Filed under: Human Rights
Question:
KILL THE INFIDELS! http://www.truthandgrace.com/muslimkillcommands.htm
Response:
Islamic Human Rights Commission??? What an oxymoron! Have they ever complained about treatment of Shias, Ahmadis and non Muslims at the hand of Sunnis? Ever? All they are doing is to provide protection for Sunni fanaticism in another guise. Although these guys are getting smarter. Instead of using organisation names like Muslim or Islamic they are using words like Human Rights to camouflage their activities from common joe. Regards
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Islamic Human Rights Commission Press Release 22 September 2005 Urgent Alert: Protest Middlesex Universitys Clampdown on Freedom of Speech IHRC urges all campaigners to contact Middlesex University to protest against its decision to suspend Student Union president Keith Shilson and revoke his studentship indefinitely for his refusal to cancel a debate with Hizb ut-Tahrir. 1. Background The Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir had been invited by the Student Union of Middlesex University to take part in a Question & Answer meeting next Wednesday 28 September 2005. Last week, the Vice Chancellor of the University, Professor Michael Driscoll, ordered the Student Union to cancel the invitation to Hizb ut-Tahrir. The Student Union was told that if it did not cancel the invitation, the meeting would be banned. Student Union President Keith Shilson refused to cancel the invitation arguing that it should be allowed on the ground of freedom of speech. Due to this refusal to cancel the invitation, Mr Shilson was yesterday suspended from the university, had his studentship revoked indefinitely and was escorted from campus by university security. Hizb ut-Tahrir has not been banned by the Government or on campus in Middlesex University and promotes a non-violent approach to political change. It has repeatedly condemned acts of terrorism such as the London bombings as having no justification in Islam. The Vice Chancellors decision to suspend Mr Shilson is a clear sign of the new form of McCarthyism currently at play both on university campuses and in the wider British society. We have reached a stage now where not only Muslims are being persecuted for their beliefs but also members of other communities who may defend Muslims against such persecution or simply seek to understand their beliefs. 2. Suggested Action a) Contact the Vice-Chancellor of Middlesex University and request that Keith Shilson be reinstated with a full apology. A sample letter may be found below for your convenience. Professor Michael Driscoll Vice-Chancellor Middlesex University Bramley Road London N14 4YZ Tel. 020 8411 5606 b) Send messages of support to Keith Shilson for his courage and bravery in refusing to buckle under tremendous pressure and standing up for fundamental freedoms so precious to us all. Keith Shilson President Middlesex University Students\’ Union Bramley Road London N14 4YZ Tel: 020 8411 6763 Fax: 020 8440 5944 [Your name] [Your address] [Date] Professor Michael Driscoll Vice-Chancellor Middlesex University Bramley Road London N14 4YZ Dear Professor Driscoll Re: Suspension of Keith Shilson I am writing regarding Middlesex Universitys decision to suspend and indefinitely revoke the studentship of Student Union president Keith Shilson. I am very shocked to hear that the reasoning behind the suspension was Mr Shilsons refusal to cancel an invitation to the Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir to a debate on 28 September. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a non-violent group which has repeatedly condemned acts of terrorism such as the London bombings as having no justification in Islam. Despite much propaganda, it has not been banned by the Government. Irrespective of whether we agree or disagree with the beliefs and principles held by Hizb ut-Tahrir, to prohibit them from publicly speaking is abhorrent to the precious values of a liberal democracy such as Britain. It is an active effort to clamp down upon freedom of speech and freedom of association. Furthermore, to punish a student who may neither belong to nor even share the beliefs of Hizb ut-Tahrir is eerily reminiscent of the shameful era of McCarthyism. In attempting to cancel the debate and in suspending Keith Shilson, Middlesex University is stifling freedom of academic thought in university, the very place where ideas must be debated and exchanged. I urge you to reinstate Mr Shilson immediately with a full apology. I look forward to hearing from you shortly regarding the action you have taken in this extremely serious matter. Yours sincerely, [Your signature] [Your name] Friends of Al Aqsa is a voluntary organisation concerned with the defence of Al Aqsa Haram Sharif and the protection of Palestinian Human Rights. http://www.aqsa.org.uk
Response:
Islamic Human Rights Commission Press Release 22 September 2005 Urgent Alert: Protest Middlesex Universitys Clampdown on Freedom of Speech IHRC urges all campaigners to contact Middlesex University to protest against its decision to suspend Student Union president Keith Shilson and revoke his studentship indefinitely for his refusal to cancel a debate with Hizb ut-Tahrir. 1. Background The Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir had been invited by the Student Union of Middlesex University to take part in a Question & Answer meeting next Wednesday 28 September 2005. Last week, the Vice Chancellor of the University, Professor Michael Driscoll, ordered the Student Union to cancel the invitation to Hizb ut-Tahrir. The Student Union was told that if it did not cancel the invitation, the meeting would be banned. Student Union President Keith Shilson refused to cancel the invitation arguing that it should be allowed on the ground of freedom of speech. Due to this refusal to cancel the invitation, Mr Shilson was yesterday suspended from the university, had his studentship revoked indefinitely and was escorted from campus by university security. Hizb ut-Tahrir has not been banned by the Government or on campus in Middlesex University and promotes a non-violent approach to political change. It has repeatedly condemned acts of terrorism such as the London bombings as having no justification in Islam. The Vice Chancellors decision to suspend Mr Shilson is a clear sign of the new form of McCarthyism currently at play both on university campuses and in the wider British society. We have reached a stage now where not only Muslims are being persecuted for their beliefs but also members of other communities who may defend Muslims against such persecution or simply seek to understand their beliefs. 2. Suggested Action a) Contact the Vice-Chancellor of Middlesex University and request that Keith Shilson be reinstated with a full apology. A sample letter may be found below for your convenience. Professor Michael Driscoll Vice-Chancellor Middlesex University Bramley Road London N14 4YZ Tel. 020 8411 5606 b) Send messages of support to Keith Shilson for his courage and bravery in refusing to buckle under tremendous pressure and standing up for fundamental freedoms so precious to us all. Keith Shilson President Middlesex University Students\’ Union Bramley Road London N14 4YZ Tel: 020 8411 6763 Fax: 020 8440 5944 [Your name] [Your address] [Date] Professor Michael Driscoll Vice-Chancellor Middlesex University Bramley Road London N14 4YZ Dear Professor Driscoll Re: Suspension of Keith Shilson I am writing regarding Middlesex Universitys decision to suspend and indefinitely revoke the studentship of Student Union president Keith Shilson. I am very shocked to hear that the reasoning behind the suspension was Mr Shilsons refusal to cancel an invitation to the Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir to a debate on 28 September. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a non-violent group which has repeatedly condemned acts of terrorism such as the London bombings as having no justification in Islam. Despite much propaganda, it has not been banned by the Government. Irrespective of whether we agree or disagree with the beliefs and principles held by Hizb ut-Tahrir, to prohibit them from publicly speaking is abhorrent to the precious values of a liberal democracy such as Britain. It is an active effort to clamp down upon freedom of speech and freedom of association. Furthermore, to punish a student who may neither belong to nor even share the beliefs of Hizb ut-Tahrir is eerily reminiscent of the shameful era of McCarthyism. In attempting to cancel the debate and in suspending Keith Shilson, Middlesex University is stifling freedom of academic thought in university, the very place where ideas must be debated and exchanged. I urge you to reinstate Mr Shilson immediately with a full apology. I look forward to hearing from you shortly regarding the action you have taken in this extremely serious matter. Yours sincerely, [Your signature] [Your name] Friends of Al Aqsa is a voluntary organisation concerned with the defence of Al Aqsa Haram Sharif and the protection of Palestinian Human Rights. http://www.aqsa.org.uk
Response:
Question:
Usual copy/paste crap
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Iraq slams U.S.’s "illegal" detentions Iraq’s Justice Minister slammed the U.S. army for detaining thousands of Iraqis for long periods without charge and denounced a UN resolution that protects occupation forces from Iraqi law, Reuters reported. Minister Abdul Hussein Shandal also condemned the U.S. military for the detentions of Iraqi reporters and said that the media, contrary to the U.S.’s foreign policy in Iraq, must have special legal protection to report on all parties in the conflict. "No citizen should be arrested without a court order," Reuters quoted Shandal as saying. "There is abuse (of human rights) due to detentions, which are overseen by the Multinational Force (MNF) and are not in the control of the justice ministry," he added. UN Resolution 1546 Killings and unjustified detentions of Iraqi civilians by U.S. occupation forces may go unpunished, Shandal said, due the UN Security Council resolution 1546, which gave the U.S.-led troops immunity from Iraqi law following the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. "The resolution … gives immunity to the MNF and means taking no action against the MNF no matter what happens or whatever they do against the people of Iraq," he said. "We’re hoping to make more efforts with the Security Council and the whole United Nations to end this resolution or amend it so that anyone who violates Iraqi law or assaults any citizen is held accountable, "This is a matter of sovereignty," he stressed. Shandal also said that he was demanding the U.S. army to accelerate the releases for more than 10,000 Iraqis who have been detained without charge at the Abu Ghraib jail and elsewhere. Speaking of the Combined Review and Release Board (CRRB), which guarantees prisoners a hearing every six months, he said: "The representatives of the MNF in the committee have the rights and all the authority under the UN resolution." Media rights Shandal also expressed his concerns over the U.S. army’s rejection to accord special consideration to the media and at the number of journalists detained for many months by U.S. forces. Asked if the Iraqi government approved of such detentions, which U.S. forces claim they implement with Iraqi officials’ approval, Shandal said: "I am a man of law and a judge and I respect human rights … No citizen should be arrested without a court order." Many reporters have been arrested by U.S. forces in Iraq. Some have been freed weeks or months later with no explanation. Several others have been "mistakenly" killed by U.S. troops, including a soundman working for Reuters who was shot to death by a sniper on Aug. 28. The U.S. army seems to think that "everyone in a conflict area with a camera is a potential terrorist," said Alastair Macdonald, the Reuters bureau chief in Baghdad. "The burden of proof is on them to prove that they’re not." Shandal said that journalists need special legal protection and defended unbiased and independent reporting from all sides, including from rebel-held areas. He insisted on reporters’ rights to film and interview Iraqi fighters without fear of arrest or worse. "Full freedom should be given to journalists to take pictures and film in the field," he said. "Without images what would we know of history? … We would know nothing." http://islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.as…
Very interesting topic
Response:
Question:
We are the Gay and Lesbian Arabic Society (GLAS), an international organization established in 1988 in the USA with worldwide chapters. We serve as a networking organization for Gays and Lesbians of Arab descent or those living in Arab countries. We aim to promote positive images of Gays and Lesbians in Arab communities worldwide, in addition to combating negative portrayals of Arabs within the Gay and Lesbian community. We also provide a support network for our members while fighting for our human rights wherever they are oppressed. We are part of the global Gay and Lesbian movement seeking an end to injustice and discrimination based on sexual orientation. Mika
Response:
We are the Gay and Lesbian Arabic Society (GLAS), an international organization established in 1988 in the USA with worldwide chapters. We serve as a networking organization for Gays and Lesbians of Arab descent or those living in Arab countries. We aim to promote positive images of Gays and Lesbians in Arab communities worldwide, in addition to combating negative portrayals of Arabs within the Gay and Lesbian community. We also provide a support network for our members while fighting for our human rights wherever they are oppressed. We are part of the global Gay and Lesbian movement seeking an end to injustice and discrimination based on sexual orientation. Mika
Blah blah blah. Peddle your perversion elsewhere.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We are the Gay and Lesbian Arabic Society (GLAS), an international organization established in 1988 in the USA with worldwide chapters. We serve as a networking organization for Gays and Lesbians of Arab descent or those living in Arab countries. We aim to promote positive images of Gays and Lesbians in Arab communities worldwide, in addition to combating negative portrayals of Arabs within the Gay and Lesbian community. We also provide a support network for our members while fighting for our human rights wherever they are oppressed. We are part of the global Gay and Lesbian movement seeking an end to injustice and discrimination based on sexual orientation. Mika Blah blah blah. Peddle your perversion elsewhere.
One man’s perversion is another man’s Arabic broomstick handle. — Oh look, the exploding circus is coming to town. One night only. –Brak’s Dad
Response:
Mika Azar, tied to the tracks, said: We are the Gay and Lesbian Arabic Society (GLAS), an international organization established in 1988 in the USA with worldwide chapters. We serve as a networking organization for Gays and Lesbians of Arab descent or those living in Arab countries. We aim to promote positive images of Gays and Lesbians in Arab communities worldwide, in addition to combating negative portrayals of Arabs within the Gay and Lesbian community. We also provide a support network for our members while fighting for our human rights wherever they are oppressed. We are part of the global Gay and Lesbian movement seeking an end to injustice and discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Nonsense. You’re a troll is what you are.
Response:
Question:
Has anyone read GOD’S POLITICS: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It( http://www.faithfulreader.com/reviews/0060558288-excerpt.asp ). I’d be interested to know what they thought. Thanks for the link. I just read the review which suggests I think that religion has been hijacked by the Right to serve its own interests.
It has been hijacked by many people. Some of the stuff from the "Right" makes you want to cringe. Televangelists? Yuk, where can I hide. I wonder what I do that is cringeworthy…. To me the most important commandments are to love God (whatever/whoever you consider God to be) and love your neighbour.
Very Jesus-like of you (see Matthew 22.37-40) 
. It sounds like you and he might well get on if you spend a bit of time together. This should mean working out what is really best for people rather than trying to intimidate them with dogma.
I know some people are into intimidating other people, but it probably isn’t done on purpose most of the time. Whichever is the case, I’d agree with you. Wouldn’t want to argue with "this should mean working out what is really best for people". But this would be very similar to secular humanism. So perhaps the apparently "less religious" societies are actually doing a better job of following the teachings of Jesus.
Sometimes yes. Peter
Well, we seem to be pretty much in agreement… Alan
Response:
Ahmadinejad blasts US in UN speech Thursday 15 September 2005, 0:42 Makka Time, 21:42 GMT Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has condemned the United States as a country of unilateralism, militarism and privilege and called for the United Nations to promote spirituality.
Shocking. This is so out of character for the Iranian regime to say …
Response:
Has anyone read GOD’S POLITICS: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It( http://www.faithfulreader.com/reviews/0060558288-excerpt.asp ). I’d be interested to know what they thought.
Thanks for the link. I just read the review which suggests I think that religion has been hijacked by the Right to serve its own interests. To me the most important commandments are to love God (whatever/whoever you consider God to be) and love your neighbour. This should mean working out what is really best for people rather than trying to intimidate them with dogma. But this would be very similar to secular humanism. So perhaps the apparently "less religious" societies are actually doing a better job of following the teachings of Jesus. Peter
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Should we worry about the decline of religion? The following article may allay such fears. Regards, Peter The Times, Britain September 27, 2005 Societies worse off ‘when they have God on their side’ By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today. According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems. The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society. It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality. Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its "spiritual capital". But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills. The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: "Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world. "In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies. "The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so." Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions. He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy. The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from " uniquely high" adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested. Mr Paul said: "The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America." He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added. Mr Paul delayed releasing the study until now because of Hurricane Katrina. He said that the evidence accumulated by a number of different studies suggested that religion might actually contribute to social ills. "I suspect that Europeans are increasingly repelled by the poor societal performance of the Christian states," he added. He said that most Western nations would become more religious only if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence of God scientifically proven. Likewise, the theory of evolution would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there was a marked decline in religious belief, Mr Paul said. "The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. "The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted."
Has anyone read GOD’S POLITICS: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It( http://www.faithfulreader.com/reviews/0060558288-excerpt.asp ). I’d be interested to know what they thought. Alan
Response:
Should we worry about the decline of religion? The following article may allay such fears. Regards, Peter The Times, Britain September 27, 2005 Societies worse off ‘when they have God on their side’ By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today. According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems. The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society. It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality. Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – UN Bans Terror Incitement as World Summit Opens UNITED NATIONS, September 14, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – The UN Security Council on Wednesday, September 14, unanimously passed a British-drafted resolution ordering a worldwide ban on incitement to terrorism, as the UN World Summit kicked off. The 191 UN member-states adopted Resolution 1624 to "prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts" and to "deny safe haven" to anyone even suspected of incitement, Agence France Presse (AFP) said. The unanimously-adopted resolution dovetails with an anti-terror legislation introduced by British Prime Minister Tony Blair outlawing incitement to terrorism in Britain . Following the July 7 London attacks, Britain issued guidelines of "unacceptable behavior" under which it can deport and ban Muslim scholars accused of fomenting, justifying and glorifying acts of terror and violence. "Terrorists have their strategy, but we have ours, and we should use it to defeat them," Blair told the Security Council, the UN’s 15-nation core decision-making body. He stressed that terrorism "will not be defeated until our determination is as complete as theirs, our defense of freedom as absolute as their fanaticism, until our passion for the democratic way is as great as their passion for tyranny." The resolution also calls for efforts "to prevent the subversion of educational, cultural and religious institutions by terrorists and their supporters," in a veiled reference to Islamic religious schools or madrassahs. Pakistani Ambassador to the United Nations Munir Akram rejected in July British accusations that its madrassahs were to blame for brainwashing London bombers, saying the British government should look at its own problems and understand the root causes of terrorism. But his country has placed the seminaries under the microscope after intense British-led international pressure. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf decided in August to expel foreign students from the madrassahs and ordered government registration of all of the religious, a decision dismissed by Muslim leaders as "discriminatory." Continued http://islamonline.net/English/News/2005-09/14/article07.shtml
Very interesting articl
Response:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8496.doc.htm The full text of the resolution reads, as follows: "The Security Council, "Reaffirming its resolutions 1267 (1999) of 15 October 1999, 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001, 1535 (2004) of 26 March 2004, 1540 (2004) of 28 April 2004, 1566 (2004) of 8 October 2004, and 1617 (2005) of 29 July 2005, the declaration annexed to its resolution 1456 (2003) of 20 January 2003, as well as its other resolutions concerning threats to international peace and security caused by acts of terrorism, "Reaffirming also the imperative to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and also stressing that States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights law, refugee law, and humanitarian law, "Condemning in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation, whenever and by whomsoever committed, as one of the most serious threats to peace and security, and reaffirming the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security under the Charter of the United Nations, "Condemning also in the strongest terms the incitement of terrorist acts and repudiating attempts at the justification or glorification (apologie) of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts, "Deeply concerned that incitement of terrorist acts motivated by extremism and intolerance poses a serious and growing danger to the enjoyment of human rights, threatens the social and economic development of all States, undermines global stability and prosperity, and must be addressed urgently and proactively by the United Nations and all States, and emphasizing the need to take all necessary and appropriate measures in accordance with international law at the national and international level to protect the right to life, "Recalling the right to freedom of expression reflected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 ("the Universal Declaration"), and recalling also the right to freedom of expression in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1966 ("ICCPR") and that any restrictions thereon shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary on the grounds set out in paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the ICCPR, "Recalling in addition the right to seek and enjoy asylum reflected in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration and the non-refoulement obligation of States under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees adopted on 28 July 1951, together with its Protocol adopted on 31 January 1967 ("the Refugees Convention and its Protocol"), and also recalling that the protections afforded by the Refugees Convention and its Protocol shall not extend to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, "Reaffirming that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, "Deeply concerned by the increasing number of victims, especially among civilians of diverse nationalities and beliefs, caused by terrorism motivated by intolerance or extremism in various regions of the world, reaffirming its profound solidarity with the victims of terrorism and their families, and stressing the importance of assisting victims of terrorism and providing them and their families with support to cope with their loss and grief, "Recognizing the essential role of the United Nations in the global effort to combat terrorism and welcoming the Secretary-General’s identification of elements of a counter-terrorism strategy to be considered and developed by the General Assembly without delay with a view to adopting and implementing a strategy to promote comprehensive, coordinated and consistent responses at the national, regional and international level to counter terrorism, "Stressing its call upon all States to become party, as a matter of urgency, to the international counter-terrorism Conventions and Protocols whether or not they are party to regional Conventions on the matter, and to give priority consideration to signing the International Convention for the Suppression of Nuclear Terrorism adopted by the General Assembly on 13 April 2005, "Re-emphasizing that continuing international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among civilizations, in an effort to prevent the indiscriminate targeting of different religions and cultures, and addressing unresolved regional conflicts and the full range of global issues, including development issues, will contribute to strengthening the international fight against terrorism, "Stressing the importance of the role of the media, civil and religious society, the business community and educational institutions in those efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding, and in promoting tolerance and coexistence, and in fostering an environment which is not conducive to incitement of terrorism, "Recognizing the importance that, in an increasingly globalized world, States act cooperatively to prevent terrorists from exploiting sophisticated technology, communications and resources to incite support for criminal acts, "Recalling that all States must cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism, in accordance with their obligations under international law, in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice, on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or commission of terrorist acts or provides safe havens, "1. Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to: (a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts; (b) Prevent such conduct; (c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct; "2. Calls upon all States to cooperate, inter alia, to strengthen the security of their international borders, including by combating fraudulent travel documents and, to the extent attainable, by enhancing terrorist screening and passenger security procedures with a view to preventing those guilty of the conduct in paragraph 1 (a) from entering their territory; "3. Calls upon all States to continue international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among civilizations, in an effort to prevent the indiscriminate targeting of different religions and cultures, and to take all measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to counter incitement of terrorist acts motivated by extremism and intolerance and to prevent the subversion of educational, cultural, and religious institutions by terrorists and their supporters; "4. Stresses that States must ensure that any measures taken to implement paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this resolution comply with all of their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights law, refugee law, and humanitarian law; "5. Calls upon all States to report to the Counter-Terrorism Committee, as part of their ongoing dialogue, on the steps they have taken to implement this resolution; "6. Directs the Counter-Terrorism Committee to: (a) Include in its dialogue with Member States their efforts to implement this resolution; (b) Work with Member States to help build capacity, including through spreading best legal practice and promoting exchange of information in this regard; (c) Report back to the Council in twelve months on the implementation of this resolution. "7. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – UN Bans Terror Incitement as World Summit Opens UNITED NATIONS, September 14, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – The UN Security Council on Wednesday, September 14, unanimously passed a British-drafted resolution ordering a worldwide ban on incitement to terrorism, as the UN World Summit kicked off. The 191 UN member-states adopted Resolution 1624 to "prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts" and to "deny safe haven" to anyone even suspected of incitement, Agence France Presse (AFP) said. The unanimously-adopted resolution dovetails with an anti-terror legislation introduced by British Prime Minister Tony Blair outlawing incitement to terrorism in Britain . Following the July 7 London attacks, Britain issued guidelines of "unacceptable behavior" under which it can deport and ban Muslim scholars accused of fomenting, justifying and glorifying acts of terror and violence. "Terrorists have their strategy, but we have ours, and we should use it to defeat them," Blair told the Security Council, the UN’s 15-nation core decision-making body. He stressed that terrorism "will not be defeated until our determination is as complete as theirs, our defense of freedom as absolute as their fanaticism, until our passion for the democratic way is as great as their passion for tyranny." The resolution also calls for efforts "to prevent the subversion of educational, cultural and religious institutions by terrorists and their supporters," in a veiled reference to Islamic religious schools or
… read more »
Response:
UN Bans Terror Incitement as World Summit Opens UNITED NATIONS, September 14, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – The UN Security Council on Wednesday, September 14, unanimously passed a British-drafted resolution ordering a worldwide ban on incitement to terrorism, as the UN World Summit kicked off. The 191 UN member-states adopted Resolution 1624 to "prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts" and to "deny safe haven" to anyone even suspected of incitement, Agence France Presse (AFP) said. The unanimously-adopted resolution dovetails with an anti-terror legislation introduced by British Prime Minister Tony Blair outlawing incitement to terrorism in Britain . Following the July 7 London attacks, Britain issued guidelines of "unacceptable behavior" under which it can deport and ban Muslim scholars accused of fomenting, justifying and glorifying acts of terror and violence. "Terrorists have their strategy, but we have ours, and we should use it to defeat them," Blair told the Security Council, the UN’s 15-nation core decision-making body. He stressed that terrorism "will not be defeated until our determination is as complete as theirs, our defense of freedom as absolute as their fanaticism, until our passion for the democratic way is as great as their passion for tyranny." The resolution also calls for efforts "to prevent the subversion of educational, cultural and religious institutions by terrorists and their supporters," in a veiled reference to Islamic religious schools or madrassahs. Pakistani Ambassador to the United Nations Munir Akram rejected in July British accusations that its madrassahs were to blame for brainwashing London bombers, saying the British government should look at its own problems and understand the root causes of terrorism. But his country has placed the seminaries under the microscope after intense British-led international pressure. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf decided in August to expel foreign students from the madrassahs and ordered government registration of all of the religious, a decision dismissed by Muslim leaders as "discriminatory." Continued http://islamonline.net/English/News/2005-09/14/article07.shtml
Response:
Question:
Bangladesh Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Moudud Ahmed yesterday said public opinion should be created worldwide to stand up against western intolerance of Hijab, Islamic headscarf, veil.
The irony of the issue is that Bangladesh is headed by a woman Prime Minister. And you all could never stand how slaves accepts their conditions and live.
Response:
Bangladesh Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Moudud Ahmed yesterday said public opinion should be created worldwide to stand up against western intolerance of Hijab, Islamic headscarf, veil.
Its somewhat misleading to focus "western" intolerance of Hijab. Hijab is also banned in Turkey, which is a Muslim country. It seems there are good reasons for banning it. http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-06/29/article05.shtml EU Rights Court Backs Turkey’s Hijab Ban STRASBOURG, June 29 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – The European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday, June29 , rejected a case lodged by a Turkish student who had been prevented from studying at a Turkish university for insisting to wear hijab. Ruling on a case brought by Leyla Sahin, a medical student who was blocked from sitting admission exams at Istanbul University in 1998 and later denied permission to enroll in the faculty, the court ruled that Turkey had not violated her rights, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP). The court, which sits in the eastern French city of Strasbourg, claimed the ban on wearing hijab was based on principles of equality and secularity. It argued that the impact that an individual wearing hijab could have on those who chose not to wear one had to be taken into consideration.
Question:
All because this poor child’s family were trying to escape failed ISLAMIC republic, and savage Islam in Iran. Very few Iranians would endure "detention camps", and would have left their country, if it wasn’t for Mullahs , dirty baseejis, and Islam-induced backwardness in Iran – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Iranian Boy Sues Australia for Traumatic Detention SYDNEY, August 29, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – A 10-year-old Iranian boy launched a landmark legal action against the Australian government Monday, August 29, with his lawyers charging he was psychologically scarred after being detained in a razor-wire immigration camp for two years. Through his father, Shayan Mahommad Saeed Badraie is suing the Immigration Department and two detention center operators in a case which could open the way for other detainees to claim compensation, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP). Shayan and his family, who said they were fleeing persecution in Iran, arrived in Australia by boat in March 2000 and were placed in the Woomera immigration detention center in South Australia’s desert for two years. The family, which includes a daughter born in detention in 2000, was granted temporary protection visas in August 2002. These visas have now expired and they are applying for new ones which would allow them to remain in Australia. Traumatic Incidents Shayan’s lawyer Andrew Morrison told the New South Wales Supreme Court the child witnessed traumatic incidents in detention such as a riot, a detainee threatening to stab himself in the chest with a broken mirror, a detainee slashing his wrists and another threatening suicide. Woomera detainees staged violent protests in 2000 and Shayan, who was five at the time, watched officials use tear gas and water cannon against them. As a result of these traumas, the child suffered from anxiety, nightmares, was unable to eat and commonly drew detention center fences, but did not gain adequate medical treatment, Morrison said. In 2001 the boy was hospitalized and later stopped eating, drinking and speaking, the court heard. Gov’t Inaction The lawyer said the government knew for months that Shayan was suffering a psychological illness due his detention "yet nothing was done… to arrange for proper psychiatric treatment and evaluation". The independent Immigration Detention Advisory Group advised then-Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock in 2001 to urgently remove the family into the community for the sake of the child’s health, the court heard. But Morrison told the court that Ruddock declined to intervene. "The word ‘Bucklies’ (sic) appears to be in his handwriting" on a memo, he said. "Buckley’s chance" is an Australian expression meaning no chance at all. Morrison said Shayan’s case was not about Australia’s policy of mandatory detention for asylum-seekers, including children. "It is about the way in which it was carried out and the permanent injury inflicted on a young child by a regime which failed to provide for his medical needs." The defendants "continued to disregard his welfare even after told by competent and independent medical practitioners of the harm being done to him," said the lawyer. Australia is a nation built on migrants but its policy of mandatory detention of illegal immigrants, regarded as among the toughest in the world, has helped conservative Prime Minister John Howard’s government win four straight elections. Australia’s strict policy includes detaining illegal arrivals, illegal workers and people who overstay their visas in razor-wire camps, often for years while their cases are heard. Human rights groups have strongly criticized the detention camps. The Australian government released the last 42 children from detention center in July after an internal revolt against Howard’s tough stance. The government has been embarrassed this year by a string of immigration bungles, including the wrongful detention and deportation of two mentally ill Australian women. http://islamonline.net/English/News/2005-08/29/article03.shtml
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – All because this poor child’s family were trying to escape failed ISLAMIC republic, and savage Islam in Iran. Very few Iranians would endure "detention camps", and would have left their country, if it wasn’t for Mullahs , dirty baseejis, and Islam-induced backwardness in Iran Iranian Boy Sues Australia for Traumatic Detention SYDNEY, August 29, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – A 10-year-old Iranian boy launched a landmark legal action against the Australian government Monday, August 29, with his lawyers charging he was psychologically scarred after being detained in a razor-wire immigration camp for two years. Through his father, Shayan Mahommad Saeed Badraie is suing the Immigration Department and two detention center operators in a case which could open the way for other detainees to claim compensation, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP). Shayan and his family, who said they were fleeing persecution in Iran, arrived in Australia by boat in March 2000 and were placed in the Woomera immigration detention center in South Australia’s desert for two years. The family, which includes a daughter born in detention in 2000, was granted temporary protection visas in August 2002. These visas have now expired and they are applying for new ones which would allow them to remain in Australia. The abuse of "political asylum" is rampant. Western countries should no longer welcome with open arms illegal immigrants who wash up on the shore. Muslims are using this ploy to enter western countries illegally with the intent to forment trouble and abet terrorism.
This is true and I too hope there are more controls and deportations in places like Canada (where the terrorist-supporter Faris Jawad posts from), and EU . I think in US there are enough safeguards now (after 911). However one has to look at this in balance, most (if not all) people leaving Iran are ESCAPING from Muslim savages, they are "Muslim" in name only and many can’t leave Islam (in Iran), because based on Savage Islam they will be punished. These people are NOT terrorist supporters , and if anything very ANTI-Muslim-terror , because they have seen the barbarity, savagery and backwardness that Islam has brought to Iran. I know this because I am one of these people. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – —-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-
Response:
Iranian Boy Sues Australia for Traumatic Detention SYDNEY, August 29, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – A 10-year-old Iranian boy launched a landmark legal action against the Australian government Monday, August 29, with his lawyers charging he was psychologically scarred after being detained in a razor-wire immigration camp for two years. Through his father, Shayan Mahommad Saeed Badraie is suing the Immigration Department and two detention center operators in a case which could open the way for other detainees to claim compensation, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP). Shayan and his family, who said they were fleeing persecution in Iran, arrived in Australia by boat in March 2000 and were placed in the Woomera immigration detention center in South Australia’s desert for two years. The family, which includes a daughter born in detention in 2000, was granted temporary protection visas in August 2002. These visas have now expired and they are applying for new ones which would allow them to remain in Australia. Traumatic Incidents Shayan’s lawyer Andrew Morrison told the New South Wales Supreme Court the child witnessed traumatic incidents in detention such as a riot, a detainee threatening to stab himself in the chest with a broken mirror, a detainee slashing his wrists and another threatening suicide. Woomera detainees staged violent protests in 2000 and Shayan, who was five at the time, watched officials use tear gas and water cannon against them. As a result of these traumas, the child suffered from anxiety, nightmares, was unable to eat and commonly drew detention center fences, but did not gain adequate medical treatment, Morrison said. In 2001 the boy was hospitalized and later stopped eating, drinking and speaking, the court heard. Gov’t Inaction The lawyer said the government knew for months that Shayan was suffering a psychological illness due his detention "yet nothing was done… to arrange for proper psychiatric treatment and evaluation". The independent Immigration Detention Advisory Group advised then-Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock in 2001 to urgently remove the family into the community for the sake of the child’s health, the court heard. But Morrison told the court that Ruddock declined to intervene. "The word ‘Bucklies’ (sic) appears to be in his handwriting" on a memo, he said. "Buckley’s chance" is an Australian expression meaning no chance at all. Morrison said Shayan’s case was not about Australia’s policy of mandatory detention for asylum-seekers, including children. "It is about the way in which it was carried out and the permanent injury inflicted on a young child by a regime which failed to provide for his medical needs." The defendants "continued to disregard his welfare even after told by competent and independent medical practitioners of the harm being done to him," said the lawyer. Australia is a nation built on migrants but its policy of mandatory detention of illegal immigrants, regarded as among the toughest in the world, has helped conservative Prime Minister John Howard’s government win four straight elections. Australia’s strict policy includes detaining illegal arrivals, illegal workers and people who overstay their visas in razor-wire camps, often for years while their cases are heard. Human rights groups have strongly criticized the detention camps. The Australian government released the last 42 children from detention center in July after an internal revolt against Howard’s tough stance. The government has been embarrassed this year by a string of immigration bungles, including the wrongful detention and deportation of two mentally ill Australian women. http://islamonline.net/English/News/2005-08/29/article03.shtml
Response:
Question:
Australians Increasingly Embracing Islam
Only to rid our country of your scumbag cult, your goose.
Response:
Australians Increasingly Embracing Islam SYDNEY, August 28, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – The number of Australians embracing Islam has dramatically increased since the 9/11 attacks, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).
Join our club, we are better than others. Regions, all religions are pathetic. real men do not need imaginary gods – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Once I started researching for myself and making my own decisions in regards to research and reading I come to my own understanding and realize the beauty of Islam," said Omar Boswood, once Catholic Ryan Boswood. Like Boswood more than 15,000 Australians in Queensland have embraced Islam since 9/11, according to the ABC. "I will be honest, but the Bible basically pushed me to Islam because I had so many unanswered questions, and I found the answer in the Qur’an," said Boswood, who embraced Islam last year. There are some 300,000 Muslims in Australia, making up just 1.5 percent of the country’s population of 20 million. 9/11 Shift Boswood, who used in the past to refer to Muslims in bad names, thought of joining the army to take revenge from all Muslims following the 9/11 attacks. "After I watched September 11, I did go to join the army, unfortunately I was asthmatic and so I didn’t get let in, obviously. "But at the time I didn’t really understand Muslims or Islam, and I wasn’t… I had no way of knowing what Islam was about." The terrorist attacks prompted many Australians to seek more information about Islam and Muslims. "It is sad what is happening in the world but the events are allowing us to break those boundaries and jump the obstacles, so we’re getting a greater opportunity to speak to the people about the religion Islam," said Uzair Akbar, a Muslim imam in Queensland. Targeted Despite the rising number of Muslims in Australia, they feel they are being targeted more than ever. Akbar lamented that people tend to generalize in their judgment about Muslims. Following the July 7 terrorist attacks in London, Australia has been contemplating tougher anti-terror legislation. Australian Premier John Howard has defended his government’s right to spy on mosques and Islamic schools under claims of fighting terrorism. Australian Federal Justice Minister Chris Ellison has proposed amending laws to enable security authorities to prosecute imams involved in religious preaching and writing "inciting violence". Australian Muslims have decried anti-terror measures, which include detaining people on terror-related suspicion for up to seven days and questioning them for up to 48 hours without charges. They maintain that security measures create a climate of fear and apprehension among the Muslim minority in the country. Akhbar, however, asserted that Australian Muslims are determined to fight extremism and violence. "We can’t be complacent. We have to look out, we have to be very careful. If we see anyone talking about violence, or backing up the acts of violence, then we will inform the authorities." Australian Muslims are preparing for an all-inclusive meeting to consider a plan of self-policing young Muslims in the country. Hijab Ban In another development, Australian Education Minister Brendon Nelson rebuffed calls to ban hijab in state schools, the ABC reported Sunday, August 28. "As far as the Government is concerned, we defend the rights of all Australian children to be able to go to schools which their parents think best meet the needs of their own children and, in doing so, to wear the symbols of their own religious conviction and affiliation, so long as they are consistent with broader school’s uniform policies," he said. The comments came ahead of a meeting between Nelson and the principals of the Islamic schools about the teaching of Australian values. Federal Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop earlier called for banning hijab in schools. "The headscarf is being used as a sort of iconic item of defiance," Bishop told Channel Seven. "I’m talking about in state schools. If people are in Islamic schools and that’s their uniform, that’s fine. In private life, that’s fine." The hijab ban call was also slammed as extreme and running counter to the Australian values of religious freedom. "These are very extreme statements from Bronwyn Bishop and Sophie Panopoulos and if John Howard has the respect that he espouses for recognizing the difference of religious beliefs and customs in this country then he’d pull these two into line," said Labor education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin. The issue of hijab has recently taken central stage in a number of European countries. France triggered the controversy after adopting a bill banning hijab in state-run schools and public institutions as of March 15, which was branded by the Human Rights Watch (HRW) as "discriminatory". http://islamonline.net/English/News/2005-08/28/article03.shtml
Response:
Australians Increasingly Embracing Islam SYDNEY, August 28, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – The number of Australians embracing Islam has dramatically increased since the 9/11 attacks, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). "Once I started researching for myself and making my own decisions in regards to research and reading I come to my own understanding and realize the beauty of Islam," said Omar Boswood, once Catholic Ryan Boswood.
You posted this same bullshit at least 4 times now over the past 2 years, only the first time it was Omar Boswood the American, and then Omar Boswood the Brit, and then Omar Boswood the Canadian. Now the bastard is in Australia?
Response:
Australians Increasingly Embracing Islam SYDNEY, August 28, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – The number of Australians embracing Islam has dramatically increased since the 9/11 attacks, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). "Once I started researching for myself and making my own decisions in regards to research and reading I come to my own understanding and realize the beauty of Islam," said Omar Boswood, once Catholic Ryan Boswood. Like Boswood more than 15,000 Australians in Queensland have embraced Islam since 9/11, according to the ABC. "I will be honest, but the Bible basically pushed me to Islam because I had so many unanswered questions, and I found the answer in the Qur’an," said Boswood, who embraced Islam last year. There are some 300,000 Muslims in Australia, making up just 1.5 percent of the country’s population of 20 million. 9/11 Shift Boswood, who used in the past to refer to Muslims in bad names, thought of joining the army to take revenge from all Muslims following the 9/11 attacks. "After I watched September 11, I did go to join the army, unfortunately I was asthmatic and so I didn’t get let in, obviously. "But at the time I didn’t really understand Muslims or Islam, and I wasn’t… I had no way of knowing what Islam was about." The terrorist attacks prompted many Australians to seek more information about Islam and Muslims. "It is sad what is happening in the world but the events are allowing us to break those boundaries and jump the obstacles, so we’re getting a greater opportunity to speak to the people about the religion Islam," said Uzair Akbar, a Muslim imam in Queensland. Targeted Despite the rising number of Muslims in Australia, they feel they are being targeted more than ever. Akbar lamented that people tend to generalize in their judgment about Muslims. Following the July 7 terrorist attacks in London, Australia has been contemplating tougher anti-terror legislation. Australian Premier John Howard has defended his government’s right to spy on mosques and Islamic schools under claims of fighting terrorism. Australian Federal Justice Minister Chris Ellison has proposed amending laws to enable security authorities to prosecute imams involved in religious preaching and writing "inciting violence". Australian Muslims have decried anti-terror measures, which include detaining people on terror-related suspicion for up to seven days and questioning them for up to 48 hours without charges. They maintain that security measures create a climate of fear and apprehension among the Muslim minority in the country. Akhbar, however, asserted that Australian Muslims are determined to fight extremism and violence. "We can’t be complacent. We have to look out, we have to be very careful. If we see anyone talking about violence, or backing up the acts of violence, then we will inform the authorities." Australian Muslims are preparing for an all-inclusive meeting to consider a plan of self-policing young Muslims in the country. Hijab Ban In another development, Australian Education Minister Brendon Nelson rebuffed calls to ban hijab in state schools, the ABC reported Sunday, August 28. "As far as the Government is concerned, we defend the rights of all Australian children to be able to go to schools which their parents think best meet the needs of their own children and, in doing so, to wear the symbols of their own religious conviction and affiliation, so long as they are consistent with broader school’s uniform policies," he said. The comments came ahead of a meeting between Nelson and the principals of the Islamic schools about the teaching of Australian values. Federal Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop earlier called for banning hijab in schools. "The headscarf is being used as a sort of iconic item of defiance," Bishop told Channel Seven. "I’m talking about in state schools. If people are in Islamic schools and that’s their uniform, that’s fine. In private life, that’s fine." The hijab ban call was also slammed as extreme and running counter to the Australian values of religious freedom. "These are very extreme statements from Bronwyn Bishop and Sophie Panopoulos and if John Howard has the respect that he espouses for recognizing the difference of religious beliefs and customs in this country then he’d pull these two into line," said Labor education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin. The issue of hijab has recently taken central stage in a number of European countries. France triggered the controversy after adopting a bill banning hijab in state-run schools and public institutions as of March 15, which was branded by the Human Rights Watch (HRW) as "discriminatory". http://islamonline.net/English/News/2005-08/28/article03.shtml
Response:
Question:
It’s getting a bit tiresome seeing one misguided American after another with their cutsie little yellow or red-white-blue ribbons on their outsized SUVs. Yeah, I guess it’s the thing to do; maybe part of that whole soccer-mom culture. Unfortunately, the only thing they demonstrate is that the person behind the wheel is a clueless, easily misguided, nitwit. If foreign invaders landed on our soil, as we have done in Iraq, I would be the first one to take up arms and repel them. (I suppose that would make me an ‘insurgent’ by OUR logic.) This, and other aggressive governments have always done their utmost to make it APPEAR as if committing yourself to kill in feuds on distant shores that have nothing to do with the welfare of the citizenry is somehow patriotic. It is not. Enlisting in the armed forces, in the absence of a real and impending foreign threat, is no different that hiring yourself as a paid assassin . . . the only difference is, you’re not getting paid enough. But let’s take a realistic look at exactly WHO joins up in an all-volunteer army. The first group are those who join (during peacetime) for the benefits: to get an education, or because it seems a reasonable career path. Consider carefully! Realize that you are gambling with your humanity. Once you sign that form, you sign away your right to say: "No, that is an atrocity." You put your abilities, including the ability to kill, at the disposal of proven liars, psychopaths . . . enemies of humanity. Do you think that every German soldier in World War II who helped load Jews into cattle cars was a cold-blooded killer? Most were poor kids, just like you, who got caught up in the patriotic frenzy. Once you’re in, you’re IN. You lose the ability to stop killing until they tell you so. This not only makes you less than human, it makes you less than an animal, for even the animals retain their freedom of self determination. The second group are the simple minded, who fall for patriotic entreaties about defending democracy, Mom, apple pie; in other words, all the traditional government propaganda. Do you think Soviet lads subjugated their neighbors throughout the world because they thought the Soviet Union was an EVIL empire? No, they were fighting for MOM, and whatever passes for apple pie in Russia. Step back and examine the lies your government is handing you, and ask yourself if they have the ring of truth. Do you want to be one of the murderers in uniform who opened up on their fellow citizens at Kent State? When you put on that uniform, you give up all autonomy, and become nothing more than a weapon, to be used for whatever evil purposes the scoundrels in government demand (and, if you look carefully, you will discover that the only interests THEY serve are those of the big businesses that own them.) Finally, you have the hard-core psychopaths. These are the people who WANT to kill. Murder, torture, rape; THESE are the American values upon which THIS group is focused. The cause doesn’t matter, they’re after the thrill that only warfare can provide. Just remember: killing for George W. Bush, or for George H.W. Bush, or for Lyndon B. Johnson, is not the same as defending yourself, your family, your friends, or your country. Don’t be a dupe. Don’t Enlist
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -It’s getting a bit tiresome seeing one misguided American after another with their cutsie little yellow or red-white-blue ribbons on their outsized SUVs. Yeah, I guess it’s the thing to do; maybe part of that whole soccer-mom culture. Unfortunately, the only thing they demonstrate is that the person behind the wheel is a clueless, easily misguided, nitwit. If foreign invaders landed on our soil, as we have done in Iraq, I would be the first one to take up arms and repel them. (I suppose that would make me an ‘insurgent’ by OUR logic.) This, and other aggressive governments have always done their utmost to make it APPEAR as if committing yourself to kill in feuds on distant shores that have nothing to do with the welfare of the citizenry is somehow patriotic. It is not. Enlisting in the armed forces, in the absence of a real and impending foreign threat, is no different that hiring yourself as a paid assassin . . . the only difference is, you’re not getting paid enough. But let’s take a realistic look at exactly WHO joins up in an all-volunteer army. The first group are those who join (during peacetime) for the benefits: to get an education, or because it seems a reasonable career path. Consider carefully! Realize that you are gambling with your humanity. Once you sign that form, you sign away your right to say: "No, that is an atrocity." You put your abilities, including the ability to kill, at the disposal of proven liars, psychopaths . . . enemies of humanity. Do you think that every German soldier in World War II who helped load Jews into cattle cars was a cold-blooded killer? Most were poor kids, just like you, who got caught up in the patriotic frenzy. Once you’re in, you’re IN. You lose the ability to stop killing until they tell you so. This not only makes you less than human, it makes you less than an animal, for even the animals retain their freedom of self determination. The second group are the simple minded, who fall for patriotic entreaties about defending democracy, Mom, apple pie; in other words, all the traditional government propaganda. Do you think Soviet lads subjugated their neighbors throughout the world because they thought the Soviet Union was an EVIL empire? No, they were fighting for MOM, and whatever passes for apple pie in Russia. Step back and examine the lies your government is handing you, and ask yourself if they have the ring of truth. Do you want to be one of the murderers in uniform who opened up on their fellow citizens at Kent State? When you put on that uniform, you give up all autonomy, and become nothing more than a weapon, to be used for whatever evil purposes the scoundrels in government demand (and, if you look carefully, you will discover that the only interests THEY serve are those of the big businesses that own them.) Finally, you have the hard-core psychopaths. These are the people who WANT to kill. Murder, torture, rape; THESE are the American values upon which THIS group is focused. The cause doesn’t matter, they’re after the thrill that only warfare can provide. Just remember: killing for George W. Bush, or for George H.W. Bush, or for Lyndon B. Johnson, is not the same as defending yourself, your family, your friends, or your country. Don’t be a dupe. Don’t Enlist
Great post. Now if only the rest would get it. Ken Wilson Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas, Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, the rest of the Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE) and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/
Response:
I’m not going to enlist but I’ll vote the bums out of office … vote for the next puppet. That will solve it. Two more years. It will be all over. Peace and quiet. A Walmart, Video Busters, Home Depot on every bombed out corner in Iraq. Cell phones, cable TV and smoked pork ribs. Show them the American way. Thank you George. //
Response:
It’s getting a bit tiresome ……
Remaining traitor-loving leftist tripe snipped: Do yourself a favor, asshole, slit your wrists. Your puke has more integrity than you.
Response:
"wb" spewed more midless leftist hurl:
If it was uop to cowards like you they could look forwrd to more decades of Saddam’s killing fields, rape rooms, torture, etc. Let them continue to live under the Taliban’s medieval rule, wher women are killed publicly in soccer stadiums And that’s the way you like it, ain’t it coward? You got your mindless leftist brain-feeders telling you what to think, fuck common sense. Do yourself a favor, be really hip, strap a bomb onto yourself and blow up a bunch of little kids. Think what a hero you’ll be to Howard "The Coward" Dean and his wine & cheeze partying liberal cronies. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thank you George. //
Response:
Fuck you, and them. We’re get no thanks from them, or anyone else. The Iraq are cowards, as is the whole fucking middle east. Let them clean their own shit hole, even after we pissed in it. You just too stupid to understand that both parties are the same .. they all drink the same wine and eat the same cheese and fuck the same whores asshole … at our expense. Your *thoughtful* leadership dragged us a life long war that will see no end in our lifetime or our kids, just so he pay back his oil friends. That is the fucking truth. It’s all bullshit. You know it. Your so brave, send us a video of your car bomb dodging driving skills from some sand dune shit hole.
Response:
courageously avow: It’s getting a bit tiresome …… Remaining traitor-loving leftist tripe snipped: Do yourself a favor, asshole, slit your wrists. Your puke has more integrity than you.
And here you are back again. Us lefties had kind of hoped you’d already taken your own advice there little girl. Ken Wilson Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas, Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, the rest of the Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE) and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/
Response:
It’s getting a bit tiresome …… Remaining traitor-loving leftist tripe snipped: Do yourself a favor, asshole, slit your wrists. Your puke has more integrity than you.
hey it’s Mr. Nice Guy!!! Well listen up…..here’s a note from an ex editor of the National Review. This particular conservative calls this war a welfare check for certain people. You Call This a War? By Joe Sobran Posted on: July 28, 2005 The London terror bombings make one thing clear: the United States and the United Kingdom are never going to win the "war on terrorism." The reason is simple: it isn’t really a war. And nobody can win or lose it. We should stop talking about it as if it were a war. It’s a clash of wills. The enemy is obscure, but can’t be fought or defeated as if he were a state. He has no vital secrets or single mastermind that can be found by, say, taking, questioning, and torturing captives. "He," in fact, is a loose federation, not a centralized power. His numbers aren’t huge, but he has millions of sympathizers who share his hatred of us. He has no ambition to conquer us or destroy our freedoms; such talk is foolish. "Democracy," if that’s what you want to call it, isn’t at stake. The enemy merely wants to harass and shock us until we stop irritating him. And our government has no intention of doing that. It will keep doing what it does, and he will keep retaliating. This will go on indefinitely, since neither side can force the other to do what it wants. What costs can random acts of terrorism against a few civilians impose on the politicians who make the decisions? Don’t such acts in fact reward and encourage them? What incentive could cause President Bush to change his course? Every new terrorist act fortifies his determination not to change. Nothing he does gives the enemy any reason to change, either. He even profits by the stalemate. From his point of view, the Iraq war isn’t futile. For a time it appeared that Prime Minister Tony Blair might suffer political damage for supporting the war. But he survived his last election easily, winning by a larger margin than Bush did last November. Does Bush feel the same frustration most of us feel? Somewhat, probably; but not enough to make him reconsider. He is a patient, stubborn man, but not the sort of creative thinker whose mentality is disturbed when reality doesn’t yield to his will. "What am I doing wrong?" isn’t the kind of question he asks himself. Because he thinks of himself as engaged in war, he is content with old "lessons" of war he learned as a youth. For him this is World War II all over again, and his role is to act like the "heroes" of that war, Roosevelt and Churchill. The same is probably true, more or less, of the enemy. He can wait. If his occasional strikes kill innocent people and cause an uproar, he has his reward; his conscience has long since ceased to bother him. He isn’t trying to "convert" Bush, and he no longer cares, if he ever really did, whether the Western public changes either. Both sides are adapting to a new way of life, in which neither victory nor defeat is a prospect. Each has made its arrangements and alliances; there is no turning back. The rest of us may as well come to terms with it, since, as James Burnham used to say, when there’s no solution, there’s no problem. This is just the way we’re going to live from now on. Expensive "security" measures, most of them useless, will be a permanent feature of our lives and economies, like the huge military budgets of the Cold War. We are still paying hundreds of billions in taxes for weapons systems we never needed; more to the point, we pay most of the money for military salaries and pensions that have become an ineradicable part of modern existence, like a second welfare state. Do you get a regular check from the government? If not, you may be missing the point of the whole thing. Government programs ostensibly begin with the purpose of "protecting" us from something — poverty, old age, deadly enemies, carcinogens in the water and air. But our "protectors" keep on getting paid long after any danger has passed. What starts as a means eventually becomes an end in itself. What we thought was only a specific emergency measure turns out to be a whole way of life. Some very brainy people never catch on to this.
Response:
courageously avow: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s getting a bit tiresome …… Remaining traitor-loving leftist tripe snipped: Do yourself a favor, asshole, slit your wrists. Your puke has more integrity than you. hey it’s Mr. Nice Guy!!! Well listen up…..here’s a note from an ex editor of the National Review. This particular conservative calls this war a welfare check for certain people. You Call This a War? By Joe Sobran Posted on: July 28, 2005 The London terror bombings make one thing clear: the United States and the United Kingdom are never going to win the "war on terrorism." The reason is simple: it isn’t really a war. And nobody can win or lose it. We should stop talking about it as if it were a war. It’s a clash of wills. The enemy is obscure, but can’t be fought or defeated as if he were a state. He has no vital secrets or single mastermind that can be found by, say, taking, questioning, and torturing captives. "He," in fact, is a loose federation, not a centralized power. His numbers aren’t huge, but he has millions of sympathizers who share his hatred of us. He has no ambition to conquer us or destroy our freedoms; such talk is foolish. "Democracy," if that’s what you want to call it, isn’t at stake. The enemy merely wants to harass and shock us until we stop irritating him. And our government has no intention of doing that. It will keep doing what it does, and he will keep retaliating. This will go on indefinitely, since neither side can force the other to do what it wants. What costs can random acts of terrorism against a few civilians impose on the politicians who make the decisions? Don’t such acts in fact reward and encourage them? What incentive could cause President Bush to change his course? Every new terrorist act fortifies his determination not to change. Nothing he does gives the enemy any reason to change, either. He even profits by the stalemate. From his point of view, the Iraq war isn’t futile. For a time it appeared that Prime Minister Tony Blair might suffer political damage for supporting the war. But he survived his last election easily, winning by a larger margin than Bush did last November. Does Bush feel the same frustration most of us feel? Somewhat, probably; but not enough to make him reconsider. He is a patient, stubborn man, but not the sort of creative thinker whose mentality is disturbed when reality doesn’t yield to his will. "What am I doing wrong?" isn’t the kind of question he asks himself. Because he thinks of himself as engaged in war, he is content with old "lessons" of war he learned as a youth. For him this is World War II all over again, and his role is to act like the "heroes" of that war, Roosevelt and Churchill. The same is probably true, more or less, of the enemy. He can wait. If his occasional strikes kill innocent people and cause an uproar, he has his reward; his conscience has long since ceased to bother him. He isn’t trying to "convert" Bush, and he no longer cares, if he ever really did, whether the Western public changes either. Both sides are adapting to a new way of life, in which neither victory nor defeat is a prospect. Each has made its arrangements and alliances; there is no turning back. The rest of us may as well come to terms with it, since, as James Burnham used to say, when there’s no solution, there’s no problem. This is just the way we’re going to live from now on. Expensive "security" measures, most of them useless, will be a permanent feature of our lives and economies, like the huge military budgets of the Cold War. We are still paying hundreds of billions in taxes for weapons systems we never needed; more to the point, we pay most of the money for military salaries and pensions that have become an ineradicable part of modern existence, like a second welfare state. Do you get a regular check from the government? If not, you may be missing the point of the whole thing. Government programs ostensibly begin with the purpose of "protecting" us from something — poverty, old age, deadly enemies, carcinogens in the water and air. But our "protectors" keep on getting paid long after any danger has passed. What starts as a means eventually becomes an end in itself. What we thought was only a specific emergency measure turns out to be a whole way of life. Some very brainy people never catch on to this.
That and the fact that by the end of his term all his friends will be rich, the Saudi royal family will be satisfied that GW did good and reward him accordingly, if this isn’t already his payback for a previous debt owed, and last but not least, it will some other poor sap’s problem, bwahahahahahah. Ken Wilson Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas, Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, the rest of the Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE) and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "wb" spewed more midless leftist hurl: If it was uop to cowards like you they could look forwrd to more decades of Saddam’s killing fields, rape rooms, torture, etc. Let them continue to live under the Taliban’s medieval rule, wher women are killed publicly in soccer stadiums And that’s the way you like it, ain’t it coward? You got your mindless leftist brain-feeders telling you what to think, fuck common sense. Do yourself a favor, be really hip, strap a bomb onto yourself and blow up a bunch of little kids. Think what a hero you’ll be to Howard "The Coward" Dean and his wine & cheeze partying liberal cronies. Thank you George. //
Hi, Big mouth from pea size brain! The smaller the size of brain the bigger the mouth is. You’re a perfect example. Tony
Response:
I get tired of the same old bullshit and lies being told over and over again here. This place has turned into FOX news …. If men want to blow up little girls with bombs, let them. It’s their shithole. I could care less. We should pull out and let the Middle East cowards clean up that brown spot and risk their useless lives.
Response:
It’s getting a bit tiresome seeing one misguided American after another with their cutsie little yellow or red-white-blue ribbons on their outsized SUVs.
I think the first sentence summed it up well but maybe not clearly enough for some: "It’s getting a bit tiresome seeing one misguided American after another with their cutsie little yellow or red-white-blue ribbons on their outsized, GAS-GUZZLING SUVs." Irony in motion (literally).
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s getting a bit tiresome seeing one misguided American after another with their cutsie little yellow or red-white-blue ribbons on their outsized SUVs. I think the first sentence summed it up well but maybe not clearly enough for some: "It’s getting a bit tiresome seeing one misguided American after another with their cutsie little yellow or red-white-blue ribbons on their outsized, GAS-GUZZLING SUVs." Irony in motion (literally).
Even better, "It’s getting a bit tiresome seeing one misguided American after another with their cutsie "Another Asshole for Peace at Any Price", or "Bring our troops home now, even if it means millions will be slaughtererd (what do I care, I’m a commie)", and other left wing bullshiit stickers holdinmg together their clapped out, emissions spewing VW vans, ratty Japanese death traps & other typical left wing rolling piles of junk. I have a better bumper sticker for all your left wing douche-bag Amerika hating cowards: "Treason is Patriotic". Kinda says it allabout you traitoruos slime, doesn’t it? little yellow or red-white-blue ribbons on – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – their outsized, GAS-GUZZLING SUVs."
Response:
"wb" spewed more midless leftist hurl: If it was uop to cowards like you
LOL!! Coming from someone posting under an alias, no less! How about sharing *your* military history, along with your name so it can be verified? Never mind, we already know that you’re one of those pussy chickenhawks, you know the ones who are OK with other people fighting in wars, as long as YOU don’t have to : ) cheers… HJA
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "wb" spewed more midless leftist hurl: If it was uop to cowards like you LOL!! Coming from someone posting under an alias, no less! How about sharing *your* military history, along with your name so it can be verified? Never mind, we already know that you’re one of those pussy chickenhawks, you know the ones who are OK with other people fighting in wars, as long as YOU don’t have to : ) cheers… HJA
You wouldn’t be referring to a fat ass tube salesman from Denver and his merry band of sycophants now would you. That would be, uh, un-American. ;-) Ken Wilson Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas, Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, the rest of the Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE) and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/
Response:
It’s getting a bit tiresome seeing one misguided American after another with their cutsie little yellow or red-white-blue ribbons on their outsized SUVs. I think the first sentence summed it up well but maybe not clearly enough for some: "It’s getting a bit tiresome seeing one misguided American after another with their cutsie little yellow or red-white-blue ribbons on their outsized, GAS-GUZZLING SUVs." Irony in motion (literally).
Just want to clear up one thing… I respect anyone who signs up and knows they even *might* have to put their life on the line in the interest of protecting my life and way of life. Whether I agree with what is going on in Iraq in regards to why that soldier signed up isn’t really the point I was trying to make. My opinion of why the US is in Iraq is simply that we are there for oil and the smoke screens of human rights and terrorism are just bullshit to shift attention away from the real reason our troops are there. If the US invaded Iraq in the interest of human rights, why hasn’t it also invaded the many other countries with just as horrible and worse situations? "No prize at the end" is my guess. That said, I find it ironic that those driving around in Chevy Suburbans and Hummers have the ribbon magnets on the backs of their trucks; not that the vehicle you drive determines how patriotic you are, but that if you are interested in shifting power away from oil-rich nations, you could make a bigger difference by driving something that doesn’t burn as much gas and sticking it to those countries directly by not buying as much of their products (petroleum products).
Response:
–snip– ratty Japanese death traps & other typical left wing rolling piles of junk.
The most trouble-free, economical car I ever owned was a Toyota. (this is compared to Fords,Chevys, Dodges, and other non-snob cars) The Repair Guy http://repairguy1993.netfirms.com/
Response:
–snip– ratty Japanese death traps & other typical left wing rolling piles of junk. The most trouble-free, economical car I ever owned was a Toyota. (this is compared to Fords,Chevys, Dodges, and other non-snob cars) The Repair Guy http://repairguy1993.netfirms.com/
I don’t supposed he’s ever looked under the hood of a Ford and noted the origin of it’s parts. This article is way to complicated for SoK66 but he might enjoy the pretty flow charts. He should pay attention to the last paragraph. That means that American car manufacturers use more third world labor than Japanese or European automobile manufacturers. http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol5/number3/krempel/ Starting from the public concern over the potentially negative consequences of the globalization of international economic activity for the industrialized countries, we have tried to identify the degree to which we can find an internationalization of markets and international production chain in the automobile industry. Our reconstruction of the world economy on the basis of data for the international trade in passenger cars has revealed two local clusters, which have remained fairly stable in their overall structure between 1980 and 1994. In both clusters we have identified new producer countries, which are positioned at the periphery of the local clusters. The volumes that these new countries contribute to the total trade are relatively small. We discern mainly trade in finished products (cars) between both clusters, whereas trade in car components occurs mainly inside each cluster or with the periphery of the total system. Significant indicators for an apparent increase in an international division of labor for the period between 1980 and 1994 are found for the North American-Japanese cluster only. A consistent and strongly complementary pattern exists for the US trade relations: both Canada and Mexico receive a very high proportion of US component shipments and export mainly complete cars (back) into the US. In the European cluster we find such patterns only to a much smaller extent. The American pattern exists only between France and Spain: France exports components and imports finished cars from Spain. For Germany, Austria, and England we find a second type of international organization. Here Austria and the UK export components to Germany, whereas Germany tends to ship complete cars only. The amount of change we have found for the international automobile industry is far less then was expected based on the literature on the globalization of the world economy. We cannot positively identify the existence of a global trend for the automobile industry, by which parts of the domestic production are transferred to countries with low wages. The only country in our study for which the data point in such a direction is the USA. The American car manufacturers use the instrument of low-wage assembly to a much higher degree than their European or Japanese counterparts. Clearly, the comparison of the US and European situations points to deficits in the literature on globalization, especially since the labor costs in Europe are much higher than in North America, which would suggest that European producers are under greater pressure to relocate their industries. Our attempts to explain this shortcoming by reference to political interventions and subsidies remains a mere hypothesis that has yet to be subjected to a rigorous test. Page 497 Journal of World-Systems Research
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "wb" spewed more midless leftist hurl: If it was uop to cowards like you LOL!! Coming from someone posting under an alias, no less! How about sharing *your* military history, along with your name so it can be verified? Never mind, we already know that you’re one of those pussy chickenhawks, you know the ones who are OK with other people fighting in wars, as long as YOU don’t have to : ) cheers… HJA
Kiss my ass, loser. I lost my left leg in ‘69 fighting the NVA & VC. The only thing you’ve ever done is whine, once you spit out mommy’s tit. (BTW, when was that? When you were 21?)
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "wb" spewed more midless leftist hurl: If it was uop to cowards like you LOL!! Coming from someone posting under an alias, no less! How about sharing *your* military history, along with your name so it can be verified? Never mind, we already know that you’re one of those pussy chickenhawks, you know the ones who are OK with other people fighting in wars, as long as YOU don’t have to : ) cheers… HJA Kiss my ass, loser. I lost my left leg in ‘69 fighting the NVA & VC. The only thing you’ve ever done is whine, once you spit out mommy’s tit. (BTW, when was that? When you were 21?)
Normally I woul NEVER cut and paste this but "I’m weary of even having to express sympathy… we all lose things"
Response:
It’s getting a bit tiresome …… Remaining traitor-loving leftist tripe snipped: Do yourself a favor, asshole, slit your wrists. Your puke has more integrity than you.
This is toooo funny. I am sorry about your leg, truly…no one deserves to be hurt in a war…. but I am not sorry that you called Rush Limbaugh’s quote of the day "traiter loving leftist tripe."
Response:
courageously avow: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "wb" spewed more midless leftist hurl: If it was uop to cowards like you LOL!! Coming from someone posting under an alias, no less! How about sharing *your* military history, along with your name so it can be verified? Never mind, we already know that you’re one of those pussy chickenhawks, you know the ones who are OK with other people fighting in wars, as long as YOU don’t have to : ) cheers… HJA Kiss my ass, loser. I lost my left leg in ‘69 fighting the NVA & VC. The only thing you’ve ever done is whine, once you spit out mommy’s tit. (BTW, when was that? When you were 21?)
We must assume that your brain was in the vicinity of your left kneecap at the time then. Ken Wilson Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas, Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, the rest of the Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE) and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/
Response:
It’s getting a bit tiresome …… Remaining traitor-loving leftist tripe snipped: Do yourself a favor, asshole, slit your wrists. Your puke has more integrity than you.
It’s patheically funny seeing you call Limbaugh’s quote of the day "traitor loving leftists tripe."
Response:
: I’m not going to enlist but : I’ll vote the bums out of : office … vote for the next puppet. That will solve it. : Two more years. It will be all over. Peace and quiet. A Walmart, Video : Busters, Home Depot on every bombed out corner in Iraq. ah, now I see the real reason for ’smart bombs’ ;-) : Cell phones, : cable TV and smoked pork ribs. Show them the American way. : : Thank you George. : // The American way pretty much speeaks for itself. Even without forcing it upon them, the youth of Iran are beginning to emulate democracy simply by learning about it on the WEB. All we ever had to do in that regard is simply tighten up our homeland security and play the waiting game. Dying to "bring democracy" to the middle east is so unecessary, and possibly even detrimental to the cause.
Response:
did courageously avow: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : I’m not going to enlist but : I’ll vote the bums out of : office … vote for the next puppet. That will solve it. : Two more years. It will be all over. Peace and quiet. A Walmart, Video : Busters, Home Depot on every bombed out corner in Iraq. ah, now I see the real reason for ’smart bombs’ ;-) : Cell phones, : cable TV and smoked pork ribs. Show them the American way. : : Thank you George. : // The American way pretty much speeaks for itself. Even without forcing it upon them, the youth of Iran are beginning to emulate democracy simply by learning about it on the WEB. All we ever had to do in that regard is simply tighten up our homeland security and play the waiting game. Dying to "bring democracy" to the middle east is so unecessary, and possibly even detrimental to the cause.
Are you sure your only and ‘alleged’ liberal? ;-) Next thing you’ll be preaching evolution. Ken Wilson Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas, Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, the rest of the Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE) and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/
Response:
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Obligation of a Muslim Towards a Disbeliever A Muslim has many obligations towards a non-Muslim. First, he must call them to the path of Allah (SWT). This is to preach to them and to make clear to them the reality of Islam, according to his ability and if he has the knowledge to do so. This is the greatest and best good deed that one could do toward his fellow citizen and for those who live together with Jews, Christians and other disbelievers. On this point, the Prophet (SAWS) said, "The one who guides to good gets the same reward as the one who performs it." (Muslim) The Prophet (SAWS) also told Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), when he was sending him to Khaibar to encounter the Jews, to invite the Jews to Islam. He told him, "By Allah, if Allah guides a person by you, it is better for you than the best of camels." (Bukhari, Muslim) The Prophet (SAWS) also said, "Whoever calls to guidance will have a reward similar to the reward of the one who follows him, without the reward of either of them being lessened at all." (Muslim, Ahmad, Abu Dawud, an-Nasa’i, at-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah) Calling them to Islam, preaching Islam to them and advising them concerning that is one of the most important deeds and is one of the best ways to get closer to Allah (SWT). Second, (the Muslim) may not wrong the other person with respect to his life, wealth or honor, if the non-Muslim is a citizen of the Islamic state or has attained other protection. He must fulfill the other’s rights. He may not wrong him with respect to his wealth by stealing from him, deceiving him or cheating him. He cannot harm him in his body by beating or killing him. His protection from the state guarantees his safety from such things. Third, there is no prohibition concerning buying, selling, renting or other such business transactions with them. It has been authentically reported that the Prophet (SAWS) bought things from the polytheistic disbelievers. He also purchased items from Jews. In fact, when the Prophet (SAWS) died, his shield was being held as collateral with a Jewish person in exchange for food for his family. Fourth, one should not give them the greetings of peace first. However, one responds to their greetings. The Prophet (SAWS) said, "Do not give the greetings of peace first to the Jew or Christian." (Muslim) He also said, "If the people of the book give you the greeting of peace, then say, ‘Wa Alaikum (and upon you)."’ (Bukhari) Therefore, a Muslim does not greet a non-Muslim first. But when a Jew, Christian or other disbeliever greets him, he replies, "And upon you also," as the Prophet (SAWS) has ordered. This is from the rights of conduct between a Muslim and a disbeliever. He also must be neighborly toward his non-Muslim neighbor. If your neighbor is good to you, you do not harm him and you may even give him charity if he is poor or give him a gift if he is rich. You may also advise him concerning what is good for him. All of this may lead him to want to learn about Islam and become a Muslim and because neighbors have very great rights. The Prophet (SAWS) said, "The Angel Gabriel kept advising me concerning the neighbor until I thought he was going to inherit (from his neighbor)." (Bukhari, Muslim) Allah (SWT) also says in the Qur’an, "Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and drove you not from your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity" (Holy Qur’an, 60:7). It is recorded in an authentic hadith from Asma bint Abu Bakr that her mother, who was a polytheist, visited her and asked for her assistance – this was during the time of the peace treaty between the Prophet (SAWS) and the disbelievers so she went to the Prophet (SAWS) to ask him about that and he told her to keep the ties of kinship and be righteous towards her. Fifth, a Muslim should not participate with them in their greetings and festivals. However, one may give them condolences upon the death of someone if he finds some legal benefit in doing so. He may say to them, "May future bring good to you," or something of that nature. He may not say, "May Allah forgive him," or, "May Allah have mercy on him," if the person who died was a disbeliever (see Qur’an 9:113). That is, one may not make prayers for a dead disbeliever although one may ask for guidance for those who are alive and so forth. http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/archive/article.php?lang=E&id=38238
If this doesn’t say it all..nothing does Islam will replace collapsing Amerikan empire Warning there are anti-Islam forgers and trolls amongst us, proceed with caution
Response:
Obligation of a Muslim Towards a Disbeliever A Muslim has many obligations towards a non-Muslim. First, he must call them to the path of Allah (SWT). This is to preach to them and to make clear to them the reality of Islam, according to his ability and if he has the knowledge to do so.
Evangelism – the attempt to convert others to a specific superstition. This is the greatest and best good deed that one could do toward his fellow citizen and for those who live together with Jews, Christians and other disbelievers.
The best you or any believer in superstition can do is to prove the existence of your (or any) god. THAT would be significant! On this point, the Prophet (SAWS) said, "The one who guides to good gets the same reward as the one who performs it." (Muslim) The Prophet (SAWS) also told Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), when he was sending him to Khaibar to encounter the Jews, to invite the Jews to Islam. He told him, "By Allah, if Allah guides a person by you, it is better for you than the best of camels." (Bukhari, Muslim)
The Jews believe in superstition, too. You have competing superstitions, and the world still suffers from ancient stupidity. The Prophet (SAWS) also said, "Whoever calls to guidance will have a reward similar to the reward of the one who follows him, without the reward of either of them being lessened at all." (Muslim, Ahmad, Abu Dawud, an-Nasa’i, at-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah)
Why would the all powerful need a prophet? Prophets were like the con men of today. They knew they could fool people into thinking they were important. But earlier in a post, you said "it’s easy to become a Muslim because there are no ‘go-betweens’ between the worshiper and god." This means, no need for a prophet. You contradict your own crap. Calling them to Islam, preaching Islam to them and advising them concerning that is one of the most important deeds and is one of the best ways to get closer to Allah (SWT).
If Allah exists, why would He need YOU to call anyone to HIM? Is He not familiar with the language? Second, (the Muslim) may not wrong the other person with respect to his life, wealth or honor, if the non-Muslim is a citizen of the Islamic state or has attained other protection. He must fulfill the other’s rights. He may not wrong him with respect to his wealth by stealing from him, deceiving him or cheating him. He cannot harm him in his body by beating or killing him. His protection from the state guarantees his safety from such things.
Sounds like common decency. We call that HUMAN rights, regardless of citizenship, race, religion, origins, creed, status, etc.. It’s called treating another as a human being. Secular humanism. Third, there is no prohibition concerning buying, selling, renting or other such business transactions with them. It has been authentically reported that the Prophet (SAWS) bought things from the polytheistic disbelievers.
Funny how money talks louder than one’s religion, eh? Even for a prophet. Ha ha. Reality seems to be the greater religion. It works that way in America too. He also purchased items from Jews. In fact, when the Prophet (SAWS) died, his shield was being held as collateral with a Jewish person in exchange for food for his family.
Keeping it real, eh. Fourth, one should not give them the greetings of peace first. However, one responds to their greetings. The Prophet (SAWS) said, "Do not give the greetings of peace first to the Jew or Christian." (Muslim)
Yea, why start things off peacefully, when you can NOT. He also said, "If the people of the book give you the greeting of peace, then say, ‘Wa Alaikum (and upon you)."’ (Bukhari) Therefore, a Muslim does not greet a non-Muslim first. But when a Jew, Christian or other disbeliever greets him, he replies, "And upon you also," as the Prophet (SAWS) has ordered. This is from the rights of conduct between a Muslim and a disbeliever.
You forgot the secret handshake. It all fosters the illusion that one is "better" than someone else. Same for the Jews; same for the Christians, and so forth. But at the moment of death we are all equal, and REALITY DOESN’T GIVE A SHIT WHAT ANYBODY BELIEVES. He also must be neighborly toward his non-Muslim neighbor. If your neighbor is good to you, you do not harm him and you may even give him charity if he is poor or give him a gift if he is rich.
It’s called the Golden Rule; do unto others as you would have others do unto you. This isn’t divine knowledge, it’s secular humanism. You may also advise him concerning what is good for him. All of this may lead him to want to learn about Islam and become a Muslim and because neighbors have very great rights.
And if he wants you to become a Christian or a Jew? The Prophet (SAWS) said, "The Angel Gabriel kept advising me concerning the neighbor until I thought he was going to inherit (from his neighbor)." (Bukhari, Muslim) Allah (SWT) also says in the Qur’an, "Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and drove you not from your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity" (Holy Qur’an, 60:7).
Does He love those who kill unjustly? It is recorded in an authentic hadith from Asma bint Abu Bakr that her mother, who was a polytheist, visited her and asked for her assistance – this was during the time of the peace treaty between the Prophet (SAWS) and the disbelievers so she went to the Prophet (SAWS) to ask him about that and he told her to keep the ties of kinship and be righteous towards her.
She got to keep her head, eh. Moses would have stoned her to death. Fifth, a Muslim should not participate with them in their greetings and festivals. However, one may give them condolences upon the death of someone if he finds some legal benefit in doing so. He may say to them, "May future bring good to you," or something of that nature. He may not say, "May Allah forgive him," or, "May Allah have mercy on him," if the person who died was a disbeliever (see Qur’an 9:113).
You believe in ONE God? The Christians believe in one God also. They call Him God, or Yaweh. If you both believe in one God, then aren’t you talking about the same God? That is, one may not make prayers for a dead disbeliever although one may ask for guidance for those who are alive and so forth. http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/archive/article.php?lang=E&id=38238
I ask for guidance in ridding the world of ignorance and superstition so the world can become a better, safer place from murderers in the name of God. Amen. AcesLucky "There’s only one true religion, and that’s the Truth."
Response:
Obligation of a Muslim Towards a Disbeliever A Muslim has many obligations towards a non-Muslim. First, he must call them to the path of Allah (SWT). This is to preach to them and to make clear to them the reality of Islam, according to his ability and if he has the knowledge to do so. This is the greatest and best good deed that one could do toward his fellow citizen and for those who live together with Jews, Christians and other disbelievers. On this point, the Prophet (SAWS) said, "The one who guides to good gets the same reward as the one who performs it." (Muslim) The Prophet (SAWS) also told Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), when he was sending him to Khaibar to encounter the Jews, to invite the Jews to Islam. He told him, "By Allah, if Allah guides a person by you, it is better for you than the best of camels." (Bukhari, Muslim) The Prophet (SAWS) also said, "Whoever calls to guidance will have a reward similar to the reward of the one who follows him, without the reward of either of them being lessened at all." (Muslim, Ahmad, Abu Dawud, an-Nasa’i, at-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah) Calling them to Islam, preaching Islam to them and advising them concerning that is one of the most important deeds and is one of the best ways to get closer to Allah (SWT). Second, (the Muslim) may not wrong the other person with respect to his life, wealth or honor, if the non-Muslim is a citizen of the Islamic state or has attained other protection. He must fulfill the other’s rights. He may not wrong him with respect to his wealth by stealing from him, deceiving him or cheating him. He cannot harm him in his body by beating or killing him. His protection from the state guarantees his safety from such things. Third, there is no prohibition concerning buying, selling, renting or other such business transactions with them. It has been authentically reported that the Prophet (SAWS) bought things from the polytheistic disbelievers. He also purchased items from Jews. In fact, when the Prophet (SAWS) died, his shield was being held as collateral with a Jewish person in exchange for food for his family. Fourth, one should not give them the greetings of peace first. However, one responds to their greetings. The Prophet (SAWS) said, "Do not give the greetings of peace first to the Jew or Christian." (Muslim) He also said, "If the people of the book give you the greeting of peace, then say, ‘Wa Alaikum (and upon you)."’ (Bukhari) Therefore, a Muslim does not greet a non-Muslim first. But when a Jew, Christian or other disbeliever greets him, he replies, "And upon you also," as the Prophet (SAWS) has ordered. This is from the rights of conduct between a Muslim and a disbeliever. He also must be neighborly toward his non-Muslim neighbor. If your neighbor is good to you, you do not harm him and you may even give him charity if he is poor or give him a gift if he is rich. You may also advise him concerning what is good for him. All of this may lead him to want to learn about Islam and become a Muslim and because neighbors have very great rights. The Prophet (SAWS) said, "The Angel Gabriel kept advising me concerning the neighbor until I thought he was going to inherit (from his neighbor)." (Bukhari, Muslim) Allah (SWT) also says in the Qur’an, "Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and drove you not from your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity" (Holy Qur’an, 60:7). It is recorded in an authentic hadith from Asma bint Abu Bakr that her mother, who was a polytheist, visited her and asked for her assistance – this was during the time of the peace treaty between the Prophet (SAWS) and the disbelievers so she went to the Prophet (SAWS) to ask him about that and he told her to keep the ties of kinship and be righteous towards her. Fifth, a Muslim should not participate with them in their greetings and festivals. However, one may give them condolences upon the death of someone if he finds some legal benefit in doing so. He may say to them, "May future bring good to you," or something of that nature. He may not say, "May Allah forgive him," or, "May Allah have mercy on him," if the person who died was a disbeliever (see Qur’an 9:113). That is, one may not make prayers for a dead disbeliever although one may ask for guidance for those who are alive and so forth. http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/archive/article.php?lang=E&id=38238
Response:
Next page
Previous page