More accounts on US torture :



limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Carrera said:
Scholars say that modern Greeks in no way resemble the ancient Athenians or Spartans. Likewise, modern Jews might not be quite the same as the Jews who lived under Pontius Pilate, and the same goes for the Arabs.
What confuses me, however, is why you feel the compulsion to take the side of the Arabs and oppose any conception of a State of Israel.
You see, there are various points to consider:
(1) The Arab population is far more vast than tiny Israel and comprises countries such as Iran, Syria, Iraq and Egypt e.t.c. However, the Arabs as a whole aren't content to concede any land (not an iota) that forms part of Israel's heritage and history.
.

In 1948, the State of Israel was created in Palestine.
No one anywhere has been able to tell me where Israel ever existed prior to
1948.
Palestine on the other hand existed for centuries.
So why endorse the Jewish claim about a country that never existed before
1948 ?
And in endorsing this claim, remove the very people who lived there, in order to accomodate European Jews ?

I am not saying that Jews were not entitled to live in Palestine.
Jews lived there (in Palestine) under Ottoman rule from the 6th century to 1919.
So it is factually incorrect to say that Arabs/Palestinians never accomodated
the Jews - they did for 14 centuries and they respected Jewish (and Christian) presence in Jerusalem as well.


Carrera said:
(2) Not only do the Arabs live in vast territories in the Middle East but they are presently colonising France, Spain, Europe as a whole and especially the United Kingdom. They are granted permission to build mosques in European countries such as Holland, yet they are still not content.

Hold up.
This is dangerous talk - people colonising.

I don't see them as colonising anywhere.
Have they forcibly removed people from their homes/regions/country's.
You are attempting to equate what the jews did in Palestine, with Muslims
coming to Europe ?


Carrera said:
As I've said before, I agree with you wholeheartedly over the war in Iraq and I don't have any particular axe to grind against Jews or Arabs (although I do experience some irritation with Islamic extremists). But I find it odd you hold the view that Israel is supposed to be causing us all these global problems when it seems the Arabs are never satisfied with what they have already (far more territory than Israel and far more immigrants settling in Europe).

Ok - we differ over Israel.
 

DV1976

New Member
Sep 29, 2004
419
0
0
Carrera said:
Scholars say that moder Greeks in no way resemble Athenians or Spartans.
This is actually false. This was a theory introduced by Fallmerayer circa 1835 and it has been disproved. This doesn't mean that modern Greeks are the grand grand (and so on) children of Pericles and Leonidas (in terms of blood lineage) but stating that "modern Greeks in no way resembe Athenians or Spartans" is a vast exaggeration. Don't say that to any Greek... (like me) :):):). Sorry for the diversion...
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
2
38
Squirmy Returns said:
Now that is funny. Are you gonna ***** slap me or pimp slap me?
yeah, funny aint it? perhaps a good ***** slap infront of your friends is what you need to get you over your masturbation obsession.
 

Squirmy Returns

New Member
Jan 18, 2005
88
0
0
MountainPro said:
yeah, funny aint it? perhaps a good ***** slap infront of your friends is what you need to get you over your masturbation obsession.
***** slap it is. Tell me where you'll be at. I'll save you the time and money coming to me.
 

zapper

Banned
Mar 11, 2004
2,495
0
0
FredC said:
The answer to all the first bits is NO, but I know who did.
The truth is I've never been banned from the other site, although some people did call for my head on a plate, they were unsuccessful as all my postings were within the rules of what we call The Spanish Accord, and what's more I'm on first name terms with the principals.
A battle of wits? Do me a favour Zap.
fred you are a liar...You can thank your buddy lim for providing the evidence
Originally Posted by FredC
Hey Lim, I've posted mine off to the Moderator, told him to block/inform the ISP as well. Come on you lot, fire a few in to the Moderator in support.
Come on you lot, fire a few in to the Moderator in support.”
Not only that I see that you called on lim to assist...

Lim to fredc

“Squirmy irish name has been removed from the members list, I see.
looks like your action worked, Fred.
Well done

followed by more from the coalition of the wankers...

cotgrove
“It's the second one I put in and as I said to LIM, I'm not holding my breath, but something has to be done, we don't need or want this **** jaming up the cyberwaves?”

Now I'm not siding with anyone but I don't see where this squirmy fellow did anything that would warrant your lot banding picking on a particular poster... After all this is a soapbox. I would understand if this bubba was pestering you in a thread concerning proper fit of a bike or what road shoes to your prefer or something...

Petty very petty and to lie...Well I'm very disappointed...
 

zapper

Banned
Mar 11, 2004
2,495
0
0
limerickman said:
As I said I am not going to publicly discuss what identities are used - but the identity of this poster is known.
Well PM me then...
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
zapper said:
f
Now I'm not siding with anyone but I don't see where this squirmy fellow did anything that would warrant your lot banding picking on a particular poster... After all this is a soapbox. I would understand if this bubba was pestering you in a thread concerning proper fit of a bike or what road shoes to your prefer or something...

Petty very petty and to lie...Well I'm very disappointed...

More melodrama for Zapoid and more lies.

Zapoid is siding with Squirm - just look at the LENT thread.
 

zapper

Banned
Mar 11, 2004
2,495
0
0
limerickman said:
More melodrama for Zapoid and more lies.

Zapoid is siding with Squirm - just look at the LENT thread.
OOOO NOOOO I'm scared....you are calling out to your federation....oh, please not that...anything but that...Spreading your "truths" are you?...How's the blackberry?
 

zapper

Banned
Mar 11, 2004
2,495
0
0
limerickman said:
is that an order ?

Eh, no.
no but put up or shut up...either you know who squirmy is or you don't ...My guess is you don't but you are posing like you do...What a blowhard. :rolleyes:
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
Well said! You provide specific evidence to support the view I expressed.
As I gather, Saudi Arabia is currently holding elections which totally exclude women from the right to vote and in other Arab countries women are treated, more or less, like chattel.
On the other hand, Israel is a society where women enjoy some degree of equality, can express an opinion without being suppressed and aren't publically flogged for not wearing their burkha.
The cold hard truth is that Arab States have failed to bring any significant degree of freedom and prosperity to their own people and this is why so many refugees flee Arab lands in order to live in France or Holland (don't see many Jewish women fleeing Israel).
The irony is that, having escaped their own oppressive societies, Arab immigrants then decide they are not content with life in the West and protest over our freedom of speech or the right of women to express themselves. Seems as if they want to re-establish the same values they fled from in the first place in the host country that granted them citizen status.
I enjoy reading Limerickman's posts (well-researched and documented) but I haven't really grasped why Lim feels so threatened by this tiny minority of Jews as opposed to the phenomenon of an ever-increasing Islamic influence in the Third World and Europe. Sure, I understand there are some politicians in the Bush Administration that adhere to fairly radical pro-Israeli policies but I think the majority of militant neo-cons aren't specifically Jewish.
On one or two occasions, it's been suggested that Jews tend to cause problems wherever they take up residence in Europe but this view seems to have ignored the problems Europeans are currently experiencing over efforts to integrate Arabs in their societies.
For example, many many Jews have recently fled France to take up residence in Israel (the historic home of the Jewish nation). Why have the Jews fled France, we might ask? Is it perhaps the fact the French have behaved in an anti-semitic manner (France has the strictest anti-racism policy in Europe)? Nope! Most Jews fled France due to anti-semitic sentiment occasioned by Arab immigrants despite the fact the Arabs themselves enjoy the freedom, peace and security to practise their own religion openly in France).
In Holland there have also been similar problems. One Dutch artist was assassinated for having criticized Islamic values in a film he made and another politician had to go into hiding, while in the U.K. Christian insignia (such as the Red Cross), flags and expressions of national identity are being repressed at the behest of Islamic pressure groups and weak-willed English politicians.
So, let's suppose we boot Israel out of the so-called occupied territories, open the borders of Europe to mass migration and alter our customs into the bargain. That leaves us with an Islamic Jerusalem, an Islamo-Christian Europe and 22 Arab countries as a whole. Plus, democratic/Jewish Israel would have ceased to exist.
The question remains: will any of that be sufficient to satisfy Arab grievances or will they still continue to protest and wage holy wars against free societies?






davidmc said:
Agree, heard a caller, on the radio the other day, point out that :
1 Israel
22 Arab countries
160 million jews
1.2 billion muslims
And why aren't the arabs willing to cede the palestinians any land seeing as they have 22 countries :confused:
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
zapper said:
no but put up or shut up...either you know who squirmy is or you don't ...My guess is you don't but you are posing like you do...What a blowhard. :rolleyes:

Suffice it to say, Squirmy knows that I know his identities.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
"Ok - we differ over Israel."

Of course, nobody agrees on all points. I notice how many of us tend to agree over Bush e.t.c. but then disagree over other areas e.t.c.







limerickman said:
In 1948, the State of Israel was created in Palestine.
No one anywhere has been able to tell me where Israel ever existed prior to
1948.
Palestine on the other hand existed for centuries.
So why endorse the Jewish claim about a country that never existed before
1948 ?
And in endorsing this claim, remove the very people who lived there, in order to accomodate European Jews ?

I am not saying that Jews were not entitled to live in Palestine.
Jews lived there (in Palestine) under Ottoman rule from the 6th century to 1919.
So it is factually incorrect to say that Arabs/Palestinians never accomodated
the Jews - they did for 14 centuries and they respected Jewish (and Christian) presence in Jerusalem as well.




Hold up.
This is dangerous talk - people colonising.

I don't see them as colonising anywhere.
Have they forcibly removed people from their homes/regions/country's.
You are attempting to equate what the jews did in Palestine, with Muslims
coming to Europe ?




Ok - we differ over Israel.
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
zapper said:
I don't think so clem...
Squirmy has contributed, albeit indirectly, to the discussion of "decorum & content" inre: the soapbox. As Zapper has stated, & i am aware, the soapbox is an area where we can discuss hot button topics w/o fear of reprisal from STEVE, who in my book is ok. The operative word here is "discuss". Squirmy seems to have come out of the gates attacking w/ no discernable content other than personal attacks. I once contacted steve as to the inappropriateness of someone's (who left us shortly after the disastrous, rigged pres. election :rolleyes: ) signature that I felt was overly offensive & antagonizing. You probably notice that my signature states my beleif in disbeleif however, I respect other's beleif as long as they don't ****-on about others who disagree w/ them. Long story short-no content & all insults lead to the exit door. It is odd that Squirmy only post's at irregular intervals as of late? So zapper does have a good point about "who is who".
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Carrera said:
One Dutch artist was assassinated for having criticized Islamic values in a film he made and another politician had to go into hiding, while in the U.K. Christian insignia (such as the Red Cross), flags and expressions of national identity are being repressed at the behest of Islamic pressure groups and weak-willed English politicians.

The dutch artist you referred to, made a movie about the rape of a Muslim woman.
The content of the film that you refer to, portrayed a womans body inscripted with texts from the Koran.
The film portrayed the woman, naked, with the texts of the Koran freely displayed and the character in the film portrayed acted in a very provocative way.
At the very least, the dutch filmaker concerned, was making a very inflammatory film.
If a similar representation was made of Jewess or Christian woman was made,
would we be offended ?

Of course, this doesn't excuse the murder of the film maker.


Carrera said:
For example, many many Jews have recently fled France to take up residence in Israel (the historic home of the Jewish nation). Why have the Jews fled France, we might ask? Is it perhaps the fact the French have behaved in an anti-semitic manner (France has the strictest anti-racism policy in Europe)? Nope! Most Jews fled France due to anti-semitic sentiment occasioned by Arab immigrants despite the fact the Arabs themselves enjoy the freedom, peace and security to practise their own religion openly in France).
In Holland there have also been similar problems.

I think what has happened in France - follows what has happened to the Jews since time in memorial.
For whatever reason - and I would dearly love to know why the Jews manage to incur the wrath of some many different people thoroughout so many nations, at so many different times throughout history - they are on the receiving end.

Look at Spain, look at Russia, look at the Ukraine, look at Germany, look at Poland, look at England (todays headlines) : they have been at the receiving
end.
I know of no other race/nationality who incur such wrath.

History is not been on the side of Judaism.


Carrera said:
That leaves us with an Islamic Jerusalem, an Islamo-Christian Europe and 22 Arab countries as a whole. Plus, democratic/Jewish Israel would have ceased to exist.
The question remains: will any of that be sufficient to satisfy Arab grievances or will they still continue to protest and wage holy wars against free societies?

The USA, for whatever reason, has wedded itself to Israel.
That's their perogative, of course.
In doing so, they immediately antagonise Muslim opinion.
That is the fact of the matter.

We can argue the why and wherefors, but essentially, without the USA, Israel
would not exist.
I do not believe that anyone can say that Israel is democratic, given it's activities in Palestine.
If democratic means the bulldozing of people houses - well then yes, it is a democracy, in the same way that the illegal invasion of Iraq was democratic.

Israel may well hold democratic elections and pay lipservice to the tenets of democracy, but in practice, it doesn't.

The indiscriminate murder of Palestinians - the illegal incursions in to the West Bank, the very creation of Israel through terrorist tactics (King David hotel in 1946 - the murder of british soldiers in 1947), doesn't denote democracy to me.
 

FredC

New Member
Oct 22, 2004
2,859
0
0
zapper said:
Well PM me then...
What a pity. It looks like I've missed a good day on the Lent board. I don't think that Lim posted to the Moderator, on the other hand I don't know how many requests he got from other posters. It is a fact that on all MB's SI and the other things wouldn't have lasted a day with a hands on Moderator.
As for the request as to whom I think SR is, why not work out from the regulars on the board who are not posting up much under another name. A man of your calibre should be able to work it out. I doubt whether he'd mess up on that one.
Production down today was it?
On another point I think it better that you ask Weisse about me, and not pontificate your opinion without his consultation. As I stated many times, I am not anti-semitic, I am anti-Israel in it's present state. Weisse and I know where we both stand now.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
I'm sure the film may have been inflammatory but I notice Michael Howard hasn't tried to assassinate the Labour Party spin merchants who played on the anti-semitism theme (by casting Howard in the roll of Fagin) - in their publicity posters against the Conservatives.
Michael Howard (who happens to be of Jewish descent) recently plucked up the courage to tackle the issue of immigration; thus, the Labour Party figured they'd suck up to Moslem voters by having a dig at Howard's ethnicity. This is after the Labour Party had attempted to brainwash people into taking the view anyone who disagrees with their ideas on mass immigration is a racist.
I find that quite staggering to be honest. I mean, after preaching to the rest of us about "chalkboards" and the like, the Labour Party go ahead with an anti-semitic election campaign that would have seen ordinary people brought to the courts had they made condescending remarks about Islam.
That was precisely Kilroy Silk's beef. It's O.K. for radical mullahs to preach hatred of the West in London mosques but when Kilroy dares to take a poke at Arab repression in a speech, he's sacked by the BBC.
However the case may be, there was no hand-wringing from Howard in this case. And I guess I take the view that if Moslems in Holland don't like free speech and criticism they should either leave, or learn to put up with the values we have in free societies - freedom of speech.
I take the point about the Jews having caused problems for themselves throughout history but I think all groups who remain separate experience such problems. For example, the Romans persecuted Christians since it was believed they were guilty of "odio generis humanis". Philosophers and alchemists were likewise persecuted as well as gays at different points of time.
The difficulty here is that, although you correctly point out the Jews have suffered pogroms in countries such as Russia or Germany, you skipped over the fact that these days Europe is experiencing worse problems with Islamic immigrants who oppose western, democratic values. Again, if you take a look at the situation in France it was chiefly the Moslems who protested over the prohibition of veils and skull-caps in secular schools. In Spain, extremist groups of Islamic fanatics carried out the train bombing atrocity, not Jewish radicals. In Holland, there have been far worse problems than in France and Belgian police had to control an Arab riot in the streets over the staging of a beauty contest for women. In Russia a small group of cowardly so-called Islamic warriors took a school full of children hostage, hid behind them as human shields and then shot them in the back while Russian security forces attempted to get the hostages out. As I recall the Russian troops were ordered to sacrifice their own lives if it meant sparing one of the children.
Now, sure, I agree with you that the Israelis shouldn't have degraded the Palestinian settlers in the way they have done and I agree the Israeli army is far too heavy handed. However, there have been no cases of Israeli soldiers hiding behind women and children as human shields or sheltering in their religious temples during conflict. And I'm not saying all Moslems behave in such a way, of course. But I do think your conclusion that the Jews are the cause behind the present unrest seems to totally ignore the reality that certain branches of Islamic fanaticism lies at the heart of many woes.
The greatest Moslem of all Muhammad Ali condemned all these terrorist groups as do many other Moslems.
Finally you concluded that history doesn't favour Judaism but here there is a kind of irony. I basically lived in countries such as Russia where there is a good deal of anti-Jewish sentiment. However, I always found it strange that Russian people would queue up for hours to take a look at Lenin's body in Red Square and they still revere him as a great political figure. Yet, Lenin was part Armenian, part Jewish. Later there was a big joke about all of this when the biggest anti-semitic in Russia, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, found out he was of Jewish bloodline (after having proclaimed anti-semitism throughout his campaign).





limerickman said:
The dutch artist you referred to, made a movie about the rape of a Muslim woman.
The content of the film that you refer to, portrayed a womans body inscripted with texts from the Koran.
The film portrayed the woman, naked, with the texts of the Koran freely displayed and the character in the film portrayed acted in a very provocative way.
At the very least, the dutch filmaker concerned, was making a very inflammatory film.
If a similar representation was made of Jewess or Christian woman was made,
would we be offended ?

Of course, this doesn't excuse the murder of the film maker.




I think what has happened in France - follows what has happened to the Jews since time in memorial.
For whatever reason - and I would dearly love to know why the Jews manage to incur the wrath of some many different people thoroughout so many nations, at so many different times throughout history - they are on the receiving end.

Look at Spain, look at Russia, look at the Ukraine, look at Germany, look at Poland, look at England (todays headlines) : they have been at the receiving
end.
I know of no other race/nationality who incur such wrath.

History is not been on the side of Judaism.




The USA, for whatever reason, has wedded itself to Israel.
That's their perogative, of course.
In doing so, they immediately antagonise Muslim opinion.
That is the fact of the matter.

We can argue the why and wherefors, but essentially, without the USA, Israel
would not exist.
I do not believe that anyone can say that Israel is democratic, given it's activities in Palestine.
If democratic means the bulldozing of people houses - well then yes, it is a democracy, in the same way that the illegal invasion of Iraq was democratic.

Israel may well hold democratic elections and pay lipservice to the tenets of democracy, but in practice, it doesn't.

The indiscriminate murder of Palestinians - the illegal incursions in to the West Bank, the very creation of Israel through terrorist tactics (King David hotel in 1946 - the murder of british soldiers in 1947), doesn't denote democracy to me.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Carrera said:
I'm sure the film may have been inflammatory but I notice Michael Howard hasn't tried to assassinate the Labour Party spin merchants who played on the anti-semitism theme (by casting Howard in the roll of Fagin) - in their publicity posters against the Conservatives.
Michael Howard (who happens to be of Jewish descent) recently plucked up the courage to tackle the issue of immigration; thus, the Labour Party figured they'd suck up to Moslem voters by having a dig at Howard's ethnicity. This is after the Labour Party had attempted to brainwash people into taking the view anyone who disagrees with their ideas on mass immigration is a racist.
I find that quite staggering to be honest. I mean, after preaching to the rest of us about "chalkboards" and the like, the Labour Party go ahead with an anti-semitic election campaign that would have seen ordinary people brought to the courts had they made condescending remarks about Islam.

I see the Daily Mail carries news that Howard, who's real name is Michul Hecht, admitted that his Romainian Jewish father, may have been an illegal
immigrant to Britian !
That's an aside (I thought the DM was a Tory paper ?).

This is a complex issue - is Judaism a race or a religion, or both ?
The Labour party wanted to draft posters of pigs flying and the Tories complained that this was being racist against Howard.
Howard, on the other hand says that he wants to clamp down on immigration.

To be honest, I think they're both playing the racist card - and both sets want to appear to be tough on immigration.


Carrera said:
It's O.K. for radical mullahs to preach hatred of the West in London mosques but when Kilroy dares to take a poke at Arab repression in a speech, he's sacked by the BBC.
However the case may be, there was no hand-wringing from Howard in this case. And I guess I take the view that if Moslems in Holland don't like free speech and criticism they should either leave, or learn to put up with the values we have in free societies - freedom of speech.
.

I happen to agree with you.

i think if you live in a society - you ought to respect the tenets of that society, especially if you are not from that society.
The Muslims should tolerate free speech - however I think that the film your referred to earlier was extremely provocative.
I do not in any way condone the murder of that film maker - in fact I condemn utterly his murder.
But, in a free society, the film maker could have been less provocative in his portrayal of the subject in question.



Carrera said:
I take the point about the Jews having caused problems for themselves throughout history but I think all groups who remain separate experience such problems. For example, the Romans persecuted Christians since it was believed they were guilty of "odio generis humanis". Philosophers and alchemists were likewise persecuted as well as gays at different points of time.
The difficulty here is that, although you correctly point out the Jews have suffered pogroms in countries such as Russia or Germany, you skipped over the fact that these days Europe is experiencing worse problems with Islamic immigrants who oppose western, democratic values. Again, if you take a look at the situation in France it was chiefly the Moslems who protested over the prohibition of veils and skull-caps in secular schools. In Spain, extremist groups of Islamic fanatics carried out the train bombing atrocity, not Jewish radicals. In Holland, there have been far worse problems than in France and Belgian police had to control an Arab riot in the streets over the staging of a beauty contest for women. In Russia a small group of cowardly so-called Islamic warriors took a school full of children hostage, hid behind them as human shields and then shot them in the back while Russian security forces attempted to get the hostages out. As I recall the Russian troops were ordered to sacrifice their own lives if it meant sparing one of the children.
Now, sure, I agree with you that the Israelis shouldn't have degraded the Palestinian settlers in the way they have done and I agree the Israeli army is far too heavy handed. However, there have been no cases of Israeli soldiers hiding behind women and children as human shields or sheltering in their religious temples during conflict. And I'm not saying all Moslems behave in such a way, of course. But I do think your conclusion that the Jews are the cause behind the present unrest seems to totally ignore the reality that certain branches of Islamic fanaticism lies at the heart of many woes.
The greatest Moslem of all Muhammad Ali condemned all these terrorist groups as do many other Moslems.
Finally you concluded that history doesn't favour Judaism but here there is a kind of irony. I basically lived in countries such as Russia where there is a good deal of anti-Jewish sentiment. However, I always found it strange that Russian people would queue up for hours to take a look at Lenin's body in Red Square and they still revere him as a great political figure. Yet, Lenin was part Armenian, part Jewish. Later there was a big joke about all of this when the biggest anti-semitic in Russia, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, found out he was of Jewish bloodline (after having proclaimed anti-semitism throughout his campaign).

I do not support the taking of life by Muslim terrorists or anyone else for that matter.
I think that Beslan, 9/11, Madrid were terrible acts.
I think that the invasion of Iraq was a terrible act too.
So no side comes to this issue with clean hands.

There may well be cultural tensions between some elements of extreme Muslims living in Europe and main stream Europe.
The bombing in Madrid, we were told was because Spain supported the illegal US invasion of Iraq.

This brings me to the concept of Ummah.
I haven't got the literal translation of Ummah - but I'll paraphrase.
Essentially, Ummah is the concept of Islamic territory : it holds that if an infidel occupies Islamic land, the infidel violates the concept of Ummah.
Outmoded as this concept may well be - it is invoked by BinLaden & Co.
Thus the invasion of Iraq - according to Al Qaeda - violates the concept of Ummah.
Spain - historically known as Anduluscia in Islam - was also part of the Ummah, under the Moors (we discussed this when talking about Zaragoza and Cordoba, previously).
Thus, because the concept of Ummah was violated by the US ,and assisted by Spain, Spain therefore made itself a target.
From an extremists viewpoint, Madrid and 9/11 were not crimes.
Because of the US presence in Saudi, iraq, Afghanistan, Ummah has been violated.

The only surefire way to solve this entire problem is to get the USA out of all Muslim countries and for all non-Muslim countires to seal their borders to Muslims.
Neither of these options will happen.
So we have to try to work through a solution.

I think that there are extremists on both sides (in the West, and, separately within Islam).
Neither set of extremists will win because it's an unwinnable war for both sides.
I recognise militant Islam.
I also recognise Israeli's State terrorism and US State terrorism.

I hear a lot of posters here waffling on about Islamo-fascists and other Islamo-phobic stuff (not you, it has to be said).
Then I hear them squeal anti-semiticism when their own kind are criticised.
They have a blind spot about criticisning their own kind.

I am big enough to say "yes, there is a problem with Islamic terrorism" but I am also big enough to recognise that "yes there is a problem too with US/Israeli terrorism".
Which brand of terrorism poses is a bigger threat ?
They're symbiotic.
One feeds of the other.
Which is Bush's biggest crime - in reality, his entire raison d'etre is Binladen.
In turn, Binladen's raison d'etre is Israel/US.
 

FredC

New Member
Oct 22, 2004
2,859
0
0
Carrera said:
I notice Michael Howard hasn't tried to assassinate the Labour Party spin merchants who played on the anti-semitism theme (by casting Howard in the roll of Fagin) - in their publicity posters against the Conservatives.
Michael Howard (who happens to be of Jewish descent) recently plucked up the courage to tackle the issue of immigration; thus, the Labour Party figured they'd suck up to Moslem voters by having a dig at Howard's ethnicity. This is after the Labour Party had attempted to brainwash people into taking the view anyone who disagrees with their ideas on mass immigration is a racist.
I find that quite staggering to be honest. I mean, after preaching to the rest of us about "chalkboards" and the like, the Labour Party go ahead with an anti-semitic election campaign that would have seen ordinary people brought to the courts had they made condescending remarks about Islam.
That was precisely Kilroy Silk's beef. It's O.K. for radical mullahs to preach hatred of the West in London mosques but when Kilroy dares to take a poke at Arab repression in a speech, he's sacked by the BBC.
However the case may be, there was no hand-wringing from Howard in this case. And I guess I take the view that if Moslems in Holland don't like free speech and criticism they should either leave, or learn to put up with the values we have in free societies - freedom of speech.
Read my tag.
I'm sure real Jews wouldn't consider Howard to be a 'Kosher' example of their race/religion. He has never been known to be a practising Jew, and then he goes and marries someone outside the faith, therefore his children cannot be called Jews.
In fact he betrothed a thrice married model who he pursued by sending her a copy of Scott Fitzgerald's 'Tender is the Night'.
Now then my friend please tell me of any connutations that refer to, 'Pigs might fly' as being a racialist slur? Or indeed 'Shylock' from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, notwithstanding Fagin from the works of Charles Dickens.
The whole issue referred to the handling of finance and control of the prospective conservative usage of future government income. If you really want to get pedantic about it, and taxes. Then I would have referred to and made a direct reference to Shylock getting his pound of flesh.
Michael Howard is in a clef stick as regards immigration control as his father told lies to the then Home Office about his father who was living in London at the time of his application for citizenship, he told them that he was dead.
At the moment the boot is on the other foot. The jews are grasping at straws on a lot of issues overtly and polemically stating a tenuous case especially with the board of deputies comments especially here in London, they are trying to get Mayor Livingstone to appear before a Government hearing on a charge that they think that his comments in a press conference when he told a reporter that he asked questions like a 'German Camp Commander'.
Remember he never metioned the name of a camp, or indeed referred to any race or creed. Dear oh dear, the jewboys have turned this on it's head with different connutations. They should be ashamed of themselves as they have lived here in peace for a long time.
Please concern your thoughts about RKS to daytime TV.
 

Similar threads