Wow. Just...wow.

Clintonites invite them into higher office too.

HOMELAND INSECURITY
Islamist *Trojan horse* in Pentagon, say experts
FBI: Top defense advisers linked to radical Muslim Brotherhood
February 1, 2008

The chaplain, Abuhena M. Saifulislam, studied Islam at the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences in Virginia.

Recently declassified FBI documents reveal its sister organization, an Islamist think tank known as the International Institute of Islamic Thought, or IIIT, is involved in a Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy to wage a cultural and political jihad to eventually take over America from within – most notably, through infiltration of government agencies.

Islam works closely with Saifulislam (Arabic for *sword of Islam*) on Pentagon outreach projects involving Middle Eastern embassies and the so-called Wahhabi lobby in Washington.

*He's a Muslim brother,* an FBI official said of Islam. *He's a bad actor. He's well-positioned to be where he is, and that doesn't do us any good.*

He also said Saifulislam is *definitely Muslim Brotherhood,* while noting that Islam *is a lot smoother than Saifulislam,* who as a chaplain at Gitmo lobbied for special meals and other privileges for al-Qaida detainees.

The official hastened to add that, at this point, belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood is not criminal, and neither Defense Department employee is the subject of a formal counterterrorism or counterespionage investigation. Both men have refused interviews, and the Pentagon had no comment.

However, the FBI official warned that the Muslim aides are part of a conspiracy by Muslim Brotherhood fronts to run *influence operations* against the U.S. government.

*Their M.O. is to make nice for the very purpose of pen . .

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59995
===========================
These things always amaze one = TG

OH BOY,OH BOY!

When you consider the HUGE amount of dysgenic inbreeding going on over there(1st cousin marriage)it looks like there might be a whole bunch more of these f%#&#n RETARDS blowing themselves up!

Mr.g

That is pretty sad and sick that the muslims will use the weak in their society so easily. Where did we see this happnening before?

That is pretty sad and sick that the muslims will use the weak in their society so easily. Where did we see this happnening before?

Islam is not a new thing, we lived with it for thousands of years "Be afraid, be very afraid."
As bush strips what ever's left of your rights away.

In less than a year George Bush will be gone. Islam will still be here.
BTW, whatever is one word unless you are you are a lefty losing an argument with a rightie. Then it is three words (what ev VERRR)

Peter raises an interesting point. There are about 1500 years of co existence with Islam. The beginning period was one of strife as Islam expanded under arms.

Then in some lands where Islam was secure there was some peaceful co-existence, that of the secure majority vs the conquered minority.

Then there was the rollback and counter punches of the Caliphate. Then the defeat of the Calipahte.

After that Muslims stayed within their countries of origin, in fact rarely emingrated. There was little impulse or cultural sanction to emmigrate.

In the last 30 years there has been a change on the part of residents of muslim countries to emmigrate, partially because there are significant communities for them to go to now in Western countries and partially because it is no longer a negative thing.

The rise of Saudi as a donor nation and the building of Mosques, not much different than the funding from the Vatican of Catholic Churches, makes those commmunities feel better about heading to soemwhere they havent been before.

So there was conflict on expansion, conflict on the counter punch. The only time there is generalized peace is when there is a confident conquering Muslim power, they can afford mercy, or when Muslim powers are pinned into their "home areas" dealing with local issues.

All this to poitn out that when the religon is seperated from state power or politics it tends to be pretty benign. It is when the religon is mixed with politics and state power, or the recent innovation in non state power, that you get issues.

Bernard Lewis pointed out one of the main issues is that there is no explicit "render unto ceaser" tradition in Islam, and that the Islamic conception of a nation is an isalmic nation. State's are weight stations to the goal of the Umma, where all Muslims are one under one Islamic Law. The point isnt that this is an inevitability just that this is interwoven in the religon so that the issue never ever quite goes away. Radicals interpret the Koran, legitimately so, as a document that exhorts a single religon that is a logical extension of Judaism and Christianinty.

Unlike Judaism, which has ethnic roots and is self limiting in growth, Islam is like Chritianity in that anyone can join. In fact it is considered a good thing, good for God and good for the converted...hence the proselytizing in both religons.

Islam is more community based, in that one should live in a Muslim environment, Christianity is more of an internal thing, although there is much in the New Testament about Christian communities there is nothing that says you are to force people.

Sibtle differences. But Islam considers itself the final incarnation of the Abrahamic tradition, one that incorporates the very legal (as in way to live) traditions of ancient Judaism with the missionary and conversion traditions of christianity. Added difference, Islam mixes religous legality with state legality and mixes in a fair chunk of Arabic warrior culture.

Peter you are correct to be suspicious of any state that tries to limit rights, regardless of the enemy. But dont let that diminish that there may be a threat, not necessarily from Isalm, but from those who use Islam, well within its tradition, to fulfill some form of governance and power.

"As bush strips what ever's left of your rights away."

Whom are the lefties going to blame all the world's problems on when Bush is gone?

Unlike Judaism, which has ethnic roots and is self limiting in growth,  
So you are saying that one must be born a Jew to be a Jew and that no one can convert? I guess they forgot to tell Sammy Davis Jr.
  Islam mixes religous legality with state legality and mixes in a fair chunk of Arabic warrior culture.
  I guess that is why Arab Muslims are killing, raping and enslaving black Muslims in  Sudan

There is the leftoid gene but there is also the rightoid gene (and eugenics labs breeding both leftoids and rightoids).

Here an article from Peter Worthington from today's Sun:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2008/02/04/4824785-sun.php

This has been bothering me as well where all of a sudden every rightwing ideologue is dissing McCain. The rhetoric is going up as his polls go up. I would love to see him choose Leiberman as VP.

In a nutshell.

Would you people like to know why the islamic boogeyman was created?

Because if 100% of the wages of americans were taxed,the government would still be running deficts.

Can you people wrap your brains around that?

"The rise of Saudi as a donor nation and the building of Mosques, not much different than the funding from the Vatican of Catholic Churches, makes those commmunities feel better about heading to soemwhere they havent been before."

You're really stretching it with this one, stephen. While the image of the Pope cutting a cheque whenever a new Our Lady of Perpetual Sorrows is to be opened in some gleaming new subdivision is compelling, it's far from the truth, which is that church funding tends to go down on the diocesan and archdiocesan level, and that parish churches are encouraged to be self-sustaining whenever possible through donations to the collection plate and such. Your suggestion is up there with the competing myth that the Pope rolls around in the Vatican's mountains of gold coins, chalices, embroidered vestments and priceless art while charities go begging.

Comparing it to the Saudi model would be more accurate if the Church had no central authority, and that some small but incredibly wealthy Catholic state funded its own fundamentalist Catholic sect, which sent representatives around the world to growing Catholic communities offering to build them a church - if they could set its liturgical style and install a priest compatible with their fundamentalist beliefs, regardless of the congregation's own tendencies.

So - "not much different"? I beg to disagree - we have to be a lot more accurate when making our pronouncements.

is morningstar posting from a reserve? not to good at math either.

anyway, here is the sympathetic looney left MSM of the public purse.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/02/03/khadr.html

CBCpravda All Khadr , All the Time

How can you tell a moonbat? The high likelyhood that they'll buy into a conspiracy theory. Or make up one.

Islamic boogeyman. Obviously 'morningstar' is a red dwarf.

Go read some history. Check OPEC during the 70's and the corellation to immigration. Check the ideology based on their texts (the trilogy), with special regards to Mohammad's words and actions (Hadith, Sira). Check how this played out in history against the other, in terms of offensive war, slaughter and dhimmitude.

Check Hindu history and the Islamic pograms that slaughtered 80 million of them. The Janissaries. The Barbary Coast Muslim slavers during the 18th and 19th centuries. Check the fall of Contantinople and what the Muslims did. Read Maimonides accounts of the true history of Andalusia.

Stephen,

Given your ahistorical account, I might suggest you should probably do the same. Then as today, there was little to no peace wherever Islam spread. There was dhimmitude. Check the conditions of dhimmitude. Read Maimonides.

Andrew Bostom is also a good place to start.

While the abuse of mentally handicapped persons for homicide bombings indeed demonstrates the rank immorality at work in the hearts of islamofascists, like al-Qaeda, I have confidence that this repugnant decision will only weaken the cause of terrorists in Iraq. Few in Iraq or anywhere want what al-Qaeda is offering.

With respect to wacko Jacko: what burns me equally as much as his insistence that we engage in talks with the Taliban is the veritable silence in the media about it. I haven't read or heard a single report from the big 3 or 4 that calls Jack Layton on his overt hypocrisy. And that's sad.

Left or right, lib or con, anyone who can see anything "brilliant" in using a person with down's as a homicide bomb deserves to be shot.

And to Mr G. Watch your mouth, arse hole! The only "f$%^ing retards" are the ones who would think that this is ok. Leave the mentally handicapped out of this!

With regard to the innumerate Moringstar, being bad at math is a prerequisite for being a Lefty. People with even a rudimentary ability to do arithmetic will listen to a Lefty ideologue talk, then exclaim "Hey, wait a minute!" when they realize it isn't adding up correctly.

Being able to believe in two or more mutualy exclusive things at the same time is another prereq. For example, Lefties never tire of berating society that the "mentally challenged" have rights too, even to the point of allowing them to come to harm rather than "infringe" on those rights.

Likewise, women's rights are sacrosanct, inviolable and indeed supersede those of mere men according to Lefties.

The anti-war branch of Lefty-ism never shuts up about the eeeeviles of civilian casualties. Ever.

However the use of not one but two women with Down's as unwilling bomb carriers by the jihadini in Iraq is "a sign of adaptation and a brilliant one at that."

It seems insane until you realize they don't actually care a damn about women, cripples, civilians or their welfare. They care about destroying America and their hate for George Bush, so the only truth involved is their admiration for the points scoring bomb tactic.

Nice, eh?

Came across this the other day in the wiki about Karl Marx. (the father of communism)

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

"Scholars are divided as to whether Marx was anti-Semitic. According to Edward H. Flannery, Marx was an antisemite who considered Jews worshippers of mammon, the very soul of the corrupt capitalism he fought.[23] According to several other scholars, for Marx Jews were the embodiment of capitalism and the creators of all its evils. In their view, Marx's equation of Judaism with capitalism, together with his pronouncements on Jews, strongly influenced socialist movements and shaped their attitudes and policies toward the Jews. In those scholar's opinion, Marx's 'On the Jewish Question' influenced National Socialist, as well as Soviet and Arab anti-Semites [24][25][26]"

This explains a lot. The left hate capitalism and love socialism/communism, Jews are considered to be the creators of capitalism therefore they (the left) take the side of the Arabs.

There is some truth the that sentiment but if you want to see your hard core eugenicist, you have to walk over into the shallow end of the gene pool where the environmental elite swim.

I've yet to find an upscale green who doesn't have some pretty morbid malthusian ideas about depopulation and breeding the perfect human.

U.S.-Iran Talks Put on Hold Again

A critical meeting between the United States and Iran on security issues inside Iraq has been put on hold for the second time, State Dept. sources have told Newsmax's U.N. correspondent Stewart Stogel.

The talks were originally scheduled for Dec. 18, then moved to the week of Jan. 21. No new date has been set.

The Baghdad government has already hosted a series of talks with an agenda officially limited to Iraqi *security,* but other topics have been raised, say diplomats familiar with the discussions.
U.S. and Iraqi diplomats tell Newsmax that one outcome of previous meetings has been an unofficial acquiescence by Tehran in aiding the U.S. military surge and quelling the tide of violence inside Iraq.

It is not known why the latest round of talks has been delayed, but U.S. sources confirm that the Iraqi government is working to set a new date for further meetings.
The delay comes on the heels of the recently completed World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

In Davos, both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki toned down recent criticisms of each other and hinted at a possible future accommodation by the two nations.

Rumors of a potential deal between Washington and Tehran had been circulating in Switzerland and at U.N. headquarters, Stogel reports.

In New York, U.S. diplomats at the United Nations confirm they recently circulated a so-called *list of principles* that the Security Council should consider in drafting a third round of sanctions on Iran for its continued nuclear defiance. Those sanctions have been delayed for more than six months.

Washington and Tehran have been engaged in a tug-of-war over the Iranian nuclear program and the U.N. efforts to control it. Also on the Iranian front, Russia has delivered the final shipment of nuclear fuel to Iran for its Bushehr nuclear power station. But the plant’s activation date, set for April, has now been pushed back to October, Stogel has learned.

Moscow, while delivering all the fuel, has decided to delay the shipment of key instruments needed to monitor the reactor core. Without these instruments, the plant cannot go on line.
Says Stogel: *Word is that the Bush White House may use the delivery of those instruments to pressure Tehran.*

Newsmax uses the above *News* lead-in to sell Timmerman*s new book. . .

Newsmax contributing editor and Iran expert Kenneth R. Timmerman, “Six Days to War,” which lays out the scenario likely to unfold if the U.S. and Iran go to war

The book is a possible turn of events forecast. Impossible, in my view, yet the current events lead-in is interesting. = TG

Liberal idiots have now begun COMPLIMENTING murderous terrorists on their brilliance and adaptation.

I'm beginning to wonder if there is a faulty gene in people who think like that. And they call Down Syndrome people handicapped.

Just thinkin': Looking at that Google link, Jack Layton is known more as "Taliban Jack" than anything else. If the NDP had any guts they'd toss him out with the garbage. He's so badly damaged his own reputation, the party will never advance with him smelling up the place. (Oh never mind, they'd better keep him.)

Do you guys ever do anything but bitch about 'lefties' (and Muslims, and people ith other beliefs, skin colours, etc.)

Do you guys have any ideas that aren't reactive to what the left does, but are, you know, original in and of themselves?

You just come here to bitch about the 'other', is that it? And revel in all your shared presumptions and prejudices, pat each other on the back for expressing all the crass thoughts you don't have the guts to express in real life, is that it?

Volik, do you ever do anything but bitch about 'righties' (and Westerners, and people with other beliefs, philosophies, etc.)

Do you have any ideas that aren't reactive to what the right does, but are, you know, original in and of themselves?

You just come here to bitch about the 'other', is that it? And revel in all your presumptions and prejudices, pat yourself on the back for expressing all the crass thoughts you don't have the guts to express in real life, is that it?

Ha! That was easy. All emotion and no facts. Now I can understand why the simple-minded folks drift to the left.

Volik, welcome, here is your opportunity. . .

**Why does the western liberal left openly advance the interests of murderous fundamentalist Islam?**

= TG

Hi volik. We do have some ideas and would like to talk about them, but there's the Canadian Human Rights tribunals to think about. If you aren't with the program on the latest Lefty spin, they have an alarming tendency to find you guilty of hate speech and fine you.

For myself I like everybody. Well, except people who steal my money, or shoot at me. So I'm not fond of Lefties and radical terrorist types who use retarded girls to do their dirty work.

M'kay with you? Wouldn't want to offend and have to deal with the HRC, eh?

I agree Volik.

There is something deeply disturbing going on here.

The only funny part is how this sick mob has to continually re-enforce its believes and moral superiority over anything that is different than them.

Volik, clearly you are upset at what I had said about Jack Layton.

But rather than taking your frustration out on us, you need to gather up your guts and express your thoughts in real life about what's really eating you up inside in regards to Taliban Jack.

It's either him or the party. You know what to do, Volik. It takes someone who says, "No more" and it can all begin with you saying something, anything.

Morningstar,

Do you even see the hypocritical irony of your own post or are you not intelligent enough to grasp that sneeringly condescending posts about others' supposed sense of superiority is a self-defeating argument?

jesus.

peter, we did not live with islam for thousands of years. islam ala mohammed started 632 roughly ad.

an interesting blog,

http://sheikyermami.com/

morningstar and volik,

Are we to take it then, that you are in defence of the Islamic ideology?

That you are therefore in defence of its prophet, his actions, the edicts, decrees and commands to kill the infidel; to hate jews and kill them wherever you find them; that infidel women (possess in your right hand) are to be taken as slaves and raped; that gays are to be stoned to death; that pedophilia is a ok; that a prophet cannot take captives until there is great slaughter in the land; that non-Muslims (kaffir) are lower than animals; that Jews and Christians are apes and pigs, etc., etc? (all of the above and much more in the Quran, Hadith, Sira and institutionalized in shariah)

If this is so - then you two are the only racist and bigot scum appearing on this thread. Congratulations, you've earned the title.

I know I dont agree with the thoughts of the left but perhaps some of the comments from the previous posters have some truth. I come to this page and read the comments in hopes to learn something and maybe bounce some ideas off one another.
But to tell the truth some posters would rather send out a comment that just insults rather than add to a conversation.
When a lefty comes on here and mentions their point of view most of the time it is followed up with cheap insults and other negative comments.
There are many people who comment on here that have some very intelligent things to say and I would rather read a reasonable retort with reasons why the lefty is wrong rather than just calling them (insert negative comment here)
I think as a group you guys are better than that and I think we need to show the left that there is a rational reason for our opinions.
I am sure the right would like more people to see our point of view and perhaps we can attract more flies with honey.
To sum it up we are better than that and lets prove it.

Right of centre,

Read the lefty comments again. If you detect any rational reason, or logical counter argument whatsoever, please let everybody in on it. On the otherhand, if you can decode their feelings and translate them into a rational counter argument, that may be helpful as well.

As far as I can tell, nobody has been able to do this. It's a great mystery.

If not, you might understand why the moonbat and troll labels stick so well.

I wasnt just meaning this link but I can understand why the trolls get attacked.
I am just saying that just insulting somebody adds zero to the value of a really good web page. perhaps it is better to just ignore the crap comments.
I am sure we all know if you roll in the mud with pigs you get dirty too.

Steven: There are about 1500 years of co existence with Islam.

The "hejira", when Mohammed ran like a little girl, unlike, say, Jesus, who stayed to meet his fate, is dated 622 AD. Add 1500 - it's 2122. Are you seriously saying after the Crusades, the Moorish conquest of Spain, and fifty years of middle East terrorism that these have been the peaceable years? If so, I don't want to be around when they get angry.

For the record, assuming it’s true, I think it’s just horrible that whoever was behind this latest disaster used Down’s women to perpetrate the bombings but I don’t see it as a sign of desperation. I see it as a sign of adaptation and a brilliant one at that.

I say, retard du jour...

For the record, assuming it’s true, I think it’s just horrible that whoever was behind this latest disaster used Down’s women to perpetrate the bombings but I don’t see it as a sign of desperation. I see it as a sign of adaptation and a brilliant one at that.

I say, retard du jour...

sorry -- hit the button twice -- like mo did before he turned into spam!

Does it bother anyone else that this is a headline story in newspapers across the world,but in Canada it is barely mentioned? Also,if Layton does go over to negotiate with the Taliban,will they plant explosives on him before sending him back?

wallyj,

Multiculturalism is an invention of Trudeau's utopian Liberals. The unelected and protected media bureaucracy, led by the CBC and CRTC, is thick with Liberal thieves.

The last thing they will report on is the failure of the multicult of manageable division and chaos; the basis of their appointments; the prepotent of power; and the proof of prejudice over principle.

It's the eugenics, stupid!

As in:

Yeah, just make sure they're all sterilized first.

Because there's nothing like having to share your daddy with 35 other kids.

It's astonishing that people would even approach a "debate" like this as though the only people affected are the's saying I do, I do, and I do.

You know, it's not an esoteric debate. There are examples of poligamous cultures and cults all over the planet.

How's it working for them?
Kate 02.04.08 - 5:04 pm | #

Hey Phantom -

Well, I guess you guys must think you're outlaws considering that you feel circumscribed from discussing your own ideas by the HRC - and reduced to merely bitching about the ideas of the Left.

For the record, I too hate thieves and terrorists. I'm not sure why you consider liberals thieves - whether they've robbed you on the street or burgled your home or what. If you're referring to taxation, well, any governing party has to collect taxes, right?

If you are critical of their policies, I don't see why HRC would have a problem with that. that's free speech.

As for terrorism, why would HRC have a problem with you're not liking terrorists? Almost no-one likes terrorists.

Far as I can see, HRC identifies discriminatory practice as "a person...communicating any matter likelyto expose persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that the persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination..."

Makes sense to me. If they had a law like this, outlawing expression of hate for Jews simply for the reason they are Jews, maybe Nazi Germany wouldn't have happened.

Likewise, expressing hate for terrorists isn't a problem. What would be a problem is expressing hate for all Muslims simply because they are Muslims. Or saying that all Muslims are terrorists - which is like saying all Christians are torturers because of the Spanish Inquisition, or Gitmo.

Similiar to this also would be implying that all black people are destined for jail,as was done on this site, or impugning David Suzuki's integrity simply because he's Japanese as a poster on a thread here did, or saying all Natives are glue-sniffers, as 5 ft. of fury did.

Aside from that, I don't see any reason why you can't discuss the substantive points of your ideology. If there are any.

Right of centre

You're so correct. I've come here questioning and challenging the ideas expressed and all I've ever gotten back is a mouldy collection of cliched right-wing retorts. Most often, I've not even gotten that - just stuff like "You're stupid!", as if that 2nd grade rejoinder proved their point.

At first I assumed most of the posters here are from remote regions where their views are unchallenged, and so they don't know how to defend them. They associate only with likeminded individuals so no intellectual self-questioning needs to go on: they need only agree with their pals that all liberals are 'stupid' and be done with it.

Now I'm wondering whether it's really even possible for them to defend their views rationally. They never seem to engage the issue at all - their first instinct is merely to leap with insults and ad hominems at the questioner.

It is it possible that only irrational prejudice lies at the heart of their views, and so they really can't be defended with logic, reason or facts? And that their rush to attack is simply an extension of that? It seems increasingly likely.

Has anyone called you an idiot today, Manny?

Actually, I'm guessing they have, if only under their breath.

Idiot.

Ok, volik, given that you've added not one rational comment or counter argument on this thread - nonetheless, I'll take you up on your challenge. Are you up for it?

"Far as I can see, HRC identifies discriminatory practice as "a person...communicating any matter likelyto expose persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that the persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination..." - volik

And then, "Makes sense to me. If they had a law like this, outlawing expression of hate for Jews simply for the reason they are Jews, maybe Nazi Germany wouldn't have happened."- volik

Here's holy Islamic writ large that is inculcated into Muslim kids heads. Much of it has been institutionalized into Islamic law (shariah):

"The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, so that Jews will hide behind stones and trees and the Stone and the tree will say, O Muslim, O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him. The only exception will be the box-thorn for it is one of the trees of the Jews." (Sahih of Muslim, Hadith)

Or...how about this one:

Take not the Jews and Christians for friends ... slay the idolaters [infidels] wherever ye find them. ...Fight against those who ... believe not in Allah nor the Last Day” (Sura 5:51; 9:5,29,41)

Oh, and I love this one, don't you?:

Sura 8:67 “It is not fitting for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he has made a great slaughter in the land.”

“No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).”(Hadith vol. 9:50) - Mohammad

How about Jews as "apes and pigs?" Quran: 7:166, 2:60, and 5:65.

Now, would you care to talk about context? Or will you admit that you are an idiot and you don't have a half ass measure of what you have attempted to speak about?

I'd love to carry on though.

Hokkkayyy, Daisy...

Frankly, I have offered a rational argument on this thread. I asked if you guys actually have any ideas of your own, or if you just come here to bitch about the left/globalwarmingadovcates/HRC, and people of other colours and beliefs.

My comment was agreed with by 2 other posters on the thread- one of them a self-professed 'right of centre'.

But anyway...is there any real point to your collecton of quotes from the Quran and other texts?

Surely you are aware that correlative quotes can be found in the Bible which advocate violence: a passage from Deuteronomy comes to mind in which all non-believers are to be killed, and Jesus himself asked non-believers to be brought before him and slaughtered.

Not to mention the violence advocated towards women and homosexuals.

And of course, historically, Christianity has unleashed far more violence on the world than Islam.

As a Christian, I struggle with these unsavory aspects of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

But really...what's your point? That the authors of the Quran should be prosecuted by the HRC? That all Muslims should be deported? What's your point? Come on - spill it.

And again, I'm puzzled by your juvenile name-calling ("idiot"). If you've got a point, make it. Don't waste everyone's time with this childish stuff.

Folks, volik is the textbook definition of troll. Ignore the troll. He has no intention of debating because he will ignore any valid response...he's just out to spit in your eye.

Shorter volik: Pay attention to me! There must be SOMEONE out there that I am better than!

"Frankly, I have offered a rational argument on this thread. I asked if you guys actually have any ideas of your own, or if you just come here to bitch about the left/globalwarmingadovcates/HRC, and people of other colours and beliefs."

That's not an argument. That's a question.

"Surely you are aware that correlative quotes can be found in the Bible which advocate violence: a passage from Deuteronomy comes to mind in which all non-believers are to be killed, and Jesus himself asked non-believers to be brought before him and slaughtered."

That's irrelevant. As well, Jesus said no such thing. So, that's a lie.

"And of course, historically, Christianity has unleashed far more violence on the world than Islam."

That's also irrelevant, an outright lie and cannot be supported by the Christian ideology based on the NT text. In fact, the opposite is true. However, the Islamic ideology is foundationally violent and not only in support of Islamic attrocities, it commands and rewards these actions, based on the reading and teaching of the Islamic trilogy (Quran, aHadith and Sira).

I have clearly stated my POV and supported it with facts based on the Islamic texts and factual history on too many occassions to mention. Do a search.

It can only be concluded that the charge against you has been proven. As Eeyore says, "the textbook definition of a troll."

Do you see now 'Right of Centre?'

So eeyore,

Anyone that questions your presumptions is a troll?

You and I debated on another thread. Each time I came up with a substantive point, you parroted "you're stupid! You're a stupid!" like a third grader.

That's cool if you come here simply to reinforce your prejudices. But is anyone who questions them to be labelled a troll?

You'd think you'd be glad to defend and explain them. But I guess you can't. I've not lobbed insults and you; but you have at me.

Okay, so return to your little circle wank. Sorry to interrupt with difficult stuff like questions and challenges. Carry on.

Hi Daisy:

Actually:

"Take my enemies who would not have me rule over them, bring them here, and slaughter them before me."

- Luke 19:27.

So it's not a lie that Jesus said this. It's an indisputable fact.

As in the case with your claiming Gore said he invented the internet, it's not me that's lying. You are.

As well, it is indisputable fact that Christianity has caused more violence in the history of the world than Islam. Vile people have picked and chosen parts from the Bible to support their violence, just as others have done with the Quran. I don't like it anymore than you do. But it's a fact.

But again I ask: what's your point? Should the Quran be banned? Should Muslims?

You've cslled me liar when it is you who lied - twice. You've called me sn idiot and a troll. I haven't called you any of these things.

So I think you should let me and the rest of us know: what is your point? Do you have one?

If anyone cares to check the previous thread, you will note that volik cried "racist" because someone said "black mayor" when talking about Nagy, someone else said "gotta keep 'dem ghettos" when talking about politicians who like to keep victim groups as victims and someone else said (paraphrasing) "homo sapiens without the sapiens bit" referring to people lacking intelligence. When presented with the facts as to how and why he was incorrect in his assessment, he just cried "racist" louder and then mocked and threw around insults while accusing others of throwing around insults.

And, he lied here. He didn't debate in the previous thread...he accused, obfuscated, insulted and mocked.

Here, volik has again made no real point and then mocks again. So, again...he's the definition of a troll.

And now, we can expect his mocking, snide, juvenile retort in 3, 2, 1...

And as for Luke 19:27, the quote is within a parable (the parable of the Ten Minas) that Jesus was telling. Just for you, volik, since you are obviously illiterate, a parable is a "short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson".

Jesus was not commanding any such action...it was part of the story he was telling. Again, volik, you are demonstrating that you are incapable of reading in context. You are reinforcing the observation that you are a fool.

It's a parable, dumbass.

For somebody who claims to be Christian, you sure don't know anything about the texts. Besides, equivocation is a fallacious form of argument and is not relevant.

The rest was explained to you in the previous post. It's not my fault that your comprehension ability and intelligence is so monstrously handicapped, now is it?

Eeyore

In your 2 new posts you have called me 'illiterate' and a 'fool'. I haven't used any such words towards you.

On the other thread, I pointed out incidents of racism. You and others argued that they were not. I offered counter-arguments showing that your arguments were faulty.

But this isn't allowed, apparently. The only response you've offered is to repeat "you're stupid!"

It isn't me who engages in juvenile insults. It's here for everyone to see that you and your pals can't cope with someone challenging you.

And frankly, with posts on this site I've read just today, with your friends posting that black people should go back to Africa, that Native people are 'useless' and 'lazy', and calling David Suzuki a 'nip', I don't see why it's even under discussion that this site largely exists for your kind to spew racism. It's simply a fact.

Shorter volik: Waaaa, waaaa, I want my mommy!

Blow it out your arse. The only place where your arguments hold any water whatsoever is in your own mind. You're deluding yourself.

Really, Eeyore?

So referring to "dem ghettos", and calling Suzuki a "nip", and saying all black people should go back to Africa, and calling Native people 'useless and lazy' aren't evidence of racism?

What are they evidence of? Tolerance? Open-mindedness?

'By their fruits ye shall know them'. I know what you are by your inability to refrain from juvenile insults and crudity ("blow it our my arse"?. I know what this site it is by its repeated eruptions of ugly racism

Daisy

You called me a liar for ascribing those words to Jesus. In fact, he said them.

As part of a parable? Yes. But many of the quotes you supplied from the Quran in your handy dandy list were also taken out of context.

The point is that vile people have always taken words out of context to support their evil doings. In the case of the Bible, it was used to justify slavery and Nazism.

We're still waiting to hear what your selection of quotes from the Quran was supposed to prove.

As well, I note again the personal insults you throw into your post ('dumbass', more derogatory jibes at my intelligence). Do you really think that stuff makes your argument stronger, or do you just get off on it - does it make you feel like a 'big man'?

All it really shows is that you aren't capable of civilized discourse.

Or maybe it's symptomatic of something deeper: did you hear that kind of talk often when you were growing up, directed at you?

"But many of the quotes you supplied from the Quran in your handy dandy list were also taken out of context."

How do you know? It is obvious that you have never read it, or the aHadith and Sira. So, what is your authority based on?

Furthermore, and because of your lack of knowledge, you continually make false claims of equivalence, which beyond being false, are irrelevant.

The Quran does not have context without the Hadiths and Sira.
The verses are not in a chronological order, they go from longest to shortest. As well, unlike the OT, the commands for violence are not limited to a time and place - they are for all time.

"The point is" you don't have a point. You do not know what you are talking about and have no knowledge on this subject. Neither have you provided any evidence to support your ignorant 'feelings' on this subject.

Neither the NT, nor Christ's life example support any sort of violence towards non-believers, or women. It is not political and does not have political laws to be applied in a theocracy. It does not advocate these things. So, therefore it does not support "evil doings," regardless of people taking words out of context.

Unlike the complete, political and foundationally violent Islamic ideology as proven in the texts, teaching from the texts and Mohammad's life example and sayings - all of which is institutionalized into shariah law.

As for 'dumbass' I said it because you obviously are a dumbass.

daisy:

In your standard explosion of hostility, half-truths, and insults, I'm trying mightily to discern what your point might be.

Is that Islam should be banned in Canada? Or the Quran? Or all Muslims should be banned, or deported?

Let us know.

Right now your posts are only telling us that you like calling people 'dumbass' because it's the only way you're able to feel that you're smart.

Hey, whatever works for you...

Volik,

"And of course, historically, Christianity has unleashed far more violence on the world than Islam."

I won't call you stupid for stating this only because I'm sure you really believe it. I blame the failure of the public school system for lying to you and indoctrinating you into a viewpoint that is not only false, but maliciously so.

This assertion that you made is so easily refutable that it is unforgivable that so many people believe it.

Volik, did you know that once the Roman empire converted to Christianity that there was not just one seat of the Church in Rome but 5 throughout the Mediterranean? Do you know that out of the 5 seats of Christianity 4 of them were conquered by force of arms by Mohamed and his followers over the years?

Did you know that it was Islam that attempted to conquer Europe and that the Crusades were as a result of Islamic harassment of pilgrims to the holy land which was formerly the land of the eastern Christian church that Mohammed's imperialist armies colonized? Did you know that Islam attempted to take over Europe several times? They colonised Spain for over 500 years. They were forcibly turned back by Charles Marten at the battle of Poitiers and reached the gates of Vienna. They colonised the Baltics. They colonized by force of arms the whole middle east, most of North Africa, most of SE Asia including India, and ethnically cleansed countless peoples that are now lost forever? The Assyrians of Persia whose intellectual pursuits that Islam claims credit for. The Byzantines, the Zoroastrians... All of which Islam destroyed.

If you really think that Christianity was more violent than that you need to seek the truth.

That isn't to say that Christianity is free of blemish. No people, no group, no country is. Although a lot of what you will blame Christianity for was not religiously based. The colonial period of Europe wasn't just but in most (but not all cases) wasn't genocide. The conquest of the "new world" was ugly. The worst of which happened by Spain to S.America. Greed is not always good. But stacked up against Islam's record, Europe comes second on every scale. I won't even mention Mongol, Japanese or Chinese history. The Zulu Impis of Chaka Khan slaughtered and enslaved every other tribe in their path on their move south through Africa. The "natives" of the new world waged wars, committed genocide and acted in ways that offend the current standards of behaviour.

If you see a stain on your society, and you don't put that history in the perspective of time and place you can not hope to understand the past. Your speak of absolute positions based on the current morals and practices is not reasonable. You can't judge those in the past by the values of the present. You base judgement based on comparative measures. If your society progressed, was more fair than others of the period - even if not perfect - it is unreasonable to bash your society while holding others blameless. If you forgive other's actions but not your own, and your own society perpetrated lesser evils, you are not reasonable. You would expect that today is better than yesterday, this decade better than last. You're life if supposed to be better than those that came before you. That's progress.

In fact, when people hold white Europeans to a higher standard of accountability than they hold other people, you are engaging in racism. Why? Because the assumption is that we are capable of better but they aren't so can't be blamed for acting poorly. If you assume equality, then you MUST hold other's to the same level of culpability.

And Volik,

People lash out at you not for your message (you rarely have one) but for your snarky, condescending attitude towards others. If you give respect, you will tend to have that returned. Give contempt, you seek abuse - and you shouldn't be surprised to receive it.

Warwick

Thanks for the lecture.

Unfortunately you've fallen prey to the fault you've articulated: holding one group to a higher standard of accountability than the other.

If you say European conquests were not religiously based, it makes little difference to those who hear the Christian God invoked to justify them. I agree violent acts have no justification in the Bible. Yet the Bible has been used to justify them - and outsiders will hear Bush invoke God to justify his war in Iraq. As they heard Hitler invoke Christ to justify his actions, and as supporters of slavery did the same.

It is the same with Bin Laden using Islam to justify 9/11.

Finally, you fault me for my snarky attitude.

I haven't once used terms like 'retard' dumbass idiot, fool, illiterate. But they have all been used against me.

I started in this thread questioning why people simply bitch about the left (see the title of the post this thread is commenting on). That's all it took for this abuse to start flying at me.

At first, I thought it was simply because I challenged their presumptions. They come here to express thoughts that are unacceptable in mainstream society (with good reason). I called them on that. So the insults.

But now I'm thinking that the nasty mean-spiritedness is the source of the racism, and of their poltical 'ideologies' - and of the childish insults with which they attempt to 'defend' it all.

Volik,

For childish insults, see Rabble.ca, the Daily Kos, etc.

If you want hate, go to the same sites.

if you want the scum of the earth, go to http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/ and have a look at your people, their bigotry and their hate.

Then come back here and tell us it's we who need the state's thugs suppressing our rights.

Warwick

Don't send me around the internet to look at other sites.

We're talking about this one.

There's repulsive racism here the likes of which I've seen nowhere else - and that's quite apart from the incivility other commenters have also commented on.

You can't defend it so you try to divert attention away.

Nice try.

Warwick, think cement.

All mixed up and permanently set.

Likely university level concrete grade.