Oh, sorry -- are we supposed to be "tolerant" of people's religious practices? The way I see it, there's some stuff we just can't tolerate. And the president should say so by speaking out.

A bit of tolerance would not be amiss. Perhaps you mean "approve" rather than "tolerate." Do you suggest the US has to go to war over this (and every comparable) issue because you can't bear to put up with it? Instead, speaking out but not actually doing much might be wiser. It makes sense to choose the time and place of your battles.

another disgusting publicity about the extreme inhumanity from the black world. if only these backward predominantly black tribes practice abit of humanity, the world would certainly be a better place to be in.

"if only these backward predominantly black tribes practice abit of humanity, the world would certainly be a better place to be in."

Are they like your backward, predominantly white, States that'll happily execute intellectually sub-normal / mentally handicapped 'criminals' then?

Or perhaps they're more like your backward, predominantly white, churches that see homosexuality as a sin that should be 'exorcised' from the souls of those engaging in it? (ask some members of those churches what they'd like to do to homosexuals that refuse to be 'saved').

I wholeheartedly condemn the Iranian approach to this, but I don't feel the need to dress up my condemnation in (very) thinly disguised rascism such as yours WLIL*

*leaving aside the fact that they're of Turkish/Kurdish/Baluchi/Arab descent rather than 'black' - but hey, they all look alike to you anyway eh?

James H, there is nothing racist about my comment or about those predominantly black/islamic tendencies who show extreme lack of humanity or show lack of respect for people who are different.
Their "blackness" is not the main problem. Their lack of humanity is what I find most unacceptable.

I think WLIL is a bot. It only posts on islam threads, it posts semi-incoherently, and it always leaves posts that imply that Sanger was right.

Troll or moby? You decide.

brian, if you and others don't like my comment, so be it. there is no need for you to talk incoherently about my comment, which i don't understand what you are trying to get at, really.

backward, predominantly white, churches that see homosexuality as a sin that should be 'exorcised' from the souls of those engaging in it? (ask some members of those churches what they'd like to do to homosexuals that refuse to be 'saved').

I'm no friend to religion in general, but I don't see any churches executing homosexuals these days. To suggest that some members would like homosexuals to be dead...well, who can really say what individuals think...but their preachers aren't standing up saying homosexuals must be slain. That's Islam.

Of all the irrational belief in god out there -- and it's all irrational -- Islam is the worst. As I've said many times, it's not a religion, but a totalitarian system bent on taking over the world and forcing all of us to become Muslim -- or murdering us.

WLIL is no troll or "bot."

And Middle Eastern Muslims are quite racist, actually, and think less of blacks and let countless Muslims be slaughtered in Africa while the Israelis took them in. That's why it's so ridiculous that all these blacks become Muslim in prison. It's kind of like being a Jew who joins the Aryan Brotherhood.

"there is nothing racist about my comment"

And you really do believe that too, don't you?

"or about those predominantly black/islamic tendencies who show extreme lack of humanity or show lack of respect for people who are different."

Right.. so it's only those BLACK or ISLAMIC folk who show an extreme lack of humanity that bother you.

Any of us WASPs that want to... oh I don't know, commit genocide (Germany, Bosnia), instigate Apartheid (SA, Rhodesia), kill civilians in foreign countries on marginal pretexts (UK, USA, Israel) or suspend civil liberties at whim (pretty much every Western country since the WoT).. we're all right by you are we?

As for your comment about Brian's - perhaps you'd best check your grammar before you criticise his. It might save you further embarrassment.

"And Middle Eastern Muslims are quite racist, actually, and think less of blacks and let countless Muslims be slaughtered in Africa while the Israelis took them in."

You won't hear me argue that SOME Arabs and other ME inhabitants aren't rascist. Like us, they're human - with all the flaws that entails.

But just out of interest.. what, exactly, did your country (or mine for that matter) do about the Christians that were slaughtered by the LRA (allegedly also Christian)?

What've we done about the Christians (and, gasp, some of them are even WASPs) getting killed off by Mugabe?

Where are we when intervention is needed in the Catholic countries of SA? Have we stopped any slum-dwelling children from being killed this week?

You're likely going to tell me that we can't be everywhere, and that it's not in our interests to intervene in these situations (and I'd agree with you) - but why apply standards to the ME that our Governments don't meet?

"but I don't see any churches executing homosexuals these days."

No, some'll just ostracise them and throw them out of the congregation (unless they're willing to go for 'counselling' of course).

I appreciate that it's a little glib to compare the end of your family life with the actual termination of a life, but I've no doubt that it's painful for those on the receiving end of this pastoral 'care.'

Anyway, how long do you think it would take for a hardline Christian group to start re-writing the law?

Hell, give the recession/depression long enough, throw in a little anti-semitism (it's never far away at the best of times) and leaven it with some queer-bashing, and a good proportion of the Bible-belt will be goose-stepping along to "This land is your land" whilst proclaiming that America is for Americans (just not THOSE Americans. Or those. Or....).

@James - Simple.

The middle east is the repository for the bulk of the world's energy resources, and it's also the repository for the most aggressive imperialist movement of our time.

We have a double interest there. One in safeguarding a vital resource. Another in preventing yet another violent imperialist war.

And if you call America imperialist, I'm going to give you an eyeful that you'll never forget.

Your comment about "marginal pretexts" indicates you haven't got nearly enough information to be making that sort of evaluation.

@WLIL - my criticism is simple. You show up only on threads critical of islam. You then equate islam with "black" and "black" with non human.

Which is not a terribly useful or persuasive construct if you ask me.

In fact, why don't we deconstruct your first dropping here:

another disgusting publicity about the extreme inhumanity from the black world.

Although the article is conflicted about whether this is Iran or Iraq, neither nation is "black", and neither is even in Africa. So the first question I ask is "what's the point of using the word black?"

if only these backward predominantly black tribes practice abit of humanity, the world would certainly be a better place to be in.

Which is answered neatly by the second half of the run-on sentence.

"black tribes" are "backward" and lacking in "humanity".

Which sounds like something David Duke or Margaret Sanger would say. Certainly not something someone with an inch of knowledge of the players involved would say.

Allow me to educate your ass. The bulk of the middle-eastern islamic world thinks that WE are the sub-humans with our technology and our freedom and our rock-and-roll.

This isn't about a "lack" of humanity. It is about two radically different and competing visions of what it means to be human.

Given the respect our president's remarks have received abroad, I'd say he comes out ahead by remaining silent.

Brian, I'd argue that the bulk of the middle eastern world doesn't think we're sub-human. They just classify us as dhimmi.

I'll be damned if I'll be a second class citizen in my country, or treat anyone else as one, or accord anyone honors or respect that they have not earned, regardless of office. I have the same respect for Islam that it has for me.

Mark - that's a matter of degree and not substance.

In any event, they view us as inferior.

This is not due to any innate genetic predisposition they have. It is a cultural artifact of the imperialist religion they have been steeped in for 1300 years.

And I find it to be not necessarily offensive, but not at all illuminating to conflate a religious belief with a race and try to say that the race is the underlying cause of the problem.

Most of the people in Iran are just as white as I am. But the blinkered worldview they possess (at least by western standards of rationality) is just not something most people can grok.

"@James - Simple."

@Brian - not so simple when you actually read my comment

(a response to Amy's at 6.32am which read "And Middle Eastern Muslims are quite racist, actually, and think less of blacks and let countless Muslims be slaughtered in Africa while the Israelis took them in.")

rather than skim it and jump to conclusions.

Amy was juxtaposing the support that some ME countries give to Palestine vs the complete indifference they show to African Muslims. She used that to try and illustrate how racist Arab Muslims are because they don't rush to the aid of their African Muslim counterparts.

Ignoring the fact that several Islamic nations contribute troops and aid to African peace-keeping forces, my comment was intended to illustrate that she's at risk of applying a double standard here.

As you point out, we're in the ME to further our own political / economic interests and to protect our oil supplies. We're NOT in Zimbabwe for precisely the obverse.

"Your comment about "marginal pretexts""

We ARE in Iraq on a marginal pretext. You know and I know that there weren't WMD in Iraq.

Unless you're going to show me your tinfoil hat, I'll continue to believe that you're halfway sane (gadding about in u-boats notwithstanding) and therefore don't believe the guff that our security services cooked up and then massaged to get our idiot politicians to approve the war.

As for a squib blackening my eye? Hell would likely freeze over first! - you Imperialist Yankee Oppressor :-)

Sad, hard truth is Obama doesn't have the power to stop the barbarians. Well, at least not without becoming one and killing even more innocent people in the name of righteousness. It really is time we evolved past this might equals right nonsense.

"But the blinkered worldview they possess (at least by western standards of rationality) is just not something most people can grok"

Just so we're clear, I don't disagree that many poor, uneducated and illiterate people (who happen to be Muslim) have a very warped worldview.

They're by no means the only ones though. Try the worldview of the BNP, the Aryan Nation or the KKK. Hell, start talking to a Christian Fundy about Creationism, or to a hard-line Feminist about the 'Patriarchy.'

They all sound pretty nuts to me.

James -

The reason for the WMD argument is subterfuge. Our true intent was to destabilize Saudi Arabia and Iran - the two largest fomenters of Islamist imperialism in the middle east. Kinda defeats the purpose to just come right out and admit it up front.

There WERE WMD there. I'd like to know where they went. Hussein had over a decade to show that he'd disarmed in compliance with the cease-fire. He refused. If we are to stop Islamist imperialism, we must drain the swamp, so to speak. That cannot be done with kind words and clean water.

As far as Zimbabwe or "Palestine" goes, why should we bother helping them? They've shown no interest in even coming close to self-government. If we were to go into Zimbabwe and take out Mugabe, it wouldn't help. That country has been dysfunctional for so long that it's not fixable. You don't go from colonial to post colonial without anything even resembling a political infrastructure. In 2000, we brokered a deal that gave Arafat everything he said he wanted. How did he respond? Intifada.

The first mistake we make when dealing with the Islamic world is that they mean what they say and they say what they mean. When we hear what they say to each other, we learn the real truth. Arafat and the rest of the muslims in the middle east seek nothing short of the elimination of Israel and the death of all Jews. There's no solution available that everyone involved is going to accept.

James -

Here's the difference. The KKK is a curiosity in the United States. A footnote of history.

Islamist imperialists in the middle east are the ones setting policy and dictating outward actions. And it's not just the uneducated and poor. Mohammed Atta was a degreed engineer. The bulk of the leaders of the Islamist movement are independently wealthy.

No, the problem is not one of poverty or education. It is simply a worldview.

Hitler's worldview excluded Jews from the human race. So does the Islamist's. Both have as their intent the elimination through violence of all Jews from the Earth.

We can either accept their eliminationist rhetoric, and let them kill all the Jews, and then decide how to handle them when their blood-lust ultimately turns to us. Or we can take their ideology down NOW before it gains any more traction.

A bullet in 1934 could have prevented the entire European theater of World War II.

> speaking out but not actually
> doing much might be wiser

What a surprise that a voice from the old world recommends meek hypocrisy.

> from the black world.

WTF? Iran?

> those predominantly black/
> islamic tendencies

Seriously, WTF?

> WLIL is no troll or "bot."

He's extremely naive and unused to argument.

> some'll just ostracise them
> and throw them out

James, you're working very hard to coral your adversaries in a cartoonish depiction. If you know of a congregation where this is happening, and it's bothersome to you, you should speak out. I don't think you're that concerned with anyone's church-going experience... Or anyone's sexual freedom, either.

> You know and I know that
> there weren't WMD in Iraq.

You still want to vote for Kerry, don't you?

(BTW I saw him on C-Span the other day... He's had some bad plastic surgery.)

No, Crid - he's married to a harpy who's never let him forget he lost to Bush.

"A bullet in 1934 could have prevented the entire European theater of World War II."

I agree. It is never the gun but the bullet.
A bullet in November, 1982, 1986, 2000, 2004, 2008... could have prevented this entire worldwide economic meltdown of 2009.

You seem to be dead certain that the future course of humanity will exclude the Muslims because they are the backward nomads. I am pretty sure that you think the same thing for the Marxist. However, Obama Christ just fired the GM CEO, which is a private industry. I have this feeling that Marx is laughing his ass off in his grave right now.

Your claim to know the unknowable is very AIG.

Chang, you ignorant slut.

If Adolph Hitler had been killed before he started on his tear across Europe, World War II would not have happened the way it did.

Simply - no surreptitious rebuilding of the German military by a psychotic megalomaniac, no Wehrmacht, no Waffen SS, no Blitzkreig, no Luftwaffe. In short, no Hitler, no Third Reich.

Whereas your entire premise is stupid. There isn't one person who is to blame for the economic meltdown, no matter how much I want to pin it all on Carter. An entire belief was to blame there, not a cult of personality.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand that. After all, you're enlightened.

Crid - "What a surprise that a voice from the old world recommends meek hypocrisy."

I'll take that as sarcasm. What do you recommend: saying nothing but bombing Iran, or shouting lots and bombing Iran? You don't actually state your position. Are you willing for the US to take military action to save Iran's homosexuals? No, I didn't think so. Not because they're gays, but because in the grand scheme of things, they don't add up to a hill of beans.

Israel took a fine stand to rescue their captured soldiers in Lebanon and Gaza. I don't think it actually achieved anything useful. Israel was simply bounced into taking action by Islamist factions who make capital by parading their victimhood. They gained; Israel lost. Israel looked the aggressor. And Israel did not get their soldiers back.

There's lots of nasty things going on in the world. Speak out against them, but don't think you can actually do anything about them. If you get a genuine chance, then go for it. But basing policy on moral outrage is a complete waste of time, and ultimately a waste of your country's fine young men.

In short, no Hitler, no Third Reich.

I agree in general that things would have been different. The question is how?

The treaty that ended WWI left Germany in such a bad position, that some sort of war was almost bound to happen. What it would have looked like will be debated for centuries.

But that is semantics on history. Just think of the difference in the world today if the info from Zacharias Moussaoui had been acted on just a week earlier.

A bullet in November, 1982, 1986, 2000, 2004, 2008... could have prevented this entire worldwide economic meltdown of 2009.

Chang, only three of those years were presidential election years (one presumes that is what you are alluding to).

1982 and 1986 were mid-term elections.

And, you left out elections in the years that contributed significantly to the current economic meltdown (1992-1999). Those years saw the amendment of the CRA, the dot-com bubble (with the development of derivatives and other non-stock investment vehicles), along with a few other gems.

"If Adolph Hitler had been killed before he started on his tear across Europe, World War II would not have happened the way it did."

I doubt it. There would have been Hitler II or III or IV.... He was the product of the times. He himself was a "psychotic megalomaniac" just like Jesus Christ. But you cannot discredit his desire and ability to unite the Germans to seek better future for themselves and their children.

Let's denounce his shortcomings. But for the love of filthy rich Marx in Hell (stole if from Crid), give him a credit for calling the Marxist "evil" and had balls actually to do something about it while the Allies prayed to Jesus Christ to do something about it.

"But you cannot discredit his desire and ability to unite the Germans to seek better future for themselves and their children." By doing what? Slaughtering everyone else? You really are an ignorant slut.

"could have prevented this entire worldwide economic meltdown of 2009" So you're going to kill everyone that doesn't believe in laissez-faire capitalism? Cause that's what it would have taken ...

"He himself was a "psychotic megalomaniac" just like Jesus Christ. "

Right, Chang - exact parallel there - which is why Hitler engineered his own execution. All megalomaniacs do that.

Tip for you - don't discuss history until you have studies it.

"Tip for you - don't discuss history until you have studies it."

You are so lucky because Conan is taking a bathroom break.

Jim - I'll cop to that. A war was inevitable. The form of that war is really what is at issue here.

Chang - Hitler was NOT a product of his times. He was the black swan. He came along at a time when the people of Germany were receptive to anyone who could save them. He was clever enough to pin it all on the Jews and let the oldest hatred run its course.

If Hitler had never become entangled in politics, there's a real possibility that some kind of war would have happened under Hindenburg. But it probably would not have ended with 50 million war dead and the shoah.

Amy,

What do you think will be the chances of American gay groups speaking out against these atrocities?

Prediction: Zero to none.

Robert

" It really is time we evolved past this might equals right nonsense."

Maybe, but it's always been that way and always will. The weaker have rights because the stronger allow them. Whether they allow it via constitution or another way, the weaker don't have the force to take or keep them.

I find all the gay rights activists here (US) howling for marriage quite amusing, since they say not much of anything on this. It must be so difficult for them (at least the majority that are quite left). They want to understand and sympathize with and respect the muslims soooo much, but then the muslims go and kill gays. What a conundrum.

> I'll take that as sarcasm.

Good call! That's why I call this blog home!

> You don't actually state your
> position.

Golly, when you take the floor by saying the abject murder of gays is something for which "A bit of tolerance would not be amiss", the particulars of my opinion don't seem so important to express.... No matter what I come up with, it's certain to be better than that!

Did you follow the link the Kagan? Didja read every word? It's not a very long piece, and there are nuances he didn't make time for, but do you see how your rhetoric comports so neatly with his appraisal? See also Steyn. And see also, from today, McCardle... She brings to mind the backhanded nature of European concern for the well-being of our troops:

> ultimately a waste of your
> country's fine young men.

Europe's counting on them as if they were their own soldiers. Perhaps more than if they were your own, right? You'd hate to see their blood spilt protecting ass other than your own.

Amy's right: Our president, and all decent people, should speak of this horror in Iran for monstrosity that it is. You prefer maintenance of polite fiction and banal political intrigue. The inability to speak honestly about evil makes Europe all the more hospitable to Islamic militants, who practice those primitive arts with great gusto. In the years just ahead, they'll be giving you lessons in social regression, and they'll be glad you've done this homework.

One more time, just so everyone's clear on how you feel about international response to the murder of gays:

> A bit of tolerance would
> not be amiss.

James H, it is a fact that most islamic people have very predominant black roots(from africa) who are known to bully/mistreat their own black people and who looked down on black people. many even unshamedly and brutally abused and enslaved their own black brethren people in their midst.
It is time they stop pretending what they are not, ie, their religion is not peaceful, they are not white and they are not civilised.

But you cannot discredit his desire and ability to unite the Germans to seek better future for themselves and their children.

Oh goody! Chang's back on the "dictators are good" kick.

Hitler didn't unite the Germans to seek a better future for themselves and their children. Hatred and violence are not the ways to seek a better future for yourselves and your children.

He desired power. He didn't desire a better life for Germans.

============

And equating Hitler AND Jesus as psychotic megalomaniacs? One overthrew a democratic government, engineered the systematic slaughter of millions of people, and dragged the world into a horrific war. The other urged people to love their neighbor, feed the hungry, help the less fortunate, and stop throwing rocks at sinners. Yep. They were pretty much equal.

Norman continues to amaze and amuse!

> Not because they're gays, but
> because in the grand scheme of
> things, they don't add up to
> a hill of beans.

Tell us more about this "grand scheme"! Does it say that anyone 'adds up to a hill of beans'? Who's on that list?

There was this one girl in high school and a couple friends from college who I think should probably be on the Hill of Beans list, but I've never bothered to look them up and be sure.

Psssst Conan... Chang's only 16 years old. We gotta cut him some slack.

After making fun of him, I mean.

Crid - "Amy's right: Our president, and all decent people, should speak of this horror in Iran for monstrosity that it is. You prefer maintenance of polite fiction and banal political intrigue. The inability to speak honestly about evil makes Europe all the more hospitable to Islamic militants, who practice those primitive arts with great gusto. In the years just ahead, they'll be giving you lessons in social regression, and they'll be glad you've done this homework."

So that's it. You're going to speak. I'm all for that, but after all your invective, I though there might be some more to it than just words. You're not actually going to do anything besides speak, right? You do realise that speaking against something is not the same as not tolerating it?

There may be a time when we can do more than just speak, but just because you're in a lather, does not make this the time. Jimmy Carter was in a lather too, when the Iranians kidnapped US citizens. Didn't do him much good. In the end you had to wait until one minute past the end of Carter's presidency before accepting your hostages back, if my memory is right. Sometimes all you can do is speak out.

"James H, it is a fact that most islamic people have very predominant black roots(from africa)"

It is a FACT eh? Wow, if I'd earned a penny for every time someone used that line (immediately preceding a complete load of codswallop) then I'd be typing this from Bermuda.

You're more likely to have close black roots than the 'average' Muslim in the Middle East. Only Libya and Egypt have strong African ties. The rest have stronger genealogical links to India, Asia and Eastern Europe.

Incidentally, that's also where the Gulf States draw the majority of their labour pool from too. If you ever visit Saudi, you'll see a lot of Indians, Pakistanis and Philipinos (as well as the ubiquitous Western contractors), but not that many black Africans.

"..who are known to bully/mistreat their own black people and who looked down on black people. many even unshamedly and brutally abused and enslaved their own black brethren people in their midst."

Leaving aside the complete falsity of the last part of that statement (unless you're referring to the historical slave trade, in which case you're being hypocritical), I'm just struck by how you can type it and keep a straight face. Were you getting ahead of yourself (it's only April Fool's today you know)?

I can't think of ANY Western country for which that statement would be a better fit (and from far more recent history).... Can you?

"It is time they stop pretending what they are not, ie, their religion is not peaceful, they are not white and they are not civilised."

Leaving aside my views about their religion, can you point me to any statements from a "non-white" Muslim where he or she claims to be white?

Can you explain to me why they would even WANT to be 'white' (I assume you actually mean Caucasian) or what benefits you think their being 'white' would magically bestow on them?

Do you think that the definition of 'civilised' is actually "being 'white'?" Would you like me to list all the uncivilised things that Caucasions have done to other Caucasions or non-Caucasions? Do I need to tell you how arrogant your world view is?

You're an out and out racist. You like to pretend you're not, but you're only deluding yourself.

"If Hitler had never become entangled in politics, there's a real possibility that some kind of war would have happened under Hindenburg. But it probably would not have ended with 50 million war dead and the shoah."

Hitler didn't act on his own. A lot of 'his' ideas were developed from the ideologies of those he attracted to him. He may have talked about the final solution (and believe me, I'm not trying to make out that he wasn't culpable) but others did the actual dirty work.

Would those others have risen to power or influence without him? We'll never know, but there's a chance they might.

In any case, let's assume that the pograms against the Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, handicapped etc HADN'T happened. Why do you think that Germany would have been any less successful?

The blitzkrieg through France and Poland had very little to do with Hitler. One could argue (and there's pretty good evidence for it) that WITHOUT Hitler, the German army would have been MORE successful, rather than less. It was Hitler's strategic mistakes that caused them a lot of their problems.

A less idealogically-driven leader may have kept the pact with Stalin (who'd probably have been quite happy pushing Soviet influence into China and the Far East whilst selling Germany oil). That would have kept them from blunting their best units in the East.

A more competent leadership wouldn't have switched tactics during the Battle of Britain. They'd have kept bombing airfields and taking out the RAF rather than going after the cities. Operation Sealion might then have become a reality.

Finally, think about the contributions that Jewish scientists (the ones that survived anyway) made to our respective war efforts.

There's no evidence that German Jews were any less patriotic than their Protestant counterparts. Had they been left alone in Germany, and with their active assistance, German research into weapons technologies and nuclear fission would have taken immense strides.

The V2 would probably have been built a lot quicker, and their continental-range missiles might well have gotten off the drawing board. They might have beaten us to the jet engine too (it was close as it was).

Perhaps the dominant world language today would be German, rather than English, and we'd have been one of the "alles" rather than "allies."

brian, i never equate black with non human. i was only pointing the similarities of islamic people with black brutal culture and their predominant black origin and their close similarities with their black ancestors.

Jams H, i have been treated badly by too many asians, chinese, islamic people, filipino, indians, blacks etc.
therefore i know what I am talking about when i equate them with black negative characteristic. you are the one that is ignorant and seems to be insulting my opinion that was based from my unpleasant experience. your labelling me a racist is just uncalled for and certainly unjustified. the islamic people are the worst culprits in their practiced of outright racist policies and arrogant holier than thou attitude when their civilisation is so obviously backward.
the islamic people only borowed some of the cultures from europeans and mix it with the black culture. and many of them pretended to be culturally superior when they in reality are not in any way. just look at their extremely dirty slums around the world.

James H, and by the way, I am not white. so how can i be possibly be racist? i have suffered so much under the outright racist policies(that discriminated against minority nonbelievers), of those nasty megalomaniac islamic asiatic eastern people and hope it is not your turn next to be discriminatted upon.

another disgusting aspect about their deceptive islamic community is that they seems to obsessively make their islamic religion into a racial thing! race and religion(if any) should be kept separate, so as to minimise confusion and prevent any evil agenda from taking root.

WLIL -

I want you to take a good look at a Syrian. Then look at an Iranian. Then look at a Kenyan.

THEY DON'T LOOK ANYTHING ALIKE EVEN AFTER YOU REMOVE THEIR COLOR.

Culture is not genetic.

Oh, and being white is not the only criteria for being a racist.

James -

That's as may be, but I don't believe that under Hindenburg there would have been the will to rebuild the military.

More than anything, Hitler provided the cult of personality that gave the Germans the will to get past the Treaty of Versailles.

Without that "will to power", Germany might not have launched a war at all, or at least until much later.

And given that Japan would still have been on their imperialist tour of the Pacific Rim, it's a safe bet that Germany would have been working with us when we developed nukes.

> You're not actually going to do
> anything besides speak, right?

You're talking about the nation which, on 9 Apr '03, gave every tinpot dictator and village Big Man on the globe a pisspants fright: 'Holy shit, these fuckers are serious! I might be next!'

> Sometimes all you can do
> is speak out.

You don't even want to do that! You don't even want others to do that... It scares you too much. Europe is all about impotence; it's desperate to believe that the rest of the world's about impotence as well. Wrong-O.

And now, let's get back to the other stuff. Again, please tell us more about your "grand scheme" and people whose lives are worth worrying about... Or are there any? Don't ignore these questions, OK? Three's plenty space on Amy's blog. Here, I'll map some out for you to be sure:

__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________

WLIL,

How old are you?

"James H, and by the way, I am not white. so how can i be possibly be racist?"

Blimey, it really IS April Fool's today isn't it?

Why don't you have a quick look in a dictionary at the definition of racism, THEN think about all the comments you've made in this thread (and, from what Brian's written, in others too), and THEN come back and tell me that you're not being racist.

Just because you think you've been badly treated (and Holy Shit - how have you pissed all of those people, of so many disparate races, off so much anyway?!), doesn't mean that the reasons for that ill treatment were down to racism.

For instance, we've never met. I have no idea what 'colour' you are (and nor do I care, although I'm suspecting you actually ARE Caucasian), yet I dislike you already.

"another disgusting aspect about their deceptive islamic community is that they seems to obsessively make their islamic religion into a racial thing! race and religion(if any) should be kept separate, so as to minimise confusion and prevent any evil agenda from taking root"

Jesus, I thought I'd fry my keyboard from crying with laughter at THAT! "Race and religion should be kept separate so as to minimise confusion..." An absolutely priceless nugget, coming from you.

Did you not bother to proof-read your comment before posting? (silly question - of course you didn't). You may have made a smidgeon of sense if you'd bothered.

Let me remind you:

"i was only pointing the similarities of islamic people with black brutal culture and their predominant black origin and their close similarities with their black ancestors."

If you can't see how stupid you're making yourself look then you're far, far beyond hope.

Regarding Hitler, we do not know what would have happened without his rise to power but -- the thing that is really disturbing -- without the support of his "followers", his rise to power would not have happened. At worse, another Charles Manson. It's that he gave those who wanted to do what they did the words that justified doing it. I'd say the odds were, if not him, somebody else. He couldn't have been the only fucked-up orator of the time.

And what's happening in the Islamic world is the same damned thing. And 30 years from now, we may very well be asking should we have gone to war earlier than we did? It's a tough call to make. I'm damned glad I'm not President. He should denouce these killings but it's a far tougher call as to if he should wage war over them.

I'm guessing he's about 14.

Brian -
Interesting points, but then why would it have necessarily been Hindenberg leading them anyway?

Just because old AH wouldn't be around doesn't guarantee that a stronger politician wouldn't have taken power.

Hindenburg was only persuaded to run again because of the threat that Adolf posed, and even so he passed several of the pieces of legislation that Hitler needed to cement his power base.

Given that he died in '34 (allowing Hitler to subsume his role), and the war didn't start until '39, there's plenty of leeway left there for someone else to have kick-started the Blitzkrieg.

The conditions would have stayed ripe - Britain and America needed the war to recover from the recession, as did Germany.

No war = longer recession = more German resentment = increased likelihood of war.

As you stated in an earlier comment, A war was pretty much inevitable. The timing and nature of the war might have been different, but we'd have still been fighting Germany at some point.

"For instance, we've never met. I have no idea what 'colour' you are (and nor do I care, although I'm suspecting you actually ARE Caucasian), yet I dislike you already."

James, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think it is the arrogant way he so stupidly repeats the same ignorant shit. What's there to like?

"And equating Hitler AND Jesus as psychotic megalomaniacs? One overthrew a democratic government, engineered the systematic slaughter of millions of people, and dragged the world into a horrific war."

How many people do you think got slaughtered in the name of Jesus Christ throughout the history? We got the numbers for the Hitler but not for Jesus as the counting is not done yet. And we don't see the end in sight.

Hitler blew his head off while the Reds were closing in. Right before his death, I think it is possible for him to pray to God something like this. "Please forgive the Reds as they just don't know better." Jesus said something similar to the Romans and the Jews right before he was killed.

I think they both were "psychotic megalomaniacs."

Chang, you ignorant slut.

God, I love saying that.

Hitler killed more in one war than have ever been killed in the name of Christ. You really need to get some REAL history books and stop reading the ones they give you at P.S. 134. And Hitler was an atheist. So I doubt he was asking God for anything as he pulled the trigger.

Jesus was neither psychotic nor megalomaniacal.

Name three people killed in the name of Jesus in the past 100 years. Hell, name one in the past 500.

Christianity has been used as an excuse - the Spanish were great at it. But that doesn't mean they did it for Jesus.

Islam has in its founding documents and its core principles the order to commit war against all nonbelievers.

The difference could not be more stark.

The blitzkrieg through France and Poland had very little to do with Hitler.

The attack on France through Belgium was part of the Schlieffen Plan (developed long before WWI). After studying it, the German High Command concluded the plan could not succeeed (then used it anyway in WWI - where it failed). Modern mechanized warfare finally made the plan viable.

After Munich, Hitler became drunk on his own success and impatient for conquest. The German military commanders had flat out told Hitler the military would not be ready for a war until the mid-forties. Hitler, believing the British and French would roll over again, ordered the invasion of Poland.

The Kreigsmarine had plans to build a carrier and a fast naval task force. Because of Hilter's rush to war, they were reduced to submarine warfare and commerce raiding.

The Luftwaffe was a tactical air force with no strategic air power. Their planes were sleek and pretty, but most had no range and very little load-carrying capacity.

Despite the ubiquitous images of German tanks and trucks rolling through conquered territories, the Nazi war machine was still mostly horse-drawn in 1939.

Hindenburg was only persuaded to run again because of the threat that Adolf posed....

Hitler was never actually elected Chancellor of Germany. The highest vote tally he ever got was 37%. And his vote totals were diminishing in each subsequent election. He posed only a small threat electorally.

There was a right-wing cabal in Germany at that time trying to restore an authoritarian government to Germany. Hindenberg was a party to this. He favored a return of the Kaiser, but since Wilhelm II's bungling of WWI, not many supported a return of the monarcy.

The members of this cabal detested Hitler and the Nazis, viewing them as thugs.

The Weimar Republic was a parliamentary democracy. That meant the party with the most seats in the Reichstag formed the government.

The conservatives had the larger bloc of votes, but no one party had enough to form a government by itself. A coalition government was needed. And a right-wing coalition needed the Nazis.

The coalition offered Hitler a small cabinet role, but he turned them down. He felt that since he had the largest bloc of votes, he should get the largest role.

So, they agreed to make him Chancellor, but gave the Nazis only small cabinet posts, like Ministry of the Interior. Hitler accepted the deal.

The coalition kept the "important" government minstries (military, treasury, foreign relations) out of Nazi hands. They thought they could control Hitler by keeping him from the reins of power.

What they didn't realize (and Hitler did) was that the German police and social organizations were under the Interior ministry. By the time they realized what had happened, Hitler was in firm control of Germany's social institutions. The "important" departments followed shortly thereafter.

Mussolini and the Fascists took over Italy in much the same fasion.

Don't forget that as you watch Obama's takeover of the country's social institutions and seeming disinterest in foreign affairs or the military.

How many people do you think got slaughtered in the name of Jesus Christ throughout the history? We got the numbers for the Hitler but not for Jesus as the counting is not done yet. And we don't see the end in sight.

Jesus didn't lead his followers to war or tell them to kill their enemies. Hitler did. BIG difference, there Chang.

He didn't exactly promote peace either, Conan. And like Hitler, he gave them the words to justify what they wanted to do.

Why do people readily attribute him with the love the neighbor bullshit while totally ignoring the think not that I come to bring peace bullshit?

(Of course, by Christ, I mean the writers of the New Testament since there's some question that any such person actually existed.)

TG - what are you smoking?

If you are taking someone's deliberately misquoted selections from the gospels and using that to assert that Jesus was a psychopath, you're being rolled.

There's no question that Christ himself existed. He did, he was a thorn in the sides of both the Romans and the Jews. And he was killed to shut him up. He was sowing political and social discord, and the powers that be were none to happy about it.

Turns out he was the first Jedi.

"He didn't exactly promote peace either, Conan."

Really? For every point we might agree on, 100 come up we don't. Where, in any new testament book, does christ promote killing? Heck-aside from kicking banker ass-where does he promote any violence at all?? Passive resistance and civil disobedience were ideas garnered straight form his teachings. Violence is not.

I can go that people who own pitt bulls are really irresponsible. If someone then goes and kills pitt bull owners, am I a psycotic megalomaniac??

He didn't exactly promote peace either, Conan. And like Hitler, he gave them the words to justify what they wanted to do.

And like Hitler he gave them the words? If I wanted to justify violence and mayhem based on the words of Mother Theresa, Gandhi, or Snowflake the Hippy, I could do so with no problem.

Twisting someone's words to fit a pre-conceived outlook has been a cottage industry for thousands of years. Selective quoting is a staple of political campaigns, Senate confirmation smear campaigns, and most major religions.

Jesus did not advocate violence. All the historical records that hint of the existence of a Jesus (covering the history of the Roman Empire in Palestine) indicate a social and political reformer - not a violent warmonger. No Maccabees or Masadas in Jesus' records.

Hitler, OTOH, did advocate violence. Mein Kampf is full of the hate-filled and violent solutions Hitler proposed for reforming the world to be an Aryan playground.

Jesus may have been a megolamaniac (calling himself the son of God if you're not hints at an out-sized ego), but he was definitely not about spreading hate and misandry.

Hitler blew his head off while the Reds were closing in. Right before his death, I think it is possible for him to pray to God something like this. "Please forgive the Reds as they just don't know better." Jesus said something similar to the Romans and the Jews right before he was killed.

Huh? Hitler spent his final days heavily drugged. He issued a scorched earth policy ordering Germans to fight to the last German. He insisted the mass slaughter of the Jews continue despite the fact that it hampered efforts to defend Germany. He ordered Goering and Himmler arrested and had Himmler's representative in Berlin shot. He yelled at his military advisors for failing to launch a counteroffensive against Zhukov. He And THEN HE FORGAVE HIS ENEMIES FOR NOT KNOWING BETTER?

Please send me some of what you're smoking. It's waaaay better than anything I've got.

Crid - "... the nation which, on 9 Apr '03 ..." - Oh, I thought you were talking about doing something, not just crowing about past glories.

---

"> Sometimes all you can do
> is speak out.

You don't even want to do that! You don't even want others to do that... It scares you too much."

Where did you get that idea? Do you read what others post or just copy and paste bits you don't like? Speaking out is the least we can do. It may be all we can do - at the moment. As already said, I'm all for it, as a start.

---

"Europe is all about impotence;" - WTF?

---

"Again, please tell us more about your "grand scheme" and people whose lives are worth worrying about... Or are there any? Don't ignore these questions, OK?"

It's not like you to want to worry about people on the basis that worrying achieves anything useful. It was from you that I learned the term "clucking" - which describes what you are doing now.

My "grand scheme of things" is a realistic way of looking at the world based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations. Realpolitik, in other words.

---

I hope that answers your question, and you'll answer mine: do you propose that the US should take military action to prevent the execution of those prisoners in Iraq whose only crime is to be homosexual? Because you've singularly failed to address that issue, all the while making a lot of noise.

Realpolitik added fifteen years to the cold war, and gave us 9/11, nuclear India, nuclear Pakistan, nuclear North Korea, and soon nuclear Iran.

Please try another ideology. That one's failed.

Our time for action in Iraq was when they wanted to put Sharia in the constitution. Our response should have been "take that shit the fuck out of there, or we leave tonight."

Brian - more talk about the past.

Face up to it. The Iranians can execute people for being gay, and there's nothing you can do about it. You don't have to like it, and you can speak out, but that's all you can do for now.

Send in a team to rescue them? Get real - all you will get is a bunch of dead heroes and some hostages on TV. Nuke them? Oh - did you say *save* someone?

Keep on clucking, guys.

That's as may be, but I don't believe that under Hindenburg there would have been the will to rebuild the military.

The Germans started rebuilding their military while the ink on the Treaty of Versailles was still wet and Hindenberg was at the old soldiers' home.

Glider clubs sprang up throughout Germany (Germany having been denied civil aviation by the Treaty). Most of Germany's World War II aces were initially trained in these clubs.

Later, the Treaty of Rapallo (1922) gave Germany secret facilites deep inside the USSR for arms manufacturing and testing as well as military training.

Hindenberg became president of Weimar Germany in 1925.

When Lufthansa was first formed in 1926, it was a way to give German pilots flying time without putting them in a military uniform.

Most Lufthansa "civilian" planes could be easily converted to military planes (most were originally designed as military planes). The Do-17 was a fast mail plane (light bomber - originally conceived as being fast enough to outrun fighter pursuit). The He-111 was a passenger and freight hauler (medium bomber).

While he was president, Hindenberg was aware of (and in favor of) the re-arming of Germany. In reality, Paul von Hindenberg was a weak-willed not-very-bright administrator. He was easily swayed by his advisors, most of whom were aggressively pursuing rearmament.

Hindenberg was slipping in and out of senility by 1932 (born in 1847, he was 85), the year he was persuaded to run against Hitler to prevent Hitler becoming president of Germany. In the Weimar system the chancellor reported to the president and the president reported to the people. 1932, by the way, was the high-water mark of Hitler's political popularity.

Germany's bitter resentment of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles would have led it into conflict with some of the European powers at some point even without Hitler. Instead, Hitlers megalomania led Germany into conflict with the world.

"Name three people killed in the name of Jesus in the past 100 years. Hell, name one in the past 500."

Whilst not disagreeing with the general thrust of your points, I can name a few groups that have killed people in Jesus' name (or at least that of their brand of Christianity) in the last 100 years.

There's the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, hardline Christian vs Muslim conflict in Indonesia, Christian vs Muslim conflict in Nigeria and (so some of the Muslims involved would argue - this isn't MY opinion) Christian vs Muslim conflict in the WoT.

If you think the latter's a bit of a stretch, then consider the language that Bush used - he talked about a Crusade (only once - even he was smart enough to see that continued use would fracture support from Europe and ally countries in the ME).

Christian religious 'leaders' like Swaggart and Falwell have compared the fight to one of 'good' (ie Christianity) against evil (ie Islam).

The Italians arrested a guy called Roberto Sandalo in 2008. He confessed to setting up a group called the "Fighting Christian Front," linked to attacks on mosques and Muslim businesses in Italy.

Throw in sectarian violence in Northern Ireland (where the Churches on both sides of the divide supported their respective congregations and used religious justifications for murder and violence) and you've got a few examples to work on.

James -

Every single one of the fights you mention were about territory or politics or both. Religion was an ancillary part of all of them.

The Crusades were defensive/retaliatory wars in response to muslim aggression against Europe.

When you get to your "leaders", you're right to put that in quotes by the way, you have to consider who they lead. They have their congregations, and everyone else kinda laughs at them. They aren't at all like the leaders in Saudi Arabia and Iran - where they have actual power to enact their will.

But even the war in which we find ourselves is against political Islam. Yeah, I know, inseparable from the religious kind, but not really.

Our task, if we wish to avoid simply obliterating 1.5 billion people, is to get muslims to accept that their political will is not going to be achieved.

> Sometimes all you can do
> is speak out.

You don't even want to do that!

> Where did you get that idea?

When you said:

> Perhaps you mean "approve" rather
> than "tolerate."

We should call a spade a spade.

> Do you read what others post or
> just copy and paste
> bits you don't like?

I like to concentrate on people's mistakes. It's funner, and makes the attaboys more convincing. And let's be clear, your comment left little to admire.

> Speaking out is the least
> we can do.

I musta missed the part when you said that earlier... It probably got lost after the bit about someone "adding up to a hill of beans."

> It's not like you to want
> to worry about people on the
> basis that worrying achieves
> anything useful.

Acknowledging that a government is preparing to murder scores of people isn't "worrying". I'd bet our interior politics would change substantially if gays (and much of the rest of the electorate) thought clearly about how freely they live in the United States compared to other cultures... I think at present their isolated, inner-directed political alliances are causing them to misjudge their friends and enemies.

Furthermore –and this is yet another tinge of Continental thinking I find distasteful– you seem to regard your participation as a paternal, top-down affair, a royal-we kind of thing. As if:

• You're a special, perhaps kingly person;

• You're maneuvering between other special people, both as respectable adversaries in Iran and as friends (or at least manipulable partners) in the United States;

• There are other lives that simply aren't worth as much as those of the special people, and certainly not as much as your own.

These divisions are completely imaginary. The best Americans are completely immune to your daydream, and the rest of us can be snapped out of it in short order. The progress of civilization doesn't come from identifying people as so unimportant that their abject murder should not be discussed. It's incumbent upon everyone in society (this society, at least) to acknowledge that what's happening there is reprehensible.

> "clucking" - which describes
> what you are doing now.

If you were a nicer man, it wouldn't be so easy for me. But your casual, authoritarianism dismissal of these murders as faits accomplis aligns closer with militant Islamic thinking than with the better western tradition.

> Realpolitik, in other words.

Nope, that's realpolitik precisely. Americans have lost their taste for it... Just ask John Kerry.

> I hope that answers your
> question

Nope, you again ignored my inquiry about how to get onto the Hill of Beans list... Or even to find out who's on it already. Presumably you expected to be consulted every time... But I don't trust your judgment, and don't see why anyone should.

> do you propose that the US
> should take military action
> to prevent the execution
> of those prisoners

No. But I'd certainly hope that American forces in Iraq are taking council from Amnesty International, the United Nations, and other observant agencies. Amy's right to ask why Obama's not had anything to say about it.

As far as Iran goes, we may be taking action in the times ahead anyway... Anyone who's scanned the headlines out of the Gulf in the last five years has played imaginary war games. As Israel has been getting twitchy in recent months, we certainly don't seem any more distant from war with Iran than we were from war with Iraq in, say, 1997.

And so...

Let's not hope for war, but let's not imagine that lasting peace can be made with a culture that "execute" homosexuals. If time comes for military action or even just aggressive international politics, I hope that everybody in the States –gay & straight, religious & not– would see these events as informative about who we're up against.

> Send in a team to rescue them?
> Get real

Has anyone defended more Muslim life, both in the Middle East and in your dear Europe, than the armed forces of the United States?

Again, read the Kagan article. Europe is a weak, ingratiating force in world affairs because it wants to be.

Crid -

> Perhaps you mean "approve" rather
> than "tolerate."

That's not me saying I approve of them. Amy said this is "stuff we just can't tolerate." But all she has proposed, and all you have proposed, is speaking out. I'm all for speaking out, but when you can't "tolerate" something, it means you can't stand it. Speaking is not enough for that. You *must* take action to remove the thing you can't stand. But all that you - and Amy - are calling for is words.

---

> do you propose that the US
> should take military action
> to prevent the execution
> of those prisoners

"No."

We agree, then. It's simply not in anyone's power (outside of Iran) to do any more than speak about this atrocity. We can't do anything about it. Maybe write to the papers. Maybe boycott Iranian dates. But these will have absolutely no effect.

Therefore, we have to put up with it and bear it. That's why "tolerance" is the wrong word - it's for things you *can't* bear. We can speak out but that's all we can do.

---

> "clucking" - which describes
> what you are doing now.

"If you were a nicer man, it wouldn't be so easy for me. But your casual, authoritarianism dismissal of these murders as faits accomplis aligns closer with militant Islamic thinking than with the better western tradition."

That's just clucking. Your outrage achieves nothing.

Or do you actually have a plan of action? Apparently not.

---

How to get on to the hill of beans list ... I don't think there is an actual list, but if there were, the main thing is to be born to the right parents in the right country, and when you are in trouble, for that trouble to be in a situation where it is possible for your friends, neighbours and compatriots to do something for you. For example, being the CEO of a large car manufacturing company in the US is a good starter. Plenty of friends in high places, who will bail you out without even leaving their comfy chairs. A bad example is to be born in the wrong part of the world. Another bad example would be to be a world famous hero that everyone on the planet loves and admires, but to be in a situation where no-one can help. Incurable cancer, or lost in space. Then everyone will be sorry, and some will cluck, but no-one will be able to do a damn thing to help.

I am - and I am sure you are too - acutely aware how lucky I am to be born in the west. The other side of that coin is that poor devils who are born in places like Iran will have a crap life through no fault of their own. We do what we can to improve things for everyone. But sometimes "what we can" is nothing.

"Every single one of the fights you mention were about territory or politics or both. Religion was an ancillary part of all of them."

Ah, but then we get into an argument about whether you can truly draw a line between politics and religion. Even your country hasn't been completely successful at doing that, despite the best efforts of the FF's.

Also, I'd hesitate to describe the actions of the LRA as being about territory OR politics, and the Italian example was about neither (just out and out fascism dressed up as a religious battle).

"The Crusades were defensive/retaliatory wars in response to muslim aggression against Europe."

I was actually writing about Dubya's use of "Crusade" rather than the Crusaders, but it's a moot point - the wars were still fought "for Christ" and therefore people were killed in His name (although outside of the time-frame of Crid's challenge).

Like it or not, most major religions have (and will continue to be) used as catalysts or excuses for conflict and bloodshed. Even the poor old Buddhists haven't been immune from that.

I suggest you all come up out of your church sermons and actually read the damned guidebook. Peace loving and gentle? Jesus? Only until he got pissed off. But the rest of it aside (we can get into quoting verse after verse contradicting one another that are supposed to be his actual words, if he did exist he contradicted himself a lot), but how about the buyers and the sellers alone? Sure, he didn't think they should be there and were violating the Sabbath and the temple but it was hardly turning the other cheek.

And don't even get me started on the horribly violent concept of hell. Jesus advocates that for anyone that doesn't kiss his ass and beg him to be merciful and not send their ass there. In that alone, he beats out even Hitler in the sick violence department.

But I'll concede that I don't know if an actual person existed (we can argue various historical arguments 'til the cows come home so to spare us the torture of that, I'll assume he did for the sake of argument) but if he did, he was the greatest con artist of all fucking time and nothing more. Like most running a scam (i.e., lying) he contradicted himself.

Norman: "I am - and I am sure you are too - acutely aware how lucky I am to be born in the west. The other side of that coin is that poor devils who are born in places like Iran will have a crap life through no fault of their own. We do what we can to improve things for everyone. But sometimes "what we can" is nothing." Well said. Absolutely. We are very fortunate. The poor bastards there, not so much. And I'll agree that there's only so much we can do.

For the people who are so resentful they should have to do anything, like worship god, to get into heaven if there is one: Why one earth should you be able to do as you stiff-necked please and still get in?? Where does that ever work? You're too proud to even ask? idiotic.

"Jesus advocates that for anyone that doesn't kiss his ass and beg him to be merciful and not send their ass there."

We might be at the point of splitting hairs here, but I don't recall Jesus actually ever mentioning Hell. He did mention, on many occasions, that it would be hard to get into Heaven (which I guess equates to "you're going to Hell if you don't meet the standards") but never (as far as I remember) specifically lays that on the line.

As for the incident in the Temple - all he did was turn a few tables over and start berating the money-lenders. These days he might get nicked for causing a disturbance, but only if the plods were having a quiet day.

On the non-aggression side, his followers were prepared to use violence to prevent him from being arrested (after Judas' betrayal) and he stopped them and went quietly with the soldiers. He forgave those that were hurting, and who ultimately killed, him.

Even after having been murdered, he didn't use the opportunity of his resurection (assuming you believe that he returned) to preach vengeance on the Romans / Pharisees.

Jesus (at least according to the accounts of the Gospels the mainstream Church uses) was a thoroughly non-violent and forgiving man.

A lot of what's been done in 'his' name discredits his teachings. It's why I don't have a lot of time for organised religion.

Well, one thing's for certain, it doesn't matter if I could be bothered to go through the idiot book and pick out all the words out of your imiginary friend's supposed mouth, you will excuse him. Just because you love him.

Momof3, yes, if he were truly nonviolent and practicing what he preaches, such as being forgiving and turning the other cheek. In other words, he'd be as fucking stupid as he asks us to be.

James, he condones hell. It doesn't get any more violent than that. Do this to get to heaven or else, with the only or else being hell, isn't violent? What mental hoops did you have to jump through to reach that conclusion? Because, man, you really did some mental gymnastics to twist that one around to try and make it look nonviolent.

And excuse me, overturning tables and driving people out wasn't violence? Next time your favorite fast food place pisses you off, why don't you go in and try overturning the tables and driving the employees (and I doubt they went without the use of force, bowing and nodding and saying yes, Jesus, we're so sorry, we'll go starve in the streets now, since that will please you more) out and see if people tremble with fear or laugh? Oh, yeah, and see just what the cops do. Since you think they'll maybe bother -- if it's a slow day.

Geeze, religion is fucking retarded. That was just two prime examples of how it interferes with the thought processes right there.

Even when I was fucking Christian, I'd admit these were violent acts. Maybe that's why I'm not any more. Too fucking peace-loving.

So, you were a practicing Christian, (allegedly) but you didn't take the time to actually read the text that was supposed to be at the core of your faith?

I'm not a Christian (practicing or lapsed), but it looks like I know a hell of a lot more than you do about 'your' ex-faith TG.

Jesus is/was supposed to be human, like all of the rest of us. That meant that he had doubts and flaws, just like all the rest of us. Overturning the tables at the Temple was a unique case of him losing his temper.

Given that he was supposed to KNOW that he was going to die (and how, and when) do you think he might be forgiven a little moment of anger?

As for hell - that's pretty much an Old Testament concept. Christianity is all about Christ's sacrificing himself so that mankind would be redeemed from hell.

Ultimately though, the Bible is just a collection of social mores designed to help a non-scientific people understand the world around them and to (hopefully) live in ways that reduce the need for aggression and conflict.

A lot of extras got bolted on through the Centuries (the Divine Right of Kings, Papal infallibility etc) and Christianity became a tool to mould peasant populations so that they would accept their lot in life and not act like the G20 protestors every time a wealthy Archbishop, or the King/Queen/local Nobility, decided to raise their taxes again.

I can certainly see the faults in Christ / Christianity, but it's NOT an inherently violent religion - inherently violent people have just chosen to misinterpret selected passages to justify themselves.

> That's not me saying I
> approve of them.

Worse; you're indifferent. Again, you seem to picture yourself in some position of lordly authority in front of which the world parades its players for you to admire or ignore.

> You *must* take action to remove
> the thing you can't stand.

I think Amy's doing that. She's needn't personally strap a knife to her thigh and a helmet to her chin and engage the bad guys.

> But all that you - and Amy -
> are calling for is words.

She's establishing that there's a bad sitch over there to be dealt with. In baseball parlance, she's winding up for the pitch. You remind me of the kind of kid in high school who stands with the crowd as two fellows prepare to fight, taunting one of them for being insufficiently belligerent, yet standing ready to run at full speed if anyone asks you to participate.

> We agree, then.

No. I want to be very clear about this.

> It's simply not in anyone's
> power (outside of Iran)

You're confusing Iran and Iraq.

You're very eager to believe that anyone in any nation can do anything they want without us having any influence, even upon the spirits of the oppressed. I don't think that's true.

> That's just clucking. Your
> outrage achieves nothing.

That's not true! It humiliates you.

> Or do you actually have a plan
> of action? Apparently not.

By your logic, one must never cry "Fire!" when passing a house with a quickening flame in the window — You're only permitted to break down the door and start searching the attic for missing kittens. Or maybe: If a friend starts to seem ill, you're not allowed to recommend a doctor's care — You're only permitted to start scrubbing your own hands for surgery.

> I am - and I am sure you are too -
> acutely aware how lucky I am to be
> born in the west

That understates things. This richness in our lives wasn't just luck.

Maybe it's a just a leftover habit from childhood, when we're told to eat our green beans because children are starving in China... But the settings of our lives are often described is issued from a lottery machine, where before birth, all our souls are bouncing around like ping-pong balls, and some of us happened to drop into Iran (sad!) and some into Indiana (lucky!).

An important reason that my life is so great is that people who lived before me here –and that includes a lot of the best people who ever lived– insisted that this setting be as rich as it is. They worked like dogs and struggled and suffered no fools. Not just my parents, but huge number of folks reaching back into the mist applied their genius and decency and took risks because they wanted my life to be this good. It wasn't just "luck".

And now we need to look forward with urgency even as we look backward with gratitude. I want gays in the middle east to be as comfortable as my next door neighbors. The thing that makes your list so reprehensible is that you think it contains no human agency, as if your judgment weren't part of it. As if you weren't the one who decided that gay's lives meant nothing.

> But sometimes "what
> we can" is nothing.

If you say you have nothing to offer, I'm ready to believe you: Read the Kagan from 10:31am and McArdle from 8:31pm.

...as issued...

Well, one thing's for certain, it doesn't matter if I could be bothered to go through the idiot book and pick out all the words out of your imiginary friend's supposed mouth, you will excuse him.

It sounds as if you've not read the guidebook yourself, but stand ready to condemn everything about the religion (despite the fact that there are hundreds of off-shoots and denominations).

Is it Christ you hate ... or what passes for Christians these days? Or, perhaps, some specific Christians?

Conan -

She and lujlp share the same issue -

They hate God for the sin of creation.

What's so sad is if we were to ever conclusively prove that there were no God in their lifetimes, their entire existence would be worthless, for their would no longer be anything to rail against.

Whether one accepts the divinity of Christ or not, there is no doubt that a man by that name lived in the period described. There is no doubt that he was regarded as a teacher and a prophet. And there is no doubt that the powers that were wanted him gone.

Jesus did what he did. Whether he did it for the notoriety, for the pussy, or for all mankind is really irrelevant.

What is relevant, however, is Christianity does not call for the violent conversion of non-believers.

Jesus said simply this "I am the truth, the way, and the light. None shall come to the father but through me."

No condemnation to hell, no call to convert the heathen.

There are a great many organizations that call themselves "Christian" who have abandoned or misinterpreted the teachings of Christ.

I suspect that nobody would consider Buddha to have condoned murder if an organization claiming to be buddhist went on a killing spree. But it's convenient to condemn Christ for things he did not say to assuage one's petty hatreds.

Crid - you keep ignoring what I write, and attributing motives and opinions to me that are wholly unjustified, so I'm not continuing this topic.

But you were right about one thing - despite having read the OP several times, I took it to be Iran, not Iraq. I don't know how I did that. But it does mean there is more that can be done. Don't bother saying how many more US troops than UK troops are in Iraq. I know already.

"That's not true! It humiliates you." - Dream on.

And, godammit, I'm reading Kagan now.

-Out.

And in today's news,

non-Muslims firebombed and forced from homes;

Afghanistan legislates wifely sexual duties;

Palestinian kills teen and injures boy with pickax.

Power and Weakness, Robert Kagan, 2002. This is an interesting analysis. It predates the invasion of Iraq. Arafat is till alive. Some comments:-

One thing I would question is the treatment of Europe as a single entity. Many people talk of the United States of Europe. In fact we have the very Disunited States of Europe. It makes no sense to talk of European military power: only individual European states have military power, and every state has its own agenda and internal disagreements. This is no doubt a historical legacy but it won't go away soon. Not only do we not have military unity, we don't even have fiscal unity. The Euro is doing quite well as an international currency - but it is not used throughout Europe. There are 27 states in the European Union, but only 16 have adopted the Euro. I don't have the facts to compare this with the adoption of the US dollar, but a comparison might be interesting. Europe, as an entity, is not much more than an idea. Europe's attention is turned inward.

One of Kagan's paragraphs is IMO spot on:

Americans are “cowboys,” Europeans love to say. And there is truth in this. The United States does act as an international sheriff, self-appointed perhaps but widely welcomed nevertheless, trying to enforce some peace and justice in what Americans see as a lawless world where outlaws need to be deterred or destroyed, and often through the muzzle of a gun. Europe, by this old West analogy, is more like a saloonkeeper. Outlaws shoot sheriffs, not saloonkeepers. In fact, from the saloonkeeper’s point of view, the sheriff trying to impose order by force can sometimes be more threatening than the outlaws who, at least for the time being, may just want a drink.

I agree with Kagan when he says that the current state of European politics is largely a result of trying to avoid more European wars. "The European Union is itself the product of an awful century of European warfare." The US went through something similar in the 19th century. But that was a civil war. Everyone spoke the same language: it was harder to demonise your opponents. Not everyone can think of the European wars as civil wars. They escalated to world wars only because Europeans had colonies to draw on and to draw in.

The Kagan essay is very reminiscent of the difference between Huxley's Cosmic Process and Ethical Process. (Evolution and ethics, Huxley, 1894, quoted in Lee Harris, Suicide of Reason, 2007). The Cosmic Process "works in utter indifference to our civilized sense of good and evil. Big fish eat little fish [...]" and "the Ethical Process was the deliberate attempt to struggle against the struggle for existence: to work to keep nature from taking its ourse." (Lee Harris). It would seem the US embodies the Cosmic process, while Europe the Ethical Process. (According to Harris, both US and Europe are Ethical Process, while Islam is Cosmic process.)

I've got to read some Hobbes.

Amy - we were talking about "T's Grammy" who shares lujlp's tendency for violent outbursts when her incorrect assertions about Christianity and Christians are impaled with the sword of truth.

If you're talking about me, that's just silly.

I think he's talking about T's Grammy. She and luljp have been fairly adamant in their attacks on the existence God and the innate goodness of Christianity. Brian has been fairly adamant in his defense of the existence of God and the innate goodness of Christianity.

Americans are “cowboys,” Europeans love to say. ...the outlaws who, at least for the time being, may just want a drink.

I like that passage.

The problem is, after that drink, the outlaws may want another. Then another. Then you've got a saloon full of armed drunken outlaws and you've run the sheriff out of town.

And I'm not even a Christian!

brian, I really don't care what they look like, as long as those islamic people or any other type of people keep their brutality to themselves. I was just pointing out their negative tendencies and their obvious similarities to those negative unpleasant nasty black culture (of course not all black are nasty or brutal). and of course, those middleeasterner(whether they look like white or black), they are in actual fact extremely racist. even to this age and time, they still practiced a type of slavery in their world. anyway, that is their internal black problem.
and James H, I never say it got anything to do with racism everytime i was treated badly. only you and brian seems to jump to unpleasant conclusion. I let other people treat me badly, because my socalled country and my socalled parents treated me badly. and because i was too meek and timid and because i was afraid of other arrogant people who misused their socalled position. nothing hypocritical about my comment. i was just being honest with my criticism against the nasty islamic world and their close resemblence with the black world in so many aspect.
and kg, how old am i is really none of your concern.

James H, I don't appreciate your unkind and unasked input. it seems like you are trying to imply my comments are stupid when it is your reply that sound stupid and irrational.
I don't know who you are, but certainly i don't like you. i don't like the way you tried to mess up my comments or they way you rudely attack my comments. by all means you can disagree with my comments but trying to fault with my grammar or put me down or make me feel unjustifiably bad about my honest analytical small comment just show what a big bully and what a full of shit person you are.anyway, if you still can't understand me, i advice you to skip to the next comment that is more to your level or liking.

kg, the same goes with your ignorant arrogant rants about my comment. I suggest you pay attention to your own shit if you can't handle other people honest "shit".

> It makes no sense to talk of Europe
> an military power:

Word!

> only individual European states
> have military power

Funny you should put it exactly that way, because almost none of them have any power worth projecting. (By the way, did France ever get that aircraft carrier out of port again?) European nations have two things in common; they have no military muscle, and they're all smooshed together on that one continent. Being both similar and contiguous, it's handy to have a single name for all of them.

> it was harder to demonise
> your opponents.

Ask me about my years in Jacksonville; ask about my visit to Biloxi.

> Europe's attention is
> turned inward.

Yes; that's the problem.

> One of Kagan's paragraphs is
> IMO spot on

Remarkable that it should be the one which, shorn of context as you presented it, flatters your pretense of being hosts of this party. Shame how you can't chip in for the cost of the venue.

Crid - Tell me about your years in Jacksonville; tell about your visit to Biloxi.

Kagan also describes the US and EU roles as having reversed from two centuries ago. Then EU states were global powers, and the US was busy looking inward and establishing itself, much as the EU is now. The point is that EU is in the middle of a huge change and won't be much good for anything for several tens of years, assuming the change succeeds. There's not much point berating EU for being weak and inward focussed during this period. It won't make any difference.

As for the UK, the word "insular" applies perfectly. The gutter press, and some of the quality press, is anti-EU. If there was a vote tomorrow the UK would secede. Personally, I'm pro-EU but I don't like how it is being done. The proposed 400-page constitution sums up everything that's wrong with it. We should have taken the US constitution, rewritten it to incorporate the amendments, tweaked any bits we didn't like, and trimmed it down to one side of paper.

The Kagan "cowboy" paragraph describes the best view of the US that you will find in Europe. The worst view is that the US is a world bully. That is ridiculous, but being ridiculous doesn't stop a lot of stupid people believing it.

"Shame how you can't chip in for the cost of the venue." -- Crid. "... Europeans spend a great deal of money on foreign aid -- more per capita, they like to point out, than does the United States. Europeans engage in overseas military missions, so long as the missions are mostly limited to peacekeeping." -- Kagan.

WLIL -
Last time I checked, this was an open board.

If I read something written on here that I think is offensive, racist and makes no sense then I'll call the author on it (if I can be bothered and if it's a slow day at work).

Your comments, on this thread at least, fit all three categories and then some.

Whether you intended to be racist or not, your comments WERE racist.

I wasn't particularly bothered about your grammar (until you accused BRIAN of not making any sense!), but seeing as you've brought it up let me tell you now - it's pretty appalling.

You may think you have a perfectly valid and rational POV to share with us, but you're massively hampered by your poor grasp of English.

I apologise if that upsets you, but getting upset about it doesn't stop it from being true.

If English is your second language, then your written English is a lot better than my written Spanish or French. If it's your primary language though.. well you've wasted a few years at school.

> I find his spelling endearing.

Me too, but when disagreeing with him about stuff, I worry that he confuses himself with impenetrable sentences.

Assuming that 'Luj' is the same person as 'WLIL' then yes, he's gutsy for posting but he needs to take more care with his comments and he's on especially thin ice when accusing others of making no sense.

It isn't his spelling or grammatical errors that made me take issue with him though, it's that (whether he THINKS he's being racist or not) what he's written is palpably offensive. I am pretty confident that a good majority of the other commentators would agree with me on that (in fact, several already have).

My best mate's a teacher, despite having severe dyslexia. His handwriting is terrible (to which he'll quite happily cop) but he takes the time to make sure that what he's written actually corresponds to the point he wants to make.

LUJ and WLIL cannot be the same person because even though LUJ can get rather passionate, he has interesting views mainly. WLIL, on the other hand, makes those kind of overtly racist comments that can cause the reader to blush at best. When I read them, I was like DAMN! Then, the more he claimed to be a non-racist, all the while digging himself further in a (black) hole, I was like GAAAAAAD DAMN!

And James H is on point. Revision is divine.

And WLIL, I asked your age in an attempt to save you from more humiliation. I was hoping you would be able to infer, by the mere question, that people around these parts are having a wee bit of a hard time taking you seriously. I'm sorry you were mistreated; you're racist anger seems to be the residue left over. But, your ability to mangle the language and your complete vengeance against punctuation and grammar ARE a problem. The way you arrogantly brush it aside is pure laziness. You can improve both your thoughts and your writing, but it won't happen by defending both weaknesses.

Cover to cover, Conan and James H. Several times. I read it to get closer to God and understand Him better.

Oh, and I'm not the only Atheist I know who is Atheist because they piously took up reading the buybull and had a rude awakening.

You might try it.

Brian, what you can't stand about me and Luj is basically we've got more balls than you. I've never seen anyone claiming to be a nonbeliever run so afraid of saying anything bad about Jebus or his league of worshippers. Christ, but you're terrified of them. Even here on a format where they really don't know who the hell you are.

No, I don't hate God. I don't even hate all believers. Just those who act like I have no right to mock God. And them I think rather pathetic. Actions speak louder than words. If you really believed, you wouldn't feel your super hero needed defending from my puny human ass.

> your years in Jacksonville;

Socializing revealed that the deep South (Georgia more than Florida) has smoldering resentments which cause essentially zero interference with national and interstate cohesion. Acknowledging this venom needn't diminish our admiration of the United States as global master at reconciliation, assimilation and the other emollient arts. And venom it is...

> your visit to Biloxi.

A pre-Katrina jaunt along the coast included a stop at this attraction. I've lived on both the hills and plains of Indiana, in the mountainous Ozarks, and coastal Florida; but I never saw skinheads as ugly as the ones in the parking lot of the Davis place.

They say the storm washed most of it away. OK by me.

> The point is that EU is in the
> middle of a huge change and won't
> be much good for anything for
> several tens of years

Until then we'll take its counsel regarding "tolerance" with a grain of salt.

More ---

> The proposed 400-page constitution

IIRC an earlier, rejected draft –sincerely offered– ran more than 5,000 pages. Presumably all that implicit bureaucracy has been moved 'offline' to unobtrusive local offices. But we still don't get the sense that Europe is interested in creating wealth, defending global civilization, or doing any other sort of heavy lifting. Pick a problem, any problem: Wouldn't it be great if the EU could solve the piracy thing for us?... Just to be able to say, 'Well we took care of that, didn't we?'

Instead, it's the Chinese and Japanese who are patrolling Aden.

> The Kagan "cowboy" paragraph
> describes the best view of the
> US that you will find in Europe

Not the best view, but perhaps the most popular. It's the smuggest, least challenging view of their place in the world. OK, it's a saloon: What exactly is the liquor it offers?

> more per capita, they like
> to point out, than does
> the United States

And good onya. But my favorite analogy comes to mind: When the United States is providing defense to (and from) your entire continent, it's like you're a teenager living for free in the room over the garage. You shouldn't complain when Mom wants you to buy some cookies from the door-knocking Girl Scouts.

(Do you have Girl Scouts over there? Of course you do. You eat their cookies, right?)

You might try it.

Not cover to cover, but at least one gospel and a letter to the Corinthians or two. And Revelations one Halloween.

Plus, I've listened to more passages than I want to count when dragged to church as a kid (probably why I don't go now).

Oh, and three years of Catholic school.

I like to think of myself as what Kinky Friedman called a Jehovah's Bystander. "We believe in God, but we don't want to get involved."

See also.

> I like to think of myself as what
> Kinky Friedman called a
> Jehovah's Bystander.

Brilliant

T's Grammy:

Brian, what you can't stand about me and Luj is basically we've got more balls than you.

No, what I can't stand about you is your complete inability to attack belief with anything even resembling the truth. It doesn't take balls to make things up.

I've never seen anyone claiming to be a nonbeliever run so afraid of saying anything bad about Jebus or his league of worshippers.

I also notice that you are incapable of saying anything about any religion without sneering and calling silly names like a child.

How have I "run afraid" of anything? You haven't said anything of substance. I try to refute you, and you plug your ears and scream LA LA LAAAAA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

Christ, but you're terrified of them. Even here on a format where they really don't know who the hell you are.

I fear nobody. And everyone here who's been paying attention knows precisely who I am.

And we know precisely who you are too. You are a bitter old woman who hates everyone and everything, and has decided that it is better to curse God and declare his non-existence and condemn anyone who believes in him because if God exists, then why did your life turn out so rotten?

James H, you seems to have alot of problems with my english(the only language that i am most comfortable in and that i can communicate best in). and you don't like the way i wrote it. but why do you have to attack my writing as racist. what rights do you have to imply that i was racist. the problem with people like you is you tried to pound on socalled weak people like myself who never have anything to do with those horrible racist people around the world. I was only criticising the islamic culture and their extremist behaviour and their racist policies.
and kg, stop pretending. you were in fact trying to humilliate me. damn those racist brutal people. i was only verbally criticising them.

kg, why should you compared me with other people. i am a uniquely separate individual and by the way don't you think you(whoever you are) had been extremely inconsiderately purposely rude by implying referring to me as he. what a rude disgusting person you are. I am not bothered to find out whether you are a he or she but at least i don't go around implying what i don't know. i certainly don't go around referring you as he when i don't know your gender for sure. my english may not be the best of english, but as long as most people understand the main points that i am trying to bring across, that is good enough.

kg, I just think you and james h (and brian to a slightly less disgusting degree) were being unreasonably petty with my slightly different english. the truth of the matter is you and james h were extremely intolerant and were trying to pounce on me, like those many extremely nasty intolerant people around the world. i don't know what your agenda is but my english or my age is certainly none of your concern. and does it make you feel better that you and james and brian had put me off commenting on this site.

kg, perhaps it is better you used your time by analysing other people english that are more unreadable and more mangled. and i would also like to advice you to stop going around inappropriately refering other writer as he. you certainly caused alot of offence to me.
james h, you were certainly very offensive to me, and blatantly tried to denied me the freedom to speak out my honest opinion. perhaps, it is better you concentrate on your own work instead of meddling negatively with other people freedom of speech.

So, we've put you off commenting on this site SO MUCH... that you felt compelled to leave FOUR MORE comments?

Priceless.

If putting you off means that you'll think a little harder next time (ie BEFORE you spew a lot of bitter, untrue and racist remarks onto a page) then I'll feel more than justified in picking you up on your comments.

And really, it bothers you that much that we referred to you (possibly incorrectly) as "he" rather than she? Grow up.

james h, it way you trying to make it sound untrue. it was a very valid remark. in fact i don't feel bitter about other people mistreatment or racist tendencies against me. of course it bothers me that it is so obvious that you and kg were trying to imply what i am not. you and kg are the one that ought to grow up. of course it bothers me that you two seems to gang up against me a lone person trying to speak out about the real unpleasant facts of certain groups of people. of course it bothers me that you were not trying to have an intelligent disagreement with my comment. all you show is your pure ignorance on the subject matter which i was commenting on and your pure nastiness against me. the fact is you are just trying to bully me. that is the real unpleasant fact.

kg,(i hope it not referring to how heavy you are) by the way, it has nothing to do with laziness, that I wrote that way. It was more to do with my attempt to make my criticsm which had nothing to do with anyone personally, though i was criticising a group/groups of people), as brief as possible. Perhaps,it is better ignorant rude people like yourself don't understand my english. I mean why should i waste time with people like yourself and james h(who were more interested to attack my english rather on the gist of my comment) who tried to make my comment into a big racist issue, when in reality I was just making a very frank analytical comment.

and of course two of you(james h and kg) plus brian tried to belittle my comment and make me feel abit jittery. already the limited restricted freedom that i had in this part of backward world already make me feel jittery and the constant intolerance from their unpleasant eastern world make me feel most jittery to make any criticism.

and of course people like james h and kg (whether they are he or she) had shown inconsiderate careless cruelty with the way they mixed up other people gender and not to mention their mischief in mislabelling other people criticism with racism. it is just a cruel, big bad world outside.

WLIL -

I was not trying to belittle you and make you feel jittery.

I was trying to make you feel ashamed of the idiotic small-minded tripe you keep spewing forth.

Grow the fuck up. You weren't making a "very frank analytical comment", you were making a bullshit racist accusation that is incorrect on about a dozen different levels, and you got called on it.

You might get away with those kinds of posts over on stormfront, but most of us here aren't marginal thinkers. You aren't gonna get away with equating arabs with africans and then claim that there's some indigenous culture that they share that makes them hate everyone else.

It's bullshit, and everyone here knows it - including you.

Go cry into your mommy's skirt. We're not having any of your "poor me" bullshit.

it was not bullshit or even the slightest bit racist. it was a fact that too many of the islamic people exhibited some of the brutal tendencies(with their so called power and when they have a bit of power) as similar to the black brutal backward culture. it has nothing to do with poor me, it was really to do with facts and reality(that hopefully don't recur again). it was you trying to unhelpfully brush off my criticism. i did not say they having to do with black culture is what makes them hate everyone else. i did not even mention about their hate. i was mentioning about their similarities with (some)black brutal culture.

some people on this post had seems to find fault with my comment. notably brian, james h and kg tried to mess up my comment, in a disgusting manner. I stand by what i said and not what they tried to cluelessly cruelly implied.
and of course it seems that kg and james h (whether they are he or she) even go the extent of rudely inconsiderately carelessly referring me as he without even botheirng to ask. it was just one of the utter cruelty on their part to misplace my gender. if only they bother to respectfully ask, but they don't.
it just proves that this world is filled with extremely nasty people.

kg, it was not the same old shit. i experienced, as a minority disadvantage nonbeliever, alot of the real bad shit coming from living under their predominantly unhelpful unpleasant racist harsh islamic rule. of course everything about their islamic community is bad.
and worst of all i don't really have a dependable mommy skirt to cry on. anyway, i don't need one for i am not afraid of them or any of their evil system.

the fact is the majority of nonbelievers in this asian country go along blissfully in ignorance of their evil islamic totalitarian system.
nothing nice about their islamic culture that they tried so hard to impose and tried so hard to impress upon. many nonbelievers had been hoodwinked into their deceptive culture in return for some pittance prosperity.

Has it ever occured to you to LEAVE? If where you are sucks so hard, GET OUT.

Fuck, if the Cubans could make a '57 Chevy float, they'd all come to Miami. As it is, they pack themselves into rickety boats and try to make the 90 mile journey over open ocean to get out of the hell-hole that is Cuba.

Oh, and to put the final nail in the coffin of your initial so-called point:

Please show me where barbarism is endemic to "black culture". The use of violence is not the sole province of the african people. In fact, if you were to look a mere 300 years into the past, you'd find that the Scots were quite capable of committing violence over the most trivial of slights. And don't get me started on the Vikings.

You are still fighting valiantly to remain wrong. I aim to correct your fucked-up mind.

you are the one that is fucked up.i don't need you to forced your opinion on me. you are behaving like a thug. i am not forcing my honest opinion on anyone. i am just peacefully voicing my opinion. i am just stating my opinion. i am not demeaning the blacks in any way. and i am not discussing about vikings or about scots. . it is you that appear to be ignorant or pretend to be in denial of the facts. but you are entitled to your opinion as i am entitled to my opinion. other people are entitled to agree or disagree with me. I am not going to start another argument with you again about those unpleasant culture. I certainly look forward to going back to a nice quiet peaceful life with my husband.

You may be entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

when your "opinion" is stated with such certainty, it is taken as a statement of fact.

When it is wrong, and you are called on it, intellectual honesty demands that you re-evaluate your position.

You have not done so. You have prevaricated and obfuscated, and redirected. You still maintain that there is an inherent bias towards violence in "black society" without making any kind of guess as to why, and then claim in the same paragraph that this "black influence" is what makes arabs violent.

It is not "black culture" that is to blame for the violence we see in the middle east. It is Islam. Period. End.

Your opinion is based upon falsehoods. And contrary to what your mother taught you, NOT all opinions are valid.

Rather, opinions are like assholes - everybody's got one, and most of them stink.

james h, i did not say that only black or islamic inhumanity bother me. i was replying to Amy post regarding the predominantly black world. others inhumanity committed by other worlds bother me too.

Via drudge.

brian, i agree that their islamic ideology/ religion is to be blamed but i also think that their predominant black genetics and the unpleasant negative black culture/characteristics played a major part in contributing to their violence.
my opinion is certainly not based on any falsehood. my opinion is based on unpleasant reality. i don't need anyone to teach me anything. I think for myself. it is arrogantly presumptious of you to think that my opinion was formed from others.

I didn't say your opinion was formed by others.

I didn't really say WHAT it was formed by.

I said it was BASED UPON A FLAWED INTERPRETATION OF REALITY.

Your opinion of "unpleasant reality" is based upon an incorrect interpretation of what reality actually IS.

In any event, I'm done trying to convince you. I'm going to go paint my doors. At least then I'll have something to beat my head against that has substance to it.

brian, first you are trying to imply that my opinion was based on the way my moher taught me(which in fact as i said - nobody taught me).
and now(in your most recent reply and you certainly did not say it in your previous reply) you are trying to say that it was based on a flawed intepretation of reality!
you are twisting and turning my words and now your own words.
you seems to have alot of time to find fault with what little that i had said. I know what the reality of living in this big bad world (in this present age and time and for the past forty years)really like. it seems like you, james h and kg had been unfairly trying to imply me as racist when i had only just pointed out some of the uncomfortable facts and for some strange reason you seems to want to attack in a most unethical way. it seems like you, james h and kg had been unfairly disgustingly harassing me over a small comment/opinion. it seems like you, james h and kg practiced a very double standard with regard of what some people can say and what some people cannot say, not to mention interferring excessively with my remark.
ultimately, it is my right to eloborate on my commnet(which i am trying bravely to stand by my comment) and it is not right that you put words into my comment or imply all sorts without asking me questions first.

and certainly i don't like their islamic world. it got nothing to do with how black or how pale they are.

brian, I am not wrong. you are the ones that is highly ignorant. has it not occur to you that many of the unpleasant religion/ideology, superstition and unpleasant supernatural stuff originated from the black world and the predominantly black world is still irrationally and violently still clinging on to it. the wealth and technology from the white world did not improve the black/middleeastern/asian world behaviour. many of them became more violent in their ideology, more rigid, more greedy, more selfish, more demanding, more lazy and more unpleasant.

Alright, you ignorant twat, let's set some shit straight.

Me:

Your opinion is based upon falsehoods. And contrary to what your mother taught you, NOT all opinions are valid.

you:

brian, first you are trying to imply that my opinion was based on the way my moher taught me(which in fact as i said - nobody taught me).
and now(in your most recent reply and you certainly did not say it in your previous reply) you are trying to say that it was based on a flawed intepretation of reality!

You should invest a few days of your life in reading comprehension skills. I did not say that your mother taught you to be an imbecile. It's called sarcasm. I was pointing out the critical fallacy of your statement that you "have a right to [your] own opinion". That's as may be. But when your opinion is completely mother fucking wrong and you get called on it, you don't get to have that opinion any more. It's like saying that your opinion is that water is dry. When it is proven to you that it is wet, any further insistence to the contrary is a sign of a weak or defective mind.

I have forgotten more about human nature than you will ever know.

you again:

I am not wrong. you are the ones that is highly ignorant. has it not occur to you that many of the unpleasant religion/ideology, superstition and unpleasant supernatural stuff originated from the black world...

Look, dipshit, Mohammed was NOT BLACK. He was NOT AFRICAN. He was a motherfucking olive-skinned Caribbean-basin Arab. Will you PLEASE stop with your stupid insistence that the imperialist and racist dogma of Islam is of black origin.

And with this last piece of takedown, I wash my hands of you.

brian, you are the one that is the imbecile one. you sick psycho. you did implied misleadingly that my opinion was formed by what my mother taught me in one of you previous post.
i am not ignorant. even till now, many of them islamic people have many very obvious black charecteristics. the old black world is africa and the new black world consists of(extremely intolerant people) different shades of socalled arabs (who dressed in various disguises) and their islamic religion does not make them purer or better than the black people next door with darker skin.

Boys, boys....