WHAT DOES HE MEAN BY "TREAT MUSLIMS WITH RESPECT?"
Osama bin Laden's second goon-in-charge is seen on a recent video tape telling the world in general and Americans in particular that they will be OK if they will just treat Muslims with respect. Well, that certainly sounds easy enough, doesn't it? Just treat Muslims with respect and everything is hunky dory.
Definitions. We need definitions. I keep remembering the old Soviet Union and their protestations that they were soooo interested in world peace. Their definition of "peace" left much to be desired. To the communists, the definition of "peace" was and still is "the absence of opposition to the world communist movement." That brings us to just what bin Laden's pig-washer means by "respect." My guess is to treat Muslims with "respect" means to avoid any opposition to the Muslim radical's goal making Islam the world's dominant religious and cultural movement.
These Muslims need to learn that respect is earned. Delibertly shooting women and children dosen't buy much respect.
Osama bin Laden's second goon-in-charge is seen on a recent video tape telling the world in general and Americans in particular that they will be OK if they will just treat Muslims with respect. Well, that certainly sounds easy enough, doesn't it? Just treat Muslims with respect and everything is hunky dory.
Definitions. We need definitions. I keep remembering the old Soviet Union and their protestations that they were soooo interested in world peace. Their definition of "peace" left much to be desired. To the communists, the definition of "peace" was and still is "the absence of opposition to the world communist movement." That brings us to just what bin Laden's pig-washer means by "respect." My guess is to treat Muslims with "respect" means to avoid any opposition to the Muslim radical's goal making Islam the world's dominant religious and cultural movement.
These Muslims need to learn that respect is earned. Delibertly shooting women and children dosen't buy much respect.
Re: WHAT DOES HE MEAN BY "TREAT MUSLIMS WITH RESPECT?"
You, if your claims of omnipotence are to be believed, are in a position to make the first move as a goodwill gesture so to speak.
You could stop using the word muslim as a catchall for the latest incarnation of the 'them' that is always out to get you for some reason or another.
You could make the effort to understand that Islam is monotheistic not monolithic. OBL and co are but a small band of jokers. They do not speak for all Islam anymore than the head of the KKK speaks for all of the US.
You could stop cultivating new enemies with such zeal.
BTW blowing up women and children accidently on purpose doesn't earn much respect either.
cunningham said:
You, if your claims of omnipotence are to be believed, are in a position to make the first move as a goodwill gesture so to speak.
You could stop using the word muslim as a catchall for the latest incarnation of the 'them' that is always out to get you for some reason or another.
You could make the effort to understand that Islam is monotheistic not monolithic. OBL and co are but a small band of jokers. They do not speak for all Islam anymore than the head of the KKK speaks for all of the US.
You could stop cultivating new enemies with such zeal.
BTW blowing up women and children accidently on purpose doesn't earn much respect either.
Re: WHAT DOES HE MEAN BY "TREAT MUSLIMS WITH RESPECT?"
Osama bin Laden's
second goon-in-charge DOES NOT EXIST
Who else is saying the same thing?
The Prophecies
1. The Annihilation of Other Peoples
2. Theft and Robbery
3. Mass Murder
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ds6.htm
Dont you mean Iraqies?
cunningham said:
Osama bin Laden's
second goon-in-charge DOES NOT EXIST Who else is saying the same thing?
cunningham said:
The Prophecies
1. The Annihilation of Other Peoples
2. Theft and Robbery
3. Mass Murder
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ds6.htm
cunningham said:
Dont you mean Iraqies?
Re: Re: WHAT DOES HE MEAN BY "TREAT MUSLIMS WITH RESPECT?"
Do you actually beleive what is written in this article, just curious.
B.VDBOS said:
Do you actually beleive what is written in this article, just curious.
Purported Muslim plots versus the Protocols
I think he was just trying to draw an analogy. An inapt analogy, I'll grant you, but an analogy nonetheless. It's interesting and ironic that the notorious Protocols forgery has become so popular and so widely believed in much of the Islamic world.
I think he was just trying to draw an analogy. An inapt analogy, I'll grant you, but an analogy nonetheless. It's interesting and ironic that the notorious Protocols forgery has become so popular and so widely believed in much of the Islamic world.
It is not a question of believe. I posted this to show that other people interpret things differently, ans in a way that should raise the question: who truly benefits?
As to the validity of his claims re: arabian commentators, I have not checked that closely, but I seem to remember an article in al jezeera some time ago that stated something similar.
And - before you shoot your mouth off re al jezeera - read it first. It is a lot more factual - at least on their web site, than american news organizations would like you to believe.
Your sources by the way is the same old hokum regarding a world jewish conspiracy brought on by the "documents" of the "elders of zion."
And if you regard the "stuermer" as a newspaper that ever during its short existence was anything but a lousy propaganda piece for the nazis - I feel really sorry for you, and I ave stopped argueing with people who take ANYTHING seriously the nazis ever printed or said.
My folks had to suffer under the nazis in germany, so excuse me if i despise anybody who takes seriously anything those criminals ever published. And thats all they are today - and were then. Pathetic criminals with no redeeming value that even an al capone had - he at least made booze available when it should never have been forbidden..
My answer should make clear what i think.
But this stuff is not even worth to be brought up here - but knowing the american propensity to not know history - not of their own country, in many cases, not at all those of foreign countries in most cases makes such halfbaked nonsense all the more dangerous.
But you are not the original poster of this ab solut s..t - so excuse me if i stepped on your corns.
My folks were not jewish - so i do not have any semitic hangup when i hate the nazis. They still suffered under the most criminal regime ever.
But this stuff is not even worth to be brought up here - but knowing the american propensity to not know history - not of their own country, in many cases, not at all those of foreign countries in most cases makes such halfbaked nonsense all the more dangerous.
But you are not the original poster of this ab solut s..t - so excuse me if i stepped on your corns.
My folks were not jewish - so i do not have any semitic hangup when i hate the nazis. They still suffered under the most criminal regime ever.
audio-kraut said:
Actually, it wasn’t clear that’s why I asked, and you still don’t answer. You should at least be ready to stand by your beliefs unless you are ashamed of your beliefs, are you? Not trying to corner you or stir up trouble, I really am curious if you believe any of that article. Many here like to post all kinds of links with no commentary or personal remarks to put the posted article in perspective, which makes it even harder to understand where someone is coming from or what they mean by using it.
So what do you think about the article you posted the link to?
Things are getting amazingly mixed up here among the posters, and most assuredly among the readers.
In post #243, there is a link to a Nazi newspaper back in the 1930's. That posting was done by BVDBOS, not audio-kraut.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=525850#post525850
In post #244, there are quotes from a newspaper which indicate that the beneficiary of America's involvement in Iraq will be Iran, not the US or the world.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=539527#post539527
Kingdaddy keeps asking audio-kraut if he stands by the article, but it seems that he is talking about BVDBOS's link, not audio-kraut's.
Audio-kraut keeps talking about the Nazi article and the Iraq article in the same posts.
Kingdaddy, audio-kraut did not post the article about the Nazi newspaper, it makes no sense to ask him if he plans to defend it.
Audio-kraut, can you make it clearer which article you are dealing with?
Thank you.
In post #243, there is a link to a Nazi newspaper back in the 1930's. That posting was done by BVDBOS, not audio-kraut.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=525850#post525850
In post #244, there are quotes from a newspaper which indicate that the beneficiary of America's involvement in Iraq will be Iran, not the US or the world.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=539527#post539527
Kingdaddy keeps asking audio-kraut if he stands by the article, but it seems that he is talking about BVDBOS's link, not audio-kraut's.
Audio-kraut keeps talking about the Nazi article and the Iraq article in the same posts.
Kingdaddy, audio-kraut did not post the article about the Nazi newspaper, it makes no sense to ask him if he plans to defend it.
Audio-kraut, can you make it clearer which article you are dealing with?
Thank you.
Yea I was sidetracked when Audio-kraut replied to my question from VDBOS, my bad. I should know by now that VDBOS never stands behind his opinions, actually I’m not even sure he has any opinions, just links to others opinions. Still the whole thing is very confusing with all the link posting. What’s wrong with just having a personal opinion about a subject, who cares about worthless Internet articles anyway?
Hi, I guess things are cleared up - I think the articel re: iraq is not worthless if you consider it as an example how things look from the angle of those living in close vicinity of the ongoing mess and have to deal witha so far not foreseeable political outfall.
Please - does really anybody believe after an election in iraq where the shiites will most likely form the new government things are going to cool down?At that point thesuni minority who held power in iraq for over 40 years will most likely beginn a civil war - despite the us presence - that just now just simmers in the background - to regain power. And the curds who would really love to create their own state - violently opposed by both turks and iranians - are also opposed by the turk minority living among them.
Anybody who believes that things will quiet down soon - please look at palestine/israel situation (which was also a US creation, in case someone has forgotten) whoich has been a sore spot since '48.
Please - does really anybody believe after an election in iraq where the shiites will most likely form the new government things are going to cool down?At that point thesuni minority who held power in iraq for over 40 years will most likely beginn a civil war - despite the us presence - that just now just simmers in the background - to regain power. And the curds who would really love to create their own state - violently opposed by both turks and iranians - are also opposed by the turk minority living among them.
Anybody who believes that things will quiet down soon - please look at palestine/israel situation (which was also a US creation, in case someone has forgotten) whoich has been a sore spot since '48.
British, not American. Ratified by the UN. Britain captured Greater Syria (which included what is now Israel and Jordan) from the Turks in 1917. The US has precious little to do with any of that.
Not quite right - the ex british protector (palestine was a protectorate) was forced sometime in "46 to accept the immigration of app. 100 000
jewish refugees. Britain having promised the protectorate to the palestines to create an eventually palestinian state did not want to agree to this influx as they were aware that this would mean further jewish resettlement and eventual conflict within palestine.
In the end they had to agree to pressure from the US, and eventually were forced out after - what we call now "terrorist attacks" by jewish immigrants in'48. Attacks by those groups against palestinien villages eventually led to the flight of those palestinians. (there is much more, regarding the support of the flight by arab states and their promise to push the "jews into the mediterrenean"). In '48 the the state of israel was created.
From the start the israeli state was - for better or worse - supported by the US, sometimes with very little critique towards the behaviour of israel.
jewish refugees. Britain having promised the protectorate to the palestines to create an eventually palestinian state did not want to agree to this influx as they were aware that this would mean further jewish resettlement and eventual conflict within palestine.
In the end they had to agree to pressure from the US, and eventually were forced out after - what we call now "terrorist attacks" by jewish immigrants in'48. Attacks by those groups against palestinien villages eventually led to the flight of those palestinians. (there is much more, regarding the support of the flight by arab states and their promise to push the "jews into the mediterrenean"). In '48 the the state of israel was created.
From the start the israeli state was - for better or worse - supported by the US, sometimes with very little critique towards the behaviour of israel.
The creation of Jewish Palestine was supported by the US, so technically, you're right. it was also supported by the Soviet Union. And France. And Germany. So what? It was created by Britain out of a British territory on land that was formerly Turkish, and before that, Roman.
We can say similar things about most of the Middle Eastern countries- they were cobbed together by various conquerers over the centuries. Come to think of it, that would describe Great Britain, too.
We can say similar things about most of the Middle Eastern countries- they were cobbed together by various conquerers over the centuries. Come to think of it, that would describe Great Britain, too.
Ok, that discussion was not the point - the point was: such artificially created states or from one power in the majority supported state or its government leads generelly not to the expected result, but to more or less continuous strife.
So - i really can not foresee any peace under the circumstances until - the creation of separate entities within iraq. Those conglomerates that were thrown together by outside forces - another example is the former jugoslawia, another is the former soviet union - can under most circumstances be held together by strongmen at the helm who ruthlessly supress any discord, well knowing that any discord will lead to disintegration.
The examples are all there to look at.
So - i really can not foresee any peace under the circumstances until - the creation of separate entities within iraq. Those conglomerates that were thrown together by outside forces - another example is the former jugoslawia, another is the former soviet union - can under most circumstances be held together by strongmen at the helm who ruthlessly supress any discord, well knowing that any discord will lead to disintegration.
The examples are all there to look at.
No you're not confused at all! You're just playing dumb...heh heh...I'm onto you old chap 🙄 . You know what he means. Some states are just more artificial than others. 😉
Bas Horneman said:
No, I really don't. Can you please rank these states in order of artificiality, and maybe then, I'll understand what you're talking about: Belgium, South Africa, Italy, Rwanda, Mexico, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.