[J m HofMarN]

In order to express their displeasure with the idea that Muslims are violent, thousands of Muslims around the world engaged in rioting, arson, mob savagery, flag-burning, murder and mayhem, among other peaceful acts of nonviolence.

It's great that you can espouse non violence while sitting in a comfortable home where you're not being routinely bombed or threatened. The white liberal doctrine of non-violence is bullshit and the fact that so many people buy into it is sad. If you lived in Palestine or Iraq you might think differently. The Islamic world used to be a major world power but it was crushed by England and then broken up and since then Muslims have known only servitude and humiliation. They have a right to be angry and when they unite and focus their wrath those who have made an opportunistic war on what seemed like a weak people will be sorry.

But back too topic at hand, Iran is going down. By the looks of it it's Iraq all over again. Kicking out inspectors, refusing to work with UN. JM's new pin up boy, CHAVEZ will probably be next.

Chavez was democraticly elected and survived a US attempt to overthrow him by force. And the fact that you speak of the invasion of Iran and Venezuela as if they were preferable is stunning to me. There isn't a half a chance the US would win either war, the righteous side would triumph in a matter of years, it wouldnt even take as long as Vietnam did. If not for the fact that good Venezuelan fighters would be killed en masse and their nation destroyed I would gladly endorse your suicidal call to arms in hopes of ending the US imperialism sooner just as Che Guevara did when he advised his followers to "Create 2, 3, many Vietnams!"

You would like to see it because it would kill some people who are a different color, and I'd like to see it because 2 more Vietnam situations in Iran and Venezuela would finally collapse the empire once and for all.

Gobbler- Comparative religion student eh? Welcome!

From what I've gathered during my studies, the Qu'ran refers to minor and major Djihads, the major one refers to war in order to protect themselves from the followers of other religions.

Islam and even Muhammad came under attack constantly from pagan religions and desert tribes if I'm not mistaken, so pointing out that God wouldn't be pissed if you shot the guy who shot you is kind of a must. Christians seem to feel the same way, in fact everyone does regardless of whether it's in their holy book or not. Even the Tibetans made some attempt at defending their kingdom against the Chinese invaders. The idea that this makes Islam violent is bullshit. What makes Islamic people violent is people comitting violence against them.

And you're right on Jihad, but from what I understand another idea of Jihad states that there's also spiritual holy struggle which is completely based within oneself, and this is the main kind of Jihad that Muslims attend to.

I've heard your response elsewhere or at least something similar to it. The person said that the verses call for violence when some one attacks your country. This of course does not explain the cartoon incidient. What does attack mean? Physical or verbal or both? It's god damn obscure.

Muslims have been under attack for 100 years, from America, from the Zionist Entity, communist Russia, France, Britain, hell even the Axis invaded and fought in Muslim nations. When you've been fucked with that much it dosn't take much to set you off. Acts like this are symptomatic of larger problems. You don't honestly believe that the LA riots occured just because some cops beat up Rodney King do you? The fact that people have reached this boiling point throughout the Arab world should really tell you that the US is doing something wrong.

Abbey and Spoon Poetic-

NO. The Black Panthers not only did not preach hate (Newton specifically chose the slogal "all power to the people" rather than "black power") but they allowed members of all races and sexes to join. Abbey Hoffman contributed the royalties from some of his books to the BPP and he was white. The Panthers rescued a white man, Tim Leary, from jail and smuggled him to their bases in Algeria.

The Panthers also provided free food to thousands in poor inncer cities, regardless of their race. The free breakfast program for school children eventually forced the US government to start providing breakfast in public schools. The Panthers, like the Young Lords (hispanic) even provided immunization and tuberculosis screening. They also acted as police in inner city neighborhoods, protecting poor people of all colors from pig oppression.

I myself am white and yet I keep in my posession an original Black Panther party button given to me by an old man at a protest. Most of the people who still own buttons that they got as members of the BPP I've met have been black, it's true, but they were not exclusive. The myth that black lib is inherently racist is just being spewed out by the pigs to polarize liberal white folks against it, in the same way that they portray feminists and lesbians as being virulently against males.

Fun fact: the song "Come Together" was composed by the beatles while Dr. Leary was in exile. John Lennon wrote the song about Timothy leary, as he was a figure who had gained the support of the BPP, the Weathermen, and the drug culture. Many in the counter culture wanted someone like Leary to unite the various liberation groups and bring about the overthrow of the US government. This song was written while Leary was living with the BPP, so it's very unlikely that a song would have been written in support of a man who was supporting a racist group. The BPP were in no way racist, and aught to be seen as the heroes they are.

It's amazing that people like Andrew Jackson, who comitted genocide against native Americans en-masse, can be put on money and viewed as heroes, but the BPP, which actually fed the hungry and fought back against racist cops, are considered racist terrorists.

[Spoon Poetic]

Good for you, JM; you've done your research on the good side of the Black Panther party. But see, that's almost everyone's problems on this thread - they only look at the information that supports their argument.

[Slade]

Andrew Jackson was dreadful for many reasons. He popularized the "spoils system" which is where you give all of your friends high level government offices when you win an election regardless of their qualifications of if the position even exists. He also killed men who he thought would desert him in battle.

And Saudi Arabia is a relatively powerful Muslim country that isn't humilated and oppressed. Granted, that's because it trades oil with the US... And it's rather silly to assume that the "righteous" side will win a war.

In regards to Jordan's comments: It's rather absurd to think that Bush will attempt to overthrow more countries under false pretenses, if only because we don't have the military resources to do that without another draft, which would rather ruin any president's reputation at this point.

[Spoon Poetic]

Andrew Jackson was so awful that even my 15-year old high school history textbook taught about how horrible he was, instead of feeding us the "he was an American president, therefore wonderful" crap. Don't get me started on the "relocation..." Ugh.

[J m HofMarN]

Good for you, JM; you've done your research on the good side of the Black Panther party. But see, that's almost everyone's problems on this thread - they only look at the information that supports their argument.

Ok then, what was the bad side of the BPP? Personally I don't care how many cops they killed, it clearly wasn't enough as the deathtoll for the BPP was still higher.

Slade- Saudi Arabia plays host to US troops so they can attack other Arab nations. Saudi Arabia depends on US funding to maintain its corrupt government and especially its military. The dynasty that rules Saudi Arabia is inherently corrupt and as bad as the Taliban for womens rights and human rights, but their people cant do anything about it. The rulers benefit from imperialism, but the people of Saudi Arabia get the shaft. Thats why most of the 9/11 highjackers were Saudis.

[Sailor Abbey]

“Muslims have known only servitude and humiliation. They have a right to be angry and when they unite and focus their wrath those who have made an opportunistic war on what seemed like a weak people will be sorry.”

So its ok for one group to espouse violence when they feel they have been wronged or are being threatened , but when America chooses to use violence they are evil? The word big-fat-fucking-hypocrite comes to mind.

“There isn't a half a chance the US would win either war, the righteous side would triumph in a matter of years, it wouldnt even take as long as Vietnam did.”

You have seriously underestimated the United State’s military capabilities. The US Air Force is the most advanced military power the world has ever known - not that we would do those things anyway. You may not believe it, but the United States government wants world peace. We would actually expend less or our resourses and be able to drastically reduce our military if the world was at peace. It seems like you just assume that the government is full of uncaring imperialists. That doesn’t make any sense. That’s like saying all Muslims are violent savages.


“Muslims have been under attack for 100 years, from America, from the Zionist Entity, communist Russia, France, Britain, hell even the Axis invaded and fought in Muslim nations.”

Hmmmm…. that’s funny. Didn’t Muslims once claim a vast empire that stretched from Africa to Indonesia? Hmmm… I wonder if they had to use violence to acquire lay claim to such a huge area of land. Hmmmmm… Nope. Nope they probably did it through peaceful protests.

Muslim Empire



“they allowed members of all races and sexes to join.”

So will the KKK, if you agree to support their racist ideology. Any group that holds purists ideals is racist. If I start an Irish Power Group, I am being racist. Sure its ridiculous, but so is the idea that the Black Panthers didn’t advocate ‘black power.’

“the same way that they portray feminists and lesbians as being virulently against males.”

The older feminist groups did teach abhorrence of males. In the past 15yrs or so, they have pretty much moved out of this mindset and mellowed out a bit. And many lesbians HATE males, nay despise them with a raw seething hatred that is nearly unimaginable. This is not propaganda, it is the truth.

[Slade]

That lesbian bit is rather sad, and I must concur that all empires are built on conquest. Well, once there's no more room to expand without encroaching on other settled people, at least.

[Sailor Abbey]

That lesbian bit is rather sad, and I must concur that all empires are built on conquest. Well, once there's no more room to expand without encroaching on other settled people, at least.

It really is, but I suppose they have their reasons. I would like to think as time goes on, we grow as individuals and childish hatred and bigotry are eventually replaced with understanding. But, some people choose to be closed minded their entire lives. Its oo bad really.

[Jordan]

BOO to the powers at hand. Renegade and I are calling out radical muslims, calling out a book that has been easily interrpreted as violent, and the Power of this forum hand us the last straw.

Again with the Old Testament. LOL, Slade, most christians don't even read that. Infact, you don't even need to own the OT, just the NT. Stop using the wrathful God of outdated books as your source of evidence that Christians can be just as violent. You absolutely refuse to address this point, a point I've made several times now.

But to prove a point, Christians aren't as violent and you know it. Piss Christ, Kanye West, etc.. Are all publishings that offend Christians. They react back with letters and angry calls, not Crusades. They don't stone people for eating pork and certainly don't worhsip a God who has no name and lives in a tabernacle.

You would like to see it because it would kill some people who are a different color, and I'd like to see it because 2 more Vietnam situations in Iran and Venezuela would finally collapse the empire once and for all.

LOL, comments like this are ridiculous. I'm a Canadian, I have more 'colored' friends than you HAVE friends. 1 black 2 east indian, over 10 chinese, a cambodian, my best friend is a jew, I have an asian in my family and many italians, I've dated 2 japanese and 1 korean. There are more non-whites in Vancouver than whites. I'm the minority around here. I get along with every one fine. I don't wish sudden death on anybody or any country, but rather the governments, just like you. Stop saying that I want civllians and niggers dead, why don't you call me hitler while your at it LOL. I see govenments, JM, not people. Some nations do have a LOT of radical civillians, so I call those out too. Just like people are not afraid to call out NAZI's and brainwashed NOrth Korean masses. Although N.Koreans I feel sorry for.

I'm not hitler, lol. I'm just not a coward and am not afraid to call out bastard countries. I don't think you're a coward, I think you're an extremist who hates the West. And anything else, no matter how evil, pales in comparrison to the USofA, therefore must be a good guy.

I don't think attacking South America is a good idea. I'm just telling YOU, what I think the US will do. S.America is very close by and good relations should be the focus. But that's not possible with people like Chavez in power, who spew anti-americanism as their biggest political statement. You can't befriend some one like that. So the US is forced to keep them at bay. I don't know much about the Venezuala situation. So I can't really say. I've heard Chavezes comments, and it seems to me that he wants piss of the US. I say he's digging his own grave, it's not brave or smart at all. Therefore, I think the US will either ignore him or over throw him. I doubt an all out war would commence, but rather a different route. Perhaps funding opposition groups to run against or over through Chavez and his office.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 13 February 2006 - 01:36 PM

[Sailor Abbey]

Again with the Old Testament. LOL, Slade, most christians don't even read that. Infact, you don't even need to own the OT, just the NT. Stop using the wrathful God of outdated books as your source of evidence that Christians can be just as violent. You absolutely refuse to address this point, a point I've made several times now.

But to prove a point, Christians aren't as violent and you know it. Piss Christ, Kanye West, etc.. Are all publishings that offend Christians. They react back with letters and angry calls, not Crusades. They don't stone people for eating pork and certainly don't worhsip a God who has no name and lives in a tabernacle.

Maybe the point Slade was trying to make is that Christians have been violent at one point in history or another. I don't know for sure, cause I cant recall the specific post off hand, but I would imagine that may have been the point.

[Jordan]

Yes, and people are not afraid to call Christians of that period dangerous people. You won't here Slade say "hey, some spanish catholics were really nice back in 1492".

You will hear them occasionally talk about the few looneys who blew up abortion clinics, but that truely is an uncommon event.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 13 February 2006 - 04:31 PM

[Slade]

Jordan:

My points:
1) Many old religious texts are bound to have violent passages, and can also be taken out of context. This doesn't make the entire religion violent. There are crazy fundamentalists of all types. And for someone who discounts the Old Testament, you certainly were quick to point it out as evidence to support your anti-homosexuality arguments. [url=http://www.chefelf.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2601&st=120&p=51611&#entry51611]
(Apologies in advance if that link doesn't work. They're weird when it gets into relative post numbers due to modding. )

2) There's a big difference between a few wackos (or a bunch of wackos) and an entire religion. I'm assuming that a large majority of Catholics did not support The Inquisition, either. It was mainly the people in power tightening their grip.

3) There is no "as violent as" comparison as it pertains to people who call themselves religious. That entire premise is both logically unsound and Edit: I have no idea what I wanted to put here.

4) Sure, you're calling out radical Muslims, but then adding the caveat that all Muslims are radical, which is another large, bigoted difference.

5) Concerning material that is offensive to Christians: No, they haven't rioted, but you need to look at everything in context. The riots aren't occuring somewhere like the United States, but in third world countries. Stuff is uglier over there due to lack of development. They're a group of people in a far less mellow portion of the world. Ergo, easier rioting and breeding of anger. That is a much clearer cause than your remarks that the religion itself is the problem.

This post has been edited by Slade: 14 February 2006 - 01:20 AM

[Jordan]

I think muslims in the middle east and egypt have many fanatical followers. Now, Western Canada, perhaps all of Canada, and the USA have very passive muslims.

When I speak about muslims, I rarely consider western ones. I'm almost entirely talking about the ones who live in Islamic run nations. I've read a few different sources on the topic and as it stands, the most radical and insane shah's (sp?) all live in the middle east. They have large followings of devote moslems who literally blow things up at the shah's command.

You don't have leaders like that in the West, therefore violence is minimal.

But there are a large number of these shah's who interpret the Quran in a violent manner. They have MUCH more power over their congragation than say some pastor at your local church, who probably has no power at all. Infact, other than tithings they don't ask for much. In my church days they always use to be begging people for volunteer help. Nobody was following him like some wise leader. Muslim Shah's have much power and they are more numerous than you think, within the Islamic ring over east..

These numbers are not small over there. They are quite large. Palestinians, Iranians, have all elected wacko's, as you put it. They like them. They like having fanatics in control.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 13 February 2006 - 10:38 PM

[Spoon Poetic]

Palestinians, Iranians, have all elected wacko's, as you put it. They like them. They like having fanatics in control.

You are a conceited, racist, ignorant jackass. I'm glad I don't know what you look like, because if I were to ever run into you when visiting Canada, there's a good chance I'd knock your jaw off.

[Renegade]

No, what you're saying is:

A. The only way to be a good member of a religion is to follow its holy texts literally.

and B. People who are good members of their religion can not be good people.

Those texts are 1400+ years old. The way people acted back then is far different from what is considered normal behavior in todays standards. The people of those religions who truly were followers of that religion 1400+ years ago (2000+ for christianity/judiasm) were violent individuals reflecting there times. People who belong to those religions today are wattered down members of the religion who have slowly changed what the real religion meant. That's not a bad or good thing its just a fact. The VAST majority of people who are religious use it as a guide to their lives today rather than the only principle. Those who DO still use it as their only principle (ie people who lived 1400+ years ago) obviously also reflect that time. I don't see why its ignorant to make that claim that those of ALL faiths who are religious and STRICTLY follow their texts are obviously gonna be radical and most likely violent.

I don't have the patience to sift through the pages of the posts and find more examples...

Err actually your right that statement is off. MOST muslims are not psychotic and in fact its a very small minority of them that are. That part was out of line but the rest I stand by. The problem is that even while a minority is radical, those often control the power circle in the religion and most of the time, the moderate/liberal members of the religion stand back and don't contest those radical viewpoints, atleast not publically. Though fair nuff, the first part was unjustified and I apologize for it.