“It treats issues differently from one instance to another. This huge inconsistency can make Muslims confused. Based on this confusion, many Muslims have for centuries excluded non-Muslims from their orbit. In addition, the traditional script of the Qur’an exhorts repulsion of ‘others’ much more than acceptance. Many Muslims are unwilling to realise that the Qur’an was written and compiled by the pioneers of Islam through different political stages. Instead, many take the book as the final verdict of God. These Qur’anic teachings have been enforced by Sharia even more strictly than the Qur’an itself over the centuries. Now, for many, the whole essence of Islam is repulsion of others.”
“Today the spokespersons of Islam are ignoring fundamental realities in a fake attempt to show global harmony. They are trying to show Islam as a religion of peace. They blame the foreign policies of Britain and the USA for every misery in the Muslim world. Left-leaning groups across the world are allying themselves with Muslim fundamentalists because of a common hatred of the USA. So many leftwing academics are facilitating the denial and conspiracy theories of Muslims. Interestingly, we, as Muslims, have been accusing others of denying the ultimate ‘truth’ of Islam, hence calling them infidels. Actually, many of us are now in denial as to the religious roots of terrorism. According to our own definition of infidel, we can be viewed as being infidels. Without acknowledging the sin of denial, we can’t rectify our misdeeds. That’s the reason I have proposed the New Islam project, to encourage that realisation.”
An Interview with Tahir Aslam Gora..
Related: “The Term ‘Moderate Islam’ Is Ugly And Offensive; There Is No Moderate Islam”
Closer to home, an update on the Toronto letter bomber: “Bunch of guys named Mohammed say guy whose middle name is Mohammed seemed unstable.”
Self loathing and other socially retarded individuals of his kind, have the courage of their convictions..
They have never had to make the hard choices in life, ever experienced a different reality than the one they were sold in university, or in an underground Marxist newsletter..
They are thoroughly convinced of their opinions, which in real life do not stand up to scrutiny, and regurgitate dogma as fact and gleefully think they win the debate…they are blinded by an incestuous ideology that has blinkered them, and turned their critical thinking brain off.
My wish is for them to see the real world, not the idealized fantasy land so attractive, so comfortable, so unattainable…
The reality is that people like the leftists here, are truly damaged people who are dangerous in their thought and actions, because they are irrational and ignorant.
That you are tolerated in society says much about your opposites and their willingness to put up with ignorance and dysfunctional minds.
You argue for the sake of arguement with people (especially here at SDA..) who are for the most part, educated professionals with real world experience, yet you denigrate these people and interject with pure nonsense and leftist talking points.You are seriously deluded if you think that your ideas hold up to scrutiny in the cold light of day.
“You argue for the sake of arguement with people (especially here at SDA..) who are for the most part, educated professionals with real world experience, yet you denigrate these people and interject with pure nonsense and leftist talking points.You are seriously deluded if you think that your ideas hold up to scrutiny in the cold light of day.”
Actually, I am an educated professional. I am an engineer working in project management in the private sector. I have not been in University for several years, own my own property, car, am active in my community.
I have friends of all different ethnic backgrounds, religions, and yes, political persuasions. I have been fortunate enough to travel to Europe and South America in my life. I dare say, that I have seen more of the world than any of you.
The fact that you regard me as crazy, is due to the fact, that this forum is merely a holding cell for angry, deluded, petty little children to vent their frustrations about the world.
The reason I argue, is because watching you act irrationally brings great amusement to me. In 30 years, when Europe is still white, and the great Muslim conspiracy has faded away, most of you won’t even admit to having the opinions you do right now. And your little space, will be remembered in passing by rational people when they tell their children, about the racism and xenophobia that took grip, if only briefly, after 9/11.
“Wow, you must not be taking in the same papers and newscasts as the rest of us. I never saw anything that was more “positive” than relative neutrality; everything else was focused on negatives (cost, fatalities, “blowback”, etc) and criticism”
It sounds like the newspapers you were reading were all ended up being correct in their predictions.
The ones I read all repeated George Bush’s talking points about nuclear weapons, and what a great threat to the world Iraq was.
Incidentally, what should the papers have said? What would have been responsible journalism, according to the poor, beleagured SDAers? Questioning the President? Challenging the assumption that the US has a right to attack any country it wants?
The ones I read all repeated George Bush’s talking points about nuclear weapons, and what a great threat to the world Iraq was.
What were you reading, tertiary-market US papers? I never saw anything like what you speak of.
Incidentally, what should the papers have said? What would have been responsible journalism, according to the poor, beleagured SDAers? Questioning the President? Challenging the assumption that the US has a right to attack any country it wants?
Well, for a start, how about straight reporting and contextualizing of the news, with editorialism saved for the editorial page?
I am an educated professional. I am an engineer working in project management in the private sector.
So, you work for an NGO, eh? Or a firm with a lot of CIDA contracts – Cowater, perhaps?
What were you reading, tertiary-market US papers? I never saw anything like what you speak of.
Or rather, sure, they would repeat this as it was news – are you saying that major policy statements from the POTUS are not news? What I mean was I didn’t see any of the rah-rah-ism you initially referred to.
“Well, for a start, how about straight reporting and contextualizing of the news, with editorialism saved for the editorial page?”
Can you give examples of media that did not do this? Even Fox News leaves it’s editorializing and news separate. Maybe the news isn’t what you want to hear (Iraq going to hell, Muslims denouncing terrorists, etc.). I guess anything you disagree with is editorializing.
“So, you work for an NGO, eh? Or a firm with a lot of CIDA contracts – Cowater, perhaps?”
No, I do not work for a NGO. I work in the private sector, the free-market, product development, sell or die. I face customers, write requirements, do design reviews, have traveled the world on business.
“What I mean was I didn’t see any of the rah-rah-ism you initially referred to.”
Try Fox News. I hear they are pretty big, or something. Wall Street Journal editorial page.
One quick comment:
Saying that Iraq shouldn’t be invaded because it won’t work is a tactical judgement, not a moral judgement. If Hitler had said, we won’t invade Russia because we’ll loose, that does not make him a hippie pacifist any more than it makes news paper columnist hippie pacifists. Offering tactical criticism, is not the same as criticizing the moral framework that justifies the invasions in the first place.
All the yeas and nays about the U.S. going to Iraq have been dealt with, in detail, in other posts on this blog and in other blogs. SLM doesn’t feel like doing the research(after all, research is for fascists . . . he just KNOWS the truth).
But Ok, here goes. Quick summary off the top of my head:
*Saddam tried to kill a former U.S. president, and Clinton bombed him for it (attempted assassination is an act of war in most nations’ books).
*Clinton bombed Saddam a few more times, to distract people from Monica and to chastise him for failing to comply with UN regulations.
*Clinton, Gore, John Kerry, Pelosi, and many other beloved-by-leftists Democrats droned on and on and on about Saddam’s dangerous WMDs. Quotes are readily available.
*Clinton planned out a whole regime-change plan for Iraq, in 1996 I believe, but I could be wrong on the year. Kept it on file in case of need. 9/11 supplied that need, but considering the vitriol directed at Bush, he should have been a Democrat before he applied the Democrats’ plan.
*Saddam was linked to the first World Trade Centre Bombing, which is why it seemed so logical to link him to the actual destruction of the WTC.
*Saddam was freaking out his neighbours — remember the Saudis were quite happy to let U.S. forces stay on their soil to protect them from him. Bush Sr. should have finished taking him out when all the world was on the U.S. side — it was up to Jr. to finish the job now that it was far messier and harder.
*There were WMDs in Iraq that Saddam was forbidden to have according to the UN — stockpiles of various chemicals and some long-range missiles. A commander of Saddam’s airforce admitted that many of these forbidden weapons had been flown to Syria just before the U.S. came to Iraq. The NYTimes berated Bush because there were no WMDs, and then, to help kibosh the 2004 election for him, also berated him for allowing a warehouse of WMDs to be stolen right out from under the Marines’ noses shortly after U.S. entered Iraq. So, were there WMDs or weren’t there? (also, if Bush is so evil, why didn’t he just plant the evidence after the invasion?)
*Saddam brutally gassed the Kurds. Yes, yes, we know all about the U.S. and Britian supplying the weapons so he could use them against Iran . . . is a previously gone-awry mistaken foreign policy supposed to stop the U.S. from ever stopping this monster? The Kurds deserved to have the promise fulfilled to them, made by Bush Sr. and finally delivered by Jr.
*Saddam was not complying with UN regulations, and #such-and-such (13?) of the regulations stipulated that Iraq would be invaded by a multi-national force if he did not comply. He played cat-and-mouse with inspectors and did not cooperate with inspectors, repeatedly. Bush and the Coalition repeatedly said they wanted to make the UN honour its own word on the regulations. The so-called “rush to war” took years as Saddam kept leading the inspectors around by the nose, and finally denying them access. He frantically said he’d give them access again, just before Bush decided to send the U.S. in.
*If the war was “just for oil” the U.S. would have just secured the oil fields and said “to hell with the rest of the country.” But right from the start Bush said another goal of the war was to establish a democratic Iraq that would be at peace with its neighbours. He said that right from the start. Read his first speeches after 9/11.
*The Iraqis are trying valiently to build their country up again. The self-righteous EU and UN be helping them a lot more. It’s not U.S. forces (aside from some very bad episodes with a few soldiers, and these soldiers have been severely punished) that are killing, maiming, torturing, beheading, and blowing people up in Iraq. It’s Al Qaeda and others seeking to profit from sectarian violence. Christopher Hitchens makes a good case that Saddam’s unstable regime would have imploded eventually, and all this violence would have occurred eventually, but there’s a chance now, with U.S. help, that Iraq can come out of this without another dangerous strong-man in charge.
*Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Repeat, Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda, the group that bombed the U.S. ship Cole, that killed U.S. citizens in bombing in Africa (all on Clinton’s watch), and that killed close to 3000 Americans on 9/11. So the U.S. is fighting Al Qaeda. In Iraq. And yes, Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. Every other M.E. nation had ties to Al Qaeda, and you’re going to tell me that one guy who hated the U.S. most of all didn’t? Is the U.S. the only nation on the planet not allowed to defend itself when it’s attacked? (Sorry — of course not; Israel is also not allowed to defend itself) Is the U.S. not allowed to take the fight to the attacker on his turf?
And do you know why you have possibly never ever heard or thought of any of this, SLM? Or if you did, you dismissed it as right-wing war-mongering for oil? BECAUSE THE MEDIA IS ON YOUR SIDE! Or at least, on the side of the Democrats. Remember, Conservatives and Republicans are automatically evil. If Bush had been a Democrat you and they would have lauded every move he made so far. After all, he is following Clinton’s plan for regime-change.
Apologies for the long entry, everyone. Perhaps instead I should have just asked you all to read this wonderful link from someone styling himself “an old war dog.”
http://www.oldwardogs.us/2007/07/not-even-a-cont.html
Please read that link and seek an honest answer to all his points, before you spout off with the inevitable “war-mongering, imperialist, Bush-lackey, xenophobic” etc. comments.
Oops, just remembered Kate linked me to this gentleman in the first place, in July. So some of you will be reading him again, but that can’t hurt . . .
Another *:
Where was all the coverage in the media on the “oil-for-food” scandal, when Germany and France and Russia and Saddam all nicely benefitted from Iraq’s oil, with the money going to weapons and not to food for Iraqis? Barely a mention. Information had to be scrounged for by conservative bloggers, and is never brought up when it’s brought to all our attention constantly that Bush was a go-it-aloner who didn’t have the cooperation of the previously mentioned 4 countries. Of course he didn’t have their cooperation. They were cooperating with and benefitting from the despot who was starving his own people.
Why is the media so reluctant to highlight these things, or to keep harping on them as they do on gay Republican peccadilloes? (Of course, we’d all be puritanical persecutors for even bringing it up if he was a gay Democrat).
Simple. Conservatives = evil. Anything they do = evil. So anyone in opposition to them (Saddam, Russia, etc.) = good, or misunderstood, or made bad by evil conservative/U.S./Western influence.
Anyone claiming the media trumpeted and promoted and supported Bush’s war on Iraq is truly stuck in a dense fog of . . . something. Maybe pot smoke.
ann:
Don’t forget … the self-named National Socialist party is right wing.
Makes about as much sense as saying Saskatchewan is in eastern Canada.
It’s a case of no moral compass pointing in wacky directions and once the person is lost, not knowing which way is up or down, east or west, right or wrong.
“No, I do not work for a NGO. I work in the private sector, the free-market, product development, sell or die. I face customers, write requirements, do design reviews, have traveled the world on business.”
I bet your employers don’t know you talk like this on the internet, Loathsome.
Could we all stop feeding this troll now folks? Joke’s over, eh?
Hey Ann, did you catch Senator Upchuck Schumer, (D-NY) on the floor of the Senate today? Limbaugh was all over it, ran the speech wall to wall. It must be up at U-Tube by now, a classic America SUCKS!!! speech, could have been delivered by Fidel Castro at a May Day parade.
Funny though, I see nothing on CNN about it. Half the problem with the MSM is what they don’t cover.
“I bet your employers don’t know you talk like this on the internet, Loathsome.”
Does Kathy Shadie’s employer know what she writes on her blog?
“Please read that link and seek an honest answer to all his points, before you spout off with the inevitable “war-mongering, imperialist, Bush-lackey, xenophobic” etc. comments.”
As requested…
*Saddam tried to kill a former U.S. president, and Clinton bombed him for it (attempted assassination is an act of war in most nations’ books).
And the people who carried out the order are in prison. Incidentally, how many foreign leaders did the US assasinate?
*Clinton bombed Saddam a few more times, to distract people from Monica and to chastise him for failing to comply with UN regulations.
Could you provide proof that it was done to distract people from Monica?
*Clinton, Gore, John Kerry, Pelosi, and many other beloved-by-leftists Democrats droned on and on and on about Saddam’s dangerous WMDs. Quotes are readily available.
Yes, and they were all hypocrites, every last one of them.
*Clinton planned out a whole regime-change plan for Iraq, in 1996 I believe, but I could be wrong on the year. Kept it on file in case of need. 9/11 supplied that need, but considering the vitriol directed at Bush, he should have been a Democrat before he applied the Democrats’ plan.
Yes, his plan was idiotic. Are you saying that because Clinton developed a bad plan, that Bush had no choice but to follow it up?
You’re not actually justifying the Iraq invasion. You’re just saying that because the Democrats gave it approval, then it must be okay.
*Saddam was linked to the first World Trade Centre Bombing, which is why it seemed so logical to link him to the actual destruction of the WTC.
No, this is not true. The first WTC bombing was carried about by extremists in New Jersey who had ties to bin Laden. And “linked” isn’t proof. Lots of people are “linked” to bin Laden. Bush, Clinton, and much of the US political leadership are linked to the bin Laden family. Should we bomb them too?
*There were WMDs in Iraq that Saddam was forbidden to have according to the UN — stockpiles of various chemicals and some long-range missiles. A commander of Saddam’s airforce admitted that many of these forbidden weapons had been flown to Syria just before the U.S. came to Iraq. The NYTimes berated Bush because there were no WMDs, and then, to help kibosh the 2004 election for him, also berated him for allowing a warehouse of WMDs to be stolen right out from under the Marines’ noses shortly after U.S. entered Iraq. So, were there WMDs or weren’t there? (also, if Bush is so evil, why didn’t he just plant the evidence after the invasion?)
So you’re taking the word of one Iraqi defector as gospel? You’re saying that Saddam disarmed himself before going to war? Saddam instructed his forces to wage a guerilla war against the Americans. Don’t you think he would have left them an A-Bomb or two?
*Saddam brutally gassed the Kurds. Yes, yes, we know all about the U.S. and Britian supplying the weapons so he could use them against Iran . . . is a previously gone-awry mistaken foreign policy supposed to stop the U.S. from ever stopping this monster? The Kurds deserved to have the promise fulfilled to them, made by Bush Sr. and finally delivered by Jr.
And how will Turkey feel about having an free Kurdish state on their border? If the freedom of the Kurds is important to you, you should be asking for the US to bomb Turkey also.
*Saddam was not complying with UN regulations, and #such-and-such (13?) of the regulations stipulated that Iraq would be invaded by a multi-national force if he did not comply. He played cat-and-mouse with inspectors and did not cooperate with inspectors, repeatedly. Bush and the Coalition repeatedly said they wanted to make the UN honour its own word on the regulations. The so-called “rush to war” took years as Saddam kept leading the inspectors around by the nose, and finally denying them access. He frantically said he’d give them access again, just before Bush decided to send the U.S. in.
And when we will require the Israeli’s to comply with their UN resolutions regarding occupied terrorities?
*If the war was “just for oil” the U.S. would have just secured the oil fields and said “to hell with the rest of the country.” But right from the start Bush said another goal of the war was to establish a democratic Iraq that would be at peace with its neighbours. He said that right from the start. Read his first speeches after 9/11.
Ah, Bush said so, so it is true. What compelling critical thought. Even Stalin would’ve blushed at that kind of loyalty. Bush said the war wasn’t about oil, so it isn’t about oil. QED. Can’t argue with logic about that.
*The Iraqis are trying valiently to build their country up again. The self-righteous EU and UN be helping them a lot more. It’s not U.S. forces (aside from some very bad episodes with a few soldiers, and these soldiers have been severely punished) that are killing, maiming, torturing, beheading, and blowing people up in Iraq. It’s Al Qaeda and others seeking to profit from sectarian violence. Christopher Hitchens makes a good case that Saddam’s unstable regime would have imploded eventually, and all this violence would have occurred eventually, but there’s a chance now, with U.S. help, that Iraq can come out of this without another dangerous strong-man in charge.
Iraq does need much international aid. You are correct. Maybe Iraq would have imploded, maybe it wouldn’t. Maybe tomorrow, I’ll get shot by some one in Jane/Finch in Toronto. That doesn’t give me the right to go and shot them because “maybe” something might happen.
*Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Repeat, Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda, the group that bombed the U.S. ship Cole, that killed U.S. citizens in bombing in Africa (all on Clinton’s watch), and that killed close to 3000 Americans on 9/11. So the U.S. is fighting Al Qaeda. In Iraq. And yes, Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. Every other M.E. nation had ties to Al Qaeda, and you’re going to tell me that one guy who hated the U.S. most of all didn’t? Is the U.S. the only nation on the planet not allowed to defend itself when it’s attacked? (Sorry — of course not; Israel is also not allowed to defend itself) Is the U.S. not allowed to take the fight to the attacker on his turf?
Al-Qaeda is in Iraq after the Americans attacked it. If the US were to say that al’Qaeda is in Edmonton, would they be allowed to attack? Are you saying they should be able to attack anyone anywhere in the world. Al’Qaeda is not a military organization or a country. They are a terrorist group with an ideological/political agenda. It is not the same as fighting a country.
“And do you know why you have possibly never ever heard or thought of any of this, SLM? Or if you did, you dismissed it as right-wing war-mongering for oil? BECAUSE THE MEDIA IS ON YOUR SIDE! Or at least, on the side of the Democrats. Remember, Conservatives and Republicans are automatically evil. If Bush had been a Democrat you and they would have lauded every move he made so far. After all, he is following Clinton’s plan for regime-change.”
I have heard every single thing that you mentioned. I heard it all from the MSM. The reason you think the MSM is not on my side, is because you are completely insane, as evidence by your inability to formulate a rational argument for war beyond, “Bush and Clinton said it is okay, so it must be okay”.
“Could we all stop feeding this troll now folks? Joke’s over, eh?”
No, they will not stop feeding me. You know why? Because I am right, and they are wrong. You have been wrong about everything.
That post by Ann was pathetic. “Bush said the war was to promote democracy” so it must be true. Pathetic, just pathetic. That isn’t even funny. It is really a pathetic, sad, little childlike response.
But, you will keep feeding me. Why? Because you are weak. Because my posts remind you, that everything you believe is wrong – and that tortures you. Every time I post, you’ll respond. And when you’ve got nothing left, you’ll call me a moonbat, or beg Kate to delete the thread.
Keep it comin’ SDAers. The MSM is taking over. The Muslims and CBC are spreading propaganda. Al’Qaeda is going to molest Calgary Stamps cheerleadres. Western civilization isn’t going to save itself – you best get a move on.
“”Bush said the war was to promote democracy” so it must be true. Pathetic”
That’s not the point I made. Do you even read past the red rage in your eyeballs? I made the point that if the war was just for oil, the Americans would have secured the oil-fields and left the rest of the country to itself. But they didn’t, and they’re still there, in cities far away from the oilfields, fighting to give the Iraqis a better life than they’ve know for decades under Saddam’s regime. U.S. soldiers do this while self-righteous leftoids pontificate safely behind their computers, in a Western world made safe and secure by so many U.S. lives and $ over the last century and into this one.
You’re not worth their spit.
Did you even read the link posted several posts above? Of course not.
I had typed up a huge response to all your points, spending quite a bit of time on Israel, UN resolutions, and Clinton bombing Kosove for less drastic stuff than gassing Kurds (to great acclaim), as well as Churchill wanting to take Hitler out in the 30s (if he’d succeeded we’d never have known how many he saved, but we would have sure vilified such a war-mongering move) but lost it all when I pushed “Post”, for some reason. So I give up. It’s not worth any more of my time to try save your sorry soul from its downward-spiralling, lefty morass.
You’re right, Phantom, one shouldn’t feed the trolls. Especially the rabid ones, who rejoice in every account of suffering they hear from Iraq because it proves to them that they’re right. And I’ve heard his arguments so often, so many times, from so many of his ilk . . . He can post here until his hero Osama makes his next video. I won’t respond.
On to Kate’s next topic!
Ann, that is more like it.
Lefty morass, Americans fighting to save me, that is the kind of insanity I like.
Can I suggest a new topic? How Islam and the Left are conspiring to destroy the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. Followed by how multiculturalism is turning Toronto into a city with more non-white people (not that we’re racists, and any one who says we’re racists is racist).
The Bible is very political. It’s socialism at it’s best. Helping one another is not Tory doctrine.
“The Bible is very political. It’s socialism at it’s best. Helping one another is not Tory doctrine.”
I would say it is a Red-Tory doctrine. Eugene Forsey, a Red-Tory, was one of the finest Socialists in Canada.
However, I would note, that it all depends on how one interprets their religion. Parts of the Old Testatment are downright genocidal – worse than anything in the Koran. But the more lunatic aspects of it are, by and large, ignored by Christians of any influence.
“I wouldn’t be alone in thinking each time an artist or commentator insults Christians: friend, if you’re so brave, say that about Islam.
Show us your chocolate Mohammeds. Show us your Korans dipped in urine.
Where is the singer who will rip up a Koran as Marilyn Manson ripped up a Bible? Or will on television tear up a picture of Islam’s most honoured preacher as Sinead O’Connor shredded one of the great Pope John Paul II?
It’s not as if Islam doesn’t threaten our artists more than does Christianity.
See only the murder of film director Theo van Gogh or the fatwa on writer Salman Rushdie or the stabbing of Rushdie’s translator. Or see those deadly riots against the Mohammed cartoons.
So when I see a Western artist mock Christ, I see an artist advertising not his courage but his cowardice – by not daring to mock what would threaten him more . . .
This is a religion that’s always preached tolerance, reason and non-violence, even if too many of its followers have seemed deaf.
It’s also urged us to leave the judgment of others to God (a message I ignore for professional reasons). We are the beneficiaries of that preaching, even those of us who aren’t Christians. . . .
We can now vilify Jesus and damn priests, and risk nothing but hard looks from a soft bishop . . .
We dare all that because we do not actually fear what we condemn. We know Christians are taught not to punch our smarmy face, and we even count on it. Indeed, it is the very faith we mock that has made us so safe.”
from an article by an honest agnostic:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_kinder_to_our_christians/
I bet your employers don’t know you talk like this on the internet, Loathsome.
Of course, we assume he’s being honest. Certainly dosen’t write like an engineer, more like a student or academic in the SSHRC set.
I have to admit though, that having leftoids like this pop up makes the comments here more interesting than those at, say, LGF, which largely serve as an echo-chamber. Now if only the leftoids could mount a consistant argument and quit with the context-dropping, subject-changing, and snide attitudes, maybe there could be some decent arguments here.