Please, do not attack Islamic in mindless anger.

Listen primitive,

Do you not know what you and your "civilization" owe to ours? Have
you that little knowledge of history? Have you ever studied Algebra?
The root of the word is al-jebr 'the reintegration' - from jabara
"reunite". And when you wrote it in this class, you wrote it in
"Arabic" numerals, did you not? And while your ancestors were in the
"Dark Ages" and burned the Greek and Roman classics as sinful, who
preserved, translated and studied them? The Muslims did, and if not
for us, many would have been lost for all time. Who kept the sciences
alive while the Christians shunned them? We did. For example, in
addition to the math mentioned above, we discovered the family of
compounds called alcohols - ( al-koh''l ). The list can go on if you
would like.
It was the reacquisition of the classics through our stewardship and
the extension of our science that made your much needed renaissance
possible. We had running water and lighted streets when your
ancestors thought bathing was sinful and spread the plague through
their poor hygiene.

The question was posted by one of your fellow enlightened 7th century
aficionados.

Do Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson speak for all Christians? I think
no. And do you think that this faqi speaks for all Moslems? If so,
then I beseech you to think again, for it is not so.

First I suggest you stop your brethren from outlawing
kites before you tackle the concept of space or comment on anything
related to space travel.

For what it's worth, by the time you finish
your idiotic ritual in space, you'll probably be facing another
continent anyway.

Many people pray. Why do you call prayer idiotic? Are you in the
U.S. of A.? Your headers say you are, do they not? Did you know that
most people in that country pray? Did you know that 60% of the people
of the U.S. believe that
"The story of Noah and the ark in which it rained for 40 days and
nights, the entire world was flooded, and only Noah, his family and
the animals on their ark survived." is "Literally True"?
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm
It seems from the polls that the people of the U.S. have more belief
in Allah/God than science, does it not?

Besides, you are prohibited from accusing others of
ignorance by default.

Fuck you. Fuck Islam.

Are you proud of expressing yourself this way? Does it show what is
good about your culture?

Fuck your pedophile prophet.

As you write from a country that does such an awful job of dealing
with adolescent sexuality, I must take your criticisms with a grain of
salt. But just for the sake of rejoinder, how old was Mary when Jesus
was born? Most scholars say 12-14 is a reasonable guess. By
contemporary standards, does that make God a "pedophile"?
Peace be with you, oh angry one,
Sayeed, "John Smith", and others of the faith.

Idiot primitive,

I already answered this exact post under another thread.

Nate

2004-02-21 08:41:03 UTC

Listen primitive,

Do you not know what you and your "civilization" owe to ours? Have
you that little knowledge of history? Have you ever studied Algebra?
The root of the word is al-jebr 'the reintegration' - from jabara
"reunite". And when you wrote it in this class, you wrote it in
"Arabic" numerals, did you not? And while your ancestors were in the
"Dark Ages" and burned the Greek and Roman classics as sinful, who
preserved, translated and studied them? The Muslims did, and if not
for us, many would have been lost for all time. Who kept the sciences
alive while the Christians shunned them? We did. For example, in
addition to the math mentioned above, we discovered the family of
compounds called alcohols - ( al-koh''l ). The list can go on if you
would like.
It was the reacquisition of the classics through our stewardship and
the extension of our science that made your much needed renaissance
possible. We had running water and lighted streets when your
ancestors thought bathing was sinful and spread the plague through
their poor hygiene.

The question was posted by one of your fellow enlightened 7th century
aficionados.

Do Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson speak for all Christians? I think
no. And do you think that this faqi speaks for all Moslems? If so,
then I beseech you to think again, for it is not so.

First I suggest you stop your brethren from outlawing
kites before you tackle the concept of space or comment on anything
related to space travel.

For what it's worth, by the time you finish
your idiotic ritual in space, you'll probably be facing another
continent anyway.

Many people pray. Why do you call prayer idiotic? Are you in the
U.S. of A.? Your headers say you are, do they not? Did you know that
most people in that country pray? Did you know that 60% of the people
of the U.S. believe that
"The story of Noah and the ark in which it rained for 40 days and
nights, the entire world was flooded, and only Noah, his family and
the animals on their ark survived." is "Literally True"?
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm
It seems from the polls that the people of the U.S. have more belief
in Allah/God than science, does it not?

Besides, you are prohibited from accusing others of
ignorance by default.

Fuck you. Fuck Islam.

Are you proud of expressing yourself this way? Does it show what is
good about your culture?

Fuck your pedophile prophet.

As you write from a country that does such an awful job of dealing
with adolescent sexuality, I must take your criticisms with a grain of
salt. But just for the sake of rejoinder, how old was Mary when Jesus
was born? Most scholars say 12-14 is a reasonable guess. By
contemporary standards, does that make God a "pedophile"?
Peace be with you, oh angry one,
Sayeed, "John Smith", and others of the faith.

I think you'll like this video about right wing Christian fundamentalists
and their bigotry:
http://www.gentlemanjim.net/episodes/familyvalues1_web.mov

--
Tired of the same rhetoric of lies and deceit?
http://www.gentlemanjim.net/
"It aint what you don't know that'll hurt ya, it's what you "know" that aint
so." -- Will Rogers

x***@erols.com

2004-02-21 17:18:57 UTC

Listen primitive,

Do you not know what you and your "civilization" owe to ours? Have
you that little knowledge of history? Have you ever studied Algebra?
The root of the word is al-jebr 'the reintegration' - from jabara
"reunite". And when you wrote it in this class, you wrote it in
"Arabic" numerals, did you not? And while your ancestors were in the
"Dark Ages" and burned the Greek and Roman classics as sinful, who
preserved, translated and studied them? The Muslims did, and if not
for us, many would have been lost for all time. Who kept the sciences
alive while the Christians shunned them? We did. For example, in
addition to the math mentioned above, we discovered the family of
compounds called alcohols - ( al-koh''l ). The list can go on if you
would like.
It was the reacquisition of the classics through our stewardship and
the extension of our science that made your much needed renaissance
possible. We had running water and lighted streets when your
ancestors thought bathing was sinful and spread the plague through
their poor hygiene.

That was then, this is now.

Now it is islam that is in the dark ages outlawing television
while the west is watching pictures of from mars on television.

The question was posted by one of your fellow enlightened 7th century
aficionados.

Do Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson speak for all Christians? I think
no. And do you think that this faqi speaks for all Moslems? If so,
then I beseech you to think again, for it is not so.

Jerry falwell and pat robertson are kept under control
by western law and freedom of religion tradition,
while your hypothetical other muslims
are kept under control by islamic law and head chopping off tradition.

First I suggest you stop your brethren from outlawing
kites before you tackle the concept of space or comment on anything
related to space travel.

The irish are in the process of removing their mullahs from power.
Other western countries have already done so.
Where is the progress in islamic countries? Turkey
has been trying for 80 years and hasn't done it yet.
Bahrain is a tiny country with no influence.

I would rather be without the religious fanatics who
say "you can't use birth control/kites because its against my religion.
But in the talibans afganistan you can be arrested for flying a kite,
but in western countries you can't be arrested for using birth control.

For what it's worth, by the time you finish
your idiotic ritual in space, you'll probably be facing another
continent anyway.

Many people pray. Why do you call prayer idiotic? Are you in the
U.S. of A.? Your headers say you are, do they not? Did you know that
most people in that country pray? Did you know that 60% of the people
of the U.S. believe that
"The story of Noah and the ark in which it rained for 40 days and
nights, the entire world was flooded, and only Noah, his family and
the animals on their ark survived." is "Literally True"?
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm
It seems from the polls that the people of the U.S. have more belief
in Allah/God than science, does it not?

This is indeed a problem in the US, but at least the christian
ayatollahs are unable to execute scientists for doing science.

Besides, you are prohibited from accusing others of
ignorance by default.

I agree with you there. Islam is more effectively attacked
by discussing its silly claims than by jumping up and down and
screaming.
Muslims do that better than westerners anyway.

Fuck you. Fuck Islam.

Are you proud of expressing yourself this way? Does it show what is
good about your culture?

Fuck your pedophile prophet.

Saudi arabia deals with adolecent sexuality by
locking girls in burning buildings.
Perhaps thats better than the way the west does it.

Post by John Smith
Peace be with you, oh angry one,
Sayeed, "John Smith", and others of the faith.

Sayeed

2004-02-22 01:00:56 UTC

Listen primitive,

Do you not know what you and your "civilization" owe to ours? Have
you that little knowledge of history? Have you ever studied Algebra?
The root of the word is al-jebr 'the reintegration' - from jabara
"reunite". And when you wrote it in this class, you wrote it in
"Arabic" numerals, did you not? And while your ancestors were in the
"Dark Ages" and burned the Greek and Roman classics as sinful, who
preserved, translated and studied them? The Muslims did, and if not
for us, many would have been lost for all time. Who kept the sciences
alive while the Christians shunned them? We did. For example, in
addition to the math mentioned above, we discovered the family of
compounds called alcohols - ( al-koh''l ). The list can go on if you
would like.
It was the reacquisition of the classics through our stewardship and
the extension of our science that made your much needed renaissance
possible. We had running water and lighted streets when your
ancestors thought bathing was sinful and spread the plague through
their poor hygiene.

That was then, this is now.
Now it is islam that is in the dark ages outlawing television
while the west is watching pictures of from mars on television.

And Al Jazeera is one of the fastest growing television services in
the world. So either a lot of Moslems watch TV, or Al Jazeera's point
of view is catching on like wild fire in the west. :) Why is it
you wish to take the most extreme cases and say they represent all of
Islam? Obviously, by the above example, they don't.

The question was posted by one of your fellow enlightened 7th century
aficionados.

Do Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson speak for all Christians? I think
no. And do you think that this faqi speaks for all Moslems? If so,
then I beseech you to think again, for it is not so.

Jerry falwell and pat robertson are kept under control
by western law and freedom of religion tradition,

Not all of your religious extremist are kept under control. They have
also set off bombs and killed people. See my other posts in the old
thread on this topic.

Post by x***@erols.com
while your hypothetical other muslims
are kept under control by islamic law and head chopping off tradition.

It seems you are in the U.S. Does not the U.S. have capital
punishments? And do the Europeans not say that this proves the U.S.
is not civilized? Maybe your practices are closer to those of Islamic
countries than European ones? As for Islamic law or Sharia, some
counties have it and others have it in part, and others not at all.

First I suggest you stop your brethren from outlawing
kites before you tackle the concept of space or comment on anything
related to space travel.

Turkey is arguably as secular as Ireland if not more so. Turkey even
banned the wearing of religious clothing and changed the country's
alphabet to distance itself from what its leader Mustafa Kemal
Attaturk considered a failed past. An Islamic party is in office, but
there is a firm limit to what they can do. And as for Ireland, how
often is the religious party in the government? When where
contraceptives made legal? When was the last of the Magdalene
Laundries closed?

Post by x***@erols.com
Bahrain is a tiny country with no influence.

It and the other small gulf states are actually quite influential.
Where do you think Al Jazeera is based? It has rocked the Islamic
world to it's foundations.

Post by x***@erols.com
I would rather be without the religious fanatics who
say "you can't use birth control/kites because its against my religion.
But in the talibans afganistan you can be arrested for flying a kite,
but in western countries you can't be arrested for using birth control.

I do not know if the Irish have stopped arresting people for birth
control, but if they have, it wasn't so long ago. And it was not so
long ago that Bill Baird was arrested in Boston for just talking of
contraception.
http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/baird.html

And if Afghanistan is backwards, do you think that the fact that it
was trapped in proxy wars between superpowers for over 150 years
helped matters? And as for the Islamic extremist and the holy
warriors, did they exist as they do today before the U.S. spent
billions of dollar to encourage, train and arm them to fight the
Soviets and turned Pakistan into an armed camp to do so? Your country
played the largest role in creating the form of militant Islam that
later turned against you. Many people tried to warn the U.S. that it
would be next.

What did the U.S. do after the Soviets left Afghanistan? They
abandoned the country to the heavily armed factions that had been
created by U.S. money, support and training. After all, the Soviets
had been defeated, so who cared about Afghanistan after that?

For what it's worth, by the time you finish
your idiotic ritual in space, you'll probably be facing another
continent anyway.

Many people pray. Why do you call prayer idiotic? Are you in the
U.S. of A.? Your headers say you are, do they not? Did you know that
most people in that country pray? Did you know that 60% of the people
of the U.S. believe that
"The story of Noah and the ark in which it rained for 40 days and
nights, the entire world was flooded, and only Noah, his family and
the animals on their ark survived." is "Literally True"?
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm
It seems from the polls that the people of the U.S. have more belief
in Allah/God than science, does it not?

This is indeed a problem in the US, but at least the christian
ayatollahs are unable to execute scientists for doing science.

The U.S. is a very religious country and is in many ways closer to the
Islamic world than it is to Europe. As for executing scientist, where
have you read of Muslims doing this? In the U.S. creation of the
former failed state of Afghanistan?

But I will say that sadly, hundreds of years of poverty have left us
with far too few scientist, and the social change needed for a
progressive society takes generations after the arrival of wealth to
take effect in the larger countries. Turkey, with its head start
because of Attaturk, and the gulf states are our best hope to lead us
to the future now.

Besides, you are prohibited from accusing others of
ignorance by default.

I agree with you there. Islam is more effectively attacked
by discussing its silly claims than by jumping up and down and
screaming.

Why do you fail to see the role that the U.S. has played in its combat
with the former Soviet Union and it's current excessive support of
Israel in encouraging the worst in Islam?

Post by x***@erols.com
Muslims do that better than westerners anyway.

I don't know about that. There seem to be some really fanatically
blind bigots on the side of the "west" in these news groups! ;-)

Fuck you. Fuck Islam.

Are you proud of expressing yourself this way? Does it show what is
good about your culture?

Fuck your pedophile prophet.

Saudi arabia deals with adolecent sexuality by
locking girls in burning buildings.

The Saudis have their Wahhabi fanatics, this is true, but hey do not
represent all of islam, only an extreme.

Post by x***@erols.com
Perhaps thats better than the way the west does it.

The west is not monolithic. The U.S. is different than Europe or
Japan. As it cannot decide whether it is secular or religious, it has
had some of the highest rates of illegitimate birth and sexually
transmitted disease in the world. Your country is not the best
example to follow, now is it?

Yet most people in the U.S. dislike the more liberal European
countries (and the more conservative Islamic countries) that have more
(and fewer) sexually active youths than the U.S. and both have lower
rates of illegitimate birth and sexually transmitted disease than the
U.S. It is human nature to claim you are the best even if the
objective measure say otherwise. And if you created extremist forces
to do your bidding and fight your enemies and that later turned on
you, it is tempting to blame others rather than take responsibility
yourself.

But perhaps if you had a better understanding of your own failings,
you could then more honestly and constructively deal with ours. If
you would attack our self-righteousness and failings, first address
your own and we'll all be better off, don't you think?

Peace be with you,

Sayeed et al.

Mitch Farmer

2004-02-22 02:34:31 UTC

Post by x***@erols.com
Now it is islam that is in the dark ages outlawing television
while the west is watching pictures of from mars on television.

Ummm...errrr...the point again was about photos from Mars. TV is sorta
kinda a matter of fact thing now. Well, except of course in...

Post by x***@erols.com
while your hypothetical other muslims
are kept under control by islamic law and head chopping off tradition.

It seems you are in the U.S. Does not the U.S. have capital
punishments? And do the Europeans not say that this proves the U.S.
is not civilized?> Maybe your practices are closer to those of Islamic
countries than European ones? As for Islamic law or Sharia, some
counties have it and others have it in part, and others not at all.

Do you deny that what we're fighting wants Sharia to be the law of the
entire planet?

Post by Sayeed
Turkey is arguably as secular as Ireland if not more so. Turkey even
banned the wearing of religious clothing and changed the country's
alphabet to distance itself from what its leader Mustafa Kemal
Attaturk considered a failed past. An Islamic party is in office, but
there is a firm limit to what they can do. And as for Ireland, how
often is the religious party in the government? When where
contraceptives made legal? When was the last of the Magdalene
Laundries closed?

I don't recall any Shauns or Patricks slamming into the WTC.

Post by x***@erols.com
Bahrain is a tiny country with no influence.

It and the other small gulf states are actually quite influential.
Where do you think Al Jazeera is based? It has rocked the Islamic
world to it's foundations.

WOW! TV!

Your continued attempts to equate the freedoms and practices in modern
America with "modern" day Islamic nations is simply laughable.

Post by Sayeed
And if Afghanistan is backwards, do you think that the fact that it
was trapped in proxy wars between superpowers for over 150 years
helped matters?

They'd be even more primitive had no other nations gone there.

Post by Sayeed
And as for the Islamic extremist and the holy
warriors, did they exist as they do today before the U.S. spent
billions of dollar to encourage, train and arm them to fight the
Soviets and turned Pakistan into an armed camp to do so?

Since Islam's inception they existed. In fact, that's the major reason
Islam spread as it did.

Post by Sayeed
Your country
played the largest role in creating the form of militant Islam that
later turned against you. Many people tried to warn the U.S. that it
would be next.

The only thing that matters is that Muslims are incapable of
patrolling their own cultures in a modern world, so we shall do it for
them on our terms.

Post by Sayeed
What did the U.S. do after the Soviets left Afghanistan? They
abandoned the country to the heavily armed factions that had been
created by U.S. money, support and training. After all, the Soviets
had been defeated, so who cared about Afghanistan after that?

Exactly, who cares. Besides, had we stayed and tried to improve the
primitives, we would have been accused of imperialism and your fellow
7th century aficionados would take up arms against us anyway, not to
mention the French. Left to their own design, they come up with the
Taliban! Nice going guys! Naturally, the Taliban received more
worldwide criticism for blowing up the Buddhas than they did for
running the most primitive nation state seen in decades and for
harboring Islaomfascists.

Post by x***@erols.com
This is indeed a problem in the US, but at least the christian
ayatollahs are unable to execute scientists for doing science.

The U.S. is a very religious country and is in many ways closer to the
Islamic world than it is to Europe.

You're a funny funny man.

Post by Sayeed
As for executing scientist, where
have you read of Muslims doing this? In the U.S. creation of the
former failed state of Afghanistan?

Well, when you execute as many people as Muslims do, there's gotta be
at least ONE scientist in the bunch. He was the one probably
deciphering the little thingy shaped like a circle that goes around
and around.

Post by Sayeed
But I will say that sadly, hundreds of years of poverty have left us
with far too few scientist, and the social change needed for a
progressive society takes generations after the arrival of wealth to
take effect in the larger countries. Turkey, with its head start
because of Attaturk, and the gulf states are our best hope to lead us
to the future now.

No, I think Yemen is the future of the Islamic world.

Post by x***@erols.com
I agree with you there. Islam is more effectively attacked
by discussing its silly claims than by jumping up and down and
screaming.

Why do you fail to see the role that the U.S. has played in its combat
with the former Soviet Union and it's current excessive support of
Israel in encouraging the worst in Islam?

FINALLY! The JEWS! The JEWS! Yeah, 1 billion Muslims held hostage by
15 million Jews. Pretty pathetic, don't you think?

Post by x***@erols.com
Muslims do that better than westerners anyway.

I don't know about that. There seem to be some really fanatically
blind bigots on the side of the "west" in these news groups! ;-)

Don't fly our planes into our buildings, send your kids to explode in
pizza parlours, toss old men in wheelchairs overboard on cruises, bomb
everything you could never build yourselves, and then maybe we'll
leave you alone. Admittedly, I think there's no turning back now. 9-11
shall be the day when Islam saw the beginning of its end.

Post by x***@erols.com
Saudi arabia deals with adolecent sexuality by
locking girls in burning buildings.

The Saudis have their Wahhabi fanatics, this is true, but hey do not
represent all of islam, only an extreme.

Yeah, it's only the center of your very faith. No biggie.

Post by x***@erols.com
Perhaps thats better than the way the west does it.

As compared to???? Sudan? Somalia? Yemen? Saudi Arabia? Indonesia?

...and the trains ran on time in Nazi Germany.

Post by Sayeed
It is human nature to claim you are the best even if the
objective measure say otherwise. And if you created extremist forces
to do your bidding and fight your enemies and that later turned on
you, it is tempting to blame others rather than take responsibility
yourself.

We are taking responsibility as we see fit. In fact, that's what
disturbs you most. We sided with my good old friend Stalin because at
the time it was the correct thing to do. We took care of that in time
as well. It's real world stuff, primitive.

Post by Sayeed
But perhaps if you had a better understanding of your own failings,
you could then more honestly and constructively deal with ours.

There is no dealing with you. You are to be defeated.

Post by Sayeed
if you would attack our self-righteousness and failings, first address
your own and we'll all be better off, don't you think?

We are already overly self absorbed with discussing our shortcomings
and failings. It's high time ISLAM does the same. But we know that
will NEVER EVER happen. Sorry primitive, but the time for
understanding your sorry lot ended a little over two and one half
years ago.

x***@erols.com

2004-02-22 05:32:56 UTC

Listen primitive,

Do you not know what you and your "civilization" owe to ours? Have
you that little knowledge of history? Have you ever studied Algebra?
The root of the word is al-jebr 'the reintegration' - from jabara
"reunite". And when you wrote it in this class, you wrote it in
"Arabic" numerals, did you not? And while your ancestors were in the
"Dark Ages" and burned the Greek and Roman classics as sinful, who
preserved, translated and studied them? The Muslims did, and if not
for us, many would have been lost for all time. Who kept the sciences
alive while the Christians shunned them? We did. For example, in
addition to the math mentioned above, we discovered the family of
compounds called alcohols - ( al-koh''l ). The list can go on if you
would like.
It was the reacquisition of the classics through our stewardship and
the extension of our science that made your much needed renaissance
possible. We had running water and lighted streets when your
ancestors thought bathing was sinful and spread the plague through
their poor hygiene.

That was then, this is now.
Now it is islam that is in the dark ages outlawing television
while the west is watching pictures of from mars on television.

Moslems have just recently figured out how to have
a satellite tv station without government control.
The moslem masses, not having had this novel thing before,
are piling on in droves.

Christians have had an al-jazeera for a couple of decades now.
The 700 club has long ago sucked up the marks susceptible to
its influence so it has a lower potential for growth than al jazeera.

I am not using extreme cases, I am comparing
extreme western christian cases with what is more
normal in islamic society.

The question was posted by one of your fellow enlightened 7th century
aficionados.

Do Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson speak for all Christians? I think
no. And do you think that this faqi speaks for all Moslems? If so,
then I beseech you to think again, for it is not so.

Jerry falwell and pat robertson are kept under control
by western law and freedom of religion tradition,

Not all of your religious extremist are kept under control. They have
also set off bombs and killed people. See my other posts in the old
thread on this topic.

Western religious extremists who kill people and explode things
are rare enough that they can be dealt with as if they were
ordinary criminals. Falwell and robertson, whatever their true
feelings may be, have sense enough(or western tradition enough)
to publicly denounce these people. Compare that to algeria,
or pakistan or saudi arabia, or the indonesian muslim extremists,
and the islamic clerics in those areas.

Post by x***@erols.com
while your hypothetical other muslims
are kept under control by islamic law and head chopping off tradition.

The areas in the US that defend executions the loudest are
generally the same areas where christian religious
fanatics have the most influence. They
like to say god authorised executing murderers
so its ok to do it. The same areas
have a reputation for convicting innocent people
then keeping them in prison in spite of new
evidence proving them innocent.
Western europe is less influenced by christian fundamentalists
than america is.

I would say america is more rowdy than europe, not
less civilised, although there are americans
who think we should be less civilised than europe
eg. we should enact bible law and not allow muslims to
practice their religion.

The practices promoted by people in these areas are amazingly similar to
sharia,
though the people would say they are nothing like
muslims because they don't wear towels on their heads
and spell gods name differently.

Post by Sayeed
As for Islamic law or Sharia, some
counties have it and others have it in part, and others not at all.

First I suggest you stop your brethren from outlawing
kites before you tackle the concept of space or comment on anything
related to space travel.

Turkey and ireland I think are not that similar.
The ataturk people tried for 80 years to modernise turkish society
by brute force. Islamic society is so resistant to any change
that this didn't entirely work.

Ireland on the other hand adapted better to the 20th
century without the need of an ataturk.
I keep hearing that in the 90's ireland suddenly
decided to dump their slavish obedience to the catholic church.
Their economy powered up tremendously. People stopped
leaving ireland and started going there instead,
a little like what is starting to happen an bahrain.

What I hear about this turkish islamic party
is that is *voluntarily* limiting its power
over peoples private lives, which is not remotely like
most islamic parties. If this is really what they are,
and not just a lie to get into power, then maybe we've discovered
that it takes 80 years of ataturk dictators to bring
islamic societies into the present.

I don't think ireland really had a religious party,
its just that all the parties were afraid of the church's
influence and did whatever it wanted.
I believe contraceptives are still illegal in ireland,
but people can get them without much trouble anyways.
They aren't arrested like they used to be.

Post by x***@erols.com
Bahrain is a tiny country with no influence.

It and the other small gulf states are actually quite influential.
Where do you think Al Jazeera is based? It has rocked the Islamic
world to it's foundations.

I think al jazeera is based in quatar. Im sure i heard about
arab countries complaining about al jazeera to the quatar government.

How much influence does bahrain have? I get the impression
that its just a place where non millionaire saudis can go to
see a movie or listen to a non arab band in a nightclub
and look at women who aren't covered with a black shroud.

That was in 1967. Islamic medieval behavior is happening now.
Also, the catholic church was responsible for that kind of thing.
They are one of the west's champions of medievel thinking.
They are still squawking about birth control but nobody is listening,
not even catholics.

Post by Sayeed
And if Afghanistan is backwards, do you think that the fact that it
was trapped in proxy wars between superpowers for over 150 years
helped matters? And as for the Islamic extremist and the holy
warriors, did they exist as they do today before the U.S. spent
billions of dollar to encourage, train and arm them to fight the
Soviets and turned Pakistan into an armed camp to do so?

Yes they did exist. America just fed them and pointed them at the
russians.

Post by Sayeed
Your country
played the largest role in creating the form of militant Islam that
later turned against you.

I think the saudis funding wahabi schools for 30 years
has the largest role. Islamic militants were useful
as proxy soldiers against the USSR in the cold war,
but if they were not used that way by the US, they would still exist.

Post by Sayeed
Many people tried to warn the U.S. that it
would be next.

Thats typical of US foreign policy after WWII. It would be funny
if it was only a movie.

Yes. The US had no interest in occupying other countries at that time.
The big threat was 10,000 soviet nukes. Primitive tribesmen
with muskets didn't seem very dangerous.

Afganistan itself is not that big a threat, it just had the bad luck of
being Osamas hideout. Pakistan and saudi islamists are
much more dangerous.

For what it's worth, by the time you finish
your idiotic ritual in space, you'll probably be facing another
continent anyway.

Many people pray. Why do you call prayer idiotic? Are you in the
U.S. of A.? Your headers say you are, do they not? Did you know that
most people in that country pray? Did you know that 60% of the people
of the U.S. believe that
"The story of Noah and the ark in which it rained for 40 days and
nights, the entire world was flooded, and only Noah, his family and
the animals on their ark survived." is "Literally True"?
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm
It seems from the polls that the people of the U.S. have more belief
in Allah/God than science, does it not?

This is indeed a problem in the US, but at least the christian
ayatollahs are unable to execute scientists for doing science.

Muslims execute all kinds of infidels. Why would scientists
be any different? I have heard from a biologist association that
biologists in islamic countries have received death threats
for writing about evolution.

You have that backwards. The scientists came first, the wealth and
social change followed. Islamic societies seem to violently
resist any change that science would cause. They'll swap their
swords for guns the better to slay infidels, but they seem to have
no notion of learning new things in order to invent better
weapons than the west has. The koran has all knowledge
people need to know.

Post by Sayeed
Turkey, with its head start
because of Attaturk, and the gulf states are our best hope to lead us
to the future now.

Indonesia might be a better bet. I think the gulf states
have too many tribesmen with iron age attitudes to go very far,
in spite of bahrain. Turkey only looks advanced compared to
places like saudi arabia. It isn't really a modern society
as far as I can see. Time will tell.

Besides, you are prohibited from accusing others of
ignorance by default.

I agree with you there. Islam is more effectively attacked
by discussing its silly claims than by jumping up and down and
screaming.

Why do you fail to see the role that the U.S. has played in its combat
with the former Soviet Union and it's current excessive support of
Israel in encouraging the worst in Islam?

The problems caused by the cold war are starting to
fade now that the cold war is over, except for
the islamic fundamentalist problem, which is getting worse under its
own power. That makes me think it would have existed whether
the US made use of it or not.

The case in israel is just another example of religious fanatics.
Fanatic jews know god gave them a particular patch of land
and authorised them to kill anyone else living there.
Fanatic muslims know god gave them dominion over the whole earth
and authorised them to kill infidels, especially those who steal
their land. Meanwhile fanatic christians, thinking the jewish presence
in
israel means god will return to earth and conquer it for
christianity, try to capture the government of the most
technically advanced and economically powerful country on earth
and use it to hasten that event.

The worst thing about the israel situation is that the nuts aren't
killing each other nearly fast enough.

Post by x***@erols.com
Muslims do that better than westerners anyway.

I don't know about that. There seem to be some really fanatically
blind bigots on the side of the "west" in these news groups! ;-)

In the west you find them in the newsgroups. In islamic
countries you find them on the street.

Fuck you. Fuck Islam.

Are you proud of expressing yourself this way? Does it show what is
good about your culture?

Fuck your pedophile prophet.

Saudi arabia deals with adolecent sexuality by
locking girls in burning buildings.

The Saudis have their Wahhabi fanatics, this is true, but hey do not
represent all of islam, only an extreme.

All the screaming about headscarfs in various contries
suggests that the wahabis are the normal moslems, not the extremists.

Post by x***@erols.com
Perhaps thats better than the way the west does it.

I've often wondered what american would be like if there was
no religious right. Would it have a 51st state on the moon maybe?

I would say its not that america is a bad example, but there
are too many religious fanatics there, which is not good for any
modern society. If america were truly islam-like, it
would be a lot worse.

Post by Sayeed
Yet most people in the U.S. dislike the more liberal European
countries (and the more conservative Islamic countries) that have more
(and fewer) sexually active youths than the U.S. and both have lower
rates of illegitimate birth and sexually transmitted disease than the
U.S. It is human nature to claim you are the best even if the
objective measure say otherwise. And if you created extremist forces
to do your bidding and fight your enemies and that later turned on
you, it is tempting to blame others rather than take responsibility
yourself.

What is "best" is always arbitrary. Islamic fanatics say
it is best to keep women locked in the house and cut off the heads of
people with the wrong religion. Other types of people disagree.
There is disagreement over whether the american
or european version of civil liberties is "better", of course islam
rejects both of them. There is no "objective" measure of what is better.
Conditions in america used by islamic fanatics to prove the american way
is bad are considered by americans to be proof that the
american way is best. And of course it works in the other direction too.

Post by Sayeed
But perhaps if you had a better understanding of your own failings,
you could then more honestly and constructively deal with ours. If
you would attack our self-righteousness and failings, first address
your own and we'll all be better off, don't you think?

The nature of americas failings are mostly very different
from the nature of islams failings. Dealing with one does not
neccesarily help you with the other.

One aspect of americas failings is this: because american
culture, economy and military is so immensly powerful,
minor "failings" do damage way out of proportion to the
magnitude of the failing. Its like superman accidentally
walking into a wall. A normal person would just bump the wall,
but superman smashes a hole in it.

Its all very well to tell superman to not make holes in walls,
but when someone who deliberately smashes holes in walls
criticises superman for doing it accidentally while
he is rescuing people from a burning building it looks kind of silly.

Post by Sayeed
Peace be with you,
Sayeed et al.

elmer swanson

2004-02-24 19:35:01 UTC

I think the point this John Smith is making is that is Islam did these
great things there is no reason it can't do them again.
There is no way you can say Islam is confined to backwardness,
stagnation, hate and terror. How could it have had such an advanced
civilization if it was?

Listen primitive,

Do you not know what you and your "civilization" owe to ours? Have
you that little knowledge of history? Have you ever studied Algebra?
The root of the word is al-jebr 'the reintegration' - from jabara
"reunite". And when you wrote it in this class, you wrote it in
"Arabic" numerals, did you not? And while your ancestors were in the
"Dark Ages" and burned the Greek and Roman classics as sinful, who
preserved, translated and studied them? The Muslims did, and if not
for us, many would have been lost for all time. Who kept the sciences
alive while the Christians shunned them? We did. For example, in
addition to the math mentioned above, we discovered the family of
compounds called alcohols - ( al-koh''l ). The list can go on if you
would like.
It was the reacquisition of the classics through our stewardship and
the extension of our science that made your much needed renaissance
possible. We had running water and lighted streets when your
ancestors thought bathing was sinful and spread the plague through
their poor hygiene.

That was then, this is now.
Now it is islam that is in the dark ages outlawing television
while the west is watching pictures of from mars on television.

Moslems have just recently figured out how to have
a satellite tv station without government control.
The moslem masses, not having had this novel thing before,
are piling on in droves.
Christians have had an al-jazeera for a couple of decades now.
The 700 club has long ago sucked up the marks susceptible to
its influence so it has a lower potential for growth than al jazeera.
I am not using extreme cases, I am comparing
extreme western christian cases with what is more
normal in islamic society.

The question was posted by one of your fellow enlightened 7th century
aficionados.

Do Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson speak for all Christians? I think
no. And do you think that this faqi speaks for all Moslems? If so,
then I beseech you to think again, for it is not so.

Jerry falwell and pat robertson are kept under control
by western law and freedom of religion tradition,

Not all of your religious extremist are kept under control. They have
also set off bombs and killed people. See my other posts in the old
thread on this topic.

Western religious extremists who kill people and explode things
are rare enough that they can be dealt with as if they were
ordinary criminals. Falwell and robertson, whatever their true
feelings may be, have sense enough (or western tradition enough)
to publicly denounce these people. Compare that to algeria,
or pakistan or saudi arabia, or the indonesian muslim extremists,
and the islamic clerics in those areas.

Post by x***@erols.com
while your hypothetical other muslims
are kept under control by islamic law and head chopping off tradition.

The areas in the US that defend executions the loudest are
generally the same areas where christian religious
fanatics have the most influence. They
like to say god authorised executing murderers
so its ok to do it. The same areas
have a reputation for convicting innocent people
then keeping them in prison in spite of new
evidence proving them innocent.
Western europe is less influenced by christian fundamentalists
than america is.
I would say america is more rowdy than europe, not
less civilised, although there are americans
who think we should be less civilised than europe
eg. we should enact bible law and not allow muslims to
practice their religion.
The practices promoted by people in these areas are amazingly similar to
sharia,
though the people would say they are nothing like
muslims because they don't wear towels on their heads
and spell gods name differently.

Post by Sayeed
As for Islamic law or Sharia, some
counties have it and others have it in part, and others not at all.

First I suggest you stop your brethren from outlawing
kites before you tackle the concept of space or comment on anything
related to space travel.

Turkey and ireland I think are not that similar.
The ataturk people tried for 80 years to modernise turkish society
by brute force. Islamic society is so resistant to any change
that this didn't entirely work.
Ireland on the other hand adapted better to the 20th
century without the need of an ataturk.
I keep hearing that in the 90's ireland suddenly
decided to dump their slavish obedience to the catholic church.
Their economy powered up tremendously. People stopped
leaving ireland and started going there instead,
a little like what is starting to happen an bahrain.
What I hear about this turkish islamic party
is that is *voluntarily* limiting its power
over peoples private lives, which is not remotely like
most islamic parties. If this is really what they are,
and not just a lie to get into power, then maybe we've discovered
that it takes 80 years of ataturk dictators to bring
islamic societies into the present.
I don't think ireland really had a religious party,
its just that all the parties were afraid of the church's
influence and did whatever it wanted.
I believe contraceptives are still illegal in ireland,
but people can get them without much trouble anyways.
They aren't arrested like they used to be.

Post by x***@erols.com
Bahrain is a tiny country with no influence.

It and the other small gulf states are actually quite influential.
Where do you think Al Jazeera is based? It has rocked the Islamic
world to it's foundations.

I think al jazeera is based in quatar. Im sure i heard about
arab countries complaining about al jazeera to the quatar government.
How much influence does bahrain have? I get the impression
that its just a place where non millionaire saudis can go to
see a movie or listen to a non arab band in a nightclub
and look at women who aren't covered with a black shroud.

Yes they did exist. America just fed them and pointed them at the
russians.

Post by Sayeed
Your country
played the largest role in creating the form of militant Islam that
later turned against you.

Post by Sayeed
Many people tried to warn the U.S. that it
would be next.

Thats typical of US foreign policy after WWII. It would be funny
if it was only a movie.

Yes. The US had no interest in occupying other countries at that time.
The big threat was 10,000 soviet nukes. Primitive tribesmen
with muskets didn't seem very dangerous.
Afganistan itself is not that big a threat, it just had the bad luck of
being Osamas hideout. Pakistan and saudi islamists are
much more dangerous.

For what it's worth, by the time you finish
your idiotic ritual in space, you'll probably be facing another
continent anyway.

Many people pray. Why do you call prayer idiotic? Are you in the
U.S. of A.? Your headers say you are, do they not? Did you know that
most people in that country pray? Did you know that 60% of the people
of the U.S. believe that
"The story of Noah and the ark in which it rained for 40 days and
nights, the entire world was flooded, and only Noah, his family and
the animals on their ark survived." is "Literally True"?
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm
It seems from the polls that the people of the U.S. have more belief
in Allah/God than science, does it not?

This is indeed a problem in the US, but at least the christian
ayatollahs are unable to execute scientists for doing science.

Post by Sayeed
Turkey, with its head start
because of Attaturk, and the gulf states are our best hope to lead us
to the future now.

Besides, you are prohibited from accusing others of
ignorance by default.

I agree with you there. Islam is more effectively attacked
by discussing its silly claims than by jumping up and down and
screaming.

Why do you fail to see the role that the U.S. has played in its combat
with the former Soviet Union and it's current excessive support of
Israel in encouraging the worst in Islam?

The problems caused by the cold war are starting to
fade now that the cold war is over, except for
the islamic fundamentalist problem, which is getting worse under its
own power. That makes me think it would have existed whether
the US made use of it or not.
The case in israel is just another example of religious fanatics.
Fanatic jews know god gave them a particular patch of land
and authorised them to kill anyone else living there.
Fanatic muslims know god gave them dominion over the whole earth
and authorised them to kill infidels, especially those who steal
their land. Meanwhile fanatic christians, thinking the jewish presence
in
israel means god will return to earth and conquer it for
christianity, try to capture the government of the most
technically advanced and economically powerful country on earth
and use it to hasten that event.
The worst thing about the israel situation is that the nuts aren't
killing each other nearly fast enough.

Post by x***@erols.com
Muslims do that better than westerners anyway.

I don't know about that. There seem to be some really fanatically
blind bigots on the side of the "west" in these news groups! ;-)

In the west you find them in the newsgroups. In islamic
countries you find them on the street.

Fuck you. Fuck Islam.

Are you proud of expressing yourself this way? Does it show what is
good about your culture?

Fuck your pedophile prophet.

Saudi arabia deals with adolecent sexuality by
locking girls in burning buildings.

The Saudis have their Wahhabi fanatics, this is true, but hey do not
represent all of islam, only an extreme.

All the screaming about headscarfs in various contries
suggests that the wahabis are the normal moslems, not the extremists.

Post by x***@erols.com
Perhaps thats better than the way the west does it.

I've often wondered what american would be like if there was
no religious right. Would it have a 51st state on the moon maybe?
I would say its not that america is a bad example, but there
are too many religious fanatics there, which is not good for any
modern society. If america were truly islam-like, it
would be a lot worse.

The nature of americas failings are mostly very different
from the nature of islams failings. Dealing with one does not
neccesarily help you with the other.
One aspect of americas failings is this: because american
culture, economy and military is so immensly powerful,
minor "failings" do damage way out of proportion to the
magnitude of the failing. Its like superman accidentally
walking into a wall. A normal person would just bump the wall,
but superman smashes a hole in it.
Its all very well to tell superman to not make holes in walls,
but when someone who deliberately smashes holes in walls
criticises superman for doing it accidentally while
he is rescuing people from a burning building it looks kind of silly.

Post by Sayeed
Peace be with you,
Sayeed et al.

Mitch Farmer

2004-02-24 20:05:11 UTC

Post by elmer swanson
I think the point this John Smith is making is that is Islam did these
great things there is no reason it can't do them again.
There is no way you can say Islam is confined to backwardness,
stagnation, hate and terror. How could it have had such an advanced
civilization if it was?

Advanced civilization as far as advanced civilizations go 1100 years
ago. For some reason Islam is now confined to backwardness,
stagnation, hate, and terror. Across the globe Islam suffers the same
way, different peoples, different cultures, different experiences, and
only one common denominator between them all. I have friends from
Vietnam who had to EAT human flesh to survive on boats and avoid being
killed by pirates who have excelled and assimilated into western
society and modernity without looking back once. This continued need
by Muslims to always bring up Muslim Spain as the greatest time in
man's history is rubbish. Who in the hell cares today? I assure you
Spaniards today are happy that Islam did not eventually prevail on the
Iberian Peninsula. There's only so much mileage you can get with the
wonders of centuries past. The question is, what are they doing about
it now? If anything, they're regressing even more and many are fleeing
to the west. Naturally, not to assimilate, but to bring their proven
failed way of life to their new host nations. "Everyone should be
equally miserable" is Islam's latest mark on the planet. The question
is not whether Islam "had" an advanced civilization, but what it "has"
today.

elmer swanson

2004-02-25 14:25:33 UTC

You're missing the point. Its not nostalgia, its logic. If Islam is no
damn good (as rednecks maintain), HOW DID IT CREATE THE GREAT EMPIRE
IT DID? If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it can change
for the good too.

Post by Mitch Farmer
The question is, what are they doing about
it now? If anything, they're regressing even more and many are fleeing
to the west. Naturally, not to assimilate, but to bring their proven
failed way of life to their new host nations. "Everyone should be
equally miserable" is Islam's latest mark on the planet. The question
is not whether Islam "had" an advanced civilization, but what it "has"
today.

Sayeed

2004-02-25 15:46:12 UTC

Post by elmer swanson
You're missing the point. Its not nostalgia, its logic. If Islam is no
damn good (as rednecks maintain), HOW DID IT CREATE THE GREAT EMPIRE
IT DID? If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it can change
for the good too.

Thank you for stating what should be obvious. Of course, now I wonder
how long it will be before someone who notices that you are posting
from google will claim that you are really me!

Mitch Farmer

2004-02-25 17:02:08 UTC

No, you're missing the point. Islam has had centuries to change for
the good and has failed. Completely. Totally. It is a primitive faith
that flourished for a time in equally primitive surroundings, and not
all by its own brilliance and creativity, there was the typical
acquisition of ideas obtained through conquest which is true of all
cultures.Why is it that Muslims claim their glorious days of
yesteryear were completely of their own design (they were not), while
all other cultures raped and pillaged to enhance their empires?

If anything, Islam is regressing even more today. What evidence do we
have of Islam's capability to change for the good in modern history as
a whole? Where? When? Islam not only cannot create, it can't even
steal, borrow, or mimic the great ideas of today's modern societies,
let alone do so from scratch. Islam is simply not compatible with
modernity, it's as simple as that, and all the evidence supports my
side, and not your wishful thinking.

Islam is no damn good, as you say.

Sayeed

2004-02-25 17:36:49 UTC

No, you're missing the point. Islam has had centuries to change for
the good and has failed. Completely. Totally.

As Christianity failed for how long? And we Moslems seem finally be
coming out of our dark ages. The question is, will we do it quickly
enough?

Post by Mitch Farmer
It is a primitive faith
that flourished for a time in equally primitive surroundings, and not
all by its own brilliance and creativity, there was the typical
acquisition of ideas obtained through conquest which is true of all
cultures.Why is it that Muslims claim their glorious days of
yesteryear were completely of their own design (they were not),

Funny, I don't recall claiming that it was all a de novo creation, but
I do recall you saying that we didn't really do more than repackage
things. We acquired and built upon what we acquired. Mainstream
western historians concur on this.

Post by Mitch Farmer
while all other cultures raped and pillaged to enhance their empires?
If anything, Islam is regressing even more today. What evidence do we
have of Islam's capability to change for the good in modern history as
a whole? Where? When? Islam not only cannot create, it can't even
steal, borrow, or mimic the great ideas of today's modern societies,
let alone do so from scratch.

Gee, I thought Malaysia was doing a pretty good job, but that must be
the exclusive work of the Chinese minority, right? Never mind the
fact that the Malaysian per capita GDP is 5 to 10 times that of China?
I mean, there's no way that there could be a synergy, is there? No
doubt it would all be like Singapore if there were no Muslims, right?
Just like all of the P.R.C. is one big Singapore? Not!
And the Turks are doing a good balancing act in spite of being in a
difficult part of the world. But Islam knows only failure according
to Mitch the self-confessed troll.

Post by Mitch Farmer
Islam is simply not compatible with
modernity, it's as simple as that, and all the evidence supports my
side, and not your wishful thinking.
Islam is no damn good, as you say.

Mitch, you are a troll and possibly a hopeless bigot. But you are
persistent, I'll grant you that. I'll try to get back to our long
running original thread in alt.religion.islam by the weekend if time
permits.

Until then, peace be with you,

Sayeed

Mitch Farmer

2004-02-25 17:50:23 UTC

No, you're missing the point. Islam has had centuries to change for
the good and has failed. Completely. Totally.

As Christianity failed for how long?

Irrelevant. The fact is that it did, centuries ago. Islam has not, and
has never attempted to reform to modernity.

Post by Sayeed
And we Moslems seem finally be
coming out of our dark ages.

You're kidding here? The only thing that is helping Muslims come out
of the dark ages is when we bomb the crap out of them.

Post by Sayeed
The question is, will we do it quickly enough?

The question is, when will you start?

Sayeed

2004-02-25 18:12:01 UTC

Post by Mitch Farmer
No, you're missing the point. Islam has had centuries to change for
the good and has failed. Completely. Totally.

As Christianity failed for how long?

Irrelevant. The fact is that it did, centuries ago. Islam has not, and
has never attempted to reform to modernity.

When are you going to come out of the dark ages and quite being such a
monomaniacal troll?

Post by Sayeed
And we Moslems seem finally be
coming out of our dark ages.

You're kidding here? The only thing that is helping Muslims come out
of the dark ages is when we bomb the crap out of them.

Mitch, you are a persistent troll. And whether or not you are
serious, you seem every bit as sick as the things you criticize in
Islam. No health person would spend so much time and effort simply
trying to hurt and provoke. Any progress in Moslem countries, you
ignore. The mention of Malaysia and the comparison of it to China you
completely overlook. Get a life and stop dedicating so much time to
trying to stir up hatred and pain.

Post by Sayeed
The question is, will we do it quickly enough?

The question is, when will you start?

When will you stop being a childish troll? Do I need to make a Mitch
Farmer FAQ so that people will know better than to waste their time
dealing with you? The brain dead Moslem fanatics that you so love to
bash seem to have inspired your own Usenet troll Jihad! ;-)

Mitch Farmer

2004-02-25 18:29:05 UTC

Post by Mitch Farmer
No, you're missing the point. Islam has had centuries to change for
the good and has failed. Completely. Totally.

As Christianity failed for how long?

Irrelevant. The fact is that it did, centuries ago. Islam has not, and
has never attempted to reform to modernity.

When are you going to come out of the dark ages and quite being such a
monomaniacal troll?

Care to dispute what I said?

Post by Sayeed
And we Moslems seem finally be
coming out of our dark ages.

You're kidding here? The only thing that is helping Muslims come out
of the dark ages is when we bomb the crap out of them.

Mitch, you are a persistent troll. And whether or not you are
serious, you seem every bit as sick as the things you criticize in
Islam.

Afghanistan: Bombed the crap out of them. Result: A constitution and a
chance at living like modern humans.

Iraq: Bombed the crap out of them. Result: An end to tyranny and a
chance to live like modern humans. Even you commended our actions.

Post by Sayeed
No health person would spend so much time and effort simply
trying to hurt and provoke. Any progress in Moslem countries, you
ignore. The mention of Malaysia and the comparison of it to China you
completely overlook.

No I don't. I completely recognize that Malaysia's "success" is mainly
due to its Chinese populace, who are mostly non-Muslims. Ditto for
Indonesia.

Post by Sayeed
Get a life and stop dedicating so much time to
trying to stir up hatred and pain.

Get a tissue, geesh.

Post by Sayeed
When will you stop being a childish troll? Do I need to make a Mitch
Farmer FAQ so that people will know better than to waste their time
dealing with you?

You're welcome to stop anytime.

Post by Sayeed
The brain dead Moslem fanatics that you so love to
bash seem to have inspired your own Usenet troll Jihad! ;-)

Yes, we know you will not bash them. That's the whole problem with
Islam, you've left the work of cleaning up the mess of your pitiful
faith to us.

You know Sayeed, the debt you believe is owed to Islam is actually the
other way around. You sit here, in the US, using technology that has
no place in much of the Islamic world. You live under the umbrella of
America's protection, get educated here, earn a living here, enjoy
freedoms simply unknown in Islamic nations, and still say that some
debt of gratitude is owed to Islam? You've got it backwards. Now, get
on your knees and genuflect to Uncle Sam and not your imaginary
bloodthirsty deity. Pronto.

Sayeed

2004-02-25 19:23:12 UTC

Post by Mitch Farmer
No, you're missing the point. Islam has had centuries to change for
the good and has failed. Completely. Totally.

As Christianity failed for how long?

Irrelevant. The fact is that it did, centuries ago. Islam has not, and
has never attempted to reform to modernity.

When are you going to come out of the dark ages and quite being such a
monomaniacal troll?

Care to dispute what I said?

I already have. Maybe you could start to show some balance in your
polemics for a change? As I've written before, the extremism of
Islamic fanatics does not justify yours.

Post by Sayeed
And we Moslems seem finally be
coming out of our dark ages.

You're kidding here? The only thing that is helping Muslims come out
of the dark ages is when we bomb the crap out of them.

Mitch, you are a persistent troll. And whether or not you are
serious, you seem every bit as sick as the things you criticize in
Islam.

Afghanistan: Bombed the crap out of them. Result: A constitution and a
chance at living like modern humans.

The Afghan situation with the excesses of the taliban was in large
part a creation of the U.S. and the current situation is far from
ideal. Without more aid to undo the decades of devastation, the
chance might not come to much.

Post by Mitch Farmer
Iraq: Bombed the crap out of them.

No, the cr*p was not bombed out of them. The offensive was admirably
targeted. Why do you so love to express yourself in extremes? Does
it make it easier to hide the truth?

Post by Mitch Farmer
Result: An end to tyranny and a chance to live like modern humans.

An end to a secular tyranny that the U.S. ended but once supported and
preserved when it was useful to them, as you've admitted.

Post by Mitch Farmer
Even you commended our actions.

"our actions"? Why is it you say "our" when you criticize me when I
say "your" in the same context?

No I don't. I completely recognize that Malaysia's "success" is mainly
due to its Chinese populace, who are mostly non-Muslims. Ditto for
Indonesia.

Then why is Malaysia so much more successful than China?

Post by Sayeed
Get a life and stop dedicating so much time to
trying to stir up hatred and pain.

Get a tissue, geesh.

Hey, it's your life and time you waste.

Post by Sayeed
When will you stop being a childish troll? Do I need to make a Mitch
Farmer FAQ so that people will know better than to waste their time
dealing with you?

You're welcome to stop anytime.

I'll write a Mitch FAQ if you continue to be the highest profile troll
here and if I stay here rather than move to another Internet media

Post by Sayeed
The brain dead Moslem fanatics that you so love to
bash seem to have inspired your own Usenet troll Jihad! ;-)

Yes, we know you will not bash them.

In case you haven't noticed, I do criticize the Wahhabis, as I know
that they are an impediment to constructive change, kind of like you!
;-)

Post by Mitch Farmer
That's the whole problem with Islam, you've left the work of cleaning up the mess of your pitiful
faith to us.

There you go using the inclusive again, so the next time I do it,
remember. As for all the "good" "you" do, don't forget the "bad"
you've done by using "us" as proxies to fight your cold war and then
walking away from the mess.

Post by Mitch Farmer
You know Sayeed, the debt you believe is owed to Islam is actually the
other way around. You sit here, in the US, using technology that has
no place in much of the Islamic world.

Have I not said that there are wonderful people here in the U.S.?
And have I not praised the values of tolerance and pluralism that have
come to represent the modern U.S., (even if some people like you don't
feel they apply to Moslems)? But I also praise the same in Europe and
I look more to the east for guidance to the future of the Islamic
peoples.

Post by Mitch Farmer
You live under the umbrella of America's protection, get educated here, earn a living here, enjoy
freedoms simply unknown in Islamic nations, and still say that some
debt of gratitude is owed to Islam? You've got it backwards. Now, get
on your knees and genuflect to Uncle Sam and not your imaginary
bloodthirsty deity. Pronto.

I guess you wouldn't be Mitch if you expressed yourself more
moderately. I will partially genuflect to tolerance and pluralism,
but the examples of progress in the east tell us that even these must
be balanced with other concerns during the period of development.
Meanwhile, I don't know what you are supposed to be doing, but I've
got other things to do than post to the Usenet.

Peace be with you, oh lovable troll,

Sayeed

Mitch Farmer

2004-02-26 03:36:22 UTC

Post by Mitch Farmer
No, you're missing the point. Islam has had centuries to change for
the good and has failed. Completely. Totally.

As Christianity failed for how long?

Irrelevant. The fact is that it did, centuries ago. Islam has not, and
has never attempted to reform to modernity.

When are you going to come out of the dark ages and quite being such a
monomaniacal troll?

Care to dispute what I said?

I already have. Maybe you could start to show some balance in your
polemics for a change? As I've written before, the extremism of
Islamic fanatics does not justify yours.

Another non answer.

Post by Sayeed
And we Moslems seem finally be
coming out of our dark ages.

You're kidding here? The only thing that is helping Muslims come out
of the dark ages is when we bomb the crap out of them.

Mitch, you are a persistent troll. And whether or not you are
serious, you seem every bit as sick as the things you criticize in
Islam.

Afghanistan: Bombed the crap out of them. Result: A constitution and a
chance at living like modern humans.

The Taliban is a creation of Islam, no other religious practice on
Earth could have created those monsters no matter what the efforts of
the US or anyone else.

Post by Mitch Farmer
Iraq: Bombed the crap out of them.

No, the cr*p was not bombed out of them. The offensive was admirably
targeted. Why do you so love to express yourself in extremes? Does
it make it easier to hide the truth?

OK, selective targets had the crap bombed out of them. I'm sure you
were a big supporter of the war.

Post by Mitch Farmer
Result: An end to tyranny and a chance to live like modern humans.

An end to a secular tyranny that the U.S. ended but once supported and
preserved when it was useful to them, as you've admitted.

Post by Mitch Farmer
Even you commended our actions.

"our actions"? Why is it you say "our" when you criticize me when I
say "your" in the same context?

Because I am an American, stand by my nation, and not by a religion.
You continually refer to Islam as if it's a nation. Oh wait, that's
right, you primitives think it is and one day want all of us to be
included.

No I don't. I completely recognize that Malaysia's "success" is mainly
due to its Chinese populace, who are mostly non-Muslims. Ditto for
Indonesia.

Then why is Malaysia so much more successful than China?

Hong Kong by itself is more successful than Malaysia. Malaysia has a
nice flag however.

Post by Sayeed
Get a life and stop dedicating so much time to
trying to stir up hatred and pain.

Get a tissue, geesh.

Hey, it's your life and time you waste.

But I'm not the one weeping.

Post by Sayeed
When will you stop being a childish troll? Do I need to make a Mitch
Farmer FAQ so that people will know better than to waste their time
dealing with you?

You're welcome to stop anytime.

I'll write a Mitch FAQ if you continue to be the highest profile troll
here and if I stay here rather than move to another Internet media

Oooohhh, a threat from a primitive Muslim. Mommy!

Post by Sayeed
The brain dead Moslem fanatics that you so love to
bash seem to have inspired your own Usenet troll Jihad! ;-)

Yes, we know you will not bash them.

In case you haven't noticed, I do criticize the Wahhabis, as I know
that they are an impediment to constructive change, kind of like you!
;-)

Well, that's a start. Unfortunately, they run your religion and own
its home turf. Get to work.

Post by Mitch Farmer
That's the whole problem with Islam, you've left the work of cleaning up the mess of your pitiful
faith to us.

The mess was caused by the Soviet Empire. The US is the largest force
of good the world has ever seen.

Pack you bags, then you'll no longer have to look east as you'll
already be there. Set up "Sayeed's Shop of Moderate Islam" in Saudi
Arabia. Invite some of your like-minded Jewish colleagues and scholars
for some tea and open forum presentations.

I guess you wouldn't be Mitch if you expressed yourself more
moderately.

Moderation doesn't work with you folks too well.

Post by Sayeed
I will partially genuflect to tolerance and pluralism,
but the examples of progress in the east tell us that even these must
be balanced with other concerns during the period of development.

Translation: I'm still a slave to my primitive religion at the end of
the day.

Post by Sayeed
Meanwhile, I don't know what you are supposed to be doing, but I've
got other things to do than post to the Usenet.

Understood.

Post by Sayeed
Peace be with you, oh lovable troll,

Whatever.

Sayeed

2004-02-27 16:17:59 UTC

Mitch, you know something? I'm not even a moslem, I just pretended to
be one on a lark to see what kind of responses I'd get. In truth, I'm
an atheist humanist who might be getting a job where a knowledge of
Arabic and Islamic culture would come in handy, so I came here to
practice. I suppose the intellectual laziness and the reflex bigotry
I've seen here are to be expected, but that doesn't excuse those who
show those traits. FWIW, I'm probably every bit as secular as you
are, but I'm quite opposed to any form of dogmatism, and that's
something we may not have in common.

All that said, it really looks like you're a rude troll with way too
much time on his hands. Now, do ya want to trade sides? I really
think you'd make a much better moslem than me. :)

Then again, it doesn't exactly take a genius to criticize the failings
of Islam, in fact, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, whereas trying
to work with the short end of the stick is pretty difficult and
requires a lot more effort, so something tells me that you couldn't
pull it off. One could further suspect that constructive approaches
aren't your strong point. It also seems possible that just like the
extremists you criticize, you're way too much of a true believer to
actually play the devils advocate very well. But maybe I'm wrong.
Let's see just how good an arguer you really are. Maybe you could
start by admitting that you're just pretending to be an extremist nut
case by making all the one sided fanatical arguments you do? ;-)
For an example, see below.

Post by Sayeed
The Afghan situation with the excesses of the taliban was in large
part a creation of the U.S. and the current situation is far from
ideal. Without more aid to undo the decades of devastation, the
chance might not come to much.

The Taliban is a creation of Islam, no other religious practice on
Earth could have created those monsters no matter what the efforts of
the US or anyone else.

I guess you've never heard about the millions killed by the Khmer
Rouge, supported loyally by the P.R. of China, or the Red Guards
during the Cultural Revolution in your beloved China itself? Let's
just touch on the latter for now. They drowned several of their
victims in cesspools for the most trivial and obscure of offenses,
making the Taliban look consistent by comparison.

"Bourgeois humanism" was one of the most bizarre so-called offenses,
borrowed from Stalin and extended. That meant, for example, someone
was drowned in excrement because they objected to things like people
being dragged nearly naked down the street until their skin came off
for lacking proper "class consciousness". Any sane, decent person
should have objected, but those who did often suffered even crueler
fates.

The list goes on, and believe me, although things are not as bad as
they once where, there are still events going on in China that make it
clear that sharia has no contemporary monopoly on caprice or cruelty.
For example, read any recent human rights report on Tibet that covers
the last ten years. It has to be over a span of several years because
the flow of information is so thoroughly restricted that it takes a
while for the news of crimes against humanity to leak out to the west.

Just so that there can be no doubt before we move on, let's not forget
the People's Paradise of North Korea, which would have collapsed long
ago without the support of the Chinese. The good old North Koreans
trade nuclear and missile technology with the Moslems, when the
Chinese don't beat them to it. If a nuclear missile or portable A-bomb
from the failed state of Pakistan ever lands on or explodes in the
U.S. or one of its allies, many of its parts will be patented by the
Chinese. But you can't condemn the Chinese with the same pretended
psycho intensity that you direct at the Moslems, or call them
primitives, albeit ones with nukes, because your "wife is Chinese, and
she'd kick (your) ass", right?

So it seems the worst "Monsters" can arise without the soil of
religion to nurture them. All that's required is a dogma that allows
people to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the suffering of other
humans by saying that they are not REALLY human. Kind of like your
ostensible view of the Moslems.

x***@erols.com

2004-02-27 17:34:39 UTC

Post by Sayeed
Mitch, you know something? I'm not even a moslem, I just pretended to
be one on a lark to see what kind of responses I'd get. In truth, I'm
an atheist humanist who might be getting a job where a knowledge of
Arabic and Islamic culture would come in handy, so I came here to
practice. I suppose the intellectual laziness and the reflex bigotry
I've seen here are to be expected, but that doesn't excuse those who
show those traits. FWIW, I'm probably every bit as secular as you
are, but I'm quite opposed to any form of dogmatism, and that's
something we may not have in common.
All that said, it really looks like you're a rude troll with way too
much time on his hands. Now, do ya want to trade sides? I really
think you'd make a much better moslem than me. :)
Then again, it doesn't exactly take a genius to criticize the failings
of Islam, in fact, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, whereas trying
to work with the short end of the stick is pretty difficult and
requires a lot more effort, so something tells me that you couldn't
pull it off. One could further suspect that constructive approaches
aren't your strong point. It also seems possible that just like the
extremists you criticize, you're way too much of a true believer to
actually play the devils advocate very well. But maybe I'm wrong.
Let's see just how good an arguer you really are. Maybe you could
start by admitting that you're just pretending to be an extremist nut
case by making all the one sided fanatical arguments you do? ;-)
For an example, see below.

The Taliban is a creation of Islam, no other religious practice on
Earth could have created those monsters no matter what the efforts of
the US or anyone else.

I guess you've never heard about the millions killed by the Khmer
Rouge, supported loyally by the P.R. of China, or the Red Guards
during the Cultural Revolution in your beloved China itself? Let's
just touch on the latter for now. They drowned several of their
victims in cesspools for the most trivial and obscure of offenses,
making the Taliban look consistent by comparison.
"Bourgeois humanism" was one of the most bizarre so-called offenses,
borrowed from Stalin and extended. That meant, for example, someone
was drowned in excrement because they objected to things like people
being dragged nearly naked down the street until their skin came off
for lacking proper "class consciousness". Any sane, decent person
should have objected, but those who did often suffered even crueler
fates.
The list goes on, and believe me, although things are not as bad as
they once where, there are still events going on in China that make it
clear that sharia has no contemporary monopoly on caprice or cruelty.
For example, read any recent human rights report on Tibet that covers
the last ten years. It has to be over a span of several years because
the flow of information is so thoroughly restricted that it takes a
while for the news of crimes against humanity to leak out to the west.
Just so that there can be no doubt before we move on, let's not forget
the People's Paradise of North Korea, which would have collapsed long
ago without the support of the Chinese. The good old North Koreans
trade nuclear and missile technology with the Moslems, when the
Chinese don't beat them to it. If a nuclear missile or portable A-bomb
from the failed state of Pakistan ever lands on or explodes in the
U.S. or one of its allies, many of its parts will be patented by the
Chinese. But you can't condemn the Chinese with the same pretended
psycho intensity that you direct at the Moslems, or call them
primitives, albeit ones with nukes, because your "wife is Chinese, and
she'd kick (your) ass", right?
So it seems the worst "Monsters" can arise without the soil of
religion to nurture them. All that's required is a dogma that allows
people to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the suffering of other
humans by saying that they are not REALLY human. Kind of like your
ostensible view of the Moslems.

Does this mean you won't look up the rules for moslems in space?
I really wanted to know what mohammed said about
praying in outer space.

Sayeed

2004-02-27 19:14:26 UTC

Post by x***@erols.com
Does this mean you won't look up the rules for moslems in space?
I really wanted to know what mohammed said about
praying in outer space.

LOL! I will admit to being curious about that. I don't believe
Mohammed mentioned the matter, and I don't recall him or Jesus saying
anything about cloning either. ;-) It would be amusing to see what
the folks at the local mosques say.

Believe it or not, many of them are just as nice as the local Baptists
in that they will help you when you need it, and are not hard to get
along with outside of matters of faith. I like a lot of them, even if
like the Baptists, I think they are wrong about a lot of things. Many
of them have come to trust me as we've known each other for years, so
I won't intentionally toy with them. But I'll politely inquire if I
get a chance.

Why don't you go to islam.tc and ask there? Remember to feign
sincerity to increase your chances of getting a response. And please
come back and share your answer with us if you get one. :)

Mitch Farmer

2004-02-27 19:32:14 UTC

Post by Sayeed
Mitch, you know something? I'm not even a moslem, I just pretended to
be one on a lark to see what kind of responses I'd get.

I sent Bob Cooper a note expressing this exact point. I had my
suspicions. Your shtick seemed like a bit from the Phil Hendrie Show.
Then again, you might still be a Muslim primitive and might even be
Bob Cooper for all I know or care.

Here is the e-mail I sent on 2-24

Hi Bob,

Mitch here. Well, it certainly has been ages since I've contacted
anyone directly through USENET!

I have come to the conclusion that the Sayeed Collective is not as it
seems. There is a radio show host named Phil Hendrie, and he coaxes
his audience to call in by presenting guests with absurd and
outrageous positions. Irate callers phone in and go at it with the
imaginary guests, who are actually Phil Hendrie himself and his many
voices. I believe I have been scammed by the Sayeed bunch. I do not
believe them to be Muslims at all, and they've tossed out some items
for consumption that frankly, even Muslims here in the US would
probably not reference. You noted Sayeed's return e-mail address, and
that should have been my first clue, let alone the multiple writing
styles, etc.

Oh well, it's no fun to argue with people who are just here for fun
themselves!

I'll play along a bit more, but I intend to throw them some curve
balls.

We shall see.

Regards,
Mitch

Post by Sayeed
In truth, I'm
an atheist humanist who might be getting a job where a knowledge of
Arabic and Islamic culture would come in handy, so I came here to
practice.

Hopefully it is doing espionage work for the government in order to
infiltrate Muslims who wish to end western civilization as we know it.
Good luck to you.

Post by Sayeed
I suppose the intellectual laziness and the reflex bigotry
I've seen here are to be expected, but that doesn't excuse those who
show those traits. FWIW, I'm probably every bit as secular as you
are, but I'm quite opposed to any form of dogmatism, and that's
something we may not have in common.

Fine.

Post by Sayeed
All that said, it really looks like you're a rude troll with way too
much time on his hands. Now, do ya want to trade sides? I really
think you'd make a much better moslem than me. :)

Sorry amigo, but I'm an atheist just like you. :) Have been since I
told my freaked out Irish Catholic mother when I was in third grade.
That went over well I assure you.

Post by Sayeed
Then again, it doesn't exactly take a genius to criticize the failings
of Islam, in fact, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, whereas trying
to work with the short end of the stick is pretty difficult and
requires a lot more effort, so something tells me that you couldn't
pull it off.

No, you're much too bright for me. I'm just a dumb redneck hick who
likes to poke fun at like minded imbeciles such as myself.

Post by Sayeed
One could further suspect that constructive approaches
aren't your strong point.

Direct approaches work best with me. Those are most constructive. It's
a left brain thing. I've concluded that there's not much productivity
in pussy footing around the issues, although such temperament has its
place in academic exercises. Not to say that I always engage in
confrontation however. If I don't like the food or service in a
restaurant, I don't speak to the proprietors, I simply pay the bill
and don't return.

Post by Sayeed
It also seems possible that just like the
extremists you criticize, you're way too much of a true believer to
actually play the devils advocate very well.

It really doesn't matter now, does it?

Post by Sayeed
But maybe I'm wrong.
Let's see just how good an arguer you really are. Maybe you could
start by admitting that you're just pretending to be an extremist nut
case by making all the one sided fanatical arguments you do? ;-)
For an example, see below.

OK.

The Taliban is a creation of Islam, no other religious practice on
Earth could have created those monsters no matter what the efforts of
the US or anyone else.

I guess you've never heard about the millions killed by the Khmer
Rouge, supported loyally by the P.R. of China, or the Red Guards
during the Cultural Revolution in your beloved China itself?

I must have missed the part about the Khmer Rouge having deep
religious faith. Ditto for the PRC.

Post by Sayeed
Let's
just touch on the latter for now. They drowned several of their
victims in cesspools for the most trivial and obscure of offenses,
making the Taliban look consistent by comparison.

And their established worldwide religious connection was what again?

Post by Sayeed
"Bourgeois humanism" was one of the most bizarre so-called offenses,
borrowed from Stalin and extended. That meant, for example, someone
was drowned in excrement because they objected to things like people
being dragged nearly naked down the street until their skin came off
for lacking proper "class consciousness". Any sane, decent person
should have objected, but those who did often suffered even crueler
fates.

Agreed.

Post by Sayeed
The list goes on, and believe me, although things are not as bad as
they once where, there are still events going on in China that make it
clear that sharia has no contemporary monopoly on caprice or cruelty.

Agreed. But again, the entire commentary on this board deals with one
of the largest worldwide faiths, not failed political ideologies. I've
commented over and over again how the west has dealt with Nazism,
fascism, and communism. Now we're moving on to Islamofascism. In that
regard, they're tied in.

Post by Sayeed
For example, read any recent human rights report on Tibet that covers
the last ten years. It has to be over a span of several years because
the flow of information is so thoroughly restricted that it takes a
while for the news of crimes against humanity to leak out to the west.

Again, I see no disagreement here between us.

Post by Sayeed
Just so that there can be no doubt before we move on, let's not forget
the People's Paradise of North Korea, which would have collapsed long
ago without the support of the Chinese.

Ah, one of my favorite subjects. I've been an avid reader of KCNA for
some time. I actually had a running e-mail exchange for almost one
year back in 1995 with one of the editors of their Japan based news
service. A very engaging guy who surprisingly admitted that the news
released from KCNA is "rather creative" and serves the purposes of the
Juche philosophy, etc. He even went so far to mention that he had many
western friends including Americans in Tokyo, etc. Then one day...he
no longer responded short of a cryptic message that seemed to indicate
he was in big trouble.

My step-mother is Korean and she gets totally pissed off when I
mention that I would love to travel to the north when she mentions a
visit to her native land. I even floated the idea by my wife for our
honeymoon in 2000, but she didn't see any romance in touring the DMZ
and the chance to intermingle with some of the stone faced guards. So,
we ended up in Italy. Hey, compromises make strong marriages.

I am an admitted commie aficionado, in the sense that I was fascinated
by the Soviet Union and extensively traveled behind the Iron Curtain
in the mid 1980's. I even illegally entered Poland and got busted for
not having a proper visa. I was "kidnapped" in Moscow in 1993 and
later "released" by my rugged Armenian captors. This little incident
eventually made its way to the "Let's Go" Europe travel series of
cd-roms in 1994, and 1995, complete with hundreds of my photos from
Europe. I traveled to Vietnam in 1998 for three weeks with a friend
who had not seen here grandmother in 19 years. To date, I've been to
over 30 countries and many of those communist paradises. Put me on a
plane and I'm a happy boy.

Post by Sayeed
The good old North Koreans
trade nuclear and missile technology with the Moslems, when the
Chinese don't beat them to it. If a nuclear missile or portable A-bomb
from the failed state of Pakistan ever lands on or explodes in the
U.S. or one of its allies, many of its parts will be patented by the
Chinese. But you can't condemn the Chinese with the same pretended
psycho intensity that you direct at the Moslems, or call them
primitives, albeit ones with nukes, because your "wife is Chinese, and
she'd kick (your) ass", right?

I condemn the Chinese all the time, not as much as my wife does, but
in good measure. In fact, when I hear one of my in-laws rant and rave
about how the Chinese are so great a this, or that, I remind them that
until recently the only part of China that had really accomplished
anything noteworthy is Hong Kong, and that this was due to 150+ years
of British oversight. The Chinese can have all the nukes they want, I
still don't think they'd use them on us, for the same reasons as the
former Soviet Union did not. Unfortunately, this does not apply to
fanatical Muslims, who would use them in a heartbeat as they do not
fear mutual destruction but welcome it. There is a huge difference
between failed political ideologies and absolute 7th century religious
fervor. There is no comparison to be made between the PRC, the former
Soviet Union, even North Korea, and the Taliban for example. They're
different beasts and need to be dealt with as such.

Post by Sayeed
So it seems the worst "Monsters" can arise without the soil of
religion to nurture them.

Sure. Here's the track record however for the last 60 years or so:

1) Nazi Germany: Gone. Today's threat to west: None.
2) Fascist Italy: Gone. Today's threat to west: None.
3) Soviet Union: Gone. Today's threat to west: Primitive Muslims in
former states, what a shocker.
4) Khmer Rouge: Gone. Today's threat to west: None, not that it was
ever great.
5) PRC: Still around, but hardly resembles the mid 1970's with Romeo
and Juliet performances in army fatigues. Basically a commie
government with a booming emerging capitalist market. We won that
battle too it appears.
6) Worldwide fanatical Islam: Outcome pending. Good progress thus far
considering the scope of the worldwide infestation. Given our track
record of defeating enemies in the past, I'd put money on us, despite
the efforts of those like yourself who have the spines of sponges.

Post by Sayeed
All that's required is a dogma that allows
people to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the suffering of other
humans by saying that they are not REALLY human. Kind of like your
ostensible view of the Moslems.

They could end all their suffering in short order if they gave up
their backward and ever so primitive religion. Since we know they are
incapable of rational thought in the modern world, we shall take
whatever steps are necessary to defeat them. We win. They lose.

Now get out there with your new career and save the world already!

Dilbert Firestorm

2004-02-28 15:30:00 UTC

Post by Sayeed
Mitch, you know something? I'm not even a moslem, I just pretended to
be one on a lark to see what kind of responses I'd get.

I sent Bob Cooper a note expressing this exact point. I had my
suspicions. Your shtick seemed like a bit from the Phil Hendrie Show.
Then again, you might still be a Muslim primitive and might even be
Bob Cooper for all I know or care.
Here is the e-mail I sent on 2-24
Hi Bob,
Mitch here. Well, it certainly has been ages since I've contacted
anyone directly through USENET!
I have come to the conclusion that the Sayeed Collective is not as it
seems. There is a radio show host named Phil Hendrie, and he coaxes
his audience to call in by presenting guests with absurd and
outrageous positions. Irate callers phone in and go at it with the
imaginary guests, who are actually Phil Hendrie himself and his many
voices. I believe I have been scammed by the Sayeed bunch. I do not
believe them to be Muslims at all, and they've tossed out some items
for consumption that frankly, even Muslims here in the US would
probably not reference. You noted Sayeed's return e-mail address, and
that should have been my first clue, let alone the multiple writing
styles, etc.
Oh well, it's no fun to argue with people who are just here for fun
themselves!
I'll play along a bit more, but I intend to throw them some curve
balls.
We shall see.
Regards,
Mitch

Post by Sayeed
In truth, I'm
an atheist humanist who might be getting a job where a knowledge of
Arabic and Islamic culture would come in handy, so I came here to
practice.

Hopefully it is doing espionage work for the government in order to
infiltrate Muslims who wish to end western civilization as we know it.
Good luck to you.

Fine.

Sorry amigo, but I'm an atheist just like you. :) Have been since I
told my freaked out Irish Catholic mother when I was in third grade.
That went over well I assure you.

No, you're much too bright for me. I'm just a dumb redneck hick who
likes to poke fun at like minded imbeciles such as myself.

Post by Sayeed
One could further suspect that constructive approaches
aren't your strong point.

Post by Sayeed
It also seems possible that just like the
extremists you criticize, you're way too much of a true believer to
actually play the devils advocate very well.

It really doesn't matter now, does it?

OK.

The Taliban is a creation of Islam, no other religious practice on
Earth could have created those monsters no matter what the efforts of
the US or anyone else.

I guess you've never heard about the millions killed by the Khmer
Rouge, supported loyally by the P.R. of China, or the Red Guards
during the Cultural Revolution in your beloved China itself?

I must have missed the part about the Khmer Rouge having deep
religious faith. Ditto for the PRC.

And their established worldwide religious connection was what again?

Agreed.

Again, I see no disagreement here between us.

Post by Sayeed
Just so that there can be no doubt before we move on, let's not forget
the People's Paradise of North Korea, which would have collapsed long
ago without the support of the Chinese.

Ah, one of my favorite subjects. I've been an avid reader of KCNA for
some time. I actually had a running e-mail exchange for almost one
year back in 1995 with one of the editors of their Japan based news
service. A very engaging guy who surprisingly admitted that the news
released from KCNA is "rather creative" and serves the purposes of the
Juche philosophy, etc. He even went so far to mention that he had many
western friends including Americans in Tokyo, etc. Then one day...he
no longer responded short of a cryptic message that seemed to indicate
he was in big trouble.
My step-mother is Korean and she gets totally pissed off when I
mention that I would love to travel to the north when she mentions a
visit to her native land. I even floated the idea by my wife for our
honeymoon in 2000, but she didn't see any romance in touring the DMZ
and the chance to intermingle with some of the stone faced guards. So,
we ended up in Italy. Hey, compromises make strong marriages.
I am an admitted commie aficionado, in the sense that I was fascinated
by the Soviet Union and extensively traveled behind the Iron Curtain
in the mid 1980's. I even illegally entered Poland and got busted for
not having a proper visa. I was "kidnapped" in Moscow in 1993 and
later "released" by my rugged Armenian captors. This little incident
eventually made its way to the "Let's Go" Europe travel series of
cd-roms in 1994, and 1995, complete with hundreds of my photos from
Europe. I traveled to Vietnam in 1998 for three weeks with a friend
who had not seen here grandmother in 19 years. To date, I've been to
over 30 countries and many of those communist paradises. Put me on a
plane and I'm a happy boy.

Post by Sayeed
So it seems the worst "Monsters" can arise without the soil of
religion to nurture them.

1) Nazi Germany: Gone. Today's threat to west: None.
2) Fascist Italy: Gone. Today's threat to west: None.
3) Soviet Union: Gone. Today's threat to west: Primitive Muslims in
former states, what a shocker.
4) Khmer Rouge: Gone. Today's threat to west: None, not that it was
ever great.
5) PRC: Still around, but hardly resembles the mid 1970's with Romeo
and Juliet performances in army fatigues. Basically a commie
government with a booming emerging capitalist market. We won that
battle too it appears.

they're more fascist than communist now a days.

Post by Mitch Farmer
6) Worldwide fanatical Islam: Outcome pending. Good progress thus far
considering the scope of the worldwide infestation. Given our track
record of defeating enemies in the past, I'd put money on us, despite
the efforts of those like yourself who have the spines of sponges.

They could end all their suffering in short order if they gave up
their backward and ever so primitive religion. Since we know they are
incapable of rational thought in the modern world, we shall take
whatever steps are necessary to defeat them. We win. They lose.
Now get out there with your new career and save the world already!

Charles

2004-02-25 23:14:41 UTC

Post by Mitch Farmer
No I don't. I completely recognize that Malaysia's "success" is mainly
due to its Chinese populace, who are mostly non-Muslims. Ditto for
Indonesia.

Yo, mr. dickhead, didn't Sayeed already guess that's what you would
say and answer your question? Like, maybe you could start with the
relpy that he already gave instead of pretending that you're saying
something new? being a troll gets old after a while for most people,
but not for you.

Mitch Farmer

2004-02-26 02:57:35 UTC

Post by Charles

Post by Mitch Farmer
No I don't. I completely recognize that Malaysia's "success" is mainly
due to its Chinese populace, who are mostly non-Muslims. Ditto for
Indonesia.

Yo, mr. dickhead, didn't Sayeed already guess that's what you would
say and answer your question?

I can't help it if he already knows the truth about the subject.

Post by Charles
Like, maybe you could start with the
relpy that he already gave instead of pretending that you're saying
something new?

Translation? A fellow primitive I take it?

Post by Charles
being a troll gets old after a while for most people,
but not for you.

Then killfile me, fuckwit.

Count 1

2004-02-25 17:31:53 UTC

You're missing the point. Its not nostalgia, its logic. If Islam is no
damn good (as rednecks maintain), HOW DID IT CREATE THE GREAT EMPIRE
IT DID?

Why do you characterize people as rednecks if they think Islam is no good?
And what do you mean by 'great' empire? Yes, in the few hundred years Islam
did spread, but so does cancer and we don't typically refer to it as a
'great' disease.

If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it can change

Post by elmer swanson
for the good too.

Possibly, but if it changes for the good too much can it still be called
'islamic'?

Sayeed

2004-02-25 17:57:26 UTC

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:31:53 -0800, "Count 1"

Post by Count 1
Why do you characterize people as rednecks if they think Islam is no good?
And what do you mean by 'great' empire? Yes, in the few hundred years Islam
did spread, but so does cancer and we don't typically refer to it as a
'great' disease.

Well, when cancer has been agreed by the overwhelming majority of
scholars in oncology to have contributed advances in math, medicine,
architecture and navigation, maybe we can call it great too.

Post by elmer swanson
If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it can change
for the good too.

Possibly, but if it changes for the good too much can it still be called 'islamic'?

Can the "West" still be called Christian? Maybe, maybe not, but the
vast majority of people in the U.S. are religious. Can China still be
called marxist? I would say no, but it is still its own country and
will always be different than the west. Islam is not inherently evil,
but it has fallen into a crushing intolerance, and that is an evil to
be overcome. And surrounding it with nothing but more intolerance and
hostility will not help matters.

Count 1

2004-02-25 18:15:35 UTC

Post by Sayeed
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:31:53 -0800, "Count 1"

Well, when cancer has been agreed by the overwhelming majority of
scholars in oncology to have contributed advances in math, medicine,
architecture and navigation, maybe we can call it great too.

There are some comparisons we can draw on right now. Cancer, like Islam, has
killed many people, often senselessly. Cancer, like Islam, spreads
insidiously and cancer, like Islam, cannot be cured, only removed and
destroyed.

Post by elmer swanson
If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it can change
for the good too.

Possibly, but if it changes for the good too much can it still be called 'islamic'?

So your answer to my question is......?

Sayeed

2004-02-25 18:29:01 UTC

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:15:35 -0800, "Count 1"

Post by Sayeed
Well, when cancer has been agreed by the overwhelming majority of
scholars in oncology to have contributed advances in math, medicine,
architecture and navigation, maybe we can call it great too.

There are some comparisons we can draw on right now. Cancer, like Islam, has
killed many people, often senselessly.

Marxism, Christianity and even democracy in moments of mob rule, like
lynch mobs, have done the same.

Post by Count 1
Cancer, like Islam, spreads
insidiously and cancer, like Islam, cannot be cured, only removed and
destroyed.

No, Islam can be moderate and can coexist and contribute in a plural
society, and you'd better figure out how to coexist with it, as it has
1.2+ billion followers who you will not be able to remove and destroy
anytime soon. And if anyone tries to remove them by unprecedented
acts of violence, far more harm than good will come to the world and
the west from such an effort. Now take a deep breath, face reality
like an adult, and start to try being constructive.

Post by elmer swanson
If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it can change
for the good too.

Possibly, but if it changes for the good too much can it still be called

'islamic'?

Post by Sayeed
Can the "West" still be called Christian? Maybe, maybe not, but the
vast majority of people in the U.S. are religious. Can China still be
called marxist? I would say no, but it is still its own country and
will always be different than the west. Islam is not inherently evil,
but it has fallen into a crushing intolerance, and that is an evil to
be overcome. And surrounding it with nothing but more intolerance and
hostility will not help matters.

So your answer to my question is......?

It will evolve and change just as the instances of faith and politics
I mention above. It will not be the Islam of the past, but it will
still effect the future. Now maybe you can answer my questions posed
above, and then make some constructive and realistic suggestions for
dealing with 1.2 billion of the people on this earth?

Count 1

2004-02-25 19:06:24 UTC

Post by Sayeed
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:15:35 -0800, "Count 1"

There are some comparisons we can draw on right now. Cancer, like Islam, has
killed many people, often senselessly.

Marxism, Christianity and even democracy in moments of mob rule, like
lynch mobs, have done the same.

Good ?

Post by Count 1
Cancer, like Islam, spreads
insidiously and cancer, like Islam, cannot be cured, only removed and
destroyed.

Post by elmer swanson
If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it can change
for the good too.

Possibly, but if it changes for the good too much can it still be called

'islamic'?

So your answer to my question is......?

The west can still be called 'christian', at least as much as it can be
calld 'the west'. China can still be called 'marxist', even if they have
their own flavour.

WRT to 1.2B people who call themselves muslim and dealing with them - well,
that's a misnomer. We deal with each country individually, regardless of
their 'greater Ummah' philosophy. Hence Iran gets called a rogue state and
Egypt gets 1.8B in aid a year.

Sayeed

2004-02-25 19:32:12 UTC

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:06:24 -0800, "Count 1"

Post by Sayeed
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:15:35 -0800, "Count 1"

There are some comparisons we can draw on right now. Cancer, like Islam,

has

Post by Count 1
killed many people, often senselessly.

Marxism, Christianity and even democracy in moments of mob rule, like
lynch mobs, have done the same.

Good ?

No, it's just to show that evil knows more than one context among the
-isms, -itys and -acys.

Post by Count 1
Cancer, like Islam, spreads
insidiously and cancer, like Islam, cannot be cured, only removed and
destroyed.

Post by elmer swanson
If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it can change
for the good too.

Possibly, but if it changes for the good too much can it still be

called

Post by Count 1
'islamic'?

So your answer to my question is......?

The west can still be called 'christian', at least as much as it can be
called 'the west'. China can still be called 'marxist', even if they have
their own flavour.

And so I imagine for the future of Islam. It will change like
christianity and marxism and know flavors.

Post by Count 1
WRT to 1.2B people who call themselves muslim and dealing with them - well,
that's a misnomer. We deal with each country individually, regardless of
their 'greater Ummah' philosophy. Hence Iran gets called a rogue state and
Egypt gets 1.8B in aid a year.

Agreed, though I wish some how it could be even more finely tuned so
the good in Iran and Egypt could be separated out and rewarded while
the bad more specifically could be discouraged.

Catch you later,

Sayeed.

Count 1

2004-02-25 19:40:11 UTC

Post by Sayeed
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:06:24 -0800, "Count 1"

Post by Sayeed
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:15:35 -0800, "Count 1"

There are some comparisons we can draw on right now. Cancer, like Islam,

has

Post by Count 1
killed many people, often senselessly.

Marxism, Christianity and even democracy in moments of mob rule, like
lynch mobs, have done the same.

Good ?

No, it's just to show that evil knows more than one context among the
-isms, -itys and -acys.

So its an empty point leading us nowhere.

Post by Count 1
So your answer to my question is......?

The west can still be called 'christian', at least as much as it can be
called 'the west'. China can still be called 'marxist', even if they have
their own flavour.

And so I imagine for the future of Islam. It will change like
christianity and marxism and know flavors.

Which will lead to what islam has always led its people to, internecine
conflict.

Count 1

2004-02-25 19:37:52 UTC

Post by Count 1
Cancer, like Islam, spreads
insidiously and cancer, like Islam, cannot be cured, only removed and
destroyed.

Sorry - missed this apologists rant in my first pass.

Actually I agree with you, Islam can be moderate, but such moderation
requires abandoning the belief that Islam creates a political system worthy
of the title. Once you strip Islam of its political injunctions (legal
rights, punishment, inheritance, social behaviour, and power structure) is
it still Islam?

So my constructive comment is Islam has to figure out how to become just
another faith and stop pretending it offers a judicial, economic, social, or
political system.

I hope that's reasonable enough for you.

Sayeed

2004-02-25 20:16:23 UTC

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:37:52 -0800, "Count 1"

Post by Count 1
Cancer, like Islam, spreads
insidiously and cancer, like Islam, cannot be cured, only removed and
destroyed.

Sorry - missed this apologists rant in my first pass.

No problem, the Net has endless distractions and it is all to easy to
miss things.

Post by Count 1
Actually I agree with you, Islam can be moderate, but such moderation
requires abandoning the belief that Islam creates a political system worthy
of the title. Once you strip Islam of its political injunctions (legal
rights, punishment, inheritance, social behaviour, and power structure) is
it still Islam?

Let me draw on history and what you've already said. Christianity
once played the same intrusive role in western society, but it no
longer does, but you say it is still Christianity. The Islam of
Andalucia was pretty tolerant for a long time before the backlash of
orthodoxy ruined that, but no one would argue that it wasn't Islam.

Post by Count 1
So my constructive comment is Islam has to figure out how to become just
another faith and stop pretending it offers a judicial, economic, social, or
political system.

Well, it does offer those, they just don't work well when run by
extremists, and if they are run by moderates, then the extremists say
that they are not Islamic, so in a sense, you've got a good point.
Extreme, uncompromising, intolerant islam must be removed from
government. And to the extremist, that is removing islam from
government. They'll just have to get over that or they will be placed
in isolation by the more progressive parts of the world.

Post by Count 1
I hope that's reasonable enough for you.

Well, as usual, the devil is in the details, but I must go to work
now, so peace be with you!

Mitch Farmer

2004-02-26 03:41:47 UTC

Post by Sayeed
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:37:52 -0800, "Count 1"

Post by Count 1
Cancer, like Islam, spreads
insidiously and cancer, like Islam, cannot be cured, only removed and
destroyed.

Sorry - missed this apologists rant in my first pass.

No problem, the Net has endless distractions and it is all to easy to
miss things.

What is it with you guys and long ago Spain? Is there some sort of
Islamic talking points handout that mandates this as an answer for
every question?

Enough already. BTW, the GDP of Spain is greater than all Arab nations
combined today. Good thing Islam lost on the Iberian Peninsula,
wouldn't you say?

elmer swanson

2004-02-26 17:29:21 UTC

Post by Sayeed
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:37:52 -0800, "Count 1"

Post by Count 1
Cancer, like Islam, spreads
insidiously and cancer, like Islam, cannot be cured, only removed and
destroyed.

Sorry - missed this apologists rant in my first pass.

No problem, the Net has endless distractions and it is all to easy to
miss things.

So we go from
"Islam not only cannot create, it can't even
steal, borrow, or mimic the great ideas of today's modern societies"
to
"Actually I agree with you, Islam can be moderate"
...Well that's progress!

Post by Sayeed
Let me draw on history and what you've already said. Christianity
once played the same intrusive role in western society, but it no
longer does, but you say it is still Christianity. The Islam of
Andalucia was pretty tolerant for a long time before the backlash of
orthodoxy ruined that, but no one would argue that it wasn't Islam.

What is it with you guys and long ago Spain? Is there some sort of
Islamic talking points handout that mandates this as an answer for
every question?

You know, if you go to Morocco you can see how minar they use (square
tower) is the architectural basis of the standard Latin American
church bell tower you see in Spain and Mexico.

It's no myth that Umayyad Caliphate brought culture to Europe.

Post by Mitch Farmer
Enough already. BTW, the GDP of Spain is greater than all Arab nations
combined today. Good thing Islam lost on the Iberian Peninsula,
wouldn't you say?

Yah, but what about the Purchasing Power Index! Prices are pretty
cheap in the Muslim world!

Mitch Farmer

2004-02-27 03:36:13 UTC

Post by Sayeed
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:37:52 -0800, "Count 1"

Post by Count 1
Cancer, like Islam, spreads
insidiously and cancer, like Islam, cannot be cured, only removed and
destroyed.

Sorry - missed this apologists rant in my first pass.

No problem, the Net has endless distractions and it is all to easy to
miss things.

What is it with you guys and long ago Spain? Is there some sort of
Islamic talking points handout that mandates this as an answer for
every question?

You know, if you go to Morocco you can see how minar they use (square
tower) is the architectural basis of the standard Latin American
church bell tower you see in Spain and Mexico.

I was in Morocco the first time the WTC was bombed by the primitives.
That was fun I assure you. The second time I was in Mexico. I simply
cannot go to nations starting with "M" and ending in "O" ever again,
or at least until we appropriately neuter Islamofascism.

Ok, so the bell towers in Spain and Mexico resemble those in Morocco.
Why didn't you say so? I'm sorry I've said so many nasty things about
Islam, that changes everything.

Post by elmer swanson
It's no myth that Umayyad Caliphate brought culture to Europe.

Post by Mitch Farmer
Enough already. BTW, the GDP of Spain is greater than all Arab nations
combined today. Good thing Islam lost on the Iberian Peninsula,
wouldn't you say?

Yah, but what about the Purchasing Power Index! Prices are pretty
cheap in the Muslim world!

That happens when your dwellings are mud-brick and your restroom
facilities are the nearest river or tree. Besides, Spain has some
great food, excellent food in fact. Can't say that I enjoyed the
epicurean delights of north Africa nearly as much as those of Spain.

elmer swanson

2004-02-27 19:27:56 UTC

Post by Sayeed
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:37:52 -0800, "Count 1"

Post by Mitch Farmer
What is it with you guys and long ago Spain? Is there some sort of
Islamic talking points handout that mandates this as an answer for
every question?

You know, if you go to Morocco you can see how minar they use (square
tower) is the architectural basis of the standard Latin American
church bell tower you see in Spain and Mexico.

I was in Morocco the first time the WTC was bombed by the primitives.

OK, tell us. What happened?

Post by Mitch Farmer
That was fun I assure you. The second time I was in Mexico. I simply
cannot go to nations starting with "M" and ending in "O" ever again,
or at least until we appropriately neuter Islamofascism.
Ok, so the bell towers in Spain and Mexico resemble those in Morocco.
Why didn't you say so? I'm sorry I've said so many nasty things about
Islam, that changes everything.

Post by elmer swanson
It's no myth that Umayyad Caliphate brought culture to Europe.

Yah, yah.
My point is it's one thing to hear about all the advances (algebra and
astronomy etc.) of the golden age of Islam, but another to see with
your own eyes how the civilization was the forerunner of some parts of
European civilization.

Post by Mitch Farmer
Enough already. BTW, the GDP of Spain is greater than all Arab nations
combined today. Good thing Islam lost on the Iberian Peninsula,
wouldn't you say?

Yah, but what about the Purchasing Power Index! Prices are pretty
cheap in the Muslim world!

That happens when your dwellings are mud-brick and your restroom
facilities are the nearest river or tree.

I think you are exagerating.

Post by Mitch Farmer
Besides, Spain has some
great food, excellent food in fact. Can't say that I enjoyed the
epicurean delights of north Africa nearly as much as those of Spain.

The poorer the country the worse the food, as a general rule. Turkey's
food is a match for much of Europe though. (Getting a bit off the
topic here.)

Marguerita

2004-02-27 18:52:58 UTC

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:15:35 -0800, "Count 1"

Post by Sayeed
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:31:53 -0800, "Count 1"

Post by Count 1
Why do you characterize people as rednecks if they think Islam is no

good?

Post by Count 1
And what do you mean by 'great' empire? Yes, in the few hundred years

Islam

Post by Count 1
did spread, but so does cancer and we don't typically refer to it as a
'great' disease.

Well, when cancer has been agreed by the overwhelming majority of
scholars in oncology to have contributed advances in math, medicine,
architecture and navigation, maybe we can call it great too.

That analogy can be applied equally well to Christianity.

The historic records of the Christian crusades make for a very grim
read.

M

Phaedrine

2004-02-28 00:35:01 UTC

Post by Count 1
There are some comparisons we can draw on right now. Cancer, like Islam, has
killed many people, often senselessly. Cancer, like Islam, spreads
insidiously and cancer, like Islam, cannot be cured, only removed and
destroyed.

That analogy can be applied equally well to Christianity.

Only by someone who is mind-numbingly stupid.

How many Christian terrorist groups are attacking muslims today? How
many muslim terrorist groups are attacking Christians (and Jews.....
well anyone who isn't muslim really)?

Marguerita

2004-02-29 14:33:42 UTC

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:35:01 -0600, Phaedrine

That analogy can be applied equally well to Christianity.

Only by someone who is mind-numbingly stupid.
How many Christian terrorist groups are attacking muslims today? How
many muslim terrorist groups are attacking Christians (and Jews.....
well anyone who isn't muslim really)?

Read your original post before you start foaming at the mouth. You
don't mention 'today', 'terrorist groups' *or* Muslims attacking
Christians.

The statement I was referring to is quite accurate when you substitute
Christian for Muslim - 'Cancer, like Christianity, has killed many
people, often senselessly'. You may not like it, but it's true.

As for Christian terrorist groups, try the IRA, violent anti-abortion
activists (who even describe themselves as the CT, Christian
Terrorists, in the US), or the Christian Identity movement and their
'Army of God'. These people kill in the name of their God, and they
are all Christians.

It wasn't so long ago that Christian Serbs were slaughtering Muslims
in Kosovo, and Croats killing Muslims in Bosnia and Croatia. Had you
forgotten about that? The people slaughtering their neighbours in
Rwanda and Congo - they weren't Muslims, but Christians. Those Rwandan
men with the machetes you saw on the news slaughtering men, women and
children were Catholics. Had you forgotten about them too?

M

Phaedrine

2004-02-29 16:28:16 UTC

Post by Marguerita
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:35:01 -0600, Phaedrine

Post by Count 1
There are some comparisons we can draw on right now. Cancer, like
Islam, has killed many people, often senselessly. Cancer, like
Islam, spreads insidiously and cancer, like Islam, cannot be
cured, only removed and destroyed.

That analogy can be applied equally well to Christianity.

Only by someone who is mind-numbingly stupid.
How many Christian terrorist groups are attacking muslims today?
How many muslim terrorist groups are attacking Christians (and
Jews..... well anyone who isn't muslim really)?

Read your original post before you start foaming at the mouth.

First off, I am not the OP in this thread. I merely posted ONCE (see
above) in response to your utterly silly remarks. I asked a series of
questions you are obviously unprepared to answer with any alacrity,
hence your sloppy accusation.

Post by Marguerita
You don't mention 'today', 'terrorist groups' *or* Muslims attacking
Christians.

Uh yes...... see above...... I used the word "today" in my one and only
post in this thread. You seem to be assuming I am the poster to which
you originally responded. I am not. Maybe we can have a discussion
after you resolve your pronoun problem.

Post by Marguerita
The statement I was referring to is quite accurate when you
substitute Christian for Muslim - 'Cancer, like Christianity, has
killed many people, often senselessly'. You may not like it, but it's
true.
As for Christian terrorist groups, try the IRA, violent anti-abortion
activists (who even describe themselves as the CT, Christian
Terrorists, in the US), or the Christian Identity movement and their
'Army of God'. These people kill in the name of their God, and they
are all Christians.
It wasn't so long ago that Christian Serbs were slaughtering Muslims
in Kosovo, and Croats killing Muslims in Bosnia and Croatia. Had you
forgotten about that? The people slaughtering their neighbours in
Rwanda and Congo - they weren't Muslims, but Christians. Those
Rwandan men with the machetes you saw on the news slaughtering men,
women and children were Catholics. Had you forgotten about them too?
M

Marguerita

2004-03-02 16:30:08 UTC

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:28:16 -0600, Phaedrine

Post by Marguerita
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:35:01 -0600, Phaedrine

Post by Count 1
There are some comparisons we can draw on right now. Cancer, like
Islam, has killed many people, often senselessly. Cancer, like
Islam, spreads insidiously and cancer, like Islam, cannot be
cured, only removed and destroyed.

That analogy can be applied equally well to Christianity.

Only by someone who is mind-numbingly stupid.
How many Christian terrorist groups are attacking muslims today?
How many muslim terrorist groups are attacking Christians (and
Jews..... well anyone who isn't muslim really)?

Read your original post before you start foaming at the mouth.

First off, I am not the OP in this thread. I merely posted ONCE (see
above) in response to your utterly silly remarks.

You bigots all look the same to me. Easy mistake. My comments were
directed at your assertion that the original stament could not be
applied to Christianity though, and those comments stand.

What was silly about my remarks? You said that Islam had led to the
deaths of a lot of people, I said Christianity had too. Are you
claiming that Christians have never been responsible for the senseless
deaths of many people?

Post by Phaedrine
I asked a series of
questions you are obviously unprepared to answer with any alacrity,
hence your sloppy accusation.

I answered your comment perfectly clearly. I said that the word
'Christianity' could be substituted for 'Islam' in the original
statement, which it can.

Shall we try again? If you do as I said and substitute 'Christianity'
for 'Islam', you get: ''Cancer, like Christianity, has killed many
people, often senselessly". Rather than dodging the issue, why don't
you tell me why you think that statement is incorrect? I gave you

Post by Marguerita
As for Christian terrorist groups, try the IRA, violent anti-abortion
activists (who even describe themselves as the CT, Christian
Terrorists, in the US), or the Christian Identity movement and their
'Army of God'. These people kill in the name of their God, and they
are all Christians.
It wasn't so long ago that Christian Serbs were slaughtering Muslims
in Kosovo, and Croats killing Muslims in Bosnia and Croatia. Had you
forgotten about that? The people slaughtering their neighbours in
Rwanda and Congo - they weren't Muslims, but Christians. Those
Rwandan men with the machetes you saw on the news slaughtering men,
women and children were Catholics. Had you forgotten about them too?

Phaedrine

2004-03-03 05:57:11 UTC

Post by Marguerita
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:28:16 -0600, Phaedrine

Post by Marguerita
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:35:01 -0600, Phaedrine

Post by Count 1
There are some comparisons we can draw on right now. Cancer, like
Islam, has killed many people, often senselessly. Cancer, like
Islam, spreads insidiously and cancer, like Islam, cannot be
cured, only removed and destroyed.

That analogy can be applied equally well to Christianity.

Only by someone who is mind-numbingly stupid.
How many Christian terrorist groups are attacking muslims today?
How many muslim terrorist groups are attacking Christians (and
Jews..... well anyone who isn't muslim really)?

Read your original post before you start foaming at the mouth.

First off, I am not the OP in this thread. I merely posted ONCE (see
above) in response to your utterly silly remarks.

You bigots all look the same to me. Easy mistake. My comments were
directed at your assertion that the original stament could not be
applied to Christianity though, and those comments stand.

No they weren't and now you are attempting to lessen the effect of your
galactically stupid gaffe by calling me a bigot because I took issue
with your assertion that the cancer analogy should be applied to
christianity. And then you snipped the material questions I asked
because they obviously made you too uncomfortable to respond. And now
you demand I answer your questions instead. You remind me of someone
else I won't allow to waste my time.

Post by Marguerita
What was silly about my remarks? You said that Islam had led to the
deaths of a lot of people, I said Christianity had too. Are you
claiming that Christians have never been responsible for the senseless
deaths of many people?

Post by Phaedrine
I asked a series of
questions you are obviously unprepared to answer with any alacrity,
hence your sloppy accusation.

I answered your comment perfectly clearly. I said that the word
'Christianity' could be substituted for 'Islam' in the original
statement, which it can.
Shall we try again? If you do as I said and substitute 'Christianity'
for 'Islam', you get: ''Cancer, like Christianity, has killed many
people, often senselessly". Rather than dodging the issue, why don't
you tell me why you think that statement is incorrect? I gave you

Marguerita

2004-03-03 16:38:47 UTC

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 23:57:11 -0600, Phaedrine

Post by Marguerita
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:28:16 -0600, Phaedrine

Post by Marguerita
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:35:01 -0600, Phaedrine

Post by Count 1
There are some comparisons we can draw on right now. Cancer, like
Islam, has killed many people, often senselessly. Cancer, like
Islam, spreads insidiously and cancer, like Islam, cannot be
cured, only removed and destroyed.

That analogy can be applied equally well to Christianity.

Only by someone who is mind-numbingly stupid.
How many Christian terrorist groups are attacking muslims today?
How many muslim terrorist groups are attacking Christians (and
Jews..... well anyone who isn't muslim really)?

Read your original post before you start foaming at the mouth.

First off, I am not the OP in this thread. I merely posted ONCE (see
above) in response to your utterly silly remarks.

You bigots all look the same to me. Easy mistake. My comments were
directed at your assertion that the original stament could not be
applied to Christianity though, and those comments stand.

LOL!

In other words, the analogy can be applied equally to Christianity. If
you're not prepared to justify your statements, maybe you should keep
them to yourself.

Your statements were correct insofar as there is a lot of Muslim
violence against Christians. I have never denied that. Why are you so
scared to admit that there is also a lot of Christian violence against
Muslims?

M

Phaedrine

2004-03-03 19:12:11 UTC

Post by Marguerita
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 23:57:11 -0600, Phaedrine

Post by Marguerita
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:28:16 -0600, Phaedrine

Post by Marguerita
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:35:01 -0600, Phaedrine

Post by Count 1
There are some comparisons we can draw on right now. Cancer, like
Islam, has killed many people, often senselessly. Cancer, like
Islam, spreads insidiously and cancer, like Islam, cannot be
cured, only removed and destroyed.

That analogy can be applied equally well to Christianity.

Only by someone who is mind-numbingly stupid.
How many Christian terrorist groups are attacking muslims today?
How many muslim terrorist groups are attacking Christians (and
Jews..... well anyone who isn't muslim really)?

Read your original post before you start foaming at the mouth.

First off, I am not the OP in this thread. I merely posted ONCE (see
above) in response to your utterly silly remarks.

You bigots all look the same to me. Easy mistake. My comments were
directed at your assertion that the original stament could not be
applied to Christianity though, and those comments stand.

In other words, the analogy can be applied equally to Christianity. If
you're not prepared to justify your statements, maybe you should keep
them to yourself.

You are the one unable to justify your assertion. Answer the questions
I asked previously in this thread that you snipped, ignored and then
pretended to have answered:

How many Christian terrorist groups are attacking muslims today? How
many muslim terrorist groups are attacking Christians (and Jews.....
well anyone who isn't muslim really)?

Post by Marguerita
Your statements were correct insofar as there is a lot of Muslim
violence against Christians. I have never denied that. Why are you so
scared to admit that there is also a lot of Christian violence against
Muslims?

Answer the questions and stop wasting my time.

.

Ed Cogburn

2004-03-04 11:29:01 UTC

Answer the questions and stop wasting my time.

I can't believe it! I go away a couple of months and come back and you're
arguing the exact same stupidity you argued with me when I was here last.
Incredible, its only the second day I browsed a.r.i, and I see you sounding
like a broken record. LOL! Marguerita, give up, Phae is so obsessed about
attacking Islam (whether or not it deserves to be attacked), she will refuse
to admit that Christianity was in the past just as brutal. In her mind, Islam
has to be *uniquely* Evil to justify her hatred. I know what you're going to
say Phae, but the original comment that started this subthread did not refer
just to the *present*, the comment included the past as well, and if the past
is included, Marguerita is right, even though you'll never admit it.

Marguerita

2004-03-04 19:01:55 UTC

Post by Ed Cogburn

Answer the questions and stop wasting my time.

I was starting to get that impression, but thanks.

M

Phaedrine

2004-03-05 04:35:07 UTC

Post by Ed Cogburn

Answer the questions and stop wasting my time.

I challenge you to find a single post I ever made where I denied the
egregious past of christianity. You won't but that won't stop you from
making an ass of yourself again. But you are correct about my distaste
for the violent cult of islam. No single group on the planet is
currently more responsible for committing more murder and mayhem than
islamic fanatics. But like Marguerita, you can't discuss the facts---
you can only vent your spleen and then run when someone asks you to
document your assertions. Islam and weak-mindedness are like bread and
butter.

Ed Cogburn

2004-03-05 15:47:54 UTC

Answer the questions and stop wasting my time.

I challenge you to find a single post I ever made where I denied the
egregious past of christianity.

Of course you never said that, I said you were obsessed, not stupid. But
every time this kind of comparison turns up, you stubbornly insist that only
the present matters, not the past, when you have been told by me and others
that the past, ESPECIALLY IN THE MIDDLE EAST, *does* matter, because even
though the root of the problem may only go back to 1948, the religious angle
used by all sides (Christian, Judaism, Islam) goes *way* back.

Post by Phaedrine
You won't but that won't stop you from making an ass of yourself again.

Ah, well lets the dear reader decide whether I made an ass of myself or not.
For those who want to see the deja vu in this argument read the thread
starting here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1738210915d&dq=&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=aq9aql%247ngge%241%40ID-49761.news.dfncis.de&rnum=30

And especially my response to Phae here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2780380573d&dq=&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=aqopej%24c061s%241%40ID-49761.news.dfncis.de&rnum=41

Post by Phaedrine
But you are correct about my distaste for the violent cult of Islam.

"Distaste"? ROFL! What a whopper of an understatement!

Post by Phaedrine
But like Marguerita, you can't discuss the facts--- you can only vent your
spleen and then run when someone asks you to document your assertions.

LOL! You do realize, do you not, that Marguerita and I can say the exact same
thing about you?

Really Phae, the more you rant on this particular subject the less objective
you appear, and the more similar you seem to the very people you are
attacking. You don't have to be a relentless zealot in pointing out the flaws
in Islam, the Muslims themselves have given us *tons* of evidence and examples
of their bizarre and flawed religion. You can be reasonable about the minor
points and still be effective in your attack on the major points. Why do you
bother continuing to argue with people about Christianity's past? I've always
agreed that the present is more important, I've just been also saying that the
past is not irrelevant, yet you are absolutely unwilling to even agree with
that last part, which actually takes *nothing* away from your main theme.
Just let the *historical* arguments and comparisons of religions slide, and
stay on the main subject of the present, that doesn't hurt your argument at
all. Never mind the energy wasted on both sides when you pick fights with
people who would otherwise be your allies.

Phaedrine

2004-03-05 19:13:45 UTC

Answer the questions and stop wasting my time.

I challenge you to find a single post I ever made where I denied the
egregious past of christianity.

Of course you never said that.........

I rest my case.

.

Phaedrine

2004-02-26 01:28:21 UTC

Post by elmer swanson
If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it can change
for the good too.

I think your logic is flawed. Think about it. Good and bad are at
opposite poles. We are not merely talking about the likelihood of
change here--- and btw muslims don't like to change anyway, haven't you
noticed?. We are talking about islam's natural inclination for and
investiture in the dark side. The cult is founded on principles that
are bad FCOL--- not just marginally bad but extremely bad. Praytell
exactly how would such an extreme leaning toward evil support your
theory that it could find its way to the other pole? Sounds like
rubbish to me, sorry.

elmer swanson

2004-02-26 17:04:11 UTC

Post by elmer swanson
If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it can change
for the good too.

Muslims don't like the situation their civilization is in. It it poor,
it has no power. When people don't like a situation they often change
it.

Post by Phaedrine
We are talking about islam's natural inclination for and
investiture in the dark side. The cult is founded on principles that
are bad FCOL--- not just marginally bad but extremely bad. Praytell
exactly how would such an extreme leaning toward evil support your
theory that it could find its way to the other pole?

A reaction against the recently ascendent Islamist/wahhabist POV that
isn't delivering, or even beginning to deliver, the World Islam it has
promised.

A decade or so earlier Mujahideen had run the Soviets out of
Afghanistan, then Hezbollah ran Israel out of South Lebanon. Now the
Taliban turn out to have been a disaster and are overthrown anyway,
U.S. are in Afghanistan and Baghdad, the El-Aqsa Intifadah (which
followed the Hezbollah shaheed strategy) is going nowhere and bringing
considerable Pale hardship.

What has 9-11 brought? Discrimination and hostility against Muslims,
recession in much of the Muslim world. The U.S. hasn't backed down at
all.

So all this hooey about "the dark side" notwithstanding, there is
reason to think the Islamic world may change.

Post by Phaedrine
Sounds like
rubbish to me, sorry.

Phaedrine

2004-02-26 20:36:34 UTC

Post by elmer swanson
If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it can change
for the good too.

Muslims don't like the situation their civilization is in. It it poor,
it has no power. When people don't like a situation they often change
it.

Give me a single example of any significant reform effort. There is no
single muslim "civilization" so your entire premise is again flawed and
over-general. AFAICS, muslims seem to blame all their problems on
others and then feel free to go murder in the name of their allah.
Sounds like the same thing they've been doing for 1500 years. Rather,
muslims who aren't murdered for apostasy are leaving their so-called
civilizations in droves, trying to escape islamic oppression. That sure
does not look like islamic change to me.

A reaction against the recently ascendent Islamist/wahhabist POV that
isn't delivering, or even beginning to deliver, the World Islam it has
promised.

What reaction? Give me an example of a reaction from a large group of
muslims that espouses change in Islam itself.

<snip for brevity>

Post by elmer swanson
What has 9-11 brought? Discrimination and hostility against Muslims,
recession in much of the Muslim world. The U.S. hasn't backed down at
all.

And this little speech has what to do with your claim?

Post by elmer swanson
So all this hooey about "the dark side" notwithstanding, there is
reason to think the Islamic world may change.

You're the one talking rubbish here. Muslims are wreaking havoc and
murder all over the world, blaming others, especially Jews, for their
states of depravity but doing nothing constructive to change from
within. If you don't think that is evil or dark, then you're a fool and
this conversation is pointless. Your assertion was that "If Islamic
civilization can change for the bad, it can change for the good too".
Until I see evidence of change, then that's nothing but idle speculation.

Post by Phaedrine
Sounds like
rubbish to me, sorry.

x***@erols.com

2004-02-26 21:02:35 UTC

Phaedrine wrote:
<snip>

Post by elmer swanson
Muslims don't like the situation their civilization is in. It it poor,
it has no power. When people don't like a situation they often change
it.

Ataturk trying to reform Turkey. Its not working well, but after 80
years
its having some effect.

Another example is Indonesia. The non holy war type islam popular there
may infect the rest of the islamic world, if indonesia can
continue to develop as a high tech country.

A third example is, believe it or not, Saudi Arabia.
Things like gym class for girls and women driving are being discussed.
This may sound like basic common sense to you, but to the
saudi conservatives it is heresy. These things are being
discussed over their objections, and may be implemented over
their dead bodies.

<snip>

elmer swanson

2004-03-01 18:39:53 UTC

Post by elmer swanson
If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it can change
for the good too.

Muslims don't like the situation their civilization is in. It it poor,
it has no power. When people don't like a situation they often change
it.

Give me a single example of any significant reform effort.

Well there's what's going on in Iran.
Also check articles and editorials by reformists from Arab newspapers
in memri.org

I think any widespread reversal of the political influence of islamic
revival i.e. Islamism awaits a successful transision of soveriegnty in
Iraq. Even pro-Western Arabs are deeply distrustful of the U.S. and
Bushies there.

<snipped the rest>

Phaedrine

2004-03-01 20:00:43 UTC

Post by elmer swanson
If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it can change
for the good too.

Muslims don't like the situation their civilization is in. It it poor,
it has no power. When people don't like a situation they often change
it.

Give me a single example of any significant reform effort. There
is no single muslim "civilization" so your entire premise is again
flawed and over-general. AFAICS, muslims seem to blame all their
problems on others and then feel free to go murder in the name of
their allah. Sounds like the same thing they've been doing for
1500 years. Rather, muslims who aren't murdered for apostasy are
leaving their so-called civilizations in droves, trying to escape
islamic oppression. That sure does not look like islamic change to
me.

Well there's what's going on in Iran.

That is political reform (attempted and now failed), not religious
reform--- though I would agree there is some hope for Iran in its young
generation.

Post by elmer swanson
Also check articles and editorials by reformists from Arab newspapers
in memri.org

No. I expect you to support your assertion which you have not. You
have yet to point to a single islamic reform movement that isn't a move
toward fanaticism. And you also snipped the material questions I asked
so I an assume you were unable to answer those either.

Post by elmer swanson
I think any widespread reversal of the political influence of islamic
revival i.e. Islamism awaits a successful transision of soveriegnty in
Iraq. Even pro-Western Arabs are deeply distrustful of the U.S. and
Bushies there.

To reiterate: You're the one talking rubbish here. Muslims are
wreaking havoc and murder all over the world, blaming others,
especially Jews, for their states of depravity but doing nothing
constructive to change from within. If you don't think that is evil or
dark, then you're a fool and this conversation is pointless. Your
assertion was that "If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it
can change for the good too". Until I see evidence of change, then
that's nothing but idle speculation. And you have been unable to
provide a single example of reform. Not one. Your claim is nothing but
idle speculation not even based on logic.

.

hayden_flare

2004-03-01 23:58:15 UTC

Post by Phaedrine
To reiterate: You're the one talking rubbish here. Muslims are
wreaking havoc and murder all over the world, blaming others,
especially Jews, for their states of depravity but doing nothing
constructive to change from within. If you don't think that is evil or
dark, then you're a fool and this conversation is pointless. Your
assertion was that "If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it
can change for the good too". Until I see evidence of change, then
that's nothing but idle speculation. And you have been unable to
provide a single example of reform. Not one. Your claim is nothing but
idle speculation not even based on logic.
.

Djadidism, ignorant witch...

elmer swanson

2004-03-02 19:46:26 UTC

Post by elmer swanson
If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it can change
for the good too.

Muslims don't like the situation their civilization is in. It it poor,
it has no power. When people don't like a situation they often change
it.

Give me a single example of any significant reform effort. There
is no single muslim "civilization" so your entire premise is again
flawed and over-general. AFAICS, muslims seem to blame all their
problems on others and then feel free to go murder in the name of
their allah. Sounds like the same thing they've been doing for
1500 years. Rather, muslims who aren't murdered for apostasy are
leaving their so-called civilizations in droves, trying to escape
islamic oppression. That sure does not look like islamic change to
me.

Well there's what's going on in Iran.

That is political reform

Ah, but it's political reform that's needed. The problem isn't
personal piety, it's Islamists' contention that since Islam has rules
for everything politics should be completely Islamic, i.e. the
Islamist version of Islamic - traditional shariah, (chopping off
hands, stoning, girls marrying at 9, etc.) plus their own toxic
additions.

You (and everyone else) may say this is political not religious, but
Islamists say it's tampering with religion, so in that sense it is
religious reform.

Post by Phaedrine
(attempted and now failed),

Temporarily stalled. It's only a matter of time as 70% of the Iranian
population is under 30.

Post by Phaedrine
not religious
reform--- though I would agree there is some hope for Iran in its young
generation.

Post by elmer swanson
Also check articles and editorials by reformists from Arab newspapers
in memri.org

Phaedrine

2004-03-03 05:39:35 UTC

Post by Phaedrine
...

Post by elmer swanson
If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it can change
for the good too.

Muslims don't like the situation their civilization is in. It it poor,
it has no power. When people don't like a situation they often change
it.

Give me a single example of any significant reform effort. There
is no single muslim "civilization" so your entire premise is again
flawed and over-general. AFAICS, muslims seem to blame all their
problems on others and then feel free to go murder in the name of
their allah. Sounds like the same thing they've been doing for
1500 years. Rather, muslims who aren't murdered for apostasy are
leaving their so-called civilizations in droves, trying to escape
islamic oppression. That sure does not look like islamic change to
me.

Well there's what's going on in Iran.

That is political reform

Ah, but it's political reform that's needed.

But that wasn't the point. Your assertion was about islamic reform.
Politics is only one part of islam.

Post by elmer swanson
The problem isn't
personal piety, it's Islamists' contention that since Islam has rules
for everything politics should be completely Islamic, i.e. the
Islamist version of Islamic - traditional shariah, (chopping off
hands, stoning, girls marrying at 9, etc.) plus their own toxic
additions.
You (and everyone else) may say this is political not religious, but
Islamists say it's tampering with religion, so in that sense it is
religious reform.

Post by Phaedrine
(attempted and now failed),

Temporarily stalled. It's only a matter of time as 70% of the Iranian
population is under 30.

Post by Phaedrine
not religious
reform--- though I would agree there is some hope for Iran in its young
generation.

Post by elmer swanson
Also check articles and editorials by reformists from Arab newspapers
in memri.org

elmer swanson

2004-03-03 16:58:22 UTC

Post by Phaedrine
...

Post by elmer swanson
If Islamic civilization can change for the bad, it can change
for the good too.

Muslims don't like the situation their civilization is in. It it poor,
it has no power. When people don't like
a situation they often change it.

Give me a single example of any significant reform effort. There
is no single muslim "civilization" so your entire premise is again
flawed and over-general. AFAICS, muslims seem to blame all their
problems on others and then feel free to go murder in the name of
their allah. Sounds like the same thing they've been doing for
1500 years. Rather, muslims who aren't murdered for apostasy are
leaving their so-called civilizations in droves, trying to escape
islamic oppression. That sure does not look like islamic change to
me.

Well, there's what's going on in Iran.

That is political reform

Ah, but it's political reform that's needed.

But that wasn't the point. Your assertion was about islamic reform.

"Islamic civilization," not religion.

Post by Phaedrine
Politics is only one part of islam.

But in the broadest sense, politics i.e. power, and ways of thinking
about politics (freedom of speech, press, choosing who rules you), is
what is holding the Islamic world back.

Post by Phaedrine
(attempted and now failed),

Temporarily stalled. It's only a matter of time as 70% of the Iranian
population is under 30.

Post by Phaedrine
not religious
reform--- though I would agree there is some hope for Iran in its young
generation.

Also check articles and editorials by reformists from Arab newspapers
in memri.org

I think any widespread reversal of the political influence of islamic
revival i.e. Islamism awaits a successful transision of soveriegnty in
Iraq. Even pro-Western Arabs are deeply distrustful of the U.S. and
Bushies there.

Phaedrine

2004-02-26 01:32:20 UTC

Post by elmer swanson
If Islam is no
damn good (as rednecks maintain), HOW DID IT CREATE THE GREAT EMPIRE
IT DID?

It didn't. It's mostly a big fat lie. Islam mostly stole from other
cultures. They were too busy raping, pillaging and conquering to invest
any sweat in creativity, science and art.

x***@erols.com

2004-02-24 20:36:26 UTC

The west did great things in the 16th century that had never been done
before.
It then did more things in the 17th century that had never been done
before.
It then did grat things in the 18th . . .

Islam reached its peak in the 11th century. It has not only not kept up
with
the west, it has actually declined since then. There may not be any
reason that it can't succeed again, but the fact is it is not succeeding
now, and in fact
seems determined to avoid success in all areas except for slaughter.
Even then they fail because they are unable to invent new slaughter
technology.
They can only copy what the west has already done.

elmer swanson

2004-02-25 14:21:07 UTC

The west did great things in the 16th century that had never been done
before.
It then did more things in the 17th century that had never been done
before.
It then did grat things in the 18th . . .

Ya. So? More than one civilization can do great (grat?) things.

Post by x***@erols.com
Islam reached its peak in the 11th century.

Islam "peaked" in the 11th century. Are civilizations allowed only one
peak? China has had five or so I think. And what about the Osmanley
Turks? They almost captured Vienna and that was in the 16th century.

Post by x***@erols.com
It has not only not kept up
with
the west,
it has actually declined since then.

The dark ages of Europe lasted for many centuries.

Post by x***@erols.com
There may not be any
reason that it can't succeed again, but the fact is it is not succeeding
now, and in fact
seems determined to avoid success in all areas except for slaughter.
Even then they fail because they are unable to invent new slaughter
technology.
They can only copy what the west has already done.

x***@erols.com

2004-02-25 14:49:26 UTC

The west did great things in the 16th century that had never been done
before.
It then did more things in the 17th century that had never been done
before.
It then did grat things in the 18th . . .

Ya. So? More than one civilization can do great (grat?) things.

Post by x***@erols.com
Islam reached its peak in the 11th century.

Reposted from below:
There may not be any
reason that it can't succeed again, but the fact is it is not
succeeding
now, and in fact
seems determined to avoid success in all areas except for slaughter.
Even then they fail because they are unable to invent new slaughter
technology.
They can only copy what the west has already done.

Post by x***@erols.com
It has not only not kept up
with
the west,
it has actually declined since then.

The dark ages of Europe lasted for many centuries.

elmer swanson

2004-02-26 16:42:43 UTC

The west did great things in the 16th century that had never been done
before.
It then did more things in the 17th century that had never been done
before.
It then did grat things in the 18th . . .

Yah. So? More than one civilization can do great (grat?) things.

Post by x***@erols.com
Islam reached its peak in the 11th century.

There may not be any
reason that it can't succeed again, but the fact is it is not
succeeding
now, and in fact
seems determined to avoid success in all areas except for slaughter.

Here's some reasons they may succeed again: The 9-11 attack has led
not to the toppling of the decadent West and mass conversion to Islam
but overthrow of the Taliban and Western troops in Baghdad.

The Arab world essentially gave up on Arab nationalism after the 7 Day
war/Naqba. Why wouldn't they give up on Wahhabi-style Islamism after
its failure to deliver, especially since Saudi and the Gulf have less
resources to bankroll Wahhabiism than they use to? If they do, they
(the Islamic World) may turn its attention to economic development
(maybe the East Asian model) and rise again.

Post by x***@erols.com
Even then they fail because they are unable to invent new slaughter
technology.
They can only copy what the west has already done.

Post by x***@erols.com
It has not only not kept up
with
the west,
it has actually declined since then.

The dark ages of Europe lasted for many centuries.

x***@erols.com

2004-02-26 19:01:52 UTC

The west did great things in the 16th century that had never been done
before.
It then did more things in the 17th century that had never been done
before.
It then did grat things in the 18th . . .

Yah. So? More than one civilization can do great (grat?) things.

Post by x***@erols.com
Islam reached its peak in the 11th century.

There may not be any
reason that it can't succeed again, but the fact is it is not succeeding
now, and in fact
seems determined to avoid success in all areas except for slaughter.

Here's some reasons they may succeed again: The 9-11 attack has led
not to the toppling of the decadent West and mass conversion to Islam
but overthrow of the Taliban and Western troops in Baghdad.
The Arab world essentially gave up on Arab nationalism after the 7 Day
war/Naqba. Why wouldn't they give up on Wahhabi-style Islamism after
its failure to deliver, especially since Saudi and the Gulf have less
resources to bankroll Wahhabiism than they use to? If they do, they
(the Islamic World) may turn its attention to economic development
(maybe the East Asian model) and rise again.

There is something, I'm not sure what, that prevents islamic societies
from functioning as industrial age societies. Arab nationalism
is just a western coat of paint that left the islamic core unaffected.
The current wahhabism is an enthusiastic embrace of the islamic core,
and will work less well than arab nationalism. When wahhabism
becomes unpopular among muslims the same islamic core will still exist
and they will be even farther behind.
The taliban may be gone but the wahhabi movement is unaffected.
Changing the islamic core will require something as drastic
as a total long term occupation of islamic territory by the west,
which isn't going to happen.

I won't say its absolutely inpossible, since western society itself
did something similar, but based on recent centuries, I don't expect
islam
to make that kind of change.

Post by x***@erols.com
Even then they fail because they are unable to invent new slaughter
technology.
They can only copy what the west has already done.

Post by x***@erols.com
It has not only not kept up
with
the west,
it has actually declined since then.

The dark ages of Europe lasted for many centuries.

elmer swanson

2004-02-26 23:29:38 UTC

Post by elmer swanson
Islam "peaked" in the 11th century. Are civilizations allowed only one
peak? China has had five or so I think. And what about the Osmanley
Turks? They almost captured Vienna and that was in the 16th century.

There may not be any
reason that it can't succeed again, but
the fact is it is not succeeding
now, and in fact seems determined to avoid success
in all areas except for slaughter.

Here's some reasons they may succeed again: The 9-11 attack has led
not to the toppling of the decadent West and mass conversion to Islam
but overthrow of the Taliban and Western troops in Baghdad.
The Arab world essentially gave up on Arab nationalism after the 7 Day
war/Naqba. Why wouldn't they give up on Wahhabi-style Islamism after
its failure to deliver, especially since Saudi and the Gulf have less
resources to bankroll Wahhabiism than they use to? If they do, they
(the Islamic World) may turn its attention to economic development
(maybe the East Asian model) and rise again.

Who says it's the core? The Wahhabis do. Other Muslims say its just
fanaticism.

Post by x***@erols.com
and will work less well than arab nationalism. When wahhabism
becomes unpopular among muslims the same islamic core will still exist

Sure it will still exist, just like Primitive Baptist snake handlers
and the Left Behind books series. Just because something exists won't
make it influential.

Post by x***@erols.com
and they will be even farther behind.
The taliban may be gone but the wahhabi movement is unaffected.

Maybe yes, maybe no. What matter is not whether they are unaffected
but whether their INFLUENCE is. Without money, without the big victory
in Afghanistan without SUCCESS to point to, will they be influential
among Muslims?

Post by x***@erols.com
Changing the islamic core will require something as drastic
as a total long term occupation of islamic territory by the west,
which isn't going to happen.

Damn right it ain't.

Post by x***@erols.com
I won't say its absolutely inpossible, since western society itself
did something similar, but based on recent centuries, I don't expect
islam
to make that kind of change.

Count 1

2004-02-26 23:43:14 UTC

Post by x***@erols.com
Changing the islamic core will require something as drastic
as a total long term occupation of islamic territory by the west,
which isn't going to happen.

Damn right it ain't.

According to some jihadists, its happening right now.

Can 'the islamic core' be changed in some other manner?

x***@erols.com

2004-02-27 01:10:27 UTC

Post by x***@erols.com
Changing the islamic core will require something as drastic
as a total long term occupation of islamic territory by the west,
which isn't going to happen.

Damn right it ain't.

According to some jihadists, its happening right now.
Can 'the islamic core' be changed in some other manner?

I don't know exactly what it is, so I don't know
exactly what there is that can change it.

Some ideas are:

A long term occupation in iraq that causes that society to begin
working like a modern society. The occupation would have to
prevent islamic laws from gumming up the works for decades, while
the society got used to being an industrial society with an industrial
economy. For example women would be able to vote, regardless
of the mullahs opinions. After a generation of women voting,
the notion of women having rights would be widespread in iraq,
and people would be quoting the koran to prove its halal.

Bush is trying to get out of iraq as fast as he can, so thats not
going to happen.

If the recent election in Iran could have been done so the reformist
candidates who were not allowed to run had run and been voted on,
the 10th century islamics in iran would be screwed. I was thinking
of a james bond fantasy where the ruling council of
mullahs get asassinated and the pro reform voters grab the government
and run with it.

The elections are over, so that won't happen.

There is a successful wahabi revolt against the saudi royal family.
The US invades, occupies the country to keep the oil flowing,
and
1) Uses whatever force is neccesary to suppress the wahabis.
Public execution by torture, questioning suspects with sodium
pentathal,
no freedom of religion for wahabis, US troops named steinberg
patrolling
the kaaba that sort of thing.
2) At the same time reform minded saudis will cooperate with the
occupation,
turn over suspected wahabis, start running the contry like a modern
state, and not object to the occupation, knowing the US will walk
away
some time in the future and turn the country over to them.
The US policy in saudi would be determined by the need to
eliminate 10th century islam, not by the need to win
elections next november or obey the ideology of a special interest
group.

Maybe pigs will fly and moslems will shoot them down and eat them too.

Back in the real world, anybody got any ideas?
I do, but I don't want to prejudice anyone else with ideas.

elmer swanson

2004-02-27 18:52:02 UTC

Post by x***@erols.com
Changing the islamic core will require something as drastic
as a total long term occupation of islamic territory by the west,
which isn't going to happen.

Damn right it ain't.

According to some jihadists, its happening right now.
Can 'the islamic core' be changed in some other manner?

I don't know exactly what it is, so I don't know
exactly what there is that can change it.

Peole do not like having their country invaded and occupiers telling
them what to do (I would have thought everyone would have noticed
this, for f*ck's sake!)
The U.S. would have suicide terror operations up its ass the whole
time.

I've got a better idea.
Americans start driving hybrid cars not SUVs and stop using so much
petrol. Stop building idiotic "dream houses" with 3x the room they
need. That will drive down Saudi petroleum revenues, cut off their
funding to wahhabi nutters. With Gulf petroleum less crucial the U.S.
could remove most troops from the Gulf (before the invasion of Iraq it
cost some $30 billion a year) and cut its deficet.

Tell Israel the money will stop unless the settlements go.

Wahhabi and Islamists thrive on the feeling of humiliation
Arab/Muslims get from seeing the U.S. throw its weight around, seeing
pictures of bloody bodies and screaming Filistini in Israel. Take this
away and the spotlight turns to Wahhabi and Islamists and their
"solution" - the traditional shariah that "will solve everything". It
doesn't and it won't and it will be only a matter of time before
Muslims lose interest in it.

Post by x***@erols.com
A long term occupation in iraq that causes that society to begin
working like a modern society. The occupation would have to
prevent islamic laws from gumming up the works for decades, while
the society got used to being an industrial society with an industrial
economy. For example women would be able to vote, regardless
of the mullahs opinions.

Iraq isn't Kuwait, it's more secularized. On the other hand, if the
U.S. stays and tries to run the country the mullahs will have a cause
for Iraqis to rally around.

Post by x***@erols.com
After a generation of women voting,
the notion of women having rights would be widespread in iraq,

it already is.

Post by x***@erols.com
and people would be quoting the koran to prove its halal.
Bush is trying to get out of iraq as fast as he can, so thats not
going to happen.
If the recent election in Iran could have been done so the reformist
candidates who were not allowed to run had run and been voted on,
the 10th century islamics in iran would be screwed. I was thinking
of a james bond fantasy where the ruling council of
mullahs get asassinated and the pro reform voters grab the government
and run with it.

The Mullahs are doomed in Iran. 70% of the country is under 30 and see
the mullocracy as the corrupt, brutal, incompetent killjoy power
structure it is. The only question is how much damage the Mullas can
do before they fall.

Post by x***@erols.com
The elections are over, so that won't happen.
There is a successful wahabi revolt against the saudi royal family.
The US invades, occupies the country to keep the oil flowing,
and
1) Uses whatever force is neccesary to suppress the wahabis.
Public execution by torture, questioning suspects with sodium
pentathal,
no freedom of religion for wahabis, US troops named steinberg
patrolling
the kaaba that sort of thing.

sorry, this is insane

Post by x***@erols.com
2) At the same time reform minded saudis will cooperate with the
occupation,
turn over suspected wahabis, start running the contry like a modern
state, and not object to the occupation, knowing the US will walk
away
some time in the future and turn the country over to them.
The US policy in saudi would be determined by the need to
eliminate 10th century islam, not by the need to win
elections next november or obey the ideology of a special interest
group.
Maybe pigs will fly and moslems will shoot them down and eat them too.
Back in the real world, anybody got any ideas?
I do, but I don't want to prejudice anyone else with ideas.

x***@erols.com

2004-02-28 01:07:19 UTC

Post by x***@erols.com
Changing the islamic core will require something as drastic
as a total long term occupation of islamic territory by the west,
which isn't going to happen.

Damn right it ain't.

According to some jihadists, its happening right now.
Can 'the islamic core' be changed in some other manner?

I don't know exactly what it is, so I don't know
exactly what there is that can change it.

Peole do not like having their country invaded and occupiers telling
them what to do (I would have thought everyone would have noticed
this, for f*ck's sake!)
The U.S. would have suicide terror operations up its ass the whole
time.
I've got a better idea.
Americans start driving hybrid cars not SUVs and stop using so much
petrol. Stop building idiotic "dream houses" with 3x the room they
need. That will drive down Saudi petroleum revenues, cut off their
funding to wahhabi nutters. With Gulf petroleum less crucial the U.S.
could remove most troops from the Gulf (before the invasion of Iraq it
cost some $30 billion a year) and cut its deficet.
Tell Israel the money will stop unless the settlements go.
Wahhabi and Islamists thrive on the feeling of humiliation
Arab/Muslims get from seeing the U.S. throw its weight around, seeing
pictures of bloody bodies and screaming Filistini in Israel. Take this
away and the spotlight turns to Wahhabi and Islamists and their
"solution" - the traditional shariah that "will solve everything". It
doesn't and it won't and it will be only a matter of time before
Muslims lose interest in it.

Did you read the last two sentences before you posted this?

Iraq isn't Kuwait, it's more secularized. On the other hand, if the
U.S. stays and tries to run the country the mullahs will have a cause
for Iraqis to rally around.

Post by x***@erols.com
After a generation of women voting,
the notion of women having rights would be widespread in iraq,

it already is.

Except the islamists said they would revoke the law that
allows women to have rights. Aren't you paying attention to
whats happening in iraq?

Did you read the last two sentences before you posted this?

sorry, this is insane

Did you read the last two sentences before you posted this?

elmer swanson

2004-03-02 20:05:41 UTC

Post by x***@erols.com
Changing the islamic core will require something as drastic
as a total long term occupation of islamic territory by the west,
which isn't going to happen.

Damn right it ain't.

According to some jihadists, its happening right now.
Can 'the islamic core' be changed in some other manner?

I don't know exactly what it is, so I don't know
exactly what there is that can change it.

People do not like having their country invaded and occupiers telling
them what to do (I would have thought everyone would have noticed
this, for f*ck's sake!)
The U.S. would have suicide terror operations up its ass the whole
time.
I've got a better idea.
Americans start driving hybrid cars not SUVs and stop using so much
petrol. Stop building idiotic "dream houses" with 3x the room they
need. That will drive down Saudi petroleum revenues, cut off their
funding to wahhabi nutters. With Gulf petroleum less crucial the U.S.
could remove most troops from the Gulf (before the invasion of Iraq it
cost some $30 billion a year) and cut its deficet.
Tell Israel the money will stop unless the settlements go.
Wahhabi and Islamists thrive on the feeling of humiliation
Arab/Muslims get from seeing the U.S. throw its weight around, seeing
pictures of bloody bodies and screaming Filistini in Israel. Take this
away and the spotlight turns to Wahhabi and Islamists and their
"solution" - the traditional shariah that "will solve everything". It
doesn't and it won't and it will be only a matter of time before
Muslims lose interest in it.

Did you read the last two sentences before you posted this?

How are these suggestions not relevent?

Iraq isn't Kuwait, it's more secularized. On the other hand, if the
U.S. stays and tries to run the country the mullahs will have a cause
for Iraqis to rally around.

Post by x***@erols.com
After a generation of women voting,
the notion of women having rights would be widespread in iraq,

it already is.

Except the islamists said they would revoke the law that
allows women to have rights.

Yah, but so what? They aren't going to be able to do it because they
don't have support.

`....If approved, the interim constitution would be the most
progressive such document in the Arab world. Even before the hard
bargaining began, there was wide agreement on many of its major
features, including the freedom of speech, press and assembly and the
free exercise of religion.

The constitution provides for an independent judiciary, equal
treatment under the law regardless of gender or ethnicity, as well as
civilian control over the military.

"This document protects the rights of individuals more than any other
document in the region," said Feisal al-Istrabadi, an Iraqi American
lawyer who helped draft the interim constitution.....`

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/01/international/middleeast/01IRAQ.html

Admittedly this is an American-approved constitution and
constitution-creating group, but Iraqi women are used to rights and
aren't going to let brain deads take them away.

Post by x***@erols.com
Aren't you paying attention to whats happening in iraq?

Did you read the last two sentences before you posted this?

sorry, this is insane

Did you read the last two sentences before you posted this?

x***@erols.com

2004-03-03 16:15:34 UTC

Post by x***@erols.com
Changing the islamic core will require something as drastic
as a total long term occupation of islamic territory by the west,
which isn't going to happen.

Damn right it ain't.

According to some jihadists, its happening right now.
Can 'the islamic core' be changed in some other manner?

I don't know exactly what it is, so I don't know
exactly what there is that can change it.

Did you read the last two sentences before you posted this?

How are these suggestions not relevent?

Pigs will fly first. Stopping aid to israel and SUV sales are as likely
as
saudi arabia allowing women to vote.

Iraq isn't Kuwait, it's more secularized. On the other hand, if the
U.S. stays and tries to run the country the mullahs will have a cause
for Iraqis to rally around.

Post by x***@erols.com
After a generation of women voting,
the notion of women having rights would be widespread in iraq,

it already is.

Except the islamists said they would revoke the law that
allows women to have rights.

Yah, but so what? They aren't going to be able to do it because they
don't have support.

They don't need support, they only need to kill people and
justify it with islam.

Post by elmer swanson
`....If approved, the interim constitution would be the most
progressive such document in the Arab world. Even before the hard
bargaining began, there was wide agreement on many of its major
features, including the freedom of speech, press and assembly and the
free exercise of religion.

http://www.cathnews.com/news/403/20.php
Maybe not.

Post by elmer swanson
The constitution provides for an independent judiciary, equal
treatment under the law regardless of gender or ethnicity, as well as
civilian control over the military.

None of which have any relevence to islam. As soon at the
americans are out the mullahs will try to take over. And not by
making speeches.

Post by elmer swanson
"This document protects the rights of individuals more than any other
document in the region," said Feisal al-Istrabadi, an Iraqi American
lawyer who helped draft the interim constitution.....`
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/01/international/middleeast/01IRAQ.html
Admittedly this is an American-approved constitution and
constitution-creating group, but Iraqi women are used to rights and
aren't going to let brain deads take them away.

Unless the brain deads start killing them. Women in iraq are
wearing bedspreads now to avoid being attacked in the streets
by the brain deads.

Post by x***@erols.com
Aren't you paying attention to whats happening in iraq?

Did you read the last two sentences before you posted this?

sorry, this is insane

Did you read the last two sentences before you posted this?

elmer swanson

2004-02-27 18:58:29 UTC

Post by x***@erols.com
Changing the islamic core will require something as drastic
as a total long term occupation of islamic territory by the west,
which isn't going to happen.

Damn right it ain't.

According to some jihadists, its happening right now.
Can 'the islamic core' be changed in some other manner?

Why does it have to be changed anymore than Christian fundamentalists
who think going trick or treat should be banned or want to forbid
sports mascot names like the "Blue Devils" have to change?
They don't. They just have to be kept non-violent and outvoted.

Count 1

2004-02-27 22:21:21 UTC

Post by x***@erols.com
Changing the islamic core will require something as drastic
as a total long term occupation of islamic territory by the west,
which isn't going to happen.

Damn right it ain't.

According to some jihadists, its happening right now.
Can 'the islamic core' be changed in some other manner?

Why does it have to be changed anymore than Christian fundamentalists
who think going trick or treat should be banned or want to forbid
sports mascot names like the "Blue Devils" have to change?

Inadequate comparison. Those christians aren't operating from a 'core', but
rather on the outside extremities.

Post by elmer swanson
They don't. They just have to be kept non-violent and outvoted.

I didn't ask if the Islamic cour had to be changed, but rather if it could
in some manner other than long term total annexation of Islamic countries.

x***@erols.com

2004-02-28 01:10:01 UTC

Post by x***@erols.com
Changing the islamic core will require something as drastic
as a total long term occupation of islamic territory by the west,
which isn't going to happen.

Damn right it ain't.

According to some jihadists, its happening right now.
Can 'the islamic core' be changed in some other manner?

In islamic countries they are violent and in the majority.
Using your christian analogy, halloween would be illegal
and the name would be changed.
Thats why the core has to be changed.

x***@erols.com

2004-02-27 00:46:33 UTC

Post by elmer swanson
<snipped to save space>

There may not be any
reason that it can't succeed again, but
the fact is it is not succeeding
now, and in fact seems determined to avoid success
in all areas except for slaughter.

Here's some reasons they may succeed again: The 9-11 attack has led
not to the toppling of the decadent West and mass conversion to Islam
but overthrow of the Taliban and Western troops in Baghdad.
The Arab world essentially gave up on Arab nationalism after the 7 Day
war/Naqba. Why wouldn't they give up on Wahhabi-style Islamism after
its failure to deliver, especially since Saudi and the Gulf have less
resources to bankroll Wahhabiism than they use to? If they do, they
(the Islamic World) may turn its attention to economic development
(maybe the East Asian model) and rise again.

Who says it's the core? The Wahhabis do. Other Muslims say its just
fanaticism.

I don't mean religious doctrine. Its something deeper than that.
Its the thing that causes 3rd generation immigrants to a western country
to be more like a recent immigrant than a native born citizen.
Its the same thing that causes a muslim with a degree in physical
science
from a western school to genuinely believe in jinn.
Rabid wahabis have this core, a shoemaker in egypt with no desire to
die in glorious jihad against the great satan has this core,
a petroleum chemist working at a refinery in iraq has this core.
It expresses itself through islam, but I don't think it is itself
islam.

Post by x***@erols.com
and will work less well than arab nationalism. When wahhabism
becomes unpopular among muslims the same islamic core will still exist

Sure it will still exist, just like Primitive Baptist snake handlers
and the Left Behind books series. Just because something exists won't
make it influential.

The taliban didn't create wahabism, wahabism created the taliban.
You can blow up the taliban, but the thing that created it is
still there and will create it again.

Thats why the US is nation building in afganistan, in spite of Bush's
pre presidential contempt for it. The US is trying to keep the
wahabi weeds from regrowing.

Post by x***@erols.com
and they will be even farther behind.
The taliban may be gone but the wahhabi movement is unaffected.

Wahabism is influential among muslims with or without a great victory.
Its not like Bush will 1) win a great victory in november and
make the republicans deleriously happy or 2) suffer a crushing defeat
and make republicans depressed and enervated.

Its more like the gay rights battle in america.
The religious right has lost battle after battle after
battle on this issue, and they look like they're on their
way to losing the war, but they keep coming with the suicide attacks.
They won't stop until they're all dead.

Post by x***@erols.com
Changing the islamic core will require something as drastic
as a total long term occupation of islamic territory by the west,
which isn't going to happen.

Damn right it ain't.

Post by x***@erols.com
I won't say its absolutely inpossible, since western society itself
did something similar, but based on recent centuries, I don't expect
islam
to make that kind of change.

elmer swanson

2004-02-27 22:08:52 UTC

Post by elmer swanson
<snipped to save space>

There may not be any
reason that it can't succeed again, but
the fact is it is not succeeding
now, and in fact seems determined to avoid success
in all areas except for slaughter.

Here's some reasons they may
succeed again: The 9-11 attack has led
not to the toppling of the decadent West
and mass conversion to Islam
but overthrow of the Taliban and Western troops in Baghdad.
The Arab world essentially gave up
on Arab nationalism after the 7 Day
war/Naqba. Why wouldn't they give up
on Wahhabi-style Islamism after
its failure to deliver, especially
since Saudi and the Gulf have less
resources to bankroll Wahhabiism
than they use to? If they do, they
(the Islamic World) may turn its
attention to economic development
(maybe the East Asian model) and rise again.

Who says it's the core? The Wahhabis do. Other Muslims say its just
fanaticism.

I don't mean religious doctrine. Its something deeper than that. Its
the thing that causes 3rd generation immigrants
to a western country
to be more like a recent immigrant than a native born citizen. Its the
same thing that causes a muslim with a degree in physical science
from a western school to genuinely believe in jinn.
Rabid wahabis have this core, a shoemaker in egypt with no desire to
die in glorious jihad against the great satan has this core,
a petroleum chemist working at a refinery in iraq has this core.
It expresses itself through islam, but I don't think it is itself
islam.

Well at least we're getting some interesting questions! ....at long
last.

I'm not sure this "core" is the problem... i.e. the fount of suicide
terror and stagnation. For example, there is much more non-rational
religiousity (creationism, rapture, etc.) in the U.S. Southland than
in the U.S. Northeast or California, but the Southland is not exactly
a basketcase or hotbed of terrorism.

Allow me to plug my essay on Qutb (the Karl Marx of Islamism) posted
at
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=elmer+swanson&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UT
F-8&scoring=d&selm=3fade24c.0402260926.d13d08d%40posting.google.com&rnum
=3

I think if you read Qutb (or my post) you'll see or at least get a
strong feeling that to Qutb hatred of the west is an essential part of
Islam. Needless to say Islam existed for many centuries without
hatred for (or any attention paid to) the west. IMHO, to the extent
that Islamists have an obsessive hatred of the West, they may be seen,
or may be come to seen, as a little weird, a little deviant by other
Muslims.

Some examples of the deviation:
* I've heard Muslim Feminists on the radio a couple of times make a
pretty convincing case that Islamists and their supporters were
actually violating the sharia (provisions for protecting the accused)
in their eagerness to punish some woman for stone some accused woman.
Since strict sharia is the cornerstone, nay the whole f*cking house!,
of Islamism, this is extremely serious.

So why did they do it? They were under pressure from the
"international community" not to violate women's human rights. To
them, defying the "international community" was more important than
the shariah.

* the fact that after the 1967 Naqba so many arab nationalists and
leftists abandoned the cause for Islamism without missing a beat. Was
it a religious awakening? Or a new flavor of totalitarian
anti-colonialism to replace the old failed one?

* that the suicide terror/shaheed operation phenom is a new one.
Started by Khomenie against Iraq, perfected by Hezbollah. In 1400 odd
years of Islam, suicide was utterly haram. Now, suddenly it's OK if
you kill "Crusaders" or Jews. Normally Islamists call changes in
doctrine like this bi'da - inovation - and condemn them in the
strongest possible terms.
True, this bi'da has been embraced by millions of Muslims as "Our
Apache Helicopter," but isn't that was because it was a brilliant
success in Lebanon? It's not working so well now and it won't anytime
Kafir are backed into a corner - fighting terrorism in their homeland.
Islamists are operating under the assumption that it will.
I submit this is one reason they cannot win and thus cannot remain
popular.

Post by x***@erols.com
and will work less well than arab nationalism. When wahhabism
becomes unpopular among muslims the same islamic core will still exist

Sure it will still exist, just like Primitive Baptist snake handlers
and the Left Behind books series. Just because something exists won't
make it influential.

The taliban didn't create wahabism, wahabism created the taliban. You
can blow up the taliban, but the thing that created it is still there
and will create it again.
Thats why the US is nation building in afganistan, in spite of Bush's
pre presidential contempt for it. The US is trying to keep the wahabi
weeds from regrowing.

Post by x***@erols.com
and they will be even farther behind.
The taliban may be gone but the wahhabi movement is unaffected.

We're talking about people's willingness to kill themselves. The
victory in Afghanistan did great thing for the prestige of Mujahideen,
not least of which for their own egos. Lack of victory will also hurt
their prestige.

Without the success of the Hezbollah there would be no suicide bombing
in Israel. There was none before Hezbollah.

Post by elmer swanson
Its more like the gay rights battle in america.
The religious right has lost battle after battle after
battle on this issue, and they look like they're on their
way to losing the war, but they keep coming with the suicide attacks.
They won't stop until they're all dead.

50 years ago Wahhabis were an obscure cult popular among a small group
of very uneducated and backwards Arabs. They were looked down upon by
other Muslims. You know what its called now by many Muslims? "Petrol
Islam."

...In 1962, Saudi Arabia founded the Muslim World League to fund the
distribution of Korans, the production of Wahhabi scholarship, and the
building of mosques throughout the globe. And, over the course of the
next four decades, the Saudis steadily purchased the ideological
direction of Al Azhar [the big, old Islamic school in Cairo]. It
started subtly, with cushy Gulf sabbaticals for scholars. "In six
months on sabbatical, they would earn twenty years' salary," says Abou
El Fadl [a non-Wahhabi scholar in the U.S.]. As these contributions
became more customary--and scholars became increasingly eager to
supplement their $40-a-month salaries--the Saudis expanded their
influence. Through the Muslim World League, they began endowing chairs
for scholars and funding departments. By the late '90s, it was growing
difficult to find an Azhari who hadn't benefited from Saudi
largesse--and who hadn't returned the favor with pro-Wahhabi
scholarship....
from: new republic magazine 11-18-02

That's how they influence theology.

Post by x***@erols.com
Changing the islamic core will require something as drastic as a
total long term occupation of islamic territory by the west, which
isn't going to happen.

Damn right it ain't.

Post by x***@erols.com
I won't say its absolutely inpossible, since western society itself
did something similar, but based on recent centuries, I don't expect
islam
to make that kind of change.

x***@erols.com

2004-02-28 01:36:27 UTC

Post by elmer swanson
<snipped to save space>

Post by elmer swanson
Islam "peaked" in the 11th century. Are civilizations

allowed only one

Post by elmer swanson
peak? China has had five or so I think. And what about the

Osmanley

Post by elmer swanson
Turks? They almost captured Vienna and that was in the 16th

century.

Here's some reasons they may
succeed again: The 9-11 attack has led
not to the toppling of the decadent West
and mass conversion to Islam
but overthrow of the Taliban and Western troops in Baghdad.
The Arab world essentially gave up
on Arab nationalism after the 7 Day
war/Naqba. Why wouldn't they give up
on Wahhabi-style Islamism after
its failure to deliver, especially
since Saudi and the Gulf have less
resources to bankroll Wahhabiism
than they use to? If they do, they
(the Islamic World) may turn its
attention to economic development
(maybe the East Asian model) and rise again.

Who says it's the core? The Wahhabis do. Other Muslims say its just
fanaticism.

I don't mean religious doctrine. Its something deeper than that. Its
the thing that causes 3rd generation immigrants
to a western country
to be more like a recent immigrant than a native born citizen. Its the
same thing that causes a muslim with a degree in physical science
from a western school to genuinely believe in jinn.
Rabid wahabis have this core, a shoemaker in egypt with no desire to
die in glorious jihad against the great satan has this core,
a petroleum chemist working at a refinery in iraq has this core.
It expresses itself through islam, but I don't think it is itself
islam.

First, it is a sort of hotbed of terrorism and second, the
southland core is not the same as this islamic core.
The southland core, if there is one, changes with the times more than
the islamic version. Its 50 years behind the times, while
islam is at least 500 years.

The southland is not a majority so their power is limited
in a way islam is not.

Southern religiousity conflicts with traditional american
values, even in the mind of those religious people.
There is no conflict like this in islamic people.

In the south, the terrorism is legal. They will pass absurd laws,
then defy the supreme court when the law is enjoined,
then quietly enforce the law anyway when they are fined for
defying the court, then they will screw up
your life in any (legal)way possible when they are
unable to enforce the law. Moslems will just shoot you.

Post by elmer swanson
Allow me to plug my essay on Qutb (the Karl Marx of Islamism) posted
at
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=elmer+swanson&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UT
F-8&scoring=d&selm=3fade24c.0402260926.d13d08d%40posting.google.com&rnum
=3
I think if you read Qutb (or my post) you'll see or at least get a
strong feeling that to Qutb hatred of the west is an essential part of
Islam. Needless to say Islam existed for many centuries without
hatred for (or any attention paid to) the west. IMHO, to the extent
that Islamists have an obsessive hatred of the West, they may be seen,
or may be come to seen, as a little weird, a little deviant by other
Muslims.

I don't think hatred of the west is an essential part of the core.

Post by elmer swanson
* I've heard Muslim Feminists on the radio a couple of times make a
pretty convincing case that Islamists and their supporters were
actually violating the sharia (provisions for protecting the accused)
in their eagerness to punish some woman for stone some accused woman.
Since strict sharia is the cornerstone, nay the whole f*cking house!,
of Islamism, this is extremely serious.
So why did they do it? They were under pressure from the
"international community" not to violate women's human rights. To
them, defying the "international community" was more important than
the shariah.

But what is the sharia? It is whatever the fanatic says it is.
I have a list of bible verses from a christian white supremecy sect
that prove gods christian religion requires white supremecy.
I have a book proving god is opposed to racism that uses
some of the same bible verses to prove it, printed by a different
christian sect. Both sects agree that the bible is the
infallible word of god, but reach opposite conclusions
after reading those words.

The desired conclusion comes first, the justification
is found later.

Muslims reading the koran are no different. Individuals who
"know" allah wants women to be stoned will find koran verses to
prove it. Muslims who "know" allah does not want women to be
stoned will find koran verses to prove it.

Post by elmer swanson
* the fact that after the 1967 Naqba so many arab nationalists and
leftists abandoned the cause for Islamism without missing a beat. Was
it a religious awakening? Or a new flavor of totalitarian
anti-colonialism to replace the old failed one?
* that the suicide terror/shaheed operation phenom is a new one.
Started by Khomenie against Iraq, perfected by Hezbollah. In 1400 odd
years of Islam, suicide was utterly haram. Now, suddenly it's OK if
you kill "Crusaders" or Jews. Normally Islamists call changes in
doctrine like this bi'da - inovation - and condemn them in the
strongest possible terms.
True, this bi'da has been embraced by millions of Muslims as "Our
Apache Helicopter," but isn't that was because it was a brilliant
success in Lebanon? It's not working so well now and it won't anytime
Kafir are backed into a corner - fighting terrorism in their homeland.
Islamists are operating under the assumption that it will.
I submit this is one reason they cannot win and thus cannot remain
popular.

This is not an essential part of the core.

Post by x***@erols.com
and will work less well than arab nationalism. When wahhabism
becomes unpopular among muslims the same islamic core will still

exist

Post by elmer swanson
Sure it will still exist, just like Primitive Baptist snake handlers
and the Left Behind books series. Just because something exists

won't

Post by elmer swanson
make it influential.

The taliban didn't create wahabism, wahabism created the taliban. You
can blow up the taliban, but the thing that created it is still there
and will create it again.
Thats why the US is nation building in afganistan, in spite of Bush's
pre presidential contempt for it. The US is trying to keep the wahabi
weeds from regrowing.

Post by x***@erols.com
and they will be even farther behind.
The taliban may be gone but the wahhabi movement is unaffected.

Maybe yes, maybe no. What matter is not whether they are unaffected
but whether their INFLUENCE is. Without money, without the big

victory

Post by elmer swanson
in Afghanistan without SUCCESS to point to, will they be influential
among Muslims?

50 years from now. But this is not the core I'm taking about
anyway.

Post by elmer swanson
Without the success of the Hezbollah there would be no suicide bombing
in Israel. There was none before Hezbollah.

100 years ago the wahabi sect gave the sheik that conquered
various parts of what is now saudi arabia theological legitimacy.
It was in no way obscure in that territory.

Post by elmer swanson
...In 1962, Saudi Arabia founded the Muslim World League to fund the
distribution of Korans, the production of Wahhabi scholarship, and the
building of mosques throughout the globe. And, over the course of the
next four decades, the Saudis steadily purchased the ideological
direction of Al Azhar [the big, old Islamic school in Cairo]. It
started subtly, with cushy Gulf sabbaticals for scholars. "In six
months on sabbatical, they would earn twenty years' salary," says Abou
El Fadl [a non-Wahhabi scholar in the U.S.]. As these contributions
became more customary--and scholars became increasingly eager to
supplement their $40-a-month salaries--the Saudis expanded their
influence. Through the Muslim World League, they began endowing chairs
for scholars and funding departments. By the late '90s, it was growing
difficult to find an Azhari who hadn't benefited from Saudi
largesse--and who hadn't returned the favor with pro-Wahhabi
scholarship....
from: new republic magazine 11-18-02

This was payback for providing theological legitimacy
to the royal family.

Post by elmer swanson
That's how they influence theology.

No, thats how theology influences the royal family.

Post by x***@erols.com
Changing the islamic core will require something as drastic as a
total long term occupation of islamic territory by the west, which
isn't going to happen.

Damn right it ain't.

Post by x***@erols.com
I won't say its absolutely inpossible, since western society

itself

Post by x***@erols.com
did something similar, but based on recent centuries, I don't

expect

Post by x***@erols.com
islam
to make that kind of change.

elmer swanson

2004-03-01 22:57:10 UTC

Post by elmer swanson
<snipped to save space>

Post by elmer swanson
I don't mean religious doctrine. Its something deeper than that. Its
the thing that causes 3rd generation immigrants
to a western country
to be more like a recent immigrant than a native born citizen. Its the
same thing that causes a muslim with a degree in physical science
from a western school to genuinely believe in jinn.
Rabid wahabis have this core, a shoemaker in egypt with no desire to
die in glorious jihad against the great satan has this core,
a petroleum chemist working at a refinery in iraq has this core.
It expresses itself through islam, but I don't think it is itself
islam.

First, it is a sort of hotbed of terrorism

There is no comparison between killing thousands of people for the
crime of working in an American landmark and .... whatever nonsense
goes down down south. One is threat to well being of millions, the
other is a nusance.

Post by elmer swanson
and second, the
southland core is not the same as this islamic core.
The southland core, if there is one, changes with the times more than
the islamic version. Its 50 years behind the times, while
islam is at least 500 years.

Disagree. Religious fundamentalism is all pre-modern, whether
Christian Creationism or Islamism. Both have engineers and physicians.
Both have revealed truth, literal interpretation of sacred scripture.

Post by elmer swanson
The southland is not a majority so their power is limited
in a way islam is not.
Southern religiousity conflicts with traditional american
values, even in the mind of those religious people.
There is no conflict like this in islamic people.
In the south, the terrorism is legal. They will pass absurd laws,
then defy the supreme court when the law is enjoined,
then quietly enforce the law anyway when they are fined for
defying the court, then they will screw up
your life in any (legal)way possible when they are
unable to enforce the law.

example?

Post by elmer swanson
Moslems will just shoot you.

I don't think hatred of the west is an essential part of the core.

Well than maybe "the core" is not so important!
"hatred of the west" is an essential part of radical Islamism, the
ideology of bin Laden ... which is what we're concerned about...
right?

You could argue that "the core" is an essential part of the stagnation
of the Muslim world (or at least the Arab Muslim world), I suppose.
But IMHO the beliefs of radical Islamist belief (as outlined in that
essay) are an even more essential part of the stagnation (never mind
terror)
If you truly believe ...
a) western and Jewish sabotage are responsible for Islam's problems
b) the shariah (true islam) will solve all problems
c) the evil, decadent west will be a pushover
... why bother to think, learn or develope your country?!

But what is the sharia? It is whatever the fanatic says it is.

Again, the issue is not what fanatics say and believe, it's why anyone
pays any attention to them. There is a core of fanatics and then there
is a much larger group who wear bin Laden T-shirts or say to themselve
"if I were a better Muslims I'd join al Qaeda in jihad." It's the
second group, the supporters who are the concern. Without them al
Qaeda will not be a threat.

Post by elmer swanson
I have a list of bible verses from a christian white supremecy sect
that prove gods christian religion requires white supremecy.
I have a book proving god is opposed to racism that uses
some of the same bible verses to prove it, printed by a different
christian sect. Both sects agree that the bible is the
infallible word of god, but reach opposite conclusions
after reading those words.
The desired conclusion comes first, the justification
is found later.
Muslims reading the koran are no different. Individuals who
"know" allah wants women to be stoned will find koran verses to
prove it.

Actually there are no such ayat, the stoning comes from an hadith,
which emphasises the point I guess, namely why is this interpretation
seen as the one favored by the truly pious, why is it seen as the true
interpretation?

Post by elmer swanson
Muslims who "know" allah does not want women to be
stoned will find koran verses to prove it.

This is not an essential part of the core.

I don't know how you define core. You have to agree the "suicide
terror/shaheed operation phenom" is an essential part of something
which is a grave danger to civilization.

Post by x***@erols.com
and will work less well than arab nationalism. When wahhabism
becomes unpopular among muslims the
same islamic core will still exist

Sure it will still exist, just like Primitive Baptist snake handlers
and the Left Behind books series.
just because something exists won't
make it influential.

The taliban didn't create wahabism, wahabism created the taliban. You
can blow up the taliban, but the thing that created it is still there
and will create it again.
Thats why the US is nation building in afganistan, in spite of Bush's
pre presidential contempt for it. The US is trying to keep the wahabi
weeds from regrowing.

Post by x***@erols.com
and they will be even farther behind.
The taliban may be gone but the wahhabi movement is unaffected.

Maybe yes, maybe no. What matter is not whether they are unaffected
but whether their INFLUENCE is.
Without money, without the big victory
in Afghanistan without SUCCESS to point to, will they be influential
among Muslims?

50 years from now. But this is not the core I'm taking about
anyway.

Agreed, these changes will not be instantaneous, but 50 years?
25 years ago the Islamic Republic of Iran was full of passionate
enthusiasm. Today it's lost all legitimacy.

Post by elmer swanson
Without the success of the Hezbollah there would be no suicide bombing
in Israel. There was none before Hezbollah.

100 years ago the wahabi sect gave the sheik that conquered
various parts of what is now saudi arabia theological legitimacy.
It was in no way obscure in that territory.

Aren't we talking about the Muslim world, or at least the Arab Muslim
world? So what if they weren't obscure in that territory. They were
nobodies in the larger world of Islamic civilization.

This was payback for providing theological legitimacy
to the royal family.

Post by elmer swanson
That's how they influence theology.

No, thats how theology influences the royal family.

No, you're not understanding this. Muslims go to sheikhs (leading
scholars) of Al Azhar and other place with their questions. These
sheikhs are not bishops or popes but they are influential. There is a
huge amount of money coming in (less all the time I think) to make
life easy for those sheikhs who will shade their interpretations
towards the Wahhabi line.

The same goes to a large extent for the Arab news media.

Post by x***@erols.com
Changing the islamic core will require something as drastic as a
total long term occupation of islamic territory by the west, which
isn't going to happen.

x***@erols.com

2004-03-03 17:00:58 UTC

Post by elmer swanson
<snipped to save space>

First, it is a sort of hotbed of terrorism

50 years ago god was opposed to civil rights. Now he is not.
You don't see islam keeping up with the times
that well. It is not fundamentalism itself that I am talking about,
it is the doctrine of the religion. Islam made sense 1000
years ago, and it still makes sense, if we were living 1000 years ago.
American christian fundamentalism made sense as recently as 50 years
ago.

example?

Schools refused to obey brown vs board of education.
When they were sued, local courts ignored brown and
ruled that schools could be segregated. The state appeal,
supreme and federal court agreed. NAACP had to get to
the federal appeals court to get the school to obey.

Then this started all over again in the next town.

When that rope ran out, private schools were established
all over the south so white students could still go to
segregated schools.

Post by elmer swanson
Moslems will just shoot you.

I don't think hatred of the west is an essential part of the core.

Well than maybe "the core" is not so important!
"hatred of the west" is an essential part of radical Islamism, the
ideology of bin Laden ... which is what we're concerned about...
right?

No. Radical islam is the latest expression of the core.

Post by elmer swanson
You could argue that "the core" is an essential part of the stagnation
of the Muslim world (or at least the Arab Muslim world), I suppose.
But IMHO the beliefs of radical Islamist belief (as outlined in that
essay) are an even more essential part of the stagnation (never mind
terror)
If you truly believe ...
a) western and Jewish sabotage are responsible for Islam's problems
b) the shariah (true islam) will solve all problems
c) the evil, decadent west will be a pushover
... why bother to think, learn or develope your country?!

Part of the core is a disinclination to think, learn or develop your
country.
But the core is not something that can be stated or attacked or defended
like a particular islamic doctrine. Its more like water to a fish,
who doesn't know water exists because it is the whole environment.
Moslem societies can't fix the core because they don't even know it
exists.
Therefore the problem must be jews or the great satan or something.

But what is the sharia? It is whatever the fanatic says it is.

The sharia is what god told you to do. If the "international community"
disagrees with god, then too bad for the international community.
They have no more authority than bert and ernie. Defying them is not
more important, than the sharia, it is the same thing.

Post by elmer swanson
Muslims who "know" allah does not want women to be
stoned will find koran verses to prove it.

This is not an essential part of the core.

I don't know how you define core. You have to agree the "suicide
terror/shaheed operation phenom" is an essential part of something
which is a grave danger to civilization.

I'm not sure either, but it is not the islamic sect of the
week, or of the decade. Its something more fundamental to the way
those people think than mere religious doctrine. The doctrine is
only the expression of it.

Post by x***@erols.com
and will work less well than arab nationalism. When wahhabism
becomes unpopular among muslims the
same islamic core will still exist

Sure it will still exist, just like Primitive Baptist snake handlers
and the Left Behind books series.
just because something exists won't
make it influential.

The taliban didn't create wahabism, wahabism created the taliban. You
can blow up the taliban, but the thing that created it is still there
and will create it again.
Thats why the US is nation building in afganistan, in spite of Bush's
pre presidential contempt for it. The US is trying to keep the wahabi
weeds from regrowing.

Post by x***@erols.com
and they will be even farther behind.
The taliban may be gone but the wahhabi movement is unaffected.

Maybe yes, maybe no. What matter is not whether they are unaffected
but whether their INFLUENCE is.
Without money, without the big victory
in Afghanistan without SUCCESS to point to, will they be influential
among Muslims?

50 years from now. But this is not the core I'm taking about
anyway.

Agreed, these changes will not be instantaneous, but 50 years?
25 years ago the Islamic Republic of Iran was full of passionate
enthusiasm. Today it's lost all legitimacy.

Again thats not the core. Irans government by mullah
could fall tomorrow and it would still have islamic problems.

Post by elmer swanson
Without the success of the Hezbollah there would be no suicide bombing
in Israel. There was none before Hezbollah.

100 years ago the wahabi sect gave the sheik that conquered
various parts of what is now saudi arabia theological legitimacy.
It was in no way obscure in that territory.

Aren't we talking about the Muslim world, or at least the Arab Muslim
world? So what if they weren't obscure in that territory. They were
nobodies in the larger world of Islamic civilization.

They slaughtered lots of people. They were noticed.

This was payback for providing theological legitimacy
to the royal family.

Post by elmer swanson
That's how they influence theology.

No, thats how theology influences the royal family.

No, you're not understanding this. Muslims go to sheikhs (leading
scholars) of Al Azhar and other place with their questions. These
sheikhs are not bishops or popes but they are influential. There is a
huge amount of money coming in (less all the time I think) to make
life easy for those sheikhs who will shade their interpretations
towards the Wahhabi line.
The same goes to a large extent for the Arab news media.

Once upon a time a wahabi sheikh and a would be king made a deal.
The king would conquer kill and rule and the wahabi sheikh would
give him the mohammed stamp of approval. The king would
have to enforce wahabism of course. When oil was discovered
both the king and the wahibis clerics had a lot more money but the
same situation existed. Both sides had to maintain
the status quo if they wanted to continue to get the money.
So they did.

The clerics could bring down the saudi royal family in a second
if they tried. They won't because it would do great harm to themselves
and their religion. The royal family could execute all those
inconvenient clerics in a second if they tried, but they won't
because there would be a massive revolt. So each side
helps the other stay on the tightrope they're walking.

Post by x***@erols.com
Changing the islamic core will require something as drastic as a
total long term occupation of islamic territory by the west, which
isn't going to happen.

1MAN4ALL

2004-02-25 04:26:08 UTC

Why do I get the feeling that if there is ever peace in our world,
people like you would convert to Islam?

elmer swanson

2004-02-25 21:50:25 UTC

Why do I get the feeling that if there is ever peace in our world,
people like you would convert to Islam?

Nobody who's read your posts would want to be on the same side as you.

1MAN4ALL

2004-02-26 17:08:26 UTC

Why do I get the feeling that if there is ever peace in our world,
people like you would convert to Islam?

Nobody who's read your posts would want to be on the same side as you.

If I am an obstacle to your accepting Islam, then I am very sorry, and
I pray that Allah forgives me.

x***@erols.com

2004-02-26 19:59:27 UTC

Why do I get the feeling that if there is ever peace in our world,
people like you would convert to Islam?

Nobody who's read your posts would want to be on the same side as you.

If I am an obstacle to your accepting Islam, then I am very sorry, and
I pray that Allah forgives me.

Islam itself is the main obstacle to accepting islam.

Count 1

2004-02-26 20:01:57 UTC

Why do I get the feeling that if there is ever peace in our world,
people like you would convert to Islam?

Nobody who's read your posts would want to be on the same side as you.

If I am an obstacle to your accepting Islam, then I am very sorry, and
I pray that Allah forgives me.

Of course you are. People reading you would naturally come to the conclusion
that Muslims are terrorist apologists.

elmer swanson

2004-02-26 23:36:55 UTC

Why do I get the feeling that if there is ever peace in our world,
people like you would convert to Islam?

Nobody who's read your posts would want to be on the same side as you.

If I am an obstacle to your accepting Islam, then I am very sorry, and
I pray that Allah forgives me.

Allah is merciful but I don't know... he might make an exception in
your case. Allah alim.

John

2004-02-24 11:37:33 UTC

Listen primitive,

Do you not know what you and your "civilization" owe to ours? Have
you that little knowledge of history? Have you ever studied Algebra?
The root of the word is al-jebr 'the reintegration' - from jabara
"reunite". And when you wrote it in this class, you wrote it in
"Arabic" numerals, did you not? And while your ancestors were in the
"Dark Ages" and burned the Greek and Roman classics as sinful, who
preserved, translated and studied them? The Muslims did, and if not
for us, many would have been lost for all time. Who kept the sciences
alive while the Christians shunned them? We did. For example, in
addition to the math mentioned above, we discovered the family of
compounds called alcohols - ( al-koh''l ). The list can go on if you
would like.
It was the reacquisition of the classics through our stewardship and
the extension of our science that made your much needed renaissance
possible. We had running water and lighted streets when your
ancestors thought bathing was sinful and spread the plague through
their poor hygiene.

That was then, this is now.
Now it is islam that is in the dark ages outlawing television

So you dont know about your Jews conservatives who dont watch TV ?

Post by x***@erols.com
while the west is watching pictures of from mars on television.

also you have'nt heard about Iran's Space and Nuclear Prorgams.

The question was posted by one of your fellow enlightened 7th century
aficionados.

Do Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson speak for all Christians? I think
no. And do you think that this faqi speaks for all Moslems? If so,
then I beseech you to think again, for it is not so.

Jerry falwell and pat robertson are kept under control
by western law and freedom of religion tradition,

Yes we know , what kind of control is there, There is no restriction
for them for any anti muslim activities.

Post by x***@erols.com
while your hypothetical other muslims
are kept under control by islamic law and head chopping off tradition.

Every country have their own law , their own punishment , there is
detah sentance in US . This year they killed 18 people till now.

First I suggest you stop your brethren from outlawing
kites before you tackle the concept of space or comment on anything
related to space travel.

The irish are in the process of removing their mullahs from power.

Talk about your US christians who opposes Birth control , recently
there was an incident in which a Christian fanatic at pharmacy denied
morning after abortion pill to rape victim.

Post by x***@erols.com
Other western countries have already done so.
Where is the progress in islamic countries? Turkey
has been trying for 80 years and hasn't done it yet.
Bahrain is a tiny country with no influence.
I would rather be without the religious fanatics who
say "you can't use birth control/kites because its against my religion.
But in the talibans afganistan you can be arrested for flying a kite,
but in western countries you can't be arrested for using birth control.

So did Talibans arrest any body for birth control ?

For what it's worth, by the time you finish
your idiotic ritual in space, you'll probably be facing another
continent anyway.

Many people pray. Why do you call prayer idiotic? Are you in the
U.S. of A.? Your headers say you are, do they not? Did you know that
most people in that country pray? Did you know that 60% of the people
of the U.S. believe that
"The story of Noah and the ark in which it rained for 40 days and
nights, the entire world was flooded, and only Noah, his family and
the animals on their ark survived." is "Literally True"?
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm
It seems from the polls that the people of the U.S. have more belief
in Allah/God than science, does it not?

This is indeed a problem in the US, but at least the christian
ayatollahs are unable to execute scientists for doing science.

Because there are not many christians , If they get majority , there
are going to do whatever suited according to their religion.

Besides, you are prohibited from accusing others of
ignorance by default.

I agree with you there. Islam is more effectively attacked
by discussing its silly claims than by jumping up and down and
screaming.
Muslims do that better than westerners anyway.

Fuck you. Fuck Islam.

Are you proud of expressing yourself this way? Does it show what is
good about your culture?

Fuck your pedophile prophet.

Saudi arabia deals with adolecent sexuality by
locking girls in burning buildings.
Perhaps thats better than the way the west does it.

And American churches train priest for this. and some times they use
exorcism.

Post by John Smith
Peace be with you, oh angry one,
Sayeed, "John Smith", and others of the faith.

x***@erols.com

2004-02-24 14:19:16 UTC

Listen primitive,

Do you not know what you and your "civilization" owe to ours? Have
you that little knowledge of history? Have you ever studied Algebra?
The root of the word is al-jebr 'the reintegration' - from jabara
"reunite". And when you wrote it in this class, you wrote it in
"Arabic" numerals, did you not? And while your ancestors were in the
"Dark Ages" and burned the Greek and Roman classics as sinful, who
preserved, translated and studied them? The Muslims did, and if not
for us, many would have been lost for all time. Who kept the sciences
alive while the Christians shunned them? We did. For example, in
addition to the math mentioned above, we discovered the family of
compounds called alcohols - ( al-koh''l ). The list can go on if you
would like.
It was the reacquisition of the classics through our stewardship and
the extension of our science that made your much needed renaissance
possible. We had running water and lighted streets when your
ancestors thought bathing was sinful and spread the plague through
their poor hygiene.

That was then, this is now.
Now it is islam that is in the dark ages outlawing television

So you dont know about your Jews conservatives who dont watch TV ?

If they don't watch television thats their business. Islam says nobody
can watch television. Do you understand the difference?

Post by x***@erols.com
while the west is watching pictures of from mars on television.

also you have'nt heard about Iran's Space and Nuclear Prorgams.

They bought their centrifuges at a used equipment market from a non
muslim country.

The question was posted by one of your fellow enlightened 7th century
aficionados.

Do Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson speak for all Christians? I think
no. And do you think that this faqi speaks for all Moslems? If so,
then I beseech you to think again, for it is not so.

Jerry falwell and pat robertson are kept under control
by western law and freedom of religion tradition,

Yes we know , what kind of control is there, There is no restriction
for them for any anti muslim activities.

They're not bombing mosques or killing moslems,
or even saying that should be done. In moslem countries their
counterparts are.
Do you understand the difference?

Post by x***@erols.com
while your hypothetical other muslims
are kept under control by islamic law and head chopping off tradition.

Every country have their own law , their own punishment , there is
detah sentance in US . This year they killed 18 people till now.

First I suggest you stop your brethren from outlawing
kites before you tackle the concept of space or comment on anything
related to space travel.

The irish are in the process of removing their mullahs from power.

Talk about your US christians who opposes Birth control , recently
there was an incident in which a Christian fanatic at pharmacy denied
morning after abortion pill to rape victim.

While the muslim fanatics flog and execute rape victims
and prevent vaccine distribution. You want to talk about that?

So did Talibans arrest any body for birth control ?

No, the country is too backwards to have birth control.
However they did arrest people for being christian, flying kites
listening to music. Did you not know this?
Or did you hope I didn't know this?

For what it's worth, by the time you finish
your idiotic ritual in space, you'll probably be facing another
continent anyway.

Many people pray. Why do you call prayer idiotic? Are you in the
U.S. of A.? Your headers say you are, do they not? Did you know that
most people in that country pray? Did you know that 60% of the people
of the U.S. believe that
"The story of Noah and the ark in which it rained for 40 days and
nights, the entire world was flooded, and only Noah, his family and
the animals on their ark survived." is "Literally True"?
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm
It seems from the polls that the people of the U.S. have more belief
in Allah/God than science, does it not?

This is indeed a problem in the US, but at least the christian
ayatollahs are unable to execute scientists for doing science.

Because there are not many christians , If they get majority , there
are going to do whatever suited according to their religion.

Are you brain damaged? The place is neck deep in christians.

Besides, you are prohibited from accusing others of
ignorance by default.

I agree with you there. Islam is more effectively attacked
by discussing its silly claims than by jumping up and down and
screaming.
Muslims do that better than westerners anyway.

Fuck you. Fuck Islam.

Are you proud of expressing yourself this way? Does it show what is
good about your culture?

Fuck your pedophile prophet.

Saudi arabia deals with adolecent sexuality by
locking girls in burning buildings.
Perhaps thats better than the way the west does it.

And American churches train priest for this. and some times they use
exorcism.

American churches train priests to lock girls in burning buildings?
Definately brain damaged.