Discussion:
Is islam a religion of peace??????????????????
(too old to reply)
shogun
2006-01-25 01:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

By David Wood

http://www.answeringinfidels.com

The title of this essay introduces a topic that may be difficult for Muslims,
or for readers who have friends or acquaintances who are Muslims. It is a
difficulty I share with all of them. My best friend is a Muslim, and I have
two students who are Muslims. They are all very kind individuals, and, I
would say, they are peaceful. Indeed, despite the popular portrayal of
Muslims on the evening news, the vast majority of Muslims are normal,
faithful, peaceful people, going about their daily lives with no intention of
blowing up anyone or burning anyone’s flag. (Many in the West deny this, but
they typically do so because they have never so much as talked to a Muslim).

Nevertheless, this essay isn’t about Muslims; it’s about Islam. It’s about
the religion, not the practitioners of the religion. To understand what I
mean here, consider the following scenario. Suppose someone were to come up
to me and ask, “David, is Islam a religion of peace?” My answer would not be
“Yes” or “No.” Rather, my response would be, “First tell me what you mean
when you say ‘Islam,’ for it is a term that is used in different ways.” If by
“Islam” we mean the religion that is practiced by more than a billion people
around the world, I could reasonably answer with a qualified “Yes,” because it
is a religion of peace for many people (though not for all). But if by
“Islam” we mean the religion taught by Muhammad, I would have to respond with
a resounding “No.”

At this point my Muslim readers will be saying to themselves, “What does this
infidel mean? There is only one Islam, perfectly preserved in the Holy Qur’an
from the time it was given to Prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel.”
However, much like the idea that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved, the
idea that Islam has only one face is completely false. There has always been
a psychological crisis in Islam, and if I were to diagnose it as having a
particular mental illness, I would probably argue that it suffers from
Multiple Personality Disorder.[1] Islam has never been able to decide whether
it wants to live in peace with unbelievers, or to pile their severed,
unbelieving heads into a giant pyramid. I’m sure many would disagree here,
but they would be disagreeing with one of the most empirically verifiable
facts in the universe. Think about it. One Muslim beheads an innocent woman
to protest the war in Iraq, while another Muslim curses him for slaying the
innocent. One group of Muslims flies an aircraft into a building, while
another group condemns the attack. One Muslim steps onto a bus with pounds of
explosives strapped under his jacket, while another Muslim teaches philosophy
at an American university. Each person or group quotes the Qur’an to support
its actions. However, it may be even more important to note that each of them
has followed the example of Muhammad.

The reason that Islam suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder is that its
founder also suffered from this disorder. I don’t mean this to be taken
literally, of course. It is only meant to describe a peculiar phenomenon that
went on in Muhammad’s head. When Muhammad first began receiving his
“revelations,” many of his neighbors in the city of Mecca took it upon
themselves to mock and persecute him. Muhammad was a threat both to their
immoral lifestyles and to their source of wealth (the pagan idols of the city
brought plenty of revenue), and so he had to be stopped, or at least
discredited. During this period, Muhammad was humble, devout in every way,
obedient to the message handed down to him, faithful in giving to the poor,
and, in general, an outstanding moral example. In essence, he was like the
many fine examples of dedicated Muslims we see in the world today. He
preached a religion of peace, and the Qur’anic revelations received at this
time reflected his peaceful temperament.

Then something happened. Muhammad fled Mecca and moved to Medina, where his
political power rapidly increased. Soon he and his followers began raiding
caravans to support the fledgling religion,[2] and, while Muhammad’s enemies
multiplied, so did his followers. What followed can only be described as a
reign of terror for those who refused to submit to Islam. Both men and women
were slaughtered for writing satirical poems against Muhammad, and those who
left the Islamic faith were to be exterminated. One woman was murdered in the
dark for writing a poem against Muhammad; after she was slain, Muhammad
declared that “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her.”[3] Hundreds of
Jews were beheaded (after surrendering) for standing against Muhammad, and
their wives and children were sold into slavery.[4] A blind man who was
reportedly more than a hundred years old had his head split open for saying
that, if he could only see, he would throw a handful of dust at Muhammad.[5]
When a man named Uqba was about to be killed by Muslims and showed concern for
his family by asking, “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?”
Muhammad answered by telling the doomed man that Hell would take care of
them.[6]

There are, of course, far more examples of violence than the ones listed here,
but these should be sufficient to provide a picture of Muhammad’s idea of how
Muslims should treat those who refuse to submit to Islam. Was Islam a
religion of peace for the 600-900 Jewish men and boys whose heads were piled
into trenches after they had surrendered? Was Islam a religion of peace for
the woman whose infant son had to be pulled away from her breast so that she
could be stabbed to death? Was it a religion of peace for anyone who dared to
speak out against Muhammad? When Muhammad finally had a band of dedicated
followers who would obey his violent commands without question, Islam was not
a religion of peace.

Notice that we have approached this question regarding the nature of Islam
using a basic historical analysis. Discussions about Islam typically revolve
around certain verses in the Qur’an, but such discussions are often fruitless.
The reason for this is that the Qur’an is very inconsistent in its approach
towards unbelievers, due in large part to Muhammad’s own inconsistency. In
conversations about Islam, a Muslim may argue that, according to the Qur’an,
“There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256). A critic may reply with a very
different passage:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they
prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion
of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in
acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (9:29).

To this the Muslim replies, “Yes, it says to fight those who do not believe,
but it is referring to unbelievers who attack Islam.” Thus, according to many
Muslims, Islam fights, but only in self-defense. So who’s right? The
solution to the debate lies in a historical examination of Islam. It is true
that Muslims are only permitted to attack when threatened, but history shows
what the early Muslims considered a threat. Anything other than complete
submission to Islam was regarded as a threat to Islam, and so anything other
than complete submission was met with extreme hostility. Even poetry and song
lyrics, when used against Muhammad, were enough to warrant a sentence of
death.[7]

Hence, the verses in the Qur’an that teach Muslims to live in peace should be
examined within the historical context of Muhammad’s life, for it is this life
that sheds light on an apparently ambiguous message. This historical context
also sheds light on modern aspects of Islam, which ultimately derive from the
life of its founder.

For instance, more than thirteen centuries ago, the peaceful Muhammad fled
Mecca because of intense persecution. As he fled the city, he left the path
of peace farther and farther behind him. He eventually returned at the head
of an army, and few were brave enough to oppose him. Islamic law was suddenly
supreme, with a host of bloody tales to warn its enemies. A similar
phenomenon occurs in the world today. When Muslims are in the minority (as
they are in America) the message is always “Let us live in peace with one
another, for Islam is a religion of tolerance and understanding.” Then, once
Islam has spread throughout the country, the message suddenly changes to
“Anyone who stands against the Prophet is worthy of death!”

Oddly enough, this tactic has been remarkably successful for Islam. Despite
more than a thousand years of bloodshed, many people are convinced that
Muhammad was a gentle, humble man who never harmed anyone, and that Islam
teaches its followers to be at peace with everyone who hasn’t declared war on
them. Then, when someone like Osama bin Laden organizes a group of Muslims in
an attack against thousands of innocent people, everyone says that he must be
insane. Yet, in a curious way, Osama bin Laden is really more dedicated to
true Islam than most Muslims are. If Muhammad tells Muslims to fight in the
name of God and demonstrates what he means by killing men, women, and children
for even minor resistance, what should a dedicated Muslim do? Should devout
Muslims live in peace with the infidels around them, or should they follow
Muhammad’s example by murdering the infidels in their beds?[8]

I’m very happy that most Muslims are willing to live in peace with their
neighbors. Yet we have to be honest here. Muslims aren’t peaceful because
they are following the example set by Muhammad. They are peaceful because
they’ve chosen to do what’s right, and because they are willing to live far
better lives than Muhammad himself lived. In fact, many Muslims are such
kind, peaceful, and gentle people that they seem to be following the example
set by another great religious leader—one who died on the cross for the sins
of the world and rose from the dead to prove his message. This man gave his
listeners the following warning: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to
you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their
fruit you will recognize them” (Matthew 7:15). And, may I add, we should also
watch out for false religions, which come to us crying “Peace! Peace!” when
they were built on a foundation of murder and bloodshed.


[1] Christianity, if it suffers from anything, suffers from claustrophobia;
atheism suffers from agoraphobia, amnesia, paranoid schizophrenia, and manic
depression, but that is a topic for another article.

[2] According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad’s earliest biographer, Muhammad
personally took part in 27 of these raids [Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, (The
Life of Muhammad), A. Guillaume, tr. (New York: Oxford University Press,
1980), p. 659]. I highly recommend Ibn Ishaq’s work for anyone who is
interested in early Islam.

[3] Ibid., p. 676.

[4] Ibid., p. 464: “Then they surrendered, and the apostle [Muhammad]
confined them in Medina . . . Then the apostle went out to the market of
Medina (which is still a market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent
for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out
to him in batches. . . . There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the
figure as high as 800 or 900.”

[5] Ibid., p. 372-373.

[6] Ibid., p. 308.

[7] Thus, if a Muslim were to kill me for writing this article, he would be in
keeping with the teachings of Muhammad.

[8] For one example of Muslims killing a victim in bed, see Ibn Ishaq, p. 483:
“His wife came out and asked who they were and they told her that they were
Arabs in search of supplies. She told them that their man was here and that
they could come in. When we entered we bolted the door of the room on her and
ourselves fearing lest something should come between us and him. His wife
shrieked and warned him of us, so we ran at him with our swords as he was on
his bed.”
Don W. McCollough
2006-01-25 02:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by shogun
Is Islam a Religion of Peace?
Therefore slowpun thinks the right thing to do is nuke
all those fucken ragheads. Obviously slowpun is a
person of peace and morally superior.

(flush)
Post by shogun
http://www.answeringinfidels.com
The title of this essay introduces a topic that may be difficult for Muslims,
or for readers who have friends or acquaintances who are Muslims. It is a
difficulty I share with all of them. My best friend is a Muslim, and I have
two students who are Muslims. They are all very kind individuals, and, I
would say, they are peaceful. Indeed, despite the popular portrayal of
Muslims on the evening news, the vast majority of Muslims are normal,
faithful, peaceful people, going about their daily lives with no intention of
blowing up anyone or burning anyone's flag. (Many in the West deny this,
but
they typically do so because they have never so much as talked to a Muslim).
Nevertheless, this essay isn't about Muslims; it's about Islam. It's
about
the religion, not the practitioners of the religion. To understand what I
mean here, consider the following scenario. Suppose someone were to come up
to me and ask, "David, is Islam a religion of peace?" My answer would not
be
"Yes" or "No." Rather, my response would be, "First tell me what you mean
when you say 'Islam,' for it is a term that is used in different ways."
If by
"Islam" we mean the religion that is practiced by more than a billion
people
around the world, I could reasonably answer with a qualified "Yes,"
because it
is a religion of peace for many people (though not for all). But if by
"Islam" we mean the religion taught by Muhammad, I would have to respond
with
a resounding "No."
At this point my Muslim readers will be saying to themselves, "What does
this
infidel mean? There is only one Islam, perfectly preserved in the Holy
Qur'an
from the time it was given to Prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel."
However, much like the idea that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved,
the
idea that Islam has only one face is completely false. There has always been
a psychological crisis in Islam, and if I were to diagnose it as having a
particular mental illness, I would probably argue that it suffers from
Multiple Personality Disorder.[1] Islam has never been able to decide whether
it wants to live in peace with unbelievers, or to pile their severed,
unbelieving heads into a giant pyramid. I'm sure many would disagree
here,
but they would be disagreeing with one of the most empirically verifiable
facts in the universe. Think about it. One Muslim beheads an innocent woman
to protest the war in Iraq, while another Muslim curses him for slaying the
innocent. One group of Muslims flies an aircraft into a building, while
another group condemns the attack. One Muslim steps onto a bus with pounds of
explosives strapped under his jacket, while another Muslim teaches philosophy
at an American university. Each person or group quotes the Qur'an to
support
its actions. However, it may be even more important to note that each of them
has followed the example of Muhammad.
The reason that Islam suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder is that its
founder also suffered from this disorder. I don't mean this to be taken
literally, of course. It is only meant to describe a peculiar phenomenon that
went on in Muhammad's head. When Muhammad first began receiving his
"revelations," many of his neighbors in the city of Mecca took it upon
themselves to mock and persecute him. Muhammad was a threat both to their
immoral lifestyles and to their source of wealth (the pagan idols of the city
brought plenty of revenue), and so he had to be stopped, or at least
discredited. During this period, Muhammad was humble, devout in every way,
obedient to the message handed down to him, faithful in giving to the poor,
and, in general, an outstanding moral example. In essence, he was like the
many fine examples of dedicated Muslims we see in the world today. He
preached a religion of peace, and the Qur'anic revelations received at
this
time reflected his peaceful temperament.
Then something happened. Muhammad fled Mecca and moved to Medina, where his
political power rapidly increased. Soon he and his followers began raiding
caravans to support the fledgling religion,[2] and, while Muhammad's
enemies
multiplied, so did his followers. What followed can only be described as a
reign of terror for those who refused to submit to Islam. Both men and women
were slaughtered for writing satirical poems against Muhammad, and those who
left the Islamic faith were to be exterminated. One woman was murdered in the
dark for writing a poem against Muhammad; after she was slain, Muhammad
declared that "Two goats won't butt their heads about her."[3] Hundreds
of
Jews were beheaded (after surrendering) for standing against Muhammad, and
their wives and children were sold into slavery.[4] A blind man who was
reportedly more than a hundred years old had his head split open for saying
that, if he could only see, he would throw a handful of dust at Muhammad.[5]
When a man named Uqba was about to be killed by Muslims and showed concern for
his family by asking, "But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?"
Muhammad answered by telling the doomed man that Hell would take care of
them.[6]
There are, of course, far more examples of violence than the ones listed here,
but these should be sufficient to provide a picture of Muhammad's idea of
how
Muslims should treat those who refuse to submit to Islam. Was Islam a
religion of peace for the 600-900 Jewish men and boys whose heads were piled
into trenches after they had surrendered? Was Islam a religion of peace for
the woman whose infant son had to be pulled away from her breast so that she
could be stabbed to death? Was it a religion of peace for anyone who dared to
speak out against Muhammad? When Muhammad finally had a band of dedicated
followers who would obey his violent commands without question, Islam was not
a religion of peace.
Notice that we have approached this question regarding the nature of Islam
using a basic historical analysis. Discussions about Islam typically revolve
around certain verses in the Qur'an, but such discussions are often
fruitless.
The reason for this is that the Qur'an is very inconsistent in its
approach
towards unbelievers, due in large part to Muhammad's own inconsistency.
In
conversations about Islam, a Muslim may argue that, according to the
Qur'an,
"There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256). A critic may reply with a
very
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they
prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion
of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in
acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (9:29).
To this the Muslim replies, "Yes, it says to fight those who do not
believe,
but it is referring to unbelievers who attack Islam." Thus, according to
many
Muslims, Islam fights, but only in self-defense. So who's right? The
solution to the debate lies in a historical examination of Islam. It is true
that Muslims are only permitted to attack when threatened, but history shows
what the early Muslims considered a threat. Anything other than complete
submission to Islam was regarded as a threat to Islam, and so anything other
than complete submission was met with extreme hostility. Even poetry and song
lyrics, when used against Muhammad, were enough to warrant a sentence of
death.[7]
Hence, the verses in the Qur'an that teach Muslims to live in peace should
be
examined within the historical context of Muhammad's life, for it is this
life
that sheds light on an apparently ambiguous message. This historical context
also sheds light on modern aspects of Islam, which ultimately derive from the
life of its founder.
For instance, more than thirteen centuries ago, the peaceful Muhammad fled
Mecca because of intense persecution. As he fled the city, he left the path
of peace farther and farther behind him. He eventually returned at the head
of an army, and few were brave enough to oppose him. Islamic law was suddenly
supreme, with a host of bloody tales to warn its enemies. A similar
phenomenon occurs in the world today. When Muslims are in the minority (as
they are in America) the message is always "Let us live in peace with one
another, for Islam is a religion of tolerance and understanding." Then,
once
Islam has spread throughout the country, the message suddenly changes to
"Anyone who stands against the Prophet is worthy of death!"
Oddly enough, this tactic has been remarkably successful for Islam.
Despite
more than a thousand years of bloodshed, many people are convinced that
Muhammad was a gentle, humble man who never harmed anyone, and that Islam
teaches its followers to be at peace with everyone who hasn't declared war
on
them. Then, when someone like Osama bin Laden organizes a group of Muslims in
an attack against thousands of innocent people, everyone says that he must be
insane. Yet, in a curious way, Osama bin Laden is really more dedicated to
true Islam than most Muslims are. If Muhammad tells Muslims to fight in the
name of God and demonstrates what he means by killing men, women, and children
for even minor resistance, what should a dedicated Muslim do? Should devout
Muslims live in peace with the infidels around them, or should they follow
Muhammad's example by murdering the infidels in their beds?[8]
I'm very happy that most Muslims are willing to live in peace with their
neighbors. Yet we have to be honest here. Muslims aren't peaceful
because
they are following the example set by Muhammad. They are peaceful because
they've chosen to do what's right, and because they are willing to live
far
better lives than Muhammad himself lived. In fact, many Muslims are such
kind, peaceful, and gentle people that they seem to be following the example
set by another great religious leader-one who died on the cross for the
sins
of the world and rose from the dead to prove his message. This man gave his
listeners the following warning: "Watch out for false prophets. They
come to
you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their
fruit you will recognize them" (Matthew 7:15). And, may I add, we should
also
watch out for false religions, which come to us crying "Peace! Peace!"
when
they were built on a foundation of murder and bloodshed.
[1] Christianity, if it suffers from anything, suffers from
claustrophobia;
atheism suffers from agoraphobia, amnesia, paranoid schizophrenia, and manic
depression, but that is a topic for another article.
[2] According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad's earliest biographer, Muhammad
personally took part in 27 of these raids [Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, (The
Life of Muhammad), A. Guillaume, tr. (New York: Oxford University Press,
1980), p. 659]. I highly recommend Ibn Ishaq's work for anyone who is
interested in early Islam.
[3] Ibid., p. 676.
[4] Ibid., p. 464: "Then they surrendered, and the apostle [Muhammad]
confined them in Medina . . . Then the apostle went out to the market of
Medina (which is still a market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent
for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out
to him in batches. . . . There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the
figure as high as 800 or 900."
[5] Ibid., p. 372-373.
[6] Ibid., p. 308.
[7] Thus, if a Muslim were to kill me for writing this article, he would be in
keeping with the teachings of Muhammad.
"His wife came out and asked who they were and they told her that they
were
Arabs in search of supplies. She told them that their man was here and that
they could come in. When we entered we bolted the door of the room on her and
ourselves fearing lest something should come between us and him. His wife
shrieked and warned him of us, so we ran at him with our swords as he was on
his bed."
shogun
2006-01-25 20:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don W. McCollough
Post by shogun
Is Islam a Religion of Peace?
Therefore slowpun thinks the right thing to do is nuke
all those fucken ragheads. Obviously slowpun is a
person of peace and morally superior.
(flush)
Nah, I am not from France. I have not advocated nuking anyone yet McClueless.
Alpha
2006-01-25 02:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Biggoted hatred with a sly smile.....i am a scholar of middle eastern
studies at hull university and your interpretation of history is more
than a wee bit distorted in favour of islams modern day arch enemy
judaism. I think you need to question your sources since they seem to
have come direct from a far right wing web site. Part of my studies was
to memories the koran from start to finish and i can say for fact that
all passages that deal with laws of warfare are under the direction of
actions of self defence which is common to all mono faiths.

should i judge christianity by the actions of the Klu Klux who burned
black people on crosses for fun or would i be ignorant to do so, which
is what you are doing.

should muslims invade christian lands because throughout history most
historians will agree that christianity has killed more people than all
the relligions put together?

there are two versions of mohameds life.....the jewish version and the
islamic version......considering the two sides were at war 1400 years
ago and still are....do you think your jewish version might be a little
bit biased and distorted or is it best to go by the history written by
those who were around him at the time for greater accuracy?

i think thats a no brainer.....

but if you wish to go by a source who is both on the enemy side and not
in the close circle of the prophet you go right ahead if that is more
logical for you.

regards.......A
gumby - the muslim deprogrammer
2006-01-25 05:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alpha
Biggoted hatred with a sly smile
Familiar ground for you. http://tinyurl.com/d8g7v
Post by Alpha
.....i am a scholar of middle eastern studies at hull university
and your interpretation of history is more than a wee bit distorted
in favour of islams modern day arch enemy judaism.
Again coming from you that is laughable.
Post by Alpha
I think you need to question your sources since they seem to
have come direct from a far right wing web site.
Your opinion...and you offer nothing but opinion to answer back.
Note: if you really want to know about Islam go here:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/default.htm#attacks
Or just pick up a newspaper, watch TV, etc...People dying daily.
Post by Alpha
should i judge christianity by the actions of the Klu Klux who burned
black people on crosses for fun or would i be ignorant to do so, which
is what you are doing.
False: Islam is being corrupted by the few.
Truth: Islam is the corrupting force. It takes innocent people and
makes them think it is ok to kill - they will get a paradise of whores
and lil boys.
Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan
has in the last 50 years.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html
Post by Alpha
should muslims invade christian lands because throughout history most
historians will agree that christianity has killed more people than all
the relligions put together?
"Most historians" Laughable. Chalk this up to Shari'a law: Lying is
permissible in a time of war (or jihad).
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of
the Spanish Inquisition combined.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2003/madden.htm
More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on
September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern
Ireland.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/death95w.htm
19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September
11th than the number of American criminals put to death in the last 65
years.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ESPYdate.pdf
<Deleted - Nazi Blaming the Jews>
Yes with you Muslims it is always someone else...I imagine a Jew made
you say you wished all Shiites were murdered, right? Oh and Jews make
you Muslims car bomb each other, kill Care workers(Margaret Hassan),
shoot children in Russia, blow up trains in London....On and on and on.
If there is a hell, Muhammad is there right now jerking off at all the
death he has caused.
lep
2006-01-25 11:15:08 UTC
Permalink
gumby - the muslim deprogrammer wrote:

We love u gumby, keep up the good work!!!
gumby - the muslim deprogrammer
2006-01-25 18:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Hate America....Hate the Jews....Hate the west....Hate Russia...Hate
infidels......Hate, hate, hate.
lep
2006-01-25 19:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by gumby - the muslim deprogrammer
Hate America....Hate the Jews....Hate the west....Hate Russia...Hate
infidels......Hate, hate, hate.
U go girl!
gumby - the muslim deprogrammer
2006-01-25 21:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Yes, that is what I said when I fucked you whore of a mother....And now
we know why you hate Americans.
lep
2006-01-25 21:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by gumby - the muslim deprogrammer
Yes, that is what I said when I fucked you whore of a mother....And now
we know why you hate Americans.
How very original, bet you wish you knew who your momma was so I could
insult her , eh?
gumby - the muslim deprogrammer
2006-01-25 21:46:54 UTC
Permalink
And to think, I gave you money to run down to the store while I was
banging your mother....Next time you get nothing.
lep
2006-01-25 21:50:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by gumby - the muslim deprogrammer
And to think, I gave you money to run down to the store while I was
banging your mother....Next time you get nothing.
Look, all you gota do to find your dad is get DNA from that football
team, the one yer mom did, Im sure he can point you in the bitches
direction... ;)
gumby - the muslim deprogrammer
2006-01-26 01:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Your projecting...Understandable, since I just outed your whore mother
Ayishah(said that was here name).
Iron Mask
2006-01-25 18:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by gumby - the muslim deprogrammer
Post by Alpha
Biggoted hatred with a sly smile
Familiar ground for you. http://tinyurl.com/d8g7v
Post by Alpha
.....i am a scholar of middle eastern studies at hull university
and your interpretation of history is more than a wee bit distorted
in favour of islams modern day arch enemy judaism.
Again coming from you that is laughable.
Let me put this in context for all of you. A scholar of Middle Eastern
Studies points out flaws in a long-winded post, and then GUmby refutes
it with opinion and websites --- Hahahaha WEBSITES! Gumbshit, why
don'cha read a book or something.

There's only one certainty you need to know > Nobody has a monopoly on
hate. It breeds and festers in people of any violent faith. The truth
is that Christianity is one of the most violent faiths on Earth. Just
because the lion lays down as it's pride is under his control, does not
mean the lion was not once or still covered with the blood of his
enemies.

Hatred without a direct reason is the most insidious of hate. It is
the hate that exists just because it is 'the thing to do'. Even when
the majority of Americans have not been hurt directly by terrorism.

//ron|\/|a5k
Norman Leonski
2006-01-25 19:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iron Mask
Hatred without a direct reason is the most insidious of hate. It is
the hate that exists just because it is 'the thing to do'. Even when
the majority of Americans have not been hurt directly by terrorism.
//ron|\/|a5k
Spoken like the beer guzzeling pool hall junkie that you are.

You're so full of shit. You haven't a fucking clue what you're talking
about.

Go back to sleep idiot.
lep
2006-01-25 20:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Leonski
Post by Iron Mask
Hatred without a direct reason is the most insidious of hate. It is
the hate that exists just because it is 'the thing to do'. Even when
the majority of Americans have not been hurt directly by terrorism.
//ron|\/|a5k
Spoken like the beer guzzeling pool hall junkie that you are.
You're so full of shit. You haven't a fucking clue what you're talking
about.
Go back to sleep idiot.
A damn well thought out reply there Norm.....

Let me help you a bit, try breathing properly.

OUT with anger, and then IN with love, then repeat
OUT with anger, and then IN with love, then repeat
OUT with anger, and then IN with love, then repeat

Now remember, you can type things without using the words, fuck, dunce,
idiot etc etc.

and if that dont work for ya, try submerging your head in a nice ice
cold bath , fully, for mabey and hour or 2 ;)
Iron Mask
2006-01-26 15:26:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Leonski
Spoken like the beer guzzeling pool hall junkie that you are.
You're so full of shit. You haven't a fucking clue what you're talking
about.
Go back to sleep idiot.
Sorry Norm, I'm not you. I don't drink beer, nor do drugs. I actually
care about my health. Even my mental health is important, that's why I
try to keep conversations with you to a minimum (if you can call them
conversations). Order yourself a super-sized meal and shut up!

//ron|\/|a5k
Norman Leonski
2006-01-26 18:23:19 UTC
Permalink
What Makes the Bush-Haters So Mad?


First, it was how he got the job. Now, it's how much he's doing with it



By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
Monday, Sep. 22, 2003


Bill Moyers may have his politics, but his deferential demeanor and
almost avuncular television style made him the Mr. Rogers of American
politics. So when he leaves his neighborhood to go to a "Take Back
America" rally and denounces George W. Bush's "government of, by and
for the ruling corporate class," leading a "right-wing wrecking crew"
engaged in "a deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States
way of governing," you know that something is going on.
That something is the unhinging of the Democratic Party. Democrats are
seized with a loathing for President Bush - a contempt and disdain
giving way to a hatred that is near pathological - unlike any since
they had Richard Nixon to kick around. An otherwise reasonable man,
Julian Bond of the N.A.A.C.P., speaks of Bush's staffing his
Administration with "the Taliban wing of American politics." Harold
Meyerson, editor at large of The American Prospect, devotes a
3,000-word article to explaining why Bush is the most dangerous
President in all of American history - his only rival being Jefferson
Davis.


The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from. Bush's manner is
not particularly aggressive. He has been involved in no great scandals,

Watergate or otherwise. He is, indeed, not the kind of politician who
radiates heat. Yet his every word and gesture generate heat - a fury
and bitterness that animate the Democratic primary electorate and
explain precisely why Howard Dean has had such an explosive rise. More
than any other candidate, Dean has understood the depth of this primal
anti-Bush feeling and has tapped into it.


Whence the anger? It begins of course with the "stolen" election of
2000 and the perception of Bush's illegitimacy. But that is only half
the story. An illegitimate President winning a stolen election would be

tolerable if he were just a figurehead, a placeholder, the kind of
weak, moderate Republican that Democrats (and indeed many Republicans)
thought George Bush would be, judging from his undistinguished record
and tepid 2000 campaign. Bush's great crime is that he is the
illegitimate President who became consequential - revolutionizing
American foreign policy, reshaping economic policy and dominating the
political scene ever since his emergence as the post-9/11 war
President.


Before that, Bush could be written off as an accident, a transitional
figure, a kind of four-year Gerald Ford. And then came 9/11. Bush took
charge, declared war, and sent the country into battle twice, each time

bringing down enemy regimes with stunning swiftness. In Afghanistan,
Bush rode a popular tide; Iraq, however, was a singular act of
presidential will.


That will, like it or not, has remade American foreign policy. The Bush

Revolution in Foreign Policy is the subtitle of a new book by two not
very sympathetic scholars, Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay. The book is
titled America Unbound. The story of the past two years could just as
well be titled Bush Unbound. The President's unilateral assertion of
U.S. power has redefined America's role in the world. Here was Bush
breaking every liberal idol: the ABM Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol,
deference to the U.N., subservience to the "international community."
It was an astonishing performance that left the world reeling and the
Democrats seething. The pretender had not just seized the throne. He
was acting like a king. Nay, an emperor.


On the domestic front, more shock. Democrats understand that the Bush
tax cuts make structural changes that will long outlive him. Like the
Reagan cuts, they will starve the government of revenue for years to
come. Add to that the Patriot Act and its (perceived) assault on
fundamental American civil liberties, and Bush the Usurper becomes more

than just consequential. He becomes demonic.


The current complaint is that Bush is a deceiver, misleading the
country into a war, after which there turned out to be no weapons of
mass destruction. But it is hard to credit the deception charge when
every intelligence agency on the planet thought Iraq had these weapons
and, indeed, when the weapons there still remain unaccounted for.
Moreover, this is a post-facto rationale. Sure, the aftermath of the
Iraq war has made it easier to frontally attack Bush. But the loathing
long predates it. It started in Florida and has been deepening ever
since Bush seized the post-9/11 moment to change the direction of the
country and make himself a President of note.


Which is why the Democratic candidates are scrambling desperately to
out-Dean Dean. Their constituency is seized with a fever, and will
nominate whichever candidate feeds it best. Political fevers are a
dangerous thing, however. The Democrats last came down with one in
1972-and lost 49 states.
Iron Mask
2006-01-27 13:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Leonski
What Makes the Bush-Haters So Mad?
First, it was how he got the job. Now, it's how much he's doing with it
LOL, what a moron! He's doing his job?! Do you mean eroding our
freedoms, for the sake of 'security'? I guess Bush is doing his job
just as well as 'Brownie' when Katrina struck New Orleans. Or I guess
he was doing his job when his administration ignored warnings that lead
up to 9/11. Face it Norm, your prez is a moron.
Post by Norman Leonski
they had Richard Nixon to kick around. An otherwise reasonable man,
Julian Bond of the N.A.A.C.P., speaks of Bush's staffing his
Administration with "the Taliban wing of American politics." Harold
Meyerson, editor at large of The American Prospect, devotes a
3,000-word article to explaining why Bush is the most dangerous
President in all of American history - his only rival being Jefferson
Davis.
It's like this article is trying to group the ideas of everyone that
dislikes Bush as 'Bush Haters' -> And then claims that all believe in
the radical crap everyone is saying.
Post by Norman Leonski
The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from. Bush's manner is
not particularly aggressive. He has been involved in no great scandals,
Not aggressive?! Are you kidding?! He authorized the invasion of two
different countries!!! How dense are you man
Post by Norman Leonski
Watergate or otherwise. He is, indeed, not the kind of politician who
radiates heat. Yet his every word and gesture generate heat - a fury
and bitterness that animate the Democratic primary electorate and
explain precisely why Howard Dean has had such an explosive rise. More
than any other candidate, Dean has understood the depth of this primal
anti-Bush feeling and has tapped into it.
Oh man, this is way too funny! Only the most dense and moronic
human-being cannot possibly comprehend why BUsh (including his
administration) is disliked. If this article is so true, as if BUsh
doesn't deserve dislike -> Then how can one explain that Clinton didn't
have quite so many people ALL AROUND THE WORLD hating him?
Post by Norman Leonski
Before that, Bush could be written off as an accident, a transitional
figure, a kind of four-year Gerald Ford. And then came 9/11. Bush took
charge, declared war, and sent the country into battle twice, each time
bringing down enemy regimes with stunning swiftness. In Afghanistan,
Bush rode a popular tide; Iraq, however, was a singular act of
presidential will.
'Bush took charge' > He sure did, of OUR nation. Read that dumbass!
OUR nation. OUR country. OUR blood, and OUR children!

And exactly what 'enemy regime' did he bring down in Afghanistan? And
what for what reason did Bush invade Iraq, because of a 'singular act
of presidential will'? You know what that would've been called by
Jefferson? Treason.
Post by Norman Leonski
It was an astonishing performance that left the world reeling and the
Democrats seething. The pretender had not just seized the throne. He
was acting like a king. Nay, an emperor.
Yep, that sure says it.
Post by Norman Leonski
The current complaint is that Bush is a deceiver, misleading the
country into a war, after which there turned out to be no weapons of
mass destruction. But it is hard to credit the deception charge when
every intelligence agency on the planet thought Iraq had these weapons
and, indeed, when the weapons there still remain unaccounted for
This is a load of crap! Not every intelligence agency on the planet
thought Iraq had weapons! That's an opinion, not based on fact.
.
Post by Norman Leonski
Moreover, this is a post-facto rationale. Sure, the aftermath of the
Iraq war has made it easier to frontally attack Bush. But the loathing
long predates it. It started in Florida and has been deepening ever
since Bush seized the post-9/11 moment to change the direction of the
country and make himself a President of note.
Not true. There's many people who disliked BUsh only after he decided
to invade other nations for the sake of his version of Democracy.

//ron|\/|a5k

Alpha
2006-01-25 19:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Let me put this in context for all of you. A scholar of Middle Eastern
Studies points out flaws in a long-winded post, and then GUmby refutes
it with opinion and websites --- Hahahaha WEBSITES! Gumbshit, why
don'cha read a book or something.

There's only one certainty you need to know > Nobody has a monopoly on
hate. It breeds and festers in people of any violent faith. The truth
is that Christianity is one of the most violent faiths on Earth. Just
because the lion lays down as it's pride is under his control, does not
mean the lion was not once or still covered with the blood of his
enemies.

Hatred without a direct reason is the most insidious of hate. It is
the hate that exists just because it is 'the thing to do'. Even when
the majority of Americans have not been hurt directly by terrorism.

finaly.....a rational mind exists in usenet.....If you follow the
trails and IP's of where most of the biggoted islamophobic posts come
from they 9/10 times are coming out of the west bank partition in
Israel. (Islams arch enemy) The oppressed have become the
oppressors....a common historical phenomenon..(i do not include all
Israelis in that statement)....since to do so would make me as moronic
and generalistic as the people who post that kind of hatred rubbish.

The difining line of critical comment and racism is in critisising the
behavior not the persons race or creed.
shogun
2006-01-25 20:38:21 UTC
Permalink
nothing of interest.
Hey dumbass, you said you plonked me, and yet you read my posts. You are such
a hypocrite, as well as a liar and person of no integrity.
lep
2006-01-25 20:58:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by shogun
nothing of interest.
Hey dumbass, you said you plonked me,
I think he just did ;)
shogun
2006-01-25 21:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by lep
Post by shogun
nothing of interest.
Hey dumbass, you said you plonked me,
I think he just did ;)
He is like you leprosheila, to stupid to live and to dumb to die.
lep
2006-01-25 21:34:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by shogun
Post by lep
Post by shogun
nothing of interest.
Hey dumbass, you said you plonked me,
I think he just did ;)
He is like you leprosheila, to stupid to live and to dumb to die.
Well, I have to say, he just made u his bitch ;)
lep
2006-01-25 10:44:48 UTC
Permalink
shogun wrote:

Nothing of interest.
shogun
2006-01-25 20:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by lep
Nothing of interest.
oooooohhhh, the armchair terrorist has spoken.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...