Regarding the Islamofascists: I'll be a lot more sensitive to their feelings when they stop trying to kill Americans, Jews, and other "infidels." That homicidal mania thing is grating, if you want to know the truth.
In the meantime, the money will make its way to members of the U.S.M.C. somehow, and that's all that matters.
1
Regarding the Islamofascists: I'll be a lot more sensitive to their feelings when they stop trying to kill Americans
I don't think I will. I think I'm starting to understand what I thought was the disgusting hatred of the Japanese by my grandfather.
I'm at the point where I'd rather the islamofascists be dead than stop attacking. It's an uncomfortable feeling, and I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: Kevin at July 29, 2006 01:11 AM (++0ve)
2
Thank you for the link! LOL have you heard this version of the song?? It's great and they should play it on th radio...it would be a #1 hit.
Posted by: Raven at July 29, 2006 11:00 AM (x9vfA)
3
Author James Michener wrote about the hatred for Japanese garnered from multiple Pacific landings he made (wounded twice) during World War II, and all the needless killing caused by fanatical Japanese soldiers. He said it took him YEARS to stop saying "Jap", even though he MARRIED a Japanese woman. And later, on a trip retracing his war years, he refused to get into a modern hotel swimming pool with Japanese businessmen. He said it might be unrealistic, but he felt that way and nothing could change it.
Posted by: clyde at July 30, 2006 01:08 PM (6m+7s)
4
Thanks for using the word hatred Clyde, because that is exactly what the word "Islamofacists" connotes. And by using it over and over again that is the aim of some people. But then the backlash of that is that we will create more christionofacists and jewdofacists. And hence more hatred, maybe thats what some people want, I for one think that it is going in the wrong direction, instead of building bridges trading insults is the order of the day.
Some words don't have any meaning or reference but they become part of a culture when used often enough. Please Attila keep using that word over and over again and maybe just might be that it would lose all meaning and become part of the vernacular. I know that must be your aim, so I acknowlledge you for sticking to your commitment of spreading hate.
Posted by: azzerism at July 30, 2006 08:02 PM (Uagor)
5
There you go again, capitalizing Islamofascist, while using lower case for other religions. Isn't that a sign of disrespect? Is that your Leftist subconscious in action? You know full well that LMA doesn't believe that all Muslims are Islamofascists. So why do you keep implying otherwise? Do you talk to terrorists? Any luck with that?
We are able to differentiate between Islamofascists and peaceful Muslims. I guess you think that all Christians are alike. For example, you always point to charges of atrocities in the war zone and you always state, without any data/substantiation, that those soldiers are Christians.
Yes, Azmat, we hate people who are trying to kill us. If I should see one of them in action, I will put him out of his misery. When they stop killing, when they stop trying to take over the world, maybe we could talk. It's only actions that count, anyway, in the Arab world, is it not, Azmat? And that's why taking to an Islamofascist isn't worth the trouble.
Wouldn't it help if Muslim religious leaders got together and purged all the killing/world domination directives from the Qur'an? How sad it is when it is the Islamofascists who are carefully following the Qur'an, and not the peaceful Muslims. And don't tell me about violence in the Judeo-Christian Bible. We have stories of historical figures that killed. You have directives talking to modern-day followers like:Things to do when you meet a Jew? Cut off an arm and a leg, preferably on opposite sides of the body, to make his life a living Hell in this world and mark him for special punishment in the Next. Oh, and by the way, if you ever meet a Christianofascist, you can do with them what you like(Our Laws may take a different point-of-view so you should check first!) because they are not following the Christian Doctrine. And if you don't follow the Doctrine, you are not a Christian. Sad that can't be said for all religions though...
Posted by: Darrell at July 30, 2006 09:27 PM (I0dBS)
6
Darrell,
How rude, I wasn't talking to you and you have decided to speak in someone elses behalf, implying that they are incapable of answering me.
I think you are completely failing to misunderstand me completely. All I ever said was that do not use suffix fascism with Islam, that is inappropriate. Didn't say anything about peaceful or not muslims.
I really do not know who you hate Darrell, And I suggest neither do you. You just hate! and only Jesus will cure you of that fire. See hate is the poison you drink and hope that someone else dies.
I will never actually meet a Christofacist cause there are none, just like you will never meet a Islamowhatever. But your hate may take you to jail someday for killing someone who you precieved was a threat to you.
As usual you knowledge of quran is seriously flawed, and I am not really here to teach you Islamic history, or for that matter simple reading skills.
By the way I get lazy on my typewriter and forget to capitilize, and spell-check, please accept my sincerest appologies.
Posted by: azzerism at July 30, 2006 10:15 PM (Uagor)
7
Okay, Az--I'm here.
So far you've shot down my other attempts to distinguish between peaceful Muslims and those who use the Religion of Peace to murder and attempt conquest.
Do you think the distinction is not useful? Would you prefer that those who are fighting Muslim extremists simply assume all Muslims behave as the murderers do?
You don't like "jihadi." You don't like "Islamofascist." Is there a term that's acceptable for those who want to kill me just for being American/just for being Christian/just because I wear shorts when it's hot?
Posted by: Attila Girl at July 30, 2006 10:46 PM (4IuF2)
8
Oh, knock it off, Azmat. Every comment is fair game to all future commenters, as you well know. Furthermore, LMA has made her position known so many times that every regular reader can repeat them without distortion:You seem to be the only one that can't accept her words at face value. Now, why is that, Azmat? As with the Qur'an, I can only read what the words say(using accepted connotative and denotative definitions). You seem to be able to read what isn't there, or ignore what is, a talent I don't have. Too bad you don't have anyone to cure you of your hatred, especially with that "religion is the opiate of the masses" thing with your Leftist roots.
The definition of fascism as being "right-wing" is a product of left-wingers who assumed control of academia in the 20th century. An impartial observer would say that fascism combines elements from both groups, and doesn't exactly fit the philosophies of either. Wikipedia can give you a good overview of the debate. For example, "Although the broadest definitions of fascism may include every authoritarian state that has ever existed, most theorists see important distinctions to be made. Fascism in Italy arose in the 1920s as a mixture of syndicalist notions with an anti-materialist theory of the state; the latter had already been linked to an extreme nationalism." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=66803552
But, "syndicalisme is a French word meaning "trade unionism". This milder version of syndicalism was overshadowed by revolutionary anarcho-syndicalism in the early 20th century, which was most powerful in Spain, but also appeared in other parts of the world." And even biased analysts would concede that syndicalism is associated with the Left. And anti-materialism? Does that sound "right-wing" to you? Mussolini rejected free-markets and assumed absolute control of means of production--clearly leftist ideas, but stopped short of fully nationalizing State industries. Mussolini was a documented Socialist prior to forming his Fascisti Party. He stated that he no longer was, when asked thereafter. Hitler always claimed to be a Socialist, although he claimed to follow the "original, pure German Socialism" as created by various German and French philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries, not the "perverted" Socialism of Marx and Engels.
Posted by: Darrell at July 31, 2006 03:20 PM (2zCMq)
9
Attila,
How do you distinguish between peaceful christians and jews versus those who commit murder or use power to attempt conquest? You don't, when you start making that distinction I will answer your loaded question.
As I stated earlier, Jihadi is an appropriate term for those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and maybe in Lebonan.
I have also stated why Islamofacist is an inappropriate term. That is if you want to built bridges and claim to be on the side of moderate muslims. However, if you are interested in prevokin reactions, might as well post a picture of Micheal Jackson and call it Mohammed. That would do the trick!
As far as the distinction being useful? I think all distinctions are useful if made with an honorable intent. This distinction is basically a derrogatory term designed to paint all mulims as well as the religion they practice as being undesirable.
Posted by: azzerism at July 31, 2006 11:33 PM (Uagor)
10
For Christians and Jews who are not holy enough to eschew aggressive (non-defensive) violence, we might try the term "faux Christian," or "faux Jew."
Now, Doll. About those so-called "militants" . . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 01, 2006 12:00 AM (4IuF2)
11
Hey Attila, Call em what you like. I was only pointing out that the particular term was inconsistent with your position of aligning with moderate muslims. Hey you have the right to use whatever language you see fit, and then deal with the consequences.
Darrell: I thought about you as I did my daily ten mile run, and I thought long and deep. What I think you do not understand is that the Quran is read in conjunction with Mohammed's life history. As the passeges are relevent to what was happening at the time. Now the kill the infidels passage has to do with a war at that time, and only at that time. Besides the infidels are those that worship different Gods made out of clay and stone. So that does not have anything to do with Christians or Jews who are both monotheistic.
If LMA has made her position so clear then she should listen to what a moderate muslim has to say and make the correction. Otherwise she is maintaining a position contrary to her beliefs.
I might remind you that I have left my leftist roots and have now converted to your side. Thank you for enlightening me on the word facism. I am sure to use that against my leftist brothers and sisters.
BTW I will remind you again that Islam is a religion of personal interpretation. So no mullah or leader is going to tell me how to think or what to believe.
There are Sixty million muslims with serious psychological disorders see "Reynolds on the MSM Spinning the Seattle Shooting" So to pass judgement on a religion based on some lunatics even if they are 6% of the population is shamefully illogical. Secondly, do you seriously believe that God is going send a book down to us humans at a particular point in history, and its directives will include injustice or unnecessary suffering or murder and rape and suicide. And then this idea will survive 1400 years of human history and be accepted by a large following and is still growing?That is what really defies logic. Darrell please explain that to me someday after doing a deep and long thought.
Cheers,
Az
Posted by: azzerism at August 01, 2006 04:45 PM (Uagor)
12
I mentioned to you a long time ago(in our first discussion)that I understand how moderate Muslims rationalize and reconcile the Qur'an with modern times--saying the what is written is an anachronism today. But that is not a requirement of Islam, nor is it universally practiced. Moreover, I am constantly seeing 'moderates' who have expressed that view before, use the literal translations to justify current events. And by-the-way, "non-believers" in that cited passage has been defined to include "Christians and Jews" by many Muslim courts up to the present. The rationale? We lost our chance with God and became "disbelievers." Christians have an additional burden because we see Jesus as God(as well as the Holy Spirit), thus we violate the passages about "joining other gods with God." Besides, you know Mohammed' killed several Jewish tribes in his battles, those that fought against him and those that just tried to barricade themselves against his armies. What happened to the Jewish tribe that gave Mohammed sanctuary when he was driven out of Mecca? If Islam is serious about adopting a uniform code of modern conduct wouldn't a central authority achieve that end? That way those than "pick and choose" and literally apply the "anachronistic" passage to their modern lives could be told to conform or be expelled from the religion--forbidden to call themselves Muslims or followers of Islam. Under penalties, of course.
What's the secret of Islam's success? Oh, I don't know, could it be that "world domination" thing? And as far as you becoming a Conservative Republican...I don't believe it for a second. Wouldn't your words reflect that? How about your actions? Why do you persist with this lie? Is it my attempts to remind Muslims about the Left's position on religion and God? Does it make one's job as a stalking horse or Judas goat for the Left as you speak to unsuspecting Muslims easier? Or safer?
Posted by: Darrell at August 01, 2006 09:14 PM (1UTeJ)
13
Azmat: I've been more reluctant to use the word "jihadi" to describe the homicidal/hostile brand of Muslim, because I know that it refers to the term jidhad, which means war or struggle. Since I believe any life with a spiritual component involves a huge struggle with one's own worst nature, it's not my preferred term. But when you say it is an acceptable term for those fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, do you mean it may be applied fairly to the beheaders and the 9/11 hijackers?
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 01, 2006 10:13 PM (4IuF2)
14
Darrell:
If Islam is serious about adopting a uniform code of modern conduct wouldn't a central authority achieve that end? That way those than "pick and choose" and literally apply the "anachronistic" passage to their modern lives could be told to conform or be expelled from the religion--forbidden to call themselves Muslims or followers of Islam. Under penalties, of course.
Of course, that would imply that Christians can agree among themselves, or that Jews can.
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 01, 2006 10:22 PM (4IuF2)
15
Darrell, what you are suggesting has been tried and it is not enforcable. There are enough sects in Islam who some have declared as blesphemous, yet those sects prosper and grow. Just like you can have your suspicions about me being an authentic conservative, but you cannot prove it nor can you ban me from declaring and joining any party. Similarly, there is no way to tell what is in the hearts and minds of those so-called muslims who do anything and everything against Islam.
Also we have no right to judge, remember Jesus; take the Log out of your own eye first.
I am not trying to reconcile the Quran with modern events, if anything I am saying the opposite. I am suggesting that you read the book according to its time.
When I read Plato or Socretes or Aristotle, I must keep it in my mind the time period when these books were written. If you read Shakespere and have no idea of the times he lived in, despite dealing with universal themes it would be very difficult to understand some ideas.
I am not trying to rationalize anything in the Quran, it is what it is. I am suggesting that reading for understanding means that you have a historical context.
Despite being the weak in the sense of having a slave morality; 'Nietzsche'. Islam is spreading. You say world domination, I say its the other way around. The people who want world domination end up losing. The only way you grow and prosper is if you believe in principles that are timeless.
The history that you study is not the same that is taught elsewhere in the world. History has a point of view and perspective. Your books are full of bias, and so are the so called historical facts which are just simple falsehoods.
Now if you read history from a different perspective you might be able to see your own particular bias.
Let me give you a simple example, nothing to do with Islam; The British call the War of 1857 in India 'Mutiny' and Indians call it the war of independence that is what I mean by perspective.
Unfortunately you are so entrenched in your ethnocentrism, that it would be very hard for you to see any other perspective.
That is why you are so stuck on certain passages in the Quran. You are stuck with your point of view. And guess what you are the ONLY ONE who feels that way. Of all the millions of different interpretations, you have picked the one that suits you. Allows you to hate, fear or despise Islam. Please continue to do that and see if it benefits you.
By the way your historical knowldge is biased, when mohammed first got to Medina, the first ones to convert to Islam were Jewish. Secondly, the wars that were fought were with Mecca, and in one war the Jews conspired and betrayed their own word. That is the history that I have been taught.
I have always been taught to respect christians and jews as they are Ehel- Kitab, the people of the book, and the same religion of Abraham that we practice.
Peace Bro
Posted by: azzerism at August 01, 2006 10:53 PM (Uagor)
16
The Catholic Church is able to excommunicate people/priests who stray from Church Doctrine. At least they can let future unsuspecting followers know that this person does not represent its views or teachings. It doesn't stop the MSM, however, from using those people as 'experts' when they present a documentary on Jesus or religion. It doesn't even make them mention that minor detail.
Posted by: Darrell at August 02, 2006 07:47 AM (Sc5TM)
17
Attila, Jihadi can be used for Iraqis or Afghanis because they are fighting a foriegn occupation. It was not the case with 9/11 or other terroristic acts. For that there is an even more simple explanation. Revenge.
Most westerners cannot explain how or why 9/11 happened, or for that matter who was behind it. The answer is too simple: my analogy is that of the School principal, whose job is to be impartial. Now suppose the Principal catches two students fighting and continually takes the side of one, thereby losing impartiality. It is possible that the victim might lash out at the principal. In this case the United States has continued support for Israel and the backlash of that is 9/11 and other such acts.
Islam cannot have a central authority because there are no real leaders. The religion is based on personal interpretation, so it is hard to get consensus on issues. There are just too many different cultures that practice Islam. In the same species there is more variation then between different species. Being a muslim will always be a losely defined term.
Posted by: Azzerism at August 02, 2006 09:38 PM (Uagor)
18
Thank you, Azmat. The "people of the book" concept appears to be getting lost in the shuffle these days.
I still haven't yet procured from you an approved term for those who use Islam as a pretext to murder innocents. What would you call the 9/11 hijackers?
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 03, 2006 11:20 AM (4IuF2)
19
How about the "9/11 hijackers". Seems like that is what they did. Notice they did not envoke Islam, you did!
Did the Hijackers leave a video? that I am unaware of saying that they are laying down their lives for Islam? Like some palestinians do.
Note Palastenians are about a peice of land, not religion. They may invoke religion to soothe their own soul and claim to be Jihadis, because of foriegn occupation. Well we all need some form of justification for our actions.
I think you want to find something in common with these people and what is going on in Iraq and afghanistan. They have nothing in common. If osama was hiding in Nepal and US attacked nepal, would the nepali people be called terrorists? How about Nepali-facists ? Or if the terrorist are hiding in India, or Pakistan or China, (and some are) would the US dare attack those countries? I think not!
The global war on terror is just that a war without any faces or names. The biggest losers so far has been the United States. Lets see one percent of 250000 is 2500 right? So one percent have basically lost their lives to what end? The scandals, the torture, the making of more enemies, and the talibans and the iraqis would rather kill then lie down and accept some form of government that was supposed to be better for them. And there is no end in sight. How many Iraqis dead? How many Taliban? probably less than one percent. How many innocent civillians? too many! and the blame does not go to the nameless faceless terrorists, it gors to the United States, for starting a War without just cause.
These idiots are the hatfields and MaCoys and will fight for centuries over the revenge motif.
Any war is a lose lose situation. This war is a lose/lose and lose again and again situation.
Attila, nobody consulted me before this war was started, In fact I think that there was very little consultation and agreement from reasonable people who had some knowledge of the social factors in Iraq and Afghanistan. The consequence is that now the US is stuck! If I was asked I would have told the state department to look for specific people by infiltration. A full scale war just invites future generations to devise ways to take revenge.
The next 9/11 if it happens in the next twenty years or so will leave the next generation here in the west ,baffled. They will say what did we ever do to the Afghanis or Iraqis? Or the muslim? Maybe they are upset with us because we wear shorts in the summer. Or they just want to kill us because they despise our freedoms. Sound familiar Attila.
I thought conservatives knew the meaning of the word responsibility. In other words what happens to me I am responsible for it in some way. I should look at what I am doing that is the cause of the matter and only then can I change it. Can you see that your wearing shorts could not possibly cause 9/11. Maybe make some mullahs hot on a hot day, but that is about it! The only reaction you might get is; well you already know that.
Posted by: azzerism at August 04, 2006 12:11 AM (Uagor)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
