A'Merka

[wideload]

Interesting reading on an IRA priest, Israeli hypocrisy, and, oh yeah, that building in New York:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/25/what ... =obnetwork

Yawn...

We can't discuss any sort of terrorism without blaming the Jews. The King David Hotel was a military installation, and the British were given several warnings to evacuate the civilians before it happened. How many warning were the victims of 9/11 given to evacuate?

[Yaya]

We can't discuss any sort of terrorism without blaming the Jews.

Yeah, cause they're the first group everyone accuses when a terrorist act occurs.

[Professor Smooth]

We can't discuss any sort of terrorism without blaming the Jews.

Yeah, cause they're the first group everyone accuses when a terrorist act occurs.

Yeah. Not quite sure what that first comment was about. To be fair, though, throughout history, Jews have gotten blamed for pretty much everything else.

[bumblemusprime]

Interesting reading on an IRA priest, Israeli hypocrisy, and, oh yeah, that building in New York:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/25/what ... =obnetwork

Yawn...

We can't discuss any sort of terrorism without blaming the Jews. The King David Hotel was a military installation, and the British were given several warnings to evacuate the civilians before it happened. How many warning were the victims of 9/11 given to evacuate?

Because "radical Israeli Zionists" automatically conflates to "the Jews?"

Hey, here's an idea: when you use your own persecution as an excuse to move in, marginalize, kill and steal land from an ethnic group that has neither your resources nor your powerful allies, maybe you ought to QUIT ******* WHINING ABOUT YOUR POOR PERSECUTED SELVES, ISRAEL.

[wideload]

Interesting reading on an IRA priest, Israeli hypocrisy, and, oh yeah, that building in New York:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/25/what ... =obnetwork

Yawn...

We can't discuss any sort of terrorism without blaming the Jews. The King David Hotel was a military installation, and the British were given several warnings to evacuate the civilians before it happened. How many warning were the victims of 9/11 given to evacuate?

Because "radical Israeli Zionists" automatically conflates to "the Jews?"

Hey, here's an idea: when you use your own persecution as an excuse to move in, marginalize, kill and steal land from an ethnic group that has neither your resources nor your powerful allies, maybe you ought to QUIT ******* WHINING ABOUT YOUR POOR PERSECUTED SELVES, ISRAELIS.

I think you need to do some research on where most Israelis came from (refugees from arab/muslim countries) before you rant about persecution and stealing of land.

Your depiction of Israelis as surviving only because they have powerful allies and resources (translation Jews are rich and control the world) does little to support your claims of not being an anti-semite.

The majority of Israelis are decended from refugees from arab lands. The arabs were backed by the USSR, so they had their own "powerful allies".

When you claim to be criticizing Israelis and not Jews, but then demonstrate you know absolutely nothing about Israelis or the middle east, and instead substitute sterotypes about Jews, it does little to prove your case.

[Shanti418]

Speaking of the Palestine/Israel conflict, I'm just waiting for Lex Luthor to hand Israel a note that says "Why don't you just put Palestinians in a ghetto in Warsaw?" THEN perhaps they'll get the point. (Superman: Red Son, for the very few on this board that haven't read it)

Your depiction of Israelis as surviving only because they have powerful allies and resources (translation Jews are rich and control the world) does little to support your claims of not being an anti-semite.

That's a ridiculous statement. Saying "without the military and strategic support of the West, Israel might very well already be gone" to me is fact and not even derogatory towards Jewish people, let alone anti-semitic. I'm not sure about the resources, nor do I have the time to look it up. I don't understand why in the rest of your post, you go out of your way to say that Israelis are not Jews usurping land, but refugees from arab and muslim countries, but then when trying to paint bumblemus as an anti-semite, you yourself EMPLOY the very conflageration of Israelis/Jews that you purport to be against.

[bumblemusprime]

Your depiction of Israelis as surviving only because they have powerful allies and resources (translation Jews are rich and control the world) does little to support your claims of not being an anti-semite.

I'm sorry you took it that way, but I draw a pretty clear distinction between opposing Israel's policies and opposing Zionists and being anti-Semitic. That's like saying that opposing Hamas terrorist tactics is anti-Palestinian.

If you see "Jews are rich and control the world" in the above posts, you're fishing for prejudice. And maybe I should have been more clear that my opposition is to radical Zionists and to most of Israel's government policies. But I think you're looking for a reason to be offended.

Reporter: "Which animals would you draw if you were drawing Israeli Jews?"

Art Spiegelman: "I don't know--porcupines?"

By the way, those Jews fleeing persecution in Arab lands? Did that maybe have something to do with the way radical Zionists were planting bombs in places like Baghdad? Or did you fail to mention that wave of immigration was post-1948, as opposed to European Jews and Holocaust survivors pre-State of Israel?

I'm not justifying the actions of Arab countries. Israel and the Arab countries all act like a bunch of spoiled children most of the time. But Yaya's not popping up and saying, "Hey, Bumblemus! You called Hamas a bunch of fanatics! You're Islamophobic!" I'm pointing out that Israeli leaders like to paint a giant "Suffering of The Jews" over their political actions, embracing the same political religious affiliation that their "oh-so-backward" Arab neighbors practice. Israel is not Judaism any more than Iran is Islam or Greece is Orthodox Christianity.

The Zionists' goal has always been to turn the world against THEIR OWN PEOPLE. The whole way that Ben-Gurion and his flunkies handled the establishment of Israel was rooted in exceptionalism at all costs: "go ahead and turn the world against the Jews if it gets them to Zion." So why are you so hungry to find anti-Semitism every time someone mentions the actions of a group of fanatics whose actions are doctrinally dubious to say the least?

[Yaya]

Your depiction of Israelis as surviving only because they have powerful allies and resources (translation Jews are rich and control the world) does little to support your claims of not being an anti-semite.

Yes! I win the bet! Only two posts before "anti-Semite" was thrown out as an accusation.

Seriously, when will it be okay for a person to take a dig at Israeli policies without being labelled an anti-Semite, I wonder?

[Brendocon]

Because "radical Israeli Zionists" automatically conflates to "the Jews?"

Yep. And Al-Queda represents the entirety of Islam, whilst every single white American is a secret member of the KKK. I THOUGHT YOU KNEW THIS?

[Optimus Prime Rib]

whilst every single white American is a secret member of the KKK.

I swear I just like to dress as a ghost for Halloween.

now I have to blast this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIGAZnk5Iwo

[Best First]

This topic is communist and un-American and pro terrorist and Old Europeish and is not eligible to be president and a perfect example of the liberal domination of the internet and is against god.

[Metal Vendetta]

I really don't get it. What is an "Islamic community centre" anyway, and why does New York need one? Is it like an Irish pub?

[Kaylee]

Does it have rides?

[Hot Shot]

Do the veiled wimmins ride poles?

[Brendocon]

Poles, Germans, Czechs, Croats. Let's try and be inclusive here.

[Metal Vendetta]

In honour of the people of Lapland, Lap dancing should definitely be included.

[Jack Cade]

Your depiction of Israelis as surviving only because they have powerful allies and resources (translation Jews are rich and control the world) does little to support your claims of not being an anti-semite.

Ha ha - what?? If it's anti-semite to say that Israel makes use of its far greater resources and relationship with the US in its ongoing conflict with Palestinians, then chalk me up as one too. I don't mind being called a racist as long as it's made clear that the only race I have a problem with are aggressively militarised governments and their apologists.

[Brendocon]

I'm fairly certain that it's anti-semitic to say anything that isn't sucking the cock of the Jew collective.

[Shanti418]

I'm fairly certain that it's anti-semitic to say anything that isn't sucking the cock of the Jew collective.

And, for full circle's sake, I'm fairly certain that it's anti-American to say anything that isn't sucking the cock of the WASP collective. Hence the uproar over the Islamic community center 2 blocks away from ground zero.

[bumblemusprime]

I'm fairly certain that it's anti-semitic to say anything that isn't sucking the cock of the Jew collective.

Irony?

[Optimus Prime Rib]

I'm fairly certain that it's anti-semitic to say anything that isn't sucking the cock of the Jew collective.

wait.. is that kosher?

[Professor Smooth]

I'm fairly certain that it's anti-semitic to say anything that isn't sucking the cock of the Jew collective.

wait.. is that kosher?

Maybe if it's circumcised?

[Metal Vendetta]

To get back on topic a bit, I think Thunderf00t has the right idea on this. There's tolerance, and then there's Islam - the two are extremely uneasy bedfellows.

[Professor Smooth]

To get back on topic a bit, I think Thunderf00t has the right idea on this. There's tolerance, and then there's Islam - the two are extremely uneasy bedfellows.

I don't think that sweeping statements like that are fair, and that goes for every major religion. All of the big three have had violent people who've committed acts of terror. All of the big three have some passages in their respective holy books that justify, if not outright command, such actions of the faithful. And all three have hundreds of millions (if not billions) of followers who are really sick of being lumped in with the absolute worst people who claim to share their religious views.

You say that tolerance and Islam are extremely uneasy bedfellows. And I'm sure you can point to a few passages in the Muslim holy book that support that. There are obviously a lot of stories in the news that show Muslims doing things that support it as well. Just like I'm sure that we can all do exactly the same thing with the Torah, the Holy Bible, and the followers of each.

The worst stories seems to be coming out of places that are at war. And, in many cases, education has never been a big priority. How many of these nasty stories come from people who've been the products of a modern educational system? A few dozen? A few hundred? Out of BILLIONS?

It's unfair to the billions of people who, while practicing their faiths, do NOT engage in such nefarious actions. People who wouldn't even THINK of doing those things. When you point out that this book or that commands them to kill, they'll almost always find a reason to explain why they (and most) don't.

I've met some really cool people in this world. Christians, Jews, Muslims, people who belong to what most would call cults, atheists, agnostics, and etc. Among those groups, I've met a great many assholes as well. But the good outweighs the bad. Every single time. By a very wide margin.

There are always going to be assholes. But we can't judge every single person based on the actions of other people. We've been down that road before, many times, and nothing good's ever come from it.

[bumblemusprime]

I'm with Smooth. The economic and political climate in Islamic countries has never encouraged "reform Islam" the way that Western intellectualism has encouraged Judaism to lighten up.

Islam isn't hegemonic, like Mormonism or Catholicism, whose members, for the most part, won't quit hatin' The Gay until their leaders do. There just aren't a lot of liberal interpretations of Islam. We'll gradually see a section of Islam liberalizing and letting go of some of their ridiculous ideas about wimmins and dating and even The Gay.

On the video: I'm not bothered by the fact that I can't get into Mecca--not to mention that the qualification for becoming a Muslim is just saying one sentence, so it's really not tough to get in. There are isolated religious sanctuaries in a lot of places that only welcome members. Why the hell should I care so much? He can say one sentence to become Muslim and go to Mecca if he really cares. It's not like a Mormon temple, where you have to be baptized, remain a member of the church for a year, go through an interview about your worthiness, and then go--and those are everywhere in our democratic country. Guy's making too much of it.

[Metal Vendetta]

You say that tolerance and Islam are extremely uneasy bedfellows. And I'm sure you can point to a few passages in the Muslim holy book that support that. There are obviously a lot of stories in the news that show Muslims doing things that support it as well. Just like I'm sure that we can all do exactly the same thing with the Torah, the Holy Bible, and the followers of each.

No arguments there; I've no special love for the Jews or Nazarenes either.

There are always going to be assholes. But we can't judge every single person based on the actions of other people. We've been down that road before, many times, and nothing good's ever come from it.

I'm not judging every single muslim, I just think that the people proposing this "Islamic community centre" are assholes. I think the pope's an asshole, yet I don't tar every catholic with the same brush. Those catholics who defend the pope, however...

The economic and political climate in Islamic countries has never encouraged "reform Islam" the way that Western intellectualism has encouraged Judaism to lighten up.

That sounds suspiciously like "It's not Islam's fault it's so intolerant, blame society!"

Like the video says, America's a free country. These people can build whatever they like within the law - it doesn't mean I have to agree with it, and it doesn't mean that it's not taking the piss. Personally I think the Cordoba House plans are taking the piss, but then again I'm not a New Yorker, much less an American.

[Yaya]

To get back on topic a bit, I think Thunderf00t has the right idea on this. There's tolerance, and then there's Islam - the two are extremely uneasy bedfellows.

Sigh. I shouldn't, but I guess I'll bite.

Islam will never mold to what others want it to be. It's a belief based on divine guidance, not popular opinion. This has always been the way. Someone will have an idea that they feel should supercede all others and attack Islam for not fitting that contemporary mold. They will, like you, be frustrated and angry by their stubborness in assimilating. But they will live out their lives, they will die, and Islam will carry on.

The tolerance comments are ridiculous.

If Islam and Muslims truly were the people you hope them to be, common sense should tell you one of two things would happen: 1) Either you'd be saying "Allahu Akbar!" right now, or 2) they would have gone extinct, as the world would not have allowed them to exist. They would have gone the way of the Nazi's, a radical group that was so ethnocentric that the world banded together to eliminate them. And for all intents and purposes, they did, save for the few in their hidey-holes.

Neither has happened. Before you say, "yeah, but it's coming", let me remind you Islam is not some neo-theological force. Islam has been around for 1400 years. It is here now, and it will be there long after you are dead, MV. Sorry to hit you with that.

[Jack Cade]

I don't think MV was talking about 'violent people who've committed acts of terror'. More likely he was talking about the fact that Islam - as practiced in this country, at least - still seems to subjugate women (why are they the only ones who have to wear burkas?) and advocate intolerance of 'deviance'. I'm well aware there are more liberal versions of Islam, but to say that the intolerant aspects of Islam lie only on the fringes is just wrong. Forcing women to wear burkas (not to mention enter the mosque via a separate, smaller entrance) is very much the mainstream.

Christianity might be just as bad in some countries, but here it tends to be either an extremely liberal variety or mixed in with general right wing bigotry - not a force of bigotry in itself. And more importantly, numbers of Christians are going down - it's being assimilated into a more practical, general European outlook. The Muslim population in the West is growing, and at some point Islamic beliefs are going to actively clash with liberal ideals over significant issues.

[Yaya]

Islam - as practiced in this country, at least - still seems to subjugate women (why are they the only ones who have to wear burkas?) and advocate intolerance of 'deviance'. I'm well aware there are more liberal versions of Islam, but to say that the intolerant aspects of Islam lie only on the fringes is just wrong. Forcing women to wear burkas (not to mention enter the mosque via a separate, smaller entrance) is very much the mainstream.

Did you know that men are required to go to the mosque, and that for women it is optional? Hence the reason mosques are constructed the way they are. If there is inequality, it is in favor of the women in this regard.

Regarding separation, women and men are separated in mosques because, in a mosque, the purpose is to focus on God and not the opposite sex. Hence, the separation. I would say the biggest misconception about Islam has to do with women. Did you know the book of women's rights in Islam is three times as thick as the men's? Did you know that Islam gave women the right to property and inheritance 1400 years before the U.S.A. did? Did you know that the Quran, in a single verse, mentions "men and women" ten times separately, regarding their rights and station in Islam under God. No such verse exist in the Bible or Torah, or even the U.S. Constitution, explicitly saying "men and women". Islam abolished slavery 1400 years before America did it. Animal rights were established by the Prophet (PBUH). Torture was condemned explicitly in the Quran and by the Prophet (PBUH), this transgression being performed legitimately under the auspices of the goverment today.

Women don't have to wear burkas. There is no command anywhere saying they have to cover their faces up. The command is for the hijab, which is the head scarf.

Out of curiosity, how many Muslim women have you spoken with about hijab? I think there is a misconception that women are forced to wear the hijab. In actuality, most choose to wear them, just as nuns choose to. If you ever get the chance to speak with a hijab-wearing women, I encourage you to ask her why she does it. I guarantee you it won't be because "my husband made me do it". At least, in most instances, this will be the case.

The Muslim population in the West is growing, and at some point Islamic beliefs are going to actively clash with liberal ideals over significant issues.

Then Muslims will have to make a choice, won't they? If they want to live in the West, they will have to accept living under Western influence and ideology. "Laa ikraa ha fi deen". Traslation: "There is no compulsion in religion (Quran). If they feel there can be no compromise, then they will have to leave. Simple as that. God does not contrict the Earth for people. It is quite expansive, and there are other places to live in the world than the West if a Muslim feels his rights as a Muslim are being violated.

[Metal Vendetta]

OK, for the sake of clarity, Yaya, please familiarise yourself with the No True Scotsman fallacy before we go any further, because it'll save a whole lot of time, I promise.

Islam will never mold to what others want it to be.

You might want to have a word with the Taliban, then. Or Osama Bin Laden, or the Saudi Wahabists, or anyone else through history who has used islam for their own political ends. Bumblemus has already said up there that islam's not homogenous, yet you talk as if it's a unified entity. Seems like every islamic culture on the planet has its own ideas about which bits are important and which bits aren't. It's not immutable.

It's a belief based on divine guidance, not popular opinion.

Haha, yeah, right. So the "popular opinion" of the Taliban has no effect on their religion, neither does the "popular opinion" of liberal muslims. Let's face it, just like the torah or the goddamn bible, the koran's so vague in places you can read pretty much anything you like into it, and if islam was so self-evident, why the need for all the imams and teachers?

This has always been the way. Someone will have an idea that they feel should supercede all others and attack Islam for not fitting that contemporary mold. They will, like you, be frustrated and angry by their stubborness in assimilating.

Unless of course their idea is that we should oppress women more. Or kill all the non-believers, or eschew western technology (except for guns and bombs of course). Those kinds of ideas seem to find islam to be a fertile ground in which to breed. On the flipside, there are plenty of westernised muslims who consider alcohol to be compatible with islam, or allow their girls to wear what they like. I do hope you still have that No True Scotsman page open.

But they will live out their lives, they will die, and Islam will carry on.

Eh, let's just remind ourselves of Amun-Ra, Zeus, Odin and all the other gods that have gone extinct through history. In particular, I find Baal to be a particularly interesting case because he was part of the pantheon that spawned the war god Yahweh into the world, yet Baal-worshippers died out pretty soon after Abraham came along with the idea that the god of war is the only god worth worshipping and created the monotheism you enjoy so much. Boast all you like that the sky fairy's on your side, but islam has a limited lifespan, just like all the other religions. My own prediction would be the Bahá'ís dominating much of what is now the islamic world within the next 1000 years, which is presumably why the Iranians are trying their best to exterminate them now.

The tolerance comments are ridiculous.

Of course, why would anyone think islam (or any religion for that matter) would be tolerant of different ideas? Intolerance is religion's bread and butter.

If Islam and Muslims truly were the people you hope them to be, common sense should tell you one of two things would happen: 1) Either you'd be saying "Allahu Akbar!"

[edit] Sorry, couldn't resist this.

IT'S A TRAP!

right now, or 2) they would have gone extinct, as the world would not have allowed them to exist. They would have gone the way of the Nazi's, a radical group that was so ethnocentric that the world banded together to eliminate them. And for all intents and purposes, they did, save for the few in their hidey-holes.

Or, as I've seen happen, a little bit of both. Old habits die hard, but I've met enough secular muslims to know that assimilation is going on - where I'm from you'd be hard-pressed to find a muslim man that doesn't drink beer, for example. Sooner or later, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the muslims from everyone else. Yes, there'll still be a few in their hidey-holes (or caves in Afghanistan) but mainstream islam will move on and leave the nutjobs behind.

Neither has happened. Before you say, "yeah, but it's coming", let me remind you Islam is not some neo-theological force. Islam has been around for 1400 years. It is here now, and it will be there long after you are dead, MV. Sorry to hit you with that.

Oh no, I'm mortal and a tinpot religion will outlast me. I'll have trouble sleeping tonight after reading that. Whatever will I do etc. etc.