Scary! Madness of the Tea Party (video)
- Thread starter Miss*Bijou
- Start date
Glad you liked it
His writings here and here
Also if you have 64min one of these days, I absolutely loved this video/documentary.. it's definitely worth watching!! She's brilliant.
Arundhati Roy - We
This is a 'must see' 64 minute documentary film. In 1997 Arundhati Roy won the Booker Prize for her novel "The God of Small Things". In 2004 she was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize. The film examines the widely unregarded worlds of Anthropology and Geopolitics in a very dynamic manner, and is probably stylistically quite unlike any documentary that you have previously seen. It covers the world politics of power, war, corporations, deception and exploitation. It is particularly hard hitting when it comes to the United States and western powers in general.
Its unconventional style has proven to be very successful in engaging younger viewers - many of whom find more traditional content dealing with these subjects quite dry and uninteresting. It is almost in the style of a music video, featuring contemporary music (lush, curve, love & rockets, boards of canada, nine inch nails, dead can dance, amon tobin, massive attack, totoise, telepop, placebo and faith less) overlaid with the words of Arundhati Roy, and images of humanity and the world we live in today.
[video=google;-4631324857495646397]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4631324857495646397#[/video]
.
I did want to reply, Ray. In actuality, your comment portrayed what is known as post-modern thinking: I think I could define it, in this particular context, as: 1) Always blame one's own western or western oriented nation for the problems other nation's are having or causing; 2) Never make the perpetrator of violence responsible unless the perpetrator comes from the West and is Caucasian; 3) Do not bother to understand the culture of the person or groups, if they are foreigners, and always attribute to those cultures the same qualities possessed by one's own. 4) Multiculturalism is beyond criticism. Let me explicate:
In your passage, you go to great lengths to explain how the roots of terrorism go back to Western colonialism, imperialism and aggression. While all historical records would agree with you about the complicit involvement of western countries and injustices that they have created, we must remember that long before the 20th century involvement in Arab and mideastern affairs, not one democratic state in these parts was ever created other than Israel and, in the latter case, this was a creation of western thinking. Lebanon, influenced by the French, has been one exception but now, with the part played by Hezbollah in its government, it can hardly be called democratic. So what we have are corrupt dictatorships of various kinds which the indigenous people must deal with. Please recall that the Ottoman Empire (Turkish) included much of the vast area of the mideast for a long period of time before WWI put an end to its hegemony. Furthermore, no Muslim nor mideastern civilization of any note has risen since the decline of the Moors in Spain by the 13th century. The Persians, of course, developed an amazing civilization, long dead and gone, however. And, of course, the ancient Egyptians also created a civilization of great note. All the preceding is by way of indicating that the major problems of Arab and mideastern countries were caused by their own declines and not, substantially, by the West.
By not making the perpetrator responsible for his or her acts of terrorism, you infantilize that individual or group. This is common Western thinking and such thinking overwhelms our perceptions of criminal justice in general. The perpetrators of terrorism are often well educated, intelligent and wealthy. Many are people who have benefitted in terms of peaceful opportunities. They also often use disabled and uneducated people to carry out their purposes. In all cases, they will refer to the Koran, the Hadiths and to their imams as justifying their actions. In fact, their actions appear to be dominated by their interpretations of their religion. So, as noted, there is every reason to hold terrorists responsible for their activities. And, incidentally, they have caused far more harm wounding and murdering other Muslim civilians in their home countries (up until now) than damage caused to Westerners.
As for culture, Westerners often make the mistake of understanding Muslim terrorists in terms of their own values and aspirations. But terrorists suscribe to a different set of values than what we suscribe to in the West. The religion itself makes it clear (Koran) that the purpose is to dominate and that the killing of infidels is justifiable unless they (the non-Muslims) agree to conversions. This line of thinking can be found in various Surahs. The history of Islam, with the Prophet Mohammed's early on wiping out a neighbouring Jewish tribe, is one of maurarding, pillaging and forced conversions. There is also a strategic note involved in which waiting is considered a justifiable strategy until one is strong enough to wipe out the enemy (of Islam) party. In the socalled Golden Period, the first four caliphs, were all assassinated (see Tarek Fatah's "Chasing A Mirage"). Although violence has been a part of Christianity and Judaism, there is no extended justifications for such violence in either the Old or New Testaments comparable to the Koran.
A second point with reference to context is that we have evidence of Muslim terrorists valuing death more than life. This appears to be one of the reasons that suicide bombers can justify their missions whether it is terrorism carried out in the mideast or in the West, whether by foreigners or homegrown terrorists. Several years ago a leader of Hamas was videoed saying that "We Muslims love death the way Jews appreciate life". It was a truly horrifying presentation. I think this statement captures much of what I am trying to get across. When we view the various insurgencies in the mideast, we see that Muslim terrorists ordinarily use women, children and other non-combatants as shields. They keep ammunition near civilian centres, mosques and schools. In the West, such attitudes are quite alien and, frankly, horrific. Women are ordinarily considered chattel; "honour killings" are considered de rigeur and executions including deaths by stoning are part of the "justice" system, all countenanced, incidentally, by religious authorities. If the Reader doesn't get that, he/she doesn't have a clue. We need to cease thinking that all human beings share the same purposes. We find it hard to believe that children of people who countenance terrorism also bring up their children to become martyrs and that such "martydom", it is taught, will be rewarded in an afterlife. We willfully blindfold ourselves to the fact that Muslim cultures (generality) possess a different ethical and behavioural set of norms than our own. The real mistake the West has made vis a vis our relationship with Arab and mideastern countries was not to appreciate these differences.
I hope, Ray, and other Readers as well, that my lengthy commentary will be considered as you go about formulating and updating your own opinions. The greatest external threat to our well-being in the West is, in my estimation, Muslim insurgence and homegrown terrorism. Multiculturalism, in its most uncritical form, is another aspect of post-modern thinking, a most damaging one.. In western Europe, where the flood of Muslim population from Turkey, Algeria and other mideastern countries has emerged, the unabashed multiculturalism to which these nations have suscribed (at least in theory) has backfired and European countries are now reacting, perhaps too late. One views this in the significant rise of Geert Wilders' political party in the Netherlands, the rise of a rightwing party in Sweden, the banning of minarets in Switzerland, the banning of burkas in France and etcetera. It has become evident to the European people that the Muslim populations in western Europe have not integrated, have refused to integrate (an unusual number have not even learned the new European language), have caused an unusually significant amount of criminal behaviour and are consistent employers of the respective welfare systems in each country which they populate (sometimes where even the man involved has multiple wives and families). Naturally, European people are rising in anger and frustration at this state of affairs, especially at a time of economic depression. Many of you Readers are ultra liberals in your perceptions and will find my position repugnant. Nonetheless, none of us countenance, and should not countenance, such attitudes (see above) in our own immigrant populations while we, in Canada, choose to assist them (immigrants) to integrate in every way reasonably possible. I would ask you, therefore, to allow your objective selves to consider my views before reacting. Thank you.
Last edited:
I suspect that you have been unduly influenced by the "faux news" media, whether on tv, internet or whatever your preferred sources. I also suspect that you have little experience with other cultures, and I will make a guess that you have never been out of North America. You seem willing to engage in dialogue, so I will make a reply to your points. I don't believe you really considered what Ray was implying in his post.
Please do not forget that the "radicals" are a small minority in every Islamic culture, just as they are in our own. I don't feel much in common with a fundy type from our culture that home-schools their kids in religious nonsense, teaches them to hate gays and 'coloureds', thinks Sarah Palin makes sense, and spends their weekend at a NASCAR rally .... but there are a lot of them out there, and they threaten my way of life more than Muslims do.
What you neglect to take into account, is that before the 29th century, there were very few democracies in the rest of the world either. England, France, the US, Scandinavia, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and ??. Most of these nations, while democratic in their domestic affairs, were also the perpetrators of the worst excesses of colonialism, and historically did suppress democratic ambitions outside of their borders as long as they could.
The other point that you are missing is that many Islamic societies are currently very functioning civilizations. Walk the streets of Cairo or Karachi or Fez or Kuala Lumpur and try to deny it.
The rest of your post goes on to describe that terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists have a diffent mindset, and that somehow the rest of us don't understand it. Of course they do, how else can you explain their actions? They do present a threat and it should be countered effectively. You do not however, present a solution.
You also identify Islamic terrorism as our greatest external threat. That may be true, if your definition only includes the possibility of physical threats. I personally believe Chinese economic dominance presents a much greater threat to our financial welfare and way of life.
Our internal threats are far greater than any external ones. We kill far more of our own citizens through automobile collisions every year than we ever will from terrorist attacks, whether they come from Muslims or crazy white folks like in Oklahoma. Our real problems are the coming lack of resources, changing climate, and the inability to change our own habits and beliefs instead of cooperating with each other to reach solutions. When we resort to gated housing for safety from the have-nots, we will be responsible for the decline of our own civilization.
Finally, I refuse to see the validity of your fears about immigrant communities in our country. We are never going to allow Sharia law or anything that truly goes against our values to take root. Counterbalances will always set in. We should take the necessary steps to watch for threats of violence in these communities, and it seems like we are doing it pretty well -- we have had pipeline bombings carried out, but no successful "Islamofascist" plots.
I will now go back to worrying about the godamn Christian fundies that genuinely scare me.
What Ray was pointing out was that there are historical and current reasons that do explain why Muslims have resentment over the West's treatment of them, and some of these are very real. That doesn't mean that we share all responsibility, but we do share an appreciable portion of the blame. The US and the West have supported and do support dictatorships in the region, and have always been supportive of putting small groups that we can control in charge. This does not condone terrorism, it simply places it in historical context.
Where do you see this happening? It seems that our societies are extremely in favour of punishing terrorists, including waging wars in the belief that this will somehow achieve that goal. Nowhere did Ray say this. You are assigning views that are not evident in the post, lumping everyone that has liberal views into some generic whacko as defined by someone like Bill O'Reilly.
Again, I suspect that you are the one who lacks understanding of other cultures, and have been listening to limited sources. I assure you that the priorities of the vast majority of people in Muslim cultures are not so different than ours -- feeding their families, getting their kids educated, what to do for a buck, how to get laid, following their religion for many (and the same is certainly true here). There are many big cultural differences, and they vary hugely across Islamic societies. An urban Pakistani would share far more with the average Calgarian than they would with a Tuareg or with a rural Malay (or a rural tribesman in their own country}.
Please do not forget that the "radicals" are a small minority in every Islamic culture, just as they are in our own. I don't feel much in common with a fundy type from our culture that home-schools their kids in religious nonsense, teaches them to hate gays and 'coloureds', thinks Sarah Palin makes sense, and spends their weekend at a NASCAR rally .... but there are a lot of them out there, and they threaten my way of life more than Muslims do.
There is undoubtedly much truth in the causes of internal decay in civilizations. Rome decayed from within, and was eventually destroyed from without. So did ancient China, but they are certainly overcoming it now.
What you neglect to take into account, is that before the 29th century, there were very few democracies in the rest of the world either. England, France, the US, Scandinavia, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and ??. Most of these nations, while democratic in their domestic affairs, were also the perpetrators of the worst excesses of colonialism, and historically did suppress democratic ambitions outside of their borders as long as they could.
The other point that you are missing is that many Islamic societies are currently very functioning civilizations. Walk the streets of Cairo or Karachi or Fez or Kuala Lumpur and try to deny it.
The rest of your post goes on to describe that terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists have a diffent mindset, and that somehow the rest of us don't understand it. Of course they do, how else can you explain their actions? They do present a threat and it should be countered effectively. You do not however, present a solution.
You also identify Islamic terrorism as our greatest external threat. That may be true, if your definition only includes the possibility of physical threats. I personally believe Chinese economic dominance presents a much greater threat to our financial welfare and way of life.
Our internal threats are far greater than any external ones. We kill far more of our own citizens through automobile collisions every year than we ever will from terrorist attacks, whether they come from Muslims or crazy white folks like in Oklahoma. Our real problems are the coming lack of resources, changing climate, and the inability to change our own habits and beliefs instead of cooperating with each other to reach solutions. When we resort to gated housing for safety from the have-nots, we will be responsible for the decline of our own civilization.
Finally, I refuse to see the validity of your fears about immigrant communities in our country. We are never going to allow Sharia law or anything that truly goes against our values to take root. Counterbalances will always set in. We should take the necessary steps to watch for threats of violence in these communities, and it seems like we are doing it pretty well -- we have had pipeline bombings carried out, but no successful "Islamofascist" plots.
I will now go back to worrying about the godamn Christian fundies that genuinely scare me.
I have stated a number of times that the biggest cause for decline in the Muslim world are the dictatorships that are running their societies into the ground.
Read my response above.
I have read quite in depth about Muslim beliefs and history.
I have read the Quran in it's entirety.
I have read extensively the books authored by Bernard Lewis, considered to be the foremost historian of Middle Eastern History. (He is hated by the Arabs for his support of Zionism, but that's another topic.)
On the contrary, it appears to be YOU who have never read anything beyond polemics on the internet. Have you truthfully ever picked up the Quran to see what it actually says, as opposed to what someone on an internet site tells you?
Democracy did not exist in Eastern Europe or South America either.
You missed Iran, and Turkey.
You also missed the point I made in this regard.
The lack of democracy wasn't for the lack of trying. But whereas the rest of the world recieved support for trying to incorporate democratic governments, the Muslim world has found it's attempts opposed by the countries that champion freedom and democracy. I stated specific examples.
Again, it becomes obvious you never read a history book.
Otherwise you may have heard of the Muslim Empire known as the Mughals. And the Ottomans. And the Safavids. And the Mamluks.
All Muslim, all came after the 13th century.
Again, it appears you've never actually read the Quran or a history book.
I explained in a previous post about the European experience with 'multiculturism' and why it failed, but you obviously didn't read that either.
Or did not comprehend what I wrote.
In closing, the point I wish to make is that we are not denying that the incompetence and corruption of the Muslim rulers are what's led their societies to collapse and become third world shitholes.
What I am pointing out is that we (our elected leaders) are complicit in this as enablers by supporting and arming these dictatorships, and by condemning the democracy movements within those societies.
This is what enrages the people on the street. By seeing the hypocracy in our words and deeds.
This rage is real. The frustration is real.
When I used to be in Richmond, there was a barber I used to go to. He was an Arab guy. Nice enough guy.
When I became a regular at his place, he would start to open up to me, and we almost always ended up talking politics and religion. The group that was in there would always ask why we hated them. I didn't hate anyone, of course, but these conversations opened up another window for me. Started reading history, religion. You tend to see things differently. They turn into human beings.
Thank you, Ray and Hank, for engaging in dialogue. I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions. I speak a multiplicity of languages other than English and have resided in countries other than Canada and the USA including one mideastern country. Furthermore, even now, I do not always reside in North America. I say "reside and resided in" as opposed to simply visiting a foreign country and being a tourist. I have also read a great deal on the subjects I have referred to including the Koran (translated) and Bernard Lewis as well and, what's more, I continue to study and do research. I would point our, Ray, that the Koran explicitly says to "kill infidels" including Christians and Jews. There is no way of getting around that. I will try to find the exact Surahs where the foregoing is stated. I, too, have had friends who are Muslims. We are talking about movements, however, not specific individuals. As you both realize, terrorists are difficult to identify as we see in the case of the very successful U.S. army psychiatrist who proceeded to murder his associates. We are stymied by the fact that terrorists are often very friendly and/or successful people who do not stand out as violent or potentially violent. How do you get your heads around that? How should we proceed? While you may find this disturbing, it is the reality.
As to "civilizations", I was speaking about what Arnold Toynbee identified as civilization. The Ottoman Empire, for instance, never developed into anything we could identify as a civilization. The others you named, Ray, were not identified by Toynbee. Please identify what characteristics would make you inclined to call what the Mughals, Mamluks and Safavids developed as significant, contributive and unique. That may be a tall order but simply naming names will not do. So what new and creative energy did they bring to the world order? I could answer that with respect to the Egyptians, Moors and Persians, incidentally. A kingdom does not make a "civilization", however. Finally, I hope I have laid to rest your respective false conclusions about me. Furthermore, psychologizing about another person whose only reference is what he/she writes and anonymously at that almost always leads to a false trail. Best to simply deal with the issues as opposed to personalizing the commentary. It is a dangerous route to fall into, one into which I myself have fallen on occasion.
As to "civilizations", I was speaking about what Arnold Toynbee identified as civilization. The Ottoman Empire, for instance, never developed into anything we could identify as a civilization. The others you named, Ray, were not identified by Toynbee. Please identify what characteristics would make you inclined to call what the Mughals, Mamluks and Safavids developed as significant, contributive and unique. That may be a tall order but simply naming names will not do. So what new and creative energy did they bring to the world order? I could answer that with respect to the Egyptians, Moors and Persians, incidentally. A kingdom does not make a "civilization", however. Finally, I hope I have laid to rest your respective false conclusions about me. Furthermore, psychologizing about another person whose only reference is what he/she writes and anonymously at that almost always leads to a false trail. Best to simply deal with the issues as opposed to personalizing the commentary. It is a dangerous route to fall into, one into which I myself have fallen on occasion.
Last edited:
Ray: Following is the promised passage with further information from the Koran. All of this can be found if you google Robert Spencer+Jihad Watch and search for his article entitled "Islam 101:
Surah 9:5, otherwise known as Verse of the Sword, abrogates earlier peaceful intentions in accordance with 2:106: "Then when the Sacred Months ... have passed, then will the Mushrikun (unbelievers) wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Islamic ritual prayer) and give Zakat (alms), then leave them their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
The commandments to dominate and/or murder infidels (read Christians, Jews and others) are also to be found in the following Surahs: 8:67; 9:29 and; 9:33.
Surah 9:5, otherwise known as Verse of the Sword, abrogates earlier peaceful intentions in accordance with 2:106: "Then when the Sacred Months ... have passed, then will the Mushrikun (unbelievers) wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Islamic ritual prayer) and give Zakat (alms), then leave them their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
The commandments to dominate and/or murder infidels (read Christians, Jews and others) are also to be found in the following Surahs: 8:67; 9:29 and; 9:33.
Well, Juniper, if you are going to condemn a religion because its ancient scripture tells followers to commit murder, how about this one? This is but a small sample of the horrendous practices espoused by the Bible; many, many more can be found condoning murder, rape, slavery,.... Clearly we don't want followers of this religion in our society:
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests:
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches:
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Kill Fortunetellers:
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad:
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death for Cursing Parents:
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Death for Adultery:
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
Death for Fornication:
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Death to Followers of Other Religions:
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
Kill Nonbelievers:
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
This was just a quick cut-and-paste from one page of the EvilBible website; it goes on and on with handy biblical quotes, many of them much more horrendous. Unfortunately, many of the Tea Party types seem to think many of these punishments would be apt.
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests:
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches:
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Kill Fortunetellers:
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad:
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death for Cursing Parents:
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Death for Adultery:
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
Death for Fornication:
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Death to Followers of Other Religions:
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
Kill Nonbelievers:
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
This was just a quick cut-and-paste from one page of the EvilBible website; it goes on and on with handy biblical quotes, many of them much more horrendous. Unfortunately, many of the Tea Party types seem to think many of these punishments would be apt.
Last edited:
.
Doh! That's what I was about to respond.. You guys just keep beating me to it! lol
I'll just watch from the sidelines from now on then...carry on.
Oh... Great point btw. Although personally I would have included this one:
"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces." (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)
This might be a good solution in the fight against bullying...no? LOL
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Also noteworthy:
"Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock." Psalms 137:9 NAB
"No one whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off may be admitted into the community of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2 NAB)
" But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
"Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children." (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
From another site:
“The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts.” (Talmud: Baba Mezia 114b)
“The Akum (Negro) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the dog more than the Akum.” (Ereget Raschi Erod. 2230)
“Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therefore he will be served by animals in human form.” (Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855)
“A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal.” (Coschen Hamischpat 405)
“The souls of non-Jews come from impure spirits and are called pigs.” (Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b)
“Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human.” (Schene Luchoth Haberith, p. 250b)
“It is permitted to take the body and the life of a non-Jew.” (Sepher Ikkarim IIIc, 25)
“It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah (Talmud – Sanhedrin 59b). The Christians
belong to the denying ones of the Torah (Talmud).” (Coschen Hamischpat 425, Hagah 425, 5)
“Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jew), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God.” (Bammidber Raba, c 21 & Jalkut 772)
These laws of the Talmud were given to the Jews over 3000 years ago
Talk about a big 'ol love fest! Sheesh.
.
Well, Hank, the Old Testament is the story of the ancient Hebrew people as they evolved. For instance, the story of Abraham and Isaac is the story of how the ancients overcame the former sacrifice of human beings. The Old Testament is the story of civilization in its development. One more thing: With the exception of Baruch Goldstein, you cannot name another Jewish terrorist (with the possible exception of Adam Gedahn, one of whose parents had Jewish roots; Gedahn changed his name, converted to Islam and is now a much sought after terrorist who speaks to the English world about the errors of western ways). At any rate, the comparison is false. There are no Jewish terrorists nor do they act on the passages which you quote. On the other hand, Muslim terrorists do act on the passages quoted from the Koran. They invoke these passages to justify their terrorist activities and also to convince other Muslims that to murder and terrorize was commanded by their prophet. Furthermore, the latter part of the Koran supersedes the former. So if the Koran is also the story of a people as they evolve and develop, it is the story of how those people (Muslims) are commanded to dominate using violence or guile in order to convert or subjugate people of other beliefs or of no spiritual beliefs whatsoever. What I note, however, is that you and Bijou refuse to witness and acknowledge what is going on right within the purview of your respective perceptual bases. Perhaps you will both have to become the targets of terror attacks yourselves or to witness the damage done to loved ones or friends through terror attacks (impossible in Canada? Toronto 18) before the masks of self-deception fabricated through your respective abilities to rationalize and obfuscate will be obliterated.
Juniper, you're sounding more and more racist. Sorry, I don't mean to offend you but your attempt to demonize islam and muslims as the only religious supposedly inherently violent and leading to terrorism is a result of your own bias and your own selective view of the issue. There are extremists and fanatics in other religions as well, they just happen to have the US backing them or they have simply not been repeatedly been humiliated or had other means of controlling their own destinies or politics. Given the same situation, oppression and hopelessness, there is no doubt equally extremist groups of other religions could just as easily resort to terrorism acts. But you are refusing to acknowledge that this is why history matters in explaining it. No, it doesn't excuse it but it helps in avoiding to come to those inaccurate and biased conclusions - such as the one you are insisting on. It's not self deception, it's humanity.
I think you need to lay off Fox News for a while...
I think you need to lay off Fox News for a while...
"Racist", Bijou, because I take a different perspective? As I have written, are there any other terrorists besides Muslim ones which threaten the world's people? The answer to the question, which you absolutely refuse to entertain, is patently obvious. To be objective would be to alter your crystallized worldview, one which refuses to entertain, for instance, that some ethnic and religious groups actually endanger North Americans, Europeans and Mideasterners even in light of a surfeit of evidence. Your perspective is an illustration of the kind of political correctness which blinds so many "liberals" to real dangers and threats. I put the term "liberal" in quotes because I have found that post-modern liberals are not "liberal" at all. In spite of the name, unlike the traditional liberal, post-modern ones really don't seriously consider viewpoints other than their own and often resort to using demeaning terms like you did, Bijou, ("Racist"), in order to make a point. In a sense, you gave yourself away. I'm not surprised.
Incidentally, just to correct your statement, the Talmud is not 3,000 years old. The Talmud is a commentary on the Torah (Old Testament). The Mishnah was begun in 200AD and the Gemarah in 500AD. In some sense, these two main edifices of Jewish thinking continue to the present as comments, reforms, updates and new learning makes interpretation and re-interpretation necessary. There is no one central authority in Judaism, incidentally, Bijou.
Incidentally, just to correct your statement, the Talmud is not 3,000 years old. The Talmud is a commentary on the Torah (Old Testament). The Mishnah was begun in 200AD and the Gemarah in 500AD. In some sense, these two main edifices of Jewish thinking continue to the present as comments, reforms, updates and new learning makes interpretation and re-interpretation necessary. There is no one central authority in Judaism, incidentally, Bijou.
Last edited:
So you don't like racist? Ok, how about biased? Discriminatory? Partial?
I'm sorry but the only one guilty of demeaning is yourself and besides, I'm entitled to the opinion that your point of view is based on a racist (biased) point of view if I believe that your conclusion is based on an inaccurate belief and failure to consider all the facts equally... My saying so does not make it demeaning, I am stating an opinion based on a few of your responses.
I find it pretty ironic that you would repeatedly accuse others of not considering a different perspective when you've completely ignored anything other than your own, instead focusing on what you believe are the "reasons" for having a view that differs from your own as a tactic to invalidate a view you don't share.. (all the post modern liberals crap, that is completely irrelevant btw)
The fact that you refuse to even consider a different point of view and yet you continually make assumptions in oder to dismiss any other point of view, is pretty offensive and condescending. We might as well agree to disagree because regardless of what else might be said, you've already decided you aren't going to consider anything other than what you believe.
I'm sorry but the only one guilty of demeaning is yourself and besides, I'm entitled to the opinion that your point of view is based on a racist (biased) point of view if I believe that your conclusion is based on an inaccurate belief and failure to consider all the facts equally... My saying so does not make it demeaning, I am stating an opinion based on a few of your responses.
I find it pretty ironic that you would repeatedly accuse others of not considering a different perspective when you've completely ignored anything other than your own, instead focusing on what you believe are the "reasons" for having a view that differs from your own as a tactic to invalidate a view you don't share.. (all the post modern liberals crap, that is completely irrelevant btw)
The fact that you refuse to even consider a different point of view and yet you continually make assumptions in oder to dismiss any other point of view, is pretty offensive and condescending. We might as well agree to disagree because regardless of what else might be said, you've already decided you aren't going to consider anything other than what you believe.
More?
Well ok, only if you insist.
Of course, now you're going to argue that the above doesn't qualify as "true" terrorism based on some missing criteria... or other similar semantics or technicality, right?
And finally, I'm really not sure what this has to do with the original topic!
Well ok, only if you insist.
Of course, now you're going to argue that the above doesn't qualify as "true" terrorism based on some missing criteria... or other similar semantics or technicality, right?
And finally, I'm really not sure what this has to do with the original topic!
You pick and choose your passages, Bijou, to back up your point of view. Let me explain: In spite of socalled leaks, has anyone actually identified a "Jewish terrorist" being exported from the USA? Of course not, but in order to make a point you misuse research like any ordinary propagandist. As to the Westbank and settler violence, most recently four Israelis in an automobile were shot dead driving in the region. One was a pregnant mother and of the others, the husband and wife had six children. Soon thereafter, there was another attack against a couple in an auto. The Arab perpetrators have since been caught. The point is, the region is extremely volatile. There have been claims of settler violence but no claims of murder. As to using a Jewish source for your assumption, you would find that opinions in Israel re settlements vary a good deal as do Jewish opinions in the USA. Making your point on the basis of this article exhibits your own ignorance. If you made any attempt at fairmindedness as opposed to being obsessed on winning an argument in spite of your obvious lack of research and scholarship skills, you would assess both sides of the argument and actually self-judge the facts. You don't do that, Bijou, but you do rant a good deal. Incidentally, if you review my posts, you will see that I always read, consider varying opinions and respond quite carefully unlike your charming self. At any rate, is there any question in your mind that terrorism in the West is perpetrated by Muslims? Can you respond to that? Can you give actual facts, actual facts, to the contrary if you disagree?
Last edited:
Let me correct you, Alin of Burnaby. All the funds which Israel annually receives from the USA are for military expenditures only, all of which are spent in the USA. The economy in Israel is dynamic and thriving. Next to American companies, Israeli companies are second in making up the American Venture Exchange. As to the Jews who reside in the Westbank, they support themselves and also pay (heavy) taxes to the Israeli government. These territories are considered disputed. Some parts are under Israeli control at present.
With respect to Israeli terrorism, there were assaults on the British who were clearly obstructing the creation of a Jewish state. The King David Hotel was a fiasco. The intent was to create mayhem amongst the British but, as it turned out, there were civilians present including Jewish ones. As to Arab terrorism against Jews, the first instance was recorded in 1920. At the time, the population of Jews was just over 10%. In 1929, the infamous Hebron Massacre took place. Over sixty Jews were murdered by Arabs. Others were tortured. Women were raped. Homes and property were pillaged. The survivors fled to Jerusalem. With regard to Arab terrorism, you can google Israel+terrorism and then go to Lindaslog.
Hebron was the home of the Graves of the (Jewish) Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and wives. When Jordan held control of the Westbank and eastern Jerusalem, Jews were not allowed to worship in the Old City at the Second Temple and other places of worship including the Grave of the Patriarchs. Places of worship were kept in disrepair under the authority of Jordan if not desecrated. The difference between Jews and Muslims with regard to religious tolerance is not in question.
Although there are reports of settlers burning olive groves, there are also reports of the burning of olive groves by Palestinian Arabs with the assistance of members of BèTselem. Arabs are notable for creating (false) propaganda (see al-Dura for instance). So when you make pat statements, you do not permit full context. You just choose those reports which back your own point of view. This is another form of propaganda as opposed to genuine scholarship.
There is an extraordinary amount of religious tolerance in Israel. All religions are permitted and all places of worship are not only protected but renewed. Not only are there important places of worship of signal importance to Jews, Muslims and Catholics in Jerusalem but the Bahais have established a beautiful place of worship in Haifa. Other than Lebanon, in no other mideastern Arab country are churches and synagogues permitted to be built and in some nations, such as Saudi Arabia, none are permitted to exist.
With respect to Israeli terrorism, there were assaults on the British who were clearly obstructing the creation of a Jewish state. The King David Hotel was a fiasco. The intent was to create mayhem amongst the British but, as it turned out, there were civilians present including Jewish ones. As to Arab terrorism against Jews, the first instance was recorded in 1920. At the time, the population of Jews was just over 10%. In 1929, the infamous Hebron Massacre took place. Over sixty Jews were murdered by Arabs. Others were tortured. Women were raped. Homes and property were pillaged. The survivors fled to Jerusalem. With regard to Arab terrorism, you can google Israel+terrorism and then go to Lindaslog.
Hebron was the home of the Graves of the (Jewish) Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and wives. When Jordan held control of the Westbank and eastern Jerusalem, Jews were not allowed to worship in the Old City at the Second Temple and other places of worship including the Grave of the Patriarchs. Places of worship were kept in disrepair under the authority of Jordan if not desecrated. The difference between Jews and Muslims with regard to religious tolerance is not in question.
Although there are reports of settlers burning olive groves, there are also reports of the burning of olive groves by Palestinian Arabs with the assistance of members of BèTselem. Arabs are notable for creating (false) propaganda (see al-Dura for instance). So when you make pat statements, you do not permit full context. You just choose those reports which back your own point of view. This is another form of propaganda as opposed to genuine scholarship.
There is an extraordinary amount of religious tolerance in Israel. All religions are permitted and all places of worship are not only protected but renewed. Not only are there important places of worship of signal importance to Jews, Muslims and Catholics in Jerusalem but the Bahais have established a beautiful place of worship in Haifa. Other than Lebanon, in no other mideastern Arab country are churches and synagogues permitted to be built and in some nations, such as Saudi Arabia, none are permitted to exist.
Last edited:
That`s called highlighting certain passages. I assumed you would still be reading the rest but I guess you didn`t bother before you dismissed this as well. (just like you probably never bothered to read the article Ray linked in an earlier post.. or one of the videos posted either, right?)
There is no "so-called" leak. Wikileaks HAS been releasing leaked documents from whistle blowers for a while now.. look it up or take a look at a previous post of mine. There`s no propaganda, just you not interested in considering anything that doesn`t confirm what you believe.
Again, if you had read the article... "actually identified terrorist being exported from the USA"? How about 3 identified in the article, does that satisfy you? Or does only the one who was successful in committing murders count as terrorism by your "definition"? (which it/terrorism isn`t define by murder only btw)
The region is extremely volatile.. ok. So why does this matter in the context of this discussion? I don`t get it. Must be my ignorance. You`ll have to enlighten me here.
As far as sources I quoted, you`d have a point if I only quoted Arab/Palestinian/Muslim news, as this would have been biased. I included one out of 4 or 5. I also included an article from a jewish Magazine, one from a reputable & credible independent news website (ie Not corporate owned/run) and another from the AFP (Agence France Presse) also a respected international news agency. I`m not sure how these sources should pose any problem.
I imagine the opinion would vary in the settlements.. and why in the world would that be?
And you call me ignorant!Funny you should accuse someone of being obsessed on winning an argument....
You might consider taking your own advice and actually self judging the facts yourself... instead of ignoring or dismissing them or avoiding to address them altogether... or throwing insults around.
I could, but before I go on another rant, I would like to remind you that`s not what the discussion was about. Nice attempt at a subtle diversion.
I`m sorry your "argument" absolute statement that there were *only* muslim terrorists etc is clearly false and that it makes you angry that I pointed this out despite my obvious lack or research and scholarship skills. I must have lucked out, I guess.
Tea Party ~meh~ whatever. Just thank fuck control of the House is back where it belongs,& 2012 is around the corner
