Then they came for the children

[wiseguy]

Originally posted by MAGS156@May 6 2005, 05:10 AM

#2 do you have to kill somebody to be guilty

 

- uhh, yeah...

 

Thees are not rational people we are dealing with, which makes evoryone suspect, from 16 yearold girls to 100 year old men .

 

-it is naive to think that these people arent rational, they want to kill westerers for the ongoing colonialisation at the hands of western governments. and they go about it in the most efficient means at their disposal.

 

but are you willing to take that chance with your familes lives?

 

-i dont know, are you willing to take that chance with your family's rights?

Quoted post

[Guest KING BLING]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Jun 10 2005, 03:43 PM

The point is, they never would have been in in the first place if they had exercised a little common sense and control over what they said and to whom they said it.

 

Every country and every culture has prohibited speech. Don't get the idea that somehow or another the U.S. is being exceptionally cruel and uncaring. In general, we have a degree of freedom of speech that far exceeds that of other countries.

 

Want to get kicked out of school in France? Wear a head scarf to school.

 

Want to get arrested and held for interrogation in Germany? Try selling Mein Kampf on a street corner.

 

Turkey? Hold up a sign that says "Long live the Kurds" in Turkish.

 

Israel? Move into a neighborhood where you aren't welcome or are a different religion than the people already there.

 

Northern Ireland? Try flying an IRA flag.

 

Republic of Ireland? Hold up a sign that says "Free Birth Control For All Women."

 

Etc., etc.

Quoted post

 

 

I love that the guy who is usch a purist on the 2nd amendment is such an apologist for Schenck v. U.S. and its specification of what is truly free speech and what the government has the right to control...

 

But sadly, what I find the most upsetting is that you are such a GIANT defender of the white Christian "Branch Davidians" and seem incredibly skeptical about the roll of government agencies there, yet when two brown Muslims are involved, its there fault even if you haven't stated outright that they did it...

 

Also, regarding what SF said, you didn't really address his point just his exageration, and I think you probably can't. I don't base my happiness on whether or not the guy next door is happier or less happy nor should we as a country become satisfied because we might have more "freedom" than the guy next door. After all, guns are banned in England, so shouldn't you be happy to own a hand gun, let alone all these other guns you really don't need?

[KaBar2]

I don't live in UK, I live in Texas. Would you be willing to accept that same statement about me owning guns I "don't need" if we were talking about books that you "don't need?"

 

(BTW, we did a poll among the members of the militia platoon of which I was a member, and all together we had enough rifles to arm a company of infantry, about 130 men. This is exactly why the civilian population has the right to own multiple firearms. In a crisis, the militia has the ability to rapidly grow by a factor of four. Maybe more.)

 

The Second Amendment obviously has some natural limits. An individual who wanted to build a truck bomb, for instance, or build a nuclear weapon, clearly must be restrained. The problem arises when someone who wishes to disarm the civilian population (something the liberals and the Nazis have in common) tried to pervert the common sense of a restriction on weapons of mass destruction into a restriction on civilians owning small arms. The intent of the Framers of the Second Amendment was to insure that the government was never able to impose a tyranny. Three things were considered necessary for a tyrant to seize power:

 

(1.) A standing army (we already have this.)

 

(2.) Control of the Press (some would say the press has already been muzzled.)

 

(3.) Prohibition of the private ownership of arms.

 

The thing I would ask all of you to consider is WHY anybody would want to seize or even limit the private ownership of firearms? In every case around the world, shortly after the private ownership of firearms is banned, authoritarian dictatorship and genocide follows. Tyrants want the people disarmed so that they can force them to accept dictatorship without the worry of an armed insurrection. They want to be able to impose their ideas upon the population, without the necessity of the democratic process, of the people's CONSENT to be governed.

 

You will never see me advocating that anybody be disarmed, or advocating that the First Amendment be revoked. But even in a free society, there are some limits, and for the most part, we live in a very free society.

[angelofdeath]

"Why was he slammed? Clearly, our enemies are Islamists. They make a terroristic political-religious conspiracy using a major religion's outward trappings and very few of the actual teachings of Mohammad. Very similar to the Ku Klux Klan's hijacking of the Christian cross and using it as a symbol of racism, hatred and terror. I can't see any reason to give the Islamists a pass. We condemn the psuedo-Christianity of the Klan and the "Church of Jesus Christ, Christian." We condemn the intolerance and hatred of the "Christian Identity" movement. Why would we not condemn the Islamists? They are doing the EXACT SAME THING that the Klan does, except their victims are not of a different race. In fact, the white racists worldwide applaud the "insurgents" in Iraq, Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern countries, because these Islamists hate and despise Jews. Basically, the Islamists are fascists, just like Hitler's Nazis and Franco and Mussolini's fascists. They make common cause with haters and racists everywhere. I cannot see any reason to offer them anything but relentless opposition. They oppress and murder any woman who attempts to live a free and independent life. They destroy any school that educates girls. They subvert and terrorize legal, legitimate government. They murder police officers and Iraqi soldiers, as well as American soldiers.

 

They are CLEARLY the enemy of everything that America stands for. I can see no alternative but to either destroy them or incarcerate them for a long time. They will never be satisfied to simply live their life and let other people live their own. No one is trying to tell the Islamists that they must become modern, only that they may not oppress and murder other people who wish to live in the 21st century instead of the 16th century. If they wish to live an isolated life in the deserts of Iraq, herding goats and reading the Quran, more power to them. It's when they murder Iraqi women for daring to go without the veil, or murder police officers for daring to enforce the laws of Iraq, or murder American soldiers trying to patrol and keep the peace that I take exception. Basically, they are terrorists and murderers and oppressors. That's the bottom line. "

 

my thoughts exactly. its always a double standard with the "progressives." (and yes im including liberal republicans in this label) Pat Buchanan addresses this issue in his "where the right went wrong" book. he goes onto question whether we can win the war on terror, if we cannot even call our enemy by thier real name. islamists. i think its always been this way though, black power groups are given a free pass when only the klan gets it. that farrakkan guy gets a free pass but people flip out over the trent lott/thurmond comments. this is the main problem i have seen with groups like the ARA. i commend the effort, however its leftists politics and bullshit ruins the cause. if you want to fight racism. awesome. fight it all. not just white vs everyone else racism. fight the racism against whites as well.

[villain]

Racism against whites is not the issue here in the US. That's why. The Black Panthers have elaborated on their name to clarify that they are "The Black Panther Defense Party". defense

 

I am not a fan of fascism in any form, be it islamist, or Christian Identity. But to say that the terrorists simply "hate" us for what we are is shortsighted at best, and at worst it is decieving. They have more than enough reason to "hate" us, rather than to hate us for hates sake. Indonesia is the most populated muslim nation in the world, and their opinion polls of the US are greatly in favor of us. Because our foreign policy there was correct and effective.

[SF1]

Word the fuck up on what Villain just said.

[SF1]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Jun 23 2005, 05:22 PM

The problem arises when someone who wishes to disarm the civilian population (something the liberals and the Nazis have in common) tried to pervert the common sense of a restriction on weapons of mass destruction into a restriction on civilians owning small arms. The intent of the Framers of the Second Amendment was to insure that the government was never able to impose a tyranny. Three things were considered necessary for a tyrant to seize power:

 

(1.) A standing army (we already have this.)

 

(2.) Control of the Press (some would say the press has already been muzzled.)

 

(3.) Prohibition of the private ownership of arms.

 

The thing I would ask all of you to consider is WHY anybody would want to seize or even limit the private ownership of firearms? In every case around the world, shortly after the private ownership of firearms is banned, authoritarian dictatorship and genocide follows. Tyrants want the people disarmed so that they can force them to accept dictatorship without the worry of an armed insurrection. They want to be able to impose their ideas upon the population, without the necessity of the democratic process, of the people's CONSENT to be governed.

 

You will never see me advocating that anybody be disarmed, or advocating that the First Amendment be revoked. But even in a free society, there are some limits, and for the most part, we live in a very free society.

Quoted post

 

And word the fuck up on that!

the fucking truth!

I honestly get confused at Anti-gun nut-jobs being labeled as "Liberal". Doesn't the term "Liberal" derive from liberty? As in you beleive in liberty and freedom? How does a fascist get labeled as "Liberal"???

 

I also believe the Republicans play the shit out of the NRA voters by lieing to them and pretending to be on their side.

[MrJackDaniels]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Jun 23 2005, 06:22 PM

The thing I would ask all of you to consider is WHY anybody would want to seize or even limit the private ownership of firearms?

Quoted post

 

To avoid another Columbine perhaps?

[MrJackDaniels]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Jun 18 2005, 09:03 PM

Uh, "really fucked countries?" Like say, France, or UK or Republic of Ireland? These countries have a great deal less Freedom of Speech than does the U.S. In UK, for instance, you can be arrested under the Official Secrets Act for simply talking about terrorist actions. Not advocating them, not planning them, just discussing them.

 

Quoted post

bollocks again.

how can you say the UK has less free speach than america?

do we have our police agencies arresting teenage girls on the strengths of what they wrote in an essay? no.

(and i dont know about all you, but when i was writing essays in school mine were full of utter crap and bullshit just to pad it out)

 

it is well known that the british press has the most freedom out of any in the world. so fuck off with your bollocks about america having more.

[MrJackDaniels]

a point i missed out on: this girl was discussing suicide bombing. she got arrested. therefore she was arrested for discussing something.

[angelofdeath]

"To avoid another Columbine perhaps? "

 

i think you opened up a can of worms here, michael moore.

 

but back to your point villian. i think your right, most of the blame in my opinion for the 9/11 attacks goes back to the old "we shouldnt of been over there in the first place..." argument. and the racism against whites SHOULD be as much of an issue, as the racism from whites to any other race. the "free pass" stuff just gets old. be non biased in fighting racism is all im saying.

[villain]

I guess I would be considered progressive (I'm actually an anarchist) by some people and I'm very much against gun control. Most every progressive that I know is also against gun control. I have no idea how this mythology became so predominant. But when you have a two party system some things seem to get exaggerated. I actually wish we were more like england. Speaking of which I think MrJackDaniels is correct in proposing more freedom of speech there. We might have more freedom on the books, but they, by far have more in practice. They are in fact, quite well known around the world for being effusive. F-U-sive

 

In my own personal life I am nonbiased in fighting racism. However when dealing with racism on a national level, racism against non-whites is the major malfunction. There doesn't need to be equal protections and concessions for white people because it's simply not so much of an issue. A "free pass" is needed to have a level playing field as whites have had the upper hand for hundreds of years. We were an apartheid society not even 40 years ago. I wouldn't even be talking to you right now because of that. As far as basic rights ,though, for all races, we have that.... Being politically correct is they conduct by which one must adhere in order to be considered decent and fair. Unfortunately being PC is going out of style now. We still have it on the books, that noone is to be discriminated against by race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, (age?) etc. etc. It's on the books but it's not always done so in practice. And in practice, whites have more.... everything. So minorities need protections.

 

Do you seriously not see why minorities need extra help? I wish I could put you in my shoes. I am Black AND White. I have experienced 100x more racism from whites. Blacks for the most part being more urban generally have a better sense of ethnopluralism. This is of course not a rule, more like a tendency.

[angelofdeath]

i understand where your coming from man. call me bill cosby, but i think that in 2005 not being able to do for your self and blaming the "man" for keeping you down is a cop out. reverse racism is just as bad as racism. discrimination of ANY kind is wrong. to deny a black guy a job because he is black is wrong. for example to deny a more skilled white guy a job over a less skilled "minority" because some big company has to make a "quota" is just as bad as jim crow. its up to the minorities to handle their business. like i said, its 2005 not 1945. america is what you make it.

 

as for gun control and progressives, there is not a myth. take any liberal congress person, (yes including people cut from the same mold as Guiliani and AHNOLD) and look at thier gun control record. you'll see liberals opposing pro gun bills almost all the time. not that the "right" wing is much better. Even GWB was talking about resigning the AWB if it got to him. most people in congress today are gun grabbers to some extent. it all depends if your talking about a gun grabber to Kabar or to hillary clinton. about the only 100% pro gun congressman is Ron Paul a republican from texas, well a so called "libertarian" republican. others come close, but this guy is the real deal.

your right, i do know a handful of super far left people that like guns. which is why i cant figure why they keep voting in anti gun liberals. i usually hear "look at the bigger picture." ive emailed my congress people from my communist occupied state urging votes against gun control measures only to recieve the common rhetoric that didnt really say anything, a month later you check out the bill and the communist senators have signed the control measure. the thing with alot of liberals today is they dont trust the citizen to do anything.

 

for fucks sake, you cant even own property any more.....

fucking commies

[Guest KING BLING]

To clarify, I believe in gun rights and think more lefties should get armed and shoot people...I think I might actually be a member of the NRA thanks to my dad...

 

But my point was that the people who are like Kabar, whom make gun rights a religion surrounding the 2nd ammendment don't seem as concerned when the other ammendments are bent as long as it fits their beliefs. I do not beleive guns are under immeadiate threat, but truthfully, even if they were, the facism that everyone is rightly paranoid against long ago became more powerful and more cunning than we could ever hope to physically fight. That ability to arm and revolt if need be has been removed by the practiced ability to covertly act against any showing of power, and if need be the military is there to do the rest. The Black Panthers showed us what happens when armed groups stir up trouble outside of backwater areas and web sites, forget Waco...

[KaBar2]

King Bling, you are speaking ignorance when you say "Forget Waco." You need to go rent a copy of "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" so you can see for yourself what the Federal government did.

 

The Branch Davidians were a multi-racial, multi-cultural group of Christians. The FBI and the Joint Task Force either burned them to death on purpose, or created conditions that put the people inside Mount Carmel at tremendous risk.

 

After you see the forensic videos of children burnt to a crisp, their backs bowed almost double by the cyanide in the burning CS gas, then you tell me "Forget Waco." We will NEVER forget Waco.

 

This shit was so horrible that it inspired Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols to collaborate with Oklahoma white racists and Islamic terrorist groups in the Phillipines to counterattack with the Oklahoma City bombing. If you care to understand the real story, see the Alex Jones movie "9/11--The Road to Tyranny."

 

If you can watch "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" and still come on here and say "Forget Waco" then you are a much more callous person than I ever thought possible. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno have a lot to answer for, and the bill remains unsatisfied.

 

The Sheriff from Waco still maintains to this day that he could have walked in there by himself at any time and peacefully taken David Koresh into custody. This entire debacle can be laid DIRECTLY at the feet of the arrogant, malicious, illegal actions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These two agencies are loose cannons that are completely out of control.

 

The Branch Davidians knew the BATF was coming. They had been warned in advance. They had plenty of firepower, including .50 BMG rifles that could hit targets nearly a mile away. If the Davidians had wanted to start this fight, they would have opened fire when the BATF trucks and cattle trailers crossed onto the Davidian property way out by their gate. When trhe BATF got to the Davidians front door, they started by opening fire on a pen of puppies and a mother dog, killing a four-year old boy who was playing with the puppies, and riddling the Davidian's front doors with 9mm bullets. (You can see the BATF agents carrying the dead body of the four-year old in the film.)

Under Texas state law, peace officers are REQUIRED to announce their prescence ("POLICE! OPEN UP, WE HAVE A WARRANT!") and to give the occupants an opportunity to surrender.

 

The BATF did not have a valid warrant. They did not announce themselves, and they did not give the Davidians the opportunity to peaceably surrender. Instead, WITHOUT PROVOCATION, they opened fire on a domicile occupied by men, women and children.

 

Under Texas State Law, the Davidians had every right to defend themselves, and much to the government's dismay, when they brought the surviving Davidians to trial, they were at first not convicted. The judge over-rode the jury, and convicted them anyway, and the jury complained loudly that it was a travesty of justice.

[MrJackDaniels]

Originally posted by MrJackDaniels+Jun 24 2005, 12:34 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MrJackDaniels - Jun 24 2005, 12:34 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-KaBar2@Jun 18 2005, 09:03 PM

Uh, "really fucked countries?"  Like say, France, or UK or Republic of Ireland?  These countries have a great deal less Freedom of Speech than does the U.S.  In UK, for instance, you can be arrested under the Official Secrets Act for simply talking about terrorist actions.  Not advocating them, not planning them, just discussing them.

 

Quoted post

bollocks again.

how can you say the UK has less free speach than america?

do we have our police agencies arresting teenage girls on the strengths of what they wrote in an essay? no.

(and i dont know about all you, but when i was writing essays in school mine were full of utter crap and bullshit just to pad it out)

 

it is well known that the british press has the most freedom out of any in the world. so fuck off with your bollocks about america having more.

Quoted post

[/b]

i just wanted to quote this again so kabar can see it and answer it.

[Guest KING BLING]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Jun 25 2005, 11:19 AM

King Bling, you are speaking ignorance when you say "Forget Waco." You need to go rent a copy of "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" so you can see for yourself what the Federal government did.

 

The Branch Davidians were a multi-racial, multi-cultural group of Christians. The FBI and the Joint Task Force either burned them to death on purpose, or created conditions that put the people inside Mount Carmel at tremendous risk.

 

After you see the forensic videos of children burnt to a crisp, their backs bowed almost double by the cyanide in the burning CS gas, then you tell me "Forget Waco." We will NEVER forget Waco.

 

This shit was so horrible that it inspired Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols to collaborate with Oklahoma white racists and Islamic terrorist groups in the Phillipines to counterattack with the Oklahoma City bombing. If you care to understand the real story, see the Alex Jones movie "9/11--The Road to Tyranny."

 

If you can watch "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" and still come on here and say "Forget Waco" then you are a much more callous person than I ever thought possible. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno have a lot to answer for, and the bill remains unsatisfied.

 

The Sheriff from Waco still maintains to this day that he could have walked in there by himself at any time and peacefully taken David Koresh into custody. This entire debacle can be laid DIRECTLY at the feet of the arrogant, malicious, illegal actions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These two agencies are loose cannons that are completely out of control.

 

The Branch Davidians knew the BATF was coming. They had been warned in advance. They had plenty of firepower, including .50 BMG rifles that could hit targets nearly a mile away. If the Davidians had wanted to start this fight, they would have opened fire when the BATF trucks and cattle trailers crossed onto the Davidian property way out by their gate. When trhe BATF got to the Davidians front door, they started by opening fire on a pen of puppies and a mother dog, killing a four-year old boy who was playing with the puppies, and riddling the Davidian's front doors with 9mm bullets. (You can see the BATF agents carrying the dead body of the four-year old in the film.)

Under Texas state law, peace officers are REQUIRED to announce their prescence ("POLICE! OPEN UP, WE HAVE A WARRANT!") and to give the occupants an opportunity to surrender.

 

The BATF did not have a valid warrant. They did not announce themselves, and they did not give the Davidians the opportunity to peaceably surrender. Instead, WITHOUT PROVOCATION, they opened fire on a domicile occupied by men, women and children.

 

Under Texas State Law, the Davidians had every right to defend themselves, and much to the government's dismay, when they brought the surviving Davidians to trial, they were at first not convicted. The judge over-rode the jury, and convicted them anyway, and the jury complained loudly that it was a travesty of justice.

Quoted post

 

Get this informed and passionate about those little girls getting arrested and you'll have a point....

 

until than, keep thinking what happens in Texas is more than air pollution, meat head cowboys, and shady far right politics...

[KaBar2]

"Ad Hominem attacks" are attacks upon one's opponent in a debate. This is what happens when one cannot refute the opponents' logic--the only choice then is to insult or attack the speaker, and it is generally considered to mean that the one conducting the ad hominem attack lacks any logical alternative.

 

David Koresh and his followers made a lot of mistakes that contributed to their demise. One of the biggest was in concentrating all their people in one spot. Koresh was not planning an armed resistance, he was consolidating power within his little world of wacky Christian Seventh-Day Adventists. I doubt seriously that he ever considered the threat of being raided by the BATF a serious one.

 

He conducted business right out in the open at gun shows and under the scrutiny of BATF agents, something else that he would not have been doing had he been planning an armed resistance. He was making no genuine effort to hide what they were doing. He didn't think he had any need to hide. He felt entitled to do the things he was doing, and in fact, had the BATF sent a cople of agents in business suits with a warrant to inspect his premises, the Branch Davidians would very likely have permitted them to search peacefully. Although he preached a fire-and-brimstone, apocalyptic , End Times vision of Christianity, he did NOT preach armed resistance to the government.

 

These young ladies that were arrested wrote essays and talked openly about suicide bombing. They were arrested on suspicion. They were interrogated, and when the FBI was satisfied they weren't hooked up with Islamist terrorists, they were released to their parents. The one girl was permitted to peacefully depart back to her home country, Bangladesh. Perhaps she was unhappy about the opportunity to depart these infidel shores back to the sylvan shores of her home country--I don't know. She wasn't deported. Mom and Dad said "If you release her, we will take her back to Bangladesh." And she was released, after a week. No torture. No harsh interrogation. No ear-splitting 24-hours-a-day of dying rabbit screams and Nancy Sinatra's "These Boots Are Made for Walkin'."

 

Surely the difference between the Branch Davidians, burned alive in their church/home, and two high-school girls questioned and released unharmed to their parents is pretty obvious. The two cases cannot be compared as anything close to being equal. The girls had rights, those rights were respected under the law. The Branch Davidians had rights, and those rights were crushed under the treads of FBI tanks. THE INCOMPETANTS IN THE BATF DID NOT EVEN HAVE A VALID WARRANT WHEN THE RAID PARTY ARRIVED AT THE DAVIDIANS' FRONT DOORS. Surely you can see the difference.

 

Those Davidians from UK and Australia and Canada would have welcomed deportation. They did not get that option. They got tanks and CS, JTF machinegun fire and HRT sniper fire.

 

Should Koresh have surrendered? In my opinion, hell yes. He could have fought he FBI in a Texas courtroom, where most likely, in my opinion, he would have prevailed, because the BATF and the FBI were dead wrong. There is no appeal from the grave, though, and the FBI knew it. And apparently, Timothy McVeigh agreed.

[MrJackDaniels]

kabar, why do you always ignore my points?

cant answer them?

[KaBar2]

Mr Jack Daniels---

 

No, I have been thinking about what I wished to say.

 

The degree of freedom of expression in UK has been steadily deteriorating for about the past fifteen years, for a variety of reasons. Without embarking upon a personal quest to understand every single one of UK's laws regarding free speech, I suppose I have nothing more to offer than my opinion.

 

My opinion is that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution offers more protection for free speech than does any of the Acts of the British Parliament.

 

U.S. law protects the rights of Americans to express publicly any opinion whatsoever as long as it is not an exhortation to a criminal act. One can espouse whatever views one holds, regardless of how offensive some other person may regard them, so long as one does not advocate committing a crime. You can say "I hate Methodists, they are the scum of the earth, and their religion is disgusting and traitorous!" but you can not say, "Let's go kill all the Methodists!"

 

This is not so in UK. There are so-called "Human Rights Acts" that purport to protect Methodists, and Muslims, and Jews, and homosexuals, etc., etc., etc. from a subject of the Crown or anyone residing within the UK from even expressing such a thought. It is illegal to say "Homosexuals are perverts." It is illegal to say "We should deport all Muslims." Freedom of speech means the freedom of people to express ideas, EVEN IDEAS THAT THE GOVERNMENT DESPISES, so long as the person espousing them does not advocate the commission of a criminal act.

 

The laws of UK have been used to arrest, detain and imprison thousands of people with whom the Crown disagrees, including members of Sein Fein, the IRA, anarchist groups, racist skinheads and so on and so forth. Mind you, these people were arrested not for committing any actual crimes, but for expressing a prohibited opinion.

 

I suppose, if they wished to avoid arrest, they could simply keep their mouths shut, but alas, they chose not to do so.

 

Off to work. Back later.

[dumy]

Originally posted by villain@Jun 24 2005, 07:44 AM

I guess I would be considered progressive (I'm actually an anarchist) by some people and I'm very much against gun control. Most every progressive that I know is also against gun control. I have no idea how this mythology became so predominant. But when you have a two party system some things seem to get exaggerated. I actually wish we were more like england. Speaking of which I think MrJackDaniels is correct in proposing more freedom of speech there. We might have more freedom on the books, but they, by far have more in practice. They are in fact, quite well known around the world for being effusive. F-U-sive

 

In my own personal life I am nonbiased in fighting racism. However when dealing with racism on a national level, racism against non-whites is the major malfunction. There doesn't need to be equal protections and concessions for white people because it's simply not so much of an issue. A "free pass" is needed to have a level playing field as whites have had the upper hand for hundreds of years. We were an apartheid society not even 40 years ago. I wouldn't even be talking to you right now because of that. As far as basic rights ,though, for all races, we have that.... Being politically correct is they conduct by which one must adhere in order to be considered decent and fair. Unfortunately being PC is going out of style now. We still have it on the books, that noone is to be discriminated against by race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, (age?) etc. etc. It's on the books but it's not always done so in practice. And in practice, whites have more.... everything. So minorities need protections.

 

Do you seriously not see why minorities need extra help? I wish I could put you in my shoes. I am Black AND White. I have experienced 100x more racism from whites. Blacks for the most part being more urban generally have a better sense of ethnopluralism. This is of course not a rule, more like a tendency.

Quoted post

 

 

Right on the mark here Villian. I see the point some make that it is now 2005 not 1965 and while we have non-discriminatory actions on the books, they are not always put into actual action in society or the workplace. As Villian stated earlier, just forty years ago I would have been beaten and jailed for being in the same building as a white person, these ideas do not dissapear over night. I feel as if the need for these actions have not diminished. If anything, as we move towards an America were their is more racial diversity than ever before, They need to be enforced even more. Racial tolerance needs to become the status quo, and blaming blacks and others for the totality of the current situation they are in does nothing to further the cause.

[SF1]

Kabar you keep contradicting yourself.

[KaBar2]

So it would seem. How about yourself?

[Dawood]

Just for a matter of fact.

The word Islam means submission in the arabic Language spelled Alif ..seen..lam..meem . -ist is a suffix in the english language used for instance in a word like Bicyclist which would be a noun describing one who rides a bicycle. Now, Again, Islam is an act of Submission to God (which cannot be possibly equated with a terrorist act of any sort. To call a terrorist (one who commits terrorism) An Islamist and make the statement that Islamists are your enemies requires a proof on why the one who submits his will to the will of the creator is your enemy. Now if you said it is clear that the terrorists are our enemies , I can accept that. What I cannot accept is your loose usage of the term Islam, stripping it of its true meaning and giving it a new ugly definition. So Unless you can justify your usage of the word Islamist , I would suggest that all of you who are using it , Stop. This is just some advice to those who would like to refine their vocabulary in order to come across a bit more educated. Say terrorist when referring to people who Bomb things , not Islamist, thank you

[KaBar2]

Dawood,

 

The problem is not that there are a few wacked-out Muslims that are terrorists. The problem is that there is an entire branch of the religion that justifies the use of terrorist violence as a means of attacking Western civilization, and also those Muslims who wish to see a more modern Islamic society. Since the Muslims themselves seem to be having a difficult time standing up and condemning the Wahabbists and other Muslim terrorists, there is, and will be, a rising sense of resentment in Western societies against allowing any further Muslim immigration.

 

There are now millions of Muslim immigrants and converts in UK. The British people, have long been tolerant of religious differences, and so have the French, the Germans and other European countries. In modern times, there has NEVER been any attempt to prevent Muslims from worshipping as they see fit, or building mosques, or religious schools, etc. Britain welcomed the Muslim immigrants.

Likewise, the United States has welcomed Muslim immigrants. As I have stated on here before, there are at least a half-dozen mosques , Islamic schools, and Muslim cultural centers within a five-minute drive of my home. The flip side of this coin is that Muslim immigrants are to embrace their new home and be patriotic, law-abiding citizens. The VAST MAJORITY of Muslim immigrants are exactly that. However, within the overall law-abiding Muslim community, there are hidden terrorists. So long as the Muslim community hides these people, so long as they encourage them and "look the other way" and fail to report suspicious, terrorist-like activities, there is going to be suspicion.

 

"Islamist" does not describe normal, law-abiding, devout Muslims. It describes people who are the Islamic fundamentalist equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party. "Christian" describes normal, average church-going, law-abiding followers of Jesus Christ. "Christian Identists" are fascistic, psuedo-Christian racist ideologues. There is a vast difference between Methodists or Lutherans and the "Church of Jesus Christ, Christian."

 

The same is true of normal Muslims and "Islamists." Either you are on the side of normal, law-abiding society, or you are on the side of hate-filled, fascistic terrorists. If these murderers are not part of the Muslim community, then the Muslim community needs to help the government put them behind bars. There is no "tolerating" terrorists.

[Dawood]

Actually, Kabar,

 

What you don't realize is that what a lot of people and the news media includes as terrorism is what they call "insurgency" on the part of Iraqis or Afghanis or whoever else is being occupied by western forces. I don't see this as terrorism at all. I see this as survivalism, I see this as fighting back, and I know you will agree Kabar, because I have read some of your posts on the "survivalist" thread concernig protecting ones self from agressors, As A matter of fact you state that you have a whole organization of people who are ready to protect themselves if something were to go down. Well In Iraq, Its goin down!

Tanks are in the streets, Bombs are coming from the sky, troops are on the roofs with assault rifles, so for the average Iraqi Joe or Abdullah , for them, Its goin down, for them, its either kill or be killed because the American troops see it the same way, So who are the terrorists? who is being terrorized in Afghanistan and Iraq? the American troops? Who?

Anyway, the terrorists are the ones blowing up civilian buildings and killing civilians and like this, that is terrorism, lets get it straight and the VAST MAJORITY of muslims condemn these things , but you have to agree that if an army came into your neighborhood and started killing people , under whatever pretense,you would fight back , and if you say you wouldnt, then youre a liar. Anyway, I am a muslim, I live right next to an Islamic Center, I dont know any terrorists, nor do I know anyone who thinks like that, At least they dont say it out loud,and I dont know anyone who is harboring terrorists and I know muslims from Australia to Alaska , that is just plain rediculous to say that muslim communities are harboring terrorists, Do you really think a person who is getting ready to bomb a subway station stands up on friday prayer and gives an announcement?? These people are as unknown to us as they are to you. And there is no "branch" of Islam that says terrorism is ok , because killing innocent civilians is never Ok, ever, although when I hear Americans referring to the killing of innocent Muslims it is called collateral damage and is excused, ........Such double standards and hippocrasy.

[Dawood]

by the way, Kabar, If you want to know the true islamic perspective on this go to:

 

 

http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/

[Salafi_Zahrah]

Well said ahkee Dawood.

 

Here we go again KaBar,

 

One of the many short comings which has arisen in the West, is judging Islam by the conduct of a minority of its people. By doing this, segments of Western society have deliberately played off the desperate actions of many Muslims, and have given it the name of Islam. Such behaviour is clearly not objective and seeks to distort the reality of Islam. For if such a thing was done Judge a religion by the conduct of its people) then we too could say that all Catholics are about child molesting and homosexuality. Generalising in such a manner is not seen as being objective, yet we find that the Western world is foremost in propagating this outlook on Islam. So what is the reality of Islam? How does one dispel the myths which have been created and spread so viciously? The only way to examine Islam is to simply examine its belief system. Look at its sources, the Qur'an and Sunnah, and see what they have to say. This is the way to find the truth about what Islam says about terror, terrorism and terrorists. One who is sincerely searching for the truth, will do it no other way. The very name Islam comes from the Arabic root word 'salama' which means peace. Islam is a religion which is based upon achieving peace through the submission to the will of Allaah. Thus, by this very simple linguistic definition, one can ascertain as to what the nature of this religion is. If such a religion is based on the notion of peace, then how is it that so many acts done by its adherents are contrary to peace? The answer is simple. Such actions, if not sanctioned by the religion, have no place with it. They are not Islamic and should not be thought of as Islamic.

[SF1]

Originally posted by Dawood@Jul 17 2005, 08:45 PM

Actually, Kabar,

 

What you don't realize is that what a lot of people and the news media includes as terrorism is what they call "insurgency" on the part of Iraqis or Afghanis or whoever else is being occupied by western forces. I don't see this as terrorism at all. I see this as survivalism, I see this as fighting back, and I know you will agree Kabar, because I have read some of your posts on the "survivalist" thread concernig protecting ones self from agressors, As A matter of fact you state that you have a whole organization of people who are ready to protect themselves if something were to go down. Well In Iraq, Its goin down!

Tanks are in the streets, Bombs are coming from the sky, troops are on the roofs with assault rifles, so for the average Iraqi Joe or Abdullah , for them, Its goin down, for them, its either kill or be killed because the American troops see it the same way, So who are the terrorists? who is being terrorized in Afghanistan and Iraq? the American troops? Who?

Anyway, the terrorists are the ones blowing up civilian buildings and killing civilians and like this, that is terrorism, lets get it straight and the VAST MAJORITY of muslims condemn these things , but you have to agree that if an army came into your neighborhood and started killing people , under whatever pretense,you would fight back , and if you say you wouldnt, then youre a liar. Anyway, I am a muslim, I live right next to an Islamic Center, I dont know any terrorists, nor do I know anyone who thinks like that, At least they dont say it out loud,and I dont know anyone who is harboring terrorists and I know muslims from Australia to Alaska , that is just plain rediculous to say that muslim communities are harboring terrorists, Do you really think a person who is getting ready to bomb a subway station stands up on friday prayer and gives an announcement?? These people are as unknown to us as they are to you. And there is no "branch" of Islam that says terrorism is ok , because killing innocent civilians is never Ok, ever, although when I hear Americans referring to the killing of innocent Muslims it is called collateral damage and is excused, ........Such double standards and hippocrasy.

Quoted post

 

 

WORD!!!

[KaBar2]

As I've said on here numerous times in the past, the "insurgency" is mostly former Saddam regime elements, who are the moral equivalent of Nazis, dissaffected Sunnis who are loathe to accept that they can no longer bully the Shiite majority (or the Kurds) in Iraq, and lunatic suicide bombers from outside the country.

 

MOST of Iraq is relatively peaceful. Which is a damned good thing, because getting reasonably priced petroleum out of a country in the middle of civil war is a great deal more difficult than getting it out of a democratic, constitutional republic.

 

The "insurgency" is not conducting anything remotely related to "survival." They are doing their best to murder anyone and everyone trying to bring a democratic form of government to Iraq. The fact that the worst atrocities are carried out by suicide bombers just has "Lunatics" written all over it. This is not "the heroic Iraqi Sunni patriots against the evil Western interlopers," it's more like "the Nazi werewolves movement trying to bring back to life the decomposing body of the Third Reich." The heroic Iraqi patriots are JOINING THE ARMY AND POLICE FORCES. Regardless of how many schoolchildren get blown to bits by suicide bombers, Iraq is going to have a democratic, constitutional form of government. Regardless of how hard the murderers try to crush the little spark of liberty growing in Iraq, it will still flicker to life. Islam will continue to guide the people of Iraq, but hopefully towards a free, prosperous, less hate-filled future, instead of allowing Iraq to be dragged backwards into the putrid grave of Baathism.

 

The people in Iraq practising "survivalism" are the millions of average, ordinary Iraqis that simply want to live life, feed their families despite the shortages and lack of dependable electric power due to terrorist attacks, and go to work building a new, free, democratic country. The murderous nut cases that want to blow themselves to pieces so they can go to Paradise and take some "Jews" or "collaborators" with them are just the last, pathetic gasp of backwards, hate-filled fundamentalism. These "martyrs" are the moral equivalent of some red neck Bubba bombing abortion clinics and gay bars in an attempt to turn back the hands of the clock.

 

It ain't going to happen. Saddam is history, and so is Baathism and Sunni supremacy in Iraq. Gone. Forever. It's going to be a new day for the Iraqis, one without dictators and tyrants and fascistic secret police.