Islamisation [Archive] - Page 2

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 12:22

Think Arthurian Legends - Arthur was a Briton (or could have been Roman) - fighting the invading Saxons.

Arthur was most likely a Romanized-Celt. The Romans had been there for 500 years and had interbred with the locals. He wasn't puire anythign by that stage.

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 12:26

No, it isn't what you said.
You said that Anglo Saxon described the last invaders.

Anglo Saxon is a term describing three Germanic Tribes (Angles, Saxons and Jutes) who invaded England (or more correctly the four or so kingdoms that then existed) in the fifth century. The fact that the local Britons referred to them by the one name suggests that the Anglo Saxons were at that point more or less one people.

They stepped into the vacuum left by the departing Romans and conquered or displaced (mainly to Wales) the local Britons, and established the kingdoms of Wessex, East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria (the latter containing a swath of modern Scotland).

They themselves were attacked and conquered by Vikings and Danes and eventually the Normans (who were probably originally Danish).

The term England (Angle-lands) was used by the Anglo Saxons to describe their new lands.

This conversation is happening so fast I think we are all getting little lost ... My understanding of British population history is much the same as yours, differing only in detail, and the fact that I'm sitting 27ks away from my library ... and I'm pretty careful with language .. and I would not agree with the statement you attribute to me .. so I would have never have made it ..

I don't believe we disagree that the history of the British Isles is mixed, and that it is a micro-cosm of what happens as populations move around the world, rub up against each other with conflict, culture change, growth and development ... which is the point I was trying to make around threre pages ago ..

avgas

27th August 2010, 12:26

But we are NOT one people .. we are Becoming one people ...
"You must be the change you want to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 12:27

Hey .. I've caught up .. It's lunchtime . and I'm going for coffee and a smoke ...

And before you'll come back at me ... Post 248 is largely a joke .. but an illustrative one ..

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 12:29

"You must be the change you want to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi

Yes, exactly. The change I want to see int he world is a change in the economic and political circumstahces of my whanau .. and I'm workign towards that aim ...

Shit .. I was going for a smoke and coffee ...

Swoop

27th August 2010, 12:30

Good morning. I hijacked it ...
We are still awaiting your list of demands.
Perhaps releasing a few hostages would be a move in the right direction?? We want everything to end peacefully without anyone getting hurt!:shifty:

avgas

27th August 2010, 12:40

I love African food. One joy was to discover there's an Afrikaans-quisine restaurant near here. I listen to world-beat music, especially Africa - my own cooking comes from Italy -pasta - Europe - love lotkas for breakfast - Pākehā New Zealand - Sunday roast - and Māori - good boil up at least once a week - I speak both English very well and Māori - growing so what's the culture of my house? New Zealand culture of course.
Good to hear.
So whats your problem with the rest of us being called kiwi's / NZers?

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 12:48

Good to hear.
So whats your problem with the rest of us being called kiwi's / NZers?

The term "New Zealander" and "Kiwi" is favoured by right-wing men aged 45 years old ... and is used by them to privilege a mostly white version of the culture ... I think we would both disagree with their version of what the terms signify.

Personally, I don't have an issue with the terms ... I think we should recapture them from the old nasties ... but currently they generally signify a white version of New Zealand culture.

rustyrobot

27th August 2010, 12:52

"You must be the change you want to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi

Which is the entire point of me attempting to contribute to this conversation.

Is it possible that there is some small point of agreement we could make.

Say... pre-european the different Māori iwi had cultures of their own. This included religious beliefs, social beliefs, environmental beliefs, quite firm ideas about the organisation of familial and class structures, acceptable and non-acceptable practices - and ways of dealing with breaches of those protocols. They also had certain dances, songs, food stuffs and preparations.

The peoples who came from various parts around Europe, mostly Britons, brought with them their own sets of beliefs around the same. They had various religious, environmental, familial and class beliefs of their own. Some were more dominant as they were those enjoyed by the ruling classes. These people too had songs, dances, food stuffs and preparation rites of their own.

You need to shatter whatever blatant misconception you are holding on to.

You are right in that I have no idea who you are or where you are from. You haven't offered the information, and really I was talking in a generalised way, so your specific situation wasn't intended to be the focal point. Help me shatter my misconception.

At the root of it though, I fail to see how anyone can miss the fact that the systems in place in New Zealand now were built upon the cultural ideals of the colonising peoples.

avgas

27th August 2010, 13:03

The term "New Zealander" and "Kiwi" is favoured by right-wing men aged 45 years old ... and is used by them to privilege a mostly white version of the culture ... I think we would both disagree with their version of what the terms signify.
Personally, I don't have an issue with the terms ... I think we should recapture them from the old nasties ... but currently they generally signify a white version of New Zealand culture.
I really think you should ask more people about this. As you are basing this on what YOU think.
The rest of the world doesn't feel the same as you.
There are very few right-wing white 45 year olds in NZ.

To me the term Kiwi is quite simple - someone from NZ. That little country in the Pacific which stands out on its own. Kiwi culture is what you feel here. From hugging Tane Mahuta to going to the shop to get the milk and lollies.

God no wonder we have a country pride problem.

rustyrobot

27th August 2010, 13:06

So you didn't say:

"I think that most Westerners are blind to what culture is because we have such a smug superiority about our own."

Yes, I clearly did say that. How could we have a smug superiority about our culture if we didn't have one? I said it again as: "We are so absorbed in our culture that we don't realise that it IS a culture". The majority of people seem to see culture as something other people have, or do. They see what we do as 'normal' (in the way of birthday celebrations, family organisation, work relationships, funereal observances, eating customs, etc), and therefore not a specific set of cultural practices.

The thrust of my arguement is that these cultural ideas underlie all of the decisions made about how organisations and social structures are organised, so in that way, those organisations and structures represent those beliefs.

We don't have a 'normal' justice system, we have one which reflects the cultural norms of the people who created that justice system, and I bet there were few if any Māori people involved in that. Likewise the education, health, local councils, etc. There were probably also very few poor people, chinese people, disabled people, women and young people involved in the initial formation of those structures.

Mind you, your use of the word "Westerners" is very confusing - are you speaking of white NZers or people from Western Yrup?

I thought the use of the term Westerners was quite common? It even has a wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westerners) :) I use the term to denote those people who are from the Western-World, the Occident. I will try and find a word which better reflects the political-religious-cultural norms I am trying to suggest.

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 13:13

I use the term to denote those people who are from the Western-World, the Occident. I will try and find a word which better reflects the political-religious-cultural norms I am trying to suggest.

Good luck. Trying to find one that won't offend someone is nearly impossible.

avgas

27th August 2010, 13:20

Help me shatter my misconception.
I was born in Dunedin, my father is from Turangi and my mother from Taumaranui.
I grew up wherever dad got work (miner/tunneller), but a large proportion was spent in Waihi Beach and Katikati.
Being in a typical lower working class family - my father worked with many Maori, among others. His philosophy was simple - he would work with anyone who would work with him. I carried this philosophy with me - which unfortunately made me bias not on race, but against those who do not want to help themselves.
Upon moving to Auckland - I had my misconceptions shattered again, as multicultural became not just English, South African, Maori and of course Pakeha (yes English does not equal Pakeha) to include more Asian (India to Indonesia and everything inbetween), American, Canadian, Russian (including all old republics).......
But by simply falling back to my morals - I still kept making friends. I will befriend anyone, regardless of race.
I will work with anyone who will work with me.
Many of these individuals I met have adopted so much NZ culture, that it seems stupid to call them anything but Kiwi.

At the root of it though, I fail to see how anyone can miss the fact that the systems in place in New Zealand now were built upon the cultural ideals of the colonising peoples.
And what makes you think that only Maori are against this?
Surely a wise move would be to gain support from all cultures against these ideas.
I mean shit man, my surname basically translates into slave in english. What makes you think I would want to protect them?

avgas

27th August 2010, 13:24

I will try and find a word which better reflects the political-religious-cultural norms I am trying to suggest.
Lets see, if you mean that we follow the "Westerner" political-religious-cultural norms, then westerner is the right word.
Of course if you talking about NZ based political-religious-cultural norms, try using the term kiwi for size

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 13:26

I really think you should ask more people about this. As you are basing this on what YOU think.
The rest of the world doesn't feel the same as you.
There are very few right-wing white 45 year olds in NZ.

To me the term Kiwi is quite simple - someone from NZ. That little country in the Pacific which stands out on its own. Kiwi culture is what you feel here. From hugging Tane Mahuta to going to the shop to get the milk and lollies.

God no wonder we have a country pride problem.

That came from work done around the last census and whether or not people should be able to record trheir ethnicity as "New Zealander" and subsequent research around that issue. It might take me a while to find it ...

We have no pride in our country because .. well just listen to the Ozzie National Anthem .. Advance Australia Fair .... and ours ? God Help Us ... (God Defend New Zealand)

avgas

27th August 2010, 13:42

That came from work done around the last census and whether or not people should be able to record trheir ethnicity as "New Zealander" and subsequent research around that issue. It might take me a while to find it ..
Ah yes - but that makes something like 1/8th of NZ of Jedi faith

So perhaps if anyone here knows of any:
- 45
- Right wing
- "NZ'r"
- Of Jedi faith

Perhaps they could now contribute to the conversation and tell me why I should believe that the only use of the terms "Kiwi" or "NZ'r" are for just the white collar man.

rustyrobot

27th August 2010, 13:55

I will work with anyone who will work with me.
And so it should be.

And what makes you think that only Maori are against this?
Surely a wise move would be to gain support from all cultures against these ideas.
I mean shit man, my surname basically translates into slave in english. What makes you think I would want to protect them?
Did I say you would? I think I was generalising again. Apologies.

I know it's not just Māori, the majority of my friends are also against this claiming of westerner culture as 'kiwi' culture. I guess it is that forced associating of kiwi with New Zealand flavoured (i.e. pavlova, marmite and kiwifruit) westerner culture that prevents it from sitting easily with me.

Perhaps the leap I have made in error is assuming that all these people who might say 'we are all one' or 'we are all new zealanders', are also the type who add - so you have to assimilate to be like me.

I think that a lot of the people who most desperately feel the need for a strong NZ/kiwi culture to identify with are those who feel alienated from their own historical cultural traditions.

I mean, by your definition avgas, an indonesian muslim who wants a hard-line islamic government in New Zealand can be considered a kiwi if they are living here. Or a cuban communist who wants an end to the global capitalist hegemony but happens to have been born in Ekatahuna. Or my nan (who was actually born in London) and can't pronounce a word of Māori correctly. I just wonder how that's going to sit with the flag waving 45 year old Jedis? :)

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 14:04

Perhaps they could now contribute to the conversation and tell me why I should believe that the only use of the terms "Kiwi" or "NZ'r" are for just the white collar man.

You fail to understand that they would not understand the question ... they think that everyone is a New Zealander (right) and that everyone should be like them (wrong) .. see RustyRobot's response above .. says it all

R-Soul

27th August 2010, 15:24

Are you surpised that we are still angry about this? The Irish have been angry for hundreds of years about what the English did to them.

Seriously, I dont believe that there is any culture in the world that did not suffer hardships under their colonisers - be they Spanish, English or French.

The thinking at the time was VERY racist, regarding all non-citizens of colonial powers as pretty much sub-human. The hangover of that colonial arrogance resulted in the racist tendencies that led to apartheid, and the treatment of black people as close to slaves well into the 20th century. That same attitude was seen in India, the attitude towards blacks in America, and in the way that Aborigines were treated in Australia.

The thinking at the time (and it should be taken in the context of a world at the time where "might is right") was that if the other cultures did not have the technology (read gunpowder and ships) to win, they deserved to be slaves. As I say I dont know NZ history very well, but from the sounds of it, the Maori's got away relatively unscathed compared to some...

But times have moved on, and people have become more sophisticated, and SHOULD be able to see that other cultures can offer more than just technology (such as different world views). It is the information age, and new ways of thinking are as important as new technologies.

Might is no longer right, people of a multitude of descendants have now found themselves as citizens of the ex-colonies, who now call it "home" and just as Pakeha kiwis should recognise that all cultures (not just westernised culture) have a place, so should Maori's recognise that New Zealand culture is no longer either English or Maori, but a melting pot of all.

The only rule should be one of tolerance.

avgas

27th August 2010, 15:45

I mean, by your definition avgas, an indonesian muslim who wants a hard-line islamic government in New Zealand can be considered a kiwi if they are living here. Or a cuban communist who wants an end to the global capitalist hegemony but happens to have been born in Ekatahuna. Or my nan (who was actually born in London) and can't pronounce a word of Māori correctly. I just wonder how that's going to sit with the flag waving 45 year old Jedis? :)
Hopefully it will get right up their nose.
Note the name is voluntary - just like coming here.
Its not a "select-whom-you-feel-fits" society like others.

R-Soul

27th August 2010, 16:05

So, leaving aside that just because something has happened before that doesn't make it okay ("well officer, someone stole a motorbike last week, so I thought it would be okay to steal one this week"), how do the Scottish, Welsh and Irish feel about someone saying "we're all English now"?! Oh wait, you keep reminding us that it's not right. So, just perhaps we aren't all 'one New Zealand' now.

Yeah you just did that too by refusing to deal wit the Maoris having oppressed the previous polulation too...

It's less one-dimensional than necessarily brief. I don't see why you get so angry, this is a great dialogue and many more like it should be had. Have you ever been on a marae Oscar? Noticed that things run a little bit differently than when you last visited a community centre or town hall?

I have not - I would LOVE to visit a Marae and understand the culture better. Why do Marae's not actually offer livie in vacations, where foreigners come and live on Marae and learn to follow the traditions for a month? it would make an awesome adventure/working holiday, and provide some strong backs for whatever projects are going ion in the Marae.

Okay, so who was it that defined the political structures in New Zealand? It wasn't the agents of the crown? Oh wait - it was.

OK I am just going to go ahead and say it then - because I am an undeucated foreigner, white and maybe I can be excused (although I will probably take a hiding for this): What did the Maori culture have at the time that was worth keeping over the British one? The system of governance? I dont know what teh Maoris had at the time - I'm not sure if the Brits woul dhave been partial to going back to feudal chieftianship? The education system (I dont know what they had)? Clothing? Technology (probably not)?

Its like when a corporation takes over another one. The reason that it is taking over in the first place, is because it was more efficient as certain important things.
The Maoris were not prevented from carrying on in their own culture were they? I understand them being miffed that they were prevented from taking part in the British on- but as I explained in the previous post, my understanding was that they were relatively well treated (compared to some). Those were the times. I am not saying they were good, but they just were.

And now that the actual colonial governors are long gone, all kids have equal opportunity, and anyone could be whatever they want. I dont understand the Maori greviance now?

So what, Māori culture has to be somehow frozen in time? I don't understand your concerted effort to not try and understand the idea of Māori having a fundamentally different underlying culture which doesn't match the one which birthed the system of governance, education, justice, etc. in this country. I am still trying to understand what you mean by underlying culture (although I understand how cultures can be different given my background in SA - for example; the conceptof indivvidual ownership in black tribes is foreign - it is all abouty family ownership. The concept of "rape" is also foreign- it is regarded as an insult to FAMILY honour - and as long as the "event" is made up for by a tribute to the family's honour, then there seems to be no worries). Can you give examples?

oldrider

27th August 2010, 16:44

Some people live life looking backwards too much, they should try riding a motorcycle while only ever looking in the mirrors! :mellow:

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 16:45

Yeah you just did that too by refusing to deal wit the Maoris having oppressed the previous polulation too...

I have not - I would LOVE to visit a Marae and understand the culture better. Why do Marae's not actually offer livie in vacations, where foreigners come and live on Marae and learn to follow the traditions for a month? it would make an awesome adventure/working holiday, and provide some strong backs for whatever projects are going ion in the Marae.

OK I am just going to go ahead and say it then - because I am an undeucated foreigner, white and maybe I can be excused (although I will probably take a hiding for this): What did the Maori culture have at the time that was worth keeping over the British one? The system of governance? I dont know what teh Maoris had at the time - I'm not sure if the Brits woul dhave been partial to going back to feudal chieftianship? The education system (I dont know what they had)? Clothing? Technology (probably not)?

Hmm .. quite a lot really .. but it's more about the systems and values. Māori political systems are more consensual than western ones (and I use the word Western guardedly ...) There was certainly a lot that needed to be changed - the issue is by whom? To force a culture to change as was done is colonization - and by the time NZ was colonized a lot of European and American writers were saying it was wrong ... so to say, as has been mentioned, that the attitudes of the time were racist is not totally correct.

And one reading of the Declaration of Independence is that the eoploe who signed it were envisioning a federal system - The United States of New Zealand - each iwi as a state .. what an interesting idea .. so they wanted to change, and they saw the model of the USA and wanted to adopt that - not what they got.

Education - Yes the tipuna had an education system. They wanted it to change. They wanted their children to be taught to be doctors and lawyers. The white governmenttrained them to be farm labourers and domestic servants. Māori wanted it to change - but not the way the white colonizers changed it.

And other peoples have been yaken over by invaders. But have not had their systems wiped out by ther invaders. Imperial Rome did not rule that way. Colonization as it occured in the 18th and 19th Century - especially the later part - was of a different nature. It was the deliberate impostion of European ways on other populations - The White Man's Burden (Cecil Rhodes 'n all). And if imposition didn't work then genocide would. And it has different long-term consequences.

Its like when a corporation takes over another one. The reason that it is taking over in the first place, is because it was more efficient as certain important things.
The Maoris were not prevented from carrying on in their own culture were they? I understand them being miffed that they were prevented from taking part in the British on- but as I explained in the previous post, my understanding was that they were relatively well treated (compared to some). Those were the times. I am not saying they were good, but they just were.

This is true ... there weren't the genocidal policies of North America or Australia - nor the racist crap of Southern Africa (South Africa/Zimbabwe) however, colonization occured - Māori were relegated to the low socio-economic groups and suffer from the same consequences - substance abuse, violence, criminal behaviour, poor health, poor educational outcomes ... And before the hard liners jump in .. reasons are NOT the same as excuses ... all these things occur in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Algeria, Australia, North America ....

And now that the actual colonial governors are long gone, all kids have equal opportunity, and anyone could be whatever they want. I dont understand the Maori greviance now?

Have they gone? White European-descent people still rule here. And they still look and behave like colonizers ... When Helen Clarke was mistreated at Waitangi a few years ago she said "How dare they treat me that way?" Exactly the words of Governor Grey in the 19th century. The Pākehā-driven Government still thinks it can decide what is best for Māori .. a totally condesending point of view - a colonizers point of view - a Great White Father position. The colonizers are still here.

I am still trying to understand what you mean by underlying culture (although I understand how cultures can be different given my background in SA - for example; the concept of indivvidual ownership in black tribes is foreign - it is all abouty family ownership. The concept of "rape" is also foreign- it is regarded as an insult to FAMILY honour - and as long as the "event" is made up for by a tribute to the family's honour, then there seems to be no worries). Can you give examples?

You ouitline a few examples. I'd say it is in the values and worldview which is expressed through the culture. Let's see ...

The Bible (Genesis chapter one) gives Man dominion over the whole of the earth. While Chrtianity may have a lessening influence on our culture, the view that we canexploit the world - and we do - comes directly from that. The Māori worldview has no such basis for exploiting our world.

The western view of the world, again derived from Christianity (and probably the atheists will jump in here ... don't bother) is of three levels, a heaven above, a hell below and the world in between ... Māori worldview is based in one - Te Ao Marama ... there is no distinction between the spiritual worlds and this world .. it's all one ...

There is nowhere in Te Ao Marama which is profane ... it's all sacred because it was all created as a process from Io through Rangi and Papa to the Atua and then people ... Only parts of this world are sacred to western eyes. The rest is all profane and can be exploited (so they do)

In Māori terms, People were created as part of a natural process, as part of this world. In Christianity we were created at the whim of an all-powerful God as an add-on.

There is no concept of sin in Māori terms. There is no God handing out rules. You can do things wrongly - but that's not the same concept.

Death in the Māōri world is a natural event and not to be feared. Western people are afrraid of dying - Genesis sets up death as a punishment - and after death, according the Christians, we can still be unished at the whim of some being we have never met ... No wonder the western world is fullof the fear of death .. even for non-Christians ...

And so on ... Does that help ?

I'm gone till Wednesday - please don't kill each other ...

Banditbandit

27th August 2010, 16:53

Some people live life looking backwards too much, they should try riding a motorcycle while only ever looking in the mirrors! :mellow:

You can only understand the present if you understand how we got where we are - and then you can plan the future ...

R-Soul

27th August 2010, 17:22

Hmm .. quite a lot really .. but it's more about the systems and values. Māori political systems are more consensual than western ones (and I use the word Western guardedly ...)

And consensual systems work well when you have small tribes, but not for larger grwoing countries. So that would be largely unworklable at least today.

To force a culture to change as was done is colonization - and by the time NZ was colonized a lot of European and American writers were saying it was wrong ... so to say, as has been mentioned, that the attitudes of the time were racist is not totally correct.
The attitides of TODAY are almost the same, but with more recognition of basic human rights.
There is still always an implicit "understanding" that the white mans way is better, basically because it comes with better technology... its my opinion that westerners still see themselves as being superior, culturally and technologically, to most other cultures, and still display a similar arrogance. Although the world is catching up quickly technologically (Indian and Chinese cultures in particular).

Just because the tech was better, there almost seemed to be an assumtion that the rest of their society was also - probably because the tech affected so many other things (medicine etc). Although in some cases, it was not.

And one reading of the Declaration of Independence is that the eoploe who signed it were envisioning a federal system - The United States of New Zealand - each iwi as a state .. what an interesting idea .. so they wanted to change, and they saw the model of the USA and wanted to adopt that - not what they got.

I am surprised that they never insisted in a Bil of Rights like the USA - it could have saved them a lot of hardships.

Education - Yes the tipuna had an education system. They wanted it to change. They wanted their children to be taught to be doctors and lawyers. The white governmenttrained them to be farm labourers and domestic servants. Māori wanted it to change - but not the way the white colonizers changed it.

And other peoples have been yaken over by invaders. But have not had their systems wiped out by ther invaders. Imperial Rome did not rule that way. Colonization as it occured in the 18th and 19th Century - especially the later part - was of a different nature. It was the deliberate impostion of European ways on other populations - The White Man's Burden (Cecil Rhodes 'n all). And if imposition didn't work then genocide would. And it has different long-term consequences.

Their actions refelected their beliefs that other cultures that were being encountered were stone-age in nature (even though it was probably only the tech that was actualy stone age in nature).
They saw the imbalances in tech, and presumed that the rest was backwards too. There is no doubt that it could have been done alot better, with a lot more respect and caring - but at teh time, they weren't trying to win friends and create a loving caring society. they were only looking for resources to fuel their own ongoing wars and power balances in Europe. They were, in a sense, also fighting for their survival. They never did view the colonies as being part of them - more a resource to be plundered and dropped.

Have they gone? White European-descent people still rule here. And they still look and behave like colonizers ... When Helen Clarke was mistreated at Waitangi a few years ago she said "How dare they treat me that way?" Exactly the words of Governor Grey in the 19th century.

No they aren't gone - there is a residual belief that hite is best. Unfortunately - because we could learn a lot. Although I cant see Uncle Helen standing for mistreatment at the heands of anybody....

SS90

28th August 2010, 09:03

Just something to think about......
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...hijack-attempt

oldrider

28th August 2010, 09:34

Just something to think about......
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...hijack-attempt

Sorry, that page no longer exists! :shutup:

SS90

28th August 2010, 10:18

Sorry, that page no longer exists! :shutup:

I can't find a reference to it any where on the web...... That was quick.... Removed to due fears of an anti Somalian Muslim backlash perhaps???

SS90

28th August 2010, 10:23

This is all I could find......what a world huh... A website called "Jihad watch"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/12/somali-female-hijacker-i-should-have-killed-the-pilot-but-im-three-months-pregnant.html

oldrider

28th August 2010, 20:43

This is all I could find......what a world huh... A website called "Jihad watch"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/12/somali-female-hijacker-i-should-have-killed-the-pilot-but-im-three-months-pregnant.html

Hmmm, thank you for these people....Sir Helen Clark! :sick:

oldrider

29th August 2010, 09:22

An email I just got that I thought might provoke a bit of comment both ways Here on KB. (abridged)

Its headed up "This Will Give You Cold Chills!"

But why? Because someone thinks like this or because you believe what he says??

I'll leave it to you!!
Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe , American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe 's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know.

[/I][/I]

With respect to the original post: I read this yesterday, thought it pertinent to this thread! :shifty:

My Building Permit

I just applied for a building permit for a new house.

It is going to be 100 ft tall and 400 ft wide with 9 turrets at various heights and windows all over the place and a loud outside entertainment sound system. It will have parking for 200 cars and I am going to paint it snot green with pink trim.

The City Council told me to go to hell.

So I sent in the application again, but this time I called it a mosque.

Work starts on Monday. :mellow:

tri boy

29th August 2010, 12:09

Muslim or Christian, Mullah or Pope,
Preacher or poet, who was it that wrote,
"Give any one species too much rope, and they will fuck it up".

R Waters,
Too much rope,
Amused to death.

(Bumblebees will kick all our arses).

Winston001

29th August 2010, 13:02

Isn't it possible that European culture is superior to other cultures? The reason being that it is richer and deeper than others, tracing philosophical and scientific roots back at least 3000 years to the Greeks.

In fairness Chinese and Indian cultures have similar depth but they did not develop technology far enough.

The Arab culture had significant scientific and technological knowledge for a time which the Europeans adopted. Unfortunately - and it may have been the influence of Islam - the Arabs declined.

Ultimately like it or not, British culture rules the world and it is fruitless to pretend otherwise. In the most modern sense it is actually American culture which is dominant but it is simply an outgrowth from Britain - the English language, science, and law.

tri boy

29th August 2010, 13:08

British culture. Bwaaaahaaaahaaaa:killingme
Downt the chippie, then the pub, drop an E, and ooonst oonst oonst the night away, till dawn, then fight whoever is close by.:Punk:

Oscar

29th August 2010, 13:35

British culture. Bwaaaahaaaahaaaa:killingme
Downt the chippie, then the pub, drop an E, and ooonst oonst oonst the night away, till dawn, then fight whoever is close by.:Punk:

What sort of bike do you ride again?:angry:

Colonial traitor...

Berries

29th August 2010, 15:18

British culture. Bwaaaahaaaahaaaa:killingme
Downt the chippie, then the pub, drop an E, and ooonst oonst oonst the night away, till dawn, then fight whoever is close by.:Punk:
You don't know how homesick you just made me.

Kabul

29th August 2010, 17:59

It's funny how people are apathetic about peace but are so keen to come together when anyone identifies an enemy. and it doesn't matter who the enemy is, or even if they really are one.

Throughout history Mulsim have generally suffered the forced or attempted Christianisation of Islam. The Crusades are an obvious example. Modern Muslim note that Israel is supported by US right-wing Christian fanatics who don't support freedom for Jews in their homeland but believe it will lead to the fulfilment of Bible prophecy - Armagheddon in the Middle East. They're paying for another holocaust. Most Muslim countries have a history or colonisation by Western countries. So, there are plenty who don't like us.

So, yes, we know there are Muslims who want to conquer the world for Islam, just as there are Christian usuing US muscle to conquer the world for Christianity.

But I have lived in many Muslim countrioes and know many here in New Zealand. They want pretty much what we want - happiness, prosperity, and the chance to live according to their own principles, which don't include conquering other people. I don't happen to agree with their religion, but then I might not agree with yours either.

The single greatest way of supporting Al Qaeda and the Taliban is to circulate disguisting hate-filled racist emails like the one which started all this off. That just encourages more young disaffected Muslims to join the other side.

If you don't wnat New Zealand to become a hotbed of radicalism, you can do something about it. Show respect to Muslims you meet or work with. Find out about them. Just say "Salaam Aleikhom" when you meet so they will feel at home.

marie_speeds

29th August 2010, 19:24

Yesterday I ran into a friend of my sisters. She has invited us to her home on the 12th September for a family dinner, to mark the end of Ramadan! What is really funny was that I always assumed she was Christian as both her daughters go to Holy Cross Primary School. When I am embarrassingly told her such she told me that her and her husband preferred that their daughters be given a religious education even if it were Catholic, as they would like them to grow up respectful, kind and charitable members of society. I must say I indeed felt very small. It is a shame that liberal peaceful muslim's such as them are never portrayed in the media.

SS90

29th August 2010, 20:00

If you don't wnat New Zealand to become a hotbed of radicalism, you can do something about it. Show respect to Muslims you meet or work with. Find out about them. Just say "Salaam Aleikhom" when you meet so they will feel at home.

Well, the point is that NZ is their home now and "Salaam Aleikhom" is not a word in the English or Maori dictionary.

The languages of NZ are English, Maori and NZ sign language.

" Giddy mate, how ya goin'" would be more fitting.

Given the reputation of Muslims for settling all over the world, building mosks, and killing people, I say that we should smile politely, but carry a big stick.

If any more of them try highjacking planes or what ever, then the only thing you will here from most Kiwis is "piss off Abdul".

I say it is the responsibility of all the Muslims to destroy the networks of the "extremists "..... Achieve that, and I will help build a Mosk or 2..... In Siberia.

phill-k

29th August 2010, 20:25

It's funny how people are apathetic about peace but are so keen to come together when anyone identifies an enemy. and it doesn't matter who the enemy is, or even if they really are one.

Throughout history Mulsim have generally suffered the forced or attempted Christianisation of Islam. The Crusades are an obvious example. Modern Muslim note that Israel is supported by US right-wing Christian fanatics who don't support freedom for Jews in their homeland but believe it will lead to the fulfilment of Bible prophecy - Armagheddon in the Middle East. They're paying for another holocaust. Most Muslim countries have a history or colonisation by Western countries. So, there are plenty who don't like us.

So, yes, we know there are Muslims who want to conquer the world for Islam, just as there are Christian usuing US muscle to conquer the world for Christianity.

But I have lived in many Muslim countrioes and know many here in New Zealand. They want pretty much what we want - happiness, prosperity, and the chance to live according to their own principles, which don't include conquering other people. I don't happen to agree with their religion, but then I might not agree with yours either.

The single greatest way of supporting Al Qaeda and the Taliban is to circulate disguisting hate-filled racist emails like the one which started all this off. That just encourages more young disaffected Muslims to join the other side.

If you don't wnat New Zealand to become a hotbed of radicalism, you can do something about it. Show respect to Muslims you meet or work with. Find out about them. Just say "Salaam Aleikhom" when you meet so they will feel at home.

Mate (and I use that as a NZ idiosyncrasy) as you would expect us to respect your beliefs and custom in your homeland - no alcohol and women treated with demean by being made to cover their beauty, when coming to our country you need to first respect our open way of life and the fact we love the beauty of a woman exposed. Don't come here preaching your beliefs, come humble respect those that are prepared to adopt you and allow you to integrate into our way of life. Come here and isolate yourself and denigrate our way of life and we we gladly throw you out on your ear.
in other words do it our way or fuck off!!:Punk:

Mind you I'm assuming you are of Middle Eastern heritage if not stop being so bloody politically correct, that's what's causing so much shit in the world today, this is NZ do it our way and enjoy or just fuck off and leave us alone in paradise, I mean this is where the virgins are after all.:yes:

Hans

29th August 2010, 22:53

Mind you I'm assuming you are of Middle Eastern heritage if not stop being so bloody politically correct, that's what's causing so much shit in the world today, this is NZ do it our way and enjoy or just fuck off and leave us alone in paradise, I mean this is where the virgins are after all.:yes:

More likely an English as a second language teacher. Or an "educator" to use the correct newspeak.
What I hate even more than the A-rabs are A-rab shills. (Or Persian shills for that matter).
Gets about as much respect as an ice cream salesman from Edgecumbe might get.

avgas

30th August 2010, 09:18

You don't know how homesick you just made me.
We can guess.

avgas

30th August 2010, 09:29

If you don't wnat New Zealand to become a hotbed of radicalism, you can do something about it. Show respect to Muslims you meet or work with. Find out about them. Just say "Salaam Aleikhom" when you meet so they will feel at home.
How about saying "Hello, my name is ____________."...."How do you great people in your language"

On the off chance they are Muslim, but enjoy speaking in their native tongue. Seeing as 60% of those of Muslim faith are from Asia.

rustyrobot

30th August 2010, 09:34

stop being so bloody politically correct, that's what's causing so much shit in the world today

Really, based on what evidence? And which problems were those by the way?

this is NZ do it our way and enjoy or just fuck off

where as I would think it was this attitude which is in fact causing more of the problems in the world today.

which also brings us back to the question - which way exactly is 'our way'?

phill-k

30th August 2010, 10:10

Really, based on what evidence? And which problems were those by the way?

where as I would think it was this attitude which is in fact causing more of the problems in the world today.

which also brings us back to the question - which way exactly is 'our way'?

Do you actually bother reading any of the posts - the entire post I quoted for example, or do you just do a bit of cutting and pasting and make statements in the form of inane questions, go read the post I referred to and then if you can actually add to the discussion do so, otherwise don't bother quoting me.
Oh and if you don't understand what "our way" is go back and read my entire post along with the quoted post its pretty clear actually, but just to help I'll include for you the word Kiwi way.

SS90

30th August 2010, 10:16

Really, based on what evidence? And which problems were those by the way?

where as I would think it was this attitude which is in fact causing more of the problems in the world today.

which also brings us back to the question - which way exactly is 'our way'?

wow, you come across as a real left wing liberal, ignoring the reality of the world we live in..... Read the paper much?

Let's think about what our way is NOT, rather than what it is....

In you opinion, what is "our way" when it comes to....say..... Womans' rights..... Compared to, say, um, I don't know..... Um the Muslim "way".....

rustyrobot

30th August 2010, 10:19

Do you actually bother reading any of the posts - the entire post I quoted for example, or do you just do a bit of cutting and pasting and make statements in the form of inane questions, go read the post I referred to and then if you can actually add to the discussion do so, otherwise don't bother quoting me.
Oh and if you don't understand what "our way" is go back and read my entire post along with the quoted post its pretty clear actually, but just to help I'll include for you the word Kiwi way.

I did read your post and I did read the original post you quoted. Seems to me what he was saying is, you get what you give, so spouting hate filled rhetoric will get you some of the same.

Oh sweet, the kiwi way. We had a good discussion around that, and I believe came down to the result that a kiwi is a person who was born or lives in NZ, therefore whatever is done by those people is the 'kiwi way'. Which would include saying Salaam Aleikhom I suppose.

Although if we look more specifically at a national level, we can see that our country has a history of tolerance, fighting injustice and an attempt at understanding difference. This is what you call 'politcal correctness', but I would say that it is instead a clear representation of our national personality. I guess if I was you I would say something like "this is NZ do it our way and enjoy or just fuck off".

avgas

30th August 2010, 10:24

Have they gone? White European-descent people still rule here. And they still look and behave like colonizers.
Very true.
However - we are all stuck in the same frying pan now my friend. We all have equal opportunities (or do we....... you ever been a unemployed white guy in NZ??? The system is not so kind to you), and likewise we all get burnt by the same fire.

Out of interest however - what things would you change (for the benefit of Maori) if you were in charge?
What would you require of those in NZ, for them to be accepted as a national iwi?
If you were to right up an immigration script for those who wish to become NZer's - what would it contain?

rustyrobot

30th August 2010, 10:25

wow, you come across as a real left wing liberal, ignoring the reality of the world we live in..... Read the paper much?

Let's think about what our way is NOT, rather than what it is....

In you opinion, what is "our way" when it comes to....say..... Womans' rights..... Compared to, say, um, I don't know..... Um the Muslim "way".....

Yeah, I do read the paper much. Seems to me that the majority of the problems are caused by fundamentalists of some sort - be they christian, muslim, communists, or capitalists. This is then compounded by angry people who are prepared to hurt people physically to get their way. In addition we are dealing with the after-math of a couple of hundred years of might-is-right ideology, which has a long lasting impact.

Definitely wouldn't consider myself a left-wing liberal, but if you label me as that what are you? A right-wing reactionary? I'm pretty sure my grandfather fought a war against you lot 50 years ago and won.

avgas

30th August 2010, 10:28

Really, based on what evidence? And which problems were those by the way?
- Not picking the best person for the job.
- The ability to identify an individual.
- Not having to remove someone from a situation.
- The removal of the community to the seclusion of the individual.

I am all for respect, but you are opening pandora's box with questions like that.

marie_speeds

30th August 2010, 10:35

Now what was that tactic I read somewhere :scratch: ....oh that's right...divide and conquer or something like that...

:corn::corn::corn::corn::corn::corn::corn:

avgas

30th August 2010, 10:39

You can only understand the present if you understand how we got where we are - and then you can plan the future ...
So tell me. Was the plan just complaining about everything?
I agree with the statement. But not even the world wars had a grieving period this long.

rustyrobot

30th August 2010, 10:40

- Not picking the best person for the job.
- The ability to identify an individual.
- Not having to remove someone from a situation.
- The removal of the community to the seclusion of the individual.

I am all for respect, but you are opening pandora's box with questions like that.

I still fail to see how these are the major problems facing our societies at the moment. Yeah, I agree it is a pandora's box. Does that mean we shouldn't go there? Just because there are a lot of angry white men who feel hard done by, I don't think that challenging the idea that 'political correctness' is the all pervading ill of our society is something that shouldn't be done. It is totally heading off-topic again though (or is it?).

Also, don't understand what you mean by
- The ability to identify an individual.
and
- The removal of the community to the seclusion of the individual.

avgas

30th August 2010, 10:41

Now what was that tactic I read somewhere :scratch: ....oh that's right...divide and conquer or something like that...
Its working for the Maori party.
and Winston Peters.
and Destiny Church.

Pity it backlashed on you ;)

marie_speeds

30th August 2010, 10:44

Its working for the Maori party.
and Winston Peters.
and Destiny Church.

Pity it backlashed on you ;)

Are they all Islamists too? :gob:

Me confoosed now

Right back to work whilst I figure that out :scratch:

avgas

30th August 2010, 11:02

I still fail to see how these are the major problems facing our societies at the moment. Yeah, I agree it is a pandora's box. Does that mean we shouldn't go there? Just because there are a lot of angry white men who feel hard done by, I don't think that challenging the idea that 'political correctness' is the all pervading ill of our society is something that shouldn't be done. It is totally heading off-topic again though (or is it?).
There are angry men all round. You seem to be one of them. Fact of the matter is all except a select few are not hard done by - its called life. You can step off anytime you like.
I do think that everything should be looked at in some point. Which is why likewise political correctness also should be looked at.
PC also hits a point where it goes from providing, to excluding. I have seen this myself from personal experience, and I think that in these situations surely someone should pick up that its just wrong.
But I could not speak up against these things, much like anyone else - simply due to the fact that is was PC to do it.......but not PC to question it.

Also, don't understand what you mean by
1) The ability to identify an individual.
and
2) The removal of the community to the seclusion of the individual.
1) is actually quite particular, when acting PC, how do you identify someone as friend or foe if it goes against some Else's beliefs. However a friend working security in Afghanistan (don't argue why he was there......its just a case of doing his job if he liked it or not - like the rest of us) found his own conscience was tested. He could not identify friend or foe. This does not always mean covering your face - but it does mean not having the ability to question an individual. The Maori suffered a similar fate - as it was considered rude to question an individual. This cost man brave warriors who were treated like Pawns simply because of acting PC.

2) In many circumstances the community used to monitor itself. It is now not PC for this to happen anymore (for many reasons) - so this has been pushed outwards to "unbiased" members to do this. I am not saying the community thing has dropped all together - but I am seeing more and more people becoming isolated, as people are too scared to tread on their "individual" rights,

avgas

30th August 2010, 11:04

Are they all Islamists too? :gob:

Me confoosed now

Right back to work whilst I figure that out :scratch:
No no no
thats National

Labour is Christian extremists.

R-Soul

30th August 2010, 11:11

Well, the point is that NZ is their home now and "Salaam Aleikhom" is not a word in the English or Maori dictionary.

The languages of NZ are English, Maori and NZ sign language.

" Giddy mate, how ya goin'" would be more fitting.

Given the reputation of Muslims for settling all over the world, building mosks, and killing people, I say that we should smile politely, but carry a big stick.

If any more of them try highjacking planes or what ever, then the only thing you will here from most Kiwis is "piss off Abdul".

I say it is the responsibility of all the Muslims to destroy the networks of the "extremists "..... Achieve that, and I will help build a Mosk or 2..... In Siberia.

It is your type of hate and suspicion and exlusion that causes rifts in our society, and breed niches for extremists.

Moderate muslims have no control over extremist muslim cells than most Christians in teh US have over the Ku Klux Kan (??). It is your thinking of "us' and "them" that is incorrect. There is no difference.

rustyrobot

30th August 2010, 11:18

There are angry men all round. You seem to be one of them.
Do I? I must re-read my posts before submitting them then, that's not how they feel when I type them.

1) is actually quite particular, when acting PC, how do you identify someone as friend or foe if it goes against some Else's beliefs. However a friend working security in Afghanistan (don't argue why he was there......its just a case of doing his job if he liked it or not - like the rest of us) found his own conscience was tested. He could not identify friend or foe. This does not always mean covering your face - but it does mean not having the ability to question an individual. The Maori suffered a similar fate - as it was considered rude to question an individual. This cost man brave warriors who were treated like Pawns simply because of acting PC.

2) In many circumstances the community used to monitor itself. It is now not PC for this to happen anymore (for many reasons) - so this has been pushed outwards to "unbiased" members to do this. I am not saying the community thing has dropped all together - but I am seeing more and more people becoming isolated, as people are too scared to tread on their "individual" rights,

I am still confused what you mean by those two things.

I think it has become easy and popular to label anything that you don't like as 'PC'. I think we all have wildly different ideas of what political correctness means, and I'm sure that doesn't help. I also think that we are all in a similar trap or feeling constrain by laws that we don't like, but wanting more laws to enforce what we do like.

When you said "all except a select few are not hard done by" do you mean "all except a select few ARE hard done by"? Because that's the way it seems to me. In fact I'd suggest that as Marie_speeds has said, these arguments are mostly a result of the divide and conquer tactic. Nearly everyone in NZ feels hard-done by and I believe they are (although possibly in a different way to what those people might think). Where it goes wrong is that we all blame each other and meanwhile the people who benefit from all of this disharmony and in-fighting sit and watch, reap in the profits and live like kings and queens.

rustyrobot

30th August 2010, 11:21

No no no
thats National

Labour is Christian extremists.

Nah, PeterDunne and Brian Tamaki are christian extremists, National and Labour are capitalist extremists.

SS90

30th August 2010, 11:31

It is your type of hate and suspicion and exlusion that causes rifts in our society, and breed niches for extremists.

Moderate muslims have no control over extremist muslim cells than most Christians in teh US have over the Ku Klux Kan (??). It is your thinking of "us' and "them" that is incorrect. There is no difference.

Sorry pal, You could not be more wrong.

I live in Austria.... As such I carry a special I.D card ( I must have it all times) That identifies me as an "Außlander", I had to have severe security checks on my past, and had the "Stadt Polizi" come to my apartment 3 times, interview my employers wife, and 2 interviews myself, and my employer had to use a lawyer before I could stay..... And I already had been living in central Europe for 3 years before that, had the qualifications, had a work contract and 2 letters of reference from international businesses.

I have faced racism head on for about 5 months.... And I tell you it is no fun at all.

I am told less that 30% of applicants are allowed residency.

I have no Ill will toward any person based on their skin colour or race.

Plain and Simple, if you religion commands you to kill anyone else based on their religion then I don't want the religion to have a "base" in my country when I come home to raise my family.

It is just like what has happened when the "unsmakable" generation came of age.

Be Muslim, but if you come to NZ, you have to relalise that we are are secular country...... If we cave in to PC bullshit, we are going to mirror what has happened in England...... Shit man the Bus bombings where carried out by British nationals....... 20 years time it will be NZ, then you will care.

rustyrobot

30th August 2010, 11:56

Plain and Simple, if you religion commands you to kill anyone else based on their religion then I don't want the religion to have a "base" in my country when I come home to raise my family.
Argh! Too late - there are christians everywhere back here!

It is just like what has happened when the "unsmakable" generation came of age.

You think the people committing violent crime in New Zealand are the ones who had no smacking in their lives? I work with violent offenders and I would say that 90% of them had violent parents (either mother, father or both). I think the problems you envision come when the smacking generation realise they don't know any way of dealing with their problems other than the family fist.

Be Muslim, but if you come to NZ, you have to relalise that we are are secular country...... If we cave in to PC bullshit, we are going to mirror what has happened in England...... Shit man the Bus bombings where carried out by British nationals....... 20 years time it will be NZ, then you will care.

Can we just ban religion altogether then?
I don't know how I end up feeling like I'm defending the Taleban. I'd be more than happy if they disappeared from the face on the earth. Same with Destiny Church. I know some muslim's who would never hurt anyone and just want to go about their lives, i know some christians who are the same, heck I even know some non-religious people who don't feel the need to push their beliefs on other people, and don't feel the need to kill anyone in the course of their lives.

Surely it's extremism of all flavours that needs to be addressed, not singling out random religions, ethnicities or the like.

Hans

30th August 2010, 13:28

I won't wade into the debate on who exactly is an extremist, fascist, socialist, communist or religious bigot. My take goes like this: If you threaten MY (as opposed to ''our'') way of life, or the way of life of my tribe (used loosely) you may as well fuck off. If you don't fuck off all options are on the table. This includes violence. This doesn't apply just to Muslims. They just happen to be one of the groups I perceive to be threating my way of life. The list is, however, a long one.

oldrider

30th August 2010, 15:49

When quietly musing over my thoughts of religion and it's associated trouble in the world, the thought came to me!

If there was no religion at all, how bad would the behaviour be of those who now use their religion to modify their behaviour with respect for the law of their religion?

If you think about it maybe we have more to thank religion for than we do actually have to curse it for!

The silent majority who do not mess with our lives, probably only do so "because of their religion"! :shit:

The world is such a great place...(sigh)...pity about the people on it! :mellow:

Oscar

30th August 2010, 16:08

When quietly musing over my thoughts of religion and it's associated trouble in the world, the thought came to me!

If there was no religion at all, how bad would the behaviour be of those who now use their religion to modify their behaviour with respect for the law of their religion?

If you think about it maybe we have more to thank religion for than we do actually have to curse it for!

The silent majority who do not mess with our lives, probably only do so "because of their religion"! :shit:

The world is such a great place...(sigh)...pity about the people on it! :mellow:

A lot of the bad things that we attribute to religion are actually cultural.
Honour killings and burqa's are a good example.

R-Soul

30th August 2010, 16:09

Argh! Too late - there are christians everywhere back here!

You think the people committing violent crime in New Zealand are the ones who had no smacking in their lives? I work with violent offenders and I would say that 90% of them had violent parents (either mother, father or both). I think the problems you envision come when the smacking generation realise they don't know any way of dealing with their problems other than the family fist.

Can we just ban religion altogether then?
I don't know how I end up feeling like I'm defending the Taleban. I'd be more than happy if they disappeared from the face on the earth. Same with Destiny Church. I know some muslim's who would never hurt anyone and just want to go about their lives, i know some christians who are the same, heck I even know some non-religious people who don't feel the need to push their beliefs on other people, and don't feel the need to kill anyone in the course of their lives.

Surely it's extremism of all flavours that needs to be addressed, not singling out random religions, ethnicities or the like.

yeah, but are you becoming an extrme moderate now?

You see that is the problem - moderates just could never be arsed, or simply dont have the political will to be extreme in their "moderateness". We simply have to takle this aspect on faith. Much like religion.
One of life's little ironies...

This is why it is always the extremists that claim to be the word and the "truth" of the people, and to others listening to it, it sounds true because nobody opposes them. But the truth is that the moderates dont feel extreme enough pretend to speak for an entire religion or people.

And when extremists communicate, they scream out their beliefs, while moderates state them calmly, which is why moderates never make as much of a headline impact.

Mankind has an annoying habit of only listening to those who shout the loudest...

R-Soul

30th August 2010, 16:15

If you think about it maybe we have more to thank religion for than we do actually have to curse it for!

The silent majority who do not mess with our lives, probably only do so "because of their religion"! :shit:

I disagree. think about it tis way. If people thought that there was not an afterlife, and that tis was teh only one going, do you think they would be more or less likely to join in wars, crusades, carry out suicide missions, or even do crime. Do you think that they would be more careful with the one they have got? Do you think that they would insist that their religious masters show more commitment to their own cause (eg by carrying out suicide missions themselves first) before they committed all they have?

I think that, because most people feel that they probably are going to get a "second chance" (or even innumerous chances), they will more readily commit their lives to causes based in religion.

Religion NEEEDS to promise an afterlife, or else nobody would show any kind of commitment to the shit that have wanted their followers to do throughout history.

rustyrobot

30th August 2010, 16:38

yeah, but are you becoming an extrme moderate now?

Argh - I probably am. There's some sort of strange paradox in there. If you commit to live a life of 'do no harm' and let others live their lives how they want (live and let live), what do you do when they way others live is all about making people do what THEY want (thinking of pretty much every major philosophy here: communism, capitalist, christianity, islam, hinduism, etc.).

...And when extremists communicate, they scream out their beliefs, while moderates state them calmly, which is why moderates never make as much of a headline impact.

Mankind has an annoying habit of only listening to those who shout the loudest...

That is so sadly true. It's all about how convinced you are yourself. That's why people follow screwballs like Jim Jones, Charles Manson, Bin Laden, Brian Tamaki, (add nutbar leader here). The voices of moderates get lost in all the noise. Fortunately though, lots of moderates find themselves in policy making positions, and amongst the civil service, so while the gas-bag populists get the positions of note, the moderates do their work behind the scenes, and get to stay round longer than 3 or 4 years too.

marie_speeds

30th August 2010, 17:42

There is currently a group in NZ as we breath who are being vilified by the govt and the press. Everything about this group of people is bad, bad, bad. Lock up your sons and daughters, keep them safe, because this group of people are just downright dangerous. They should be banned, and kept out of society. Because no good ever comes of them.
Then there is the group themselves. Yes they say there are those of us who are a bit extreme. But the rest of us just moderate fun loving people with a common idol that we worship. We are not out to harm anyone, we are just here because of our common interest and love. Why is the Govt vilifying us? Why the constant bad press? Not all of us are extreme or dangerous! We shall form a group and we shall fight this injustice. We will prove to the population of NZ that we are not bad, not dangerous, and that no one has anything to fear from us. The majority of us are good law abiding citizens, few bad apples does not mean that we all should be penalised.

Berries

30th August 2010, 19:29

I thought this thread was about Islam, now you are just talking about bike riders. Or the cops.

Burn them all.

Edbear

30th August 2010, 19:34

I disagree. think about it tis way. If people thought that there was not an afterlife, and that tis was teh only one going, do you think they would be more or less likely to join in wars, crusades, carry out suicide missions, or even do crime. Do you think that they would be more careful with the one they have got? Do you think that they would insist that their religious masters show more commitment to their own cause (eg by carrying out suicide missions themselves first) before they committed all they have?

I think that, because most people feel that they probably are going to get a "second chance" (or even innumerous chances), they will more readily commit their lives to causes based in religion.

Religion NEEEDS to promise an afterlife, or else nobody would show any kind of commitment to the shit that have wanted their followers to do throughout history.

Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die... :shifty:

One of the rare cases where I agree with you in the main, though. Especially the bit about "leading by example". Whatever happened to the cry, "Follow me!" as they charged off into battle..? Let the clergy and the pollies fight the battles, after all they're the ones who want the fight, aren't they?

Hitcher

30th August 2010, 19:48

Dearest members

I fear that this thread is fast approaching the stage where it shall be deemed "religious discussion" and relegated to the dark, dismal and dingy depths of Pointless Drivel, in accordance with The Site Owner's express wishes on such matters.

And you did so well for so long...

Edbear

30th August 2010, 19:59

Dearest members

I fear that this thread is fast approaching the stage where it shall be deemed "religious discussion" and relegated to the dark, dismal and dingy depths of Pointless Drivel, in accordance with The Site Owner's express wishes on such matters.

And you did so well for so long...

Maybe after 22 pages people are running out of things to say.

marie_speeds

30th August 2010, 20:14

I thought this thread was about Islam, now you are just talking about bike riders. Or the cops.

Burn them all.

LOL :clap: Maybe I was and maybe I wasn't .....

Nah your right! It was bike riders. But what I was trying to show was that it is very easy to condemn a certain part/group of society based only on what the media portrays. How does the average safe bike rider prove that not all riders are dangerous and bad? How does the average moderate Muslim prove that not all Muslims are extreme fundamentalists?

rustyrobot

30th August 2010, 20:27

217261217262
From tattoos to a menacing nickname, MOB has everything you'd expect from a rough and tough biker gang.

But look a little closer and you'll see that the group has little in common with the stereotypical above-the-law biker gangs you see on TV or in movies. The name MOB stands for "Muslims on Bikes," and the group strives to represent the ideals of its religion with its Thursday night rides that meet at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn.
"The name makes it sound like we're tough guys," said group founder Hussein Abdallah. "We're not weak but at the same time, we're gentlemen."

What began with six members when it was founded in June of this year has now grown to 44 as MOB rides from Dearborn to other cities around Michigan an average of twice per week.
The group was founded as a way to unite bikers in the Arab community and to give them guidance on how to ride safely. Abdallah saw injuries and even a death in the community and thought it was time to educate local riders.

He met with some friends and organized rides, but the group faced strong resistance from the mosque because they feared that they would be a negative representation of Islam.
But after some convincing and plenty of peaceful rides, MOB is now viewed as a positive representation of the religion and is allowed to use the mosque as its meeting place. They're so popular in Dearborn neighborhoods that young kids follow them up and down the streets while waving and smiling. "It's almost like we're the ice cream man or something," said Abdallah.

MOB cruises from city to city, usually stopping into a restaurant at the end of each ride. They make sure to make reservations before each stop so they don’t roll in and inconvenience the restaurant staff, and because they usually bring 25-30 people, they contribute a great deal to the local economy.

Citizens of other cities often welcome MOB and are intrigued by the concept of the group.
"A lot of people outside of the area are surprised to see us," said Abdallah. "They've never heard of Arabic people on motorcycles before." Most of them are courteous and friendly to the group and some of them even want to pose for pictures with them.

The goodwill from other towns helps keep MOB going as they continue to spread their message of peace and brotherhood. The group is in talks discussing how best to serve the local community through volunteer work in the near future. It's this mentality that keeps the group in perfect harmony with each other and the community. Many of the members went to Fordson High School and hadn't seen each other in years. Now many of them and their families are friends with each other.

While anyone is allowed to join MOB, the group makes sure its strong Islamic ethics are not compromised. "A representative from out of house might start drinking or want to go to a bar or something like that" said Abdallah about some members perhaps straying from the group's ideals.
MOB often pulls over to the side of the road to pray and Abdallah knows sometimes that certain prospective members might not expect that from a group of bikers.
"We let them know up front what (the group) is all about so they know what they're getting into."
While safety is the main focus of the group, a recent incident reminded MOB just how important riding safe can be while also strengthening the group's bond.
A woman rear-ended members of the group on Warren Avenue in Detroit. Following the accident, the group got together and prayed. "That minute I said that I knew we were all into it," said Abdallah. "Here a lady hits us at 45 miles per hour and we can still come together and talk about it."

MOB has taken their religious message to heart and now wears t-shirts with religious words on them in Arabic so that passers-by can read them and identify their positive message.
The group continues to grow, and MOB has even received calls from prospective members from California who want to move out to Michigan to be a part of the group.

http://www.newmichiganmedia.com/articles/28/1/Muslim-bikers-take-to-the-streets/Page1.html

marie_speeds

30th August 2010, 21:09

OMG there are Thursday night rides advertised on KB...does this mean anything? Should I be suspicious about them? Should I dare attend a Thursday night ride and meet at that place called Westgate. Does Westgate mean anything? Westgate to where exactly? Hmmmmmm

marie_speeds

30th August 2010, 21:12

Actually it was a very good article. They have combined their love of riding with their religious beliefs, and have set about to show that not all muslims are extremists.

NighthawkNZ

30th August 2010, 22:36

H.I. Mencken, American Writer 1880-1956.

"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out himself.... Almost inevinably, he come to the conlusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable."

that is the same for government, and religon...

Edbear

30th August 2010, 22:42

H.I. Mencken, American Writer 1880-1956.

"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out himself.... Almost inevinably, he come to the conlusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable."

Funny but isn't that most of the population..? Every single person you speak to, and especially on here, is convinced the Govt. is dishonest, insane and intolerable... That's why Governments are kicked out every few years...

NighthawkNZ

30th August 2010, 22:53

Funny but isn't that most of the population..? Every single person you speak to, and especially on here, is convinced the Govt. is dishonest, insane and intolerable... That's why Governments are kicked out every few years...

You don't get it... the Government are pupets...

Edbear

30th August 2010, 22:55

You don't get it... the Government are pupets...

Is that why they're kicked out every few years...? :blink:

NighthawkNZ

30th August 2010, 23:03

Is that why they're kicked out every few years...? :blink:

and you put in more puppets controlled by the same puppeteers...

Politics

Poli = many
tics = blood sucking instects...

PrincessBandit

31st August 2010, 08:25

Is that why they're kicked out every few years...? :blink:

....only to be welcomed back for more of the same after realising the other side aren't much better..... swings and roundabouts, swings and roundabouts.

I truly wonder what would happen if Winny suddenly, by some strange serendipitous act, became leader of NZ and we lost the same old same olds we've had for the last decades. (Only wondering from a hypothetical perspective as I'm sure it will never happen).

Oscar

31st August 2010, 09:06

You don't get it... the Government are pupets...

What's a pupet?

NighthawkNZ

31st August 2010, 09:16

....only to be welcomed back for more of the same after realising the other side aren't much better..... swings and roundabouts, swings and roundabouts.

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsoh tmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsoh tmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsoh tmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"> <m:smallfrac m:val="off"> <m:dispdef> <m:lmargin m:val="0"> <m:rmargin m:val="0"> <m:defjc m:val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440"> <m:intlim m:val="subSup"> <m:narylim m:val="undOvr"> </m:narylim></m:intlim> </m:wrapindent><style>  </style> That’s because both are controlled by the same puppeteers same controller... you want true freedom, true change, cut the strings find the puppeteers but unfortunately the strings lead out of the country…

You want to control the outcome of a game then you control both sides of the game… and your agenda will surely come to play.

People are in for a big shock very soon I can see it happening… the same controllers will be there with more power than before because people are too blind to see it…

Its been building up for years… the chess pieces are in place… and after all the wars and the dust settles… then they will give some peace crap cover story and a solution which people will blindly go ahead with before you know it, you are micro-chipped (which they are already doing over in the states by the way… and we have been doing to our pets for years… because people feel safer how fuck is a micro-chip make you feel safer?) and you yourself will have been brain washed and manipulated into believing that their agenda is the best thing for humanity and they care about you… well they don’t they want to control and manipulate you… all they want is the power of that…

Well if they truly care we would not be in this situation in the first place… Every war, revolution, and freedom fighter war through out history has been manipulated and controlled by the same puppeteers why? Greed, power, control…

People are worried about minor things (heck ACC debarkle… very minor though part of the big picture) but that is what they want you to think.... but stopping the minor makes it harder to get the agenda to come about… people simply don’t stand back far enough from their own little reality that they believe is happening around them… and this has been happened since the beginning of time…

With all the evidence that is out there, people still don’t see it… because the government or the media say otherwise… well they are controlled by the say puppeteers… Media sells the fake cover story to the people and they believe it then government send in troops, pass more laws that take away your freedoms in the name of security… control the health system, food and water supply… Fluoride in the water… used by the Germans as part of there mind control and manipulation program hmmmm… media selling you the cover story and bang… wtf NWO (hey it had to come… but they have been trying to get the NWO in since Rome)

But wait a second Fluoride its good for your teeth… well in Canada two cities (I forget which two) one has it and one doesn’t. The one city that has it in the water supply has more teeth problems than the one that doesn’t ??? go figure that out… One of the chemists that said Fluoride good… is now dead against it… Fluoride bad

The food well where does on start that… so I won’t… same with the health system... sigh

It only takes a few people in the right places to control and manipulate your sense of reality...

</m:defjc></m:rmargin></m:lmargin></m:dispdef></m:smallfrac>QUOTE FROM THE MATRIX MOVIE

"The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it."
<m:smallfrac m:val="off"><m:dispdef><m:lmargin m:val="0"><m:rmargin m:val="0"><m:defjc m:val="centerGroup">
Then again I am just a nutcase… I should have taken the blue pill... I might go for a ride…

</m:defjc></m:rmargin></m:lmargin></m:dispdef></m:smallfrac>
What's a pupet?

:doh:

mashman

31st August 2010, 09:42

Funny but isn't that most of the population..? Every single person you speak to, and especially on here, is convinced the Govt. is dishonest, insane and intolerable... That's why Governments are kicked out every few years...

but very few think it through far enough to see what that "political strife" does to the country... otherwise we wouldn't be in the constant shit that we're in at the moment :)... Kill the head, the body still remains...

From what i've read (not that much) I have found that the Quran is not written in chronoligic order... From what i've read (In chronologic order), the first "round" of Sura's did not encourage violence but moreover encouraged "turning the other cheek" using persecution by silence as a "weapon"...

From what I've read, it wasn't until Mohammed and his followers were "persecuted" out of Mecca (they got pissed off (and voiced it) because the hedonists were worshipping false idols and generally running around not giving a shit in the holiest of cities) that the Sura's of the Quran started extolling the virtues of defensive fighting... after Mohammed was made a political leader of Medina, things started to go pear shaped and "silent persecution" gave way to "violent persecution". In chronologic order, the first 90 of the 114 Sura's are not supposed to have any form of "fighting" talk (I didn't read them all)... What happened to change that?

The holy city of Mecca needed to be saved from the Pagans (any non Allah following, Christians and Jews etc...) and that wasn't going to happen over a chat and a bong :) and who better to do it than the "hypocritically righteous" that onhce called Mecca their own...

For me, the addition of the new Jihadish Quran Sura's opened the door for the extremists of the day... But hey, nearly every culture gives itself the same "rights" when protecting their homeland...

but that's just 1 reading... I'm sure that there are many that will contradict it, but that's what I "understand" thus far.

avgas

31st August 2010, 10:05

Nah, PeterDunne and Brian Tamaki are christian extremists, National and Labour are capitalist extremists.
Haha true.
Are there any Buddhist pollys? And if someone mentions the greens i will piss myself with laughter

avgas

31st August 2010, 10:06

and you put more puppets controlled by the same puppeteers...
Scum sucking voters.
I blame you

avgas

31st August 2010, 10:07

that is the same for sport, and religion...
fixed it..............

NighthawkNZ

31st August 2010, 10:18

Scum sucking voters.
I blame you

fixed it..............

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Winston001

31st August 2010, 21:28

SS90

31st August 2010, 22:51

Curious. Just who are "they"????
I must admit, nighthawk comes off as a bit "conspiracy theorist" (I too hate the classifier "they"), but he does make some sense.

Trying to keep it topical (and relivant) I will give an example.

I posted a link in the rant and rave forum, as well as alink in this thread, regarding the conviction of a Muslim woman in NZ convicted of attempting to hijack a plane,

By approximately 9:00am NZ time (the link was from stuff.co.nz) the link was removed from the website, and when I googled it their was no record of it at all, when I searched hard, I found a website called Jihadwatch.com which had a small article about the orginal hijacking, but nothing about the identification of the woman, or the verdict.

It was not an NZ badsed website.

You cannot find any information now when searching on the NZ web news sites either about the woman or the conviction.......

Am I the only one in the world who is frightened by this?

The only logical conclusion one can come to is that the "powers that be" in NZ government have censored this news item from the public, possibly to remove the chance of a public backlash against NZ based Muslims.

Here is the closest thig I could find

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3921895/Hijack-no-surprise-to-acquaintances

Th ebasic facts are that we think we are safe in NZ, but how safe are we when important information regarding the sort of people that live down the road form us is with held, seemingly to protect a group of people who's religion commands them to kill us?

rustyrobot

31st August 2010, 23:31

...By approximately 9:00am NZ time (the link was from stuff.co.nz) the link was removed from the website, and when I googled it their was no record of it at all...

Found it easily by searching stuff website for "hijack nelson"

http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/4068251/Woman-jailed-for-hijack-attempt

Berries

31st August 2010, 23:33

You got me worried there, but Google 'Somali Hijack NZ' and the story is still there, in NZ -

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch/4070920/Somali-refugee-behind-bars-for-NZs-first-hijacking and http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/somali-woman-jailed-plane-hijacking/5/60506

and the good old BBC -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11105972

Now I just have to find out who the they are that Nighthawk is banging on about.

SS90

1st September 2010, 00:40

You got me worried there, but Google 'Somali Hijack NZ' and the story is still there, in NZ -

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch/4070920/Somali-refugee-behind-bars-for-NZs-first-hijacking and http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/somali-woman-jailed-plane-hijacking/5/60506

and the good old BBC -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11105972

Now I just have to find out who the they are that Nighthawk is banging on about.

Doh!

Stupid internet search engines.... but I assue you the link was removed hours after I first posted it.Let us not forget that theis woman will now cost us $90,000 per year to keep locked up...... first class plane ticket "home"..... $4000 maybe?

Perhaps I am coming across as rasist, I assure yoou I am not, I am simply a realist.

NZ is a Mecca (excuse the pun) for pretty much anyone (we are not perfect, but much closer to perfect than most other countries), and I want to reap the rewrds of living a nice happy life when I come home.

If we keep filling it with dependent bludgers like this woman, as well as having huge muslim communities, (let us never forget that the Muslim faith teaches them to kill anyone who is not of their faith...no matter how much the "moderates" try to tell us all otherwise), in the next 20 years, NZ will be as bad as the UK (which, we should be using as an example)

Let's not kick anyone out (well, unless they break the law), let's just be evry selective about who we let into our country from this point on.

As A kid growing up in the late 70's and early 80's, my friends where Maori's, PI's, Indian (both Fijian Indian and Asian Indian, as well as NZ European, and, to me (unlike my Mum and dad), this was normal.

My NZ is multi cultural, and I like it like that.

I just don't want to see a Mosk (I know that is the incorrect spelling) on every street corner, the reality is every single city in the world that has a Mosk on every street corner, is under the rule of Islam..... and that I do not want for NZ's future.

Please everyone do some research on the growing wave of pressure (that us having an effect) to get Islam law regognised in England...... you want NZ to be next?

Good place to start.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

It's not the people I resent, nor the concept of their religion.

It is the rules by that which they live.....This I cannot accept for my or my familys future.

As Kiwi's, so isolated from the rest of the world, we so often look on at other countries, and critisise...... and, all the time the elemnts that we critisise slowly come to our shores, "blend in", and, with in a few generations, have built metaphoric walls around their communities.

Freedom of religion, choice and so on are fundimental of our way of life.... but not of those freedoms infringe on others rights..... particularly the rights of people that have lived in that country since it's creation , or indeed before it was even a nation.

People can SAY "oh, they are just extremist....... but we don't interpret it like that", but, is that true? and, how can we be sure, how can we "scan" for this..... I say "better safe than sorry"

We would never allow a cult to set up in NZ that, in it's doctrine had "kill all people that aren't us", that would be shut down asap by the powers that be.

Banditbandit

1st September 2010, 08:28

So tell me. Was the plan just complaining about everything?
I agree with the statement. But not even the world wars had a grieving period this long.

I'm a little reluctant to reenter this debate .. however ...

Asked any Jews how long their grieving period has been/will be ?

Banditbandit

1st September 2010, 08:33

Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die... :shifty:

One of the rare cases where I agree with you in the main, though. Especially the bit about "leading by example". Whatever happened to the cry, "Follow me!" as they charged off into battle..? Let the clergy and the pollies fight the battles, after all they're the ones who want the fight, aren't they?

I never realized you were a communist ...

Swoop

1st September 2010, 08:48

31 August, 2010: Afganistan. On August 25th, for the eighth time this year, students and staff at a girls high school were injured by some kind of poison gas. In the latest incident, nine teachers and 46 students were hospitalized. They were all dizzy, and a few were unconscious. But there did not appear to be any permanent damage. The first of these attacks occurred last year, and there have been eleven so far. Blood tests do not indicate what the poison agent could be. American chemical weapons experts were involved in some of the investigations, but have not announced any findings. There have been suggestions that this might be some kind of mass hysteria, but since it also involves adults as well, and all tell the same story of smelling something strange before falling, the hysteria angle is unlikely.

Most doctors at the hospitals agree that it was some kind of poison, but have not been able to identify it yet. All the victims smelled something odd while at school, then fell ill, with some of the students and teachers losing consciousness. The Taliban have been known to attack girls schools, including injuring or killing students with gunfire, explosives and, in at least one case, acid thrown into the faces of students. Now it appears that poison gas has been added to the Taliban arsenal.

The Taliban do not believe in education for girls (which they believe is forbidden by Islam), but do believe in chemical weapons (which they do not believe is forbidden by Islam). When the Taliban ran Afghanistan in the late 1990s, they hosted al Qaeda, and al Qaeda set up a chemical warfare research facility. If the Taliban are using some kind of poisonous chemical for these attacks, they could have obtained from their better educated friends in al Qaeda. The Taliban are very much against education for girls, and prohibited it from 1996-2001. Millions of Afghan girls are now in school, and the Taliban are very angry about it.

rustyrobot

1st September 2010, 09:16

The Taliban can go f**k themselves. But not every muslim is in the Taliban.

Liberal and Muslim in the Same Sentence? 'Tis Very Possible
The media and our history books feed us prefabricated ideas on how the Middle East is a closed, conservative bubble. It's a breeding ground for religious extremists and women have virtually no rights. But this is all
wrong.

One cannot simply group countries across three different continents into the same category as radicals. While it is true that some nations such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have strict control over their people's lives, many Arabs enjoy a liberal lifestyle. The following are the most liberal Middle Eastern countries in the world, according to the State of the World Liberty Index.

Jordan - Freedom of religion is upheld in this small state of 5.8 million people; Christians and Jews are allowed to worship freely and they are officially recognized. Women are allowed to serve as cabinet ministers and the Jordanian government is working towards raising the percentage of women in public service. Women are not required to wear the veil, but in some places they wear it out of fear of being ostracized.

United Arab Emirates - Its GDP per capita is the 5th highest in the world and it has the fastest growing economy in the world. It is not a surprise than neighboring Saudis drive into Dubai and other parts of the UAE for the weekend. The clubs, bars, movie theatres, and world class shopping are abundant and control over print media is lax. Christians, Jews, and Hindi can practice their religions freely in this oasis of liberty in the desert of Islamic conservativeness we call the Middle East.

Turkey - This very secular and democratic Islamic nation has ties with the West through organizations such as NATO and is currently seeking entrance into the European Union. Its constitution protects all religions from discrimination; In particular, the Turkish strive for secularism can be viewed in their law that prohibits religious head garments being worn in government buildings, schools, and universities. The Turkish government invests a good portion of its funds into the promotion of fine arts, theatre, and architecture, moving its popular culture closer to that of Europe's.

Kuwait - It seems like a juxtaposition to have such a liberal Islam state be situated right next to troubled Iraq just to the north and the totalitarian kingdom of
Saudi Arabia to the west, though its geography does not let it hinder its liberties. Kuwait has one of the most vocal media in the Middle East, allowing the flexibility to Kuwaiti journalists to even criticize the government. Human rights in Kuwait have improved with the country's recent abiding to UN standards.

Bahrain - Its wealth is distributed amongst its middle class, making Bahrain more liberal than its mainland cousins. Religious tolerance is widespread with synagogues peacefully residing next to mosques. It is a Mecca for shopping and vacationing as is Dubai and is lax about alcohol sales and consumption. Bahrain can be said to be the most Western-friendly Muslim nation with the splash of "Arabness" that travels look for when they come. Though Bahrain is the most liberal Muslim nation in the world, people have been arrested for kissing on the lips in public.

-------------

I have NO interest in Sharia law or Islamic religious teachings personally. I just worry about people being stirred into hatred and the sort of mob mentality that follows (sorta like the Taliban)

SS90

1st September 2010, 09:16

[QUOTE=Swoop;1129849076]31 August, 2010: Afganistan. On August 25th, for the eighth time this year, students and staff at a girls high school were injured by some kind of poison gas. In the latest incident, nine teachers and 46 students were hospitalized. They were all dizzy, and a few were unconscious. But there did not appear to be any permanent damage. The first of these attacks occurred last year, and there have been eleven so far. Blood tests do not indicate what the poison agent could be. American chemical weapons experts were involved in some of the investigations, but have not announced any findings. There have been suggestions that this might be some kind of mass hysteria, but since it also involves adults as well, and all tell the same story of smelling something strange before falling, the hysteria angle is unlikely.[quote]

I always find the Taliban an interesting subject - I mean we all know that their hard core Muslim approach to life is unbelievable, but as I understand it, while there are serious civil rights issues one of a few things that they did do right was controlling the Poppy growth (thereby Heroin supply) in Afgahnistan.

I believe that they came close to stopping all poppy growth in one season

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-success-us-aides-say.html

Now, as I understand it, the poppy trade is "back in business", but they put the ban in place, based on the fact that "growing poppys is a sin against god"

Banditbandit

1st September 2010, 09:19

Doh!

Stupid internet search engines.... but I assue you the link was removed hours after I first posted it.Let us not forget that theis woman will now cost us $90,000 per year to keep locked up...... first class plane ticket "home"..... $4000 maybe?

Perhaps I am coming across as rasist, I assure yoou I am not, I am simply a realist.

NZ is a Mecca (excuse the pun) for pretty much anyone (we are not perfect, but much closer to perfect than most other countries), and I want to reap the rewrds of living a nice happy life when I come home.

If we keep filling it with dependent bludgers like this woman, as well as having huge muslim communities, (let us never forget that the Muslim faith teaches them to kill anyone who is not of their faith...no matter how much the "moderates" try to tell us all otherwise),

What would it take to convince you that is simply not true? Can you point to the Sura or Suras in the Koran that support that?

"Infidels" are non-believers - but the Koran also says that "People of the Book" meaning Jews and Christians - are not infidels, because they follow the the writings of the people Islam acknowledges as true prophets - from Abraham to Jesus ... and they are to be respected.

True, Islam also asks it followers to fight and die to protect Islam ... but in this century, who attacked Islam .. George W Bush declared the fight a New Crusade ... the people there freaked out because the previous invaders, of the Middle Ages, killed and ATE Muslims ...

See the Massacre at Ma'arra ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'arrat_al-Numan

Of coure Islam was freaked out .. "Uh Oh .. here come the cannibals to invade our country again ... " Wouldn't you defend New Zealand if that happened here ?

If you lived in Iraq during the late 1990s and watched your children die from ordinary diseases because the USA blockaded the country and refused to allow basic medicines to be delivered wouldn't you be really pissed at the USA ?

Doesn't matter if you're a Muslim or a Christian .. you'd be pissed because you're a Father ...

If you were a Palestinian father who watched your pregnant wife and unborn child die in an ambulance at the Israeli Checkpoint because the Jews made the ambulance wait for six hours in a queue and refused the expidite its passage would you be pissed off enought tro kill Jews ?

If you thought your country was sacred soil and the place of prophets wouldn't you be very pissed off if another country and followers of a different religion polluted that sacred soil with huge numbers of armed troops wouldn't you be pissed off ? The "terrorists" on the planes that hit the World Trade Center certainly were ... they weren't pissed of at Christianity - nor were they trying to convert the world - they were pissed off because their country - their sacred soil - was invaded by a foreign power ... and they were hitting back ...

The USA powers and the media say "Muslim Terrorist" ... I see angry people .. angry fathers and mothers ... doesn't matter what religion they are ...

If anyone invaded New Zealand we would all fight them .. does it matter why they invaded? The invaders might say they are coming the "save" us .. did we invite them ? No? Would we fight ? Hell Yes ... would we only fight them here or would we try to fight them in their own country ? I'd go for their country ... in any way I could ...

Are we really much different ?

And the woman who has just been convicted of hijacking has huge mental health issues - because of what she has seen and experienced in her country of birth (not surprising she got out) - she hijacked the plane because of her mental health issues - not because she was Muslim ...

I just don't want to see a Mosk (I know that is the incorrect spelling) on every street corner, the reality is every single city in the world that has a Mosk on every street corner, is under the rule of Islam..... and that I do not want for NZ's future.

Does it mean then, that because we have a church on every street corner the country is under the rule of the Curistians ? Ask any fundamentalist Christian and they will rail against the current secular/socialist Government.

It's not the people I resent, nor the concept of their religion.

It is the rules by that which they live.....This I cannot accept for my or my familys future.

I feel the same way about Christianity ... and no, I'm not Muslim either ... But you're also lumping every Musim believer into the same misleading group ... not all Muslims live by the rules the Tailban do ... not all Christains live by the same rules - there are Exclusive Brethern, Catholics, Destiny Church - all have their own rules - Christians can't agree on the rules. Islam is no different - and in Afghanistan, many Musilim grouips fought the Taliban ...

And don't forget ... there are extremist groups in many Muslim countries attacking their own people and governmetns because it is "not Muslim enough" ... the fundamentalist radicals are just as much a problem for Islamic counties as for the rest of the world ...

People can SAY "oh, they are just extremist....... but we don't interpret it like that", but, is that true? and, how can we be sure, how can we "scan" for this..... I say "better safe than sorry"

We would never allow a cult to set up in NZ that, in it's doctrine had "kill all people that aren't us", that would be shut down asap by the powers that be.

They're been several homegrown cults that thought like that .. and yes, the Government/Police acted ... there will be more ... they are usually Christian tho'

Go here to read about Metcalf/s crazy bunch ...

Try a searxch for "Full Gospel Mission" and "Camp David"

NighthawkNZ

1st September 2010, 09:26

Now I just have to find out who the they are that Nighthawk is banging on about.

Follow the money...

Banditbandit

1st September 2010, 09:51

I always find the Taliban an interesting subject - I mean we all know that their hard core Muslim approach to life is unbelievable, but as I understand it, while there are serious civil rights issues one of a few things that they did do right was controlling the Poppy growth (thereby Heroin supply) in Afgahnistan.

I believe that they came close to stopping all poppy growth in one season

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-success-us-aides-say.html

Now, as I understand it, the poppy trade is "back in business", but they put the ban in place, based on the fact that "growing poppys is a sin against god"

Yes, the Taliban stopped the growth of opium poppies ... it nearly destroyed the economy of many regions .. then the Taliban asked America for economic help to restore the economy by replacing poppies with other crops ... and America refused to help ... despite demanding that the Afghan Governmetn stop the growth of poppies .. and despite the Taliban putting that into action ...

I wonder what the world would be like if America had helped ?

Edbear

1st September 2010, 10:21

I never realized you were a communist ...

Nah, just don't believe in sending innocent people to fight my own battles for me. :yes:

avgas

1st September 2010, 10:33

I'm a little reluctant to reenter this debate .. however ...
Asked any Jews how long their grieving period has been/will be ?
Nope - but then again I haven't had to pay for any of their grieving, so in reality its a bit in the peripheral.
They also don't seem to be asking for anything except acknowledgment, which I think is fair enough.
Seems even though they have grieved (or are still grieving) they have also moved on a bit.
Perhaps a lesson could be found here?
Seeing as your all about looking at the past, and learning from it.

shrub

1st September 2010, 10:51

Nope - but then again I haven't had to pay for any of their grieving, so in reality its a bit in the peripheral.
They also don't seem to be asking for anything except acknowledgment, which I think is fair enough.
Seems even though they have grieved (or are still grieving) they have also moved on a bit.
Perhaps a lesson could be found here?
Seeing as your all about looking at the past, and learning from it.

It's not so much grieving as milking. When was the last time we heard about grieving over the ethnic cleansing in Ruanda? Or over the millions of Vietnamese and Cambodian civillians who died in the 60s and 70s? Or in Central America in 80s? Or the ethnic cleansing and forced imprisonment of milions of Palestinans? These were all equally horrendous crimes against humanity that have occurred within my memory, yet they're largely forgotten.

In the meantime the Israelis milk the Holocaust as much as they can so they get aid and support to build their "homeland" in Palestine with (predominantly) US money, and in the process destabilise the entire region; which in turn destabilises the globe.

And you and I are paying for the Jewish grieving and will continue to do so for as long as the ME remains unstable.

avgas

1st September 2010, 11:05

It's not so much grieving as milking....(Just re-read his post you slackers)....And you and I are paying for the Jewish grieving and will continue to do so for as long as the ME remains unstable.
Bugger, so you say the lesson has been learn't just not the right one.
And we are the dumb fucks who are paying for it.
Perhaps we should learn the lesson this time? Mabey the US does have it right?

I have to admit - having a Chinese wife, has changed my perspective. Especially when she never got to meet her granddad simply due to of what went down with Mao.
Kinda scared me to find out that more people died under Mao's regime than in the whole of world war 2.

Likewise as you said Uganda, Rawanda, Laos.......
However I am sure that if you offered to these people - an exit strategy. Many would take it.

Boats from Pakistan should be evidence enough of this.

These people quite happily leave their troubled past behind them.

mashman

1st September 2010, 11:06

Can you point to the Sura or Suras in the Koran that support that?

Sura 4:84,88,89 : "Then fight in God's cause - Thou art held responsible only for thyself - and rouse the believers. It may be that God will restrain the fury of the unbelievers, for God is the strongest in might and punishment ... Why should ye be divided into two parties about the hypocrites? God hath upset them for their (evil) deeds ... But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them..."

to note but 1... but from what i've read, most of this could (and has been by both sides) be taken out of context... what I mean is, that the killing and slaying seem to be in reference to those that had "defiled" Mecca and not the rest of the Pagan world that the Muslim had treaty with... but unfortunately those writings have opened the door for the future "persecution" of ALL non-muslims... hence the reason and fears expressed in the OP I guess...

Banditbandit

1st September 2010, 11:34

Sura 4:84,88,89 : "Then fight in God's cause - Thou art held responsible only for thyself - and rouse the believers. It may be that God will restrain the fury of the unbelievers, for God is the strongest in might and punishment ... Why should ye be divided into two parties about the hypocrites? God hath upset them for their (evil) deeds ... But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them..."

to note but 1... but from what i've read, most of this could (and has been by both sides) be taken out of context... what I mean is, that the killing and slaying seem to be in reference to those that had "defiled" Mecca and not the rest of the Pagan world that the Muslim had treaty with... but unfortunately those writings have opened the door for the future "persecution" of ALL non-muslims... hence the reason and fears expressed in the OP I guess...

Yes .. that Sura is completely misread - as you point out. To turn renegade is to leave Islam .. so the killing is to be of those who have once become Muslims, then left that faith ... it is not an exhortion to kill everyone who is not a Muslim ...

In the context of Islam, it is the pure community who goes to heaven - so any unfaithful defile the community and endanger everyone's place in the afterlife ... killing them removes them from the comunity and repurifies it ...

mashman

1st September 2010, 12:28

Yes .. that Sura is completely misread - as you point out. To turn renegade is to leave Islam .. so the killing is to be of those who have once become Muslims, then left that faith ... it is not an exhortion to kill everyone who is not a Muslim ...

In the context of Islam, it is the pure community who goes to heaven - so any unfaithful defile the community and endanger everyone's place in the afterlife ... killing them removes them from the comunity and repurifies it ...

So in context, we see the "conditions" of killing... in which case you'd have to agree that SS90's comment, "that the Muslim faith teaches them to kill anyone who is not of their faith...no matter how much the "moderates" try to tell us all otherwise", is actually true. Those teachings have a completely different context in this day and age and Jihad is waged against the infidel because it's excused by ones translation of a Sura... pretty fucked up if you ask me and utterly hypocritical if they cannot get their own house in order either...

Islamisation can never be a good thing if they are taught to ignore (let alone kill) anyone who is not Muslim. If the teachings are as simple as, look out for those who live the Islam way and slay/persecute the rest (of which there are plenty of persecution Sura's), then how can you expect non-Muslim people not to be sceptical when it comes to community integration? You can't if the message is hatred and mistrust...

Banditbandit

1st September 2010, 12:36

There's lots of interpreting and mis-translating going on here ..

mashman

1st September 2010, 12:43

There's lots of interpreting and mis-translating going on here ..

lol, what did you expect after 1500 years :)... When someone wages Jihad against "the west" (us), they are doing so because "the west" does not follow Islam, yes? In which case, who has the problem with translations of death? Islam or "the west"?

marie_speeds

1st September 2010, 12:45

lol, what did you expect after 1500 years :)... When someone wages Jihad against "the west" (us), they are doing so because "the west" does not follow Islam, yes? In which case, who has the problem with translations of death? Islam or "the west"?

I have a problem with interpreting everything that has been written for the last 22 pages :blink:
Ahhh back to my liquid lunch.....then it'll make more sense :yes:

Banditbandit

1st September 2010, 14:21

lol, what did you expect after 1500 years :)... When someone wages Jihad against "the west" (us), they are doing so because "the west" does not follow Islam, yes? In which case, who has the problem with translations of death? Islam or "the west"?

Clearly Islam has a problem with interprerations - just as Christianity does ...

The west has a problem of a different nature ... but so do many Muslim/Middle Eastern countries ... Western Countries are attacking them .. Iraq ... Afghanistan ... Chechenya ... Iran is threatened ...

SS90

1st September 2010, 20:01

I have never waged a war against anyone.... Why should I live in fear?

rustyrobot

1st September 2010, 20:12

I have never waged a war against anyone.... Why should I live in fear?

Ahmed from Kabul may never have waged war on anyone either, but he may have seen New Zealand SAS troops shooting his neighbours or handing them over for torture. Are you any more or less blameless than him?

marie_speeds

2nd September 2010, 12:11

Are you any more or less blameless than him?

I'm blameless :innocent:

Edbear

2nd September 2010, 12:21

I'm blameless :innocent:

Nah, I bet you've snuck an extra piece of chocolate when no-one was looking... :shifty:

mashman

2nd September 2010, 12:47

wonder how this will all end...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100901/pl_yblog_upshot/muslim-americans-launch-pr-initiaive-promote-911-as-day-of-national-service

Banditbandit

2nd September 2010, 12:53

wonder how this will all end...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100901/pl_yblog_upshot/muslim-americans-launch-pr-initiaive-promote-911-as-day-of-national-service

Badly ... it will end bady ... in a country that thinks it's own astronauts did not land on the moon and professional wrestling are real fights ... they'll never be convinced otherwise ...

avgas

2nd September 2010, 13:28

Ground zero.
Is possibly the saddest place I have ever been to.

Regardless of whom did it, I had no perspective until I stood there. It was just sad.

marie_speeds

2nd September 2010, 13:38

Ground zero.
Is possibly the saddest place I have ever been to.

Regardless of whom did it, I had no perspective until I stood there. It was just sad.

I only caught a glimpse of the interview with the guy that is building the Mosque near by. Just remembered the bit about his mum's catholic, his dad's muslim, his wife's a christian..... Anyone know where to find that interview again?

Winston001

2nd September 2010, 14:53

I only caught a glimpse of the interview with the guy that is building the Mosque near by. Just remembered the bit about his mum's catholic, his dad's muslim, his wife's a christian..... Anyone know where to find that interview again?

Its all nonsense - a hysterical American media beat-up. A cultural centre is planned at 45 Park Place which is at least 2 1/2 blocks from the World Trade Centre which in Manhatten terms is nowhere near "at" ground zero.

The cultural centre will have shops, information areas, exhibits, and a small area for prayer.

Incidentally there is a successful porn shop in the same area but no-one objects to its presence as disrespectful to ground zero.

marie_speeds

2nd September 2010, 15:29

Its all nonsense - a hysterical American media beat-up. A cultural centre is planned at 45 Park Place which is at least 2 1/2 blocks from the World Trade Centre which in Manhatten terms is nowhere near "at" ground zero.

The cultural centre will have shops, information areas, exhibits, and a small area for prayer.

Incidentally there is a successful porn shop in the same area but no-one objects to its presence as disrespectful to ground zero.

That's why I was asking about interview to see what was the actual plan of what he hoped to achieve

oldrider

2nd September 2010, 17:04

I have never waged a war against anyone.... Why should I live in fear?

Mother nature (call it whatever you like) is a sadistic old bastard, that's why! :yes:

Carnivore's eat flesh, we (humans) are carnivores, we eat other things!

Bambi never waged war against anything or anyone, why should Bambi live in fear?

Because mother nature is a sadistic old bastard and right now I am feeling hungry!

I wonder how the grass and selected edible herbs felt about Bambi? :shifty:

Winston001

2nd September 2010, 21:23

Mother nature (call it whatever you like) is a sadistic old bastard, that's why! :yes:

Carnivore's eat flesh, we (humans) are carnivores, we eat other things!

Bambi never waged war against anything or anyone, why should Bambi live in fear?

Because mother nature is a sadistic old bastard and right now I am feeling hungry!

I wonder how the grass and selected edible herbs felt about Bambi? :shifty:

Cripes John, that's a bit deep for KB. :D

Surely you don't mean Bambi is a sand donkey :shit:

SS90

3rd September 2010, 04:10

Incidentally there is a successful porn shop in the same area but no-one objects to its presence as disrespectful to ground zero.

And why would they? Porn is great, never unvoked any one into flying a plane into a building.

Berries

3rd September 2010, 07:33

Yeah, but have you seen Muslim porn mags ? They still have the burkha on.

Waste of money IMHO.

mashman

3rd September 2010, 09:22

Yeah, but have you seen Muslim porn mags ? They still have the burkha on.

Waste of money IMHO.

surely that depends oin the placement and angle of the burkha :)

avgas

3rd September 2010, 10:25

That's why I was asking about interview to see what was the actual plan of what he hoped to achieve
It needs to be a park or something. However unfortunately the land value is worth gold, and apparently some poor sod is paying the lease.
So I guess he has to recoup costs somehow.

Would be great if there was some kind of unbiased memorial there though. Like I said, saddest place I have ever been - when you stand at ground zero you realize that the death was not biased. It just killed all.
It did not matter if you practiced Islam or were christian. If you were in that area - your fucked.

cold comfort

3rd September 2010, 12:55

-------------

"It is a truism, almost any sect, cult or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so!"

R-Soul

3rd September 2010, 16:51

I wonder what New Zealand will look like in 100 years - or maybe 500 years ?

Can you say "Chinese"? Or how about "Indian"?

Realistically speaking, if the world remains relatively peaceful, and people are relatively free to move to other countries if they dont like it in theirs, it can really only go this way ON AVERAGE.

Because, lets face it, immigration to India or China is not going to make a dent in their demographics. But even a TINY percentage of immigrants from these countries will swamp most others.

A comedian put it nicely in to context for me- I quote:

"I am going to visit China this Christmas, and I cant wait. But what is amazing is the number of people, after hearing you are going, that say ;"Oh, did you know thay have 1.2 billion people in China?"

And I say, "No, they 1.345 billion people in China. You are in fact 145 million people out. That's half the population of the USA."

"In fact, even if you said that they had 1.34 billion people, you would still be discounting the entire population of New Zealand!".

end quote

China is already hitting resource hurdles (water, space, food, etc).
Q: Where do 1.345 billion people go when they run out of space? A: Anywhere they want to.

PrincessBandit

5th September 2010, 08:59

China is already hitting resource hurdles (water, space, food, etc).
Q: Where do 1.345 billion people go when they run out of space? A: Anywhere they want to.

And China isn't the only country.....

Jonno.

5th September 2010, 13:16

Its all nonsense - a hysterical American media beat-up. A cultural centre is planned at 45 Park Place which is at least 2 1/2 blocks from the World Trade Centre which in Manhatten terms is nowhere near "at" ground zero.

The cultural centre will have shops, information areas, exhibits, and a small area for prayer.

Incidentally there is a successful porn shop in the same area but no-one objects to its presence as disrespectful to ground zero.
I think that has to do with how it wasn't a cult worshiping porn who destroyed the towers :mellow:

I don't think it's a beatup at all. Peope blow up a building in the name of a God and then people worshiping the same God build a prayer centre 2 blocks away. I know personally if I were a Muslim and codemned those actions I would be respectful of those killed.

Winston001

5th September 2010, 21:14

I think that has to do with how it wasn't a cult worshiping porn who destroyed the towers :mellow:

I don't think it's a beatup at all. Peope blow up a building in the name of a God and then people worshiping the same God build a prayer centre 2 blocks away. I know personally if I were a Muslim and codemned those actions I would be respectful of those killed.

I understand your point but it is part of a widely mistaken belief. The Al Qaeda terrorists who carried out the 9/11 strikes were not attacking the US in order to advance Islam. They did not attack so that Americans would turn to Allah.

Instead they attacked out of frustration and a narrow world-view that blamed America for all that is wrong in their home countries. They don't like US armies invading Iraq, holding bases in Saudi Arabia, and supporting Israel. They don't like the poverty, the crowding, the desperation of daily life and look for someone to blame. America is an easy target.

We also forget that most of the deaths and destruction caused by Islamic terrorists are to each other - bombings in Iraq and Pakistan usually target local people.

The 9/11 people were terrorists who happened to be Moslem and that is the cultural influence which gave them the excuse to act. Islam has its problems but fundamentally, terrorism is poor people lashing out in rage against the rich.

marie_speeds

6th September 2010, 11:36

The hijacked planes only killed approximately 500 people. Bad building design and construction did the other 2500+. Blame the architect. In his bid to get his giant phallic symbols up he overlooked safety. :whistle:

Banditbandit

6th September 2010, 11:45

The hijacked planes only killed approximately 500 people. Bad building design and construction did the other 2500+. Blame the architect. In his bid to get his giant phallic symbols up he overlooked safety. :whistle:

Even Bin Laden said the results (building crash) were better than even they expected ...

marie_speeds

6th September 2010, 11:49

Even Bin Laden said the results (building crash) were better than even they expected ...

Exactly...bad building design and the towers falling down was apparently an added bonus for him

avgas

6th September 2010, 11:59

Exactly...bad building design and the towers falling down was apparently an added bonus for him
Apparently it was quite a well designed building. :shifty:
Not even a precision terrorist could drop that puppy so delicately :blink:

R-Soul

6th September 2010, 13:22

Instead they attacked out of frustration and a narrow world-view that blamed America for all that is wrong in their home countries. They don't like US armies invading Iraq, holding bases in Saudi Arabia, and supporting Israel. They don't like the poverty, the crowding, the desperation of daily life and look for someone to blame. America is an easy target.

The USA had its fingers in many pies around the world, and it was causing death and destruction in MANY of them BEFORE 9/11.

In many cases it actively supported autocrats and dictators against democratically elected governments, just because those governments werent as friendly, or weren't willing to provide the same levels of access to their resources.

Lets face it, the USA foreign policy guys are a nasty ass bunch of people that don't give two pence worth about anybody elses lives. Only when it infliuences the American voting public,does it seem to affect them. Most American voting public seem to be a bunch of inbred rednecks with no vision or knowledge beyond their counties, much less their country, and let their foriegn policy guys behave as badly as they did, because it did not affect them. They caused FAR more unnecessary deaths in other countries before 9/11 than 9/11 ever caused. But non-American lives dont seem to count.

Given that levels of death and misery and desperation that they were causing in other countries, they seem to have reaped what they sowed....

Hopefully under the new Obama adminsitration, they will display a level of respect for ALL lives, and support their principles of democracy and human rights EVEN in other countries that are not willing to give them preferenatial commercial treatment. But probably not.

marie_speeds

6th September 2010, 13:39

Hopefully under the new Obama adminsitration, they will display a level of respect for ALL lives, and support their principles of democracy and human rights EVEN in other countries that are not willing to give them preferenatial commercial treatment. But probably not.

He's already so out of there.............................

Oscar

6th September 2010, 14:06

Exactly...bad building design and the towers falling down was apparently an added bonus for him

Apparently the architect did model the impact of a 707 on one of the towers.
What he didn't factor in was the full load of fuel.

marie_speeds

6th September 2010, 14:21

Apparently the architect did model the impact of a 707 on one of the towers.
What he didn't factor in was the full load of fuel.

That's why I said blame the architect, all his fault.....bad fire prevention and isolation betwen floors

PrincessBandit

6th September 2010, 14:24

It's a strange old world when buildings have to be constructed not only to withstand natural disaster but man made terrors as well.

By this reckoning then all air and ventilation systems should be designed to immediately detect and filter out biochemical nasties which is another favourite in the terrorists arsenal.

Realistically, it doesn't matter how "bullet proof" a building is designed and built, if it's a desirable enough target terrorists will find a way to destroy it.

pete376403

6th September 2010, 20:30

Veering off topic, but.... no-one has ever explained why WTC 7 fell down when it never got hit by anything. It can't have been *that* badly designed. Of course any time this is mentioned , you become a conspiracy theorist.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3664073116607499063#

toycollector10

6th September 2010, 23:11

Veering off topic, but.... no-one has ever explained why WTC 7 fell down when it never got hit by anything. It can't have been *that* badly designed. Of course any time this is mentioned , you become a conspiracy theorist.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3664073116607499063#

My first Google search for WTC7 came up with this. So can't you even use a search engine, mate?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

You should probably just cut to the video at the bottom of the page on the debunking911.com webpage.

Your post just makes me see red. And yes, Armstrong never landed on the moon, it was filmed in a Hollywood lot. Yeah!. And did you see that video of the Yeti? The Loch Ness Monster?

I'm incensed at this stupid attitude that seems to think that an American government would want to wage war on its own citizens.

Do you think that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?

Here is a brief rundown on the advances Islam has made to the world of aviation. Not Boeing, or Airbus, or Thales, or Cessna...Islam:

"history will acknowledge the contributions made by the Americans, Europeans, Russians and other nations to aviation. History will also record the only contribution made by Muslims to aviation, which is to crash the planes and kill their passengers. Muslims happen to be the only group to perfect this art of crashing commercial planes to kill innocent, helpless civilians. Their list of achievements includes:

"In 1967 they introduced to the world professional hijacking; a Palestinian group hijacked an Israeli Boeing 707 to Algeria.

"In 1970 they introduced multiple plane hijacking when they hijacked, then exploded four commercial planes in a Jordanian desert.

"In the 1980s they perfected the art of planting explosives in electronic devices such as cassette players. They successfully exploded a jumbo jet over Scotland killing hundreds of civilians.

"In September 2001 humanity witnessed with disbelief how a group of dedicated Muslims hijacked four commercial planes and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of innocent civilians.

"In December 2001, they introduced the shoe bomb.

"In 2006 they introduced the use of liquid explosives.

Jonno.

7th September 2010, 00:05

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Oscar

7th September 2010, 08:56

Do you think that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?

Here is a brief rundown on the advances Islam has made to the world of aviation. Not Boeing, or Airbus, or Thales, or Cessna...Islam:

"history will acknowledge the contributions made by the Americans, Europeans, Russians and other nations to aviation. History will also record the only contribution made by Muslims to aviation, which is to crash the planes and kill their passengers. Muslims happen to be the only group to perfect this art of crashing commercial planes to kill innocent, helpless civilians. Their list of achievements includes:

"In 1967 they introduced to the world professional hijacking; a Palestinian group hijacked an Israeli Boeing 707 to Algeria.

"In 1970 they introduced multiple plane hijacking when they hijacked, then exploded four commercial planes in a Jordanian desert.

"In the 1980s they perfected the art of planting explosives in electronic devices such as cassette players. They successfully exploded a jumbo jet over Scotland killing hundreds of civilians.

"In September 2001 humanity witnessed with disbelief how a group of dedicated Muslims hijacked four commercial planes and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of innocent civilians.

"In December 2001, they introduced the shoe bomb.

"In 2006 they introduced the use of liquid explosives.

Your first three examples are political, and nothing to do with Muslims, apart from the coincidental fact that most of the perpetrators were of that faith (for example the Lockerbie Bombing was the Libyan Govt's revenge for the US attack that killed Qaddafi's daughter). Using that "logic" would have the Atomic Bomb, Nerve Gas and Carpet Bombing classified as Christian Weapons.

avgas

7th September 2010, 12:24

"history will acknowledge the contributions made by the Americans, Europeans, Russians and other nations to aviation."
Worth noting that these areas are also known as the world leaders in designing and building

"Anti-Personnel" armaments.

The Muslims borrow that off them too. lol

mashman

7th September 2010, 12:33

Worth noting that these areas are also known as the world leaders in designing and building

"Anti-Personnel" armaments.

The Muslims borrow that off them too. lol

to be fair though, the "designer/builders" of the "armaments" teach their customers how to use things properly... just as well as, heaven forbid, could kill someone using those things improperly :blink:

marie_speeds

7th September 2010, 20:40

My first Google search for WTC7 came up with this. So can't you even use a search engine, mate?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

You should probably just cut to the video at the bottom of the page on the debunking911.com webpage.

Your post just makes me see red. And yes, Armstrong never landed on the moon, it was filmed in a Hollywood lot. Yeah!. And did you see that video of the Yeti? The Loch Ness Monster?

I'm incensed at this stupid attitude that seems to think that an American government would want to wage war on its own citizens.

Do you think that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?

Here is a brief rundown on the advances Islam has made to the world of aviation. Not Boeing, or Airbus, or Thales, or Cessna...Islam:

"history will acknowledge the contributions made by the Americans, Europeans, Russians and other nations to aviation. History will also record the only contribution made by Muslims to aviation, which is to crash the planes and kill their passengers. Muslims happen to be the only group to perfect this art of crashing commercial planes to kill innocent, helpless civilians. Their list of achievements includes:

"In 1967 they introduced to the world professional hijacking; a Palestinian group hijacked an Israeli Boeing 707 to Algeria.

"In 1970 they introduced multiple plane hijacking when they hijacked, then exploded four commercial planes in a Jordanian desert.

"In the 1980s they perfected the art of planting explosives in electronic devices such as cassette players. They successfully exploded a jumbo jet over Scotland killing hundreds of civilians.

"In September 2001 humanity witnessed with disbelief how a group of dedicated Muslims hijacked four commercial planes and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of innocent civilians.

"In December 2001, they introduced the shoe bomb.

"In 2006 they introduced the use of liquid explosives.

Your forgot some...
October 1097 The Siege of Antioch...
26th May 1637 Mystic massacre....
6th August 1945 Hiroshima....

Oh bugger sorry my bad..... All these ones were Christians doing the killing....

Winston001

7th September 2010, 21:34

Your forgot some...
October 1097 The Siege of Antioch...
26th May 1637 Mystic massacre....
6th August 1945 Hiroshima....

Oh bugger sorry my bad..... All these ones were Christians doing the killing....

Mmmm.....sorry Marie but you conveniently overlook Islamic battles and massacres:

715 - invasion and conquering of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain, Portugal, and southern France)

1066 Massacre of Granada - 4000 killed

1971 Partition of India and Pakistan - 2.4 million Hindus killed

There are plenty more examples. For example, consider that North Africa and the Middle East were substantially Christian and Jewish in the early centuries but under the sword of Islam these populations were converted/killed until repressed.

The Crusades were an attempt to turn the tide and save the those left.

Tamerlane is rightly honoured as a great Islamic leader but he was also a butcher. For example, when Isfahan surrendered to Tamerlane in 1387, he ordered the complete massacre of the city, killing a reported 70,000 citizens. An eye-witness counted more than 28 towers, each constructed of about 1,500 heads.

marie_speeds

7th September 2010, 21:58

Mmmm.....sorry Marie but you conveniently overlook Islamic battles and massacres:

715 - invasion and conquering of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain, Portugal, and southern France)

1066 Massacre of Granada - 4000 killed

1971 Partition of India and Pakistan - 2.4 million Hindus killed

There are plenty more examples. For example, consider that North Africa and the Middle East were substantially Christian and Jewish in the early centuries but under the sword of Islam these populations were converted/killed until repressed.

The Crusades were an attempt to turn the tide and save the those left.

Tamerlane is rightly honoured as a great Islamic leader but he was also a butcher. For example, when Isfahan surrendered to Tamerlane in 1387, he ordered the complete massacre of the city, killing a reported 70,000 citizens. An eye-witness counted more than 28 towers, each constructed of about 1,500 heads.

No I didn't overlook anything. My point was which you have added to btw is that it easy for some to recite a list of murderous acts committed by Muslims but it is also just as easy to recite a list of murderous acts committed by other religious groups/peoples. To naively believe that one's own religious organisation/nation is not guilty of atrocities is simply ridiculous. Human's are a murderous bunch....worst killing machines on the planet.

Hans

7th September 2010, 21:58

Oh yeah, and let's not forget the Siege of Vienna(1529). That's right - a Muslim army putting a city smack bang in the middle of Europe under siege less than 500 years ago. Wikipedia is your friend here.

Reckless

7th September 2010, 22:52

I have been following my thread with interest I thought it would produce good debate and so far I must say it hasn't turned into the shit fight that usually happens on KB.

MY original thoughts when originally posting where not that I supported the article that was emailed to me in any way at all. I actually don't know enough about Islam (as stated in a few previous posts) to have a valid opinion.
But I observed the two extreme views. One lot saying we have to bomb you and the other lot saying your trying to take over the world. Both seemingly as paranoid as each other. This I thought was interesting and could generate some good debate, and it has been an interesting thread.

What just prodded me to post up where Maries words hereunder that I must say I agree with.

No I didn't overlook anything. My point was which you have added to btw is that it easy for some to recite a list of murderous acts committed by Muslims but it is also just as easy to recite a list of murderous acts committed by other religious groups/peoples. To naively believe that one's own religious organisation/nation is not guilty of atrocities is simply ridiculous. Human's are a murderous bunch....worst killing machines on the planet.

Its seems whatever is written and whatever god that is put forward as the true god. He seems to give some humans the right to kill others in the name of. Some would say there's more killing been done in the name of a god than any other cause. Tallying up your figures above, makes this sum in the many millions?? Maybe the only reason we believe in a god is the fact we simply cannot stand to think when we die we just rot in the ground and that's that. Do we really have a soul or do we just think we do?? And if we do have a soul, as the human race do we really deserve a place like heaven??

Me frankly I'm confused and have been for years, an arc?? The whole world flooding?? animals two by two, Adam and Eve?? Religious books that tell people to kill in the name of god??

Sounds like a shit load lot of brainwashing by all sides?? Maybe we are all hypocrites? When the going gets really rough, we pray, when its all going ok, we don't. If you haven't had a religion bred into you its kinda hard to gets to grips with some of the goings on.

Maybe we don't have to go to church or commit to any particular religion. If there is a heaven up there maybe just not being an asshole, don't shit on anyone, be honest and helpful and thinking and acting to benefit your freinds, loved ones and strangers of any race creed or colour, is enough!
If not I suppose I'll just rot??

pete376403

7th September 2010, 23:35

All religion is about power. By promising a better afterlife (because religions certainly dont deliver a better "now" life) believers are suckered into the concept that theirs is the "one true god" and all others are wrong. The power part is "in order to get to this better afterlife you have do do what your chosen belief system says". The pope, brian tamaki, mahommed, etc - all pedaling the same bullshit in different packages, and they're able to sell it because human egos can't abide the thought of there being nothing at the end of life.

toycollector10

7th September 2010, 23:35

Despite all the Wikipedia research the facts are clear in the third millennium.

Again, despite the failings of Christianity in this century I don't think any Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Methodist, Lutherin or Seventh Day Adventist has been doing the crazy shit the Muslims have been up to.

"Oh, look out, it's a Boeing 767 that's been hijacked by a gang of Baptists and it's headed for the Beehive".

I'll say it again, I'm an atheist. This isn't about race, it's about a medieval religion and it's many, many failings.

Genie

8th September 2010, 07:19

Why is that we have this need to (well some do) have something to believe in, this faith in some being that may of may not exsist, pay homage to a statue.....Does all mankind have this empty place inside them that only a "god" can fill?

As to Islam...I think it is something we do need to be very much aware of and some of them are damn scarey, just like some Christians are damn scarey, underneath it all, we are human and it is human nature to survive, to conquer, to rule.

Clockwork

8th September 2010, 09:33

I am an infidel and so is the rest of my family, I'm happy to live in peace with people of any faith so long as they are happy to reciprocate but I have a real problem with the fact that the Koran expressly encourages/endorses our killing by the members of that faith.

Nor do I wish to live (or die) under Sharia law from what I learn its ways, I certainly would not choose to live in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Don't get me wrong, I fully accept that 99.99% of all Muslims will not take those words to heart or would wish any harm upon me an my family and that, I'm sure, includes the vast majority of Pakistanis and Afghanis but mob mentality is a fickle and dangerous thing, just ask the Germans.

I'm certain the Taliban do not even constitute a majority among the people of Afghanistan, however that certainly didn't stop them brutally and forcibly imposing there world view upon the rest of the local population.

So long as greater Islam is unable or unwilling to put an end to the extremists in their midst I will continue to view its growth and migration with suspicion and concern. Should there be other creeds with similar teaching and the means and intent to inflict them upon me and mine I will treat them the same way regardless of their ethnic origin.

toycollector10

8th September 2010, 13:39

All religion is about power. By promising a better afterlife (because religions certainly dont deliver a better "now" life) believers are suckered into the concept that theirs is the "one true god" and all others are wrong. The power part is "in order to get to this better afterlife you have do do what your chosen belief system says". The pope, brian tamaki, mahommed, etc - all pedaling the same bullshit in different packages, and they're able to sell it because human egos can't abide the thought of there being nothing at the end of life.
True. The Bible and the Koran have been interpreted/misinterpreted for centuries. It's the priests and imams who cause all the trouble. They just can't worship in their own way in peace and leave everyone else alone. There's always got to be the eternal pit of hellfire to keep everyone in line. The hating and the killing. The only winners are the cult leaders. The rest, sheep.

NighthawkNZ

8th September 2010, 18:01

And this type of crap does not help the situation either...

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/7904499/us-powerless-to-stop-koran-burning/

What a lot of people don't realise is both the Bible and Qur'an including many ministers and teachers of both regilons, the Bible and Qur'an have the same message, both believe in Jesus and they both could have easily had the same books and wording. Many of the books that didn't make it into the cannon version of the Bible made it into the Qur'an and other versions of the Bible. (yes there are other versions of the Bible and I am not just talking about translations and new versions in translations)
Though it was more than the one meeting of the so called council it took over 150 years before we came to the Bible we have today.

Both the Bible and Qur'an are that similar its not funny anyway... both are a form of control, because the fear it creates if your are wrong and are going to a lake of fire in the after life...

The council of Nicea 325CE did not create the doctrine of the deity of Christ as is sometimes claimed but it did settle to some degree the debate within the early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ. This idea of the divinity of Christ along with the idea of Christ as a messenger from the one God ("The Father") had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. The divinity of Christ had also been widely endorsed by the Christian community in the otherwise pagan city of Rome. The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father. Contrary to the view popularised by Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code, there is no evidence to suggest that the Biblical canon, the list of books decided to be authorative as scripture, was even discussed at the Council of Nicaea, let alone established or edited.

There are a variety of books that didn't make it to the canon version, Book of Enoch, Book ok of Jubilees, Book of Adam & Eves life, LamechScroll... Another on that I forget its name that says Adam Eve was Adam's 2nd wife... the book of Mary, but there are many many others... there are rumours there is a book of Jesus but there is no evidence of this that has been found if it has then it is deep with the Vatican. The Bible took centries to get to the version we in the west know today.

"Ethiopia" for example their Holy Bible has a veriety of books in it that is in the Koran and some that are not in either the Koran or Bible... as well as most that we know and have...

The bit that really gets me, on both sides of the fence Christian and Islam, is that there are millions of people that are starving and struggling just to live and and survie... and then we have the priests, pope vatican that have millions in revenue, but do nothing... and that is both sides...

Thou Shalt not Kill... pretty simple really yet look at all the wars and suffering regilon itself has had in the name of god through out history...

"If anyone slew an innocent person it would be as if he slew the whole mankind and if anyone saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the whole mankind"
Al-Qur’an 5:32

Banditbandit

9th September 2010, 17:32

Despite all the Wikipedia research the facts are clear in the third millennium.

Again, despite the failings of Christianity in this century I don't think any Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Methodist, Lutherin or Seventh Day Adventist has been doing the crazy shit the Muslims have been up to.

"Oh, look out, it's a Boeing 767 that's been hijacked by a gang of Baptists and it's headed for the Beehive".

I'll say it again, I'm an atheist. This isn't about race, it's about a medieval religion and it's many, many failings.

Let me see ...

Christians invaded Iraq and Afghanistan ... which Muslims invaded what Christian countries ?

Christian Fundamentalists have murdered pro-abortion doctors and doctors performing abortions ... such as Jim D. Adkisson - an American Christain terrorist who shot up a church ... and The Army of God

Christians have carried out the death penalty on many people ...

Christians tortured Muslims in Abu Graib and Guantanemo ...

The Catholic/Protestant terrorist groups of Northern Ireland ... both IRA and the Orange Volunteers et al ..

The Ku Klux Klan ...

Concerned Citizens who planned to attack holy site in Jerusalem and were tossed out by the Israelis ...

The Hutaree Group ...

David Koresh and the Branch Davidian Sect - Waco Texas ... Ruby Ridge ...

Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army ...

New Zealand's very own Full Gospel Mission - The God Squad - busted in the late 1970s or early 1980s with arms and explosives ...

And on and on ...

Probably just as many examples as there are Muslim extreme terrorist groups ... Christianity is a medieval religion that looks much like Islam ...

Indiana_Jones

9th September 2010, 17:50

Let me see ...

Christians invaded Iraq and Afghanistan ... which Muslims invaded what Christian countries ?

The Moors invaded Spain and sat there for around 400 years? IRC

-Indy

SPman

9th September 2010, 18:28

and they're able to sell it because human egos can't abide the thought of there being nothing at the end of life.
Ah, is that my problem...I know there's nothing afterwards.........

Evil people will do evil
Good people will do good
But only religion induces good people to do evil........

toycollector10

9th September 2010, 20:30

Let me see ...

Christians invaded Iraq and Afghanistan ... which Muslims invaded what Christian countries ?

Christian Fundamentalists have murdered pro-abortion doctors and doctors performing abortions ... such as Jim D. Adkisson - an American Christain terrorist who shot up a church ... and The Army of God

Christians have carried out the death penalty on many people ...

Christians tortured Muslims in Abu Graib and Guantanemo ...

The Catholic/Protestant terrorist groups of Northern Ireland ... both IRA and the Orange Volunteers et al ..

The Ku Klux Klan ...

Concerned Citizens who planned to attack holy site in Jerusalem and were tossed out by the Israelis ...

The Hutaree Group ...

David Koresh and the Branch Davidian Sect - Waco Texas ... Ruby Ridge ...

Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army ...

New Zealand's very own Full Gospel Mission - The God Squad - busted in the late 1970s or early 1980s with arms and explosives ...

And on and on ...

Probably just as many examples as there are Muslim extreme terrorist groups ... Christianity is a medieval religion that looks much like Islam ...

I told you, I'm an Atheist. The topic is Islamisation. The Christians aren't free of crimes, as you say. Proderstaants V's Caathorlcks etc etc.

I'm adding to this topic in the hope that anyone who is unsure of what is going on in Europe might start doing their own research and make their own minds up. A YouTube search of "Islam and Europe" or "Muslim Demographics" will get anyone started then they can just surf around as they please. "Pat Condell" on YouTube is as good a place an any to start.

No one on an internet forum discussing religion is ever going to change any other posters mind. I'm just here to hopefully prod the fence sitters or curious citizen into taking things a step further, that is, to do some research. I don't care about which side of the debate they emerge.

The big problem is in Europe. How can I personally influence the tide of 30,000,000 Muslims of Europe and Sharia law? Answer, I can't.

Here's another starting point: http://www.jihadwatch.org/

Are you a Muslim?

myvice

9th September 2010, 21:32

The problem we have in the world is quite simple.
There are not enough bikes to go round.
If every one got a bike when they hit about ten years old, give or take, then that’s all they would give a crap about till they discovered girls/boys.
And once they got sick of them they would turn to bikes again.

One day at the UN…
“The people over there do not believe what we believe, let’s go kill them!”
“Yea… Um, na. I’m off for a ride.”
“But we must kill them!”
“Well… Look, normally yea maybe, but the wife took off last week with some mates and did the Corro loop and left me with the kids.
And well this weekend I’m off to the back road into Waitomo and its gunna be a nice weekend. So, no.”
“But, but we must…”
“Listen, I know it hurts but, well… Just because Ducati parts are expensive you can’t go round killing Italian engineers just cause they do things differently.”

See how it would stop all wars?
Bikes are the answer!

NighthawkNZ

10th September 2010, 13:20

And then this kind of shit... sometimes I am ashamed to say I am human when you see or hear about this...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/09/09

US Soldiers 'Killed Afghan Civilians for Sport and Collected Fingers as Trophies'

Soldiers face charges over secret 'kill team' which allegedly murdered at random and collected fingers as trophies of war

by Chris McGreal
Twelve American soldiers face charges over a secret "kill team" that allegedly blew up and shot Afghan civilians at random and collected their fingers as trophies.
http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/Stryker-soldiers-who-alle-004_0.jpgAndrew Holmes, Michael Wagnon, Jeremy Morlock and Adam Winfield are four of the five Stryker soldiers who face murder charges. (Photograph: Public Domain)
Five of the soldiers are charged with murdering three Afghan men who were allegedly killed for sport in separate attacks this year. Seven others are accused of covering up the killings and assaulting a recruit who exposed the murders when he reported other abuses, including members of the unit smoking hashish stolen from civilians.In one of the most serious accusations of war crimes to emerge from the Afghan conflict, the killings are alleged to have been carried out by members of a Stryker infantry brigade based in Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan).
According to investigators and legal documents, discussion of killing Afghan civilians began after the arrival of Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs at forward operating base Ramrod last November. Other soldiers told the army's criminal investigation command that Gibbs boasted of the things he got away with while serving in Iraq and said how easy it would be to "toss a grenade at someone and kill them".
One soldier said he believed Gibbs was "feeling out the platoon".
Investigators said Gibbs, 25, hatched a plan with another soldier, Jeremy Morlock, 22, and other members of the unit to form a "kill team". While on patrol over the following months they allegedly killed at least three Afghan civilians. According to the charge sheet, the first target was Gul Mudin, who was killed "by means of throwing a fragmentary grenade at him and shooting him with a rifle", when the patrol entered the village of La Mohammed Kalay in January.
Morlock and another soldier, Andrew Holmes, were on guard at the edge of a poppy field when Mudin emerged and stopped on the other side of a wall from the soldiers. Gibbs allegedly handed Morlock a grenade who armed it and dropped it over the wall next to the Afghan and dived for cover. Holmes, 19, then allegedly fired over the wall.
Later in the day, Morlock is alleged to have told Holmes that the killing was for fun and threatened him if he told anyone.
The second victim, Marach Agha, was shot and killed the following month. Gibbs is alleged to have shot him and placed a Kalashnikov next to the body to justify the killing. In May Mullah Adadhdad was killed after being shot and attacked with a grenade.
The Army Times reported that a least one of the soldiers collected the fingers of the victims as souvenirs and that some of them posed for photographs with the bodies.
Five soldiers – Gibbs, Morlock, Holmes, Michael Wagnon and Adam Winfield – are accused of murder and aggravated assault among other charges. All of the soldiers have denied the charges. They face the death penalty or life in prison if convicted.
The killings came to light in May after the army began investigating a brutal assault on a soldier who told superiors that members of his unit were smoking hashish. The Army Times reported that members of the unit regularly smoked the drug on duty and sometimes stole it from civilians.
The soldier, who was straight out of basic training and has not been named, said he witnessed the smoking of hashish and drinking of smuggled alcohol but initially did not report it out of loyalty to his comrades. But when he returned from an assignment at an army headquarters and discovered soldiers using the shipping container in which he was billeted to smoke hashish he reported it.
Two days later members of his platoon, including Gibbs and Morlock, accused him of "snitching", gave him a beating and told him to keep his mouth shut. The soldier reported the beating and threats to his officers and then told investigators what he knew of the "kill team".
Following the arrest of the original five accused in June, seven other soldiers were charged last month with attempting to cover up the killings and violent assault on the soldier who reported the smoking of hashish. The charges will be considered by a military grand jury later this month which will decide if there is enough evidence for a court martial. Army investigators say Morlock has admitted his involvement in the killings and given details about the role of others including Gibbs. But his lawyer, Michael Waddington, is seeking to have that confession suppressed because he says his client was interviewed while under the influence of prescription drugs taken for battlefield injuries and that he was also suffering from traumatic brain injury.
"Our position is that his statements were incoherent, and taken while he was under a cocktail of drugs that shouldn't have been mixed," Waddington told the Seattle Times.

mashman

10th September 2010, 13:33

And then this kind of shit... sometimes I am ashamed to say I am human when you see or hear about this...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/09/09

i just don't get it at all... why the fuck would you do that to someone :angry:

avgas

10th September 2010, 13:36

See how it would stop all wars? Bikes are the answer!
Ever tried working with a Guzzi owner?
Would rather take my chances with a terrorist.

imdying

10th September 2010, 13:36

Really?

What else would you from someone who is trained to be the most aggressive killer they can, carries a rifle every day, gets shot at a lot, is contiunally told that he's a bringer of death, a perfectly crafted killing machine etc etc by hard arse mofos that they look up to? :confused:

You can't create an army of hardcore killers, and then not expect them to want to kill.

mashman

10th September 2010, 14:04

Really?

What else would you from someone who is trained to be the most aggressive killer they can, carries a rifle every day, gets shot at a lot, is contiunally told that he's a bringer of death, a perfectly crafted killing machine etc etc by hard arse mofos that they look up to? :confused:

You can't create an army of hardcore killers, and then not expect them to want to kill.

Yes really. For every soldier that does this sort of thing (they are all trained the same no?) there are 1000's of if not 10's of 1000's of soldiers who don't. Don't get me wrong, if a civilian was pointing a gun at me i'd spray and walk away, but shooting civilians for sport and collecting their fingers is just fucked up...

Of course you can... they even have, what do they call them, rules of engagement to stop this sort of thing happening...

Winston001

10th September 2010, 14:06

Ah, is that my problem...I know there's nothing afterwards.........

Evil people will do evil
Good people will do good
But only religion induces good people to do evil........

Sorry SPman but utter rot.

Money, control, and power are what influence people to do evil. Any criminal study will reveal that. For example, Italian mafiosi go to church but that is only because that's expected of them. The religion has absolutely nothing to do with their crimes.

Studies of Islamic terrorists reveal that some have no deep knowledge of their religion, indeed some have had middle-class backgrounds. Instead they have been drawn into an enthusiasm for righting imagined wrongs. Its a romantic vision of fighting for God which they grasp with the vigour of youth.

How many middle-aged and elderly active terrorists have we seen? Behind the scenes - yes, but not doing the deeds.

NighthawkNZ

10th September 2010, 14:10

Money, control, and power are what influence people to do evil. Any criminal study will reveal that. .

For the love of money is the root of all evil...

avgas

10th September 2010, 14:26

How many middle-aged and elderly active terrorists have we seen? Behind the scenes - yes, but not doing the deeds.
Everyone was young at some point.
Seems the older people get the less inclined they are to do many (radical) things.

How many "Ghost rider" impersonators are over 45? And how many are under 30?
Yet I would say there is just as many 'older riders' as 'younger ones'.

Smarter with age and all that. Its just unfortunate that the current trend is suicide bombing. A you may see less older 'behind the scenes' people in the future than you have eluded to.

mashman

13th September 2010, 15:45

Well someone was bound to do it... just so happens it's an Aussy, albeit i think his premise for the "experiment" is sound :shifty:

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/7932798/atheist-burns-koran-and-bible/

imdying

13th September 2010, 15:54

Yes really. For every soldier that does this sort of thing (they are all trained the same no?) there are 1000's of if not 10's of 1000's of soldiers who don't.

Of course you can... they even have, what do they call them, rules of engagement to stop this sort of thing happening...Sure they train them all the same, but they're still training killers, and to not expect a few of them to enjoy it, well, that's a bit ridiculous isn't it.

As far as rules of engagement go... the entire concept is a joke. It is either good enough to go to war and have a full on rumble, or it's not. It's a war FFS... if it's not cricket to lay waste to the entire country, then there's insufficient justification to even have a war.

Swoop

16th September 2010, 08:40

15 September, 2010: One of the biggest problems with Islamic terrorism is that it is based on ancient, and widespread, hostility between factions in the Islamic world. The Islamic world has no central religious authority, and a long tradition of being hypersensitive and violent to those who appear to give offense. In Iraq and Afghanistan, most of the Moslems casualties were caused by other Moslems. While Islamic conservatives and radicals are usually doing the attacking, these killers represent many different strains of Islam. Even if the U.S. and NATO troops were to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, the killing would go on, probably at a higher intensity. This is the basis for the great fear of Islamic nations getting nuclear weapons. Moslems, as they have demonstrated over the last few decades, are more prone to killing lots of their real or imagined enemies. Thus it is a more serious matter for Pakistan to have nuclear weapons, than India. Per capita, India has lost fewer people to terrorist violence than the Moslem world. Moreover, the Moslem scientists who developed the Pakistani bomb, then went on to peddle it to other Moslem, and non-Moslem dictatorships. Moreover, many radicalized Moslems consider it their religious duty to attack and kill infidels (non-Moslems.)
This Moslem propensity for violence has a long history, and the hatred and killing is still with us. In the last few years, Moslems have regularly attacked Buddhists in Thailand, Jews everywhere, Baha'is in Iran and Christians in Egypt, Iraq, the Philippines, Pakistan, Malaysia and elsewhere. This is not a sudden and unexpected outburst of Moslem violence against non-Moslems. It is normal, and at the root of Islamic terrorism. While this violent behavior represents only a small number of Moslems, it is a large minority (from a few percent of a population, to over half, according to opinion polls). Moreover, the majority of Moslems has not been willing, or able, to confront and suppress the Islamic radicals that not only spread death and destruction, but also besmirch all Moslems. This reveals a fundamental problem in the Islamic world, the belief that combining righteousness with murderous tactics, is often the road to power and spiritual salvation. Throughout history, when these tactics were applied to non-Moslems, they often failed. The non-Moslems were unfazed by the religious angle, and, especially in the last five hundred years, were better able to defeat Islamic violence with even greater violence. Thus, until quite recently, the Moslems fought among themselves, and left the infidels (non-Moslems) out. But after World War II, that began to change.

During the Lebanese civil war of 1975-1990, Christian and Moslem Arabs fought bitterly over political, cultural and, ultimately, religious differences. The capital, Beirut, was divided into Christian and Moslem sections by the Green Line. The name came from the fact that in this rubble filled no man's land, only grass and weeds survived. And that the line on a ceasefire map was drawn in green. There have been a lot more Green Lines since then. Few realized it at the time, but this war was but the first of many between Christians and Moslems in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Many of the earliest Moslem converts were Christians. And many of the peoples Moslem armies unsuccessfully sought to conquer were Christian. The original Crusades, which modern Moslems portray as Western aggression, were actually a Western attempt to rescue Middle Eastern Christians from increasing Islamic terrorism and violence. But Islam as a political force was in decline for several centuries until the 1970s. Then things changed, and they continue to change. Fueled by oil wealth and access to Western weapons and technology, Islamic radicals saw new opportunities. Islam was again on the march, and few have noticed the many places it was turning into religious war with Christians and other non-Moslems.

In Asia, we have a Green Line between India and Pakistan. Inside India, many Moslem communities remain, and feelings aren't always neighborly. Indonesia and the Philippines suffer growing strife between Moslems and non-Moslems. Malaysia has fanatical Moslems persecuting more laid-back ones, and non-Moslems in general. China has a large Moslem community that generates an increasing amount of violence. Russia and America have formed a curious partnership to deal with Islamic-based terrorism coming out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. And in Chechnya, Russia faced Islamic-inspired violence all alone in the 1990s.

Africa has a rather dusty Green Line south of the semi-arid Sahel region. Many African nations are split by increasingly sensitive religious differences. The Moslems are in the north, Christians and animists in the south. Nigeria, Chad and Sudan are among the more violent hot spots at the moment. When the Moslem Somalis stop fighting each other they will return to raiding their Christian and animist neighbors to the south.

The Middle East still contains many non-Moslems. None have their own country, except for Israel. But Egypt contains five million Copts, native Christians who did not convert to Islam. Similar small Christian communities exist throughout the Middle East, and growing hostility from Moslem neighbors causes many to migrate, or get killed.

Moslems also have turned their righteous wrath on dissident Moslem sects. The Druze and Alawites are considered by many Moslems as pagans pretending to be Moslems. Similarly, the Shias of Iran and neighboring areas are considered less orthodox, not just for their admitted differences, but because many adherents openly practice customs of the pre-Islamic Zoroastrian religion. These differences are less frequently overlooked today. To survive, the many Druze have allied themselves with Israel, and most of the current Syrian leadership are Alawites who pretend to be more Shia than they really are.

Even Europe has a Green Line. The Moslems in the Balkans (Albanians and Bosnians) have been a constant source of strife for the last decade. Moslem migrants in Europe face even more persecution because of all those Green Lines, and this makes it easier for radical groups to recruit and carry out their crusade against Christians. In many European cities with Moslem minorities, there are neighborhoods non-Moslems are advised to stay out of.

But the Green Lines are about more than religion. A lot of it is politics. One of the reasons Islam ran out of steam centuries ago was that the Moslem areas never embraced democracy, and intellectual progress. Until the 20th century, most Moslems lived as part of some foreign empire, under local totalitarian monarchs. The foreign empires are gone, but democracy has had a hard time taking hold. The dictatorships are still there. And the people are restless.

Radical Islam arose as an alternative to all the other forms of government that never seemed to work. In theory, establishing "Islamic Republics" would solve all problems. People could vote, but only Moslems in good standing could be candidates for office. A committee of Moslem holy men would have veto power over political decisions. Islamic law would be used. It was simple, and it makes sense to a lot of Moslems in nations ruled by thugs and thieves. Especially if the people are largely uneducated and illiterate.

Islamic Republics don't work. The only one that has been established (not counting others that say they are but aren't) is in Iran. The major problems were twofold. First, the radicals had too much power. Radical religious types are no fun, and you can't argue with them because they are on a mission from God. Most people tire of this in short order. To speed this disillusionment, many of the once-poor and now-powerful religious leaders became corrupt. This eventually sends your popularity ratings straight to hell.

It will take a generation or so for everyone in the Moslem world to figure out where all this is going. This is already happening in Iran, where moderates are getting stronger every day, but everyone is trying to avoid a civil war. While the radicals are a minority, they are a determined bunch. The constant flow of Islamic radical propaganda does more than generate recruits and contributions in Moslem countries, it also energizes Moslem minorities (both migrants and converts) in Western countries to acts of terrorism. In the United States, you find such Moslems getting arrested several times a year for attempting to carry out religious violence.

Radicals throughout the Moslem world continue to take advantage of dissatisfaction among the people and recruit terrorists and supporters. To help this process along they invoke the ancient grudges popular among many Moslems. Most of these legends involve Christians beating on Moslems. To most radicals it makes sense to get people agitated over faraway foreigners rather than some strongman nearby.

Most radicals lack the skills, money or ability to carry their struggle to far-off places. So most of the agitation takes place among Moslem populations. Any violent attitudes generated are easily directed at available non-Moslems. Thus we have all those Green Lines. But the more violence you have along those Green Lines, the more really fanatical fighters are developed. These are the people who are willing to travel to foreign lands and deal with non-believers, and kill them for the cause. We call it terrorism; the fanatics call it doing what has to be done. Defending Islam with jihad.

Not surprisingly, Moslems get motivated to do something about Islamic radicalism when the violence comes to their neighborhoods. That's why terror attacks in the West are so popular. The infidels are being attacked, without any risk to those living in Moslem countries. Iraq changed all that, and during the course of that war (2004-7) the popularity of Islamic terrorism, in Moslem countries, declined sharply because the terrorists were killing so many Moslems. That, in the end, is what has killed, for a while, most Islamic terrorism in Iraq. But this time around, it would be nice if the Moslem world got their act together and expunged this malevolent tendency once and for all.

Oscar

16th September 2010, 08:53

15 September, 2010: One of the biggest problems with Islamic terrorism is that it is based on ancient..

That's not your work.
Why don't you acknowledge the author?

Swoop

16th September 2010, 09:40

That's not your work.
Why don't you acknowledge the author?
Correct, it is not my work but thought that others might be interested.
It is not constituting part of a thesis or research, so referencing is not compulsory... or has KB changed some rules?

Oscar

16th September 2010, 21:37

Correct, it is not my work but thought that others might be interested.
It is not constituting part of a thesis or research, so referencing is not compulsory... or has KB changed some rules?

If it's not your work, you should say so.
KB rules or not it's misleading, and if deliberate, intellectually dishonest.

Winston001

16th September 2010, 22:22

Correct, it is not my work but thought that others might be interested.
It is not constituting part of a thesis or research, so referencing is not compulsory... or has KB changed some rules?

Its a great article and you've also posted interesting reports on the Somali pirates which I appreciated reading. Thanks.

Oscar is right though - sources should always be acknowledged. Its not a matter of rules, just accuracy and integrity.

PrincessBandit

19th September 2010, 20:13

Anyone else watching the 60 minutes programme on Tv1 tonight regarding the proposed mosque in NY?

I somehow think President Obama's comments stating that moslems should be allowed to build and worship wherever they like in the States would NOT be reciprocated if the boot were on the other foot. I can't imagine that Americans would be given a hearty "all good" if they were wanting to build a church in the heartland of an Islamic country, especially if it were to be overlooking a comparative site of destruction.

Maybe that's the ideal of the West - welcome everyone and all religions and cultures (a nice utopian ideal) but at what cost? The woman who featured in the doco stating her concerns that the mosque is just part of a bigger plan to infiltrate the US will no doubt be vilified by some as scare mongering. It will only take a few decades (if that) to see if her fears are justified. Serious food for thought.

Oscar

19th September 2010, 20:51

Anyone else watching the 60 minutes programme on Tv1 tonight regarding the proposed mosque in NY?

I somehow think President Obama's comments stating that moslems should be allowed to build and worship wherever they like in the States would NOT be reciprocated if the boot were on the other foot. I can't imagine that Americans would be given a hearty "all good" if they were wanting to build a church in the heartland of an Islamic country, especially if it were to be overlooking a comparative site of destruction.

Maybe that's the ideal of the West - welcome everyone and all religions and cultures (a nice utopian ideal) but at what cost? The woman who featured in the doco stating her concerns that the mosque is just part of a bigger plan to infiltrate the US will no doubt be vilified by some as scare mongering. It will only take a few decades (if that) to see if her fears are justified. Serious food for thought.

1. The American Constitution guarantees freedom of worship.
It doesn't say "except Muslims".

2. Most of the Muslims wishing to build this thing are US Citizens.

3. Islam is not one contiguous state, it's a religion. There are many Muslim countries where you could build a church, many where you couldn't.

4. Try building a Mosque in some Christian states, say Serbia or Greece - see how you go.

5. Any passing knowledge of the history of the Christian Church will explain why is some countries Christians are not welcome.

avgas

20th September 2010, 08:52

it's misleading, and if deliberate, intellectually dishonest.
tis the interweb unfortunately.
conduct is a mixed bag here.

avgas

20th September 2010, 09:00

Anyone else watching the 60 minutes programme on Tv1 tonight regarding the proposed mosque in NY?
I still believe that Ground Zero is not a case of people whom have rights. But the removal of rights.
There should be no church there, nor temple, nor mosque.
It should be a reality check for all the religious nutters. Regardless of creed.
And before you all ask - I am not an atheist. I am simply someone who believes that there is a time for religion, but it has to fit into the times/place for everything else.

oldrider

20th September 2010, 09:08

Anyone else watching the 60 minutes programme on Tv1 tonight regarding the proposed mosque in NY?

I somehow think President Obama's comments stating that moslems should be allowed to build and worship wherever they like in the States would NOT be reciprocated if the boot were on the other foot. I can't imagine that Americans would be given a hearty "all good" if they were wanting to build a church in the heartland of an Islamic country, especially if it were to be overlooking a comparative site of destruction.

Maybe that's the ideal of the West - welcome everyone and all religions and cultures (a nice utopian ideal) but at what cost? The woman who featured in the doco stating her concerns that the mosque is just part of a bigger plan to infiltrate the US will no doubt be vilified by some as scare mongering. It will only take a few decades (if that) to see if her fears are justified. Serious food for thought.

Unfortunately the purpose of of most parasitic organisms is to consume the host!

Not all Muslims' are extremist terrorists but it is a fact that majority of extremist terrorists of today are Muslim and act in the name of Islam!

They take advantage of Western freedom and become the enemy within!

In other words "parasites hell bent on destroying their host"!

Western apathy and tolerance is their guarantee of success. :sleep: Wake up time perhaps? :confused:

Winston001

21st September 2010, 22:06

I still believe that Ground Zero is not a case of people whom have rights. But the removal of rights.
There should be no church there, nor temple, nor mosque.
It should be a reality check for all the religious nutters. Regardless of creed.
And before you all ask - I am not an atheist. I am simply someone who believes that there is a time for religion, but it has to fit into the times/place for everything else.

Just to reiterate that the 9/11 attack was not a religious act. It was a blow against the West and specifically America by young men who hate foreign interference in their home countries. The glue that brings them together is Islam but its not the reason for the hatred.

Unfortunately the purpose of of most parasitic organisms is to consume the host!

Not all Muslims' are extremist terrorists but it is a fact that majority of extremist terrorists of today are Muslim and act in the name of Islam!

They take advantage of Western freedom and become the enemy within!

In other words "parasites hell bent on destroying their host"!

Western apathy and tolerance is their guarantee of success. :sleep: Wake up time perhaps? :confused:

"Speak softly and carry a big stick" - Theordore Roosevelt 1901

The way to hell is paved with good intentions (for which we can read tolerance, liberalism etc).

“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” George Orwell

scissorhands

23rd September 2010, 12:23

wrong 72 virgins in heaven?

219287

avgas

23rd September 2010, 12:46

Just to reiterate that the 9/11 attack was not a religious act. It was a blow against the West and specifically America by young men who hate foreign interference in their home countries. The glue that brings them together is Islam but its not the reason for the hatred.
And how does that justify building a religious epitaph at the bottom of it.
It should be neutral there (like a park). Or return to what it was before - a business hub.

oldrider

23rd September 2010, 22:23

And how does that justify building a religious epitaph at the bottom of it.
It should be neutral there (like a park). Or return to what it was before - a business hub.

Preferably the latter, moving right along, outwardly unphased by the minor irritation of the insignificant!

The free world owes that to the lost ones that they were not wasted to the joy of their assassins! :oi-grr:

Winston001

24th September 2010, 10:42

And how does that justify building a religious epitaph at the bottom of it.
It should be neutral there (like a park). Or return to what it was before - a business hub.

You'll recall from earlier in this thread that this is not a religious epitaph. Firstly, the building is located at least 2 1/2 blocks away from Ground Zero as are dozens of other buildings. There are probably American moslems working and living in those buildings already with the occasional prayer mat. Should they be witch-hunted??

Secondly, the proposal is for a cultural centre, not a mosque. There will be a small space for prayer.

The media noise over this is a complete waste of time and energy.

mashman

24th September 2010, 10:56

It should be neutral there (like a park). Or return to what it was before - a business hub.

I'd go for a cultural centre/business centre but that's me :)

avgas

24th September 2010, 12:21

You'll recall from earlier in this thread that this is not a religious epitaph. Firstly, the building is located at least 2 1/2 blocks away from Ground Zero as are dozens of other buildings.
This raises some other good points.
http://fredfryinternational.blogspot.com/2010/08/there-is-no-reason-to-build-mosque-at.html

I notice there are not many churches in Manhattan when I was there.
Or public toilets.

Why don't they build more public toilets........if there is anything that place needs, its them.

Starbucks toilets were the only place we could find.

oldrider

24th September 2010, 14:56

Don't lose site of the fact that Islamic extremists kill more Muslims than any other religion or race! :oi-grr:

They do not just selectively kill infidels! :2guns:

They are truly :sick: fuckers!

R-Soul

30th September 2010, 12:35

There is currently a group in NZ as we breath who are being vilified by the govt and the press. Everything about this group of people is bad, bad, bad. Lock up your sons and daughters, keep them safe, because this group of people are just downright dangerous. They should be banned, and kept out of society. Because no good ever comes of them.
Then there is the group themselves. Yes they say there are those of us who are a bit extreme. But the rest of us just moderate fun loving people with a common idol that we worship. We are not out to harm anyone, we are just here because of our common interest and love. Why is the Govt vilifying us? Why the constant bad press? Not all of us are extreme or dangerous! We shall form a group and we shall fight this injustice. We will prove to the population of NZ that we are not bad, not dangerous, and that no one has anything to fear from us. The majority of us are good law abiding citizens, few bad apples does not mean that we all should be penalised.

You talking about Dungeons and Dragons players?

R-Soul

30th September 2010, 12:45

You'll recall from earlier in this thread that this is not a religious epitaph. Firstly, the building is located at least 2 1/2 blocks away from Ground Zero as are dozens of other buildings. There are probably American moslems working and living in those buildings already with the occasional prayer mat. Should they be witch-hunted??

Secondly, the proposal is for a cultural centre, not a mosque. There will be a small space for prayer.

The media noise over this is a complete waste of time and energy.

Also bear in mind that many poeple from many countries and many religions died in 9/11. Including Muslims. So why should they not also be honoured anywy?

Oscar

30th September 2010, 12:54

Don't lose site of the fact that Islamic extremists kill more Muslims than any other religion or race! :oi-grr:

They do not just selectively kill infidels! :2guns:

They are truly :sick: fuckers!

9/11 was a political attack more than it was to do with religion.
A lot of Americans would love to think that 9/11 was the start of this war, but it is a conflict that has been going on for a long time.

Both the US, it's Western Allies and Israel have a lot to answer for in this conflict.

Winston001

1st October 2010, 21:17

Both the US, it's Western Allies and Israel have a lot to answer for in this conflict.

Thats one perspective but not entirely fair. Israel is a tiny country striving to survive against the odds. The Western nations can take some blame because of their historical drawing of borders in the Middle East in the 19th-20th centuries.

But fundamentally the problems of islamic nations arise from over-population, poverty, and lack of education. When you are poor everyone else looks rich and its easy to be angry at them.

Besides as Oldrider says, most of the terrorism is carried out inside these troubled nations, killing each other. The small number of attacks on the West loom large for us but nevertheless we all live much safer lives than the average Pakistani or Iraqui.

SS90

2nd October 2010, 05:51

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4190602/Turkish-dancer-appeals-conviction

This is something that I have a problem with, in a big way, this guy is unbelievable.

Winston001

3rd October 2010, 23:27

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4190602/Turkish-dancer-appeals-conviction

This is something that I have a problem with, in a big way, this guy is unbelievable.

He's a jerk. The courts see them all the time. Nothing to do with religion, just a prick.

SS90

4th October 2010, 02:19

More of a reference for examples of different cultures and what is acceptable..... He would not have gone to court in Turkey.

PrincessBandit

4th October 2010, 10:07

More of a reference for examples of different cultures and what is acceptable..... He would not have gone to court in Turkey.

I googled (yes, on the almighty youtube) videos for kolbasti dancing and was surprised that it looked nothing like the "pose" on the net of the man and wife demonstrating a move from it.

All the clips I saw showed firstly same gender dancing (girl/girl or blokes) i.e. I didn't see any men and women doing it together, and secondly there was no physical contact between any of the participants at all. Now, I'm all accepting of the fact that there might be vast differences in the way this dance is performed, but found it a little strange that their "pose" didn't match anything I saw. And further, if indeed he had bent down to catch his wife as she supposedly slipped and twisted her ankle, why was it captioned as a demonstration from their dance?

Of course papers are notorious for mismatching captions and photos, but still food for thought.

If he wouldn't have been in court in Turkey for it, is that because they have more lenient laws on what is considered assault?

NighthawkNZ

5th October 2010, 06:23

whether wrtien right or wrtien wrong ... just remember, it the winner of the wars that usually write the history books...

mashman

5th October 2010, 10:02

whether wrtien right or wrtien wrong ... just remember, it the winner of the wars that usually RE-write the history books...

fixed for ya :shifty:

mashman

18th October 2010, 10:09

Wonder if Ze Germans will follow the French example :shutup:...

"Merkel weighed in for the first time in a blistering debate sparked by a central bank board member saying the country was being made "more stupid" by poorly educated and unproductive Muslim migrants.

"Multikulti", the concept that "we are now living side by side and are happy about it," does not work, Merkel told a meeting of younger members of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party at Potsdam near Berlin."

the rest of the article... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101017/wl_afp/germanymuslimreligionimmigration)

avgas

18th October 2010, 10:27

Culture should not be basis of religion. Yes the 2 intersect, but one should not be completely inside the other.
As soon as it does, it degrades out own humanity and changes us to more "machines running code".

Likewise there will always have to be some form of compromise. For different people to co-exist, this has nothing to do with either religion or culture. Contrary to many understandings compromise has nothing to do with what you gain, and everything to do with what you lose.
Everyone loses in a compromise, which is why a compromise is the only way forward for anything.
Many do not understand this and assume that because they can have their cake and eat it too......that this will continue indefinitely.
Misunderstanding #2 - Nothing is indefinite. Whole civilization, have fallen in the past.
All that have failed to compromise in one way or another.

mashman

18th October 2010, 10:43

Culture should not be basis of religion. Yes the 2 intersect, but one should not be completely inside the other.
As soon as it does, it degrades out own humanity and changes us to more "machines running code".

Likewise there will always have to be some form of compromise. For different people to co-exist, this has nothing to do with either religion or culture. Contrary to many understandings compromise has nothing to do with what you gain, and everything to do with what you lose.
Everyone loses in a compromise, which is why a compromise is the only way forward for anything.
Many do not understand this and assume that because they can have their cake and eat it too......that this will continue indefinitely.
Misunderstanding #2 - Nothing is indefinite. Whole civilization, have fallen in the past.
All that have failed to compromise in one way or another.

Compromise :rofl:... As individuals, or small groups, I agree... but as a larger collective, a government for instance, compromise is just a PC expression for Capitulation... their way or the highway... it's bitterly dissapointing given the understanding and education we have these days and unfortunately Merkel et al will use existing religion and cultural tenstions to stir their country... it can't end well.

marie_speeds

18th October 2010, 10:56

it can't end well.

Usually with a bang.... :msn-wink:

MisterD

18th October 2010, 11:13

Merkel et al will use existing religion and cultural tenstions to stir their country... it can't end well.

To be fair, Merkel has to be seen to address this, or she's toast...tricky line to walk though given what happened last time the Germans started blaming an ethnic minority for everything.

Winston001

19th October 2010, 10:28

Culture should not be basis of religion. Yes the 2 intersect, but one should not be completely inside the other.
As soon as it does, it degrades out own humanity and changes us to more "machines running code".

Likewise there will always have to be some form of compromise. For different people to co-exist, this has nothing to do with either religion or culture. Contrary to many understandings compromise has nothing to do with what you gain, and everything to do with what you lose.
Everyone loses in a compromise, which is why a compromise is the only way forward for anything.
Many do not understand this and assume that because they can have their cake and eat it too......that this will continue indefinitely.
Misunderstanding #2 - Nothing is indefinite. Whole civilization, have fallen in the past.
All that have failed to compromise in one way or another.

A thoughtful post. :niceone:

Not sure that I entirely agree though. Religion is often larger than the culture which embraces it, and provides a set of rules (moral guidelines) to conduct an orderly life.

One of the notable features of Islam is that it transcends the local culture. Moslems in Indonesia, Britain, Iraq etc all live in different ethnic cultures but they share the brotherhood of Islam. Thus we have bombings in these disparate countries but the common bond of the religion (in its extreme minority form) ties these acts to a global meaning.

As for compromise - the possibilities are so wide that the word is virtually meaningless. The answer is for each of us and our wider society to agree on basic standards. For example, female circumcision might be culturally acceptable to some Moslems but not to us. No compromise - its not allowed. Similarly Pacific Island cultures allegedly accept family violence as normal. We don't - no compromise.

Where it gets tricky is the subtle stuff such as Moslems wearing the hajib. Its harmless so why should we interfere?

MisterD

19th October 2010, 11:45

Where it gets tricky is the subtle stuff such as Moslems wearing the hajib. Its harmless so why should we interfere?

I don't think anyone's complaining about anything that's just a visible sign of someone's religion, does anyone get upset about Jewish men and their Kippahs, or even the big hats and ringlets in Stamford Hill?

The issue about burkas is different - personally I wouldn't ban their wearing, but I would also allow business owners such as shops or banks to exercise their property rights and ban wearers from their premises if they so wish.

mashman

19th October 2010, 14:59

To be fair, Merkel has to be seen to address this, or she's toast...tricky line to walk though given what happened last time the Germans started blaming an ethnic minority for everything.

:rofl: true and that didn't end well either... I was watching Merkel and some of the interviews and reactions on CNN this morning (t'was the only channel worth watching at the time) and the people on the street had a much more realistic view imho. They said that the integration will take time, language barriers being the killer, but that it's working, and they accept the cultural and national diversities that todays "migrations" throw up. It seems to be the politicians that like to make a meal of it, using excuses like protecting the jobs of their people, protecting the future growth of the country etc... the usual scare mongering crap that wins "national" votes :). I fear it's just another issue that's been thrown into the too hard basket. True, she does have to do something about it, but burying her head in the sand, oh it hasn't worked etc..., isn't exactly addressing the issue.

The issue about burkas is different - personally I wouldn't ban their wearing, but I would also allow business owners such as shops or banks to exercise their property rights and ban wearers from their premises if they so wish.

bit like being asked to remove your crash helmet when going into banks etc...? like back in blighty

MisterD

20th October 2010, 07:25

True, she does have to do something about it, but burying her head in the sand, oh it hasn't worked etc..., isn't exactly addressing the issue.

The trouble is, as soon as you try to address the issue and raise serious debate about the success or failure of "multiculturalism" you get shut down with cries of "racist" and "facist".

I don't believe it's been completely one or the other, by the way. Muslims in Oldham, well that's a failure for sure but Jamaicans in Finsbury Park are the other side of the coin.