# Hey Canada, Sharia Is Working Wonderfully



## Annie

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11386_Swedish_Sharia_Watch

Swedish Shari'a Watch 

LGF reader Norwegian kafir posted a comment with a scary look at the future of Eurabia, reprinted below:


***

I actually think Sweden is leading the race to be the worst dhimmi-nation of the Western world. As a Scandinavian myself, I expect to get refugees across the border any time soon. Yesterday, one of the parties in Sweden proposed to ban Islamophobia BY LAW. Sweden has pretty much done this already, anyway, but why not make it formal? Two Swedish girls were sent home from school by their headmaster for the crime of showing up wearing sweaters that showed some tiny Swedish flags. (flag=nationalism=racism=Nazism, according to leftist, multicultural logic). At the same time, Swedish Universities are discussing whether burkas should be allowed on campus (not hijab, Taliban-style burkas).

Swedish national radio is broadcasting an Islamic sermon - in Swedish - every morning. Some city councils have suggested major Islamic holidays should be public holidays. At the same time, one of the anti-immigration parties in Sweden has asked for UN observers to monitor the Swedish elections, as they are attacked with molotov cocktails by ultra-lefties, denied ads in major newspapers, get their voting slips stolen etc., etc. Maybe Sweden will need international monitors, just like fellow banana republics such as Zimbabwe? Swedish mosques, of course, openly incite violence and even genocide of Israelis and Jews.

Most Swedish newspapers have closed their readers discussion forum on the internet, after one paper was convicted of racism as a couple of anti-Muslim immigration comments were allowed on their forum. Swedes who want to discuss what is happening in their country have to visit forums in Norway or Denmark. 

The legal age for marriage in Sweden is 18. However, immigrant girls (read: Muslims) have been allowed BY LAW to marry at the age of 15. Some would call that apartheid, but hey, everything for multiculturalism. Thats only the beginning, though. It gets worse: Swedish authorities have allowed that young immigrant girls can be sent off to their parents country to be married even BEFORE they are 15 years old. If they are pregnant when they return, the father will automatically earn a residency permit to Sweden (and by extension the EU) for family reunion. All a Muslim male has to do to get into Sweden - legally - is to have sex with a CHILD. Is that disgusting or what? 

Finally, some quotes from a Swedish Muslim forum  http://www.sindbad.se/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=189&start=105 : 

YEAH !!!!!!!!!! I LIKE THE ATTITUDE OF YOU Aw-jaamac IF SOMEONE START MESS AROUND WITH US WITHOUT PROOF AND CONFUSIONS IT IS OUR DUTY TO GUIDE THEM TO THE RIGHT TRACK. I WISH THE MAJORITY OF THE MUSLIMS WOULD BE LIKE U... GOOD ON YAAA.... 

BTW IT IS TO MUCH AGGRESSION TOWARD US MUSLIMS IN THIS FORUM. I JUST WONDER ARENT PEOPLE HERE TO LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT ISLAM OR JUST LIKE TO ACUSING< BLAMING AND SPREAD PROPAGANDA ABOUT US... IT IS TIME TO WEAR THE IRON GLOVES AND KNOCK THE LIERS DOWN.. YA ALLAH HELP US.... AND BLESS YOU Aw-jaamac 

GET UP STAND UP !!! STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHT AND DONT GIVE UP THE FIGHT


This man was angry because a non-Muslim, in very polite terms, had attempted to start a discussion. Which of course was impossible, as You have to be a Muslim to talk about right or wrong. Period. His brother-in-faith, with the charming name Abu Osama el Swede, openly supports Al-Qaida, and talks about it in Swedish.

by Charles at 11:27 AM PST | 127 comments | link | rss
last comment: a.k.a. Will 2:44:28 pm 6/14/04
email this article


----------



## insein

Beautiful. 

Talk about catering to the lion so that he eats you last.


----------



## William Joyce

Now, now.  Let's not be ethnically insensitive here.  Muslims just have different ways of doing things, that's all.


----------



## Wolfe

Yes they may do things differently but talk about the tail wagging the dog! Since when do we or the anyone for that matter back down to these muslim twits. If Sweden has lost their backbone then we as Canadians should at least make sure we have one. Are we just jellfish waiting to be squished. Sharia law should not be allowed and we need to stick up for ourselves.


----------



## Said1

Wolfe said:
			
		

> Yes they may do things differently but talk about the tail wagging the dog! Since when do we or the anyone for that matter back down to these muslim twits. If Sweden has lost their backbone then we as Canadians should at least make sure we have one. Are we just jellfish waiting to be squished. Sharia law should not be allowed and we need to stick up for ourselves.




Would mass protest against this fall under the "Hate Crime" section of the law? I live in Ottawa, and would bet serious money that it would.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Said1 said:
			
		

> Would mass protest against this fall under the "Hate Crime" section of the law? I live in Ottawa, and would bet serious money that it would.



I don't think so... it has nothing to do with religion or oppression and everything to do with civil law.   It has nothing to do with the merits of Islam.  It boils down to the fact that there cannot be two civil laws, for the same people in one country.


----------



## William Joyce

My understanding is that if you're white in Canada, that in itself is a hate crime.


----------



## Said1

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> I don't think so... it has nothing to do with religion or oppression and everything to do with civil law.   It has nothing to do with the merits of Islam.  It boils down to the fact that there cannot be two civil laws, for the same people in one country.




Always so level headed. :funnyface Ok, hate crime is a little over the top, but protest against Sharia law would not go over well publicly. I think the media would side with Muslims on this one, atleast here in Ottawa. Ottawa is a very liberal town, you have to keep in mind where I'm coming from.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Said1 said:
			
		

> Always so level headed. :funnyface Ok, hate crime is a little over the top, but protest against Sharia law would not go over well publicly. I think the media would side with Muslims on this one, atleast here in Ottawa. Ottawa is a very liberal town, you have to keep in mind where I'm coming from.



You think?  I don't know.  It would seem to me that the fear of the possible sentences of Sharia law would scare most liberals I know.  I mean think of Amnesty International and other typically left groups, they are completely against movements like that.  

I think they'd side more with the human and more specifically women's rights issue than the issue of religious appeasement.


----------



## Said1

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> You think?  I don't know.  It would seem to me that the fear of the possible sentences of Sharia law would scare most liberals I know.  I mean think of Amnesty International and other typically left groups, they are completely against movements like that.



I'm not speaking specifically of international NGO's and other human rights organizations, I'm talking about the media within the city of Ottawa itself. Public protest (and by that I mean a group of people gathered on Parliment Hill) would more than likely be presented as a group of racist people who are attempting to stop Muslims from practicing their religion, which includes Sharia law. There are representatives to speak on behalf of the Muslim community here too, and they would have a field day with this.

To give you an example, there is a serious problem in Ottawa involving teenagers robbing and beating people while waiting at bus and train stations late at night. The victims are saying the youths are black, while the Ottawa police are saying this is not correct, some of them were white. To me, it semms as though the inital problem of increased violence committed by teenagers gets distorted, and race becomes the main issue. What I am trying to say is. I fear this would be the case if there was public protest with regard to Sharia Law, the issue of seperate laws for different groups would fall to the side as race became a larger issue.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Said1 said:
			
		

> I'm not speaking specifically of international NGO's and other human rights organizations, I'm talking about the media within the city of Ottawa itself. Public protest (and by that I mean a group of people gathered on Parliment Hill) would more than likely be presented as a group of racist people who are attempting to stop Muslims from practicing their religion, which includes Sharia law. There are representatives to speak on behalf of the Muslim community here too, and they would have a field day with this.
> 
> To give you an example, there is a serious problem in Ottawa involving teenagers robbing and beating people while waiting at bus and train stations late at night. The victims are saying the youths are black, while the Ottawa police are saying this is not correct, some of them were white. To me, it semms as though the inital problem of increased violence committed by teenagers gets distorted, and race becomes the main issue. What I am trying to say is. I fear this would be the case if there was public protest with regard to Sharia Law, the issue of seperate laws for different groups would fall to the side as race became a larger issue.



Perhaps, but I'm suggesting that so-to-speak "liberal" Canadians will take the side of muslim women who seem to be resoundly against this bill.  Especially those who are modern in everday life, but can now be subject to this bill.  Given that some the more vocal opposition is in the muslim community, I think that where the sympathy will lie.


----------



## Said1

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but I'm suggesting that so-to-speak "liberal" Canadians will take the side of muslim women who seem to be resoundly against this bill.  Especially those who are modern in everday life, but can now be subject to this bill.  Given that some the more vocal opposition is in the muslim community, I think that where the sympathy will lie.



The affects this bill will have on Muslim women is what really concerns me the most. This is where the strongest voices need to be coming from if there are any hopes in abolishing Sharia Law in Ontario. I think outcry from the general public would be a mistake.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Said1 said:
			
		

> The affects this bill will have on Muslim women is what really concerns me the most. This is where the strongest voices need to be coming from if there are any hopes in abolishing Sharia Law in Ontario. I think outcry from the general public would be a mistake.



That in itself is a catch-22 since muslim women generally do not enjoy the same tolerance for free speech.  Modern muslims couples, exempt, but with systems like that in place, they are not able to as freely express their discontentment.  Though in their defence, I've heard a lot of vocal muslim women, including Arar's wife speak out against this.  Barring this however, Canada needs to stick up for its own citizens.


----------



## Said1

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> That in itself is a catch-22 since muslim women generally do not enjoy the same tolerance for free speech.  Modern muslims couples, exempt, but with systems like that in place, they are not able to as freely express their discontentment.  Though in their defence, I've heard a lot of vocal muslim women, including Arar's wife speak out against this.  Barring this however, Canada needs to stick up for its own citizens.



I still can't believe this was passed in the first place, it's absurd. I don't like saying things like "eveyone I know" but it's true, eveyone I know knows nothing about this, I was shocked when Kathianne posted the thread weeks ago. 

On the positive side, Arar's wife is making quite the name for herself in Ottawa, hopefully she is the voice Muslim women need.


----------



## Wolfe

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> That in itself is a catch-22 since muslim women generally do not enjoy the same tolerance for free speech.  Modern muslims couples, exempt, but with systems like that in place, they are not able to as freely express their discontentment.  Though in their defence, I've heard a lot of vocal muslim women, including Arar's wife speak out against this.  Barring this however, Canada needs to stick up for its own citizens.



Issac,
That is precisely why Sharia law cannot be allowed to insert itself into the Canadian justice system. These women came to Canada because fairness and freedom prevail. Or at least I thought that until recently.

There are one set of laws that protect and apply to all citizens of our country. To relegate a specific group and sex to intolerance and injustice as they would experience in the old world is unthinkable in my opinion. 

The Liberal's in Ottawa are too smug and will try to sleepwalk through this hoping the solution will come handily saving them from doing their job. 

The rest of us "Liberal" canadians should never be suckered into believing, Sharia law if allowed, will be OK tfor these Muslims. 

The point is that when "white Canadians" (if I may use the term) legal rights have become comprimised in the future then it is too late. That day may come.

As a Canadian I am ashamed of what Ontario has or will do in this Sharia law business and it will be only a matter of time when is spreads to the rest of Canada. Then what?


----------



## Wolfe

Said1 said:
			
		

> I still can't believe this was passed in the first place, it's absurd. I don't like saying things like "eveyone I know" but it's true, eveyone I know knows nothing about this, I was shocked when Kathianne posted the thread weeks ago.
> 
> On the positive side, Arar's wife is making quite the name for herself in Ottawa, hopefully she is the voice Muslim women need.


Said1,

From what I understand Sharia implementation in Ontario is under review by Marion Boyd and a report is due this fall.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Wolfe said:
			
		

> Issac,
> That is precisely why Sharia law cannot be allowed to insert itself into the Canadian justice system. These women came to Canada because fairness and freedom prevail. Or at least I thought that until recently.
> 
> There are one set of laws that protect and apply to all citizens of our country. To relegate a specific group and sex to intolerance and injustice as they would experience in the old world is unthinkable in my opinion.
> 
> The Liberal's in Ottawa are too smug and will try to sleepwalk through this hoping the solution will come handily saving them from doing their job.
> 
> The rest of us "Liberal" canadians should never be suckered into believing, Sharia law if allowed, will be OK tfor these Muslims.
> 
> The point is that when "white Canadians" (if I may use the term) legal rights have become comprimised in the future then it is too late. That day may come.
> 
> As a Canadian I am ashamed of what Ontario has or will do in this Sharia law business and it will be only a matter of time when is spreads to the rest of Canada. Then what?



Well I certainly agree.  It simply cannot be allowed to spread.  Sharia Law is un-Canadian simple as that.  Though, I'm not so much worries that my legal rights as a "white" will be comprimised as from my knowledge of Sharia law, it can only be applied to Muslims.  

I don't want Sharia Law implemented because it will create a two-tiered system of citizenry in my country and frankly, it will be the muslims women and liberal muslims that will lose.  I oppose it not for me, who certainly won't be affected, but for my fellow Canadians who are Muslim.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Wolfe said:
			
		

> Said1,
> 
> From what I understand Sharia implementation in Ontario is under review by Marion Boyd and a report is due this fall.



Correct.  He was a former NDP attorney general if I remember correctly.  I believe he's also reviewing the Arbittration Act as it is being used by other faith groups such as Jews and Christians as well.

Ontario should just repeal the whole section of the Act.  Too many loopholes.


----------



## Said1

Wolfe said:
			
		

> Said1,
> 
> From what I understand Sharia implementation in Ontario is under review by Marion Boyd and a report is due this fall.



I believe I have heard or read this before, hopefully it will be released soon.


And welcome BTW! Always nice to meet another Canadian around here!


----------



## Said1

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Ontario should just repeal the whole section of the Act.  Too many loopholes.



A lot of things this act covers with regard to family law are very unfair, just that alone should have had major influence on the way this was decided. Is there much mention of it locally where either of you are?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

I believe someone mentioned this already, but this whole idea of two sets of laws is assinine.  You effectively have a state within a state.  And what if this happens, what if under shariah law it becomes legal that the citizens should receive an extra allowance from the state, and under regular law they raise taxes.   And the atrocious anti progress in women's rights?  This is sickening on many levels.

The Canada Chamber of Commerce must REALLY want that Islamist Settler dollar, so much so they're willing to bend their culture to accomodate the sexism and barbarity of their target audience.  How noble.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Said1 said:
			
		

> A lot of things this act covers with regard to family law are very unfair, just that alone should have had major influence on the way this was decided. Is there much mention of it locally where either of you are?


Blurbs in local paper, but that's about as far as it goes.  Since it is only civil matters, it means that it doesn't have the watershed capacity of a criminal court which has federal ramifications.  Though i think it'd be a cold day in hell if that was implemented in the Prairies.  

The only arbitration style act we have out here is related to First Nations.  Sometimes a provincial or federal judge can sentence a felon to do service and healing within native communities.  It's still up to Crown justice, however, I must admitt, that it does seem to work in many cases.


----------



## Said1

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Blurbs in local paper, but that's about as far as it goes.  Since it is only civil matters, it means that it doesn't have the watershed capacity of a criminal court which has federal ramifications.  Though i think it'd be a cold day in hell if that was implemented in the Prairies.



I grew up in Calgary, in the late 70's. At that time, Calgarians didn't seem to like immirgrants from other provinces, let alone other contries.   My parents, being hardcore leftist did not fit in, they hated Alberta, and Ralph Klein (SP??). From memory alone, I would have to agree with your opinion.



> The only arbitration style act we have out here is related to First Nations.  Sometimes a provincial or federal judge can sentence a felon to do service and healing within native communities.  It's still up to Crown justice, however, I must admitt, that it does seem to work in many cases.



I work within the Native community myself, there is a lot to be said for many programs offered to First Nations people by their own communities. These programs are very progressive, not backwards as Sharia Law is in many ways.


----------



## Said1

That needs to be changed, without question, but what does that have to do with Sharia Law, and flaming Kathianne?


----------



## Annie

r2200t said:
			
		

> By law you can still have sex with a 14 year old in Montreal (Quebec) and 16 yrs in most of Canada. I guess we should call it Canarabia?
> 
> Also, (as a Liberal Thinker, not voter), i think that it is morally right for an 18 year old to sleep with a 16 year old...(in fact if you disagree with me, then i think you are a retard)at least better than to have a 17 year old sleep with a 13 year old. Laws are messed up.
> 
> well lets see, women/girls can have children at the age of 13.... and girls in highschool have sex at that age...  If you go back in time, it was quite common for Christians/Muslims/Jews to get married at young ages.. I know my grandma was 15, when she willfully married my Grandpa he was 23....Times change. back then it was normal. in the 1500's anything went..
> 
> To conclude, times / cultures change. Today the Muslim culture is different than most, and therefore, if they say it is ok for women to get married at 14.. then so be it. Do your own thing and ignore others instead of hating everyone who is different.
> 
> Kath your "anti-Muslimism" is vibrant. Infact, i wonder if it's your Hatred/Racism against all muslims that sparked this tread OR the fact that you are upset at the lack of Jewish Influence in Politics in Sweden/Media... Cause we all know this would never happen here in Canada/US ..Eitherway, If anyone spoke of Jews the same way you speak of Muslims YOU would be crying anti-semite and we would never hear the end of it. And Just out of curiousity, what is a Muslim hating Jew like yourself doing on a Muslim discussion board meant to educate non-Muslims about Islam...are you going to tell me you went in there with an open mind trying to learn about Islam?? BS!  you are a hater/troll, get a life. or like they say in the UK "piss off".
> 
> In Fact please explain to me what is wrong in the quote By "MALIK"? that they came from a Muslim? Read it again. It was a reply to a troll (you?)
> 
> IMO, You are discusting, flthy, you make me sick.



Sorry I upset you so, haven't been on this thread for quite a bit, but You are flaming me, so take 24.


----------



## Annie

Talk about dark ages...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=14712



> Kath your "anti-Muslimism" is vibrant


 Guess so! As long as they are like this. 



> How Canadian Tolerance Became Intolerance
> By Michael Radu
> FrontPageMagazine.com | August 18, 2004
> 
> 
> Sooner or later, the de facto mutual support society of progressives and Islamists had to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
> 
> The progressives who have supported the claims of Islamists in the West have long chosen to disregard the saying that one cannot be so open minded as to let your brains fall out. Now reality forces them to wake up and, increasingly in Europe and now in Canada, realize that the Islamists goals are incompatible with their own, and that excessive "tolerance" inevitably leads to intolerance.
> 
> The days of the joint antiAmerican demonstrations of the Left and Islamists, of the Communists, Socialists and Muslim radicals in the streets of Paris or in Trafalgar Square may indeed be coming to an end.
> 
> 
> The first and most spectacular sign that the progressives and the Islamists seek different, contradictory goals came from the Netherlands -- that most progressive of all countries, the land of legal drugs, medical assisted suicide and euthanasia, gay marriages and unionized military. It had a face  Pym Fortuyn, a gay environmentalist who famously declared that Islam is a reactionary and "stupid" religion, and that his country is "full."
> 
> Blasphemy? Not really. Shortly after Fortuyns 2002 assassination by a radical environmentalist, his party came from nowhere to place second in the general elections that year. While the party soon collapsed under the weight of its own incompetence, its radical (by European standards) anti-immigration (read antiMuslim immigration) program was largely adopted by the present government in The Hague. Meanwhile, the same year, the gay Socialist mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoe, was almost killed by a Muslim who did not like gays. No matter how multiculturalists may tie themselves in knots over the issue, Islam and homosexuality are irrevocably incompatible. This is demonstrated by the attitudes of Muslims everywhere. Muslims condemn homosexuality as much if not more than fundamentalist Christians. And unlike fundamentalist Christians, they are willing and ready to kill over it.
> 
> 
> Then there is Islams problem with feminism, and women in general. Polygamy, which is illegal everywhere in the West, is quite commonly tolerated, practiced, subsidized in a number of countries, especially France. Then there is the practice of genital mutilation of girls -- not an Orthodox Muslim practice, but it happens nonetheless -- in many Muslim countries. Finally there is the general -- and theologically correct -- Islamic denial of the most basic rights to women. Put polygamy, genital mutilation, anti-abortion attitudes and the burqa together and one is likely to drive feminists wild indeed. It is also a combination that makes all Western women -- and most decent men for that matter -- question the realism of accepting Islam as just another religion to be respected and tolerated in their midst.
> 
> 
> Now, Canada is becoming the Netherlands of North America. Its official ideology is "multiculturalism." Canadians may not like the term, but that is the ruling Liberal Partys entrenched policy since the premiership of the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau in the 1970s. However, multiculturalism is now facing the limits of "tolerance."
> 
> Canadian-style multiculturalism, the dream of American academics and the enemy of serious Canadians who care about politics and their own culture, is simple to define: immigrant ethnic minority groups, virtually all from the Third World, are not only not required to assimilate, but the taxpayers, in the name of "diversity" and "tolerance," are required to pay for maintaining their culture. Hence the plethora of ethnic  Chinese, East and South East Asian, Indian sub-continent, etc. associations, schools, cultural organizations paid by the taxpayers of Alberta or British Columbia  via Ottawa, of course, since the Canadian West is quite hostile to this.
> 
> One may ask the key, common sense question to all proimmigrant, antiassimilation groups everywhere: why would anyone choose to emigrate from the balmy climates of the Third World to chilly Canada if their culture  political or otherwise  is so worthy as to be maintained in the new country? Indeed, if Pakistani, Romanian, Bangladeshi or Jamaican culture are so great, why leave? Or is there no link  logical and practical  between that culture and the push factors for emigration?
> 
> 
> In the name of tolerance and multiculturalism, in 1991 the Ontario provincial government passed something called the Arbitration Act, allowing religious (at the time Christian and Jewish) authorities to perform certain legal functions, in family and civil law, rather than having regular courts do it. Of course, as Ontario goes, so goes Canada. Ontario Muslims demanded that Sharia (Islamic law) "courts" be allowed to solve family and other civil matters (divorce, child custody and inheritance, etc.) among Canadian Muslims. And why not? After all, it would be hypocritical to allow a rabbi to deal with kosher matters while denying an imam the right to deal with divorce or child custody, wouldn't it? It is a valid legal point within the moral, cultural and legal universe of Canadian multiculturalism.
> 
> 
> As one may expect, supporters of the sharia as de facto Canadian law for Muslims promise  perhaps sincerely  that no obligatory sharia punishments such as cutting off the hands of the thieves, stoning adulterers, etc., associated with strict application of sharia in Saudi Arabia, would happen in the snowy towns of Ontario. However sharia is divinely ordained, in its totality, in Muslim eyes. It is a matter of faith, and choosing and picking among its rules is not for Canadian (or any other) imams to decide. But that essential issue is not what has provoked a strong feminist reaction in Ontario and among those Canadians not in Barbados or Florida at this time; it is the relationship between sharia and women rights  and feminism.
> 
> "It's shocking to see the seeds of an Islamic republic being sown here in Canada," one young woman shouted to vociferous applause at a recent Toronto rally, organized to denounce the practice of sharia in Ontario. "Sharia doesn't work anywhere else in the world. Why does the government believe it will work here?" [1]
> 
> 
> This is a clear case of "tolerance" gone wild and becoming intolerance  and it is a double one. On the one hand, Muslims in Canada (at least some of them) claim that, in the name of Canadian "tolerance" and "multiculturalism," they have a right to live by their own legal rules (sharia), which is by definition intolerant (to non-Muslims), "morally conservative" and gives Muslims a legal domination over all others. On the other hand, the Left  of which feminism, here, in Europe and in Canada is one of the strongest contingents  believes in erasing religious moral standards, indiscriminate "equality" between sexes and to gays, bisexuals, etc. The problem for Western leftist politicians and their media sidekicks is that, sooner or later, their gay, feminist and "tolerant" constituencies would rebel and prove that they are still more numerous at the ballot box than those immigrant Muslims who cannot adapt.
> 
> [1] Susan Bourette , Can tolerant Canada tolerate sharia?, The Christian Science Monitor, August 10, 2004.


----------



## Annie

Good post! I do not think all Muslims are 'bad', meaning 'radicalized Muslims' or 'orthodox believers', I too know some as you do. Nice people, though I don't think they drink, though they're not teens either!


----------



## freeandfun1

. . . . as long as people do not obey they Torahs, Bibles and Korans to the letter. . . . 

WTF?

One cannot claim to be a "faithful" Jew, Christian or Muslim if they don't follow their scriptures.

Yes, as long as the Muslims don't follow the Koran, everything should be okay.  Neither the Bible nor the Torah tell us to kill non-believers like the Koran does.

I have MANY Muslim friends, so I agree, "not all are bad".  However, the majority are and even the ones I know put their religion before ANYTHING else.  They might have a drink now and then, they might even eat bacon, but if they are told by their church to rebel, that they will do and they are not afraid to admit it as they believe that Islam is THE relgion of the world and the rest of us are NOT HUMAN as we are NOT believers.

The world is divided into two spheres, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. The latter, the Land of Warfare, is a country belonging to infidels which has not been subdued by Islam. The Dar al-Harb becomes the Dar-al Islam, the Land of Islam, upon the promulgation of the edicts of Islam. Thus the totalitarian nature of Islam is nowhere more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true faith, to the law of Allah. To Islam alone has been granted the truth: there is no possibility of salvation outside it. Muslims must fight and kill in the name of Allah. 

We read (IX. 5-6):Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them; 

IV.76: Those who believe fight in the cause of God; 

VIII.39-42: Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it Gods.

Those who die fighting for the only true religion, Islam, will be amply rewarded in the life to come: 

IV.74: Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on Gods path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.

What should we make with these further  unfortunate verses from the Quran:

*Torment to Non-believers->IV.56 
*Only Islam Acceptable-> III.85
*No friends from outsiders->III.118
*No friends with Jews, christians->V. 51
*No friends with non believers->IV.144, III.28
*No friends with parents/siblings if not believers->IX.23
*Fight non-believers->IX.123 * Kill non-believers->IV.89
*Anti Jewish verses->V.82
*God a "plotter"->VIII.30
*Killing Idolators->IX.5
*Idolators are unclean just because they are idolator->IX.28
*Forcing non-believers to pay tax->IX.29
*The Torment of Hell->XLIV.43-58
*All except Muslims/Jews/Christians/Sabeans will go to hell->II.62, V.69
*Cast terror in the hearts, smite the neck and cut fingertips of unbelievers ->VIII.12
*Smite the neck of unbelievers->XLVII.4
*Severe Punishment for atheists->X.4 ; V.10 ; V.86
*Severe Punishment for non-believers->XXII.19-22 ; LXXII.23, XCVIII.6
*Punishing non-believers of Hereafter->XVII.10
*Punishing for rejecting faith->III.91
*Non believers go to hell->IV.140 ; VII.36 * Partial Believers go to hell too->IV.150-1
*Sadistic punishments->LVI.42-43
*Punishment for apostates->XVI.106 ; III.86-88 ; III.90 ; IV.137.
*Threat of punishement for not going to war->IX.38-39, XLVIII.16
*God making someone more sinful so he can be punished more->III178
*Intentionally preventing unbelievers from knowing the truth->VI.25 ; VI.110
*Intentionally preventing unbelievers from Understanding Quran->XVII.45-46
*It is God who causes people to err and He punishes them for that->XVII.97
*God could guide, if he chose to, but did not->VI.35
*Intentionally misguiding those whom he pleases to->XIV.4
*Willfully misguiding some->XVI.93
*God causes human to err->IV.143 ; VII.178
*God deceiving humans->IV.142

But of course, being PC as we are, we all KNOW that it is them damn PESKY CHRISITIANS that are causing all the problems!


----------



## Annie

r2200t said:
			
		

> That's Fair, I revised my quote.. I didn't see the comma initially.



 Funny what a comma can do!  :tng:


----------



## rtwngAvngr

r2200t said:
			
		

> They will ban Jewish and Christian Law if they have to before letting Muslims chop hands off from theives (lol).



Yes, it will probably happen in that order, but I don't see what's funny about it.


----------



## freeandfun1

r2200t said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by r2200t
> They will ban Jewish and Christian Law if they have to before letting Muslims chop hands off from theives (lol).
> 
> 
> 
> Well i was laughing at the notion of "chopping hands" i think it's rediculous. Imagine what happens if someone is wrongfully accused!
> cheers



you are very ignorant if you think that does not take place in Muslim dominated countries today.


----------



## William Joyce

Americans believe whatever the Jews tell them.  They won't listen to anyone else.  If they said Muslims reproduce by standing on their heads, Americans would believe it.


----------



## Comrade

r2200t said:
			
		

> You're very ignorant if you think they chop hands in most Muslim countries.
> 
> lol, well, again, I am a Christian Palestinian... Or a Christian Semite (lol).. I know what goes on in the middle east. I've been there, and i've been discriminated agains by Muslims. I was in beautifull Dubai when i was 8 years old (dad got a job there) and i remember some kids (not all) didn't let me play with them cause i was Christian. some kids said "don't play with him he eats ham".. It was sad, but i made friends with some other Christians and some tollerant Muslims... I was also in Lebanon, for a week during the 15 year civil war between the US and Russia...Or the Christians and the Muslims, Israel and PLO, and Syria...it was a messy war.. but i got the chance to experience it from both sides,and i almost died when a missile hit the appartment building next to us. My mom's family (also Christian Palestinians) lived in the Muslim side of Beirut in another appartment building, They had muslim friends and no one threatened them. I think this is why i am tolerant of Muslims.
> 
> There is no Hand Chopping in most muslim Countries, whatever you heard in the News is written in a way to make you think that. eg: UAE, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Oman, Morroco, Malasia, Philipines, Palestians, Pakistan... are free from hand chopping. But i'm not saying any of these countries have a good human rights record. I don't think that Muslim countries are run properly either...
> 
> I know that Hand Chopping takes place in Saudi Arabia, and i know that very few people steel because of it... And i know that in Africa, there is a country that mutilates (slice off!) clitorises on women to stop the from getting orgasms (or masturbating? I saw it on the discovery channel, discusting!!!) However, 2 countries out of all the muslim countries in the world should not represent all of em... The impression i get from North Americans is they think all Muslim countries chop hands. It's like sending a European to a southern US state and telling them that this is how all Americans are. Or since we are talking about Canada... It's like sending an American to Yukon (northern Canada) and telling him that this is how Canadians live.
> 
> The point is again, This will not happen in Canada. Even if Pigs Fly.
> 
> Again, IMO, Hand Chopping is rediculous. Did you know they also chop your dick off if you rape! lol, it's crazy!
> 
> cheers



If you mean Iraq under Saddam never chopped off hands,  then watch one or more of the videos recovered from his regime here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1136582/posts


There is definately one clip of one individual who was presented in front of a crowd, who were actually cheering as the poor soul had his hand sloppily chopped off right between his wrist and knuckles.  It's something I think will stick with you for a long time.   And actually I recall that a number of people who suffered such brutal punishment under Saddam were recently provided artificial limbs by the American army, in some significant numbers.

So at least there, you are wrong.  I bet I can also dig up many other examples of brutality from the countries you excuse as 'civil'.


----------



## Comrade

Girl, 16, hanged in public in Iran 

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=80




> On Sunday, August 15, a 16-year-old girl in the town of Neka, northern Iran, was executed. Ateqeh Sahaleh was hanged in public on Simetry Street off Rah Ahan Street at the city center.
> 
> The sentence was issued by the head of Nekas Justice Department and subsequently upheld by the mullahs Supreme Court and carried out with the approval of Judiciary Chief Mahmoud Shahroudi.
> 
> In her summary trial, the teenage victim did not have any lawyer and efforts by her family to recruit a lawyer was to no avail. Ateqeh personally defended herself. She told the religious judge, Haji Rezaii, that he should punish the main perpetrators of moral corruption not the victims.
> 
> The judge personally pursued Ateqehs death sentence, beyond all normal procedures and finally gained the approval of the Supreme Court. After her execution Rezai said her punishment was not execution but he had her executed for her sharp tongue.




Just another 'isolated' case of enlightened Islamic society.


----------



## Comrade

*r2200t*

I chose another one, Yemem.. first hit:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8313.htm



> The Constitution may be interpreted as permitting amputations in accordance with Shari'a (Islamic law). In January authorities amputated the right hand of Ahmed Mohammed Sharaf, a repeat offender convicted of murder (he was also sentenced to death, but had not been executed by year's end). However, the use of amputations as punishment is extremely rare. Prior to the Sharaf case, there had been no reports of amputations since 1991, although a small number of persons who have been found guilty of theft and sentenced to amputation remain in jail awaiting the implementation of their sentences. The Shari'a-based law permits physical punishment such as flogging for some crimes. For example, in July 2000, two individuals convicted of kidnaping were sentenced to 80 lashes (the penalty for the consumption of alcohol) in addition to a period of imprisonment because they had been intoxicated during the commission of their crime. In Ibb governorate in January 2000, Mohamed Tahbit al-Su'mi, after being tried and convicted, was stoned to death for the 1992 rape and murder of his 12-year-old daughter. Capital punishment usually is carried out by firing squad; stoning is almost unheard of, but was approved in this case due to the unusual brutality of the crime. In rare cases involving particularly egregious crimes, such as the rape and murder of children, the law permits the ritual display in public of the bodies of executed criminals. The ostensible purpose of this practice is to demonstrate to the families of victims that justice has been served and to prevent blood feuds between tribes.



Well it's apparently rare in Yemen to chop off hands, but it sure is legal.  Actually, a hand chopping is probably better than a stoning, which I suppose Pakistan would be next on my list for that sort of practice.   Actually, there are much worse travesties of justice involved in Sharia law as practiced in the middle east.   But I don't really need to go on, do I?


----------



## Comrade

r2200t said:
			
		

> There is a big difference. In Saudi Arabia, the LAW states that those caught stealing will get their hand chopped off (which ever hand that was carrying the stolen goods)
> 
> In Iraq Saddam Hussein, used torture, for fun, or to scare others. China uses torture, Russia did etc... This is different than it being in the law. Also, In Iraq, those who got their hands chopped of, did more than steal (i'm making an educated guess)



So it was against _the law_ for Saddam and his Iraq to conduct such grisly things?  This kind of _law,_ whether or not it's claimed to be based on Sharia or not, seems typical of ever Muslim state in our modern age.   The application of such _law_ is obviously based upon the whim of the tyrants which rule in each.


----------



## Comrade

r2200t said:
			
		

> Yes you do need to go on, there are more than 3 Muslim countries in the world. and comparing all Muslim Counties to the worst is unfair. So, i attached a list of countries with large/majority muslim populations, I would like you to show us which of all those countries, have a law with stoning and hand chopping, or anything equivalent to that.
> 
> Some of these Countries do/did have laws like Stoning etc.., but for MOST countries, your task of proving me wrong is impossible...because i am right .
> 
> Again This is not about Human Rights (like your weak argument about Iraq), it's about laws. Show me countries with Laws that support your vision.
> 
> Afghanistan
> Albania
> Algeria
> Azerbaijan
> Bahrain
> Bangladesh
> Benin
> Bosnia and Herzegovina
> Brunei
> Burkina Faso
> Cameroon
> Central African Republic
> Chad
> Comoros
> Cote DIvoire
> Cyprus
> Dijibouti
> Egypt
> Gabon
> Gambia
> Guinea
> Guinea-Bissau
> Guyana
> Indonesia
> Iran
> Iraq
> Jordan
> Kazakhstan
> Kuwait
> Kyrgyzstan
> Lebanon
> Libya Malaysia
> Maldives
> Mali
> Mauritania
> Morocco
> Mozambique
> Niger
> Nigeria
> Oman
> Pakistan
> Philippines
> Qatar
> Saudi Arabia
> Senegal
> Sierra Leon
> Somalia
> Sudan
> Suriname
> Syria
> Tajikistan
> Thailand
> Togo
> Tunisia
> Turkey
> Turkmenistan
> Uganda
> United Arab Emirates
> Uzbekistan
> Yemen



Are you kidding me?



> There is no Hand Chopping in most muslim Countries, whatever you heard in the News is written in a way to make you think that. eg: *UAE, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Oman, Morroco, Malasia, Philipines, Palestians, Pakistan... are free from hand chopping.* But i'm not saying any of these countries have a good human rights record. I don't think that Muslim countries are run properly either...



The Iraq and Yemen governments are not 'free from hand chopping'.  

So maybe I took it as an accusation of us 'Mericans being ignorant because our news media is supposed to be deceptive, and naturally I threw it right back to you and let you consider just how well informed we are, after all.


----------



## Comrade

r2200t said:
			
		

> As far as i know Public Capital Punishment is still practiced in the US...Also 16 year olds are commonly being tried as adults.



And hanged for having a 'sharp toungue'?



> Iran is a fundamentalist run country, this sort of thing will not/will never happen in many Muslim countries.



Surely you jest.  If Musharaff gets assassinated by the Wahabbi fundamentalists I bet you'll eat those words.



> The point i am making is about generalizing. i.e. saying that all Muslims chop hands etc... Those generalsations are wrong. Most Muslims are good people, all you need to do is open up to them and you'll see. Sure some countries are rulled by ruthless dictators, but that is no reason to discriminate against the victims, the Muslims in those countries and the Muslims in North America.



Who said anything about discrimination?   Islamic nations are sick, sick to the core.  They've been ran by dictatorships for the last 700 years and show little sign of being willing to adopt democracy or allow religious freedoms, let alone equal rights to women.   I don't blame the people, but their religion, culture, and leadership something I find in need of serious reform before I'd feel comfortable living among them.   I don't pretend our society is perfect either, but I can certainly draw comparisons.


----------



## Comrade

r2200t said:
			
		

> Typical of every(?) Muslim state? Common, i listed 61 states. And i've personally been to a few, and i can tell this sort of thig does not happen everywhere. Unless you choose to be brainwashed to think that way. Research the issue and you'll find the truth.



Didn't I just do that, and give you a link?



> The discussion here is about Islam and the Sharia Law. When this law is in effect, Hand Chopping becomes legal.



Well now we're almost there... you said:



> There is no Hand Chopping in most muslim Countries, whatever you heard in the News is written in a way to make you think that. eg: UAE, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Oman, Morroco, Malasia, Philipines, Palestians, Pakistan... are free from hand chopping. But i'm not saying any of these countries have a good human rights record. I don't think that Muslim countries are run properly either...




And I said no, you're not going to get away with that, calling us ignorant Americans, because, sir, you are wrong.   Iraq and Yemen chopped hands.  And if it's like Iraq doesn't count because it's not under Sharia...



> Saddams' torture vidoes, are examples of torture. Torture exists all around the world and does not depend on religion...and thus does not qualify as a "Muslim Sharia thing.". The point is, Saddam did not chop those fingers due to religious belief (being a secular sunni Muslim himself who protected 1,000,000 Christians and their Chuches in Baghdad!!!!!Did you forget Tariq Aziz, a Christian who was one of Saddam's top men?, Saddam only "acted" like he was religious to rally the fundamentalist Shiite majority with him to fight the US, that's it.). He Chopped  hands to intimidate. That's why video's were made, to scare people.. For all you know the guy getting his fingers chopped off could have been a Fundamentalist Shiite Muslim being punished for fundamentalist celebrations. Saddam punished and prevented Fundamentalist Muslim celebrations and practices...that's one reason Iran is celebrating saddams removal, so that they can visit and practice rituals previously banned.




Well, then, stick with Yemen, if that helps.  

Link:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8313.htm



> The Constitution may be interpreted as permitting amputations in accordance with Shari'a (Islamic law). In January authorities amputated the right hand of Ahmed Mohammed Sharaf, a repeat offender convicted of murder (he was also sentenced to death, but had not been executed by year's end).




Sharia law.
--- Check.

Hand chopping.
--- Check.

Unjustified patronization.
--- Check.

Point made.  Own up to it or move on.  And the only reason I'm being snotty about it is because you kind of dissed us in that annoying way while actually being totally wrong.   :usa:


----------



## Comrade

r2200t said:
			
		

> I deserved that... I shouldn't have named Yemen, i knew it was risky...Nevertheless..That list is really long and there are dozens of countries that'll pass the hand chopping test!




Cool... missed this part... and yet, I make the same kind of risks and get burned sometimes, but you gotta keep it real!


----------



## Comrade

r2200t said:
			
		

> Yes that is brutal.. but again, it won't happen in the majority of Muslim countries..
> 
> 
> I meant the hanging wouldn't happen in other countries.. Egypte has changed for the worst. Muslims are shutting down churches and making life intollerable for Christians. It's spiraling out of control (imo)



Just out of curiousity, did your move have something to do with that?



> A quick look at the list of countries will show that elections take place in many Muslim countries. And Equal rights are there as well for a few.



Turkey was one I saw right off and would agree... lemme check the rest and get back to you.   Offhand I'd say of the 61, less than 10 and perhaps even only five are truly democratic and grant equal rights in practice, regardless of sex, race, religion, or creed.



> I agree that most governments do not follow the democratic model etc.. and this IMO must Change. However, it is not the scope of this discussion.



Sorry, I don't mean to hijack the thread.



> Living among them is not as hard as you might think.. There are many Americans living in Muslim run countries. Just remember only a few Muslim Countries ban women from beaches, or force women to wear head scarfs...These are other wrong propaganda steriotypes...



I think they feel safer in the West than any Westerner would feel among them... just my impression.



> You must understand that demonifying ALL Muslims and making them look different than we are, makes it much more acceptable for us to digest the rising 13,000 civilian death toll in Iraq and to pursue th war on terror at any cost.



Disingenous... we've saved far more lives over the time since our invasion than the Iraqis have ever managed to preserve in the same time period while living under Saddam.   And in addition, those killed are less often those innocent slaughtered and more often fanatic followers of either his old regime or those who aspire to rule by fiat without democracy.   We have the either/or choice, of US invasion vs. Saddam's hedgemony, not US invasion vs. 'perfect harmony'.   



> See if CNN/ABC/CBC/Disney/BBC/CBS/Global/NBC/AOL/Times/etc.../etc../etc.. and the rest of the Jewish run media empire showed you the real picture in Iraq, of caring family oriented people, who's kids love to play nintendo and soccer, who's daughters go to school, a country where more women had university degrees than men...THEN and only then, you would be able to relate to the Iraqi way of life. And studies show that people care about those they relate to. But if you imagine them ALL as hand chopping wife beaters who are a bunch of terrorists, then who cares?? 13,000 civilians is nothing.



I don't understand... are you saying life was wonderfull while Saddam waged war first on Iran, and then on Kuwait, and all the while upon the Shi'ites and Kurds of his own, at the cost of millions, and yet life was great and serene?

Plus, the Jewish media aspect is really not going to win points here.   You then have to explain how ABC/NBC/BBC/AOL/TIMES is not actually liberal and biased against what is supposed to be a Jewish driven war and all that.  And you can't, don't even pretend.  You will look like an anti-semite.


----------



## Comrade

r2200t said:
			
		

> A link that shows all 61 Muslim countries chops hands??
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Americans are Ignorant! only people who think ALL Muslim countries chop hands..



Well don't get carried away, obviously you listed those after the salient point.  I'm not going to prove something I never claimed to dispute.




> 1. I only meant to dis you not all Americans.



You're just sore about being wrong about Yemen.



> 2. every citizen of every country is exposed to a media (TV, Radio) where these citizens gather info about the "what's going on around the world". If you listen to the news in the US and then go accross to Canada or Mexico, you WILL be SHOCKED at the additional/Alternate information that was not disclosed to you by the US Jewish controled media body (when it comes to middle east issues).



What's that about, really, this Jew media thing?



> If you fly to Europe, the news is even more different. For example i fly to California and back to Montreal alot, and during the Abu Ghraib scandal, i was in Cali, then i flew back to Montreal. My mouth Dropped when i watched the news in Montreal!! The French channels (satalite) were the worst. Not only did they have more pics but they also showed nasty VIDEO footage not shown in Cali! This is just a small example of the differences in media... This is why other countries found the scandal to be more important than Americans do. It's not because Americans favor torture more than Europeans. It's because the media in Europe exposed more gruesome images showing more dispicable acts... and on video.



I suppose if I was only exposed to, what you say, 'non-Jew' media, right?  

Well I suppose under that traditional media I'd see things like that.  

But as I've been rather familiar off and on with Euro-media, there is always a deep seated issues with the Jews and Israel among them... 

If you ask me, the few million Jews left on the Earth don't really merit this huge importance which is far beyond rational, given their numbers.   

You look at China and it's billions of people, and it's vast and growing power, and yet Europe is always going after Israel as if it's some sort of vendetta with them.

I can only guess this is some kind of deeply held resentment.  

On the one hand, it's probably a reminder of their own failure to kill them off completely, and on the other, it's also reminder of their own henious past and reinforces their guilt in doing so.

But that's just me, a typical White, open minded American who sees this fixation on Jews rather over the top.  

I think the reason we Americans are supposed to be under the spell of the Jews is that we don't share this irrational fixation on them, some few million out of many billions of races and religions.   The Europeans and Muslims, among billions of people, probably find it easier to assume the few millions of Jews have brainwashed Americans, rather than actually admit their own sick fixation on them as some sort of plaugue.

News flash:  We're the sane ones.



> So the point i will make today is: Americans who only rely only on American news channels, will tend to have an opinion that is different that Canadians who only watch Canadian News. BUT Americans who live in Canada and watch Canadian News will not share the same point of views as Americans who watch American News. Concluding, calling all Americans ignorant is wrong. Americans like Canadians, like Europeans, know only what they are fed depending on how the media will "spin" the story. It is not an issue of intelligence, it is an issue of access to adequate information. Of course i always believe it is best to see both sides of th story, for this reason i read both French and American news, both stories complement each other and give me more complete picture.



European state media is kind of like reading Pravda, which I personally had the 'pleasure' of reading in year living in the USSR.   

Just the other day a report from the French media wire service released the headline:

"Neo-Nazis in Paris Vandalize and Burn a Jewish Community Center"

And this was after the old wash and dry routine of state ran media.

And surprise, surprise, guess what they left out of the story?

"Islamic group claims responsibility for Jewish center attack."


But any fool could have guessed the true nature of the perpetrators, unless there is some kind of denial about Muslims and Jews having issues all over the world.   But good old French state media, well, that horrible truth isn't proper for public consumption, now is it?

I'm unimpressed.   But not surprised.  That's pretty much why the French don't have a clue anymore.  They really don't get the real story, they are in denial.



> So just to give you a little surprise... i'm not sure how much you know of some Muslim countries, but by judging your posts, it can't be that much....



Based on how I had to correct you about Yemen I'd say you're in denial now.



> American (Jewish Run) media will never/rarely show you such images of Muslim countries, because it goes against the notion that ALL Muslims are nomad savages who chop hands for living... Don't expect to see any Camels runnin gdown the freeways either LOL.



You're looking for Mr. Clueless... he lives down the street.


Abu Dhabi:

http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/se...t/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1053447066567



> HUMAN RIGHTS
> 
> The UAE has a relatively good human rights record. *Sharia law is not applied comprehensively and death sentences and amputations are rarely carried out. *The practice of a wide range of religions is permitted. Women are not discriminated against in law but play a limited role in political and commercial decision-making. One area where the UAE has been criticised is over the continued use of children, some as young as four years old, as camel jockeys. UAE legislation outlaws the use of children under 15 years of age but the practice continues. The United Kingdom welcomed an announcement in July 2002 by Shaikh Hamdan bin Zayed, UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Camel Racing Federation, introducing tough new guidelines to outlaw this practice.






> i'd like you to tell me that hand chopping happens in those developed Muslim cities.




Okay, hand chopping occurs in this modern developed city.  


Rarely, probably as rarely as someone is caught stealing.  But then CHOP!


----------



## Annie

I'm jumping in where angels fear to tread, and lord knows, I'm not an angel. Bottom line, if a country's laws are based on Sharia, they can become hand, tongue, genital chopping when they choose. Nothing to stop them. F that, we are having problems with whether or not the whackos have the right to hurl bombs and run to the brush of Central Park. Damn, sometimes I wonder which is civilized-either?


----------



## Comrade

r2200t said:
			
		

> I'm a born and raised Canadian, my parents are Christian Palestinians (400,000 globaly), they fled from fundamentalist Holocaust survivors who took all their belongings/businesses/property...



That certainly explains your strong feelings about Jews.  I'm glad you got a chance to come to Canada and live free from strife.



> But i know many Christian Egyptians, in US/Canada they hate ALL Muslims with a passion (i disagree with that). Most EG's recently fled Egypte due to the recent rise in Fundamentalists.



I can't imagine Christian Arabs will be safe living among this growing tide of Fundamentalists much longer... you're Father made the right decision.



> When you think of it Christian Arabs have been through the most "after" 9/11.  After 9/11 there has been a rise in Muslim fundamentalism, so Christian Arabs in some countries flee to America.. only to be discriminated against here aswell (Many people don't know that the 25 million Christian Arabs exist cause the media always mentions the word ARAB and MUSLIM at the same time...), I've been discriminated against... a bar tender called me a terrorist once, I'm not even dark skinned... So due to the discrimination, you'll notice many Christian Arabs wear their crosses out of their shirts visibly. I tried that, and one key maker told me "you know since 9/11 i see alot of Muslims wearing crosses thinking they can pass for Christians". I was offended, but i stood my ground and replied: "as a Christian Palestinian, that makes me a blood decendant of the 12 deciples of Jesus Christ, giving me 2000 years of Christian Ancestry, much more than you." then i insulted him... then there is the occasional staring and leering, by some people. Again these idiots are a tiny minority. Fortunately, after going on over 20 flights in the past 2 years, I have never been searched at airports and that makes me feel a lot less discriminated against. A group of men yelled at my Dad a few weeks after 9/11 during a business lunch meeting with his Boss. His boss told him not to look back and keep walking.



I was selected and interviewed by Canadian immigration!  A long haired white boy.  LOL!




> I feel bad for the ~1,000,000 Christian Iraqis...If there is a democracy in Iraq, their fate is doomed (read: FVCKED) due to the large Fundamentalist Shiite population. Soon we should see them flock into North American Immigration centers.



I'm sure you know more than I do about this.



> I agree, many are mesed up, and a few are ok/good examples of how Muslim countries should be, and that others should follow. I think the main issue is Fundamentalism. It's dangerous in any religion. But Although many don't have equal women/men rights, they are still nice places to live in. What i'm trying to say is, Many/most? Muslim women do not feel opressed (it a cultural thing) in Muslim countries, and Muslim men are "whipped" aswell. (lol)



Only because of the way women are raised and taught.  Take any Western woman and put her in Muslim society, and she'll tell you of oppression!



> well i was writing then i forgot what point i was defending.. so i figured narrowing the subject would make it easier..



Cool... it's interesting talking with you no matter what.




> Again, The US killed far more Iraqis that saddam did since the Gulf war.
> Sure Saddam killed Kurds and Shiites. but that was in the 80's.. and who do you think was an Iraqi ally at the time (US)??



I recall Saddam murdering a great number of Kurds and Shi'ite shortly after the war.  In fact, there has been mass graves discovered recently.  I don't know the numbers.  




> All i am saying is women in Iraq had far mor rights than they do in many Muslim Countries. Iraqi women are not forced to wear the Hijab, some choose to. Iraqi Women out number Men in Universities. I'm not going to defend saddam. But i'll say that 13,000 lives are alot and can't be taken for granted.



Unless Uday, or any other state official, takes a fancy to one of these women, they might have lived free.  But the hope is they may become even more liberated, should this new state turn out to be successfull.  



> 1. I am not an Anti-Semite, I've dated, made out with and have Jewish Friends(non-zionist).
> 2. As a Christian Palestinian, that makes me a Semite, and i don't Hate Myself.
> 3. I'm repeating factual information, there is no hatred towards Jews that is implied. Crying anti-semite would only be an obvious attempt to mask the truth. And this happens alot. hating all Jews would be racist.I am not a racist.



Actually it's not racism, per-se, because many Jews are secular and some various races are Jewish.   But I won't quibble.



> About Jews N' News:
> Here is a short list of CEO's for your most popular media sources:
> BBC(UK): Johanna Solms - JEW
> CBC(Canada): Robert Rabinovitch - JEW
> Global (Canada): Ofspring Of Israel Asper(dead), (owns 40% of TV news media in Canada, over 80% of newsprints!!!) -JEW
> CNN: Richard Kaplan -JEW
> NBC: Andrew Lack -JEW
> Disney: Michael Eisner -JEW
> Disney Picture Group: Joe Roth -JEW
> ABC: Steven Bornstein -JEW
> Time Warner, Inc.: Gerald M. Levin, -JEW
> Warner Brothers Records: Danny Goldberg -JEW
> CBS: Tisch -JEW
> Viacom, Inc.(Nickelodeon, Prentice Hall...), Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein) -JEW
> Paramount Pictures: Jewess Sherry Lansing. -JEW
> New World Entertainment:Ronald Perelman -JEW
> DreamWorks SKG: David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg & Steven Spielberg. -JEW, JEW& JEW
> Seagram: (MCA and Universal Pictures) Edgar Bronfman, Jr., who is also president of the World Jewish Congress. -JEW
> YAHOO! :Terry Semel, Also on board for Jerusalem Fund of Aish AhTorah -JEW



I did some checking on names, and these points are important:

1. Many of these are former executives, who have since stepped down from their positions, and some were not even top executives.

2. This list of media corporations is only a fraction of all American companies in the business.

3. A good portion of these are secular Jews.

4. Most of these companies tilt to the left and take a stance against Israel.

5. If I were to create a similar list of current or ex-non-Jews it would DWARF this small list.

Which doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that some Jews were once in charge of some media companies.



> An excellent link about media control:
> http://www.stormfront.org/jewish/whorules.html



And this is of course a neo-nazi website.  From which this list was pulled, I suspect.   



> "The whole world," United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan recently said, "is demanding that Israel withdraw [from occupied Palestinian territories]. I don't think the whole world ... can be wrong."[note 1]
> ...



Kofi is nothing but a functionary of the highly anti-semetic UN.  He does not speak for the whole world.

Note that democracies are outnumbered in the UN, and these resolutions are driven by a country count.



> Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, has candidly identified the reason: "The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the U.S.], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic," he said. "People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful --very powerful."[note 2]
> ...



Yassir Arafat won a Peace Prize, and we know what his opinion is. 



> "Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual and political life. Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade's corporate mergers and reorganizations. Today, though barely two percent of the nation's population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, The New York Times ... The role and influence of Jews in American politics is equally marked ...



Jews emphasize education and achieve success based upon hard work, much like Mormans of America continue to do.  It doesn't mean they rule the other 98%.  If anyone, Whites rule America.



> "It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture," acknowledges Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic. "Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."[note 7]...



Michael Moore is the most influential filmaker of this year, he is a white leftist and he doesn't favour Isreal.



> "They know perfectly well what their responsibilities are ... Hollywood is run by Jews. It's owned by Jews, and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering."[note 9]
> http://www.lovearth.net/ThePowerfulJewishLobby.htm The article goes on and on..



Which runs in direct contraction to what we have seem since 9/11.   Hollywood despises Bush, opposes the Iraq war, and promotes every issue that you might assume Zionists would favour.  So this is absolutely wrong.



> "JEWS IN THE MEDIA 4.3.3
> Compiled by Jeffrey Blankfort
> 
> MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.
> LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers, appointed by Clinton.
> JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner
> NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News
> JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC
> DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News
> SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, "world's biggest media giant" (Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.
> MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.
> RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the World (Jewish mother)
> MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS
> DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS
> JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS
> DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS
> SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment
> LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment
> BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.
> SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture Group.
> HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.
> BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.
> PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp., owner of Fox TV
> MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his "mentor."
> ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe and other publications.
> WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
> TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
> CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring "anti-Israel media."
> RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post
> JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe
> NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers, appointed by Clinton.
> ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.
> STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as an expert on domestic terrorism.
> DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times network of "alternative weeklies."
> DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund
> KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker
> BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal Entertainment
> KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
> RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer and Bill O'Reilly.
> TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.
> MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL
> WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL- TimeWarner
> JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment
> JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2
> SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment
> GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment
> STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
> JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
> DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks
> LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment
> JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment
> MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
> DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
> HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America
> AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures
> JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations
> ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications
> BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment
> IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications
> WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN's Late Edition
> LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live
> TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline
> ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter
> PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host
> MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes
> BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20
> .
> MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review
> BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week
> DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son
> of
> CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post
> HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek
> WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director Project for
> a New American Century
> RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle
> PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,
> RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
> JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
> MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets
> MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations
> DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has Israeli flag on his home page.
> BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.
> ANDREW LACK, president of NBC
> DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins
> DAVID REZNIK, Editor, The New Yorker
> NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York
> HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker
> SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications, includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group, includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement; American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.
> DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press.
> PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron's
> RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.
> LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group"
> http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%...n Collett.htm I don't normally quote from Aljazeera, but since this article is opinion free...Facts only.
> 
> Yes this might be a shock to you, it's normal. I too was shocked, but it explained a lot. And remember, Jews represent 2% of the US population, but control over 80% of it! I find that interesting, Jews must have some genetic News Media advantage..  (LOL)




Again, if I listed every non-Jew on this level of detail, it would overwhelm this list. 

You need to pull a few names and Google them to see how some have been replaced.  It's not hard to compile a list of recent or current Jews in media, but the assumption you make is that this list is more than just a fraction of one which would list ALL individuals in media... it's not even close to 80%... I'd guess it's not even 5%.   

This is the lie of Stormfront.  Don't be fooled by that.


----------



## Comrade

Kathianne said:
			
		

> I'm jumping in where angels fear to tread, and lord knows, I'm not an angel. Bottom line, if a country's laws are based on Sharia, they can become hand, tongue, genital chopping when they choose. Nothing to stop them. F that, we are having problems with whether or not the whackos have the right to hurl bombs and run to the brush of Central Park. Damn, sometimes I wonder which is civilized-either?



Welcome to another Jew thread!


Don't you wonder something, Kathianne, what's up with the Jew fixation?

I've been trying to figure out why a few million people on Earth deserve so much attention.  Any clues?


----------



## Annie

Comrade said:
			
		

> Welcome to another Jew thread!
> 
> 
> Don't you wonder something, Kathianne, what's up with the Jew fixation?
> 
> I've been trying to figure out why a few million people on Earth deserve so much attention.  Any clues?



Actually my dear, unless they are after my ex, I haven't a clue! LOL (You did know the ex was Jewish?) Perhaps I need a lobotomy? Nah! He was an anomoly.


----------



## Comrade

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Actually my dear, unless they are after my ex, I haven't a clue! LOL (You did know the ex was Jewish?) Perhaps I need a lobotomy? Nah! He was an anomoly.



I guess I really only had one intimate relationship with a Jewish woman, and to me, well hell, they are normal people, just like you and me.   Well excluding me, that is.  I'm not normal.  I really didn't care one bit about her heritage, she was delightfull.  So maybe it's just me, but I don't understand what the big Jew deal is these days.  What did you think?


----------



## Annie

Comrade said:
			
		

> I guess I really only had one intimate relationship with a Jewish woman, and to me, well hell, they are normal people, just like you and me.   Well excluding me, that is.  I'm not normal.  I really didn't care one bit about her heritage, she was delightfull.  So maybe it's just me, but I don't understand what the big Jew deal is these days.  What did you think?



Hey, his weirdness had nothing to do with being Jewish. He could have been Catholic, (the most normal ya know), he still would have been off. Religion, race, etc., has little, if anything, to do with normal. I'm sure William will disagree. LOL


----------



## Comrade

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Hey, his weirdness had nothing to do with being Jewish. He could have been Catholic, (the most normal ya know), he still would have been off. Religion, race, etc., has little, if anything, to do with normal. I'm sure William will disagree. LOL



I think we should have a big HUG then!

:kiss2:


----------



## Annie

Comrade said:
			
		

> I think we should have a big HUG then!
> 
> :kiss2:




Whoa, some hug! Give me air!


----------



## Comrade

r2200t said:
			
		

> I don't have strong feelings about Jews, just the Zionist Racist apartheid loving ones. I know better than to blame an entire religion for the actions of a few.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> There are indeed a disproportionate amount of Jews in the media, and you deserve due credit for making me find out myself.
> 
> I have no idea which are members of Zionist Boards.... all, many, some, or few?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, yeah right! yes they do, once out of a blue moon, but then bombard you with months of pro-Israeli...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see much of the broadcast media and the papers you list as leftist sources myself, often sypathetic to Palestine...
> 
> But I rarely watch TV news and hardly ever read US papers except online, so I get my news from probably the same sources you would... those you probably consider as fair sources... Rueters, BBC, AP, etc.
> 
> I'm too tired to reflect on the rest but if you want me to later, I will.  The Jewish media issue is closed and from here I suppose I'll have to decide if that bothers me much.  I really don't mistrust American Jews to act against American interests, which is the only fair minded thing one can do in our society.
> 
> Let's circle back on this later.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Annie

Please add the link.


----------

