaded a city thousands of kilometres away on e mainland?

I think you are streaching there.

I don't think you can say that Japan would have eventually surrendered in a bloodless victory, you are streaching there also.

I can't see the USA needing any further reason for them to decide to drop the nuke than not wanting to lose anymore troops than they already had in 3 years of fighting in Europe and the pacific.

When given the option to use this "special bomb" of course the high command would use it, I mean they had been attacking full force for so long already, adding some extra gasoline to the fire wouldn't have seemed to bad

 

[SirRumpole]

I can't see the USA needing any further reason for them to decide to drop the nuke than not wanting to lose anymore troops than they already had in 3 years of fighting in Europe and the pacific.

Bombing civilians is a war crime isn't it ?