It is no secret to BU the 911 event which occurred in New York on the 11 September 2001 has added to tensions between the Muslim and Christian worlds. The reported terrorist acts which resulted in the demolition of the Twin Towers, damaged to the Pentagon and tragically resulted in the loss of many lifes has scared world history. The act was tracked to the Al Qaeda network by the US authorities and predictably the fallout has reverberated across the world. During the last US Presidential Election Campaign the foreign policy the candidates would adopt if elected was placed under heavy scrutiny especially concerning the current conflicts in Muslim Iraq, Afghanistan and for other reasons Iran. To President Barack Obama’s credit he fulfilled a campaign promise when he delivered a speech targeting his message at the Muslim world back in May designed to ease tension. He demonstrated courage and imagination by travelling to Egypt to do so.
Eight years later BU is not sure there has been any deflation of tensions even though President Obama has been able to benefit by being awarded a Nobel Peace prize significantly attributed to his efforts at enabling a climate which encourages peace.
It must concern President Obama now that he carries the weight of being a Nobel Laureate; the unravelling revelation in a book just released that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been fingered - in a memo obtained through Paul Sperry’s newest book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, CAIR lays out plans to place interns in the Committees on the Judiciary, Intelligence, and Homeland Security for the purpose of influencing policy.
Interesting indeed, so what does the future hold?
A Free Press For A Free People
‘Now we have proof’ jihadis infiltrating D.C.
Congress seizes on explosive new book based on daring undercover CAIR probe
In the wake of the sensational ACORN video sting operation by two young investigators, an even more daring, dangerous and devastating undercover investigation – this one infiltrating the nation’s most aggressive Muslim “civil rights” organization for six months – has resulted in stunning revelations about the supposedly “moderate” group, backed up by 12,000 pages of documents and 300 hours of covert video obtained during the secret op.
As revealed in a new book detailing the operation and its findings, the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, is not the beneficent Muslim civil-rights group it claims to be. Rather, as indisputable evidence now shows, CAIR and other “mainstream” Islamic groups are acting as fronts for a well-funded conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood – the parent of al-Qaida and Hamas – to infiltrate and destroy the American system.
Until now, CAIR has remained a powerful force in the nation’s capitol and across the country, from demanding the Obama administration stop FBI counter-terrorism tactics to compelling a school district to apologize to Muslims.
That influence, many believe, may be coming to an end, as a result of the stunning undercover investigation — which included the son of a veteran counter-terrorism investigator, who grew a beard and converted to Islam, as well as two veiled female interns.
CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad shakes hands with intern Chris Gaubatz, aka David Marshall, at CAIR’s national headquarters in Washington, D.C., in 2008
“Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” a WND Books publication by counter-terrorism investigator Dave Gaubatz and “Infiltration” author Paul Sperry, documents CAIR’s ultimate purpose to transform the United States into an Islamic nation under the authority of the Quran.
The book already has prompted action on Capitol Hill.
With evidence from “Muslim Mafia” in hand, U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the Congressional Anti-Terror Caucus, and other members of Congress – including Reps. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., and Paul Broun, R-Ga. – plan to hold a press conference today in Washington calling for an investigation and an end to political lobbying by front groups such as CAIR.
“Now we have proof – from the secret documents that this investigative team has uncovered, coupled with the ones recently declassified by the FBI – that [radical Islamists] agents living among us have a plan in place, and they are successfully carrying out that subversive plan,” Myrick writes in the foreword to “Muslim Mafia.”
Noting that CAIR has tried to hide its strategy, finances, membership, internal disputes and much more from public view since its founding in 1994, Islam expert Daniel Pipes lauded “Muslim Mafia” for definitively exposing the “tawdry and often illegal inner workings of radical Islam’s most aggressive organization in North America.”
“The revelations in this book should both put CAIR out of business and permanently discredit the Islamist cause,” Pipes said.
Undercover
The book begins as a real-life, heart-pounding thriller, with Chris Gaubatz, the son of co-author David Gaubatz, preparing to go underground as an intern for CAIR at its Herndon, Va., office.
Astoundingly, the younger Gaubatz, posing as a bearded Muslim convert, ends up with a position at CAIR’s national office in Washington, just three blocks from the U.S. Capitol building, working alongside top leaders Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad and Corey Saylor.
Along with declassified government documents, the book unveils thousands of e-mails, faxes and internal memos that were never meant for public viewing.
Chris Gaubatz and CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper working the CAIR booth at the 45th annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America in Columbus, Ohio, in 2008
The new evidence shows that CAIR – already designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-financing case in U.S. history – is part of an organized crime network in America made up of more than 100 other Muslim front groups that collectively comprise the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.
“Muslim Mafia” also exposes the inner workings of the mob-like Brotherhood and explains its broader conspiracy of infiltrating the American government and “destroying Western civilization from within.”
“The evidence found in the investigation is incontrovertible,” said co-author Sperry, noting that the book has more than 40 pages of footnotes and an appendix with more than 50 pages of exclusive confidential documents.
The Brotherhood is known within Islamist circles as the “Ikhwan mafia” because of its highly organized structure, centralized control and covert operations. CAIR, reveals “Muslim Mafia,” is one part of the network of front groups, cut-outs and shell companies that shield the Brotherhood’s criminal activities from authorities.
“These guys talk about jihad and murdering Jews like the mob talked about killing – totally casual, like they were ordering pizza,” said one FBI official in Washington quoted in the book.
Some key smoking-gun revelations detailed in “Muslim Mafia” include:
- New evidence that CAIR was launched to support the Hamas terrorist group, and has transferred tens of thousands of dollars to a group recently convicted as Hamas’ top fundraising arm in the U.S. – money that ended up aiding terrorist attacks on Israelis and Americans;
- Internal documents showing CAIR, despite claims of cooperating with law enforcement, actively works behind the scenes to mislead and deceive the FBI on behalf of terrorism suspects – and has even cultivated Muslim moles inside law enforcement who have tipped off FBI terror targets;
- CAIR is more closely tied to al-Qaida than previously reported;
- CAIR claims to represent all Muslim Americans, however, it has victimized some 100 indigent Muslims in a massive fraud and threatened them when they tried to go to the media; and internally, personnel complaints reveal CAIR discriminates against Shiite Muslims and Muslim women within its own headquarters;
- CAIR and its sister fronts are funded by foreign Muslim Brotherhood sources;
- CAIR leaders share the Muslim Brotherhood’s ultimate goal to replace the U.S. Constitution with Shariah law;
- The Muslim Brotherhood investment in corporate America will be used to pressure U.S. companies into compliance with Islamic principles.
The book also shows radical Muslims in the U.S. are working to support Palestinian terrorists, destroy Israel, gut U.S. anti-terrorism laws, loosen U.S. Muslim immigration policies and convert Americans to Islam.
The authors explain they targeted CAIR because it helps control the “religious crime syndicate from its power base in Washington, the capitol of the same government it wishes to overthrow.”
While the FBI has cut formal ties to CAIR in the wake of its designation as an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to fund the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, the group has virtually unfettered access to Capitol Hill and continues to wield influence in the White House.
Certificate signed by Nihad Awad and awarded to Chris Gaubatz for completing his internship
CAIR, the book reveals, regularly reserves meeting rooms and prays Fridays alongside Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and a growing number of Muslim staffers.
The first Muslim elected to Congress and a de facto CAIR board member, Ellison predicted in one CAIR power breakfast he soon would be flanked by 15 other Muslim congressmen, “Muslim Mafia” notes.
Chris Gaubatz, in fact, once found himself praying elbow-to-elbow with Ellison during a Friday prayer gathering attended by CAIR inside the U.S. Capitol.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the book says, is totally in the dark about the threat, and so is the White House.
In fact, reveals “Muslim Mafia,” in the White House President Obama is hiring Muslims – including an adviser who advocates compliance with Shariah law – based on resumes solicited from Muslim Brotherhood fronts.
Meanwhile, the FBI is in conflict internally about how to deal with the Brotherhood, with some top officials in favor of maintaining outreach, while counter-terror case agents in the field strongly object, pointing to evidence the network is a factory for homegrown terror and is secretly carrying out activities hostile to the U.S.
“They’ve achieved outrageous penetration at senior levels of our government,” veteran FBI special agent John Guandolo warns in the book.
Until recently, the FBI engaged in outreach activities with CAIR, including forcing rookie agents to take cultural field trips to area mosques.
The “Muslim Mafia” authors obtained notes revealing the FBI even has offered to sponsor Muslim youth camps with the Boys Clubs of America.
A shortage of Arab linguists and dozens of discrimination suits by Arab and Muslim employees has prompted the FBI to recruit from Brotherhood-related groups, such as the Islamic Society of North America
A Muslim agent who drew national attention when he refused to tape-record a fellow Muslim during a terrorism investigation was promoted and now recruits other Muslims to become agents and linguists.
‘Hit sheets’
The book also presents evidence CAIR has prepared “hit sheets” on its critics in the news media in an effort to intimidate them into silence.
Internal memos show, for example, top officials privately met with CNN executives in Atlanta to press them to cancel Glenn Beck’s program on its Headline News network. Beck now has a highly rated afternoon show on the Fox News Channel.
CAIR’s campaign to boycott leading nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage’s advertisers cost more than $160,000, the book reveals. The authors recount how CAIR ran out of money before it could crack Savage’s most loyal sponsors.
The book also includes new revelations about CAIR’s role in the “flying imams” case in 2006 in which six Muslim leaders were removed from an airline flight in Minneapolis after passengers and crew members reported what they believed to be suspicious behavior.
“Muslim Mafia” also exposes CAIR’s secret agenda to criminalize anti-terror profiling by police and private entities.
Gaubatz is a veteran federal investigator and counter-terrorism specialist who served for more than a decade as a special agent in the U.S. Air Force’s elite Office of Special Investigations. He held the U.S. government’s highest security clearances, including Top Secret/SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), and was briefed in many so-called black projects.
Gaubatz also is a State Department-trained Arabic linguist with more than two decades of experience in the Middle East, including tours in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq. In 2003, he led a 15-man team to rescue the family members of the Iraqi lawyer credited with saving Army Private First Class Jessica Lynch.
Sperry, a media fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is former Washington bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily and former Washington bureau chief of WorldNetDaily.com.
His bestseller “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington,” is being used by the U.S. military and top law enforcement departments nationwide. Many of the numerous stories he has broken on national security and counter-terrorism have been cited by the Washington Post, USA Today, UPI and the Associated Press, among others. His columns have appeared in publications such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Houston Chronicle, American Spectator and Reason.
One FBI official quoted in “Muslim Mafia” says CAIR and the other Muslim Brotherhood front groups differ from al-Qaida in that, while all share the same goals, they use different methods to achieve them.
“The only difference between the guys in the suits and the guys with the AK-47s is timing and tactics,” the official explained.
601 responses so far ↓
Not Saved // October 14, 2009 at 10:38 PM
A Wing Nut Daily Book.
LOL
Green Monkey // October 15, 2009 at 12:03 AM
When you realize that 9/11 was one big false-flag black-op (a la Operation Northwoods), you tend to be somewhat sceptical of these hysterical warnings of the dangers of the Muslim mafia.
If there is a Muslim mafia, you can almost bet your bottom dollar
the CIA and/or their buddies in the Mossad probably had something to do with setting it up.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Event information: Aaron Brown; Program content: Dwain Deets
Phone: Brown: 909-576-2800 Deets: 760-445-3242
Email: TorerosForTruth@gmail.com
Event Date: Wednesday, October 21, 12:00 p.m.
NASA Engineer to Speak on Destruction of WTC Buildings
Encinitas resident a leader among 900 architects and engineers
San Diego – On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, former NASA engineering executive Dwain Deets, will speak on behalf of more than 900 architects and engineers who cite evidence of explosive demolition at all three World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11 and are calling for a new, independent investigation into their destruction.
Mr. Deets’ multimedia presentation will begin at 12:00 p.m. at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, on the campus of University of San Diego, 5998 Alcalá Park, San Diego, CA 92110. The event will conclude at 3:00 p.m.
An engineer with NASA Dryden Flight Research Center for more than 37 years, Mr. Deets is a board member and the writing team leader for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth ( http://AE911Truth.org ). Comprised of more than 900 architects and engineers listed on their website at AE911Truth.org, the organization contends that the official FEMA and NIST reports fail, for several reasons, to explain correctly the towers’ destruction. AE911Truth points in particular to the destruction of the third high-rise, World Trade Center 7, which was not hit by a plane but came down in less than seven seconds. These 900 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation.
Mr. Deets will include in his presentation an abridged version of 9/11: Blueprint for Truth, featuring Richard Gage, AIA, a San Francisco Bay area architect of 20 years, the founder and CEO of AE911Truth, and a member of the American Institute of Architects.
The organization’s conclusions are shared by hundreds of scientists; senior-level military, intelligence, and government officials; firefighters; pilots and aviation professionals; scholars and university professors; 9/11 survivors and family members; and media professionals around the world.
(See, for example: http://911summary.com/military.php )
In 1986, Mr. Deets was awarded the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics by the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics. He became aware of the many problems with the official reports concerning 9/11, and began speaking publicly on this topic in 2007. He and his wife have been residents of Encinitas for the past six years.
This event is sponsored by the Toreros for Truth, a University of San Diego club with a purpose to promote, and in part to provide, the best in investigative reporting, scholarly research and public education regarding the suppressed realities of September 11th, its aftermath and exploitation for political ends.
Please forward this Press Release to any group or individual you think might be interested- this is a free event and open to the public.
Link to press release: http://www.911blogger.com/node/21627
Link to event flyer:
http://www.netrootz.com/images/groups/group_30/Dwain_Deets_at_Kroc_USD_halfpage%5B1%5D_flyer.pdf
Green Monkey // October 15, 2009 at 12:18 AM
A good video to help put this all in perspective is “Core of Corruption.”
Watch it here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4874421830690006054&ei=46HWSv3jGojMqgL2263PCg&q=core+of+corruption#
BAFBFP // October 15, 2009 at 1:09 AM
“The act was tracked to the Al Qaeda network by the US authorities and ”
Wha’ you talkin’ ’bout man…? After all the discussion that has taken place on this blog over the last few years you could still say something like that David?
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 3:28 AM
You mean to tell me that after all these people are doing all over the world , especially in Darfur , sudan and Northern Nigeria , you still choose the easy way out by blaming the CIA.
Bury your head in the sand why don’t you. Forget history.
Have you forgotten the likes of ABU BAK’R , who tried to take over Trinidad back in the 90’s and still runs his own “MUSLIM MAFIA” right here in our own backyard the caribbean? The young muslim man in St.Vincent who dragged a girl out a van then chopped off her head? All because she wouldn’t be his girlfriend? The four young men who were caught in New York in a plot to blow JFK airport?
Such vigilance makes me feel proud to be in your companies. NOT!
Has it ever occured to you that the MUSLIMS and NEW WORLD ORDER
have joined forces against the INFIDEL , meaning all non-muslims;you for instance? The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
kiki // October 15, 2009 at 3:39 AM
9/11 The Falling Man
kiki // October 15, 2009 at 3:44 AM
E-40 – Federal
freewilly // October 15, 2009 at 4:52 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek7ZHenQnu4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnV_pNe_BB0&feature=related
http://www.sott.net/signs/list_by_category/1-Middle-East-Madness?page=1
freewilly // October 15, 2009 at 5:00 AM
David..posts are disappearing for a lot of people,can you look into this problem please.
freewilly // October 15, 2009 at 5:24 AM
9/11 was an inside job….AlQaeda does not exist…spread the word.
Crusoe // October 15, 2009 at 5:51 AM
Structural engineering aside, one basic and simple fact glares.
Why were the planes not intercepted?
2001 and no jets even did a fly past, with all of these planes off course???
Doubtful!
Smells.
The next question one must ask is.
WHO is the enemy of the average man?
One poster above comes close.
Various black ops even oppose the ‘official agency’ lines.
Do not vouch for a soul, except yourself.
David // October 15, 2009 at 6:16 AM
@Not Saved
Are you denying the validity of the documents declared in the book. Hopefully our BU debunker of conspiracy theories will lend a contribution to this blog.
@BAFBFP
BU is simply quoting the official position.
@Freewilly
Nothing at our end.
Carson C. Cadogan // October 15, 2009 at 6:55 AM
DAVID
Don’t tell me that you are joining the anti Muslim crew just like BFP.
Don’t let the Jews fool you.
David // October 15, 2009 at 7:05 AM
@CCC
BU has beened labelled anti-semetic before, you tossing in anti-muslim is yet another BU label.
Why don’t you attack the message?
BAFBFP // October 15, 2009 at 7:14 AM
I do not like Muslims. There I admit it. They hide their women and they smell.
But I do not like Jews either.. for every reason available and those not yet discovered.
But the Christians …hah.. I take particular pleasure in despising them (other than Georgey of course). I don’t even need a reason!
It is disgusting that the media would have people blame a whole religious grouping of billions people by highlighting the acts of a few of its members, and not even take the time to prove that most of what is being said is in fact true.
Green Monkey // October 15, 2009 at 9:03 AM
Richard Gage, AIA at the Sacramento Chapter of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
On October 22, Richard Gage, AIA, will speak to the Sacramento Chapter of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). This will be a very important event, being the first time the evidence for controlled demolition at the World Trade Center will be presented to an audience of aerospace professionals. The title of Mr. Gage’s talk is “Analysis of WTC Failure Modes.” The event will be held at the California Aerospace Museum at McClellan, CA. (Photo is the large display of the museum’s logo at the entrance to the museum grounds.) Dinner begins at 6:30 p.m., with the talk at 7:00 p.m. Call 916-643-3192 for information.
LIVE VIDEO STREAMED AT http://www.brightpathvideo.com/AE/LiveStream.html
LIVE AUDIO STREAMED AT http://noliesradio.org
Above notice posted at:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21634
FYI, 7pm Pacific Time = 10pm Bajan or Eastern time for those wanting to tune in.
Hopi // October 15, 2009 at 10:30 AM
“He demonstrated courage and imagination by travelling to Egypt to do so.” Really?
“……..even though President Obama has been able to benefit by being awarded a Nobel Peace prize significantly attributed to his efforts at enabling a climate which encourages peace.” Really?
Seems like a case of Stockholm Syndrome where you are in love with the real terrorists…those who have always robbed and pillaged you.
Don’t you remember when “we” were the underdogs. But somehow with the selection of BaRat as figure head you are under the illusion that something has changed? Deception! Deception!
It is beyond gullible to actually side with those pointing a finger at the muslims. If the muslims are actually criminals it is because they are working with the real judeo-christian criminals. And it is still dumbfounding that those who for the last 2500 years have suffered mercilessly at the hand of this oppressor, still lap up every drop of its drivel.
Who controls the money supply in this world to the point where they can yank it from circulation and wreak havoc on economies whose countries are run by weak-minded leaders?
Cui Bono? Follow the money!
And day by day BaRat Obama is proving himself to be nothing but a marionette and a LIAR!
Don’t forget that there is that Goldstone report out there, so they must keep re-directing your focus.
And don’t forget that all this is leading up to the attack on Iran. Hillary is globe-trekking in an effort to get others to form yet another coalition against Iran.
Who owns and control what you see in the media…the “jews” and obviously the local media are nothing but lapdogs.
And one of the the biggest threats to this planet is coming directly from the christian armageddonists and the zionists.
Hopi // October 15, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Oh and BTW, the Zionists mafia is the real power in America!
BAFBFP // October 15, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Touche
Zoe // October 15, 2009 at 11:19 AM
@ David, thanks for carrying the alert news on the “Muslim Mafia.”
I have been attempting for months on BU, to enlighten, through facts and evidence, exactly what is the *CORE* of Islamic doctrine and idology, specifically the radical agenda of Hamas, Hizballah, et al, whose sole purpose, through ‘Terrorism’ IS to control the world with ISLAM, one way or the other.
This is just the beginning of the real exposure or what Islamists are already plotting and planning right from ‘within’ America.
In America, American Muslims in the 7th grade Islamic catechism, in “What Islam is All About”, are taught:
“Islam is NOT a religion, however, but a complete way of life that is after the natural trend of the universe.” Or, “According to the Qur’an, Islam IS the way of life Allah instituted for *humanity* even as the rest of the universe (ALL people) SUBMITS to his will.” emphasis added.
As important, when U.S. Government policies undercut core Islamic doctrine, the *Islamic community* will be assessed to be with its *right* to interpret those policies as an *attack* on Islam through the deliberate assualt on its doctrine. When this happens, it will not matter that those responsible for the offending policy were unacknowledgeable as to its effects. When determining whether Islam in under attack, a Muslim jurist’s assessment can be objectively based on whether the relevant policy ‘undercuts’ Islamic doctrine, and will be under NO obligation to determine the subjective intent of U.S. policy makers when they undertake an offending course of action.
As the Qur’an emphatically state:
“If anyone desires a religion OTHER than Islam (submission to Allah), NEVER will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost all spiritual good.” (Qur’an 3:85) emphasis added.
Also, because Islamic law holds that ALL law comes from Allah, that it IS to be the law of the land, exactly what this report has unearthed IS the agenda of CAIR, to TAKE over America, and IMPOSE Shariah law on ALL people, and the leader should be the Caliph, it is therefore no suprise at all, that this IS taught to contemporary 7th grade Muslim Americans.
The duty of Muslims citizens, is to be loyal to Islamic Law.
This is just the ‘tip’ of the iceberg, regarding what is well underway by Islamist groups around the world, and one of its chief exponents, is that demonized *MADMAN* from Iran, who believes, because he IS driven by an ideology of ISLAMISM, that gives him the right, as soon as he gets enough Nuclear power, to ‘wipe’ Israel off the face of the earth, and then procede to take on America, in order to control the world.
We ain’t see nothing yet; it just warming up, all there in God’s Word, unfolding exactly as recorded!
kiki // October 15, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Justice
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/justice/
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Do not be fooled by the muslims either!
Do any of you know what JIHAD is?
I dare any of you to answer that question Do any of you take the time to know your enemy and not see what you or HE , want you to see?
When the twin towers were attacked and it was discovered that muslims were behind it , muslims celebrated it in the streets and in the mosques while america mourned in shock. THAT IS A FACT.
Does anyone here know what TAQIYYAH is? TAQIYYAH a SHIA ISLAM concept , means “concealment” , to lie to protect oneself from persecution and harm. So a muslim can lie about his faith or intentions in order to succesfully carry out an attack beacause to do otherwise would mean people would realize he was a terrorist or jihadist.
Before 9/11 there was the BALKAN WARS where when Serbia tried to put down a muslim uprising , the insurgent muslims took the dead bodies of their fallen comrades and the women and children THEY killed , dressed them up as unarmed muslim civilians and cried persecution.
This tactic was even revealed by spy drones hovering overhead later in the conflict.
After that most of the whole world turned on Serbia for defending her own country. Only Russia stood by her.
A campaign of carpet bombing was carried out by NATO under BILL CLINTON . There was never such an air campaign since world war two. It did not bomb strategic targets but targeted civilian homes and churches and went on endlessly for 3 months.
Yet the U.S army is squeemish about bombing a mosque full of Taliban in Afghanistan.
Today the results are that the muslims now have their own state kosovo. Ripped out of serbia , their Taqiyyah achieved it’s goal. NATO did not care as this was their excuse to further DESTROY the former YUGOSLAVIA.
Muslims were not NOW trying to take over the world and killing and deceiving people , they’ve done that since they broke out on the scene sometime in the 6th century A.D , conquering SASAANID PERSIA , the MIDDLE EAST , EGYPT and NORTH AFRICA in less than 100 yrs! So you people take it light. This may not have occured had the SASSANIDS and BYZANTINES not been in SIZZLING , neverending conflict for centuries , exhausting all manpower they had in war.
So by the time the ARABS invaded their lands they barely had ADOLESCENT boys to fight against the muslims.
And I DARE anyone wise enough to look up these things especially JIHAD , TAQIYYAH and the MUSLIM CONQUESTS. It will shake many of you’re little dreamworlds.
Technician // October 15, 2009 at 11:43 AM
@ Zoe…..please dont start with your crap !!!
The Bible also has many verses similar to the Qur’an,in terms of dealing with non believers.
Yet still you ‘chose’ this book as your salvation.
Christians will always hate Muslims and vice versa….it is the nature of man to hate what you don’t understand.
I bet you celebrated Columbus Day too and we all know he was a damn blasted LIAR (Burning Spear).
For years we were made to believe that he ‘discovered’ the world, when there is proof that the Khemetians were making this trip 5000 years before him in boats built from papyrus.
Technician // October 15, 2009 at 11:50 AM
@ Valletta…
…When the twin towers were attacked and it was discovered that muslims were behind it , muslims celebrated it in the streets and in the mosques while america mourned in shock. THAT IS A FACT.
Please dont come here and lie!!
The footage that was shown immediately after the strike on the WTC on the CNN networks and Fox has BEEN PROVEN to be old footage from celebrations in the Arab world taken years before.
The same Networks had to apologize but it was all done to create the necessary reaction to get the masses in agreement for what was to come next.
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Why is everyone here who is a muslim sympathizer , Damn DHIMMIS (look that up as well) , so afraid to engage me?
While 9/11 MIGHT be a false flag it still does not rule out that they have JOINED FORCES with the NEW WORLD ORDER. The BUSHES and SAUDS are closer than 2 peas in a pod!
Do not be deceived! Muslims are only biding their time!
Technician // October 15, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Christians hate Muslims just as much so I really dont see the point in this ….it will never end.
As I always say….Religion is modern day SLAVERY!!
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 11:57 AM
@Technician
THAT WAS NOT THE ONLY FOOTAGE AS I WAS THERE WHEN THEY WERE CELEBRATING!
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 12:01 PM
@Technician
AH , there you have it.You admit that there is hate.
And I agree RELIGION is a tool used by MEN to enslave people.
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 12:06 PM
@Technician
While you admit there is something there beneath the surface others here will have
ME and lead the informed to believe there is not.
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 12:13 PM
For the record I don’t really hate ISLAM OR MUSLIMS as much as I hate JIHAD.
I hate JIHAD and the TAQIYYAH that hides it. Without these 2 tools Islam is laid to waste.
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Come on people if you want to defend TERRORISTS , take your best shots.
Or I’LL just call you all disinformed DHIMMIS.
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM
@DAVID
It seems I’ve killed your post. whoops(MAYBE).
Where is TECHNICIAN , HOPI , Carson C. Cadogan , BAFBFP and FREE WILLY. Come on man don’t be like that.
Stop TRYING to hit me and hit me.
SIGH , I’ll check back later
Zoe // October 15, 2009 at 1:05 PM
A Doctrinal Basis exist for the *Jihadi* threat, not only against America, but the rest of the world, as this IS the core ideology of Islam.
From the English translation of the Saudi-published ‘Interpretation of the Meaning of the Noble Qur’an in the English Language’, one can read “Appendix III —The Call to Jihad—(Holy Fighting for Allah in the Qur’an Statement),’ written by Saudi Arabia’s Chief Justice, and learn that *Jihad* – holy fighting in Allah’s Cause — IS a requirement of Islam.
“The verses of the Qur’an and the Sunnah (the Prophets’s legal ways, orders) EXHORT Muslims greatly to take part in *JIHAD* (the holy fighting in Allah’a Cause) and explained to them various kinds of honours which they will receive from their Lord (Allah). This is because they (Mujahidin) are Allah’s troops. Allah will establish his religion (Islam), through them (Mujahidin). He will repel the might of his enemies, and through them he will protect Islam and guard the religion safely. And it is they (Mujahidin) who fight against the enemies of Allah in order that the worship should be ALL for Allah (Alone and NOT for any other deity) and that the word of Allah (i.e., NONE has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and his religion Islam) should be superior.”
Then, from a translated 2005-2006 school-year edition of the 12th grade Saudi school textbook (already sanitized due to U.S. State Department pressure), one finds the requirements of *Jihad*.
* Scholars have noted that ‘Jihad’ IS obligatory for the individual in three cases:
- (2) If the infidels attack a specific country, it is obligatory for its people to fight them and repel them. Self-defense is a duty. Allah said, “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.”
* When is battle Jihad in the path of Allah?
- “To fulfill an order from god, sacrifice in his path, spread the creed of monotheism, defend the realms of Islam and Muslims, and raise up the word of Allah. This IS jihad in the path of God.
*Jihad continues until the Day of Resurrection.
-”It is part of god’s wisdom that he made the clash between truth and falsehood continue until the Day of Resurrection. As long as the clash continues, JIHAD continues. It is NOT limited to a specific time. As long as there is falsehood, error, and unbelief, the JIHAD continues.”
The three items enumerated above lay the foundation for “extremist” claims.
Technician // October 15, 2009 at 1:32 PM
@ Valletta……
Some of us work you know….cant program a PBX and post at the same time.
FYI…if you want to engage, first stop the shouting (caps on the internet is seen as shouting)
You were there..good for you…where and what was the time may I ask?
Can someone explain the core ideology of Christianity?
Have they changed over time?
Seeing that most Christians here seem to know the core of Islam, this should be easy.
Technician // October 15, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 12:13 PM
For the record I don’t really hate ISLAM OR MUSLIMS as much as I hate JIHAD.
For a while I thought you were on to something but you went and used the words AS MUCH AS….which means you do hate…sorry cant engage you on that note.
I do not believe in Religion but I don’t hate Christians, Jews, Muslims or any others, for every man has a right to decide his own destiny.
It just shows the hypocrisy of Religion.
Zoe // October 15, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Black Flag Armies video- Al Qaeda’s Hadith based apocalypticism, was on a Youtube video sometime in September, with Al Qaeda Video identiying itself as the End Times Black Flag Army of the Mahdi.
Joel Richardson has commented on and linked this Youtube video on how Al Qaeda is now recuiting on the claim that it and/or the Taliban of Afghanistan constitute the ‘Black Flag’ army of Islamist end time thought.
Excerpting his remarks:
“An al-Qaida video just released (Sept, 09) on Youtube titled “The Mahdi Army” reveals for the first time the deep degree to which al-Qaida views itself to be the prophesied ‘apocalyptic’ Mahdi army. While this is something I and other observers of Islamic apocalyptic movements have been very suspicious of for years, this video offers the first solid proof that al-Qaida is guided by the end-time apocalyptic prophecies of Islam.”
“This video is a typical al-Qaida recruitment video released under the al-Sahab label, replete with ninja-esque Islamic Mujahedeen soldiers flaunting their military skills. What is new, however, is the multiple references to the Islamic end-time prophecies with al-Qaida featured as the frontline soldiers of the Mahdi.”
“The video begins with a subtitle of several Islamic sacred traditions called “hadith.” One of the first ‘hadiths’ state that in the last days an army of Islamic soldiers will come from the area of “Korasan” and will march to Jerusalem to conquer the land of Israel for the Islamic Mahdi. Korasan straddles the border of Iran, and Afghanistan where al-Quida is presently still very much active.”
“Featured prominently throughout the film is the imagery and motif of Black Flags.”
According to Islamic scared tradition, when ANY Muslim sees the Islamic armies carrying the ‘black flags’ from Khorasan toward Israel, they are religiously ‘obligated’ to pledge their allegiance to the army and its leader. This pledge is called the ‘bay’ah’. Then the words appear: “That army has already arisen and answered the call to defend Islam.”
A Muslim preacher named Imran Hussein Nazir, appears giving a sermon in which he states the following:
“The Messiah will DESTROY the false Messiah. And when that happens, then a Muslim army will liberate the Holy Land. The prophet said, “When you see the black flags coming from the direction of Khorasan, go join their army. That army has already started to be established. They know it. And that is why they demonize as terrorist anyone who supports Allah. That army will liberate every single territory in a straight line, until it reaches Jerusalem. And the heart of Khorasan is Afghanistan. That is why we have occupied Afghanistan. When this army liberates every territory on its way to Jerusalem, there will be in that army, Imam Mahdi. And so the liberation of the Holy Land is not going to come about through any negotiations…”
The revelation that al-Qaida is so strikingly apocalyptic in their worldview, is a powerful relevant factor, whether one is a believer in the Bible or not. As Dr. David Cook of Rice University once rightly said:
“There is power in apocalyptic.”
Much attention has been paid to the apocalyptic vision of the Iranians, but now, it is clear that the problem is far more endemic than we had previously known. Believer or unbeliever, skeptical or not, none can deny that we are living in desperate and very chaotic times!
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Understandable that you are at work.
Not shouting , I just want to emphasize the words so that people take them seriously.No harm intended.
ANCYRA , TURKEY SEPT 2001 9/12 just as the news hit that it may be muslims behind it. Turkey is supposed to be an ally of USA and also SECULAR;not a good sign.
Matthew 22:36-40 (New International Version)
36″Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF.’[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Has it changed I would have to say , yes , for the worst.
So you can honestly tell me that YOU have NEVER hated someone or something in you entire life? If you have then my claim stands.At least I am being HONEST. I can TOLERATE
Islam ad Muslims but outright HATE JIHAD and TAQIYYAH , just like you hate racists , racism , APARTHEID ,
child moslesters , CORUPTION.
See , lots of things that rightfully deserve to be hated. Some hate can be constructive.
By the way I neither profess religion nor am I ATHEIST. I have seen TERROR/JIHAD firsthand.You people always think this is a christian bashing Islam thing , stop blaming Christianity for the sins of Islam judge the two by their own standards.
The WEST is self-loathing;You neither love yourself or your fellow man , not even God. That is why the WEST is falling and why ISLAM will deceive you.
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Sorry , above post meant for you TECHNICIAN.
Natasha // October 15, 2009 at 2:47 PM
It is so unfortunate to read some of the comments regarding Muslims on this blog. Just taking quotes from the Qu’ran, totally out of context is uneducated. The same can be done with parts of the Bible and for sure from the Torah.
How odd it is, that some would stereotype ALL Muslims based on the actions of some….recalling few past horrible, yet independent instances. Very similar to the stereotypes many put onto black people…because of the actions of a few.
There are bad Muslims, good Muslims and everything in between. Sadly, what you all see and hear about is the 1% of VERY HORRIBLE people who under the guise of Islam execute their hidden political agendas through violence. In fact, my Islam, and the Islam of the rest of the 99% of Muslims, is a peace loving one with love for everyone regardless of creed, race and religions.
God/Allah in the Quran says
“O mankind! We have created you as male and female, and made you nations and tribes, so that you may know one another” (49:13)
Carson C. Cadogan // October 15, 2009 at 2:50 PM
ZOE
Take a hike.
Carson C. Cadogan // October 15, 2009 at 2:54 PM
The Jews are the ones causing all the confusion in the world.
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 3:01 PM
@ Okay Natasha , then explain the JIHAD , TAQIYYAH , DHIMMI and
JIZYA. Why a muslim APOSTATE must be killed.
Do you pay your ZAKAT?
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 3:08 PM
I want you people to look these things up too , to keep her honest.
Terence M. Blackett // October 15, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Many of you probably do not know that I was a Muslim for 5 years during the years 1982 to 1987. (ZOE, you can confirm this with Pastor Steve, who knows my sister)…
I converted to Islam at a time when I was looking for some spiritual direction in my life…
At the time, I was a personal friend to the nephew of Dr. Wahid Ali who was the president of the Senate in Trinidad.
The Ali family were a very rich, prominent family and I worked with Feisal Ali (who was owned his own Import-Export Co;) in Port of Spain as an advisor and personal assistant.
Our friendship was a close one – where he married one of girlfriends who I went to school with at Foundation.
As a practicing Muslim, I was intrigued by his religious zeal, sanctity and authenticity and in 1982 I became a Muslim, discarding all of my family traditions and incorporating a completely new lifestyle including my manner of dress.
At the time, living in Trinidad amongst the Muslim community and being part of a certain social circle, I got to rub shoulders with some of those fundamentalists characters (like Abu Bakr et al)…
In the 5 years I was a Muslim, I learned to read the Quran in Arabic, studied the Hadiths of Muhammad (MPBUH) and sat in amongst some of the most learned Imams (individuals that put many Western thinkers and intellectuals to shame), however, I knew deep down in my gut something just was NOT* right…
In 1987, after a bitter religious argument with who I thought was my best friend in the whole world, resulted in violent threats, innuendos and a dissolution of our friendship.
So many years later, living in England today, I have run into many Black Muslim brothers either in Speaker’s Corner (Hyde Park) on Sundays or in my academic and social life and the venom I have received at the hands of my brothers can put the fear of God in you – needlessly to say, you can’t kill a dead man, anyway…
The reason being is that I am viewed as a “TRAITOR” of the worst kind because of what I have learnt and my ability to articulate it. This knowledge has made me quite sympathetic actually because for all intents and purpose, I should be a vociferous denier of the faith and an archetypal destroyer of the pillars which holds up the temple of Islam.
But since the late 80’s I have worked to find common ground (theologically) between my Muslims brothers and those of my Christian faith but it’s worst than pulling teeth…
As a sociologist, I can argue that the 14th century march of Islamization has created a “Clash of Civilization” where the antecedents of this cultural form of expression is “hell-bent” on global socialization at any cost.
The arguments are boundless! What is clear – is we must find common ground (if at all possible)…
The stark evidence however, does not support this hypothesis…
ZOE, GP et al – I am not sure where you guys stand on this issue but my firm belief is that GOD* in His Divine Wisdom has allowed Islam* to be a distraction especially at the time of the end so the sealing of the servant of God can take place before the emergence of the ANTIchrist* (who already with us)…
When the work in the Heavenly Sanctuary is done – all Hell* will finally break loose upon this earth…
kiki // October 15, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Papoose Chess
But now you owe him more, you in debt
Guess who got you robbed
Why don’t you take a wild guess
The person you pay to protect you, he playin’ chess
Oil price high, buildings fall, government stressed
They need somebody to blame for all this mess
capture Sadam but ain’t captured Bin Laden yet
That’s cause he doesn’t exist, they playin’ chess
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 3:23 PM
@Terence M. Blackett
Maybe you can enlighten these sheeple as
you’ve been through the fire , that much of what they see on the outside is a facade.
Natasha // October 15, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Valletta:
It is none of your business if I pay my Zakaat or not. For those of you who don’t know, Zakaat is one of the pillars of Islam (basic fundementals) which basically means paying a portion of one’s income to donate to CHARITY….
So I don’t know what the sense of asking me is. It is a matter of personal faith.
Jihad basically is a struggle- The Quran talks about Jihad in various ways. During the time of the Prophet wars were fought and the Quran gave guidance to the Muslims in regards to this. At the same time, there are many many types of Jihad- most importantly, the Jihad which occurs internally to avoid temptation and maintain the beliefs and tenants of ones faith. In today’s day and age, truely the Internal Jihad is the battle which needs to be fought. However this doesn’t stop some ‘fanatics’ to use ‘Jihad’ as an excuse. Just note Muslims are governed by the rules that the relationship with non-Muslims should be based on justice, mutual respect, cooperation, and communication. The Quran is very explicit about the justice part of the relationship when God stated in Verse 60:08 “Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.”
Next word:
Taqqiya- this is a term mainly used by Shia Muslims, who being a minority were ofter persecuted by the Sunni majority. Often they had to practice hidding (taqqiya) to avoid prejudice and attacks by others. It was a tactic of survival.
Jizya: per capita tax levied on a section of an Islamic state’s non-Muslim citizens, who meet certain criteria. The tax is/was to be levied on able bodied adult males of military age and affording power, though these were discarded at various points in history From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims’ acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws, “just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes.”[6] In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim state’s protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and the Zakat as obligatory upon Muslim citizens.
I really don’t see anything wrong with this as an examle YOU LOOK UP Fatimid Empire- In Egypt, where scholars came from all over the world to learn from the Islamic empire. People living under this were allowed to practice their religion freely.
Currently, many Muslim countries are oppressive. LET IT BE KNOWN that their oppression is NOT a reflection of Islam but of pathetic regeims who just want to control and keep power.
Valletta, you seem to be hell bent on your beliefs and not open minded to any explainations. I don’t know where you are coming from but I pray that one day your mind opens up to understand and better know Islam and the peaceful and loving nature of it.
Natasha // October 15, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Some of the above definitions I took from Wiki and other sites….not all
Terence M. Blackett // October 15, 2009 at 4:06 PM
@Valletta
You are making a very strong argument but as a centrist I may be a bit too MODERATE* for your taste…
While some of my Christian colleagues brand me a “SYMPATHIZER”… My Muslim brothers brand me (الاسم) خائن وطنه, خائن ألعهد وألأمانه
kiki // October 15, 2009 at 4:54 PM
kiki // October 15, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Rasta tell dem all the while
Stop war and go till the soil
Stop fighting for land and oil
Fi di spoil so many go defile
Slave master spit inna dem face dem tek dat wit a smile
Di banks of the nile so wide and so fertile acres more than a zillion mile
People acting vile pick up cannibal style
wah devour mama papa and child… ohh
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/living-in-love/
Anonymous // October 15, 2009 at 5:26 PM
kiki, would you quit with the phacking You Tube vids already? Do you live your life inside YOU Tube or something? What was it that Halsall called you?…..a parasitic troll?
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 5:28 PM
@ Natasha
It is safe to say you are a “good” muslim since you pay your offerings.
Is not LESSER JIHAD’s(Inquisition) goals to uproot fitnah or muslim persecution
and establish supremacy of God, through Islam, in the world?(spread by the sword)
Quran 8:36-40
36. Verily, those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (men) from the Path of Allâh, and so will they continue to spend it; but in the end it will become an anguish for them. Then they will be overcomed. And those who disbelieve will be gathered unto Hell.
37. In order that Allâh may distinguish the wicked from the good , and put the wicked one on another, heap them together and cast them into Hell. Those! it is they who are the losers.
38. Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease (from disbelief) their past will be forgiven. But if they return (thereto), then the examples of those (punished) before them have already preceded (as a warning).
39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah and the religion will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
40. And if they turn away, then know that Allâh is your Maulâ (Patron, Lord, Protector and Supporter, etc.), (what) an Excellent Maulâ, and (what) an Excellent Helper!
So if I disbelieve and choose not to be a muslim or not to have a mosque in my neighborhood and tell others not to become muslims , I’d be a perfect candidate for islamic jihad to be waged against me , and I am wicked for doing this too.
Why’d you leave that out?
You answered that one quite well.A muslim can and will lie when he is under fire about his faith (epecially lesser jihad) or another muslim.And WHY were the SHIA muslims who are the majority in Iran , be persecuted by good ol’ peacefull SUNNI muslims I thought you said that this was a CURRENT trend , this split between sunni and shia occurred arround 650-660 A.D.
Where’s the freedom of religion , the tolerance?
“jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims’ acceptance of SUBJECTION to the state and its laws”(SHARIA LAW;WHERE A WOMAN CAN BE STONED TO DEATH FOR BEING RAPED , where her testimony is half that of a mans’ and many other human rights violations!)
How would you feel if the BARBADOS government made you pay a POLL TAX in order to practice your religion and be protected. You’d say you were being persecuted and would start a jihad!
DOUBLE STANDARDS.
The Fatimid empire’s freedom of religion was an exception to the norm , just because they felt like it and was good for business. But we cannot go back in time to find out how many non-muslims went missing or were persecuted. Also much of the knowledge of that Caliphate and others was plagiarised from the ancient EGYPTIANS , PERSIANS , INDIANS , GREEKS and ROMANS with SOME innovations uppon the original material by muslims but nothing really Earthshifting. Like how muslims like to brag they invented algebra and the zero , when algebra also known as FORMULAE was invented by the Babylonians who also knew quadratic equations ,algorithms and advanced geometry. The indians invented the concept of zero and muslims plagiarised this also while they were trying to conquer India.The OLMECS and MAYANS also had zero as well.
So your post was ,AS expected. Sprinkled with TAQIYYAH.
kiki // October 15, 2009 at 5:30 PM
If you insist anonymous
whatever you say boss man
guess you must be a paid shrill
Pat // October 15, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Natasha // October 15, 2009 at 3:39 PM
*********************************
Thanks for the explanations Natasha. It would have been better if Valetta had put them in context, rather than shouting them out without adding value.
I am not religious. I do not think god is great and religion poisons everything.
But thanks anyway.
Hopi // October 15, 2009 at 6:01 PM
@Valetta………before you rush up in hey spewing your “nowledge,” you should do yourself a favour and study a little ‘unadulterated’ history.’
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 6:02 PM
@Terence M. Blackett
Traitor to his homeland , a traitor to the covenant and honesty?الاسم) خائن وطنه,خائن ألعهد وألأمانه
So you are an APOSTATE or are you just secular. Either way I still welcome your input as it will be valuable to the discourse .
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 6:10 PM
@Hopi
Oh the history is all around you. Sassanid Persia did not embrace Islam. They were conquered. Neither did Egypt , North Africa , Byzantium , etc they were all conqured by the sword , jihad.
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 6:21 PM
@Pat
I hope I added enough context as Natasha only showed you what she wanted you to see.
Terence M. Blackett // October 15, 2009 at 6:53 PM
@ Valletta
“Either way I still welcome your input as it will be valuable to the discourse ….
Discourses between Islam & Christianity is a tinder-box for flash-point insurgency rhetoric where most of the commentators have never read a “SURA” either in English or Arabic for that matter; have never performed a “Ṣalāt – Arabic: صلاة
have never performed 40 days of Ramadan or have made a “Haj” to Mecca*…
And with all that – even most Muslims who have been born into the religion for generations are no different to nominal church-going members who sit and warm pews on a Sunday or Saturday – that being the “be all and end all of their religious expression…
Islam, like Christianity has much deeper tenets and one doesn’t have to be a “SUFI” to understand where I am going with this argument…
Just as Christianity today is a far cry from what the early CHURCH* of AD 33 – AD70 was…
One cannot give “true” subjective analysis until you have tasted – just like Gran-ma’s Christmas Cake (no good saying its crap if you haven’t tasted it – equally, you can say this cake is “ADDICTIVE” because you’ve eaten it year after year and the recipe hasn’t change every time she makes it)…
Technician // October 15, 2009 at 7:08 PM
@ Valletta…..
I see you are nicely sidestepping and playing with words.
First you say……’For the record I don’t really hate ISLAM OR MUSLIMS as much as I hate JIHAD…..
Now you say….’I can TOLERATE
Islam ad Muslims but outright HATE JIHAD and TAQIYYAH , just like you hate racists , racism , APARTHEID ,
child moslesters , CORUPTION.
Which is a lousy attempt by you to change your mouth now as it is there for everyone to see.
Hating the system or the acts of one and hating a person are two different things and for the record, I dont hate people.
You have no idea how powerful a word and emotion Hate is and to see you using it so loosely to another human being truly shows your intentions.
kiki // October 15, 2009 at 7:17 PM
demographically muslims are having more children and their population will take over in the future for that reason alone
Technician // October 15, 2009 at 7:18 PM
@ valletta…
So Natasha pays her Zakat…..Zoe, GP et al pay their tithes and offerings what is the difference? What has that to do with anything?
The truth is that for every bad point made about Muslims, there is also one for every religion under the sun.
The Crusades and Inquisitions were all blessed by the Church in those days and goes on today, albeit by different names.
If by now you cant see that the problem is Religiom to start with, then you will never finish.
Religion is the cause!!!
Terence M. Blackett // October 15, 2009 at 7:34 PM
I have often argued that while many news commentators and politicians are proclaiming that Islam is a peace-loving religion, others are warning of imminent Islamic Jihad, or Holy War.
The conflicting descriptions of Islam can be explained by examining the different types of Muslims out there and how they interpret their holy book, the Quran – individually.
The fact is, there are [3] types of Muslims in our world today (to the exclusion of “SUFIS” – who are mystics)…
Firstly, the “SECULARISTS” (many of them live in Britain, US & Canada) and these are nominal Muslims (just like some Christians) with a minimal knowledge of the Koran.
Secondly, we have the “MODERATES” who know the Quran but seek to make their faith relevant to modern life. For example, they may try to reconcile the contradicting verses in the Quran in such a way that Muslims may tolerate Jews and Christians living among them. They emphasize the verses that came to the Prophet Muhammad (MPBUH) when he was weak militarily and in need of the support of Jews and Christians. These verses which are kind to Jews and Christians are found in Surat Yunus 10:94, Surat 5:82 and Surat Al-Baqarah 2:62.
These same verses can be used to paint a glowing picture of Islam as a religion of peace and brotherhood. But, there are other contradictory and more extreme verses in the Quran which paint a very different picture.
Here’s a quote from an article by Barnabas Fund.
“It is true that many individual Muslims are peace loving and law-abiding. But,it is not true that peace is the main characteristic of the faith of Islam.”
But many on BU & elsewhere argue the same thing in regards to the “CRUSADES”, The Knights Templar and Christianity wielded at the end of a sword (or maybe in modern parlance – at the end of a gun)…
The last group are the “bad, bad boys” – “FUNDAMENTALISTS” who are those who want to apply the more extreme verses of the Quran to the letter. These verses came to Muhammad (MPBUH) after he was strong militarily and after he realized that the Christian and Jews were not becoming followers of his new religion. According to Muslim scholars these extreme verses abrogate the earlier verses.
Herein lies the root of anger and evil so pervasive in our world. But could this have been a design?
(1) The Prophet Muhammad (MPBUH) urges Muslims to fight in the Cause of Allah…
QUOTE:-
“O prophet Muhammad urge the believers (Muslims) to fight” (Surat Al-Anfal 8:65)
“Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s cause) is ordained for you” (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:216).
(2) The Quran commands Muslims not to befriend Jews or Christians…
QUOTE:-
“O ye who believe (Muslims) take not the Jews or the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them (Surat Al-Maidah 5:51).
(3) The Quran command Muslims to fight Jews and Christians…
QUOTE:-
“Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad MPBUH) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Surah At-Taubah 9:29).
Jizyah is a special high tax to be paid only by Jews or Christians who do not want to renounce their religion and convert to Islam.
(4) The Quran commands Muslims to fight non-Muslims until they exterminate all other religions and Islam would be the only religion in the world.
QUOTE:-
“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshiping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (along)…” (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:193).
Fundamentalists divide the world into two camps, Dar Al-Harb (Camp of war) where Jews and Christians live, and Dar Al-Sallam (Camp of peace where Muslims live.
They believe that Holy War (Jihad) against those who live in the camp of war should continue until they are exterminated.
Fundamentalists dream of a global Islamic empire and they believe that if they destroy America and the Western countries, that they will achieve this dream.
(5) The Quran declares that Muslims who fight and die in battle are promised forgiveness and a sensual luxurious life in Paradise (let’s not forget the 10 virgins – let’s hope they are all wise). Sorry – my sarcasm again!!!
“And if you are killed or die in the Way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all that they amass (of worldly wealth)” (Surat Al-Imran 3:157).
“Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties for (the price) that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah’s cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him” (Surat At-Taubah 9:111).
So what can martyrs (including disillusioned “SUICIDE BOMBERS”) expect in paradise?
The Quran describes life in paradise in the following words:-
“Eat and drink with happiness because of what you used to do. They will recline (with ease) on thrones arranged in ranks. And We shall marry them to Hur (fair females) with wide lovely eyes. And We shall provide them with fruit and meat such as they desire” (Surat At-Tur 52:17-20,22).
“Water flowing constantly and fruit in plenty whose supply is not cut off and reclining on couches raised high, verily we have created them (women) of special creation and made them virgins of equal age” (Surat Al-Waqiah 56:31-37).
“Gardens and vineyards and young full-breasted virgins of equal age and a full cup of wine” (Surat An-Naba 78:32-34).
A martyr is guaranteed total forgiveness of his sins and eternal life in paradise where he can drink wine and will be married to a great number (some say 10 – it is NOT* theologically set in stone) of beautiful sensual virgins.
(6) The Koran commands Muslims to terrorize and torture and kill anyone who disobeys Allah and the Prophet Muhammad:
“…I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks and smite over all their fingers and toes. This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad MPBUH). And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, them verily, Allah is Severe in punishment. This is (the torment), so taste it; and surely, for the disbelievers is the torment of the Fire” (Surat Al-Anfal 8:12-14).
“The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad MPBUH) and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter” (Surat Al-Maidah 5:33).
(7) The Koran declares that Allah loves those who fight in his cause.
QUOTE:-
“Verily, Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in rows as if they were solid structures” (Surat As-Saff 61:4).
(8) The Koran commands Muslims to convert non-Muslims to Islam by force.
QUOTE:-
“Kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, Christian and non-Muslims), wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But, if they repent and perform As-salat (public prayer with Muslims) and give Zakat (Islamic alms), then leave their way free. Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful” (Sarat At-Taubah 9:5).
ONE CAN ARGUE THAT THERE IS NO FREEDOM OF THOUGHT IN ISLAM… (This has been my experience)
Islam is a prison with no way out. Once a person enters that prison, he cannot leave it alive unless CHRIST* delivers you – as in my case.
“But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Aouliya (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them” (Surat An-Nisa 4:89).
This verse means that if a person says the Islamic Shahada (creed): “I testify that there is no God but Allah, I testify that Muhammad (MPBUH) is the Messenger of Allah,” he cannot change his mind. If he does change his mind, he will be executed or beheaded as has happened many times in Islamic countries. (So can you see why I am a dead man walking amongst my brothers)…
Islam is a religion of intellectual censorship – forget Saudi Arabia, try having an intellectual debate with a brother or a group here in the UK – you’d be lucky if someone does not stab you when you turn your back (SALMAN RUSHDIE* still has body guards after all these years).
In Islam, the democratic right to free thought and individual decision concerning religious matters is totally denied.
We have more than one example of this intellectual censorship.
In the cases of Salman Rushdie (just mentioned), Dr. Farag Foda, Professor Nasr Hamid Abu Zeid and Naguib Mahfouz, just to name a few, each of these authors have been either attacked, or a Muslim cleric has called for their death, and one was even killed for their writings.
My Muslim brothers want to inaugurate a 14th century Islamic Society – societies based on fundamentalist Islam requiring women to be completely covered in public and forbid them from driving a car or working. Where Christians are banned from holding worship services and cannot build churches. As has been seen in Sudan, where more than 1.5 million Christians were killed by the Islamic government. The interesting phenomena is that some 5 million Darfurian Muslims have turned to CHRIST* – hence the reprisals!!!
Today we hear many people saying that Islam means peace. But the word Islam means “submission” and a Muslim is one who is in submission to Allah.
Their goal as stated in the Quran is to bring the entire world into submission to Allah and the Quran and have a global Islamic empire based on Sharia Law.
OK Valletta – I have said my peace and I’m done…
Christopher Halsall // October 15, 2009 at 7:44 PM
@Terence M. Blackett: “I have said my peace…
1696 words; 9928 characters…
Have you said your peace, or have you simply cut-and-pasted?
Can’t you guys wrap your heads around the concept of the “short form”?
Or does that simply take too much thought?
Hopi // October 15, 2009 at 7:51 PM
@Valetta……………At what point in time does your history begin?
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 7:56 PM
@Technician
You still haven’t answered my question.
In all your life , have you never hated someone or something? Answer the question honestly.
If yes , you’re being a hypocrite. At least I was honest.
@Terence M. Blackett
Thanks for sharing . Some here choose to be blind.
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 8:11 PM
@Hopi
The Earth is said to be 4.5 BILLION years old so I guess my history begins there.
Human history when writing came along to preserve it , around 10,000 B.C.
Hopi // October 15, 2009 at 8:32 PM
@Valetta………..At what point in history did the Babylonians invent Advance Geometry, Algebra….?
You sure have some beef with Islam! Do you have the same beef with Judaism and Christianity? These three is the wholly trinity! Didn’t they also use the sword?
Terence M. Blackett // October 15, 2009 at 8:39 PM
@CH
Did I step on your toes ole’ chap?
Sorry Chris – I know how sensitive you are…
Especially when it comes to detailed explanations of things for which is not part of your remit…
By the way, I was a MUSLIM*…
Christopher Halsall // October 15, 2009 at 8:47 PM
@TMB: “Did I step on your toes ole’ chap?
Not at all. But my bullshit detector did suddenly go off; loudly…
@TMB: “By the way, I was a MUSLIM*…
You use the past tense.
What happened?
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 9:10 PM
@Hopi
At around 2300 b.c.
Sadly yes. But I wouldn’t go as far with these two as I would with Islam but I am wary of them.
Judaism was too exclusive and too concerned with the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law as shown in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Christianity as taught by Yeshua Bar Yosef , JESUS’ jewish name. I have no beef with. It stands on it’s own.
Christianity as taught by the pope!
That’s another story!
@Christopher Halsall
Read Terence M. Blackett’s first post.
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 9:13 PM
@Hopi
Jesus did not kill anyone to spread his religion. He did the DYING. Along with his early followers.
Technician // October 15, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 7:56 PM
@Technician
You still haven’t answered my question.
In all your life , have you never hated someone or something? Answer the question honestly.
If yes , you’re being a hypocrite. At least I was honest.
I have never hated anyone or anything in my life as far as I can remember. We were not raised that way.
Dislike..yes.
Disagree…yes.
Disappoint…yes.
Could not even use that word at home. I am at pains to explain to you that I might not like your ways or policies or habits but to hate you as a person for them….sorry guy but the answer is no.
If you feel better hating individuals, well what ever turns you on but dont come here telling me who I am as a person or how I should be as a person.
Hate is such an extreme.
Valletta // October 15, 2009 at 10:17 PM
There you said it. Although you are dancing around it. DISLIKE. Meaning you don’t like something
Go up to someone and say “I dislike you” That’s going to be interpreted as some sort of hate wherever you go.
In my home we were taught not to bottle up anger or feelings. That can lead to PSYCHOSIS , HEART PROBLEMS and ULCERS. Hate was just another word for dislike , detest , abhor , disgust etc .
Not Saved // October 15, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Merriam Webster
Dislike
1 : a feeling of aversion or disapproval
Hate:
1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy
Zoe // October 15, 2009 at 11:58 PM
@Halsall to TB, “Not at all. But my bullshit detector did suddenly go off, loudly…”
Halsall, that BS detector is *your* own brain, telling you it IS overloaded with the BS, coming through your eyes, as per pic!
Zoe // October 16, 2009 at 12:19 AM
To keep this *toxic* mindset in place, the believer (Islamist,Leftists) must convince himself that ‘he knows something that ordinary human beings do not.’ He is above ordinary human desires and affairs; hence left-wing intellectuals have perfected the procedure of appointing themselves the moral antennae of the human race. Once again, we come full circle to the *dark forces* that make progressive gravitate toward *genocide* because believers [Islamist, Leftists) consider themselves higher life forms, their inferiors become not only expendable, but necessary waste. They are nothing more than obstacles to the creation of Ground Zero and the subsequent rebuilding.
This is where the ‘Western Left’ and *militant Islam* (like the Western Left and communism) intersect; human life must be sacrificed for the sake of ‘the idea.’ Like Islamists, leftists have a Manichean vision that rigidly distinguishes good from evil. They see themselves as personifications of the former, and ther opponents as personifications of the latter, who must be slated for *ruthless elimination*.
(United In Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror).
How true it is!
Not Saved // October 16, 2009 at 1:05 AM
Correction,
Definition of Hate:
Zoe !
…….towards RC church, ‘leftists’, muslims, evolutionary biologists, Halsall etc etc.
Not Saved // October 16, 2009 at 1:05 AM
…………and just about anybody who disagrees with him………
LOL
BAFBFP // October 16, 2009 at 2:20 AM
Christains wid all dis LOVE talk…
‘Bout time wana learn li’l RESPECT!
AND I SHOUTIN”…!
kiki // October 16, 2009 at 4:02 AM
dedicated to haters like
back biting anonymous
crucifixion ain’t no fiction
so called chosen frozen
apologies to whoever it pleases
still they got me like jesus
Wiser Dread
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/wiser-dread/
Last Call Fe Blackman
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/last-call-fe-blackman-2/
Cut Them Down
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/cut-them-down/
kiki // October 16, 2009 at 4:13 AM
There’s a POISON going on…
I come out my crib
Walk out on the block its hot
Yo theres a black car parked on the corner hot boys
Tnt be creepin while niggas be on the side
Of the soda machine sleeping
Word up kid they seen what you did
In the car parked way down the block with binoculars
Thats what they got.
Helicopters parked out on the roof
10 000 disposable cameras taking pictures for proof
You know what this is
That all y’all, get on the wall y’all
Take your worth out ya ass in the stall y’all
Or you take a mean bad fall y’all
Tnt they be playin for keeps
Wipe you off your teeth like cavity creep.
Word is born, your kids miss you when your gone
But life still goes on, you think they give a fuck?
Yo its hot, what they got, 41 shots
Bad boys bad boys what ya gonna do
If you get caught by our muthafuckin crew
Shot 41 only hit 19
They need target practice, thats what it seems to me
Ally al is sharpton dan a tack
Ima be like ally al and fight ya back
What, do you want to go to war, you want war?
Do you want to go to war, you want war?
Ill bury all you cocka la roaches for breakfast
Shit you out and throw you in the water for the next fish
Cuz i can do that shit g
F-l-a-v-o-r f-l-a-v see.
To the highest degree times 3
Thats what you get fuckin with my family
Crusoe // October 16, 2009 at 5:36 AM
No, there are people that I dislike, due to their approach, ways etc.
I would refrain from doing business with them.
But, I do not hate them, why would I?
Things such as ethics, approach to people, may give one a dislike of dealing with someone. One may not trust the perons, may dislike their attitude to others.
Hatred infers something deeper, infers reaction towards that someone or something due to something personal.
I dislike rats.
Do I hate them? If I did, surely I would be out hunting them day and night?
No.
kiki // October 16, 2009 at 5:51 AM
phenomena where people are labeled
nazi’s or at least anti-semites for
simply discussing the credibility of
theories conspiracies and realities
Israel and 9/11
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/israel_9-11_index.html
Dictionary // October 16, 2009 at 6:02 AM
Folks:
Jus a pass tru . . . shakin’ my head.
Take a quiet breath, please, count to 10, then go back to Mr Blackett’s posts above and READ.
Especially Q 9:5 — the sword verse, and 9:29 — the verse of tribute (Jizya as a discriminatory mark of humiliation and permanent subjugation).
THEN go read the history of Islam from the 600’s on, including the subjugation and slaughter of Jewish tribes at Medina by Mohammed, what happened to Mecca, and to Arabia at large. Then, what the first four “rightly guided” Caliphs did, and how that led to Islam’s spread by conquest from India to Spain and France by the early 700’s.
Q 9:5 and 29 are not that hard to understand against that backdrop. Nor the admitted actions of Al Qaeda on Sept 11, 2001. (Cf even so humble a source as this, as a beginning point . . . )
(And while you are at it, it was the Englishman who owned the merchant ships and bought the slaves that came to this part of the world, but who were the pirates who rob I and sold I? Who continue to do same to this day in Sudan, Mauritania etc. . . . [remember, right up into C19, Europeans had big problems surviving in Africa in the face of the diseases there. Worse than in the Caribbean: look at the regimental records of deaths on postings to the Caribbean in St Michael's Cathedral, including when things began to taper off.]] )
And, in fact the hadith on the Black Flag armies and that infamous Al Qaeda recruitment video [cf here] make it plain that from Khorasan (look it up on Wikipedia . . . Iran, Afghanistan [and neighbourhood] ) the end times armies of the Mahdi will on hadithic eschatology rise up and conquer the ME — slaughtering the Jews [cf Hamas Charter article 7 which quotes the relevant hadith verbatim as its final words] — then subjugate the whole world to the E and the W. (Hadiths are the handed on traditions of M, and are the basis for interpreting the Q, making hem the effective no 2 holy book of Islam.)
So, while we are for good reason fearful of the frying pan of Western Imperial domain on grounds of history [and we should remember that this can also come to us in the form of internationalist or liberationist movements or "reform"/ "protest" movements that claim to help us . . . don't ever forget that Nazism was an explicitly SOCIALIST movement, one that cut a deal with the industrialists in the interests of the "nation" instead of shooting them outright; it also pointed to British and French imperialism and American slaughter of Amerindians to distract attention from its intentions . . . ], we have not learned the history of the other major imperial tradition of our time.
And, above, it shows.
So, let us not jump from frying pan into fire.
Goodbye again.
De Dictionary . . .
PS: Moderators, this is a for the record comment.
Terence M. Blackett // October 16, 2009 at 6:37 AM
@ZOE, Valletta et al
Many well-meaning “FOLKS” in our world still do not see the “FUTURISTIC” writing on the wall…
The world system of religiosity will be crushed (just as the world economic and political system) gives “way” and buckles to a re-invented form of religious, economic and political tyranny disguised as a “NEW WORLD ORDER”…
Islam, Christianity & Judaism along with shrapnel of other religious faith will be left as dying embers fanned and cooled by the winds of change to go die a slow death as a cold fire on a winter morn…
Forces are at work (the Prince of the Underworld himself) leading the minds of men to set up a world system camouflaged as a form of socio-religious, economic & political Nirvana where all dissent, unrest and protest will be crushed with a deathblow …
Emerging is “Pantheistic Spiritualism” – an “open door” into the abyss of religious uniformity, a hellish cauldron where the alchemy of the ANTIchrist brews a terminal cocktail of spurious lies and intrigue designed to inebriate the whole world.
Let me explain briefly what I mean -
The New Age Movement – largely created by the Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin shaped the Jesuit Order, Roman Catholicism, and the entire world system with his pantheistic spiritualism – the omega of apostasy, according to former Catholic priest Malachi Martin, author of The Jesuits and The Keys of This Blood.
Teilhard wrote incessantly about Omega, and the future of man. He had a spiritualistic pantheistic vision of “the final stages and final state of the earth of man.
Teilhard saw all of creation, especially man, converging into the Omega Point, at which “mankind as a whole will leave behind the limitations of time, space and matter. . .”
“That is why Judaism must be merged with Christianity in Messianic Judaism. Because, in the thinking of pantheistic spiritualism, anything that does not merge with the whole – Christianity with Judaism with Adventism, with Hinduism, with Buddhism, with Animism, with Native Americanism, with Islam – anything that resists coming together into one pantheistic mass, is defined as evil in New Age thinking, and thwarting the forward ‘evolution’ and progress of the human race to its ultimate consummation when it reaches the Omega point when all think as ‘one’, when all religions are merged as ‘one’, when humanity has one mind.”
Teilhard then merges his pantheism with what he calls the “Christian doctrine” and states:
“As we know, the belief that the human individual cannot perfect himself or fully exist except through the organic unification of all men in God is essential and fundamental to the Christian doctrine.”
“Thus perfection for Teilhard, is not by the individual becoming one with Christ in absolute self-surrender, forsaking all others.”
“No, Teilhard says that the individual cannot perfect himself except through the organic unification of ALL men in God. Thus, all human minds must be joined in what he calls a ’superorganism’.”
“Genesis means this pantheistic spiritualism of all humanity coming together. Man has the ultimatum in Teilhard’s plan: Either come together in pantheistic New Age spiritualism as one super-organism, or have turmoil.”
Teilhard declared:
“The outcome of the world, the ‘gates of the future’, ‘the entry into the superhuman’. . .will open only to an advance of ALL* together, in a direction in which ALL* together can join and find completion in a spiritual renovation of the earth.” (The Phenomenology of Man, p.244-245).
“Once complete unity has been achieved, Christ – who will be the Omega Point – will appear; man will then be more than man, and will be what Teilhard called ‘Ultra-Human’, the cosmos will be transformed; and the glory of it all will be established” (Malachi Martin, describing Teilhard de Chardin’s theology in The Jesuits, 288).
The New Age religion which was in the minority under the high-priestess Alice Bailey, has now become the dominant culture and religion because of Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., and his Jesuit brothers.
So this is the future (which is already here) as it unravels degree by degree before our very eyes…
Thank GOD* – the ELECT* will not be deceived!!!
(My thanks to my Adventist friend and colleague Dr. Day for her insightful and eye-opening arguments – as well as Dr. Malachi Martin – who should be more widely read as a means of educating oneself to the machinations of the world order elites)…
Terence M. Blackett // October 16, 2009 at 6:46 AM
@ Dictionary
POWERFUL STUFF!!!
Blessing on you…
David // October 16, 2009 at 7:07 AM
The more we read about the Christian, Islam et al versions of what is religious and which should be the pathway to the truth and the light we become more and more pessimistic about the future of the world.
Carson C. Cadogan // October 16, 2009 at 7:29 AM
Dictionary
“it was the Englishman who owned the merchant ships and bought the slaves that came to this part of the world”
Don’t fool yourself and others, most of the slave ships were owned and operated by Jews.
Carson C. Cadogan // October 16, 2009 at 7:50 AM
Jewish slave ship owners
Caracoa, Moses and Sam Levy.
Crown Issac Levy and Nathan Simpson
Hester Mordecai and David Gomez
Antigua Nathan Marston and Abram Lyell
Technician // October 16, 2009 at 8:17 AM
@ Valletta…..
Where am I dancing around it?
You asked me a question and I answered. It is you who cannot tell the difference between dislike and hate, maybe you are to blinded by your own hate to see anything different.
Hopi // October 16, 2009 at 8:51 AM
@Valetta…………It is quite ok for you to rush up here with your hatred of Islam because that is your personal feeling, and it is also the mantra of the day, but when you’re gonna say that Advance Geometry and Algebra was invented by the Babylonians around 2300 b.c, I think you should go else where and “take a crap.”
For me as a BLACK person I profess no love for Islam,Judaism nor Christianity. These three enslavers decimated the GREATEST civilizations this planet has known. And if you look around you will see that no Europain, nor Arab “civilization” has ever come close to those that they destroyed.
So its all fine for you to hate but when you want to talk facts, you gotta come right.
Technician // October 16, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Cant talk ‘facts’ unless they are the ones prescribed by those who destroyed our history.
…and to think Valletta has the gall to call some of us sheeple….wow!
Technician // October 16, 2009 at 9:50 AM
…….Go up to someone and say “I dislike you” That’s going to be interpreted as some sort of hate wherever you go.
Sorry Valletta….it would sound more like this coming from me…’I dislike your ways, attitude, habits or even your perception.’
It is not the same as saying ..’ I hate you.’
….here ends the lesson for today!
kiki // October 16, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Many Are Called
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/many-are-called/
Zoe // October 16, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Yearning for Death and Suicide
“If faith, a belief, is not watered and irrigated by blood, it does not grow.”
-Ali Benhadj, a leading Algerian Islamist.
“The horrifying image of the Twin Towers burning and then collapsing on September 11, 2001, forced Americans to focus on the monstrous ‘death cult’ that poses the greatest threat to freedom in the early twenty-first century. The enemy was yet another vicious totalist ideology: Islamism, which seeks to force *sharia* (Islamic law) on all the inhabitants of the earth.”
(UNITED IN HATE: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror)
The Islamist craving for *death* is clearly outlined in the works of one of Islamism’s godfathers, Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966). His massive thirty-volume commentary, “In the Shade of the Quran” has had enormous influence on today’s Muslim warriors worldwide. For Qutb, a *non-Islamic* state has NO right to exist. In his view, violent jihad IS necessary to achieve worldwide Islamic law, and the DEATH of the Islamic warrior is a crucial element of this process. Qutb consistently stressed that IT was necessary to submit oneself to the totality (Allah), that truth could not be reached by spiritual vehicles alone, and that *violence* was critical for the cause. In his profound study of Qutb’s writings, Paul Berman outlines how Qutb linked truth and martyrdom and how, in so doing, he illuminated the Islamist synthesis of the totalitarian idea and the DEATH CULT.
“Qutb’s doctrine was wonderfully original and deeply Muslim, looked at from one angle; and from another angle, merely one more version of the European totalitarian idea. And if this doctrine was recognizable, its consequences were going to be predictable…to inaugurate a rebellion- this time, a rebellion in the name of Islam, against the liberal values of the West…And rebellion was bound to end in a cult of DEATH…what could possibly mean to treat the entire Muslim population of the world, apart from the followers of his own movement, as *jahidi* barbarians who were bringing about the extermination of Islam?…The successes of the Islamist revolution were going to take place on the plane of the *DEAD* or nowhere. Lived experience pronounced that sentence on the Islamist revolution – the lived experience of Europe, where each of the totalitarian movements proposed a total renovation of life, each was driven to create the total renovation in DEATH.”
The French-born strategist Laurent Murawiec summarizes the ideology’s overriding theme, as “I kill, therefore I am.”
A stunning example of the importance of spilling human blood in this sacrifice was the assassination in 1971 of Jordan’s prime minister, Wasfi al-Tell, by PLO terrorist. As al-Tell lay dying on the floor of the Sheraton Hotel in Cairo, one of the terrorist knelt down and began lapping up his blood. Murawiec cites a long sequence of such incidents of blood worship in what Saudi lawyer Sheikh Mohsin al-Awaji has referred to as the Islamic jihad’s “industry of death.”
Zoe // October 16, 2009 at 10:15 AM
@Hopi to Valletta, “For me as a BLACK person I profess no love for Islam, Judiasm nor Christianity, These three enslavers decimated the GREATEST civilizations this planet has known.”
Utter CRAP, hogwash, rot, these ancient civilizations ALL ultimately imploded, came crashing down, because of rampant, RANK, rancid, gross, crass, IDOLATRY, worship of a mutiplicity of FALSE gods, period!
kiki // October 16, 2009 at 11:39 AM
A man can live for 100 years or more
for one hundred years and one score
not only by the words of his mouth
but the meditation in his heart
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/words-of-my-mouth-riddim-mix/
Hopi // October 16, 2009 at 12:53 PM
@Zoe………Ever since your conversion on the road to Damaskus from CARLOS[S] to Zoe, you seemed even more hell bent with your zealotry than those you are condemning. I wonder who would want to become a christian like you!
Where is this christ-like behaviour? Shame!Shame!Shame!
Natasha // October 16, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Thanks mr. Technician for realizing:
The truth is that for every bad point made about Muslims, there is also one for every religion under the sun
Vallerta I am not rejecting the idea that there are some real IDIOTS who are hijacking my religion for their own purpose, power and politics. But I just want you and everyone else out there to understand that the TRUE essence of my religion is love, unity and peace.
The Quran is a book revealed 1600 years ago…where God spoke to the people of the time within a certain context and under parabole and metaphores. The quotes you mentioned from the Quran regarding Jihad were to protect the Muslims and the religion of Islam. Muslims had to defend themselves and fight for their faith. For you or the TERRORISTS to actually think that that is applicable today is totally wrong and by quoting this verses and implying that they are idependant of time and context, you are using the same tactics as ‘them’. This is wrong.
kiki // October 16, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe
in the one same god i.e. monotheism
Christians believe the spirit of god can
enter the body of a person
Jews believe in keeping to ancient
religious traditions such as diet
Muslims believe everyone should pray
together en masse in temples
kiki // October 16, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Bob Marley Cant Bow Inna Babylon
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/cant-bow-inna-babylon/
Valletta // October 16, 2009 at 4:30 PM
@Technician
You will say “dislike” and I will continue to say “hate”. Just two different ways to say the opposite of like. I will not be gagged by the silly “SEMANTICS” of one of the huddled masses who have yet to breath free.
People here who will convince the uninitiated that using the word hate to describe ones feelings is too extreme and wrong because it hurts CERTAIN peoples feelings.
Such are enemies of Freedom and Liberty , who will erode Freedom of Speech and The Right of Association for the many so the few can have the allusion that they are loved and if loved;accepted and if accepted;RIGHT.Silence is not always golden , sometimes it denotes CONSENT;consent to the most VILE things.
In a FREE society using the words “I hate” should NEVER be a problem.
What has that got to say about those that seek to infringe upon this god given freedom , Technician.
If in an exchange of FREE SPEECH an argument is found to be false then and only then can it be discarded but NOT PROHIBITED.
I would prefer someone tell me they hate me than to gag them and live in fear for knowing who my enemies are.
Would you force me or anyone to like someone or something w do not like and tell us we have no right to hate it or them , especially if we do. How would you like it if I did that to you and hurt your feelings like that? Adding insult to injury?
Wouldn’t that be putting a plaster on a mortal wound?
The reason for the hate was not dealt with. It’s just been forced to go beneath the surface
only to rise again in opportune time.
Some things and persons earn their hatred and only after the matter is engaged and “JUSTICE” has been served can that hatred heal.Some “hate” is legitimate ,some illegitimate the illegitimate will fail under scrutiny.
Those debating my FREEDOM OF SPEECH and RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION are NAZIS as these were the first freedoms that NAZI GERMANY suspended in the Riechstag Fire decree or Decree of 1933.
Get back to the original substance of the post , whether or not Islam hides beneath the surface an Evil agenda. Which I strongly believe it does.
art // October 16, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Carson Cadogan named 8 persons who owned slave ships, and says they were Jewish.
In 200 years+ of cross Atlantic slave trade that would be approximately one of these men per 25 years, and the real numbers of slave ships that existed would make these persons (if they really were Jewish) a very small percentage. Historians locally have already addressed and have stated exactly this and I can post a link to a book that debiunks this theory written by someone who feels it just like me.
However, if these named persons were in fact Jewish, then for these 8 person’s past wicked contributions during the 1600s and 1700s and 1800s; I must regret and apologise for their heinous acts. Because we share the commonality of religion, but not that of ideology according to our views of man- and woman-kind.
I took time many years ago to advertise and gain many signatures on a document that said ‘Free Nelson Mandela’. I did this in order to make my contribution to the end of apartheid, and I did it proudly.
I, a Jewish Bajan, supported WI cricket during a time when I was firmly of the understanding of what WI had to do and why to be dominant, and how this affected apartheid, and helped to being it to an end.
Much of what we think is similar, and yet you, Carson C Cadogan, hate me. Why do you speak of me and my type- I have not done anything to you. Think carefully before you post. I can show you how I know you hate me.
kiki // October 16, 2009 at 5:05 PM
James Brown – Talking Loud And Saying Nothing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXUa6VVqq4c
Living Colour – Talkin Loud And Sayin Nothin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3RgviY5qnk
Geto Boys – Talkin’ Loud Ain’t Saying Nothin’
kiki // October 16, 2009 at 5:32 PM
James Brown – Talkin’ Loud and Sayin’ Nothing (Remix)
Pat // October 16, 2009 at 7:15 PM
Hopi // October 16, 2009 at 12:53 PM
@Zoe………Ever since your conversion on the road to Damaskus from CARLOS[S] to Zoe, you seemed even more hell bent with your zealotry than those you are condemning. I wonder who would want to become a christian like you!
Where is this christ-like behaviour? Shame!Shame!Shame!
*********************************
What christ-like behaviour what?!
Zoe, is the reincarnation of the schizophrenic zealot, one John, alleged to have written the nasty of nasties, cruel, revengeful book of “Revelation”. Nothing could be more unlike the Jesus of the gospels as that book. makes one go hhmmm
Pat // October 16, 2009 at 7:21 PM
Natasha
It is good that you keep the faith of your religion. My hairdresser is Moslem and I usually give her stuff at Ramadan, usually from my garden as it comes late in the summer.
I am not religious and certainly not Moslem. Yet, I practice Zakaat. I now have a new word that I can use. Every month when my pension cheque comes in, I go to the Bank, pay my utilities, take out some money and go donate to the Emergency Food Cupboard. Faithfully. This food helps the less fortunate or even those who may have had unforseen expenses and are short of food until the next pay cheque. It is staffed by volunteers, so any financial donation is not spent on staff salaries.
Carson C. Cadogan // October 16, 2009 at 8:10 PM
“Carson Cadogan named 8 persons who owned slave ships, and says they were Jewish”
They are many more.
You helped to end apartheid?
Why don’t you help to end the daily suffering of the people of Gaza at the hands of your people?
Zoe // October 16, 2009 at 8:30 PM
Another look at the sinister mind-set of Islamists, how they think and operate, was clearly demonstrated when one of the most frightening manifestations of this *DEATH* cult is the way it has infected contemporary Palestinian culture.
When we recall the outcome of the Camp David talkes in July 2000, when Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, offered the Palestinians 95 percent of their negotiating demands; here are the concession made by Israel to Arafat.
1) Barak offered them their own sovereign state in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip, more than 90 percent of the West Bank, and a capital in Jerusalem.
2) He also offered them sovereignty over all Arab- populated parts of East Jerusalem, over the Old City, except the Jewish Quarter, and over Temple Mount, with Jewish sovereignty only over the Western Wall below the Mount.
This was more than Israel had ever offered before and, most likely, ever would again.
The Palestinians had a chance to enter a new era of peace, with their own state, on incredibly generous terms.
Instead, Arafat chose DEATH! What did this tyrant do? The grandfather of modern-day TERRORISM, who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize!
Yasser Arafat, rewarded the Israelis for their generous offer for peace, by initiating an onslaught of *TERROR* that became known as the *al-Aqsa Intifada*. On the principle that murdering Jews was a Muslim obligation!
The Palestinians strapped bombs onto themselves, boarded Israeli buses, and went into Israeli cafes and discotheques, and BLEW themselves up, alongside innocent Jews. The deadly *SUCIDE* massacres began with the bombing of a Tel Aviv disco catering to teenagers in June 2001. The suicide bombings quickly escalated. Mass murder became an everyday affair in Israel. Palestinian children, blew themselves into smithereens, while their parents celebrated, proud that their offspring, had become *shahid* (martyrs).
What would the Palestinians do without the existence of Israel? How would they satisfy their diabolical yearing for DEATH?
The Palestinian *Intifada* is just one more outbreak of the Islamist death cult in the years since the Islamist virus surfaced, in modern times in the Iranian revolution.
Upon coming to power in 1979 with the help of that idiot, Jimmy Carter, the Iranian Islamists immediately indulged the overriding impluse of their ideology, Ayatollah Khomeini, killed more human beings (approximately 20,000) in two weeks than the Shah.
The Iranian revolution was clearly about irrigating the earth with human blood. Khomeini’s Islamic state gave powerful inspiration to militant Islam worldwide. Islamic fundamentalists were now confident that a domino effect would start in their favor.
Islam specifically forbids non-Muslims from entering certain areas that are considered sacred. Non-Muslims, for instance, are not allowed to in the “Hijaz” the area around Mecca and Medina, for more than three days, and they can stay that long only to obtain something to eat. They cannot enter the holy cities themselves at all.
These rules are directly founded on mandates of the Prophet Muhammad, who on his deathbed, said:
“Let there not be two religions in Arabia.” The prophet also stated:
“I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims.”
Can any Western leader, rationally, negotiate peace, with these terrorists, whose sole objective, driven by vehement hatred, deeply rooted in an Islamic ideology of utter conquest of ALL the world, OR, we die in doing so!
Unfortunately, and sadly, the vast majority of Western leaders, and the masses of people in our part of the world, don’t have a clue what we are really dealing with.
natasha // October 16, 2009 at 11:30 PM
@ Pat.
Your attitude is what I admire and try to parallel myself. There is ONLY good at the core of each Monotheistic religion and to learn and share with eachother is much more beneficial than hatered and critisism.
Generally, I admire Bajans for the same reasons. I myself am a Canadian however, have been in a relationship with a bajan for the last four years and I love visiting your country every Christmas. I now consider it partly mine as well :) My other half is the best example. We learn from eachother and teach eachother. He accepts me with my faith and I do his. I hope this same love can be shared with all
Dictionary // October 17, 2009 at 3:48 AM
Moderators
Pardon a further corrective intervention, on the distractive attempt to blame “Jews” — as opposed to my “Englishmen” above — for the slave trade:
++++++++++
Mr Cadogan:
You will kindly observe that I chose a GEOGRAPHICAL appellation (the people of England, are the dominant subset of Britain and so can stand in for “British” in popular usage) to describe the merchants who bought the slaves offered for sale on the west coast of Africa.
By contrast, you chose to emphasise *Jewish* individuals — a racial and religious identity — going so far as to name “typical” individuals.
What you omitted however, was, e.g. that many of the Royal Navy’s leaders opposed the anti- slave trade movement because THE SLAVE TRADE WAS THE DOMINANT BRITISH CARRYING TRADE IN THE LATE C18. (As I recall from UWI’s history of the Caribbean course, it may have been something like 25% of all bottoms.)
So, it was viewed as the nursery of British — not Jewish — naval power; never mind that the morbidity and death rates on slave voyages were appalling for the crews not just the slaves. (Indeed, since service in the tropics was connected to high death rates from tropical diseases, the officers may have thought that the slavers were seasoning and winnowing out the less fit.)
The direct implication of the dominance of the sad trade in the British merchant fleet is that it was not a “Jewish” trade, but a *British *[and wider European and also North American] one.
Yes, sadly, Jews were involved.
So were British of all stripes of ancestry, other Europeans, and I gather even a few Blacks were slave ship captains.
And, back on the original point you sought to distract from, the merchant ships BOUGHT the slaves from dealers in Africa, who were by and large fellow sub-saharan Africans, Berbers and Arabs. These were associated with a trans-saharan and trans- indian ocean trade that pre-dated the European one, was of comparable magnitude across time, and still has saddening remnants today. (I think you can probably still find Christian appeals to ransom people from slavery in e.g. Sudan.)
For, in that time, slavery was viewed as a personal misfortune, but not a crime beyond all crimes. As, there was not a generally understood and acknowledged consensus that the human, as a creature made in God’s image, has a right to be free. 9And note, that concept of right is not acknowledged by either the radical relativist evolutionary materialists and their fellow travellers, or those seeking to move us to the omega point, or the islamists. As such trends rise in our region, the consensus behind accepting the force of appeal to rights will erode. with devastating consequences riding hard in the wake.]
That, BTW, was why the US Declaration of independence argued — based on Creation in a Judaeo-Christian, Biblical context — that liberty was a self-evident right. (Just cf Locke’s pivotal citation from Richard Hooker in Ch 2 of his 2nd essay on civil govt if you doubt me.) It was saying that the denial of that right lands one in absurdities [including, yes, some of the US Founders; at least they had courage to call wrong wrong].
It took — and always takes — a long hard struggle to see the objective truth plainly when it cuts across entrenched interests — and that is no excuse to hijack the language of rights and liberty to prop up libertinism and amorality: that which is moral will on balance do no harm, an objective test.
In the case of breaking the slave trade and the slavery system, Bible-believing Christians had a lot to do with what happened, and because they saw liberty writ indelibly in the Biblical text. One may try to minimise it, or dismiss it or cry hypocrite — alas, all of us struggle to be consistent between principle and praxis, if we seek virtue rather than self-justification [the point of that old parable about sawdust and planks in eyes] — but the facts remain and our response to truth we know or should know is always deeply revealing.
Indeed, if I read Rom 2:6 – 8 right, it is eternally decisive.
And that remains so today for entrenched evils such as the antisemitism, anti-Christian bias, easy conspiracism and well worn hostilities that are all too plainly evident above in this thread.
Now too, the turnabout rhetorical tactic is tempting to kick into play.
So, pointing out correctively that there is an unfortunate trend in key aspects of Islamic civilization is often twisted into dismissing such a person as “islamophobic”; typically accompanied by dismissive finger-pointing. But the texts and sad history surrounding Q 9:5 and 29 are there, the al Qaeda video on the black flag army hadiths is there, the facts on the 9-11 attackers are there. there is no question that militant, jihadist, Mahdist islamism has as strong, deeply rooted presence that impacts our world today. (And distracting to point to Western and especially Christendom’s faults across time is just that: a distraction in the face of a clear and present specific danger that is ill understood.
We thus ask: Who benefits? [Even as we continue to call for repentance and reformation in church, community and our own civilisation at large.])
Thus, the real question is: will there be an honest facing of unwelcome truths, or will there be haste to run back to comfortable ruts of prejudice and hostility.
That’s why the ANC’s motto tells us to understand the past, act wisely in the present and build a sound future.
So, fellow Caribbean citizens: will we wake up and recognise the multiple dangers facing our region, from within, from the north, and from the east?
If so, what will we do about it?
When?
De Dictionary . . .
kiki // October 17, 2009 at 4:21 AM
EEveryone is crying out for peace yes
None is crying out for justice
(2x)
(CHORUS)
I don’t want no peace
I need equal rights and justice (3x)
Got to get it
Equal rights and justice
Everybody want to go to heaven
But nobody want to die
Everybody want to go to up to heaven
But none o them (2x) want to die
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/equal-rights/
islandgal246 // October 17, 2009 at 5:21 AM
Religion is a powerful tool invented by man to control the minds of the masses. Many prefer to continue their traditions without ever questioning them and the sensibility of them. Some of us have questioned or have come to the realization that God is within each of us and we do not find god in a Church, Temple or Mosque. Many of us attend these places just to please family and to make ourselves look good. Many horrendous acts have been committed by man in the name of God. I always wondered why if there is only one God, why can’t we all go and worship in any Church, Temple or Mosque whenever we want to. Why does the word religion stop us from doing good to fellow human beings. By fasting until you fall ill, by nailing a person to the cross, by removing every bit of joy in ones life in order to show God our deep love for him does not make sense to me. And why can’t God be a Her? Ah ha! I forgot, man made god in his image. I prefer to be without a religion and take and celebrate the good things from each one. Just my 10 cents worth.
kiki // October 17, 2009 at 5:27 AM
The mind set to indoctrinate people
that muslims are not peaceful and are extremists terrorists jihadists
is not acceptable as muslims buddhists christians jews can live together
and pray in their respective temples together happily all over the world.
Crusoe // October 17, 2009 at 5:30 AM
Islandgal,
Unfortunately, your two cents work makes too much sense, is too fair, does not ostensibly give another the feeling of being ‘better’ than you because they are a member of a particular ‘religion’, does not allow another or others to browbeat you because you are not of ‘a’ religion, does not enable the power hungry to guide the minds of the masses by guilt or to use religion as an excuse to rampage and ravage other nations and their resources, does not give some the opportunity to feel they are of a particular ‘group’, thus will never be accepted.
However, for what it is worth, I am one of those who agree with you.
Crusoe // October 17, 2009 at 5:39 AM
Zoe,
How did Carter assist the Iranian revolution? So, that revolution killed more people than the Shah did?
So, does that mean that in your view, the Shah was ‘the better of two evils’?
Zoe, taking your thinking, why then was Iraq invaded, with Saddam really being the largest threat to Islamic expansion in that area.
By your thinking, the West would have pumped even more money into Iraq under Saddam.
Could there have been another reason for the Western presence in Iraq, that overrode any ‘religious’ ideologies, say maybe ….oil?
kiki // October 17, 2009 at 5:41 AM
The New Age (also known as the New Age Movement, New Age spirituality, the Tofu Religion, and Cosmic Humanism,) is a decentralized Western social and spiritual movement that seeks “Universal Truth” and the attainment of the highest individual human potential. It includes aspects of cosmology, astrology, esotericism, alternative medicine, music, collectivism, sustainability, and nature. New Age spirituality is characterized by an individual approach to spiritual practices and philosophies, and the rejection of religious doctrine and dogma.
kiki // October 17, 2009 at 6:51 AM
Rastafari Speaks | Haile Selassie’s Address To The United Nations
That until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned: That until there are no longer first-class and second class citizens of any nation; That until the color of a man’s skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; That until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race; That until that day, the dream of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained; And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes that hold our brothers in Angola, in Mozambique and in South Africa in subhuman bondage have been toppled and destroyed; Until bigotry and prejudice and malicious and inhuman self-interest have been replaced by understanding and tolerance and good-will; Until all Africans stand and speak as free beings, equal in the eyes of all men, as they are in the eyes of Heaven; Until that day, the African continent will not know peace. We Africans will fight, if necessary, and we know that we shall win, as we are confident in the victory of good over evil.
Technician // October 17, 2009 at 8:45 AM
@ Valletta…
If freedom of speech is so great and HATE should be shown openly (as you would like), then explain to me what is a HATE CRIME.
…..Maybe we should call it a ‘freedom of expression crime’ then……hmmmmm.
Technician // October 17, 2009 at 8:45 AM
@ Crusoe and Islandgirl..
I agree!!
art // October 17, 2009 at 10:23 AM
David
Looking through the threads that contain antisemitism in this blog you always see the same people. You can reasearch these and draw your own conclusions, but I withold my hand becasue I am presently on a thread that is titled and about Muslims in America, who are just one of the countless interest groups there.
One of my conclusions about these threads and many others at BU is that a greater than normal number are
1) mentally ill, and
2) Some, a greater number than normal, are with agendae, be it anti- whatever.
Every time you throw these racist threads into Barbados damage is done to the togetherness and the love that formerly existed on this island. i refer to the love that made us come here in 1966, and after being offered work, made us want to stay here.
Now you preach and educate Barbados to be: antigay, anti-Hinudu, anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, anything to get mileage in politics and readership inside this hosted site.
You are desperate and power hungry and you are are doing anything you can to get people here, even things that are unethical.
I reprimand you again.
But the fact of the matter is that you are losing, and have lost, pretty much all your serious readership and now catering to a fringe of mainly lunatics and political fanatics.
That is the wages of your sins.
If the administration in power wanted to deport the ethical migrant Guyanese it is has always been on tha basis to make employment available to Bajans.
BU didn’t have to go down the racist road of the recent Hindu thread. And that is only one example.
I, man art, had nuf Guyanese migrants in my house working. I do not know if they were, Hindu, Muslim or Christian and never asked. We lived and worked together, and we laughed together as we accomplished the small goals achieved of building that house.
I saw the wicked immigration officers come and take cash bribe money and bring back the stamped passports. I saw the deporations at 3AM when they (the honest migrants) tried to do it the honest way.
You have lost sight of what is good and real.
You have lost sight of what Barbados is, was and you are carrying Barbados to a nasbad place.
While you hate and demonise America for itself, you are acting in exactly the same way as America. People, including you, are insane on this blog- they don’t understand that they hate themselves. Yes, understand me clearly, a great many of the persons here, more than a normal number, hate themselves to the verge, or past, of insanity.
I dislike BU for what it is doing to this Island, and draw people’s attention to it. One day BU and its family may well awake and take credit for finding our visitors have recognised the wickedness, the ugliness, the corruption, and our goodwill will be gone.
Anonymous // October 17, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Art, well said………truer words were never spoken.
Valletta // October 17, 2009 at 8:00 PM
@Technician
A hate crime is a “CRIMINAL ACT” motivated by hate.
What criminal act did I commit?
One thing to say you hate someone or something and another to “ACT” on that hate.
If you want to go on and bring up HATE SPEECH LAWS which are unconstitutional in THE U.S.A where
SPEECH CODES are illegal.
CANADA has legislation but makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine.
As far as I know Barbados has no such laws.Debate is essential to searching for the truth , hate speech legislation only silences discussion.
People will always be offended by something and wish to talk out should we shut them up , no , they have a right to air their grievances or offer criticism.
WHY IS IT OKAY FOR ONE GROUP TO FEEL OFFENDED OR INSULTED AND ANOTHER NOT.
(p.s I’m not shouting just emphasizing the phrase.)
Valletta // October 17, 2009 at 8:10 PM
“If you want to go on and bring up HATE SPEECH LAWS which are unconstitutional in THE U.S.A where
SPEECH CODES are illegal.”
Illegal in public domain. some PRIVATE Schools and workplaces use them as they are in the private domain.
Hopi // October 18, 2009 at 1:07 AM
@Valetta……..Seems like you donned ya ’stellatas’ and vanished from your ‘facts’ of the Babylonians creating Advance Geometry and Algebra around 2300BC. This does not call for semantics ya know!
Terence M. Blackett // October 18, 2009 at 6:33 AM
http://thelastcrusade.org/2009/08/07/
Zoe // October 18, 2009 at 10:21 AM
The secular purification of the world, the diabolical desire of sick, evil, *leftists* intellectuals like Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky, the late Michael Foucault, et al, aided and abetted by fools like Michael Moore; where the “creativity” Foucault had in mind was mass *DEATH* that the Islamist revolution was sure to engender.
Khomeini, and the Islamist movement was unambiguous in their regard; the teaching of Sayyid Qutb, with its emphasis on *DEATH* and *SUICIDE*, shaped their reality. It was evident that Khomeini was not planning to set up Jeffersonian institutions based on respect for individual liberty and the right to dissent. NO! NO! NO! Khomeini’s violent and intollerant attitude toward non-Muslim minorities, especially Baha’is and Jews, secularists, women and ALL dissenters from the Islamist line was no secret.
These self-anointed social redeemers, both the ‘Leftists’ and Islamists, must by necessity, clear the ground in order to build the so-called perfect world, in their demented minds, and upon that ground stand flawed human beings, who must be perfected or destroyed. As a result, human salvation on earth, orchestrated by these delusive, deceiving freaks, requires the damnation of those who do not want to be saved. And as David Horowitz observes about radical revolutionaries:
“They cannot live with themselves or the fault in creation, and therefore are at war with both. Because they are *miserable* themselves, they cannot abide the happiness of others. To escape their sufferings, they seek judgement on ALL, the rectification that will take them home. If they do not believe in God, they summon others to act as gods. If they believe in God, they do not trust His justice, but arrange their OWN. In either case, the consequences of their passion is the same catastrophe. This is because the *devil* they hate is themselves and their sword of vengeance is wielded by inhabitants (demons) of the very *HELL* they wish to escape.” (emphasis added).
I have openly said this before, and I without fear, say it again, the very *Devil* who masqurades and their god, ‘Allah” deludes them with this hatred, and they stupidly fall for his promise to be rewarded in heaven with virgins, etc, for wantonly murdering innocent civilians, for a diabolical cause, that ultimately takes them to HELL!
Carson C. Cadogan // October 18, 2009 at 10:28 AM
ART
Get a life.
Carson C. Cadogan // October 18, 2009 at 10:51 AM
ART
You are a joke.
As long as Black people accept that they are at the bottom of the ladder, then their is love and togetherness. Plenty of it. All the other races can live in the finest houses, drive the finest cars, have the biggest bank accounts, operate the largest businesses, have the prettiest yachts in the careenage, etc., etc.,etc. As long as Black Barbadians accept that none of that is for them, then everything is honky dorey.
The moment that they start questioning why they must accept homosexuality, Jews owning almost everything, Indians disregarding them, living from paycheck to paycheck, always being hewers of wood and drawers of water, having to buy foodstuff at sky high prices from the Barbados Private sector, then we are racists and damaging the country.
Do you really hear yourself ART?
Zoe // October 18, 2009 at 2:58 PM
To Hate a Woman.
“Democracy is when a woman can talk of her lover without anyone kiiiling her.”
-Sheika Dr. Souad M. Al-Sabah,
widow of the founder of modern Kuwait.
Like all *death* cults, Islamism wages a ferocious war on the individual. This was patently so also, in Stalin’s Russia, and Mao’s China, where a human being’s pursuit of his own desires, passions, and pleasures threatens the very foundation of a totalitarian system. For totalism to survive, the reality of self-expression, especially that great and wondeful emotion of love, given to us by our Creator, must be annihilated.
In most Islamic countries, a vicious war is waged on unregulated love, by instituting a structure of *gender* apartheid.
This ranges from an enforced collective mode of dress, for both men and women, to frustrate individual expression and mutual physical attraction.
In most Islamic nations, misogyny derives from various ingredients with in Islam itself. The notion that women are, by their very nature, inferior to men is the underpinning of the entire structure, deriving its legitimacy from numerous traditional teachings.
Because of this low moral estate that is heaped on women, theological justification for *violence* against females, starts from the very moment of birth; where baby girls are simply not wanted in large segments of the Arab Middle East. Boys are regarded from birth as capital investment, while girls are the fountainhead of shame, valued only to the extent that they will develop into the producers of boys or of more capital.
The will of Mohammed Atta, the 9/11 terrorist hijacker, errily reflects this dark phenomenon. He sternly warned against women being present at his funeral, or at his grave at any later date. He also instructed that “He who washes my body around my genitals should wear gloves so that I am not touched there.” Atta, obviously, to say the least was a very troubled man.
But, far from being the testament of an alienated madman, his will revealed the deep rooted hatred and fear of female sexuality that permeates Islamist-Arabic culture.
Fatna Sabbah has documented that the criteria on which women are judged in many Islamic societies are silence, immobility, and obedience. Woman are supposed to dehumanize themselves in order to be tolerated. Males are taught to control desire (shahwa). Women are considered to be the incarnation of *shahwa*, which comes from the devil. The association of ’shahwa’ the devil, and women is rife throughout Islamic religious literature. Indeed, the woman is seen, as the *symbol of unreason and disorder* an “anti-divine force of nature and disciple of the devil.
Hopi // October 18, 2009 at 4:00 PM
@Zoe…….You are a ph.cking christian LIAR of the highest order.
Not Saved // October 18, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Zoe says…..
“To keep this *toxic* mindset in place, the believer (Islamist,Leftists) must convince himself that ‘he knows something that ordinary human beings do not.”
++++++++++++++++
“His family pastor had accused him of being a witch, and his father then tried to force acid down his throat as an exorcism. It spilled as he struggled, burning away his face and eyes. The emaciated boy barely had strength left to whisper the name of the church that had denounced him — Mount Zion Lighthouse.
A month later, he died.”
“Their parishioners take literally the Biblical exhortation, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”
Read on……….
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-af-nigeria-child-witches,0,3012806,full.story
Not Saved // October 18, 2009 at 4:44 PM
It is amazing what the “believer” will do when he believes he knows the mind of his god…….
A different Anonymous // October 18, 2009 at 5:35 PM
What is even more amazing is that some of the children still believe in God after being tortured by the pastors!
Pat // October 18, 2009 at 6:59 PM
natasha // October 16, 2009 at 11:30 PM
*******************************
I, too, live in Canada. Have been here for the last 43 years. I live and let live. I have no belief in any gods. Having said that, I have friends from all religions. I celebrated Diwali with my Hindu friends last night. I go to the temple with them for festivals and do all the rituals. I even wear sari on these occasions. When I was socializing with Moslems I wore pajamas (shalwar kameez). I have two sets. My son’s babysitter for his first year was a Moslem lady from Lahore, whose husband was a diplomat here. Then I got a nanny.
I hold no grudges and move freely between the races, social stratas and religions and, you know what? I am HAPPY!
Carson C. Cadogan // October 18, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Is anyone aware that the Catholic church makes money from investments in the porn industry?
Zoe // October 18, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Saudi instructional TV programs on *wife* beating are especially illuminating. Jasem Muhammad Al- Mutawah, an ‘expert’ on Islamic family matters, hosts ‘Disciplinning Wives and Children’ on Iqraa TV. In one show, he discussed how to discipline a *wife* when she is disobedient. Picking up several different *rods*, he explained how a husband should use each one. At the end of the program, he boasted how Islam has solved a serious psychiatric problem in marriages; when the husband is a sadist and the wife is a masochist, they are able to soothe each other’s neuroses and become satisfied through beating sanctioned by the Koran. It becomes understandable, therefore, that the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences estimated that over 90 percent of Pakistani wives had been struck, beaten, or sexually abused for offenses such as cooking an unsatisfactory meal.
In Sura 4:34, there are numerous legitimizations of women beating in the *hadiths*. In his hadith volume 826 of the ‘Sahih Al-Bukhari’ for instance, Imam Al-Bukhari quotes Muhammad’s order to the husband regarding his wife. “Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it.” The Prophet Muhammad himself recommended that beating take place in the privacy of one’s own home. He commanded that “you shall not slap her on the face, nor revile her, nor desert her except within the house.” (imam Kitab al-Nikah’s hadith, no 1,850 in ‘The Book of Marriage).
In her unpublished book, ‘The Sheikh’s New Clothes’ Kobrin shows how, by internalizing their culture’s hatred of women, Islamic males open themselves up to a set of dynamics that spawn the urge for death and suicide.
Sabbath, “Woman in the Muslim Unconscious, 98-117. Imam Ibn al-Jawzi, for instance, wrote, in his text ‘Dhamm al-hawa’ that the “beauty of a woman is one of the poisoned arrows of the devil.” The notion that hell is largely populated by women is also to be found in Islamic texts. According to a hadith in Imam’s Al-Sahih, for instance, the Prophet Muhammad stresses that, as he stood at the gate of hell, he observed that “most of those who entered there were women.”
In Sura 2:28, for instance, affirms that men are superior to women. Al-Bukhari’s hadith in volume 3:826 of the Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sura 4:11, meanwhile, instructs that in matters of inheritance, women should only be given half of what their brothers receive.
The hatred of women is directly correlated with another aspect of the Islamist death cult. Women become mandatory victims in a culture, whose lust for death necessitates scorn and loathing for the gender that bestows life. Western values, therefore, pose a severe danger to the death cult, since they threaten to liberate all the women in the world. In the age of globalization, mass communications, and the Internet, the West’s values are spreading with lightning quickness. The death cult’s response takes two forms. A war fought within the culture to eradicate the essence of what is *female* within its own women, and a *jihad* against free nations to crush the expansion of liberty and pluralism.
Zoe // October 18, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Therefore, the war on TERROR, cannot be crystallized any more powerfully, than with this formula: one side allows human FREEDOM, including its sexual component, and accepts all the risk and costs that come with such freedom; the other side, Islamists, lusts for the incineration of every element of human desire, yearing for a sterilized utopia where human beings will be purged of what and who they are.
Zoe // October 18, 2009 at 9:06 PM
What is the spiritual force behind this amazing delusion of Islamists; that wrong is called right, that darkness is seen as light; that unrighteousness is deemed to be righteousness; that blatant injustice is falsely recognized justice; that Evil is called good?
Once again, the father of all *LIES* the arch-deceiver of humankind, Satan, has presented another of his arts of subterfuge in these diabolical totalitarian despots, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, et al, and is currently working through Islamo-fascism!
Christopher Halsall // October 18, 2009 at 9:06 PM
@Zoe: “…one side allows human FREEDOM, including its sexual component, and accepts all the risk and costs that come with such freedom…
Care to speak to this Zoe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
It seems a little odd, doesn’t it Zoe, that the abuse is nominally (81%) directed against boys?
Mike // October 18, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Like there’s really no way to get rid of these guys…. time to be a bit discriminatory as a country and make it known.
David // October 18, 2009 at 9:48 PM
@Chris
Reread our comment at 6.46PM and apply context if you will. Our point was as it is now whether we will hear an expert witness whose analysis can deal explicitly with the impact on the customer in bearish economic conditions.
Zoe // October 18, 2009 at 9:48 PM
@HOPI, You are the living *EPITOME* condensation, conspectus, recapitualtion, resume, *APOTHEOSIS* the very *symbol* of unreason and DISORDER, a living personification and DISCIPLE of the DEVIl himself!
Zoe // October 18, 2009 at 10:17 PM
@CH, ‘Care to speak to this Zoe.’
Wiki- Catholic sex abuse cases.
“It seems a little odd, doesn’t it Zoe, that the abuse is nominally (81%) directed against boys?”
Roman Catholicism, IS the most wicked, vile, evil religious/political institution, ever to be granted existence on planet earth.
RC, IS NOT a Christian church, Sir George Sinclair could not have described Roman Catholicism more succintly, when he said:
“Romanism is a refined system of Christianised Heathenism, and chiefly differs from its prototype (Babylon) in being more treacherous, more cruel, more dangerous, more intolerant.”
Almighty God’s future judgement, on this ‘Religious Babylon’ is seen in Revelation chapter 17, verses 1 and following, where the Apostle John was given a proleptic vision of this religious/political system which had not yet come into existence, did in circa AD 315-325, ‘..MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. (v. 5b).
Oh, her day of judgement is coming, it won’t be too far off!
Not Saved // October 18, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Zoe,
Do you think that the belief in god(s) of a catholic (or a muslim) is any less sincere than your belief in your god(s)?
kiki // October 19, 2009 at 9:04 AM
art said (October 17, 2009 at 10:23 AM)
“One of my conclusions about these threads and many others at BU is that a greater than normal number are
1) mentally ill, and
2) Some, a greater number than normal, are with agendae, be it anti- whatever.”
+
That’s correct the BU Family has several dysfunctional members who have been mistreated and abused by oppression and are fighting for the right to be heard.
The correct analogy to meditate on is:
“if you starve an infant of oxygen
he/she will become brain damaged”
Zoe // October 19, 2009 at 9:28 AM
‘No power and power acquiring except through Allah.”
Osama bin Laden.
Osama bin Laden, himself a Wahhabi, has repeadedly made clear that militant Islam’s war against the West is based in religious *HATE*
Of the Islamic spectrum of extremists, like the Wahhabis; Wahhabism, founded by the Sunni reformer Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul al-Wahhab (1700-1792), is one of the most powerful strains of radical Islam.
The refusal to accept anyone who is religiously different would be totally unacceptable for any modern Western nation. Yet, for Islamists, human beings who hold different beliefs represent a lower species, and defile not only Muslim lands, but the entire earth.
As already posted, myriad Koranic verses emphasize the importance of fighting unbelievers. The famous Verse of the Sword (Sura 9:5), for instance, which IS considered the Koran’s final word on *JIHAD* and nullifies ALL contrary teachings, instructs Muslims to attack and KILL non-muslims as a means of achieving world *hegemony* under Islam. Many ‘hadiths’, such as ‘Sahih Muslim’ 4294, also enjoin WAR against unbelievers. A few Muslim reformers may be able to change this reality, but, the fact IS that violent *JIHAD* remains a primary commandment the Islam THAT is!
Muhammad himself was a LIVING example in this regard, making frequent WAR against unbelievers. By the end of Muhammad’s life, Islam dominated Arabia, and Muslim armies were set to expand outward to battle the Byzantine and Persian empires. After Muhammad’s death, Muslims engaged in ferocious attacks on their non-Muslim neighbors, and the Islamic empire grew quickly, extending into Syria, Egypt, and eventually all over the Middle East and North Africa. Those who were conquered were given three choices; converting to Islam, living as second-class citizens and paying a poll tax (the jizya), OR being sold into slavery or killed. Those who chose second-calls citizenship, became part of the historical phenomenon called *dhimma* the structure of oppression that non-Muslims suffer under Islamic rule.
All of this is based on Muhammmad’s instruction to be “harsh” or “ruthless” to unbelievers.
To say the least, the concepts of equality and multiculturalism DO NOT exist in Islam. As British author David Pryce-Jones notes, “Set up by Muslims for Muslims, every Arab state is explicitely Islamic in confession. Religious and ethnic minorities have been persecuted everywhere. Nowhere is there participation in the political process corresponding to any conception of representative democracy.
The realities of Islamic religious despotism explain why Islam became dominant in the places it entetred. The Syrians, Egyptians, Persians, and others who became Muslim under Islamic conquest, DID NOT embrace Islam on their own accord, rather, they did so because of the dire choices they faced.
Jihad and *dhimmitude* have NEVER been renounced, and their barbarities are abundantly present in the modern era. In the twentieth century, exposure to the totalitarian ideological virus only strengthened the *DEATH* cult that had been part of Islam from the beginning. During and immediately after World War I, Muslim Turks massacred more than One and a Half Million Armenian Christians. Later in the century, in Uganda, Idi Amin slaughtered some 300,000 of his own people, most Christians. He perpetrated these massacres only AFTER he embraced Islam. In the twenty-first century, Indonesian Muslims of the Laskar Jihad have killed approximately 10,000 Christians. Lasker Jihad leader, Jaffar Umar Thalib, has issued numerous statements making clear that his struggle is a religious one. The horrifying genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan is a typicakl example of *ISLAMIC JIHAD* and Arab racism. The Muslim government in Khartoum had killed more than 2,000,000 BLACK Christians, and displaced 4,000,000 since imposing Islamic LAW nationwide in 1993. In Algeria, Muslim radicals TERRORIZE the populace in the name of Jihad; by 1999, they had killed some 100,000!
It, therefore, becomes explicitely clear, that *ISLAMISM* is the GREATEST threat to freedom in the twent-first century, especially with Madmen like Ah-mad-dine-jad of Iran relentlessly pursuing Atomic, nuclear warheads, first to Annihilate Israel from the face of the earth, then coming for America and other Western nations, and Obama, stupidly believes that he can negotiate with such demonically driven Islamic tyrants, whose ideological premis,IS that Islam MUST control the World, one way or the other, ALL there in the historic ROOTS of Muhammad’s quest for utter control of all nations.
And, don’t for a moment, Barbados, think that among the apparent peaceful, law abbiding Muslims that have made it good, financially through our peaceful demoncratic way of life, THAT, they are NOT some radical Islamists, quietly, in our midst, who are watching and waiting to….join in, when all hell breaks loose, elsewhere!
Be warned, we ain’t see nothing yet!
Zoe // October 19, 2009 at 9:33 AM
@ David, what happened to my last post a few minutes ago?
Hopi // October 19, 2009 at 10:22 AM
@Zoe………….Didn’t I warn you about the equivocation of the english language? Be careful how you play with words as I can see that you have not yet been weaned from that bottle milk!
Do you know that I, a mere mortal on the verge of BECOMING would have never EXALTED myself to the realm of APOTHEOSIS!
For that I say thanks you my ‘good’ brother!
Zoe // October 19, 2009 at 10:26 AM
One can have a sincere belief in something, and be sincerely WRONG, as we all know; belief has to have an objective basis in Truth and facts in order for that belief system to be valid!
Zoe // October 19, 2009 at 11:01 AM
@Hopi, Your ’spiritual’ father, sought to exalt himself above his Creator, hence ‘apotheosize’ to deify himself, which brought him DOWN, from thence he has being deceiving multitudes, like yourself, with ‘demonic’ FALSE deities, that do NOT exist, therefore, in describing YOUR attitude, *apotheosis* is an appropriate synonym of ‘epitome’ etc, as you seek, pompously give, as you think, the ‘last word’ on such matters, hence you are a true ‘daughter’ of your deceived ‘Father’ a LIAR from the beginning!
Technician // October 19, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Geez ……such anger….such…tension.
Pat // October 19, 2009 at 2:44 PM
kiki // October 19, 2009 at 9:04 AM
art said (October 17, 2009 at 10:23 AM)
“One of my conclusions about these threads and many others at BU is that a greater than normal number are
1) mentally ill, and
2) Some, a greater number than normal, are with agendae, be it anti- whatever.”
+
That’s correct the BU Family has several dysfunctional members who have been mistreated and abused by oppression and are fighting for the right to be heard.
The correct analogy to meditate on is:
“if you starve an infant of oxygen
he/she will become brain damaged”
***********************
Thanks KiKi. Well said.
Pat // October 19, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Technician // October 19, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Geez ……such anger….such…tension.
********************
I am sure if Zoe could have a go at us, we would all be dead. Burned alive as heretics.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. These religious fanatics are all missing a few fruit loops.
Not Saved // October 19, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Zoe,
Yes we know we someone can believe something sincerely and be wrong.
However, you did not answer my question.
Do you think that the belief of catholics (and muslims) in their god(s) is any less sincere than your belief in your god(s)?
Now the catholics claim to worship the very same god(s) as you so the question is very relevant in their case, is their belief any less sincere than yours?
Hopi // October 19, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Zoe……..Show some love! When you have awakened from your duped state I will be here with open arms ready to welcome you into THE KINGDOM!
BTW, belief and fact and truth are diametrically opposed.
Not Saved // October 19, 2009 at 5:47 PM
When you KNOW the mind of the god(s) you worship……..
“In court, the man’s lawyer, Douglas Christie, argued the man’s desire to fulfil his religious duty negated any criminal intent.”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/10/16/bc-home-circumcision-charges.html
Technician // October 19, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Zoe believes his/hers is the only true God.
Zoe believes all others are wrong.
Zoe believes we are ignorant and he/she is brilliant.
Zoe believes……
Zoe believes….
Zoe is starting to sound as Fanatical as the same people he cries down.
Religion in action folks….observe!!
Zoe // October 19, 2009 at 7:06 PM
@Not Saved, “However, you did not answer my question.”
If, from all that I’ve posted over the months, you cannot draw the logical conlusion from my implicit comment, (Oct 19,2009 @10:16AM), I most certainly will not be going over it again!
@Hopi, “…I will be here with open arms ready to welcome you into THE KINGDOM!”
Dear Hops, I WAS delivered from THAT KINGDOM of *DARKNESS* into the Glorious KINGDOM of God’s Son, The Lord Jesus Christ, where the LIGHT of the world reigns Omnipotent, and Gloriously so; I therefore have the experiential benefit of both worlds, and I KNOW from what I have been set FREE from, and the Gift of Eternal Life, graciously bestowed upon those that BELIEVE, and then HAVE the LIVING reality of an transformed life, from within!
Zoe // October 19, 2009 at 8:22 PM
@Hopi, “BTW, belief and fact and truth are diametrically opposed.”
This statement is laced with inaccuracy!
First, Truth by definition IS absolute; regardless of who denies this to be so.
Logic is the backbone of critical thinking. Logic is very necessary for uncovering ‘error’ and establishing truth.
Therefore, logical *absolutes* are the building blocks of discussion and analysis. We cannot have a ‘rational’ discussion if there are no ‘logical absolutes’ because then our thinking would be self-contradictory.
Secondly, belief (Faith) is not hostile to reason, not at all! But this false concept of faith represents misunderstanding of the Biblical concept of faith.
The biblical notion of *faith* (belief) includes three components: ‘notitia’ (understanding the content of the Christian faith, belief), ‘fiducia’ (trust) and ‘assensus’ (the assent of the intellect to truth of some proposition). Therefore, ‘Trust’ ‘belief’ *faith* IS based on understanding, knowledge, and the intellect’s assent to ‘truth.’ Belief in rests, on belief ‘that.’
Therefore, one is called, to reasonably, rationally, objectively, and logically, to trust, ‘believe’ have explicit confidence in what he or she has *reason* to give intellectual assent (assensus) to.
Faith, (belief, trust) IS not a blind, irrational leap into the dark. So that faith, (trust, belief) and ‘reason’ rational, objective, *factual* evidence, cooperate on a biblical view of *faith*.
They are NOT intrinsically hostile!
Not Saved // October 19, 2009 at 8:45 PM
When you know your god(s) better than you think……
Hopi // October 19, 2009 at 9:10 PM
@Zoe…………Since truth by definition is Absolute, do you agree with me that ABSOLUTE lies with the CREATOR? and that what we [mere mortals] define as Truth is only Relative to Us? and that we would be SHOCKED to find out that what we hold to be TRUTH is not ABSOLUTE? thereby nullifying our TRUTH?
I’ll get to logic later, if you permit me.
Zoe // October 19, 2009 at 10:16 PM
@Hopi, “…Since truth by definition is Absolute, do you agree with me, that ABSOLUTE lies with the CREATOR? And that what we [mere mortals] define as Truth is only Relative?
First, yes, ABSOLUTE lies with the CREATOR?
Secondly, NO one creates Truth, we only ‘discover’ Truth, which Almighty God has given to us through our God given ability, i.e., intellect, mind, will, etc., and because Truth, IS Absolute, again, God has given to us, Logical absolutes, by which we can ‘discover’ what He has propositionally ‘revealed’ to us through His Word, the Bible.
Unless, and until Almighty God took the Divine ‘initiative’ (which He did, historically) to reveal Himself to mankind, NO ONE would have a clue about ‘Him’ which IS needed by and through ‘Special’ revelation, NOT natural revelation, i.e., the created world around us, i.e., earth, animal life, plants, etc, etc, only show us, who are without ‘excuse’ that an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, personal, Loving Creator, Almighty God, brought it ALL together, as it so awesomely speaks!
Looking forward to hearing you on logic, tomorrow!
Hopi // October 20, 2009 at 9:50 AM
@Zoe……………what are these logical absolutes?
Can these absolutes be revealed to you in a manner other than thru “his Word” the Bible?
Can the absolutes be revealed to anyone who earnestly seeks after them, christian/non-christian?
Your last para …”Unless…..” is quite fluffy Zoe! It would be useless of the Creator and Creation if IT did not reveal itself to US thru US, won’t you agree?
Zoe // October 20, 2009 at 11:01 AM
@Hopi….”What are these logical absolutes?”
First, No man created these logical absolutes, as Almighty God IS the ultimate source of ALL truth; He allowed us to ‘discover’ these Absolutes laws of logic, in order that we can ‘Reason’ which IS necessary for revelation to be Coherent.
They are three fundamental principles in the laws of ‘Logic’ which are themselves *Absolute* truths, and are universal, regardless of culture, race, creed or ethnicity.
I) The Law of Identity
2) The Law of Non-Contradiction
3) The Law of Excluded Middle.
Therefore, assessing ‘Worldviews’ bears out the utterly fundamental grounding of ‘logic’ for thinking and ‘Truth’ and worlviews. These laws of logic point us toward Truth, they are prescriptive, NOT descriptive, that would render it, psychology, Logic direct us to correctives for faulty thinking, allowing us to analysize facts and come to coherent, valid conclusions.
Without these ‘laws’ of logic, no rational thought would be possible. To reject these basic logical laws, one would have to ‘utilize’ these very laws to reject them. The man/woman who begins to ‘think’ without proper first principles, i.e., Logic, he/she begins to think at the wrong end.
Put another way, as Gordon Clark rightly asserts, “Anyone who disparages or belittles logic, must use logic in their attack, thus *undercutting* their own argument.” emphasis added.
Basic Laws of Reason
Law of Identity
The law of identity is basic and foundational for the other basic laws of logic. LI assets that a ‘particular’ *entity* or *object* IS precisely ‘that’ particular object. In other words, it IS identical to itself. For example, “This red pen IS the red pen, it IS not the blue pen!
The law of inditity in logic, implies that if you can find something ‘True’ of X that IS NOT true of Y, then X and Y are not identical.
The Law of Non-Contradiction
That is, A cannot be -A in the same respect or same time. In other words, two ‘competing’ Truth Claims’ CANNOT be both right, in the same respect or the same time. They can both be wrong, BUT, they CANNOT both be right. Competing religious ‘Worldviews’ are ALL making ‘Truth claims’ the only sound method of evaluating their respective truth claims, IS by utilizing these *unalterable* *unchanging* laws of logic, that Almighty God has given to us.
The Law of Excluded Middle.
A ‘true’ statement IS one that ‘corresponds to reality.’ If statement “X” is true,’ corresponds to reality, then this implies that not-X is FALSE. In other words, if something IS TRUE, this must ‘exclude something (namely, falsity). We are then left with two exhaustive options, TRUTH or FALSITY.
The LEM entails that NO third way is possible. For example, Almighty God, either exist OR he doesn’t exist. There is no other alternative!
I have not dismissed your other questions, I just wanted to lay the ground work in Logic regarding your first question.
Technician // October 20, 2009 at 11:37 AM
OMG…….All this intellectual hogwash just to answer a simple question???
Talking about playing with words!!
I have to study all this just to understand what ‘God’ is saying to me?
If this is not the best example of deception, then I dont know what is….give me a dose of common sense anytime.
I now see where the arrogance in Christianity come from.
Zoe // October 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM
@ Hopi, ‘Can absolutes be revealed to anyone who earnestly seek after them, Christians/non Christians?”
Most certainly, as Almighty God IS no respector of persons, BUT, that seeker of ‘Truth’ must of necessity, be honest and allow and use, ‘commonsense’ which is in effect, WHAT the basic, unchangeable, law of logic are all about!
“Your last para…’Unless…is quite fluffy Zoe! It would be useless of the Creator and Creation if it did not reveal itself to US thru US, won’t you agree?”
First, some understanding is required here!
Natural revelation, what is it!
Almighty God, our Creator HAS revealed Himself in nature, the Created order of life, etc. Let us hear Him, in His Word.
“For the wrath of God IS revealed from heaven ‘against’ ALL ungodliness and *unrighteousness* who (do what?) hold the *truth* in unrighteousness.” (v.18)
“Because THAT (natural revelation) which may be *known* is manifest (clearly) IN them ( mankind); for God hath shewed IT unto them.” (v.19)
For the *invisible* things of Him from the Creation (natural revelation) of the world ARE CLEARLY seen, being understood, (logically) by the things that are made (Created), even His eternal power and Godhead, SO that they (mankind) ARE without EXCUSE.” (v.20)
“Because THAT, when they (mankind) knew God (by natural revelation, the Created order of life, etc) they (mankind) glorified Him NOT as God, neither were thankful, BUT, became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” (v.21)
“Professing themselves (mankind) to be wise, they became fools.” (v.22)
And *changed* the glory of the uncorruptibe God *into* an image (replete throughout history, *images* of false deities!) made like to corruptible man, and to *birds* (idolatrous images) and fourfooted beast ( again, idolatrous images), and creeping things.” (v. 23)
(Romans 1: 18-23)
Verse 20, “They (mankind) are without excuse.” Why is this so, as Almighty God has declared? Because, the *things* that are made (Created) implicitely and explicitely *REVEAL* to ALL men, the Eternal power and Godhead (= Divinity) of the True God, SO, that rejection of this *Truth* makes a man/woman without excuse before Almighty God.
Ya see Hopi, there is a vast distinction between what God has revealed to US, through the Created order of ‘life’ which leaves ALL of mankind ‘WithOUT excuse’ as to His Being; and what IS then revealed through ‘Special’ Divine Revalation, as divinly Inspired and recorded in His Word, the Bible; which could NOT be known, understood through ‘natural’ revealtion, this IS why, He then gave to ALL of mankind His revealed will for US, collectively, to KNOW Him, through His Word in history!
Hopi // October 20, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Zoe…………. On Law of Non-Contradiction– Christians see Jesus as The Way, The Truth & The Light and Muslims see Muhammad as their Way ……..This is Reality for both of you, isn’t it?
Could it be that the Creator revealed ITSELF to the Christian and to the Muslim, that each other’s way, though different will lead them to, or is the TRUTH? And if Not Why Not? Or could it be that you are BOTH wrong?
Carson C. Cadogan // October 20, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Excerts from a lecture by Shlomo Sand on Sunday .
“Sand has an excitable, self-referential style, and he began the lecture by breaking his guitar. “Jewish history is not my field.” No, but once he had discovered that the story of the connection of the Jewish people to the Holy Land WAS A MYTH, he decided that he would secretly explore the history but not publish until he got tenure for doing other work. Because if he published this first, “there would not be any chance of being a full professor. Not only in Tel Aviv. But at NYU too.”"
“The Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe originated in Kazaria. They were hugely successful and founded a great city, Kiev. We can claim to have founded Kiev, but not Jerusalem, he said. Because the Jews who lived in the Holy Land stayed in the Holy Land. Many of the people we now call Palestinians were originally Jews. The chance that someone who lives in Hebron today and speaks Arabic is a direct descendant of a Jew in ancient times is 1000 times greater than the possibility that I am descended from a Jew, Shlomo Sand declared.”
What is a people? A people generally shares a way of life, a language, a food, a geography. There is no Jewish language. Shlomo Sand stumbles proudly in English, while of course many of the people in the audience were Jews speaking English. Food the Israelis have-stolen from the Palestinians-and still you must say that there is an Israeli people. But they are not the Jewish people. They are Israeli people, and the Palestinians are Palestinian people. Both made by Zionism
Shlomo Sand is Professor of History at Tel Aviv University in Israel and an author.
kiki // October 20, 2009 at 1:40 PM
God is my Father. That sounds pretty good. He is my Savior. That’s for sure. But God is my friend? This is a new side to Him that I have been introduced to …
Zoe // October 20, 2009 at 2:08 PM
@Hopi, “On the Law of Non-Contradiction, Chriatians see Jesus as The Way, The Truth & The Light (Life!) and the Muslims see Muhammad s as their Way…This is reality for both of you, isn’t it?”
Historic Christianity, from its inception endued untold persecution, hatred, mass killings, rejection, and continues up until this very day, where an estimated 100,000,000, Christians particularly in third-world countries are STILL being persecuted, mainly by Muslims, Islamists.
So there IS a vast distinction, between the Doctrine of Christianty and Islam, as there ARE *diametrically* opposed ‘Doctrinally’ Ideologically, Philosophically, IN every which way!
Could both these religions be Inspired, Led, by the same Almighty Creator?
Absolutely Not! Confirmed by the Transcendent Laws of Logic!
Firstly, Almighty God, our Creator IS NOT the God of *Confusion* For He IS Absolutely God of *Order* Peace, etc, etc.
“For God IS NOT the author of *confusion* but of *peace* as in all the churchs of the saints.” (I Cor. 14: 33) emphasis added.
They are many, many text throughout the OT, exhorting His people to *Peace*
“Who is the man who desires life, and loves many days, that he may see good?’
“Keep your tongue from evil, And your lips from speaking deceit.”
“Depart from evil and do GOOD; Seek *PEACE* and pursue it.”
(Psa. 34: 12-14).
Jesus said:
“But I say to you, *LOVE* your enemies, (Islamists et al) *BLESS* those who curse you, do *GOOD* to those who ‘HATE’ you, and pray for those who spitefuuly use you and *persecute* you.” (Matt. 5: 44)
emphasis added.
This is the complete *opposite* of Islam, Muhammad from the very beginning, and up until today, radical Islamists, *HATE* Christians, et al, who will not convert to Islam.
There IS NO way that such ‘competing’ ideologies, (truth claims) could possibly come from the *same* Creator, Almighty God!
The One True and Living God, of historic divine revelation, as given through His Church, Christianity, in its purest form, preaches the Gospel of Christ, which IS based entirely on God’s LOVE for all of mankind, and He DOES NOT compel any ONE by force, or hatred, or complusion, He gave us ALL, Free will, to either choose Him, or reject Him, NO such doctrine IS proclaimed in ISLAM, rather their agenda is one of HATRED, militant force, killings, right up until this time, i.e, Sudan et al.
No, Hops, Christianity and Islam CANNOT both be wrong.
The content of the Gospel of Christ, confirmed by thousands of years of Testimony, throughout the earth, in True Christians, not phoney ones, and False prophets masqurading as Christians, loudly attest to its *FRUIT* for by their fruit ye shall know them.
Not only does the Law of Non-Contradiction confirm, who is right here, and who IS wrong, BUT, the Law of Identity, as well as The Law of Excluded Middle, stands strongly on the side of the True Christian faith!
Zoe // October 20, 2009 at 2:26 PM
@ Again Hopi, “I have written unto you BECAUSE ye *know* the *truth* and because ye *KNOW* it, and that NO LIE is of the *TRUTH*” (I John 2: 21) emphasis added.
Deceit, HATRED, vile animosity, ANGER, muder and KILLING of innocent children, women, et al, by the multiplied MILLIONS by Islamists in Sudan et al, against BLACK Christian men, women and children by these HATE FILLED Islamists, are a diabolical testimony to their god(s), who most certainly, could NEVER be the Almighty God of Creation, just being approached by TWO different ways!
Absolutely not! It IS not moral, it is not TRUTH, it is a LIE!
Carson C. Cadogan // October 20, 2009 at 3:08 PM
“On 16 October 1935, a barrel marked “cement” fell as it was being unloaded from ships at the port in Jaffa. The broken barrel contained guns, grenades, and ammunition and was one of many secret shipments to the underground Zionist terrorist militias in Palestine. That incident among others (including the British government collusion in marginalizing natives in Palestine while encouraging Zionist Jewish migration and takeover) led in the year after to the great Palestinian uprising of 1936.”
Not Saved // October 20, 2009 at 3:09 PM
OR………………..
Deceit, HATRED, vile animosity, ANGER, muder and KILLING of innocent children, women, et al, by the multiplied MILLIONS by Christians in Sudan et al, against BLACK Muslim men, women and children by these HATE FILLED Islamists, are a diabolical testimony to their god(s), who most certainly, could NEVER be the Almighty God of Creation.
Not Saved // October 20, 2009 at 3:10 PM
OR………………..
Deceit, HATRED, vile animosity, ANGER, muder and KILLING of innocent children, women, et al, by the multiplied MILLIONS by Christians in Sudan et al, against BLACK Muslim men, women and children by these HATE FILLED Christians, are a diabolical testimony to their god(s), who most certainly, could NEVER be the Almighty God of Creation.
Hopi // October 20, 2009 at 3:28 PM
@Zoe………..Are there two different forms of christianity?
Other than what others before you have written, have you personally verified this Absolute TRUTH and how?
Zoe // October 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM
@Hopi, I’m not sure I follow your question, “Are there two different forms of Christianity?
And, “…have you personally verified this Absolute TRUTH and how.”
Could you please explain a bit more, exactly what you mean? So I can properly answer the intent of what you are asking!
Hopi // October 20, 2009 at 7:36 PM
@Zoe………….You said that Historic Christianity ‘endued’ untold persecution…… But wasn’t/isn’t there another Christianity that inflicted the same untold persecution ……….upon countless and is still continuing such horrors today? Which one do you subscribe to?
Other than the Bible how have you personally, you Zoe the man, not Zoe the Christian experience or verified ABSOLUTE Truth?
Zoe // October 20, 2009 at 9:39 PM
@Hopi, “…But wasn’t/isn’t there another Christianity which inflicted the some untold persecution…upon countless and still continuing such horror today?
Hopi, until you name, specifically, the “…another Christianity which inflicted the same untold persecution…upon countless…” I will not go any further! Can you name this “Christianity” what is it called?
Further the “Christianity” that transformed my *LIFE* from the inside, from within, IS the one that The Lord Jesus Christ founded, it DOES NOT persecute people, that IS WHY I carry NO denominatioal ‘label’ or ‘tag’ as I cannot find anywhere in the NT, Jesus or His disciples giving any ‘name’ specifically to the *Church* that He said He would *build* and the gates of Hell, would not, could NOT, prevail against IT.
Many over the Christian age, centuries, have blatantly *masquraded* under the banner of being Christian, and STILL do, sects, cults, and the like, who are NOT Christians; and that kind of subterfuge will continue right up, until Christ makes His Glorious appearance, when He will separate the true *Sheep* from the goats!
I will answer your latter question tomorrow!
Not Saved // October 21, 2009 at 12:19 AM
Nice, “no true scotsman” logical fallacy there, Zoe
LOL
Dictionary // October 21, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Moderators:
Pardon a few more remarks.
++++++++++
1] “No true scotsman”
The problem here is that counterfeits exist.
They lack key — essential –characteristics of the real thing, so pointing out that something or someone lacks such characteristics is valid in saying that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.
And in Christendom there have always been wolves in sheep’s clothing or, worse, in shepherd’s clothing. (Which is part of why there are certain criteria specified as marking true — albeit perhaps imperfect and struggling — from false disciples of Christ.)
the dismissal fails.
2] Ashekenazi vs “true” jews.
Had the commenter troubled to examine the recent y Chromosome studies, s/he would have learned that the Ashkenazi Jews have a genetic pattern that ties them closely indeed to the oriental Jews and to the Arabs. further to this, the Kurds, from N Iraq etc — just where one might expect to find some of the famous 10 lost tribes — are also very closely related.
3] Who “belongs” in Israel?
Historically, for 3000+ years,t eh Jews have been closely connected tot he land, indeed there are actually villages in galilee that have never lostt heir jewish identity since the days of jesus and beyond. At the same time, there have always been people of many other races in the land, and they were welcome. For instance David’s bodyguards and one of his three leading generals were Philistine.
The root problem today is not with Arabs being in Israel, but with islamist exclusivism and intended global hegemony. (Onlookers, observe above how when facts were laid out on this, they were simply ignored; telling us what is really going on here: hostility to Jews rather than serious engagement of a major problem, the same problem that — on the recent expose on 12,000 pp of documentation — CAIR exemplifies in the USA..)
4] Logic, truth and knowledge
The point of the classic laws of logic is that one cannot deny them without ending up in the absurdity of exemplifying what one wishes to deny.
E.g. to try to deny the law of non-contradiction, one has to say what one thinks IS, and thus implies what is therefore not, and also that there is no middle position or blend of both.
We may indeed be ignorant or confused, but that does not mean that there is not that which is so well warranted that it is credible to accept it as true; i.e knowledge (in the weaker sense).
5: Knowledge
In the stronger sense, try this; following Josiah Royce:
1: Claim: “Error exists.”
2; Denial: “it is not true that ‘error exists.’ ”
3: But if 2 is so, 1 would be . . . an error, i.e. to deny 1 affirms it by instantiating its truth.
4: So, 2 is self referential and in so referring to itself, contradicts itself.
5: this is reductio ad absurdum.
6: It is therefore warranted, true belief — knowledge in the stronger sense — that Error exists.
7: Also, truth exists in the sense that there exists that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. [Aristotle Metaphysics 1011b]
8: further, this is true without error. that is it is not only objectively — warranted — truth, but pure or absolute truth.
9: We may know some things to be true beyond reasonable doubt, but that does not at all mean that we do not make errors, or that we know all that is the truth.
10: Immediately it means that the popular radical relativism that denies the existence of unique, warranted and exclusive truth and knowledge are self-referentially incoherent. (And BTW, this includes core moral truths too . . . )
11: going beyond such a baseline, there are a great many claims that are so well warranted that, though they are not certain beyond all reasonable dispute, they are morally certain.
[Try to prove that your mother loves you beyond all reasonable dispute. But, by far and away most of us would be fools to doubt for an instant that our mothers love us.]
Ah gawn . . .
___________
De Dictionary
Hopi // October 21, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Zoe………….What do you call those people who with the Cross and the Name of Jesus Christ ransacked, pillaged, looted and decimated millions of people on the Continent of Africa, North & South America? What do you call them?
btw, Zoe…please don’t let the distractors detract you. Still waiting for your unconditional verification of Absolute Truth.
@NS………ease up offa Zoe nah!
Hopi // October 21, 2009 at 9:33 AM
One always have to ponder about those who constantly glean everything from a book.
and BTW, Prior to a Jew or A-rab occupying the land now known as Palestine or Israel, it was occupied by BLACK People – the Canaanites. It was called Canaan!
kiki // October 21, 2009 at 9:36 AM
War in Gaza: A prelude to Ezekiel 38?
http://lamarzulli.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/war-in-gaza-a-prelude-to-ezekiel-38/
J // October 21, 2009 at 10:18 AM
On October 15, 2009 at 12:03 a.m. Green Monkey posted a press release from Dwain Deets about a meeting to take place today in San Diego.
J responds “San Diego is real, real far from Barbados man and it real, real expensive to get there, so we ain’t coming to hear the former NASA engineer, if he is a former NASA engineer. And anyhow, why did NASA let him go?
J // October 21, 2009 at 10:32 AM
On October 15th at 3:31 p.m. Terence M. Blackett wrote…Many of you probably do not know that I was a Muslim for 5 years during the years 1982 to 1987. ..I converted to Islam at a time when I was looking for some spiritual direction in my life…At the time, I was a personal friend to the nephew of Dr. Wahid Ali who was the president of the Senate in Trinidad…The Ali family were a very rich, prominent family and I worked with Feisal Ali (who was owned his own Import-Export Co;) in Port of Spain as an advisor and personal assistant…Our friendship was a close one – where he married one of girlfriends who I went to school with at Foundation…As a practicing Muslim, I was intrigued by his religious zeal, sanctity and authenticity and in 1982 I became a Muslim, discarding all of my family traditions”
Dear Terence M. Blackett “J” thinks that between 1982 to 1987 you were a young suck-up, looking for friends among the rich, hoping that they would do for you what you should have been doing for yourself, and you were willing to discard the family and friends who had nurtured you for decades.
You felt that the Ali’s were your friends.
But did the Ali’s at any time DO anything to make you believe that they LOVED you?
Zoe // October 21, 2009 at 10:45 AM
@Hopi, down through the ages people have asked the same question that Pilate asked Jesus! What is TRUTH? What exactly is it?
The Christian ‘Faith’ trust, belief, as well as its rivals, essentially contain claims about reality, which are either True or False.Moreover, competing ‘truth claims’ especially those at the core of competing worldviews, often have different consequences for life. As C. S. Lewis put it:
“We are now getting to the point at which different beliefs about the universe lead to different behaviour. Religion involves a series of statements about facts, which must either be TRUE or FALSE. If they are true, one set of conclusions will follow about the right sailing of the human fleet; if they are false, quite a different set.”
This notion of truth employed in Lewis’s statement is called the “correspondence theory of truth” roughly, the idea that ‘Truth’ is a matter of a proposition (belief, thought, statement, representation) *corresponding* to reality; therefore, *Truth* obtains when *reality* is the way a proposition represents it to be.
The Historic Judeo/Christian Worldview.
This worldview essentially contains claims about *reality* which are either true or false.
Therefore, any worldview, must be subjected to, and must sustain (3) test in order to be considered valid.
1) Logical Consistency
2) Empirical Adequacy
3) Experiential Relevancy
The only religious Worldview, that meet and sustain all three of these criteria, is Historic Orthodox Christianity.
But, secondly, and intricately connected to the above criteria for validity, every system must also demonstrate and deal with the following questions:
1)Origin
2)Meaning
3)Morality
4) Destiny
Again, the theistic Christian Worldview, is the *only* one that logically, objectively, and convincingly demonstrate and sustain to the above questions, unparalleled with any other religious worldview.
And, Hopi, those who decimated Africa, South America et al, supposedly recognized as Christians, were nothing more than *BLATANT* masqureraders, liars, and deceivers, just like Roman Catholicism, et al, there has always, currently is, and will continue to be be, FALSE prophets, fraudsters, viciously, maligning the cause of Christ and His True Gospel; from such I want absolutely *Nothing* to do with them.
My relationship, is NOT with a religion, it IS with the Person of The Lord Jesus Christ, and as HE said:
“If you continue in My *Word* then ye are My disciples indeed, And ye shall *know* the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you FREE.” (John 8:31b-32) emphasis added.
Like multiplied hundreds of millions over the ages, from every nation, tribe, colour and class, my brothers and sisters of ALL colours and shades, we stand collectively, with ONE voice, resolutlely , through *Logical Consistency* *Empirical Adequacy* and *Experiential Relevancy* proclaiming that we KNOW, that we KNOW, He, Jesus lives, because HE Alone, as Lord of Lords, and King of Kings, HAS done a miraculuous work in our Hearts, which can be doubted by the unbelievers and scoffers, BUT, cannot be refuted, as the evidence is there, that Jesus does transform anyone, who sincerely repents, and trust, Him by faith, reasonable, objective, coherent faith, NOT blind faith!
kiki // October 21, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Is the New World Order going to be more
of the Old World Order called white
supremacy?
My advice is to chop up your credit cards
buy everything in cash and use bank accounts for income and bills only with
no surplus cash deposits..
kiki // October 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM
I’m A Free Man
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/im-a-free-man/
Not Saved // October 21, 2009 at 3:07 PM
“They lack key — essential –characteristics of the real thing”
++++
As defined by whom?
What next, the pope is not a ‘true’ christian?
Your attempt to dismiss the error by invoking the very same logical fallacy is laughable.
Not Saved // October 21, 2009 at 3:32 PM
@Hopi,
Ok.
Technician // October 21, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Just have to love the way he/she hanged themself……thanks for the rope Hopi….nicely done!
When it all boils down to gravy….everyone claims theirs is the true way and pull down all others…..the cycle continues.
Technician // October 21, 2009 at 4:18 PM
@ Zoe …
Are you saying that you have no affiliation to any of the many religious denominations on this earth?…none whatsoever?
That there is no label that can be placed on your correct and most rightly divided word?
This, I find hard to believe….but hey…..whatever yanks your chain.
Hopi // October 21, 2009 at 7:41 PM
@Zoe………Isn’t there ONE Jesus Christ? Don’t you and the pillagers worship the same Christ?
“Religion involves a series of statements about facts, which must either be TRUE or FALSE.” Fluffy, fluffy! Zoe, can you expound with an example found within Orthodox Christianity?
Have you personally performed the [3] test on Islam to validate/invalidate it?
Is TRUTH provable beyond the shadow of a doubt?
Isn’t belief itself rooted in uncertainity?
Why does TRUTH need belief and faith? Can Truth defend herself? Can’t she stand alone?
@Tech…….easy nah! You see how ROK made GP cuss. Leave Zoe!
Zoe // October 21, 2009 at 9:15 PM
The Seeds of Death.
“Allah did not create man so that he could have fun.”
-Ayatollah Khomeini
No right thinking society can truly be modern, civilized, or democratic if its women are *caged* and treated as second-calls citizens.
Because of the cruel system of gender apartheid in the (overlapping) Islamic and Arab worlds, a culture of *failure* has manifested itself in virtually every facet of these societies, from the political to the economic to the social. As David Pryce-Jones observes:
“In the years of independence, the Arabs so far made no inventions or discoveries in the sciences or the arts, no contribution to medicine or philosophy. Among those millions of quick and gifted people of individualistic outlook, and heirs to one of the world’s civilizations, hardly a single Arab has earned an international reputation except as the benificiary of his own country’s politics or his country’s oil extraction.”
Why is this hard reality so glaringly obvious?
Because of this failure, the males in this culture experience an agonizing sense of *humiliation* that leads, in turn, to *violent* rage. Since most of these men cannot imagine that their powerlessness stems from their culture’s misogyny (along with other dysfunctional ingredients), they rationalize it as the result of the threat of freedom from *within* and *without*.
Therefore, they the Islamists seek to eradicate the threat of freedom from within their own culture, and destroying the examples of success and freedom that surround it, i.e., the West in general, and America and Israel in particular.
The extremely deep-seated *humiliation* that haunts many Islamic males, plays a key role in Islamist *terror*, and this can be clearly seen in almost every statement issued by Islamist terrorists, as it echoes the raging inferno of *humiliation* that burns in the hearts of so many of these frustrated males, as well as its twin sisters , *shame* and *disgrace*. Osama bin Laden’s videotape of October 7, 2001, the first that was released after 9/11, is emblamatic of this utter dysfunctional anger and rage. He complained about the *eighty years of *HUMILIATION* and *DISGRACE* that the Islamic world had endured.
Clearly, Bin Laden’s statement was an obvious reference to the grave offense committed by the secular Turkish leader Kemal Ataturk, who dared in the 1920s to separate religion from state ‘within’ the Islamic World. Ataturk did this primarily by abolishing the *caliphate*, the institution governing, at least in theory, the *ummah*. The ‘caliphate’ represented the line of Sunni Muslims leaders dating back to the death of Muhammad in 632. In ending this Islamic political reign, Ataturk brought Turkey into the modern age, establishing it as a secular state. It, is therefore, no surprise that Sayyid Qutb spent an enormous amount of time and enery fulminating against Ataturk. Ataturk’s act was tantamount to a declaration of war.
In much of Islamic culture, modernization is seen not only as an enemy, but, worst still, it represents *inherent degradation*
This terrible dysfunctionality is further compounded by the fact that this culture rejects human reason and individual responsibility as important societal values. Like *fascism* and *commmunism* Islamism sublimates the individual into the collective whole, making it virtually impossible for individuals to take any real action to fix a societal problem. Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi, a leading twentieth century Islamic thinker and activist, gave voice to this deep cultural neurosis in his writings:
“No one has the right to become a self-appointed ruler of men and issue orders and prohibitions on his own volition and authority. To acknowledge the personal authority of human beings as the source of commands and prohibitions is tantamount to admitting him as the sharer in the Powers and Authority of God. And this is the root of all evils in the universe.”
Just another glimmer at the Islamists world, and the roots of this very dysfunctional culture!
Zoe // October 21, 2009 at 10:06 PM
@Hopi, I’ll answer a few of your questions tonight, the others I’ll answer tomorrow.
“Isn’t there ONE Jesus Christ? Don’t you and the pillagers worship the same Christ?”
Absolutely NOT, the ‘pillagers’ just like the Pharisees of Jesus day, who thought they were worshipping the One true and living God, were told in no uncertain terms who they were serving.
Hear the Lord Jesus Christ:
“I know that ye are Abraham’s seed (historic fact) but ye seek to kill Me, because My *Word* hath no place in you.” (Just like the ‘pillagers’)
“Ye do the deeds (just like the ‘pillagers’) of your father.”
“If God was your Father, ye would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do ye NOT understand My speech? even because ye cannot hear (understand) My Word.” Just like the ‘pillagers’.
“Ye are of YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, and the lusts (desires) of your father ye will do (like the pillagers). He (the Devil) was a murderer from the beginning, and abode NOT in the TRUTH, because there IS NO truth in him. When he speaketh a LIE, he speaketh of his own; for he is a LIAR, and the father of it.”
“And because I tell you the TRUTH, ye believe Me not.”
“He that IS of God, heareth God’s words, ye therefore hear then NOT, because ye are NOT of God.”
(John 8: 37; 41-45; 47) emphasis added.
“Isn’t belief rooted in uncertainity?”
That depends entirely on what one’s belief is! Many believe many things, that have no substance in reality, i.e., no objective, basis in cogent, coherent facts!
A man one day in Time Square, NY, was blowing a wistle for all his life, for hours on end. Finally someone asked him why he was doing this. He answered, ‘..It keeps the elephants away..” “But, there are NO elephants around here.” “Exactly..” the man replied, “…It does keep them away…”
His belief was strong in what he was doing, but it was not rooted in reality, nor truth!
Dictionary // October 22, 2009 at 4:38 AM
NS:
I see you insit on going off on familiar tangents and rhetoric of polarisation, instead of getting back to focus on a clear and very present danger as outlined in the original post.
[ONLOOKERS: Observe that no-one has been able to challenge the classic and current facts seriously. So, learn form who would face and who would dodge attending to a clear and present danger.]
A follow up, then, by way of concession: I take it you accept that counterfeiting is a real possibility.
On that premise, I then invite you to look at the main points of definition of authentic Christian faith, from the classic loci in the — demonstrably [cf Rylands c. 125 AD. . . ] — C1 NT:
_____________
1 –> Sermon on the Mount Mt 5 – 7; which outlines personal ethics of discipleship.
2 –> 1 Cor 13: 1 – 7, amplifying on just what Agape-love, the cornerstone of Judaeo-Christian Ethics, is about. [Cf Matt 22:34 - 40 and the related parable of the Good Samaritan on the two great commandments from which moral law hangs.] I cite personal ethics first as this is where wolfish characteristics will soon enough show up. (Rom 13:1 – 10 in light of Daniel Chs 1 – 6, is a first step on the ethics of citizenship and civil authority, but the subject is a bit more difficult and builds on the above. Lesson 2, perhaps?)
3 –> 1 Cor 15:1 – 11 summarises the core gospel message and its 500+ eyewitness anchored historical authentication, recorded within 25 years of the event. Ac 17: 16 – 34 shows how this message comes across to a culture that professing itself to be intellectually superior has failed to find the knowledge of the foundational reality, in the teeth of blatant evidence in the world around and in the inner life of man with mind and conscience..
4 –> The Great Commission, Matt 28:16 – 20, which is the charter of the church: to bear witness to Christ in the nations, to disciple them and to teach them the way of Christ (in large part as just outlined). Also, cf. Lk 47: , which joins the issues of commitment to Christ and repentance from the ways of sin: forgiveness and transformation through discipleship are en Christo.
5 –> Beyond that, we may note how the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit — one fruit, many pegs — are manifest and manifestly different, including Uncle James’ warning here on presuming to teach without first focussing on crucifying sinful passions and their works.
6 –> Of course an onward “shut-you -up”rhetorical tactic is to imply or assert hypocrisy. Struggle to grow is a characteristic of life, and is not to be confused with hypocrisy. That is why Jesus’ counsel in the above linked sermon [in Mt 7:1 - 5] assumes that one will struggle with sawdust and planks and then counsels us to work on our own struggles as a premise for helping others with theirs. Anyone who walks in the path of virtue will instantly recognise the pattern.
______________
That is, this stuff on true disciples vs wolves in sheep’s or shepherds’ clothing is not too hard to identify, if you are willing to face some challenging ethical issues squarely.
++++++++++
Okay, can we now get back to the issue of a clear and present danger that is documented here tot he tune of 12,000 pp in the recent investigative report? And, with a considerable lot of history and classical texts on the same theme?
[Onlookers, think about what it means if someone insists on refusing to look at a clear and present danger because it does not fit his/her preconceptions. ]
De Dictio0nary.
Zoe // October 22, 2009 at 9:07 AM
@Hopi, “Religion involves a series of statements about facts, which are either TRUE or FALSE.” Fluffy, fluffly! Zoe, can you expound with an example found within Orthodox Christianity?”
No other religious movement on earth, has had the observable effects, both *possitive* i.e., the multitudes from every nation, who sincerely repented and followed Christ, and *negative* those who resisted, fought against it, like Christianity has, this is a fact!
When Jesus said:
“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples (without distinction) unto Me.” (John. 12:32).
He was obviously referring to His crucifixion, Death on the Cross for ALL mankind. “This He said, signifying what death he He should die.” (v.33).
His Resurrection confirmed absolutely who He claimed to be, God of very God;
thereafter His Great Commission given to His disciples prior to His ascension.
“And He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you (His disciples) while I was yet with you, that ALL things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prohets, and in the psalms, concerning ME.”
“Then opened He their understanding, that they might *understand* the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it IS written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to RISE from the dead the third day.”
And that repentance and remission of SINS should be preached in His name among *ALL* nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are *witnesses* of these things.”
And, behold, I send the promise of My Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, *until* ye be endued with *Power* from on high.” (Luke 24: 44-49)
The utter historic reality of what then happened and transpired, on the Day of Pentecost, (Acts 2: 1-47) was an historic fulfillment of Jesus promise to His disciples (Luke 24:49) “…ye be endued with *POWER* from on high,”
Without the Coming of The Holy Spirit, who endued them with *POWER* nothing would have happened, as the Supernatural *Power* of Almighty God was/is required to begin, continue, and fulfill the Great Commission, to preach the Gospel of Christ, to ALL nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
The historic *facts* regarding this ‘Truth Claim” beginning on the Day of Pentecost, has NEVER ceased, can NEVER stop, no matter how much persecution, torture, and killings of Christians that have been targeted at His people, for as Jesus said,
“For He Himself has said, “I will NEVER leave you nor forsake you,” So we many boldly say: “The Lord is my helper, I will not fear, what can man do to me?” (Heb. 13: 5b, 6).
From then, circa 37 AD, up until this very day, througout the nations of the world, every *colour* of mankind represents the glorious Gospel of Christ, in the *power* of the Holy Spirit, and no matter who dispises and rejects it, NO one can stop the work of Almighty God, in, by, and through the Resurrected, Ascended, living Saviour and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Here is *Logical Consistency* *Empirical Adequacy* AND *Experiential Relevancy* throughout 2,000 years of Christianity, it can be decried, scoffed at, BUT, it cannot be refuted by any sensable, reasonable, honest thinking person!
Hopi // October 22, 2009 at 9:24 AM
@Zoe……………Weren’t these Pharisees the same people that we call ‘JEWS’ today? And according to your biblical quote Jesus himself said that they are NOT of GOD. So is Jesus a LIAR?
Still waiting on all the other answers!
@Dictionary………A clear and present danger to whom?
There are millions,countless who have suffered and died because of clear and ALWAYS present danger, so today’s clear and present danger is nothing new on this planet.
However,
what is it about today’s ‘clear and present’ danger that is different from all the other clear and always present dangers?
The good samaritan and ‘agape’ the tenets of judeo-christianity! Are you fa real? Whose TRUTH & REALITY is this?
Hopi // October 22, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Zoe……..Why are so many people denouncing Christianity today and why is Islam growing worldwide.
Zoe // October 22, 2009 at 9:54 AM
@Hopi, “Have personally performed the (3) test on Islam to validate/invalidate it?”
The absolute Love, Mercy, and Grace, for ALL of mankind, is demonstrably *shown* and *logically* proved beyond a reasonable doubt, by Christianity’s *consistency* *adequacy* and *relevance*
Whereas, Islam, has *consistently* from its inception with Muhammad, up until today, shown, demonstrated, and proved, it’s, *HATRED* *ANGER* and vile animosity towards ALL who are NOT Muslims, especially the Jew and Christian, with an declared, open agenda, to convert and control the world, through *TERROR* one way or the other, a vicious *culture* that denies its very citizens of any fundemental rights, i.e., religion of choice, NO democratic rights, gender apartheid, and the list goes on and on.
Christianity is the tree of the FRUIT of LIFE, Joy and Peace in Christ Jesus, to ALL who would come and taste of His Goodness!
Islam, is the tree of *DEATH* hatred and hopelessness!
kiki // October 22, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Plan B
Everybody should either agree with or
ignore people named Zoe (or Zoë, Zoé,
Zoey or any other variants) for peace of
mind..
i heard there was a secret chord
that david played and it pleased the lord
but you don’t really care for music, do you
well it goes like this the fourth, the fifth
the minor fall and the major lift
the baffled king composing hallelujah
hallelujah…
well your faith was strong but you needed proof
you saw her bathing on the roof
her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
she tied you to her kitchen chair
she broke your throne and she cut your hair
and from your lips she drew the hallelujah
hallelujah…
Hopi // October 22, 2009 at 10:28 AM
@Zoe……..Do you know that the same brush you paint Islam with you can use it to paint Christianity and Judaism as well. The only difference with judaism is that it seeks exclusivity and it uses both Christians and Muslims to carry out its sinister plot of deceiving the whole world. Zoe, the ‘jew’ stands in the middle and direct the events. It pits islam against christianity while it sandwiches itself in the middle as the “chosen.” Isn’t that the reality Zoe?
kiki // October 22, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Jesus say’s it’s good to praise your enemy instead of fighting
so I say..
Zoe would make the best door to door
salesman in the whole world
Zoe // October 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM
@Hopi, “…Why are so many people denouncing Christianity today, and why is Islam growing world wide?”
Care to share your assertions on above with data?
Zoe // October 22, 2009 at 10:41 AM
@Hopi, if you are going to continue throwing ‘Red-Herrings’ and ‘Straw men’ in this discussion, to distract from ‘facts’ and emotive ‘rhetoric’, it is a waste of time, apart from the ’silient’ observers who may be learning some objective truth.
You are ‘jumping’ all of the place, are you not able to remain focused on the essence and substance of the subject matter?
Hopi // October 22, 2009 at 11:30 AM
@Zoe, Zoe,Zoe………………..Don’t go there. I’m not throwing any daggers at you. I come in peace. that why I begged the other to back off you. You say that I’m not remaining focused, maybe you are correct because I’m following your lead. I should stay with my questions and await your answers. Zoe I’m being patient.
I honestly wish you would give me your, own PERSONAL insight as opposed to the insight of others. All you do is quote the Bible and other Authors. That’s not gonna cut it Zoe!
No daggers Zoe, please!
So get back to the Q & A.
kiki // October 22, 2009 at 12:05 PM
And Jesus said, “Shut up” ?!! Obviously he was not brought up by my parents!! Two things we were never, ever allowed to say, “Shut Up” (everyone has a right to speak) and calling someone “Stupid.”
Zoe // October 22, 2009 at 1:02 PM
@Hopi, I have gone through in my life time, a wide range of very ‘personal’ experiences; I WAS once terribly deceived by (2) very well known world wide institutions, one a Religious denomination, the other a Fraternity, both of which had very nice, sincere adherents, BUT, sincerely deceived.
I cannot STRESS and *emphasize* this point enough; I DONT just read and believe what is written in a book(s) because someone else says it is so, NO! NO!NO!
I have experienced ’spiritual’ deception, so I KNOW what that is like; conversely, I have ALSO, in a very real, living way, *experienced* the reality of ‘Spiritual’ Light and Truth, so, I don’t just talk off the ‘top’ of my head, I speak from living reality, so that when I quote from the Bible, which IS God’s Word, I have PROVED Him, and His Word to be TRUE!
I have over 20 years behind me in formal study of His Word, comparative religions, and ALL that entails on this subject matter!
A medical doctor HAS to make reference to their volumes of case history etc, so does a lawyer, engineer, etc, each discipline HAS it given criteria for analysizing that subject.
Therefore, when I quote the Bible, it IS my authoritative, God Inspired source from which my LIFE experience is based. When I quote from other authors, I just don’t take what they say at face value, it must be substantiated by ’sources’ etc, and bear witness to my conscience, knowledge, etc of the subject matter.
I, therefore *cannot* dismiss God’s Word, as it IS the Only source from which my *LIFE* has been radically transformed, I have a TESTIMONY, to its reality of TRUTH, like hundreds of millions of others over the ages, and I DO speak from my own PERSONAL experience and INSIGHT, as I am not a robot, I think, analysize ALL things pertaining to this subject, and am well read in this field of study.
Hopi, I trust that you’ll understand this explanation, which is a valid way of expressing my knowledge, *EXPERIENCE* etc!
kiki // October 22, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Zoe
Jesus never had a Bible,
he probably had a Torah
He heard God’s words
in his own head
in his thoughts
kiki // October 22, 2009 at 1:39 PM
I don’t Jesus ever wanted anyone to worship him but to think freely
Reverend Al Green – Free At Last
Hopi // October 22, 2009 at 2:42 PM
@Kiki……….When you get a chance, kindly upload for me, UPRISING by MUSE. I want to dedicate that to Islam, Christianity & Jewdaism and ALL other stinking ISMS!
@Zoe…………Who were the Pharisees? Can Truth defend herself? Still waiting!
kiki // October 22, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Hopi
message received ..10-4
Roger.. OK, I hear you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf8bKkXU_2s&feature=fvw
This is how the Americans are now fighting in Afghanistan – loaded up with guns and loud
music. The racks of speakers on top of this Humvee are a bizarre weapon dreamt up by the
army’s PsyOps unit – experts in psychological warfare.
The idea is that the music will flush the Taliban out of their hiding places in the mountains.
kiki // October 22, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Hopi // October 22, 2009 at 4:05 PM
@Kiki….Much Oblige my dearest!
Terence M. Blackett // October 22, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Today at a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council’s Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards, in Geneva, Switzerland – the Ad Hoc Committee has wide, if somewhat ambiguous, authority to “prepare complementary international standards to strengthen and update international instruments against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in all their aspects.” Among the items it is considering, are provisions designed to create a global ban on speech that offends religious sensibilities.
Attorney Barry Bussey, executive director of NARLA and a member of the panel that drafted the International Religious Liberty Association (‘IRLA’s) “Statement of Concern about Proposals Regarding Defamation of Religions”notes that “while we find much that is said about religion to be offensive, we cannot accept efforts to ban speech about religion. Such a ban will silent minority opinions and prevent honest and open discussions about the pros and cons of religious beliefs.”
“The push by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to create a global ban on free speech on matters of religion is dangerous,” states James Standish, Deputy Secretary General of the IRLA who is in Geneva this week representing the IRLA position. “We have seen the devastating impact of national equivalents of the provision, particularly in Pakistan where blasphemy laws are used to settle personal vendettas and relied upon as a pretext to marginalize the Christian community. Exporting this failed national model to the rest of the world would be very problematic. The IRLA is dedicated to prevent this.”
Blasphemy laws have a long history of abuse in a variety of cultures. Citizens have suffered injustice under these laws, prophets have been persecuted for violating them, and Jesus Christ – the Messiah to Christians, a prophet to Muslims – was executed in retaliation for making statements that offended the sensibilities of religious leaders of His day…
Zoe // October 22, 2009 at 6:54 PM
@Hopi “…why are so many people denouncing Christianity today, and why is Islam growing world wide.”
I asked you earlier for data supporting your assertion; you never answered!
Here are some of the facts from Wiki!
Christianity
“The US Department of State estimated that Protestant Christianity many have grown 600% over the last decade in Veitnam.”
“From the same period between 2000 and 2005, Pentecostalism experienced a global growth rate of 488% expanding from 115 million to 588.3 million global adherents. This classes Pentecostalism as the *FASTEST* growing religion world wide.”
“Using data from the period 2000 to 2005 and 2006 Christian World Wide Database estimated that by number of New Adherents, Christianity was the FASTEST growing religion in the world with 30, 360, 000 NEW adherents in 2006. This was followed by Islam with 13, 224, 000 estimated new adherents in the same period.”
Islam
“Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe, according to to the Carnegie Endowment Foundation for International Peace, the World Christian Database as of 2007 estimated the fastest growing of the five largest religions in the world by ‘percentage’ to be Islam. NOTE. High *birth rates* were cited as the reason for growth.”
“The same study concluded that in terms of *real* growth Islam *is not* the fastest growing religion.”
kiki // October 22, 2009 at 7:14 PM
zoe
do you just open a bible and read it out loud?
because anyone can do that on the internet
Free Bibliomancy Reading
Bibliomancy is the practice of seeking spiritual insight by selecting a random passage from a Holy Book. It is a form of Stichomancy, which involves selecting a random passage from a random book of any nature. Bibliomancy and Stichomancy have been popular methods of divination for at least 3000 years, when the I Ching was first used to divine the future. If you would like to try a free reading, just use the form on the left.
http://www.facade.com/bibliomancy/
kiki // October 22, 2009 at 7:16 PM
what is zoe about
The excerpt represents the core issue or deciding factor on which you must meditate, and is drawn from King James Bible:
disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow,
LUK 22:46 And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.
LUK 22:47 And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
LUK 22:48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?
LUK 22:49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
LUK 22:50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut
kiki // October 22, 2009 at 7:16 PM
http://www.facade.com/bibliomancy/personal/?UID=418734&Name=Anonymous&Query=what+is+zoe+about&Deck=bible&Reading=single
kiki // October 22, 2009 at 7:59 PM
touche
what is kiki about
The first excerpt represents the past or something you must release, and is drawn from King James Bible:
be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
MAT 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
MAT 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
MAT 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
MAT 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
King James Bible
The second excerpt represents the present or the deciding factor of the moment, and is drawn from King James Bible:
saying,
JOB 4:17 Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?
JOB 4:18 Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly:
JOB 4:19 How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?
JOB 4:20 They are destroyed from morning to evening: they perish for ever without any regarding it.
JOB 4:21 Doth not their excellency which is in them go away? they die, even without wisdom.
King James Bible
The third excerpt represents the future or something you must embrace, and is drawn from King James Bible:
make it desolate from Teman; and they of Dedan shall fall by the sword.
EZE 25:14 And I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel: and they shall do in Edom according to mine anger and according to my fury; and they shall know my vengeance, saith the Lord GOD.
EZE 25:15 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because the Philistines have dealt by revenge, and have taken vengeance with a despiteful heart, to destroy it for the old hatred;
EZE 25:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will stretch out mine hand upon the Philistines, and I will cut off the Cherethims, and destroy the remnant of the sea coast.
kiki // October 22, 2009 at 8:00 PM
http://www.facade.com/bibliomancy/personal/?UID=595958&Name=Anonymous&Query=what+is+kiki+about&Deck=bible&Reading=
Zoe // October 22, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Cravings for Death, is not only the ’spirit’ that drives Islamists, but, also their ardent Western ‘leftists’ radical supporters.
“Bit by bit, decorate it, arrange the details, find the ingredients, imagine it, choose it, get advice on it, shape it into a work without spectators, one which exist only for *oneself*, just the shortest little moment of life.”
-Michael Foucault, describing the pleasure of preparing oneself for suicide.
Believers’ longing for others’ *deaths* is often accompamied by a longing for their *own* death, as has been the historic reality of such extremeists ideologies.
The *leftist* tradition has, naturally, extended into *terror* war. Its prototypes were the *leftists* who set out to serve as ‘human shields’ for Saddam during the American liberation of Iraq. Many of them turned out to be *cowards* who ran away the moment they realized their lives were at risk. But, many did not; their desire to put their own lives at risk for the *idea* animated them, at least in part. This tradition has been carried on faithfully by the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a leftist organization who activities flock to the Palestinian territories to *interfere*, often violently, with Israeli military activities. They ‘intentionally’ put themselves in harm’s way in order to obstruct the efforts of Israeli soldiers to fight Palestinian terrorists.
ISM member Rahel Corrie, became a poster child for the *leftist* persuit of martyrdom. A twenty-three- year old activist from Olympia, Washington, she was accidentially crushed to death in Mach 2003 when she tried to obstruct the path of an Israeli bulldozer that was preparing to demolish the house in Rafah where she was lodging. Like her ISM colleagues, she was *knowingly* abetting terrorists. A few months earlier, when Palestinian militants seized the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, it was ISMers who smuggled food to them. Many of the homes in Rafah rested atop a network of *ninety* tunnels that were used for sumggling *weapons* from the Egyptian border to Rafah. It was impossible for Corie and her ISM comrades to have lived in Rafah and NOT witness the activity connected with these tunels. That is precisely why the bulldozer was in operation; the Israeli’s were trying to interrupt this tunnel activity. Israeli professor and journalist Steven Pault, has explicitely called Corrie’s death a suicide.
The believers’ *death* wish also manifest itself in their desire to live vicariously through the tyranny and terror with which they associate themselves. The activism of the Legal Left – the likes of Lynne Stewart, Michael Ratner, Stanley Cohen, and Ramsey Clark, and the organizations with which they are involved, such as the National Lawyers Guild and the Center for Constitutional Rights, perfectly illustrates this phenomenon. Legal Left lawyers veiw *terrorist* as victims of capitalist oppression and live vicariously through their *terror* by defending them.
Author and ‘FrontPageMag’ columnist Michael Trenoglie offers a profound interpretation of this phenomenon:
“…lawyers like (Stanley) Cohen aspire to be *terrorist* and are terrorists in a manner of speaking. They explode the law instead of buildings. They exploit and manipulate the Constitition to dismantle and disrupt their own society’s legal system and way of life.”
At the root of the terrorist lawyers’ vocation is, once again, the impulse for *death* and destruction that they share with all believers.
The believers’ love’ affair with the Khomeini revolution in Iran serves as a revealing, and horrifying example of this impulse. The French philosopher, Michael Foucault, was the poster boy for the Left’s romance with Khomeini’s killing machine, which Democratic President Jimmy Carter had helped spawn. To be sure, Foucault’s enchantment with *death* and destruction was nothing new in his life. Scholars Janet Afary and Kevin B. Anderson write:
“Throughout his life, Foucault’s concept of authenticity meant looking at situations where people lived dangerously and flirted with death, the site where creativity originated. In the tradition of Friedrich Nietzsche and George Bataille, Foucault had embraced the arts who pushed the limits of rationality, and he wrote with great passion in defense of *irrationalities* that broke new boundaries. In 1978, Foucault found such transgressive powers in the revolutionary figure of Ayatollah Khomeini and millions who faced *death* as they followed him in the course of the revolution. He knew that such “limit” experiences could lead to new forms of creativity, and he passionately lent his support.”
The so-called ‘creativity’ Foucault had in mind, was mass *death* that the Islamist revolution was sure to engender. Khomeini and the Islamist movement were unambigous in their agenda; the teaching of Sayyid Qutb, with its emphasis on *death* and *suicide*, shaped their reality. It was evident that Khomeini ’s *violent* and intolerant attitude toward non-Muslim minorities, secularists, women, and ALL dissenters from the Islamist line was no secret. Ah-mad-dine-jad, IS NO different, his driving agenda, is to annihilate the state of Isreal, to fulfill his idea that he has a mandate from Allah, to usher their Mahdi, and to conquer the world for Islam.
This is the most serious and diabolical, vicious agenda to ever face, not only the West, but humankind ever, moving at a rapid pace, and increasing daily in its *deadly* quest for total control of the world!
kiki // October 22, 2009 at 8:27 PM
In order to live life well one must accept the inevitable death that awaits at any moment. Death is not to be feared, it is only a passing. The individual is only a single part of the community (tribe). It is the community that needs to be served by the individual; not the opposite.
One becomes a warrior through courage. The warrior accepts his death. One must live with an generous heart and strong spirit in order to be prepared for death at any moment.
Nobody can ‘own’ the land. We are but guardians for a short time with the responsibility to pass on land to the next generation unspoiled so that more generations will be able to survive.
Here is a excerpt from a speech made by Tecumseh:
“So live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life, beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and its purpose in the service of your people. Prepare a noble death song for the day when you go over the great divide. Always give a word or a sign of salute when meeting or passing a friend, even a stranger, when in a lonely place. Show respect to all people and grovel to none. When you arise in the morning give thanks for the food and for the joy of living. If you see no reason for giving thanks, the fault lies only in yourself. Abuse no one and no thing, for abuse turns the wise ones to fools and robs the spirit of its vision. When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”
death sounds nice
like a big sleep
there are no bills when you die
my view is that you should appreciate people when they are alive
because we are just a flash in the sky in the big scheme of things
Not Saved // October 22, 2009 at 10:40 PM
@GEM,
I do not need you to tell me the dangers posed by those who are guided by the writings of obscure desert dwelling tribes in the bronze and middle ages.
I know too well the dangers posed by those who claim to know the mind of god(s).
And of the dangers from those who use fear to exert control.
Unlike you, I have no blind spot.
Tyranny is tyranny, whether christian, islamic or secular.
A war crime is a war crime no matter how just the cause or who is the victor. A muslim suicide bomber or a B29 bomber burning Tokyo to the ground.
To combat terrorism, a good strategy for the US might be to stop carrying it out themselves.
You miss the point because you are too quick to condemn to anyone who challenges your views. Dont you understand the muslims can play your silly game just as well as you?…..no true muslim etc…..
Yes counterfeiters exist. I see them on TV everyday but you miss an important distinction. Counterfeiters are frauds.
Those who kill in the name of your god(s) do so with sincerity.
“Onlookers, think about what it means if someone insists on refusing to look at a clear and present danger because it does not fit his/her preconceptions. ”
Your arrogance knows no bounds.
The only one here with preconceptions is you !
kiki // October 23, 2009 at 5:08 AM
i said the fence caan hold, too much bull
inna di pen!!
Bull in the pen
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/bull-in-the-pen/
I love king selassie
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/i-love-king-selassie/
Dictionary // October 23, 2009 at 6:19 AM
Moderators:
Sigh . . .
+++++++++
Not Saved:
You have now resorted to abusive and dismissive personalities, in response to a serious issue: the “head in the sand” challenge in response to rising dangers.
Perhaps you are unaware of the history of Europe in the 1930’s, or of the Stockholm Syndrome, whereby victims identify with perpetrators — notably Patty Hearst who after being kidnapped by the SLA actually participated in a Bank Robbery?
You have also resorted to a projection and assumption, one which is in fact inaccurate: I happen to hold, and have argued at length at other times and places that the B 29 nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified, and unnecessary [as, as many of the scientists argued at the time but were suppressed by the leadership consulted by the pols and generals, a demonstration "in Tokyo Bay" would have made the point . . . ], though it must be acknowledged that the loss of life involved in what was done was far less than what a conventional invasion would have cost. but, too, we must reckon with the terrible calculus of global war; and the unacknowledged responsibility of those whose head in the sand advocacy often block timely preventive action that could contain rising dangers before they mount up to proportions where the cost for confronting existential dangers is horrendous. As Churchill observed, WW 2 was the war that did not need to happen, had the leaders and peoples of the great powers in the 1930’s been willing to act with determination and fortitude, in good time. However, by the time the Munich pact was signed, it was all downhill from there.
But the wrongs involved in the B 29 bombings do not in any way justify either suicide bombings in recent decades, or prospective nuclear suicide bombings, or the underlying agenda to conquer the Middle East, massacre the Jews and subjugate the world under Shariah and the “global government” of the Mahdi. In short, militant Mahdist Islamism is a global conquest ideology, one that in the next few months is about to get nuclear teeth. And that is what immoral equivalency rhetoric on this subject is clearly enabling, just as head in the sand rhetoric in the 1930’s enabled the rise of the Fascist dictators to the point where they made a global grab for power. 60 millions paid with their lives for that.
Further to this, I have no doubt that he Western powers have their share of guilt over oppression and aggression. That is the common history of great powers, not just those historically tied to what used to be called Christendom.
At the same time, we must consider the central importance of the clear and present danger. For instance, in the 1930’s when Roosevelt challenged Hitler on prospective aggression, his artful reply was to point out the history of American domination of the native americans, and the British and French dominion over much of the world. If I were to rub out the source and a few historical markers, many of our region’s intelligentsia would applaud the speech.
Six years and dozens of millions of lives as well as a devastated continent later, the world learned — but seems to have now largely forgotten — the cost of putting the head in the sand in the face of a rising danger.
And the implied counsel of perfection that only the perfect can stand up in defence in the face of such a danger disqualifies us all. For, we ALL are finite, fallible, fallen morally and too often ill-wiled or at best of mixed motives. (Recall my adverting to the principle of planks and sawdust in eyes, as taught by a certain iron age backwoods “fundy” carpenter from Nazareth? the lesson there is that we do need to correct one another, but in so doing we must also deal with our own faults. Similarly, Rom 13:1 – 10 makes it plain that even so imperfect a personality as Nero can serve the good by restraining chaos and evil in society. That is, the state and its magistrates bear the sword in defence of civil peace, even if they are — necessarily — imperfect and prone to be wrong themselves. And the same despised teachings found a theology and philosophy for resistance to tyranny and interposition by lower magistrates who acting with the people may remove bad governors and institute reformed government. The US DOI of 1776, through Locke, directly builds on this teaching and is foundational to modern Democracy. Indeed the general election is in effect a regular peaceful means for such interposition. All of which was in my previously linked, and none of which appears to have been reflected on in your dismissal of me as “arrogant.”)
So, please, go back above, and see my remarks on jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
In short it is fair comment that you have set up a strawman and knocked him over, apparently failing to realise that there is a real and serious danger at work that strawman tactics simply distract us from addressing seriously.
Now, in our time, there is a definite rising danger of Islam-ISM [as opposed to Islam as such], and it is quite evident both above and elsewhere that many have a head in the sand problem. If you are not one of such — and distractive tactics as I have responded to just now are not helpful — then at least recognise that I am not speaking of a phantom problem.
I also notice your clever — and of course tangential (distractive from the focal issue of this thread) — immoral equivalency rhetoric on desert dwelling tribes.
All I will say on that is that the immoral equivalency tactic is a classic of propaganda, not a serious and responsible commentary; especially as there is no actual substantial equivalency; ever so much village atheist level “God is a moral monster” rhetoric (now repackages as the so-called new Atheism) to the contrary notwithstanding.
If you want to talk about serious social and political ethics, and about moral principles that are foundational to our civilisation, you might want to consider the bronze age desert remarks by that reluctant chieftain [and former prince of Egypt . . . ], Moshe, here, and a few words on how they were extended by Richard Hooker, then applied by John Locke in Ch 2 Section 5 of his famous 2nd Essay on Civil Government. I need not say more than that this essay and its historical impact are foundational to the rise of modern liberty and democracy.
____________
So, onlookers, let us put the distractive rhetorical tactics to one side, and deal with the actual dangers that now rise up in front of us.
And, yes, we too are imperfect, so let us recognise our own faults and set out on reform. but we must not ever fall into the trap of distracting rhetorical tactics that enable rising dangers.
With suicide bomber nukes credibly likely to be in play this time around ["demolition" nukes can indeed fit in a knapsack, or a suitcase -- the Spetsnaz had such in their inventory . . . ], the cost could be far beyond what our world can bear. including here in the Caribbean, as radioactivity clouds know no borders.
As the Greeks used to say: a word to the wise . . .
Good bye.
De Dictionary
kiki // October 23, 2009 at 6:24 AM
yeah right
the afghan / iraq war supposed to be
a quick in quick out job or did the
warmongers
want to stay there for 10+years all along
Dictionary // October 23, 2009 at 6:46 AM
PS: One last comment. Those who murder whether under the false colours of the name of God or not, know they murder — i.e. willfully take innocent life. Murder and “sincerity” are incommensurate. Those who in defence of justice, as civil authorities, bear the sword, are not to be equated to murderers by the mere fact that they bear the sword. And a study of Paul of Tarsus’ career will make the difference very very plain, starting with his attempt to make havoc of the church. I tis very clear that a substantial theme of Acts is that murderous persecution is wrong. Period. But, at the same time, when a group of zealots swore to ambush and murder the aged Paul — then an apostle of the gospel — he did not refuse the protection of the state, to the tune of “two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen.” That’s 400 foot (2 centuries of legionnaires and 2 of auxiliaries) and 70 horse, quite a force; and quite a testimony on how unsettled Judaea then was c. 57 AD, in the run-up to the uprising of 66 – 70 AD. On our point, the sharp difference between murderous persecution, tyrannical aggression and armed defence of the civil peace — where only arms will be effective — in the face of determined wrongdoers should be clear.
kiki // October 23, 2009 at 7:15 AM
Strange how all the hate is directed
to the east
And all the worlds wealth is directed
to the west
look west
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=8875271
look east
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/prince-of-peace/
Terence M. Blackett // October 23, 2009 at 8:37 AM
Muslims also believe that JESUS WILL RETURN….
http://67.15.194.38/download/23/14/5d81c8363c1c134ce5bbee9827aede7a/hz_isa_gelecek_divx_ingilizce.flv
Zoe // October 23, 2009 at 9:18 AM
In anti-globalization we once again find one of the most crucial commonalities between the *Leftists* and *Islamic fundamentalists*; the *hatred* of individual freedom and of the individual himself.
As his so evident from the declared statements of the leftists, i.e., Chomsky, Churchill and those of their ilk, there is a powerfull yearing in both ideologies for the submergence of the individual in a collective totality. The left and militant Islam also share a *hatred* of modernity. And America must bear the burden of being the generator, host, and symbol of modernity.
It is vitally important to recognize, that in today’s romance with *Islamism* as in the twentieth century romances with *communism* and *fascism* that the believer must conceal his own malicious agenda from others, and from himself, self-imposed denial syndrome.
In order to achieve this, they needed a camouflage with a pattern of behaviour that we have before seen, and can accurately be labeled, *The Denial-Excuse-Justification model*
This mode of denial-excuse-justification was patently obvious when they consistently *denied* the communist regimes’ mass crimes. When it became impossible, in the face of new information, in order to continue thus denial of *facts* and truth, they admitted the reality of such atrocities, BUT, found excuses for them, excuses which always involved rationalizing the crimes. Stalin may have killed millions, BUT, capitalism encircled him, and he had to industrialize the country; the Rosenbergs may have been spies, BUT, someone had to give the Soviets the bomb to prevent America from holding a monopoly on nuclear weapons; and so on. These steps of first denying the crime, and then admitting it, BUT, explaing it away, are always followed by the actual justification of it.
The believers’ favorite mode of *justification* is “the devil made them do it.” In this grotesque dynamic, leftists blame the devil, (literally the ‘Great Satan’ the United States) for any and every crime perpetrated by its enemies.
The denial-excuse justification model is manifested most clearly in the behaviour of Noam Chomsky. Chomsky denied the horrifying reports of the Khmer Rouge’s killing fields that tricked out to the West. He defiantly questioned the validity of the accounts given by refugees and witnesses. Sounds strikingly similar to some on BU, that defiantly also deny the validity of the historic accounts and *eyewitnesses* to the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. But, then again, there IS no length to which these *deniers* with go to twist, convolute, and malign facts.
But, finally, when thew horror of Pol Pot’s genocide could no longer be refuted, Chomsky turned to ‘the devil made them do it.’ Hear the utter dishonest rationale used by Chomsky. The Khmer Rouge’s genocide, it turns out, was America’s fault, because, according to Chomsky, the American bombing of Cambodia had driven Jeffersonian reform-mined Khmer Rouge crazy, and had led them to slaughter 3,000,000 of their fellow Cambodians. Chomsky’s analysis ignored the fact, that the Khmer Rouge were following the Marxist blueprint of wiping the slate clean in order to build a *utopian* society, and that they had meticulously planned their social engineering experiment long before the American bombing of Cambodia.
Chomsky and those of his ilk, have faithfully carried the denial-excuse justification syndrome into the terror war. And some went even further than Chomsky, indulging in bizarre conspiracy theories maintaning that Jews and/or Americans rather than Islamists had carried out the 9/11 attacks. Typical of this is Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a group of *leftist* professors and college students who hold that the Bush administration ‘orchestrated’ 9/11.
Chomsky and his group of sick deniers of reality and facts, is a typical case of a characteristic trait of the Left; and their refusal to publicly accept that adversarial movements engage in *mass* murder and *suicide* simply for their own, vicious, evil, ideological sake.
Zoe // October 23, 2009 at 9:32 AM
There are some relatively *new* posters here on BU, whose feet, like other well seasoned commentors, are *firmly planted in mid-air* giving their all to maintaining, that:
“Ignorance does have something to be said for; it gives rise to about 9/1oth of the conversational output of the world.”
So it be!
kiki // October 23, 2009 at 9:55 AM
zee you sound like a right wing fundamental christian end of world propagandist nut job.
Hopi // October 23, 2009 at 2:40 PM
@Zoe……….Here I was actually having faith & belief in you, [since I don't know you] that you would stop being evasive and answer the questions without resorting to props. See what happens with faith and belief!
Do you know without a shadow of a doubt that Americans and Jews were not involved in that destruction. Do you know that as fact ZOE?
Pls leave Ward Churchill out of this!
How can you go against Chomsky like that? He is a CHOSEN one. He is a Jew!
David // October 23, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Read the following article and it provoked some questions.
Not Saved // October 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM
“Perhaps you are unaware of the history of Europe in the 1930’s, or of the Stockholm Syndrome”
Keep up the condescension, it fits you so well.
“You have also resorted to a projection and assumption”
You mean like when you accused me of trying to “dodge” a “clear and present danger”?
No, you made this assumption because you fail to get the point.
Maybe the words of the hated Chomsky will help:
“The hypocrite is a person who focuses on the other fellow’s crimes and refuses to look at his own”
Very good of you to recognise the war crimes of WWII. Then, the standard was if ‘we’ did it, it was not a crime.
Do you deny the acts of terror in Israel (by both sides) and Iraq? Does the same standard now also hold?
To respond to terror with terror is fruitless and immoral, do you deny?
No, you are not speaking of a “phantom problem”. The dangers posed by those who claim to know the mind of god(s) are very real.
You have no special insight to this danger and your constant charge of “head in the sand” is the archtypical strawman.
But to hide behind the “no true christian” fallacy is silly and they can play that game just as well as you.
“All I will say on that is that the immoral equivalency tactic is a classic of propaganda”
You deliberately obfuscate . The immoral equivalency is with those who do evil in the name of the god(s).
“And, yes, we too are imperfect, so let us recognise our own faults ”
Yes please do.
Lets not make the stupid ” no true christian” argument.
The dismissal holds.
Zoe // October 23, 2009 at 6:07 PM
@Hopi, Throughout history, Jews like anyone else, are sinners, just like Gentiles. There are wicked, evil, Godless Jews, like anyone else, in the past, now, and right up until the end.
And, Hops, don’t try flattering me, it won’t work! You’ve already said that my Christian worldview, especially my full belief and relience on God’s Word, won’t ‘…cut it…’ for you!
Well, it might not ‘cut it’ for you, but, IT will surely CUT you!
So, Wardie, is one of your ‘Leftists’ colleagues, that’s to me expected, after all, ‘birds of a feather do flock together’ even though they will eventually, “fly” right into the path of ‘fire’!
Professor Ward Churchill, of the University of Colorado, the imposter (he had falsely claimed to be part Cherokee in order to get his ethnic studies professorship!) Probably the most notorious case was when Churchill stepped forward to publicly reiterate his, and the Left’s world vision; he denounced his own nation as a genocidal empire, *promoted* America’s terrorist enemies, excused 9/11 as a case of the “chickens coming home to roost” and called its victums “little” Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers. Churchill, grateful to the Islamist terrorist for attempting to destroy America’s ‘global financial empire’ he believed that the Americans who died on that horrible day deserved their death.
Such is the warped thinking of Leftists like Churchill et al of his depraved mind-set,. Yet, the very system they hate, is the very one that allows them this democratic, freedom of speech, and to vent there frustrations, that IS unheard of, in the very Islamic, *terroristic* nations that they support!
Whether American and Jews had anything to do with 9/11, “Do you know this as a fact..” Is irrelevant, not applicable to the matter we were discussing re Logic and moral and spiritual reality!
Zoe // October 23, 2009 at 6:32 PM
@ NS to Dictionary, “You have no special insight to this danger and your constant charge of “head in the sand” is the archtypical strawman.”
Man, your head is so far buried in the sand, that you might very well ’strike’ oil soon!
kiki // October 23, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Chase the devil
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/chase-the-devil/
Free up the Weed
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/free-up-the-weed/
Micro Mock Engineer // October 23, 2009 at 7:19 PM
@Dictionary,
I find your last two contributions rather disturbing. Are you a Christian?
“armed defence of the civil peace — where only arms will be effective”?!?
Surely you know that this attitude runs counter to Christ’s teachings.
Christ was explicit about what the Christian response to violence should be… but you fellas want to pick and choose when and which rules to follow… first GP supports the killing of convicted murderers and now Dictionary ready to bear arms and kill to defend his worldly possessions and earthly existence.
Listen ‘Christians’, lef dah violence and ‘armed defence’ to the rough-necks like Bush Tea. :-)
Not Saved // October 23, 2009 at 7:42 PM
@MME,
Perhaps he is not a “true” christian.
Micro Mock Engineer // October 23, 2009 at 8:09 PM
LOL Not Saved. I am not sure what you mean by “true”, but being Christian doesn’t mean being perfect… we all fall short.
IMHO Christ (or, if you are a skeptic, the accounts of Christ as presented in the Bible) provides us with an excellent example and philosophy to follow… don’t you agree?
Not Saved // October 23, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Zoe claims,
“Chomsky denied the horrifying reports of the Khmer Rouge’s killing fields that tricked out to the West.”
++++
As usual Zoe makes flat out false statements.
Here is a length article by Hitchens which looks at the claim in detail.
http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985—-.htm
Following is the concluding paragraph.
“Here is the story, as far as I can trace it, of Chomsky’s effort to “minimize” or “deny” the harvest of the Khmer Rouge. It will be seen that the phony “credibility” of the charge against him derives from his lack of gullibility about the American mass killings in Indochina (routinely euphemized or concealed by large sections of the domestic intelligentsia). From this arises the idea that Chomsky might have said such things; was the sort of person who could decline to criticize “the other side”; was a well-known political extremist. Couple this with the slothful ease of the accusation, the reluctance of certain authors to prove they are not unpatriotic dupes, and you have a scapegoat in the making. Dr. Arbuthnot was right. Nobody would believe that Chomsky advocated a massacre. But they might be brought to believe that he excused or overlooked one.”
Not Saved // October 23, 2009 at 8:39 PM
@MME,
I agree.
I would suggest that what Jesus preached and that what became christianity make for an interesting study.
Dictionary // October 24, 2009 at 5:59 AM
Moderators:
Ah well, sorry to trouble you yet again!
+++++++++++
NS:
You are simply recycling already adequately answered objections and personalities, with further projections.
(Onlookers, cf above. I need not reiterate the corrective points.)
MME:
You raise some interesting issues. I will focus on:
>> Christ was explicit about what the Christian response to violence should be… but you fellas want to pick and choose when and which rules to follow… first GP supports the killing of convicted murderers and now Dictionary ready to bear arms and kill to defend his worldly possessions and earthly existence. >>
The key distinction to make is between personal ethics (if slapped — a gross insult — turn the other cheek) and public ethics as the foundation of sustainable nationhood, civil law and government (the civil authority is God’s servant to do us good; and bears the sword as a tool in that task).
So, the NT’s ethics — and broader Biblical ethics — are not simplistic or suicidal.
We are not to be personally touchy or brawlers or slanderers etc. But also, we must at the same time recognise that God created the nations [Ac 17 -- note the plural], that he did so to restrain domineering powers rising up in rebellion, and that a civil society — in a world of armed and dangerous wrongdoers — is not a suicide pact.
Where wolves abound, sheep need shepherds with adequate arms to address wolves. Where the wolves are mere fast-talking deceivers, arguments that expose the deception are enough. But when one deals with armed and violent wolves seeking sheep for lunch, someone has to bear the sword in defence of the civil peace; and that, as God’s agent of Justice.
I already linked the classic NT text and a discussion. [Rom 13:1 - 10, and cf the actual case in Ac 23, where Paul was protected from a murder plot fomented by local authorities, by the colonial power (!), backed up by 400 foot and 70 horse].
But it seems that we need to cite in extenso, from a famous passage penned by Paul only a few months before the incidents in Ac 22 – 23:
>>Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment,1 and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority2 resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 13:3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 13:4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. 13:5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities3 but also because of your conscience.4 13:6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities5 are God’s servants devoted to governing.6 13:7 Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 13:9 For the commandments,7 “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,”8 (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”9 13:10 Love does no wrong [NIV: harm] to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. [NET Trs] >>
a –> Civil authority (armed with the sword in defence of justice) and charged to do us good is God’s ordinance. No ifs, ands or buts. they will account before him for the remit, from the school teacher to the civil servant tot he police officer or soldier, to the general or the parliamentarian or the prime minister or the Queen.
b –> Civil authority is to be respected and indeed honoured, in the context that it has a particular charge to keep: justice and protection of the civil peace — that which makes us “neighbours.” (Contrast here the theologically alienated but decent Good Samaritan, and the robbers who beat up and left the traveller for dead in Jesus’ parable. [In our day, let's use a nice Moroccan Sufi as the Good Samaritan, and either a Maoist rebel or an Islamist jihadi or an old fashioned J'can gunman as the robber . . . The point of the parable is still very relevant.])
c –> Thus, the protective role of the civil authority addresses “enemies of the civil peace, foreign and domestic.” Whether a criminal or an aggressive invader, an armed and determined enemy of the civil peace has to be dealt with firmly, while protecting — not oppressing — the innocent. That is a bedrock principle of Judaeo-Christian public ethics.
d –> But, civil authorities can also go bad, turning tyrant; cf the Jerusalem religious-civil authorities of Ac 23, who were perverting justice by fomenting a murder plot in the name of a COURT hearing. [Remember, that built on a mob slander and attempted lynching in the temple Courts, Ac 22. The PAGAN colonial power -- BTW, achieving that status through invited intervention in a civil war -- intervened and saved the life of Paul. Note how the pagan at first was doing an oppressive thing, but once the law was named, respected it. That is, he was flawed but responsive to the word of correction. The ironic contrast of Rom 2:6 - 15, penned only a few months before, is telling.]
e –> The biblical principle, OT and NT is that ALL civil authorities are God’s servants of justice. [BTW, Caribbean Civil Servants, please note!] So, when an authority goes bad, other authorities and the citizens with them, are entirely in order to remonstrate, request correction, or in drastic cases intervene to correct. In cases that are bad enough, removal is warranted.
[In a few years, the Jerusalem power classes brought down on their heads what Josephus called the "unwilling" sword of Rome. That is the root of the 2000 year exile that came to an end with the Zionist resettlement from the 1870's on, and culminated in the agreements with Arab leadership in 1919 [Weizmann-Feisal] and in international agreements in the 1920’s and 1940’s. Had the Arab side carried out its side of the bargain, the ME today would have been a peaceful prosperous zone in which Jewish education, talent and treasure and Arab oil and population would have made a paradise. But, there were too many “wild donkeys” who insisted on kicking up a rumpus in their drive to domineer. ]
f –> The doctrine of interposition between ruler- turned- wolf and his intended victims is what grounds the theology of God-fearing revolution. Its roots lie in the bronze age slave revolt that — under a former prince of Egypt turned exile and prophet — led an enslaved national group in Egypt into the desert where they could form the seed-plot of nationhood under God. High points include Jepthah, David, and Daniel, as well as Ezra and Nehemiah. (All those things the new Atheists do not fairly address, in their haste to characterise God as a moral monster, and the covenantal people of God — Old or New — as criminals and threats to liberty. But, liberty is not libertinism!)
(And, yes, I know this is not familiar grounds for the pulpit today; but 200 – 400 years or so ago, that was a different matter! This is the theology and history that set the ideas framework in which modern liberty and democracy emerged out of the Protestant reformation, and has spread far and wide now that it shows that it works. As I noted, the election today is a thankfully peaceful institutionalised potential revolution that allows us to assess and remove bad rulers without having to fight a war. That, too is why the election is so important, and why a free and responsible public that discusses issues fearlessly and honestly — i.e. on the merits, not he fallacies and the personalities — are also so important.)
g –> In that context, the civil authority is empowered to take just taxes, to sustain the work of government. (This is in the context of “thou shalt not steal”; which has implications for those who seek excessive and crushing taxes, or — more likely today — use inflation to exact an invisible but ruinous tax. Just ask any Jamaican or Guyanese. [And BTW, devaluation is the CONSEQUENCE of inflationism: devalue or run completely out of needed foreign currency.])
h –> In that context, citizens are called on to love neighbour as self, noting that love does no harm or wrong to neighbour. (Of course, we are to respect the fact that even enemies are made in God’s image and must be treated with respect. there is never a good justification for cruelty, terroristic targetting of the civil population or oppression. [And while I am at it, thought here may have been isolated incidents in the recent Gaza conflict, it is plain from an accurate examination of the record that the Israelis, in response to thousands of rockets launched at their civilians going about the ordinary business of life in what had hitherto been an empty desert, took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to try to protect the lives of enemy civilians, who too often were being used as human shields.])
i –> In this context the proper goal of international politics would be to extend the circle of civil peace globally. but, that provides no excuse for hiding the head in the sand over those who are wolves arming themselves for the attack, or actively engages in aggression.
j –> Whether in the 1930’s or from the 1940’s – 90’s, or currently.
___________
G’day, again.
De Dictionary
Dictionary // October 24, 2009 at 6:35 AM
PS: Lev 19:15 – 18 on “Neighbour-love:
>>19:15 “‘You22 must not deal unjustly in judgment:23 you must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich.24 You must judge your fellow citizen fairly.25 [contrast the murder plot int he name of a court hearing of Ac 23, and the beating of slandered persons in Ac 16 by the magistrates of Phillipi, on antisemitic slander] 19:16 You must not go about as a slanderer among your people. [a sober warning to those who use blogs, columns etc to start or circulate slander . . . ]26 You must not stand idly by when your neighbor’s life is at stake [Cf Good Samaritan etc, but primary ref is to the courtroom, where you know the truth that can save an unjustly accused].27 I am the Lord. 19:17 You must not hate your brother in your heart. You must surely reprove your fellow citizen so that you do not incur sin on account of him. [Note the corrective interventions in this and other threads by Christians and Jews] 28 19:18 You must not take vengeance or bear a grudge29 against the children of your people, but you must love your neighbor as yourself.30 {note the specific immediate context of neighbour love: injustice or partiality to social classes in the courtroom, slander, abandoning a neighbour in trouble as examples of failing in the duty of neighbour love] I am the Lord. [NET Trs]>>
Dictionary // October 24, 2009 at 7:04 AM
PPS: Those wishing some balancing information on the history of Modern Israel may wish to start here and here. This encyclopedia article seems a good start-point on Islam, and this note may help on issues tied to Islam in the Caribbean. (Some may wish to look at the call to action on Islam, the gospel and the Caribbean here.) This article on the new Atheists will give some perspective too. Maybe, these links will help us turn down the rhetorical voltage.
kiki // October 24, 2009 at 7:31 AM
If you love Israel Vibration say forward
>>===> http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/category/israel-vibration/
I’m saying it’s you
Then you come and tell me
That it’s me
Then we started to fight
How could that be right ?
..
All we need is
Perfect love and understanding
And if we try try try
We can work this out
Zoe // October 24, 2009 at 11:06 AM
@ Not Saved, I never said that Chomsky advocated a massacre, that he ‘denied’ it, as your quote re Dr. Arbuthnot said, “But, they might be brought to believe that he (Chomsky) *EXCUSED* or *OVERLOOKED*
Which he most certainly did, in so many words. Denied IT!
NS, stop ’splitting’ hairs, over *facts*
For an excellent account of Chomsky’s *denial* of Pol Pot’s genocide, have a read of Steven Morris’ “Whitewashing Dictatorship,” pp. 1-35.
BTW, Dictionary’s excellent exposition re the God ordained right of civil authorities to execute, defend, and IF necessary to use the ’sword’ against oppressors, tyranny, etc, AND *LOVE* for one’s neighbour, OT, a truly well balanced explanation, of what he has so clearly been expressing in his earlier post, BUT, the *Leftists* and new-athiest on BU, are so mind-twisted, that they (he) are utterly unable to be intellectually honest, or rather so blinded “spiritually” as to be unable to *SEE* the truth and facts in any coherent, objective manner!
Zoe // October 24, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Further, All that has been *OPENLY* declared by the PLO, Hamas, in their charter, article 7, Hezbollah, Bin Laden, Ah-MAD-dine-jad, et al, throughout the Islamist world, resolutely *CALLING* for the annihilation of the state of Israel, and ALL Jews, and America and other Western, democratic nations, only and idiot, whose ‘head’ IS deeply buried in the sand, would fail to recognize and accept the seriousness of what Dictionary has being trying to impress of the minds of the observers on BU.
In the face of the real THREAT posed by these radical Islamists, in light of what they have achieved thus far, 9/11 and other vehement *TERRORIST* activities around the world, only a *FOOL* would be so stupid to deny this reality, which IS fastly approaching the door steps of many nations, and one does not even have to have any ’spiritual’ insight into this FACT, to understand the points that Distionary has raised. Though, that, the ’spiritual’ dynamic is the ROOT of this clash of these vastly different idologies, which is the very *APEX* of all that this playing out before our very lives, day by day!
kiki // October 24, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Regardless of the language, colour, skin,
eyes whatever there is one people one god
Micro Mock Engineer // October 24, 2009 at 3:59 PM
@Dictionary,
You are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Christ’s instructions were unambiguous… “do not resist evil by force”… it doesn’t get any clearer than that, and to ensure there is no misinterpretation, the message is repeated over and over in reference to both personal and public ethics. It is most instructive that in a discourse such as this, not once in your lengthy submissions do you refer to anything Jesus actually said or did. In response to my submission about what Christ taught us our response to violence should be, you have written two-thousand words none of which, even once, reference Christ.
Acts 23?!? Of course the Roman army stepped in to rescue Paul… you think they would sit idly by and let a Roman citizen be executed by the Jews… the Jews had to know their place.
Romans 13:1-8?!? ROTFL…. Which verse exactly are you interpreting as condoning the use of violent resistance? To make matters worse, you seem to forget that it is Paul you are quoting… LOL… Paul who was in and out of jail more often than Winston Hall? Paul who was constantly on the run from civil authorities? What was Paul’s response to the persecution he endured at the hands of civil authorities? Did he resort to violence or bear arms against Nero or the Jewish High Priests? Come on… I know you can do better than that. If you read all of Paul’s writings, it becomes clear that like Jesus, he is encouraging us to confront evil with love.
Dictionary, you are applying the same sort of convoluted reasoning here, as those ‘Christians’ who condoned the slave trade. Keep it simple… just follow Christ’s example and you can’t go wrong. Amor vincit omnia.
Zoe // October 24, 2009 at 4:25 PM
The Hitler-Stalin Pact of August 1939 that immediately enabled the German invasion of Poland and let to the outbreak of World War II fractured the *Leftist* in Europe and America along the lines Orwell had forseen, having to do with the *appetite* for the excercise of raw power. Lefists who were first and foremost totalitarians, stayed with Stalin, even if it meant they had to be in league with Nazi Germany. Stalin had Trotsky assassinated and the most socialists who could not stomach Stalin and Hitler split away to join the ranks of European democratic socialist and labor parties.
Moving on some seventy years from the late 1930s to yet another battle for the soul of the *Leftists* in Western democracies, A number of new characters look extremely similar to those of the 30s, at least in a broad outline.
Several candidates for modern Nazi equivalents emerge , one of the most dramatic is the substantial parallel that emerges between the Nazis and today’s extreme *Islamists* both Shi’ite and Sunni.
Iranian President Ah-MAD-dine-jad’s calls for Israel to be “wiped” from the the face of the Earth” are certainly evocative of the Holocaust, as set out in ‘Mein Kamp’ and then carried out. The Revolutionary Guard Corps is as close as we have seen to recreating Hitler’s Brownshirts. Tehran’s Evan Prison has been the killing field for thousand of Iranian reformers, trade union leaders, students and journalists, just as were similar locations in Hitler’s Germany, A number of demands for regional domination by leading figures in the Tehran regime have more than a faint echo of the Thousand Year Reich about them.
The Sunni *Islamists* are tied to a powerful state in a different way. In his excellent work on al-Qaeda and 9/11, ‘The Looming Tower’, Lawrence Wright notes that, with just over 1% of the world’s Muslims, the Saudis control about 90% of the world’s Islamic institutions.
The Wahhabi doctrine they teach, muderous with regard to Shi’ites, Jews, homosexuals, and apostates and unremittingly repressive with regard to women, IS essentially the same as al-Qaeda’s. Both seek, differing only in tactics, to move us ALL toward a world-wide totalitarian distatorship, the *Caliphate*. The Wahhabi-al-Qaeda revalry is *lethal*, but it is not a battle over values. It IS essentially a bitter fight over who should be in charge of getting ALL of US under the Caliph’s control.
Islamist anti-Semitism is *virulent* in part because of direct links between Nazism and the founders of Islamist movement in the 30s and 40s, such a Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasseini al-Banna and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini; the latter was a collaborator with the adviser to Eichmann and Himmler in planning the Holocaust. In the 50s and 60s, Sayyid Qutb, the chief theorist of modern Islamism, put virulent anti-Semitism at the heart of that totalitarian doctrine.
In many aspects of Islamist behaviour today, echo that of the Nazis, who are our current Stalinists? Who are today’s equivalent of those members of the *Left* in the West who embrace the Stalin-Hitler Pact and, at least until Hitler invaded Russia in 1941, happily consorted with their fellows on the totalitarian right, and made common cause against democracy and liberty?
And why, may we ask, have a number of today’s members of the far *Left* taken a path that they have instead of following the noble example of Orwell?
Throughout the twentieth century, the Westen *Left* supported one totalitarian killing machine after another. Prominent intellectuals from George Bernard Shaw to Bertolt Brecht to Susan Sontag venerated mass muderers such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh, habitually excusing their atrocities, while blaming America, and even the victims, for the
crimes.
After 9/11, when the *Islamist* death cult made itself the West’s new worst adversary, history repeated itself. The *Left* once again gave its affection to *Mass Muderers* and heaped its scorn on America and the West. The only difference this time around was that the Left’s favorite *murderers* were waving not the red flag of proletarian revolution, BUT, the *Black Flag* of *Islamic Jihad*. As they did in the twentieth century, members of the political faith, like Jimmy Carter, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Tom Hayden, once again reached out to *bloodthirsty* tyrants bent on human destruction.
And, we have, here in our midst, extended, virulent supporters, of these *Leftists* and Islamist *Jihadists* who while enjoying all of the freedom of a democratic society, HATE the very system that allows them to vent, their venom, anger and dysfuncitional mind-set.
A different Anonymous // October 24, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Wow! Micro Mock Engineer wants us to ignore those who for almost 1500 years practised everything but “love thy enemy”. Who were those crusaders, ‘inquisitionists’,conquistadors, slave traders, liberators of Vietnam, cold warriors,contras of Nicaragua etc? Probably atheists. But then …
When the Canaanite king of Arad who lived in the Negev heard that Israel was coming along the road to Atharim, he attacked the Israelites and captured some of them. Then Israel made this vow to the Lord ” If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy their cities.” The Lord listened to Israel’s plea and gave the Canaanites over to them. They completely destroyed them and their towns; so the place was named Hormah. (Numbers 21: 1 – 3)
Zoe // October 24, 2009 at 6:58 PM
@MME, to Dictionary, who is more than capable of defending the premise of his argument, nevertheless, let us look carefully at MME’s argument in his exegesis of the Word.
First, he says: “You are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Christ’s instructions were unambiguous, “do not resist evil by force” It doesn’t get any clearer that that.”
Here in Matthew 5 :39, (cf. Prov 20:22; Luke 6:29; Rom 12:17; I Cor. 6:7; I Pet 3:9; Isa. 50:6; Lam 3:30),
Jesus is speaking to His disciples, those that would be the founding Fathers of the Christian Church after Jesus’ ascension; and how they (personally, individually, and collectively) should respond when, as Jesus instructs:
“But, I tell you, not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (Matt. 5:39)
Clearly, Jesus was contrasting the OT principle, ‘Lex talionis’ (the law of retaliation whereby a punishment resembles the offense committed), as He cited in the preceding verse ( 38). To the NT dispensation of His disciples, and by extension the Church, (the individual(s) must not respond in this manner.
To take this, and equate it, to a nation, representative of millions of its citizens, who may be threatened by serious external attack on its very existence, is to misrepresent and completely misinterpret what was clearly intended by Jesus to His disciples, and Christians.
Also, you obviously have failed to remember, or, simply don’t understand, that Jesus did not deal or specifically teach and instruct on many things, therefore as He said:
“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, (The Holy Spirit) of TRUTH, has come, He will guide you into ALL TRUTH:…” (John 12a) emphasis added.
Therefore, clearly, obviously, and according to what followed on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon them in the Upper Room, and Divinely Inspired them to subsequently write the Gospels, the Letters and Epistles, with the Gospels recording the life, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of The Lord Jesus Christ; and the the Letters and Epistles, which enunciated, articulated, amplified, taught and established ALL sound Biblical NT doctrine, which must be earnestly contended for (Jude 3) part of which IS Paul’s goverment (civil) authorities, discource (Rom 13: 1-10) and their God given right to bear “…bear the sword…” (v 4b) and his equal exhortation to “…love your neighbor as yourself…” (v.8b).
It is therefore, folly to twist and convolute the clear distinction between these two very important teachings, and to say that any nation, must just fold its arms in ‘love’ when its soveriegn right to exist is threatened by vile, haters of peace, liberty and justice.
If Barbados tonight was made aware of a threat from some external entity, are we in ‘love’ to just sit by quietly, and welcome them to come and overthrow us? Hardly!
This IS precisely why it is imperative to ‘Righty Divide’ God’s Word in its proper context!
Micro Mock Engineer // October 24, 2009 at 8:55 PM
@Zoe,
“To take this, and equate it, to a nation, representative of millions of its citizens, who may be threatened by serious external attack on its very existence, is to misrepresent and completely misinterpret what was clearly intended by Jesus to His disciples, and Christians.”
So if I understand you correctly, Jesus’ message was intended for his disciples and Christians, but they should ignore it when their nation is threatened. Kill or be killed… LOL. I suppose some rules can be broken if your physical well being, or that of your fellow citizens depends on it… right Zoe?
“Also, you obviously have failed to remember, or, simply don’t understand, that Jesus did not deal or specifically teach and instruct on many things”
… and yet you choose to ignore one of the ‘few’ things Christ did specifically teach… nonviolent resistance. He made it abundantly clear that Christians should not resist violence with violence.
“If Barbados tonight was made aware of a threat from some external entity, are we in ‘love’ to just sit by quietly, and welcome them to come and overthrow us? Hardly!”
ROTFL… you seem to be confusing non-violent resistance with acquiescence. I am surprised that someone who devotes so much time to studying the Bible, can’t differentiate between the two.
The irony of this whole situation is that the Messiah was rejected by his own people, because they could not reconcile the image they held of a ‘promised’ warmonger (who would lead them into violent and triumphant battle against the Roman occupiers), with this fella who showed up preaching bout peace and love. LOL… hear dem… “what peace and love what?!? This man fuh real?!?”
You should know better Zoe.
Zoe // October 25, 2009 at 12:41 AM
@MME, Sir, it is you who have it all twisted and confused, you just don’t get it!
A nation, represented by its government, civil God ordained authorities, Army, Police, etc, are there to protect its citizens, in a terribly, fallen, SIN stained world, that’s why Paul under divine inspiration, in Romans said:
“Let every soul be subject to the governing *authorities* for there IS NO authority except from God, and the *authorities* exist are appointed by God.” (v.1)
Exegesis: ‘Every soul’ (para psuche) As in Acts 2:9; Acts 2:43; A Hebraism for ‘pas anthropos (every man). ‘be subject to the governing authorities (To the higher power (exousiais huperchousais). Abstract for concrete. “Huperecho’ is an old verb to have or hold over, to be above or supreme, as in I Peter 2:13; “Except by God ( ei me hupo theou). God IS the author of order, not anarchy. “The powers that be” (hai ousai) “The existing authorities” . “Are ordained (tetagmenai iesin). Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of (tasso), “Stand ordained by God.” Paul is not arguing for the divine right of kings or for any special form of government, BUT, for government and order. Nor does he oppose here revolution for a change of government, BUT, does oppose ALL lawlessness and disorder.
“Therefore whoever resist the *authority* resist the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.” (v.2)
Exegesis: “He that resisteth (ho antitassomenos). Present middle articular participle of ‘antitassa’, an old verb to range in *battle* against as in Acts 18: 6, “he that lines himself against.” Withstandeth (resist) (anthesteken). Perfect active indicative of ‘anthistemi’ and intransitive, “has taken his stand against.” “The ordinance of God.” (tei tou theou diatagei0. Note repitition of root in ‘tasso’ “To themselves (heautois). Dative of disadvantage. “Shall receive judgment.” (krina lempsontai). Future middle of (lambano).
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, BUT, to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same.” (v. 3).
Exegesis: “A terror” (phobos). This meaning in Isa. 8:13. Paul does not approve all that rulers do, BUT, he is speaking generally of the ideal before rulers. Nero was Emperor at this time. “From the same” ( ex autes). “From it” (exousia, personified in verse 4).
“For he is God’s minister to you for good. BUT, if you do evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the *sword* in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” (v. 4).
Exegesis: “A minister of God” (theou diakonos). General sense of ‘diakonos’. Of course even Nero was God’s minister “to thee (soi ethical dative) for good (eis to agathon, for the good).” “Beareth” (phores). Present active indicative of ‘phoreo’ old frequentative form of ‘phero’ to bear, to wear. “But if thou do” ( ean de poieis). Condition of third class, ‘ean’ and present active subjunctive of ‘poieo’ “if thou continue to do.” ‘Sword” (marchairan). Symbol of authority as todays policemen, army, etc, carry clubs, guns, to protect and maintain order. Trajan presented to a provincial governor on starting for his province, a dagger, with the words, “For me” If I deserve it in me. “An avenger” (ekdikos). Old adjective from ‘ek’ and ‘dike’ (right), “outside of penalty,” unjust, then in later Greek, “exacting penalty from one,’
Now, come let us reason together, if this is the God ordained civil authorities, that are necessary to keep order and control within a ‘national’ enviornment, i.e., a nation state, to punish those who violate the laws of the land, for ‘evil’ does it then, not logically follow, that the same God ordained authorities, who protect it from within, i.e., its own citizens, who brake the law, that these same authorities, would be expected, as ordained by God, to also, fight, *war* if necessary against forces from ‘without’ who plan to come and take control of a nation state, that is not their right to do?
Or, viewed another way, if we were to take, MME, you premise to its logically conclusion, then, there would NOT be any local authorities in any country in the first place, NO Police! NO Army! Absolutely, according to your exegesis, no one, i.e., forces of any kind, to resist any civil disobedience whatsoever!
This would be anarchy, MADNESS, in the first place!
Think this through again, man!
Zoe // October 25, 2009 at 12:54 AM
@MME, Further, you are confusing the Christian’s instruction NOT to personally, on a one and one, basis to avenge, someone who has done you ‘evil’ but to love that person; with the civil authorities God ordained ‘right’ to defend its national soveriegnty, against, evil, wicked intruders!
Micro Mock Engineer // October 25, 2009 at 6:10 AM
Zoe,
I have no difficulty with your exegesis in paragraphs 4-9 @12:41am, however the conclusions you make in paragraphs 10-12 are both illogical and inaccurate. I accept your invitation to reason together, and invite you to examine the history…
What role did the Christians play in the first Jewish-Roman war (66 to 73)? Which side (or civil authority) did they fight for? What group of people fled to Pella 60 miles northeast of Jerusalem in 66C.E. on the eve of the first Jewish-Roman war, and why? What role did the Christians play in the second and third Jewish-Roman wars… which civil authority did they fight to defend?
When you’ve answered those, can you tell me what techniques and weapons the apostles and other Christians used in their ‘war’ against the two established civil authorities of their day, i.e. the occupying Romans and the Jews?
Again, it is ironic that during and immediately after the third Jewish-Roman war, the Jews acclaimed their warmonger leader Simon ben Kosiba to be the prophesied Messiah, renaming him Simon “bar Kokhba” (“son of a star”). When the Romans recaptured Israel three years later, they renamed him Simon “bar Kozeba” (“son of disappointment”)… ROTFL. Of course, the Christians refused to go to war for either side.
I am not sure why you believe that nonviolent resistance would lead to anarchy, but the phrase “oh ye of little faith” comes to mind. If you take my premise to its logical conclusion, countries would still have local authorities… think it through Zoe, I’m sure you can figure it out.
Micro Mock Engineer // October 25, 2009 at 6:12 AM
“@MME, Further, you are confusing the Christian’s instruction NOT to personally, on a one and one, basis to avenge, someone who has done you ‘evil’ but to love that person; with the civil authorities God ordained ‘right’ to defend its national soveriegnty, against, evil, wicked intruders!”
Zoe, you and your cohorts are corrupting Christ’s message. There are no ‘convenient’ escape clauses… the message is simple, direct and applies whether it is in self-defense, in defense of your neighbor or defense of a nation… don’t live by the sword… the meek shall inherit the earth, and the peace makers will be called the sons of God.
This concept of peace making brandished by you “new age” Christians is alarming, as is the distinction you make between instructions to be followed ‘personally’ and nationally’. I suppose you also believe that it is wrong to covet your neighbor’s property, but ok to covet your neighboring nation’s right? ROTFL
kiki // October 25, 2009 at 6:14 AM
zoe only a fool would blindly believe the
official stories from governments
regarding 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Lockerbie, Global Financial Crisis etc.
No one is asking you to believe anything
but you should always question and
challenge everything you are spoon fed.
Dictionary // October 25, 2009 at 7:38 AM
Moderators:
It seems I need to further note on a piont or two. Pardon.
+++++++++++++
MME (and Zoe — thanks):
First, a contradiction exists when A and NOT-A, A being in the same sense, are implied or asserted.
So, I think you would do well to note the contrast I made between inappropriate application of the lex talionis to being personally waspish, and the duty of the civil authority to defend the civil peace.
Background: lex talionis was an OT rule (similar to other ANE law) that punishment should not be either in gross excess of the crime or the proverbial wrist-slap. ONLY an eye for an eye (and not a wrist-slap for an eye for the “favoured” either) in short; a principle that is still highly relevant.
ARGUMENT: In the then oral traditions of the elders — eventually, codified and elaborated as the talmud — as popularly misapplied, it was being used to “justify” being waspish and resentful. So Jesus issued a corrective, showing the personal context:
>> Matt 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’45 5:39 But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer.46 But whoever strikes you on the47 right cheek, turn the other to him as well. 5:40 And if someone wants to sue you and to take your tunic,48 give him your coat also. 5:41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile,49 go with him two . . . >>
The first is on response to a gross personal insult. The second, to a threat of court action. The third, a response to the oppressive colonial law that gave Roman soldiers the power to compel passersby to carry their packs (~ 60 lb) for 1,000 paces, or a mile [in the original sense].
In each case the point is that one is not to be waspish, if one is to be a disciple, but to go out of the way to preserve the civil peace. (Working for correction and reform of an unjust order is an entirely different matter, and it is a plain pattern in both OT and NT; not to mention a lot of subsequent history down to today; even in this very blog thread.)
This is a very different context from addressing those who are enemies of the civil peace, on the part of those who have a responsibility under God to defend that civil peace. (It is worth noting that you, MME, have resorted to loaded language: FORCE may be legitimate or excusable under certain circumstances, ranging from force of argument to force of law to force of financial pressure [e.g. a boycott], to force of the sword. VIOLENCE, by contrast, has to do with violation, i.e. in context it is the unjust use of force — a moral question. Issues of justice, due proportion and likely consequences of alternative actions are all involved here. And in that context, it is plain that the civil authority is specifically commissioned by and accountable to God to defend the civil peace up to and including the sword; setting the context for and limits of our duty of obedience to civil authority.)
MME, you will further note that I gave you some very specific concrete contexts [Ac 23 and context] and associated writings in a major NT Epistle by the Apostle to the nations [so commissioned by the risen Christ and acknowledged by the College of apostles and elders, formally, in AD 48 in the first Church Council], from 57 AD. Those contexts highlight how we must mark the distinction between personal issues and defence against enemies of the civil peace, including rulers gone bad. (And using a court hearing as a set-up for murder is about as bad as it gets. The Jerusalem authorities c 57 AD, sadly, were in a bad way, so bad that pagans were doing better. A sad implicit commentary indeed on Rom 2:16 ff. And since a good part of Ac was composed in and around these events, you can be sure Luke had the issues of Rom 2 and Rom 13 in mind here. [In short, I am giving life-situation setting of text information to guide our reading and understanding, thence reasonable and informed application.])
In Ac 21 – 23, we see what the later reformers called interposition in action.
First, a mob in the temple murderously pounced on Paul on a slanderous false accusation. Roman soldiers posted in the next-door Fortress of Antonia for such an eventuality — a sad commentary on the spiritual state of the nation at the time! — intervened.
They then wished to use the lash to extract the truth [note the callous abusiveness]; but backed off on the plea of Roman Citizenship. (Protection of citizens, residents and visitors became an issue of reform in later times; sadly it is relevant down to today. How just is it when a Guyanese worker– after delays with processing “as usual” — is expelled on a day or two notice or less, unless s/he pays a bribe?)
This then led to a preliminary hearing — notice how the initial slanderous accusation was apparently forgotten, nor were the false accusers made to pay the penalty under OT law [you got the punishment you would have inflicted by perjury . . . via lex talionis!] — that broke down in disorder after Paul sharply retorted to an order that he be slapped, which triggered a “how dare you rail against the High Priest.” Note Paul’s apology. The hearing broke up, and led to the murderous plot on pretext of a follow up hearing. (This has a lot to do with the establishment of proper procedure in courts and the principle that violation of procedure is so serious that it can issue in acquittal.)
On the plot being detected by a relative of Paul — probably NOT a Christian, but feeling a sense of family obligation, and responding to natural justice — the tribune (more or less, battalion commander: cohort of a legion 600 men plus attached auxiliaries) sent Paul to the Roman provincial capital, with a considerable fraction of his command as escort. (in short, he feared an uprising of considerable size and split his command, holding a significant reserve in Jerusalem and sending two centuries plus more than matching auxiliaries on an intervention to remove the flash-point personality and bring him under roman jurisdiction as was his right as a Roman Citizen.)
Note, Paul is not responding to a suit for his tunic here, but a slander against his life. His responses are in due proportion to the seriousness of the issue. So, we can see that lex talionis — the principle of due proportion in law — has its proper role; despite much careless dismissive rhetoric.
And, all this brings us back to the point on this side issue: defence of the civil peace (which protects us all) is not the same as refusing to be waspish in personal relationships or minor matters at law, or even petty oppression.
When matters rise to the level of needing to defend the civil peace from determined enemies, the civil authority is God’s sword bearer. And, should one authority fail and turn abusive and enemy of the peace, other authorities are in turn bound to defend the civil peace, including by acting with the public when that is necessary. Thus, also, when we come to polities that are strongly influenced by a Christian presence, this does not disappear.
So also, we must recognise that Christians can be called to be teachers and principals in schools [the sword is usually not needed there . . . ], or policemen [who sometimes need to be armed, up to the level of being paramilitary], or soldiers or sailors or airmen, or officers, or civil servants, or lawyers or judges or statesmen. All of these are different degrees of civil authority, and in appropriate contexts have to use force of varying kinds in defence of the civil peace and justice. In that context, they are not to be waspish, vindictive, corrupt, negligent or unjust.
Back on the main point of the blog thread, WHAT HAS BEEN EXPOSED ON 12,000 pp OF DOCUMENTS (AND 300 hrs OF VIDEOTAPE) IS A MAJOR PLOT OF SUBVERSION AND SUBJUGATION UNDER AN UNJUST SOCIAL ORDER, IN THE NAME OF RELIGION/GOD — ONE THAT IS TO BE IMPOSED GLOBALLY, ACCORDING TO THE JIHADISTS.
So, force at the first level of public exposure and invitation of investigation and legal action under civil and criminal law, has been applied.
I therefore find it interesting that in reacting above, there has in general not been an addressing of the substantial points made, but rather distractive exchanges. that tends to support the point that the expose is credible on the merits, so distraction is being used to divert attention.
That, sirs, is enabling behaviour, for evident enemies of the civil peace in our civilisation.
Onlookers, I think we need to think very very carefully indeed on that.
De Dictionary
Dictionary // October 25, 2009 at 8:05 AM
PS: MME, in both cases [66 ff and 130+] we see unjust rebellions in a context of much abuse, and on the part of polities that were well out of order. Christians, a persecuted minority by that time — on both sides [Nero's garden parties lit by tarred Christians were happening by about 65 AD, he having gone fully mad by then (maybe in part due to lead water pipes, pottery glazes and sauces) . . . ] — had no business trying to defend a non-existent civil peace. Instead, in an oppressive culture, they sought to be a counter-culture of peace. (And in later centuries, as the Roman state disintegrated from within, members of the public were to increasingly turn tot he Bishop of the local church as a means of just arbitration. [Of course, this too eventually led to serious church-state problems.])
PPS: Kiki, I supsect neither Zoe nor I are exactly “blind” on official or conventional wisdom stories. If you look above you will see that I said on the 9/11 that as a first step of due diligence at the 101 level one should address the generic sources here and here. (Why: If your theory cannot address Wikipedia in today’s world — i.e. if you cannot at least show why you “correct” the Wikipedia view, on what evidence — it is not ready for prime time yet. This, of course, makes no presumptions that Wiki is right! But, it often is, save on topics where the ideological biases that dominate it show up most blatantly, spoiling what would otherwise have been a great effort.) Have you? Can you tell me, on what evidence, that there is good reason to infer that this was not a decapitation strike by Bin Laden et al against “The Great Satan,” intended to further the global Jihadi cause, and perhaps to make a plausible claim to be an emerging Caliph of the Umma, maybe even the Mahdi himself, with Black Flag armies in close association? Can you show us that the jihadis have not composed a framework in which Islam is being used as a religious context for global conquest and subjugation under their version of Islamic law, a la what was happening in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime (or have we forgotten that too?)? And/or a la what has been going on in Iran, where we just saw the stealing of an election and the murder of passersby of protests? Now, multiplied by a game to acquire nuke warheads for already existing missiles and suitcase nukes for suicide bombers, that is nearing end game while the West plays at diplomatic niceties? In short, neither blind acceptance of official party-lines nor equally blind blanket dismissals are good enough. But, there is a pattern of evidence that has to be addressed on its merits.
Dictionary // October 25, 2009 at 8:45 AM
PPPS: Moderators, pardon this link [onlookers do not go there unless you have a strong stomach], but I think we need to understand the mentality we are here up against on the part of the tyrants oppressing the Iranian people and especially the women of Iran.
kiki // October 25, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Truly, “out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, You have perfected praise.”
Micro Mock Engineer // October 25, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Dictionary,
If all of that logical gymnastics you and Zoe engage in helps to ease your conscience then so be it… but you are fooling yourself if you believe Jesus and his disciples would have fought any war on behalf of any of the civil authorities of their day, whether they be Jew or Roman. This should be abundantly clear to anyone who reads the the accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings, and is familiar with the response of early Christians to the several wars fought between the sovereign nations in which they lived.
Dictionary // October 25, 2009 at 9:59 AM
MME:
Sadly, another distractive irrelevancy.
Jesus and his apostles were a specific circle with a specific calling. That these were not civil authorities nor sought to be civil authorities is irrelevant to the duty of civil authorities under God — and thus as his servants (whether they explicitly recognise that or not; cf here Rom 1 – 2 and Ac 17 as well as Rom 13 where Nero — admittedly before he went utterly mad — is the servant of God principally in view) to protect the civil peace, or the possibility that in Christian influenced polities (or even pagan ones a la Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah), Christians may be called to serve as statesmen or relatively junior officers as far down as teachers and police officers.
And, I have taken time to patiently outline that, step by step, complete with relevant linked detailed discussions.
I would appreciate it if you were to look at he serious issues, on the merits, putting up a serious alternative with a sober assessment of its likely consequences. (Rom 1 provides a pretty good summary on what happens when a polity runs out of control and tries to dethrone even the basic knowledge of God accessible to the natural mind and conscience. resemblance to early imperial Rome was NOT coincidental. Nor is resemblance to early C21 Western culture.)
De Dictionary
Micro Mock Engineer // October 25, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Dictionary,
Why are you skirting around the issue… your ‘escape clause’ is that “Jesus and his apostles were a specific circle with a specific calling.”?!? ROTFL… so their actions and the example they set don’t apply to the rest of us? They were a special case? LOL
I suppose the Christians who fled to Pella on the eve of the first Jewish-Roman war, were also a “specific circle with a special calling” whose actions don’t apply to us. It is clear to me that you and Zoe would have stayed and fought tooth and claw against the Romans for the rights of the sovereign nation of Israel. I thought you were a Christian… but it appears that you are in fact a Hypochristian.
Zoe // October 25, 2009 at 11:13 AM
@MME, You are way ‘out’ in your exegesis of Scripture, because, also, language presupposes ‘logical’ distinctions! Therefore, defending God’s Word, in its proper ‘context’ is a logical endeavour!
That Scripture interprets Scripture, IS a fundamental principle in biblical hermeneutics; which you obviously no little about!
Again, this morning, Dictionary’s further detailed exposition, confirms the *baselessness* of your arguments, point by point; as your premise is NOT Scriptural; it is NOT logical; hence not coherent.
Pride, MME, is a killer, especially when one has been shown to be wrong, and stubbornly refuse to accept their fallacy of faulty reasoning!
Zoe // October 25, 2009 at 11:28 AM
@MME, Your statement, that:
“It is clear to me that you and Zoe would have stayed and fought tooth and claw against the Romans for the rights of the sovereign nation of Israel.”
This downright ‘illogical’ thought, certainly seals the fact, that your are unable to reason things through with any objective, rational, understanding!
I am really very surprised at you, MME,
surely, you can do a lot better than this!
Technician // October 25, 2009 at 11:38 AM
That Scripture interprets Scripture, IS a fundamental principle in biblical hermeneutics; which you obviously no little about!
…..So because of this MME can not be right?!?
Why do we need all of this edumacated shite to understand something as (supposedly) simple as ‘Thou shalt not……’
Do you go for an engineer everytime you want to assemble a model plane for your son?….Cant the written instructions be enough….stupse!!
…..’Pride, MME, is a killer, especially when one has been shown to be wrong, and stubbornly refuse to accept their fallacy of faulty reasoning…
Spoken like a true Bible thumper.
As long as you question your ‘belief’ system…it is pride, stupidity…etc.
The fire and brimstone story dont scare like it used to because people have waken up to see Christianity for what it really is…..Control!!
People like Zoe, Kairosfocus, Gem of TKI, Dictionary only serve to turn away others, who might be truly looking at Christianity, from ever embracing it due to their pompous, arrogant and condescending attitude to those who questions their ‘logic’.
It is amazing how we have to go to ’special’ schools, get a degree (or 6), doctorate and any other titles, to understand the words and instructions of a man and his followers who were fishermen, carpenters etc. Was all this edumacation need back then, or is this just another form of the elitist practices of Christianity?
Keep sidestepping MME’s direct and simple questions with 2500 word biblical jargon…… I think the ones here with common sense can see who is really confused.
Anonymous // October 25, 2009 at 11:44 AM
So onlookers who is the “true” Christian, MME or Zoe and Dictionary? All three pompous as ever! The former illogical and the latter two inconsistent in relation to the instructions of the founder of their religion. Both attributes are consistent with being Christian. Tough call!
kiki // October 25, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Its all just another story of the usual fraud by the abusers in contempt of
all facts and law. Such Matters should
be investigated in Courts of Law and
not passed around like hot potatoes.
Terence M. Blackett // October 25, 2009 at 12:23 PM
@BU FAMILY
In the 1950s and 60s, Western Protestants tried to win Muslims to their side in the fight against Communism.
In the late 60s and 70s, the focus became social problems.
In the 80s and 90s, the focus was human rights.
In the 21st century, Muslims are still stuck in social problems, and Palestine and Muslim minorities are at the heart of much of the dialogue.
The word dialogue has suddenly become fashionable under the OBAMA* Administration, not only in appeals for installing democratic processes around the world, but also in arranging Christian-Muslim relations.
When the University of St. Joseph formed an Institute for Islamo-Christian Studies, it avoided the term dialogue because Muslim participants felt it was a “loaded” word which might create misunderstanding.
In 1971, Fr. Youakim Moubarac published Les Musulmans: consultation Islamo-Chretienne (Beauchesne, Paris) in which 7 Muslim intellectuals from North Africa, Egypt, Iran, and India replied to questions concerning relations with Christians.
One respondent considered that dialogue was for the Christian conscience what cooperation was for former colonialist countries: a new language adapted to the post-colonialist situation (p. 121).
At the Center for Strategic Studies, Research and Documentation in Beirut, where Samir Sulayman, conceives that the new world situation pits Islam and Christianity, with their heavenly laws and their system of organization emanating from a divine source, in confrontation with the Occident with its materialistic model of society.
Thus, the aim of dialogue becomes rapprochement in order to wage the battle together.
The Christians, he says, “attack”. They refuse the classic Islamic charges of infidelity (kufr) and deformation of their Scriptures (tahrif), they refuse to be ‘protected’ people (dhimmis) and they refuse acknowledgment of an Islamic state.
He finds the Muslim contributions more defensive and evaluative. When the believer, Muslim or Christian, lives in a state of spiritual ardor, divine love and lofty faith in openness to God, differences between people melt away and all the manifestations of life become manifestations of the greatness of God and a loci of His grace.
Creatures – all creatures are members of God’s family. The problem really is “we try to limit the world to our view,” as if the only problem were Islamic integrism.
The Muslim has to realize that the world situation is as harmful for Christianity as it is for Islam. The Islamic Movement is not even 1% anti-Christian; Christians pose no problem save in Lebanon and Sudan.
The real question is not Islam against Christianity. It is rather a human question: strong against weak, rich against poor, and North against South.
Certain powers try to pose the problem as one between a moderate Islam and an extremist Islam. The danger is that Christian-Muslim relations may enter the international game of politics where they will be used to exploit old differences.
The plan of any international Islamic-Christian movement is to confront “Arrogance” – political, cultural, economic, security and religious – which presses down the weak.
Technician // October 25, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Wow…. Mr.Blackett…..you truly are……the personification of a pendulum.
Dictionary // October 25, 2009 at 2:06 PM
moderators:
It seems I have to address some personalities.
Pardon . . .
++++++++++++++
MME and Technician (and Anonymous):
It saddens me to see the tone that you have used above.
On the matter being raised, I have taken time to point out — with specific textual and situational evidence — that the NT’s ethics embrace a highly relevant distinction between personal waspishness (which Jesus targeted in the Sermon on the Mount) and the need for a society to defend its civil peace.
Personal waspishness is unchristian, but it is equally an error, and can — if insisted on in the teeth of correction — become ungodly and unscriptural [given say Rom 13:1 - 10 as already cited and explained in wider biblical context] to counsel or imply that the civil society, if it is to be “godly” must not defend its civil peace from evildoers. Or, that civil office in a society “must” be left to those in open rebellion against God. (What then do we make of the career of a William Wilberforce, or a Thomas Foxwell Buxton, or an Abraham Kuyper — the later of whom for forty years so dominated Holland’s national life that in large part the relevant period of history was his biography? A man who — starting as a parson — founded churches, newspapers, trade unions, universities, political parties and eventually was prime minister?)
Similarly, when we take in the wider Biblical evidence (and Jesus states in that same sermon that he came to fulfill the law not to overthrow it . . . ) we can see a rich tradition of prophetic call to reformation, and a history that where rulers go bad enough, there are grounds for not only interposition on particular decisions, but their removal. Indeed, in the biblical tradition a polity does not hold an absolute right of existence; as, the nations are God’s tenants on the earth. So, there comes a time when a particular nation — including Israel — comes under God’s judgements, whether by way of consequences of determined sins, or by way of a word of correction and call to reform, or if there is stubborn insistence on folly, applicable degrees of destruction.
Doubtless, these are painful words, and it is not with any pleasure or claim to be a know it all that I am driven to state the evidence as I can see it on its merits. Especially, given that our own nations in the Caribbean fall under them, and may be treading in some cases on very dangerous grounds. (How do you think God looks on the murder rate of some of our Caribbean countries? The corruption of too many of our power elites in business, education and government? The increasingly coarse and sensual television and radio programming or popular music? A church that is ever so often divided in counsels, caught up in quarrels on minor matters of doctrine, while tolerating a shocking degree of worldy-spiritedness in members and leaders? Etc? )
So, how must I now respond to statements like: >>pompous, arrogant and condescending attitude to those who questions their ‘logic’ . . . >>?
How, indeed, but:
a –> To note, that to point out, step by step, relevant facts and appeal for drawing responsible conclusions on the full balance of relevant factors is not arrogant or pompous etc. (Observers, note that there was not a response on the corrective merits to what I gave previously, but instead consistently a dismissive attack on the person through projecting bad attitudes by way of accusation. That may just be telling us something significant about where the actual weight of the case on the merits lies.)
b –> Now, to highlight that in logic contradictions obtain when one states or implied A AND NOT-A is a fact of logic, not of condescending in attitude.
c –> To in — the context of a claimed contradiction — then adduce the relevant contexts and bring out that there is a relevant distinction between personal ethics [one must not be waspish] and the charge to defend the civil peace as a duty of the civil official is to point out a significant and highly relevant distinction. (One BTW with a very long tradition. Let us recall that sometimes we see a contradiction not because one is actually there, but because of an error in our thought. E.g. it seems contradictory to say that one can stand at a single point on the earth’s surface and be due north of London, Bridgetown and Miami. But if we shift our point of view and recognise that there is a North Pole at the top end of our terrestrial ball, at once the apparent contradiction vanishes.)
d –> To then point out that the alternative view as presented has not brought to bear the full balance of the evidence and to also highlight that if one counsels or implies that which undermines the protection of the civil peace one has some measure of responsibility for the consequences of such teaching is a statement of the duty of true and sound, balanced counsel as applied to the context. Recall, the balance is that we should not be waspish, we should go the extra mile, we should respect legitimate authority from the teacher to the Queen, the civil officer has a duty to protect the civil peace, when a leader goes wrong, other leaders are duty bound to act in defence of justice, and that if a leader cannot be corrected he should be removed by responsible authorities and the people, with the general election being a specific mechanism for doing so peacefully. And, that in this context the force of words, the force of boycott, the force of the court of law, or the force of the sword are all instruments of force that must be judged on principles of justice and defence of the civil peace. Each of these points has been drawn out of a biblical context by well known principles of inductive study, and each has been put in an overall pattern of civil peace. Which of these is an error or a contradiction to the Bible or is unsound in general? On what specific grounds? If I am wrong, kindly show me on the balance of the evidence, and I will happily correct my error. (But, kindly, if you do not have a well considered correction, having done your own research, do not then resort to unfounded accusations of bad attitude.)
e –> Nor is it irrelevant to point out that Jesus and his apostles had a particular function and calling in civil society, so — in response to someone above — that they did not seek or hold civil office does not lock out Christians from such office. Especially given the pattern of biblical precedents.
f –> To point out that in the circumstance of the Christians of Judaea c. 66 AD or 130 AD, BOTH sides of the wars were persecuting the church, is a matter of fact not speculation. In such a context, to form a counter-culture of peace where one is excluded from a civil order gone shockingly bad, is a reasonable response. (Remember James the Just — leader of the Jerusalem church — was murdered by leaders of Judaea in 62 AD, after decades of trying to live as an acceptable messianic sect within the general circle of Judaism. [It should be noted that it was not just Christians who protested that act of judicial murder.])
So, i invite correction.
But also, let us not forget he principal issue of this thread: there is a serious question of a clear and present danger tot he civil peace of our civilisation, coming from a particular faction within a particular religion; which other groups in that religion denounce. (In the past we have had similar threats coming from factions within the institutional church, but hey were restrained after centuries of struggle informed by precisely the pattern of teachings I have summarised.)
So, now, can we deal with the matters on the merits, rather than on polarising or dismissive personalities?.
De Dictionary
Terence M. Blackett // October 25, 2009 at 2:33 PM
@Technician
“Wow…. Mr.Blackett…..you truly are……the personification of a pendulum.”
It is part of my intellectual as well as philosophical dexterity…
But thank you anyway!!!
As you may be aware, a cloud of religion can be condensed into a drop of philosophy…
I apologize for being a Cartesian dualist…
As a presumed monist, or a believer in a single substance, I am approvingly flaunt the Aristotelian idea that the soul is the form of the body – but also believes that agency and our ability to make things happen, requires some kind of eruption from outside the physical order into what would otherwise be the causal ordering of events in the universe.
In simplistic language – “you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar”…
Micro Mock Engineer // October 25, 2009 at 3:44 PM
“you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar”
————–
Actually Terence, that’s not true… you will catch more flies with vinegar than with honey. A drop of dish washing liquid in a bowl of vinegar is a potent fly trap. :-)
Anonymous@11:44am… that was a timely intervention. Just goes to show that shit (talk) will attract even more flies than either honey or vinegar. ROTFL
Terence M. Blackett // October 25, 2009 at 4:33 PM
@MME
“Actually Terence, that’s not true… you will catch more flies with vinegar than with honey. A drop of dish washing liquid in a bowl of vinegar is a potent fly trap. :-)”
In this instance (within context of the debate) you can win people to your side more easily by gentle persuasion and compliment than by hostile confrontation.
Micro Mock Engineer // October 25, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Dictionary and Zoe,
The 2 minute video below demonstrates an appropriate Christian response to their nation’s call to war…
Technician // October 25, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Geez Mr.Blackett……
See what I mean about all this pretty talk and fancy words……..
You wasted 100+ words when the 11 at the end would have sufficed….no need to impress me man …GP does that already and he only did a year @ Foundation.
@Gem/Kairosfocus/Dictionary….and Zoe…
My mum always said listen to the message ..never mind the messenger.
I always asked her, if I put clean water in a dirty glass, would you drink it?
You all might be right, you all might very well be on the correct path BUT your attitudes does little to encourage others…..just my 2 cents worth.
Dictionary // October 25, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Onlookers:
Observe again the resort to personalities instead of addressing arguments on the merits. That speaks saddening volumes.
Again, if you are able to show me wrong on my examination of the Scriptures as raised [and recall, my remarks above are responsive!], I would welcome the correction. But, resort to dismissive assertions on attitudes are no help.
Worse, I note that all of this is on very tangential issues relative to the issue of a fifth column movement in our civilisation in support to Jihadism. And, in a context where there seems to have been but little serious addressing of the issue.
D
PS: T, you are appealing to a poor analogy: arguments are ESSENTIALLY different from water and contaminated glasses; as facts and their implications are matters of evidence and logic tied to such evidence. the soundness of a conclusion depends on the evidence and the reasoning, not the personalities. That is why the ad hominem is a fallacy of distraction.
PPS: MME, I draw your attention to the issue of the necessary distinction between violence and force. In that context, I call your attention to the response to Hitler, circa 1930’s; a genrally correct claim would hold for all cases, not just one view of a particularly controversial one such as whether or not the Vietnam intervention was on the whole reasonable, just and justly carried out. So, consider carefully: had Britain and France showed the gumption to seriously challenge Hitler c. 1935 – 6, his own Generals would have couped, as we now know from history: maybe up to 40 million lives saved. (You might try a reading of Churchill’s multivolume history, as a start — eyewitness testimony and otherwise inaccessible documents, including the declaration by 1930’s uni students that hey were unwilling to fight for King and country, which greatly encouraged Hitler and co. (Of course many of the same students in the end had to fight for King with backs tot he wall, and paid with their lives to hold Hitler back.) Horne’s To Lose a Battle is also instructive.) Failure to stand up to Hitler, and naively trusting attempts to bargain with him up to 1938 materially contributed to the costs of WW 2; not least he got the trucks and a big slice of the complement of heavier tanks he needed to carry out his blitzes from the Czechs, thanks to Munich. Pacifism, though appealing to us all [who would not prefer a reasonable deal on peace to a bloody, expensive and destructive war?], has a bad track record in the world of wolves like that carpet-chewing demoniac. And, coming from a country where we have seen mini-Hitlers in action, we have learned the hard way that you need strong police.
Zoe // October 25, 2009 at 8:31 PM
@Technician, To Gem/kairosfocus/dictionary…and Zoe…
“My mum always said listen to the message…never mind the messenger.”
You obviously haven’t learned very well, have you?
“I always asked her, If I put clean water in a dirty glass, would she drink it?”
That depends on whether you are a ‘fly’ coming from ingesting bovine excrement, OR, a human being who can think logically, in the face of what is before you!
@MME to Anoynmous, “That was a timely intervention. Just goes to show that shit (talk) will attrack even more flies than either honey or vinegar.”
Exactly so, as we have seen here on BU!
“To say of what IS that it IS, or of what it is NOT, that it is NOT, is true.”
-Aristotle Metaphysics 1077b 26.
Or, a Paul said:
“But if any man be *ignorant* let him be ignorant.”
I Cor. 14: 38.
Anonymous // October 25, 2009 at 9:01 PM
MME (re the video)
Isn’t there a difference between fighting to defend one’s county and fighting to subjugate another ?
By the way, while it may be o.k. for you to describe your “talk” as shit, I think it is a bit harsh to call Zoe and Dictionary, flies.
Zoe // October 25, 2009 at 9:02 PM
@Dictionary, You have presented your facts, logically, coherently, without doubt or question whatsoever!
Sadly, and unfortunately, those who oppose you with rampant, rabid attacks on your person, (ad hominem) are virtually unable to deal with, counter, or point out where you are wrong; they simply *cannot* offer this type of critical assessment, are intellectually unable to engage you, historically and biblically, plain and simple!
For the most part, their ineptitude in such matter, is disguisting, and the level to which they stupe, is all they can really do!
You truly have being very patient with them, giving an education that many others would glady welcome and embrace.
Even our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, was called Beelzebub, and He warned us:
“And you will be *hated* by all for My names’s sake. But he that endures to the end will be saved.” (Matt. 10:22).
It’s only now warming up, as you already know!
Technician // October 25, 2009 at 9:35 PM
@ Zoe…..
You are such a pompous individual.
I have learned and learned well enough to know how to live my life as it makes me comfortable. Now if it is not to your Christian standards then why should you care?
I dont push my beliefs down your throat so why do you try to push yours down mine? Because I dont believe in what you do, what makes you any better than I am?…talk about pride!!
My issue with you and others of your ilk is your stinking attitude as a supposed Christian. The condescending manner in which you try to dismiss others who do not share your views.
You cry down Arab countries for lacking democratic practices, yet still the very same democratic thoughts are what you try to put down…mek up ya mind which side of the fence ya pun man!!
I attack your attitude because it stinks!!
You took my quote, divided it in 2 and made a comment after the first half…then you would lecture us in taking the bible out of context. You too are full of Pride.
Technician // October 25, 2009 at 9:41 PM
@Zoe….
……’If I put clean water in a dirty glass, would you drink it?”
From where I stand…..the Word is the water…..and you are the dirty glass!!
Not Saved // October 25, 2009 at 10:26 PM
@GEM,
“Observe again the resort to personalities instead of addressing arguments on the merits. That speaks saddening volumes”
++++++
And you conveniently avoided the questions posed directly to you. That too, speaks volumes.
For the benefit of “onlookers”, I will expand on them further and await the response, if any.
- Was the invasion of Iraq illegal, that is in breach of International law ?
- Is preemptive invasion of countries necessary for “defense”?
- Do you accept that the US commits war crimes in Afghanistan, notably when bombing villages with innocent people ostensibly to target ‘taliban’?
- Do you accept that Israel committed war crimes as charged by the UN in the latest excursion into Gaza?
- Do you advocate for the invasion of Iran?
- How do you propose to stop the funding for Islamic expansion from Saudi Arabia?
++++
“……but rather distractive exchanges. that tends to support the point that the expose is credible on the merits, so distraction is being used to divert attention.”
That is a leap that you choose to make but it is a non-sequitur.
Perhaps you are suggesting that MME and I are part of the muslim mafia.
Knowing the dubious publisher of the book and THEIR AGENDA, the response is appropriate. They are far more meritorious sources to evaluate the dangers from the Islamic religion than this author or this publisher.
++++
“But also, let us not forget he principal issue of this thread: there is a serious question of a clear and present danger tot he civil peace of our civilisation”
But we have had nothing from you on the “serious question”.
Only charges and projections that others have their “head in the sand”.
And wonder why you have are charged with being pompous?
If the cap fits……..
+++++
“……had Britain and France showed the gumption to seriously challenge Hitler c. 1935 – 6, his own Generals would have couped, as we now know from history: maybe up to 40 million lives saved.”
A laughably simplistic hypothesis.
Not Saved // October 25, 2009 at 11:10 PM
@GEM,
The UN charged Israel with…..
…a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population in Gaza.
++++
Do you agree?
Is terror an appropriate response to Islamic aggression?
A simple answer will suffice.
And please remember, only a hypocrite will focus on the crimes of his enemies while refusing to acknowledge his own.
Micro Mock Engineer // October 25, 2009 at 11:17 PM
“By the way, while it may be o.k. for you to describe your “talk” as shit, I think it is a bit harsh to call Zoe and Dictionary, flies.”
ROTFL… you show great compassion for your opponents Anon… very Christian-like… there may be hope for you yet. :-)
… at least I didn’t call anybody a dirty glass… LOL Technician.
“MME (re the video) Isn’t there a difference between fighting to defend one’s county and fighting to subjugate another ?”
Yes Anon, there is… but Christ’s advice was that nonviolent resistance is the best defense. He provided us with several examples of civil disobedience as alternatives to violent resistance. Your enemy may be able to take your life, but he cannot take your soul.
“Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” John 14:27
Anonymous // October 26, 2009 at 1:11 AM
MME (some thoughts with sleep approaching),
I am sure about having a life, my jury is still out on the existence of a soul however.
I am not sure how I am going to “disobey civilly” with a suicide bomber!
Dictionary // October 26, 2009 at 6:59 AM
Moderators:
Pardon a reply on specific points.
+++++++++++++++
NS:
First, I note that — from your dismissive “laughably simplistic hypothesis” — you appear to be ignorant of the historical testimony of Hitler’s surviving generals, that active coup plots were repeatedly in train in the context of his early adventures, and had he discredited himself, they would have overthrown him; especially at the time of the Rhineland re-occupation,but right up to the actions against Austria and Czechoslovakia. (Note that a 1934 attempt to intimidate Austria was blocked by MUSSOLINI’s sending troops to the Brenner Pass. The inept British and French politicians then managed to drive Mussolini into Hitler’s arms! And, they failed to act in good time until Hitler was able to put in nasty field defences on the Rhine front, locking the door against a realistic offensive in the West by 1936; as the horrors of the Somme and verdun were uppermost in the minds of the Pols of Britain and France. That is what freed him to act in the East against Austria, Czechoslovakia and then finally Poland.)
The closest a plot came to success — they actually continued on through the war years, among the Wehrmacht’s [army] senior officers, and in the secret agency Abwehr [Admiral Canaris, the head of Abwehr was in effect a volunteer spy for Britain] — was in July 1944. For, after the Normandy invasion, there was an attempt to blow him up in a meeting as the trigger for a coup that would have then asked for an armistice and peace. Let us just say that the fact that Field Marshall Rommel was forced to commit suicide by the Gestapo over his links to it and that the famous theologian Dietrich Boenhoffer’s execution was in part connected to it, should tell you a lot about what was going on behind the scenes.
As to the notion that one may simply dismiss as unfounded and biased allegations, 12,000 pp of evidence [documents indisputably produced by CAIR and intended to be destroyed but diverted to serve as evidence in discovery] and 300 hrs video from inside CAIR that are now making their way into official investigations [those camera phones are real dangerous!], in a context where several court cases have convicted leaders of CAIR of terrorism and/or terrorism financing related charges, and the organisation itself has on considerable evidence been deeply implicated in terrorism financing in the name of relief of suffering, that is itself strong evidence on what is happening with those who would use ad hominem, motive mongering dismissals. Worse, on the associated evidence that there is such a thing as militant, Mahdist Jihadism with a global conquest ambition, there seems to have been a studied silence.
Beyond that, NS, you have now mainly provided further distractions by way of controversial issues, designed to polarise through stirring up strong feelings; rather than clarify a serious matter of the morality of the defence of the civil peace. This was the secondary issue that I engaged in fair detail because of its inherent importance and the degree of misunderstanding that so often prevails.
So, I will reiterate what I have drawn out of the Judaeo-Christian scriptures above, as a summary of what the ethics of the defence of the civil peace entails within that worldview:
>> . . . we should not be waspish, we should go the extra mile, we should respect legitimate authority from the teacher to the Queen, the civil officer has a duty to protect the civil peace, when a leader goes wrong, other leaders are duty bound to act in defence of justice, and that if a leader cannot be corrected he should be removed by responsible authorities and the people, with the general election being a specific mechanism for doing so peacefully. And, that in this context the force of words, the force of boycott, the force of the court of law, or the force of the sword are all instruments of force that must be judged on principles of justice and defence of the civil peace. >>
Now, can you show me on the evidence that this summary is wrong in material part, either on the scriptures or on the ethics?
As already noted, such came up in the context of another issue: the original post summarises that a recent private investigatory initiative has — through an internship in an Islamic Civil rights organisation — turned up 12,000 pp of evidence and 300 hrs of videotape, that show the particular organisation, CAIR, to be a fifth column institution for Jihadism. In that context, it has been pointed out that he Jihadist faction of Islam on its readings of Q 9:5 and 29 etc, as well as relevant Hadiths, is in the process of seeking to subjugate the world militarily, starting from the wider Middle East. The cases of Iran and Afghanistan have been adduced by way of example of what they would likely do if they held power, especially to women and non-Muslims (or even Muslims that do not agree with their faction; whom they neatly label apostates).
In short, the balance of the thread on the merits is clear, for those who are inclined to seek “that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not.”
Now, you raise a string of further issues above, which are largely distractive and controversial. Many of the themes in them, were actually already dealt with above, including your remarks on Israel in Gaza.
I will note on that case by way of example: the UN commission on human rights is largely led by states that are indisputably principal global violators of same. Its framing of Goldstone’s mandate spoke of Israel as “occupying Power,” which is simply false, and the rest goes downhill from there.
In fact — though, given the undeniably horrible nature of war events will happen that are just that, and may be criminal (why courts martial exist . . . ) — the plain public evidence is that Israel took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to protect innocent life in the teeth of the abuse of humans as shields, children and underage teens as soldiers; who — when killed in action — were duly added to he “civilian” and “child” deaths lists. this is not only a matter of self-interest, but is a point of declared principle for the relevant authorities in Israel.
No previous power, for instance has ever taken the step of phoning individual families and warning them of a forthcoming bombardment. And, this, in response to a deliberate bombardment of civilians for years amounting to thousands of rockets, sharply accelerated at the time of the Israeli retaliatory strike. A bombardment that we find nowhere the faintest trace of interest in the said commission to seriously address; so long as it was Israeli civilians on the receiving end. (Note too, how the bombardment has now effectively stopped. No prizes for guessing why.)
On the controversies surrounding the current theatres of operation in the slow-burn world war in response to Jihadism, we should note that Iran has just stolen an election by its own people that would have apparently reversed the course of pursuit of global reach nuclear weapons. We therefore have clear evidence from the past few months that the people of Iran as a whole are not in sympathy with the ambitions of their Jihadist masters and oppressors. So, I am in favour of liberation struggle support, by relatively peaceful means if possible: financial and informational support, technical support, serious sanctions etc. If necessary and possible, limited strikes may be necessary to cripple the emerging nuclear weapon capacity, before we wake up one morning to hear of cities destroyed by suicide nuclear attacks. And, yes, that is pre-emptive, but in the context of a pattern of violation of solemn agreements on which Iran accessed the base technologies for what it is doing. By way of comparison, had France and the UK acted decisively when Hitler sought to re-occupy and militarise the Rhineland, he would have been stopped at a far lower cost than the up to 40 millions than the subsequent war in Europe and Africa cost.
On the rest, it is inevitable in wars that the innocents will die, especially where one party uses them as shields. That is part of the horror of war, and it is part of why we have to be so careful to weigh up the realistic alternatives; on the gruesome calculus of lives lost now on this option vs lives lost later on other alternatives; e.g. through nuclear suicide bombing campaigns.
This is to be distinguished from willful murder of civilians or the like, which has occurred in isolated cases, and has resulted in courts marshal and suitably long sentences, comparable to what such murder etc would have led to in civilian courts. So, the insinuation of immoral equivalecy by asking a loaded question on “terrorism” in response to Jihadism, raises serious questions on the level of your analysis, and may point to even more troubling questions; on turnspeech rhetorical tactics.
As to the Iraq campaign, my observation is that a state of war existed in and around Iraq since 1990 – 91 [ever since Mr Hussein's unprovoked invasion of Kuwait and implicit threat against Saudi Arabia], and the relevant ceasefire agreements — not peace treaties — were plainly grossly violated for the 12 year interval of reduced active operations; which never ceased in face of said violations. Mr Hussein, a brutal dictator who rose and reigned by mass murder and military attacks on his neighbours, asked for what he got. And that is not to excuse where those on the other side may have done or said things that were wrong: civil officers and opinion leaders will all account to the Supreme Judge for their actions and words.
Which is why we should not be eager to step into such onerous shoes, or lightly toss off propagandistic talking points on one side or the other. For, we too will stand before the Supreme Judge; including on our attitudes to and words about civil authority.
Good day
De Dictionary
Dictionary // October 26, 2009 at 7:15 AM
PS: Just up on BBC, so here is JP on the Israeli response to Goldstone. Note Dershowitz on Goldstone on how his report is being used. So also French FM on Israel vs Iran.
Technician // October 26, 2009 at 7:23 AM
this is another view……
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/blog/harak.html
Technician // October 26, 2009 at 7:25 AM
as Not Saved said…..’only a hypocrite will focus on the crimes of his enemies while refusing to acknowledge his own.’
Dictionary // October 26, 2009 at 7:53 AM
PPS: Dershowitz summarises, comments on and cites from an interview with Mr Goldstone, in the just linked:
>>. . . the report itself barely criticizes Hamas. Indeed, the summary – which was intended as a press release – is replete with condemnations against Israel but never once criticizes Hamas. Instead it gently criticizes “Palestinian armed groups,” as if to suggest that these were vigilante grass roots killers who were not sponsored by and doing the work of Hamas. The text of the report devotes infinitely more space to condemning Israel than it does to condemning Hamas or even “Palestinian armed groups.” It is not surprising, therefore, that the resolution of the UN Council, which is intended to briefly summarize the report, would focus its attention on condemning Israel. Goldstone, who is a savvy and experienced international diplomat, had to realize this when he signed onto the report. The crocodile tears he is now shedding, in claiming that the resolution “saddens” him, is simply another example of him talking out of two sides of his mouth.
Goldstone did the same thing when he told The Jewish Daily Forward “that his group had not conducted “investigation,”but rather a “fact-finding mission” based largely on the limited “material we had.” Since this “material” was cherry-picked by Hamas guides and spokesmen, Goldstone acknowledged that “if this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.” He emphasized to the Forward that the report was no more than “a road map” for real investigators and that it contained no actual “evidence” of wrongdoing by Israel.
That is certainly not what the report itself says. The report repeatedly accuses Israel of war crimes and other violations of international law. It concludes that Israel “violated” the law and that these violations “constitute a grave breach.” It does not qualify its accusations the way Goldstone now seems to – at least when talking to Jewish audiences. >>
Sobering words.
Dictionary // October 26, 2009 at 8:06 AM
Onlookers:
Above T links a story that in effect tries to justify/minimise Mr Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991, by pleading >> Nationalism in the modern sense was largely unknown to the Arab world until the middle twentieth century. The maneuvering of powerful families and the interests of colonial powers often defined spheres of influence . . . >>
In short, Kuwait did have a separate internationally recognised identity than Iraq (one that dates at least to C 18 BTW), and Mr Hussein did invade and seek to threaten the neighbouring Saudi Arabia.
I suggest that T take the Wiki 101 test: here and here. (Recall, one is not at all assured that Wiki is right, but one had better have a solid corrective, or one is not ready for prime time; given the ubiquity of Wiki, which has now so prevailed that Encarta has just quit the field..) Then, he may ponder on his implied attempt to justify the actions of a murderous dictator, by the very criteria he asserts against others above.
Finally it is now plain tha this thread iof discussion has passed any popint of beneficial return, save that it provided an opportunity for those who wish to seriously address the ethics of defence of the civil peace.
Good bye, then.
D
Technician // October 26, 2009 at 8:45 AM
Dictionary…
why can all your links be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God??
As I have said, it is another view!!
You are so anti Muslim that you just cant see that some on your side are wrong in this whole episode also.
People with your mindset are MORE dangerous than the terrorist you critisise. What make it worse is that you are ‘’supposed” to be a Christian…what a shame….what God-like behavior.
Every problem comes from Islam by your words. Britian, the USA et al are innocent.
Then you wonder why there can be no peace….not when there is no justice!!
You are a deceitful, arrogant, pompous and very dangerous person. Wars and genocide have been started by men like you …but your God will certainly deal with you!!
Technician // October 26, 2009 at 8:51 AM
FYI….
Posting an alternate view is not trying to justify anything.
It is merely looking at all possibilities and having an open mind , not one that is biased by ones unwavering faith and beliefs.
I am free to look at it openly without biases….can you say or do the same?
Dictionary // October 26, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Technician:
You have repeatedly resorted to empty personal abuse and accusation in the face of evident facts and reasonable inferences from same; backed up by invitation to correct on the merits.
That, sadly, tells us all we need to know; including that it would be wise for you to look in a mirror.
Good day, again.
D
Dictionary // October 26, 2009 at 1:12 PM
PS: FYI, I am not “anti-Muslim” [i.e. I am not a a hater of persons] — though I find myself in profound disagreement with certain core Islamic theological claims, on specific evidential grounds [cf also here, here and here as well as here] — but am openly and unabashedly anti Jihadism; or any other “-ism” that serves as a pretext for a global conquest or subjugation or subversion agenda. For reasons that are deeply roted in the history of such attempts, including the last two major ones: Communism and Fascism (Nazi form) that between them cost well over 100 million lives to turn back. Before nukes were in serious play.
Hopi // October 26, 2009 at 1:23 PM
@Zoe…………..Did you know that your ‘Lord’s Prayer’ came out of Ancient Egypt as well?
Hopi // October 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM
“but am openly and unabashedly anti Jihadism; or any other “-ism” that serves as a pretext for a global conquest or subjugation or subversion agenda.” that means you are DEFINITELY ANTI-JUADISM/ZIONISM AS WELL!
Technician // October 26, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Please….I do not need to look in a mirror guy…it is YOU who needs to!!
You are not anti Muslim my ass!!
Only the deceitful on this blog would even think about that statement.
You find fault with anything that does not fit into your way of thinking but you think your subtle insults to others on this blog, are not as bad as me calling you a cunt.
You think that your ’superior’ education give you the right to look down your nose at others who don’t match up to your ‘Christian’ standards.
I have watched you post 1500 words , yet still I watch in awe as 20 or less stumps you, being the conniving creature you are, you play with words and always think you have escaped.
You see, I dont need to be a suppository like Zoe, nor do I see the need to stroke your already oversized ego.
I merely ask questions from a different perspective but you, being the arrogant prick you are, quickly sees this as not to your liking and out comes the dismissive attitude.
I have no problem with anyone spreading the word of god , however, it is the manner in which you do it that really pisses me off!!
You leave a lot to be desired …..for a so called Christian.
kiki // October 26, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Chorus: Im too experienced to be taken for a stroll…….too
experienced for someone to rock and roll, Im too experienced to be taken
for a ride, and I know its not my foolish pride…….
She hates the site……. of me
because I turned her offer down
She’s always saying we were meant to be
somehow she thought Id be her clown
And this is what I sing:
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/too-experienced/
kiki // October 26, 2009 at 4:34 PM
I was looking for heads of government by
mighty diamonds..
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/shame-and-pride/
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/shame-and-pride-reggae/
Technician // October 26, 2009 at 5:04 PM
@ Dictionary (websters or oxford)……
……but am openly and unabashedly anti Jihadism; or any other “-ism” that serves as a pretext for a global conqu’est or subjugation or subversion agenda.’
What a load of bovine excrement…pure hog wash!!
Now pray tell us on this blog in 50 words or less, what Zionism or Judaism, is currently doing to the Palestinian people!!
Do you see why I call you deceitful?
Aren’t the Palestinian people being collectively subjugated?
Aren’t the Palestinian peoples future being subverted?
You have spent all this time, painstakingly trying to connect the dots from Islam- Muslims-Jihad….now you do an about face with this nonsense that you are not anti-Muslim ?!?
You do not hate people?!?
That my friend is like an old saying….you can’t have the cow without the calf!!
Micro Mock Engineer // October 26, 2009 at 8:11 PM
“MME (some thoughts with sleep approaching), I am sure about having a life, my jury is still out on the existence of a soul however.
I am not sure how I am going to “disobey civilly” with a suicide bomber!”
———————
Anon,
I cannot prove the existence of a soul… it is something I accept on faith.
Regarding your second point, this is my interpretation of Christ’s message. Jesus lived and preached non-violence. He taught us that we should put our faith in God not weapons. He taught us the techniques of nonviolent civil disobedience in response to all oppressive and exploitative authorites… at home and abroad. He taught us that it is better to die in peaceful resistance than live in violent resistance.
Christians today who suggest otherwise, are either dishonest or in denial… denial that began the moment Christians prostituted themselves in return for secular power granted by Constantine. Up until that time, Christians were strictly forbidden from taking up arms or joining any army.
“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” – Eph 6:12
Micro Mock Engineer // October 26, 2009 at 8:15 PM
There are bigger issues at stake than the suicide bomber Anon.
Putting in a request for selector Kiki… ROTFL…
Your best you try to harm I & I
Aiming to kill but I love you still
Cause you are here to make prophesy fulfill
Its Jah will
No weapon that, form against me
Desire shall not be
Divine protection shall set my soul free
… If Jah is standing by my side
… Then why should I be afraid
… Of the pestilence that crawleth by night
Zoe // October 26, 2009 at 8:51 PM
@Technician, Your inept capacity, intellectually, to assimulate warranted facts and evidence, as competently presented by Dictionary over and over again; is exceeded only by the depth of your *IGNORANCE* and the utter *SHALLOWNESS* of your *mind* displayed by the *fILTH** that proceeds
from your *HEART*
You are a classic example of a *foreman* selected from a jury whose intelligence appeared to be even lower than average. The trial lawyer concentrated on this man, throughout the case, the (foreman) who appeared superior in intelligence to the others.
After due deliberation, and an unusually long wait, the jury filed in. “Gentleman,” said the judge, “have you reached a decision?”
No, Your Honor,” answered the foreman, “we’ve come back to ask for some information. There are two words which have been used throughout this trial, which we don’t know the meaning of.”
“What are they?” asked the judge. “One word,” answered the foreman, is, “Plantiff” and the other is “defendant.”
Technician, your are just like this “foreman”.
“Ignorance, when voluntary, IS criminal.”
“There IS NO more terrible sight than *IGNORANCE* in action.”
But, you then resort to vile “profanity” against Dictionary, even worst than “ignorance” but, as a man thinketh, SO DOES he speak. And this you have demonstrated to its depth of *FILTH*
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord (Technician!) BUT, those who deal truthfully are His delight.” (Dictionary!) (Prov. 12: 22)
“Understanding IS a wellspring of life (Dictionary!) BUT, the correction of FOOLS (Technician!) is folly.” (Prov. 16: 22).
“The tongue of the wise (Dictionary!) uses knowledge rightly. BUT the mouth of FOOLS (Technician!) pours forth FOOLISHNESS.” (Prov. 15: 1b).
The Lamp of the Body.
To Technician, and those of your ilk, hear Jesus:
“The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is good, your whole body will be full of LIGHT.”
“BUT, if your eye is BAD, your whole body will be FULL of *DARKNESS* If therefore the light that IS in you (Technician) IS *DARKNESS* how great IS that DARKNESS.” (Matt. 6: 22,23) emphasis added throughout.
So it be!
kiki // October 27, 2009 at 2:31 AM
at Micro Mock Engineer
If Jah
Is by my side
No I wont hide
Boom boom boom dis yah tune yah
boom boom boom dis yah tune yah
boom boom boom dis yah tune yah
boom
Dictionary // October 27, 2009 at 4:58 AM
Moderators (and onlookers):
My attention was drawn to onward activities in this thread, by a private communication by a lurker.
It seems I need to say a few final points, by way of record, and to help those who do not understand how the rhetorical — and at a certain level, propagandistic — tactics of distraction, distortion, demonising accusation and polarisation work; or why they are often resorted to by extremists.
Had this thread remained on its principal issue, BU’s report ont eh ongoing expose of a fifth columnist movement; it may have served a point. Had it seriously taken up the question of defense of the civil peace on general ethical and specifically Christian views, it would have served a point.
But instead, red herrings have been dragged to distract us from the track of truth, and the false trails have been led out to strawmen soaked in slanderous distortions, and set alight to choke, cloud, confuse ands poison the atmosphere.
All in service to agendas that plainly cannot stand the light of truth.
Sad.
+++++++++
Zoe:
A note. While I appreciate your concern, please do not let the poisonous tone drag you down into contentiousness.
For the record:
1: Hopi, re: . . . you are DEFINITELY ANTI-JUADISM/ZIONISM AS WELL!
All you have manged to do is show that the lies in the old Czarist agitprop piece, Protocols, have poisoned your mind. Judaism is not a global conquest or subversion agenda, but the predominant religion of an often misunderstood and maligned or persecuted people group who — despite the foibles and frailties and fallen-ness that dog us all — have proved a great blessing to humanity over many, many years; from time immemorial. And, Zionism, the somewhat related — many historic Zionists were secular socialists who among other things pioneered the only long term successful socialist experiment in the world, the Kibbutz — Jewish aspiration to resettle and redevelop their historic homeland (while acknowledging the rights of others in that land as can be seen starting with early documents e.g. the Zionist submission to the Versailles conference of 1919 and continuing through even the Declaration of Independence of Israel and on to today . . . ) is not a world conquest or subversion agenda either.
Let me cite the relevant clauses from the Zionist DOI, May 1948; noting that 1/5 of Israel’s population are Arabs, who though they have faced challenges and discrimination have the clear backing of the law and have achieved outstanding successes e.g. Arab Israeli Supreme Court Justice and if memory serves at least one Cabinet Minister:
>>. . . We appeal – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.
We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East. >>
As a first point of balance on the modern history of Israel, I invite you to read here; and this here may help balance many agit-prop points commonly made against Israel, Zionism and Jews.
Jihadism — as opposed to the religious views of Muslims in general (many of whom reject and actually are currently fighting against Jihadism) — unfortunately is declaratively a global conquest ideology (as has been discussed above). That is why many concerned people across the globe, including a great many Muslims, object to and oppose it.
2] re Technician:
This commenter is plainly either a jihadist himself or a fellow traveller.
You will observe that I took time to link very specific documents that address the issues he raised, but he chose to ignore the issues and the evidence on the merits, but to indulge in a wave of personalities laced with vulgar language.
This is sad.
3] Palestine issues
The plight of the Arab people of the Holy Land is a truly sad one.
However, unless we understand its roots and key challenges, we cannot properly assess it or address it, and the poisonous atmosphere in this thread and the wider context of discussion make that very hard to do. That is in part why I pointed to the discussion here in point 1. (Read the wider article as well, on one Christian view on the matter in light of the biblical teachings.)
As a rule of thumb, I have found that if one cannot discuss in an informed way the significance of the year 1919, the names Chaim Weizmann and Feisal Hussein, and the location London [here a precursor to the Versailles process], then one simply does not know enough to have an informed and balanced opinion given the highly contentious, accusatory atmosphere.
So, let us see if we can at least pass the Weismann-Feisal 1919 agreement test:
>> His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their natural aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine [here being used of the prospective Jewish state!], and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following . . . >>
Oh, that the parties would have fulfilled that hope!
I will therefore only summarise briefly that BOTH Jews and Arabs (and populations of several minorities such as Circassians, Greeks . . . Dekapolis of the gentiles and all that . . . etc) have legitimate claims to being historically rooted in the Holy Land. In addition, there are various refugee settlements, including Baha’i [the world HQ of the Baha'i faith is in Israel, not Iran, which is intolerant] and even Vietnamese. Many compromises have been on the table ever since the Zionist resettlement from the 1870’s transformed a once ruinate and in significant parts depopulated wasteland into the high tech paradise we see today. Unfortunately, Jihadist agendas have consistently led to confrontation and violence rather than compromise, leading to wars of intended annihilation of the Jews in 1947 – 49 and again in 1967. As a result of these wars, Israel’s majority Jewish population are refugee oriental Jews from all over the Middle East, i.e. there are TWO ME refugee crises, not just one. The Jewish refugees actually match or exceed the number of Palestinan Arab refugees and were resettled — not without considerable difficulties and challenges with discrimination etc — in a state which is less than 1/2 of 1% of the ME region. By contrast the Arab refugees were deliberately maintained — by their fellow Arabs — in a state of confinement to cause a lingering bone of contention, in the context of that annihilationist ambition that led to the key wars.
Every attempt to find a reasonable compromise — most recently in 2000 [97% of the W Bank in a contiguous zone with compensating land elsewhere, 100% of Gaza, control of the key areas in Jerusalem, a highway corridor connecting the two zones and a large financial development grant] — have foundered on Jihadist ambitions and related resort to violence — note not merely “force.”
to understand some of that Jihadi mentality, let me cite from the Hamas Charter, the key Hadith that appears in its Clause 7, noting that HAMAS is an acronym that means “Islamic resistance”:
>> . . . the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla [= slave of Allah], there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim). >>
This declared intent of slaughter of a race is utterly unacceptable, and it shows the deep-set roots of the challenge facing Islamic moderates in the face of militant Jihadism.
Again, I spoke for the record.
Good day
De Dictionary
Terence M. Blackett // October 27, 2009 at 4:59 AM
@ Technician
Comment:
“Geez Mr.Blackett…… See what I mean about all this pretty talk and fancy words…”
I get paid well for my words…
As you know talk is NOT* cheap (ask OPRAH*)…
So maybe there is a lesson for you!!!
Technician // October 27, 2009 at 7:14 AM
OK……you got me Dictionary…….I am a Jihadist!!!…..NOT!!
Sticks and stone make break my bones,but……..
@ Zoe….
Try some original thoughts next…..damn suppository!!
@ Terrence…
I am paid very well for my technical abilities….no words…my hands….ask Bill Gates.
Micro Mock Engineer // October 27, 2009 at 7:19 AM
The value of a man’s words lies not in how much he is paid for them… Oprah is indeed a perfect example.
Just as the value of a man should be seen in what he gives and not in what he is able to receive (Uncle Albert), so too is the value of his words.
Technician // October 27, 2009 at 7:24 AM
50 words or less……..
…Aren’t the Palestinian people being collectively subjugated?
Aren’t the Palestinian peoples future being subverted?
Micro Mock Engineer // October 27, 2009 at 7:26 AM
David… I am appointing myself Secretary General of the BWU (Bloggers Writers Union)… it is unconscionable that you expect valuable writers like Terence to work for free. ROTFL.
Micro Mock Engineer // October 27, 2009 at 7:30 AM
… hold on. Maybe it is he that should pay you for free advertising.
I henceforth withdraw my entreaties for fair compensation.
Technician // October 27, 2009 at 7:48 AM
LMAO……….ROTFL!!
MME…ya bad!
Technician // October 27, 2009 at 7:58 AM
…..As a result of these wars, Israel’s majority Jewish population are refugee oriental Jews from all over the Middle East,
You just love to see yourself type…what refugees what?!!?
Any Tom, Dick or Harry from ANYWHERE in the world, who claimed to be Jewish went to Israel, hence the need for their continued expansion.
You really do ‘Divide ‘ the word…..
Terence M. Blackett // October 27, 2009 at 8:46 AM
@TECHNICIAN
“I am paid very well for my technical abilities….no words…my hands….ask Bill Gates.”
TO EACH HIS OWN!!!
Technician // October 27, 2009 at 8:52 AM
Well…..at least we agree on something…lol.
Zoe // October 27, 2009 at 9:24 AM
“He’s an impressive fellow, this guy. He really is. He’s obviously smart as hell…You’ll find him an interesting man. I expected more of a firebrand. I don’t think he has the slightest doubt about how he feels…about the American administration and the Zionist state. He comes across as more rational than I expected…He’s actually, in a strange way, he’s a rather attractive
man, very smart, savvy, self-assured, good-looking in a strange way. He’s very, very short but he’s comfortable in his own skin.”
-Mike Wallace about Iranian president Mahmoud Ah-MAD-dinejad, who has called for the annihilation of Israel.
Hardly a day goes by when Islamic terrorism does not claim the lives of innocent civilians somewhere in the world. Doing nothing more than trying to earn a living, care for their families, and live in peace, these victims are by no means always situated in war zones; many are in regions that are ostensibly at peace. As anoynmous in death as they were in life, these innocent civilian victims face *savage* murder on a regular basis by a loosely knit army of remorseless, modern-day *barbarians* whose every waking thought IS devoted to *beheading* and otherwise *mutilating* impure ‘infidels’ across the globe, and to creating a worlwide Islamic *caliphate* subordinate only to the deity in whose name it *kills* and *oppresses*.
Who remembers any longer the 42 peace council participants a teenaged *suicide* bomber killed in Peshawar on March 2, 2008? Or the same number a *fedayeen* bomber murdered two days earlier in Swat, Pakistan, while attending a funeral? Let alone the 56 worshippers killed on December 21, 2007, when a *terrorist* carrying a bomb packed with nails detonated himself in a Kanaan mosque? The memory of the 42 plus people, including children, who lost their lives to bombs placed at a food stall and an amusement park on Augusr 25, 2007, Hyderabad, India, has alse faded except among the grieving family members and friends left behind.
These are but a few of the many hundreds of terrorist attacks that have been carried out across the world in the post 9/11 era. Other attacks, of course, are more familiar to Westerners. For instance, there were the July 2005 coordinated bombings of London’s public transport system, which killed 52 commuters and injured at least 700 hundred; the Madrid railway bombing of March 2004, which kliied 190 and wounded more than 1,800; the May 2003 Casablanca bombing of a Jewish community center and a Spanish social club, killing 41 people; and the October 2002 bombing on the Indonesian island of Bali, which took 202 lives.
Through diligent hard work, intelligence operatives around the world have foiled other Islamic terrorist plots, seeking to cause even greater suffering, such as the infamous 1995 Operation Bonjinka plot, whose aim was to simultaneously blow up, in mid-flight, 12 commercial airliners traveling between Asia and the United States.
It is difficult for most of us to imagine any American feeling the barest shred of affinity for the *nihilistic* monsters who plan to execute such deeds. Yet, the American *Left* has formed a tacit alliance with the radical *Islamists* responsible for those activities, and are supported by others of such devious thinking, around the world, and right here in our Caribbean basin, and Barbados not to be excluded, as seen on BU.
The modern Left’s core consists of the ideological descendents of the communist/progressive Left, that wanted the West to lose the Cold War to the Soviet Union. Upon the foundation of their hatred for the United States, these dysfunctional human beings, had to find some other cause with which to aliegn their warped mentality, and so, have forged their alliance with radical *Islamists*
In a word and deed, both of these allies make it plain that they consider everything about Western civilization to be evil and unworthy of preservation; that they wish to see freedom and individual rights crushed by any means necessary, including *violent* revolution.
That deluded, silly man, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s pilgrimage in April 2008 to Cairo and Damasus to meet with and embrace, the diabolical leaders of the *terrorist* organization Hamas?
Hamas, an self-declared terrorist entity, who have the blood of myriad Israelis, as well as Americans on their hand; yet this fool Jimmy Carter stands in solidarity, shakes hands with Khaled Meshal, a Hamas leader suspected by Israeli authorities of being the mastermind of several high-profile terror attacks. The June 2006 abduction of Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit, was reported carried out at Meshal’s behest. Meshal habitually made clear that Israel’s existence IS intolerable and that the *destruction* of the Jewish state must be achieved through a *relentless* campaign of genocide. And the very life ‘force’ for that campaign IS sealed in the Hamas charter, which states as its primary goal Israel’s extinction.
How could that idiot Jimmy Carter, not remember, that since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, and the end of the so-called “occupation” there, that Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, have launched over 6,000 rockets and mortars into Israel.
Carter like the fool that he is, after his Hamas odyssey with Meshal and other Hamas figures, the ex-president emerged with the announcement that the *terrorist* organization was now ready to live in peace alongside Israel and would recognize the Jewish state. Of course, it didn’t take long for Hamas to issue a clarification. Shortly after Carter’s bizarre pronouncement, Hamas announced that its ‘raison d’etre’ remained intact; the commitment to liquidate the Jewish state.
In Carter’s errie attempt to paint terrorists as ‘peacekeepers’ and to blur their true *genocidal* campaign in the public eye, Carter needed a smokescreen, some kind of temporary lie, to cloud the true and dark yearnings that had led him into the arms of America’s, Israel’s, and freedom’s deadly sworn enemies. Indeed, from the moment the terrorist organization scored its electoral victory in Gaza in January 2006, the exp-president became an avid supporter. He distinguish himself as one of the first figures to congratulate the terroris group for its victory, meeting with its leaders in Ramallah, where his Carter Center has an office.
When Hamas began its expected and blood-soaked purge in Gaza and fueled relentless rocket attacks against innocent civilians in Israel, Carter remained silent! And instead of denouncing Hamas, he embarked on a passionate one-man lobbying campaign on behalf of the terrroist group, urging the international community to launder money to Hamas through United Nations and aid programs and then calling it “criminal” when the money for Hamas’ genocidal program did not arrive. All troughout, Carter has repeatedly declared Hamas to be an organization ready for peace. And in the process of uttering such *falsehoods* he has sprinkled numerous pleas for the release of thousands of Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons who have Israeli blood on their hands.
Carter’s dalliance with Hamas crystallizes well the intentions that lurk in the heart of the Left.
Another decieved and mislead intellectual, is former diplomat to the U.K, Peter Simmons, who in one of his recent articles in the Nation, highly praised Obama and Jimmy Carter, what utter nonsense and blinded perception!
Hopi // October 27, 2009 at 9:38 AM
@Zoe………..I beseech you my brother to post the date, time and exact words that Ahmadinejad used when speaking about ‘wiping ‘israel’ off the earth.’ As a christian who should only speak according to the manner in which Christ taught you, kindly post his exact words.
@Kiki…..Good stuff! Good stuff!
Technician // October 27, 2009 at 10:05 AM
@ Zoe……
Are you a fair man?!?
……..NOT!!
You are deceitful and wicked….what Christian what?!?
You chose to demonize Jimmy Carter?
You continue to harp on Hamas…what about the IDF..what about AIPAC?
There is modern day APARTHEID existing in Israel as we speak.
Carter chose a different approach…no war mongering so he must be bad.
I guess you would call Nelson Mandela a terrorist too…Magaret Thatcher certainly did.
How many innocents have the IDF killed?
Was Timothy McVeigh Islamist?
You are so biased and HELL bent in your agenda, that the truth can glare you in the face and you still wouldn’t see it.
I maintain, that it is deceitful and wicked of you to insist on people, that Muslims are the core of all the wrong in the ME.
As soon as anyone speaks out, there are branded as silly, ignorant etc…..
You wouldn’t know the truth if it was stuck up your…..well….you are Dictionary’s suppository!!
Technician // October 27, 2009 at 10:15 AM
There is always the other side…
Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel
By SHULAMIT ALONI
Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.
The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population’s movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians’ land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.
If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing “Jewish only” roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night–all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.
On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. “Why?” I asked the soldier. “It’s an order–this is a Jews-only road”, he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. “It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?”
Indeed Apartheid does exist here. And our army is not “the most moral army in the world” as we are told by its commanders. Sufficient to mention that every town and every village has turned into a detention centre and that every entry and every exit has been closed, cutting it off from arterial traffic. If it were not enough that Palestinians are not allowed to travel on the roads paved ‘for Jews only’, on their land, the current GOC found it necessary to land an additional blow on the natives in their own land with an “ingenious proposal”.
Humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either.
Major-General Naveh, renowned for his superior patriotism, has issued a new order. Coming into affect on 19 January, it prohibits the conveyance of Palestinians without a permit. The order determines that Israelis are not allowed to transport Palestinians in an Israeli vehicle (one registered in Israel regardless of what kind of numberplate it carries) unless they have received explicit permission to do so. The permit relates to both the driver and the Palestinian passenger. Of course none of this applies to those whose labour serves the settlers. They and their employers will naturally receive the required permits so they can continue to serve the lords of the land, the settlers.
Did man of peace President Carter truly err in concluding that Israel is creating Apartheid? Did he exaggerate? Don’t the US Jewish community leaders recognise the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966, to which Israel is a signatory? Are the US Jews who launched the loud and abusive campaign against Carter for supposedly maligning Israel’s character and its democratic and humanist nature unfamiliar with the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 30 November 1973? Apartheid is defined therein as an international crime that among other things includes using different legal instruments to rule over different racial groups, thus depriving people of their human rights. Isn’t freedom of travel one of these rights?
In the past, the US Jewish community leaders were quite familiar with the meaning of those conventions. For some reason, however, they are convinced that Israel is allowed to contravene them. It’s OK to kill civilians, women and children, old people and parents with their children, deliberately or otherwise without accepting any responsibility. It’s permissible to rob people of their lands, destroy their crops, and cage them up like animals in the zoo. From now on, Israelis and International humanitarian organisations’ volunteers are prohibited from assisting a woman in labour by taking her to the hospital. [Israeli human rights group] Yesh Din volunteers cannot take a robbed and beaten-up Palestinian to the police station to lodge a complaint. (Police stations are located at the heart of the settlements.) Is there anyone who believes that this is not Apartheid?
Jimmy Carter does not need me to defend his reputation that has been sullied by Israelophile community officials. The trouble is that their love of Israel distorts their judgment and blinds them from seeing what’s in front of them. Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us. We should remember that we too used very violent terror against foreign rule because we wanted our own state. And the list of victims of terror is quite long and extensive.
We do limit ourselves to denying the [Palestinian] people human rights. We not only rob of them of their freedom, land and water. We apply collective punishment to millions of people and even, in revenge-driven frenzy, destroy the electricity supply for one and half million civilians. Let them “sit in the darkness” and “starve”.
Employees cannot be paid their wages because Israel is holding 500 million shekels that belong to the Palestinians. And after all that we remain “pure as the driven snow”. There are no moral blemishes on our actions. There is no racial separation. There is no Apartheid. It’s an invention of the enemies of Israel. Hooray for our brothers and sisters in the US! Your devotion is very much appreciated. You have truly removed a nasty stain from us. Now there can be an extra spring in our step as we confidently abuse the Palestinian population, using the “most moral army in the world”.
[Translated by Sol Salbe]
Shulamit Aloni is the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.
Technician // October 27, 2009 at 10:29 AM
This is what Christians like Zoe and Dicktionary condones.
Zoe // October 27, 2009 at 1:28 PM
@Hopi, Go and do your own research on Ah-MAD-dine-jad’s now infamous speech in Oct, 2005, “World Without Zionism” conference in Asia, and see what its all about!
BTW, that ‘fool’ that keeps writing about suppositories, its because his asinine bewilderment, comes from his brain which resides in his rectum rectorum; that’s why he speaks so much bovine excrement!
Technician // October 27, 2009 at 1:35 PM
….such Christian-like behavior…….my my Zoe….Whatever would you God say?
kiki // October 27, 2009 at 3:56 PM
If you have never had a jewish friend or you never had a muslim friend you are
ignorant and small-mided
kiki // October 27, 2009 at 3:57 PM
whoops should be .. small minded
kiki // October 27, 2009 at 4:13 PM
heads of government
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/heads-of-government/
i’ve got more version
but can’t find them
Hopi // October 27, 2009 at 5:07 PM
@Zoe……….Oh No! You brought the charge. Now the burden of proof is on your shoulder. Zoe, where is the proof that he said those word? Come on Zoe, use your clean hands and your pure heart!
You still haven’t answered my question about TRUTH needing support!
Zoe // October 27, 2009 at 5:18 PM
“Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.”
-Demosthenes.
A little knowledge on any given subject matter, IS dangerous, sometimes deadly; as is seen by a some of the commentors on BU!
The Roots of Denial.
The radical *Leftist* the story of their love affair and their psychological makeup , and their habitual attempts to distance itself from its own history, and to obfuscate any straightforward analysis of its political motives, goals and allegiances, is deliberatly and intentionally done, to blur its own complicity in one of the greatest crimes of the twentieth century.
When David Horowitz launched his database, “DiscoverTheNetworks.org in February 2005, a Guide to the Political Left, the first Website to comprehensively define and map out the the Leftists, its networks of individuals, organizations, and financial supporters; within hours of the Web site’s first appearance on the Internet, before there had even been time to read a fraction of the site’s content, which includes thousands of files, leftists lashed out in fury!
A typical assult came from author Kurt Nimmo, who called the new database a “smear portal” and alledged that it unjustifiably lumped together too many disparate people and forces, especially leftists and Islamist terrorist. Nimmo made this charge even though DiscoverThe Networks does not point to any organizational links between leftists and Islamist terrorists, but simply catalogues the support that leftists have given to terrorists, as exemplified by Michael Moore’s praising the insurgents in Fallujah, and promoting their victory over an imperialist United States.
DiscoverTheNetworks makes it clear that it does not imply the existence of any formal “alliance” between radical Islam and the Left, BUT, simply demonstrates, in its profiles of individuals (Moore, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, et al.) and organizations (National Lawyers Guild, International ANSWER, Code Pink, et al.) that the radical Left consistently takes the side of Islamist terrorists in their *Jihad* against the United States.
The absurd irony in Nimmo condemning the implication of a leftist-Islamist alliance is that he himself is a leftist who supports and affiliates himself with Islamist terrorists, especially in Iraq’s Sunni triangle. Nimmo’s logic clearly exemplifies the Left’s traditional dismissal of any criticism aimed against it. Dedicating their lives to erasing individuality, including their own, and becoming part of a group from whose party line they cannot waver, these individuals nonetheless, react with moral indignation when they are classified as being members of that group.
And, so typical, as seen here on BU, with such Leftist oriented mindsets, this tactic is part of the Left’s desperate attempt to avoid an honest dialogue about its own historical record. Rather than confront the *bloodbath* that its ideas have spawned, the Left finds it far safer to engage in historical *amnesia* and outright *Gulag* denial.
Any attempt in dissecting the leftist pathology, it is necessary that we remain objective, in that, not all Leftist are identical, and so not every believer will share every characteristic .
There is, after all, no mentally ill person whose ilness has been engendered by ‘exactly’ the same dynamics as have afflicted a similarly ailing person. BUT, there ARE indubitably mental illnesses that stem from common sources, and predispose their victums to similar dispositions and behaviours.
However, the bottom line is that; while dynamics and extremes vary, every ‘Leftist’ will fit, to one degree or another, the ‘Leftist’ diagnosis. This is particularly true for those legions of ‘Leftist’ who today wish for victory of Isalimist terror over the United States, and Israel.
Technician // October 27, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Zoe is a weak, weak individual…..
Zoe cannot even produce one line of original thought, original reason.
It is either going to be cut and pasted from another source or the Bible.
Look at how you are easily rattled by us non believers. Where is your strength, your dignity, your conviction?
I guess you are only bold when you have a ‘dictionary’ to help back you.
I feel sorry for you because it seems to me that you are the one who is lost. You can quote the Bible back to front, but I can see your struggles, your biases and your confusion.
Seem to me , you are the one with the denial and self deceit…..get some help.
Not Saved // October 27, 2009 at 6:01 PM
@GEM,
“……you appear to be ignorant of the historical testimony of Hitler’s surviving generals”
+++
It speaks volumes of you that you think that anyone who does not share your view must be ignorant of the facts.
The first coup attempt against Hitler was not until 1938 and was to be trigged by the War over Czechoslovakia. The thinking was that the German people would not want war. Of course the war did not start then and so no coup took place.
Since Hitler retained the overwhelming support of the German people until the Normandy invasion, your hypothesis is weak.
Moreover, the period after Munich and the “phoney war” gave Britain valuable time to prepare for War with Germany.
It is stunning the level of hypocrisy that you demonstrate coming to this blog to defend the Jewish people from even of the most trivial of slander. After centuries of christian anti semitism, look who is now your best friend who you are prepared to defend with a disturbing level of fanaticism.
What of the role of christian anti semitism in world war II?
“Without centuries of Christian antisemitism, Hitlers passionate hatred would never have been so fervently echoed…because for centuries Christians have held Jews collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. On Good Friday Jews, have in times past, cowered behind locked doors with fear of a Christian mob seeking ‘revenge’ for deicide. Without the poisoning of Christian minds through the centuries, the holocaust is unthinkable. The dissident Catholic priest Hans Küng has written that “Nazi anti-Judaism was the work of godless, anti-Christian criminals. But it would not have been possible without the almost two thousand years’ pre-history of ‘Christian’ anti-Judaism…”
— Archbishop Robert Runcie.
+++
“If necessary and possible, limited strikes may be necessary to cripple the emerging nuclear weapon capacity, before we wake up one morning to hear of cities destroyed by suicide nuclear attacks. ”
Can you explain how this constitutes “defense”?
To launch a “strike” and kill innocent people based on an unsupported supposition is not ethical.
Can the Iranians use this logic too?
++++
This book is nothing but propaganda. The authors have no credibility. They have charged that Obama is a Muslim and a “vote for Obama is a vote for sharia law”.
Do you agree?
Four far right republican members of congress have requested an investigation based on the claims in the book. However, despite your claims for thousand of pages of evidence the four republicans produced a single page CAIR strategy document which shows CAIR to be nothing more than a typical lobbying group.
Here is the document.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM138_091014_cair.html
+++++
You launch insult after insult and deride anyone who challenges your viewpoints and yet complain when you receive an abusive rejoinder.
By contrast, Zoe is more akin to parody, and one can only chuckle when he launches his verbal assaults wheras you are just simply offensive and invite the abuse you receive.
No go on, cry ad hominem.
Maybe someone will shed a tear for you.
Pat // October 27, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Thanks Technician for that article.
It galls me to know that the US supports the Israelis actions to the tune of $5 billion dollars a year. Without that money, the country would have been overrun already.
If Borack had any backbone he would tell Israel to shape up or he would cut the funding. But, as Hopi says, seems he has no balls and is just a puppet.
Dont waste anymore time on Zoe. I have a friend from the MIddle East who speaks Persian. She heard the original speech by Ahmadinejad and said it was a mis translation by the US. Ahmadinejad said there was no country called Israel and there should be no country called Israel. Israel was a race of people. The land was Canaan and Palestine – NO ISRAEL!!!
Zoe // October 27, 2009 at 6:47 PM
@Hopi, my dear, I have NO intention of doing your homework for you; it is patently a fact, where news networks, all over the world, carried the now infamous statement made by Ah-MAD-dine-jad sometime during the month of October, 2005, during his speech to “The World Without Zionism” conference in Asia.
Use your own fingers, and visit ‘Wiki’ where it is all there, the convoluters who want to say that the Persian was not correctly rendered (translated) by the Western media, hence denying that this MAD-MAN said the words, “Wipe off” the map, etc.
I know your ‘tricks’ Hops, but you can’t fool me, it is a waste of time!
One such comment on Wiki, at least there are honest translators from within Iran.
“But translators in Tehran who work for the President’s office and the foreign ministry disagree with them…Sohrab Mahdavi one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Suiamak Namaze, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “Wipe off” or “Wipe away” is more accurate than “vanish” because the Persian verb is active and transitive.”
Also, ‘The Middle East Media Research (MEMRI) translates the phrase, as to “be eliminated from the pages of history.”
(Wiki)
The damage-control people who want to minimize what Ah-MAD-dine-jad said in Persian, that Israel should be “Wiped off” the earth, will NOT cut it; as it is out there; what he said in Persian, as confirmed by the two above mentioned Iranians, IS correct, one way or the other.
That vicious, little, demonically activated, Satanically inspired Islamist, cannot take back his words, his arrogance and stupidity in making such an inference, will bring him down, and cause untold misery for Iranians, many of whom do NOT want him as their leader.
If, any foolish Middle East country, should ever attempt such folly, in trying to “wipe” Israel of the map, their necks will be broken, as Israel, already for a long time, are on 24/7 standby, just waiting for any Arab country, Iran included, to just try it, it will be the beginning of World War III, and while Israel will be severly devasted, with millions killed, she will TAKE with her in destruction, ALL of the Arab capitals,
beginning with Damascus, et al, as what she has used thus far, in military conflict, IS only a fraction, of a fraction of its true military might; and the Arabs and Ah-MAD-dine-jad KNOW this!
Every time the Arabs sought to ‘Wipe’ Israel, off the map, beginning in 1948, literally hours after its declared statehood, then again in 1967, they, (Arabs) learned the hard way, DON’T MESS with Israel, as she will NOT be defeated, NOR wiped off the map, as that LAND is theirs, the true refugees, who had to leave a number of Arab and other Middle East nations, after been bonified citizens in the countries for there hundreds and hundeds of years, when their rightful ‘home’ land was given back to then in 1948.
The disguisting Arabs states, that could easily have accomodated the Palestianians, who were told by their Arab brothers,’LEAVE’ Israel quickly, as we will destroy her finally, as IT was NOT the Israelis who asked them to leave, NO! NO! NO!, it was the devious Arab nations who PUT their Palestinian brother in Refugee camps, and HAVE continued to keep them in this mess, so as to have an ‘excuse’ to torment Israel as the “occupiers’ nonsense, you can’t ‘occupy’ what IS YOURS; but, Arab ‘Turnspeak’ used repeadly for the past 60 years, a cynical ‘inverting’ and ‘twisting’ of FACTS, to make the true victum, the Jews, state of Israel, appear as the ‘aggressor’ and the poor Palestinians, who are scape-goats for an Arab agenda, to remain under this terrible plight, brought upon them in the first place by their Arab brothers, WHO told them in 1948, GET OUT of Israel. WHY? WHY? WHY?
Because, the issue HAS never being over land for the Palestinains, NO! NO!
It IS the EXISTENCE of the state of Israel, the idea of LAND owned and rightfully controled by Jews, in the Middle East, is anthema to Islam, BUT, the LIES told continuously, ‘Turnspeak’ created by Musa Alami, in 1948, “The people are in need of a ‘MYTH” to fill their consciousness and imagination.”
At least one Arab leader in that era, was honest enough to say it, as it WAS/IS,
“Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner…They have USED the Palestinian people for their selfish political purposes, This is rediculous and, I could say, even criminal.” (King Hussein of Jordan, 1960).
What exactly was Hussein referring to?
The same point made above, which are historic facts; that the other Arab states, in 1948, shortly after the Jews cameback home, for the first time in over 2,000 years, vehemently consorted, to WIPE Israel off the map, telling their Palestinian brothers, to GET OUT of Israel, so they could DESTROY her; BUT, it did NOT work, the Palestinians who were then in refugee camps, were KEPT there by the Arab states who told them in the first place, GET OUT, there are millions of square miles of land throughout the Arab world, to have created hundreds of Palestinian states for these refugees, BUT, NO, keep them there suffering, so we can use them as a scapegoat, while we work on, and figure out how we can some day, ‘Wipe’ Israel off the map.
That is precisely why Arafar turned down the offer of over 95% of the West Bank and others areas for an Palestinian state, he could NOT accept this extremely generous concesion by Israel, as he would NO longer have an legitimate excuse to continue tormenting Israel with suicide terrorist bombers!
The vicious, nasty lies, cleverly used for 60 years, ‘Turnspeak’ invert the FACTS, twist the TRUTH, make the Jews look like the agressors, if repeated often enough through propaganda, the world will believe the LIE, we will gain the sympathy of the world, for our deceitful cause and agenda, and they will HATE the Jews, so said, so done!
Not Saved // October 27, 2009 at 6:51 PM
@GEM,
“……and to help those who do not understand how the rhetorical — and at a certain level, propagandistic — tactics of distraction, distortion, demonising accusation and polarisation work; or why they are often resorted to by extremists.”
++++
LOL
And this describes “Muslim Mafia” perfectly.
Hypocrite anyone?
kiki // October 27, 2009 at 6:59 PM
being christian is not a crime
but
hating people is called a hate crime
Hopi // October 27, 2009 at 7:06 PM
@Zoe……….I think the best place we can start is with recorded history. Which came first human civilization or christianity? And does your christianity begin with ‘Adam & Eve.’
You still haven’t posted the exact words of the Iranian leader!
Oh, Zoe, the cussing from the depths of a christian is very VILE not unlike BILE, VILE ZOE, VILE. Were I to just scan this blog I’d swear that you were little Boyblue from down in de rumshop! its VILE!
Straight talk // October 27, 2009 at 7:21 PM
In the interests of true journalism the exact phrase translated from Farsi was
” erase Israel from the map of the Middle East”.
Carry on
Hopi // October 27, 2009 at 9:46 PM
@Straight Talk……….Is that what he really said?
Not Saved // October 28, 2009 at 12:52 AM
@GEM,
“By way of comparison, had France and the UK acted decisively when Hitler sought to re-occupy and militarise the Rhineland, he would have been stopped at a far lower cost than the up to 40 millions”
“For reasons that are deeply roted in the history of such attempts, including the last two major ones: Communism and Fascism ”
+++
Your constant need to invoke Hitler and fascism reflects the paucity of your arguments to justify aggression as “defense”.
Rather than make the case on its merits, you simply resort to fear mongering analogies.
Surely you can do better than that.
Not Saved // October 28, 2009 at 1:13 AM
Here is a little balance to the claims of this book,
http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200910150008
Not Saved // October 28, 2009 at 1:17 AM
Here is some info on David Gaubatz from the website of CAIR that bring some perspective on the mindset of the individuals behind this book.
+++
“CAIR noted that the blogger is a former employee of the racist group Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE). On its now members-only website, SANE offered a policy proposal that would make it illegal to be a Muslim: “Whereas, adherence to Islam as a Muslim is prima facie evidence of an act in support of the overthrow of the US. [sic] Government through the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution and the imposition of Shari’a on the American People…It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam.”
In explaining why he seeks to infiltrate mosques and Islamic institutions nationwide, the hate blogger who targeted CAIR wrote on the SANE web site: ‘…the real answer to Why is the fact that in this country, our government and its myriad of agencies and bureaucracies have determined that a priori Islam itself is NOT the evil ideology it in fact is.”
SANE’s web site once contained the following white supremacist language as part of its mission statement: “America is a unique people bound together through a commitment to America’s Judeo-Christian moral foundation and to an enduring faith and trust in G-d and in His Providence…America was the handiwork of faithful Christians, mostly men, and almost entirely white, who ventured from Europe to create a nation in their image of a country existing as free men under G-d.”
Other articles on the SANE website made other racist statements that questioned the right of African-Americans and women to vote: “There is a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote,’ and ‘Race matters and affects your intelligence. Jews are the smartest white people around. Orientals smarter than Whites. Latinos next. Then Blacks.”
Another SANE article stated: “Is there something unique about the Black American (or, at least the Black New Yorker) that leads him to murder so disproportionately and to most often kill and victimize his own?”
Not Saved // October 28, 2009 at 1:19 AM
@GEM,
Is Gaubatz a credible source?
Is Gaubatz anti jihadist or anti muslim?
Simple answers will suffice, thought it is unlikely you are capable of them.
Not Saved // October 28, 2009 at 1:42 AM
Here is a little more balance.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/15/investigation/
Not Saved // October 28, 2009 at 1:53 AM
Some excerpts :
+++
They stand accused of plotting to influence members of Congress and trying to help interns obtain positions in Congress in order to advance their political agenda. That’s consistent with what virtually every political advocacy group in the nation does; it’s normally called activism and democracy. But because, in this case, it’s a group of Muslims who are doing this, these House Republicans are depicting it as some sort of nefarious espionage plot against the U.S. that demands a criminal investigation.
+++
Patriot Act reforms have long been advocated by what The New York Times called “an unlikely coalition of liberal civil-rights advocates, conservative libertarians, gun-rights supporters and medical privacy advocates.” Several Senators — including the Democrats’ second-highest ranking member, Dick Durbin — just voted (unsuccessfully) to impose new limits on that law. But when “America’s largest Islamic civil liberties group” takes the same position, these crazed, blatantly bigoted House Republicans spit out McCarthyite smears trying to imply that they’re working from within to help Terrorists attack America. It’s nothing less than an attempt to criminalize organized political activity by and on behalf of American Muslims.
+++
his is the ranting, insane hatemonger who House Republicans are now using as their expert source to demand an investigation into CAIR’s villainous plot to place interns on Congressional committees. It would be darkly humorous if it weren’t so ugly and dangerous.
+++
This is the precise rank fear-mongering and compulsive need for an Internal Enemy that has driven American policy and political culture for the entire decade. ………. If anything merits formal condemnation, it’s this foul Republican witch hunt.
kiki // October 28, 2009 at 3:21 AM
Here is a little more bass.
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/money-money-2/
kiki // October 28, 2009 at 3:25 AM
Let´s live in love
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/let´s-live-in-love/
Elementary
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/elementary/
Straight talk // October 28, 2009 at 4:47 AM
Hopi:
Ahmedinejad was quoting Khomeini when he said in farsi:
“Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “Regime”, pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh”, is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s President threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”, despite never having uttered the words “map”, “wipe out” or even “Israel”.
The above is from Mohammed Mossadegh’s book
THE PROOF:
The full quote translated directly to English:
“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”.
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).
Dictionary // October 28, 2009 at 4:54 AM
Moderators:
I have been asked to respond to onward claims and rhetorical assertions. For the record, I do so below.
+++++++++++
Onlookers:
First, let us recall that the prime issue in this blog thread is that it reports on an ongoing expose of an Islamist advocacy group connected to the Hamas and its parent organization the Muslim Brotherhood. The issue of islamism stands, as a serious and too often unacknowledged threat to our civilisation.
Secondly, the question of Christianity and the ethics of protecting the civil peace came up. This too was seriously addressed, and the basic points still stand.
Instead of addressing such significant issues on the merits, above, sadly, adherents of various forms of the post-colonialist narrative have too often resorted to a pattern of ever more tangential rhetoric, with a pattern of misinformation, half-truths, slanderous accusation, mud-slinging vulgarity and outright incivility.
So, we need to first and foremost understand that it is civility that is the first line of defence of the civil peace.
And, that if we tolerate or encourage uncivil conduct in public discussion, especially slanders, we are enablers of the breakdown of the civil peace.
Several specific points are noteworthy:
1] the Mizraim or oriental Jews of Israel.
Had adverse commenters above taken time to investigate before commenting dismissively (starting with links already given, e.g. start here again) they would have easily seen that in the 1940’s there were something like 800,000+ Jews in long settled — but often oppressed or even persecuted — dhimmi communities across the Middle East. In many cases, their being in places like Iraq, Egypt and Iran antedated the Islamic-Arab conquests of the region of the 600s by 1,000 or more years. (Indeed, in Yathrib/Medina, the Jewish tribes long antedated Mohammed’s arrival. Unfortunately, on the record, he expelled, expropriated and in the end massacred 600 – 900 men, enslaving their families. This set a very unfortunate example.)
In the context and aftermath of the war of annihilation launched against nascent Israel — and in defiance of the internationally agreed partition plan [which would have created a cis-Jordanian Palestinian Arab state in 1948 and was agreed to by the Zionists . . . ] — something like 820,000 Oriental Jews found themselves as refugees. 620,000 of these settled in Israel, and they and their descendants are about 1/2 the Jewish population of that state. The value of the properties they lost in the process, at reasonable rates of interest amount to a present value in excess of US$ 80 billions. [Cf discussions here and in more technical details here.]
So, there has been an exchange of refugee populations, and the resources seized from the Jewish refugees would have been more than adequate to compensate and resettle Palestinian Arab refugees; entirely apart from decades of international support and further attempts at compromise settlements, up to the 2000 offers that were rejected and used a s a pretext for renewed war.
2] Zionist subjugation and oppression of Palestinian Arabs
The above illustrates the turnabout, immoral equivalency rhetorical tactic in action.
It distracts attention from how the fundamental ME tension issue has been that Arabs and especially militant Islamists have refused to acknowledge the cultural legitimacy of and associated claims to rootedness in the broad ME of other peoples, including not only Jews but Kurds, Copts, Berbers and even the Dinka of Sudan. Indeed, a part of the problems in Iraq are rooted in a refusal of legitimacy to the Shiite sect.
As a consequence, war has been a routine resort, and in the case of the Jews of Israel, war of openly declared intent of annihilation has been launched in 1948 and 1967; with the Hamas charter openly stating intent to massacre Jews on hadith texts cited in the charter [as previously discussed] down to today.
In that context, as already linked materials document, the Palestinian refugees exist as a half of a refugee crisis, and Israel has found itself in the position of having to deal with hostile Palestinian arab populations in lands used as platforms to launch wars of intended annihilation against them, and captured in strategically defensive responses. [In 1967, the setting up of a ring of steel with 2,800 tanks, nearly 1/2 million men and closing of the straights of Tiran that provided oil, were acts of war and siege intended to force Israel to either attack against what were thought to be hopeless odds or collapse economically by having to mobilise and hold its workforce in the army. Israel's strategic counter-stroke, to almost everyone's astonishment, succeeded. (the CIA was the main exception: it accurately projected the likely outcome of a Sinai campaign.)]
Against that backdrop, the Palestinian arab walkaway from the 2000 offer of settlement — 97% of W Bank with compensating land elsewhere, 100% of Gaza, a corridor highway connecting the two, and a large financial grant, control of E Jerusalem] is telling on the hollowness of claims of subjugationism or imperial/ colonial/ apartheid ambition etc.
3] Zionism =
racismApartheidBack in the 1970’s one of the turnabout accusations against Israel was that its national aspirations constituted racism. The UN, riven by Cold War polarisations, passed a resolution to that effect, which it subsequently had to withdraw and apologise for.
Today, an even more virulent form of the same accusation has surfaced, equating Israel with South Africa (and nazism). Some of those connected to it are Jews. [But Eichmann the implementer of the Holocaust was of significantly Jewish ancestry and it has now surfaced that Mr Ahmadinejad of Iran's family changed its name from a Jewish Iranian name in the 1950's.]
The best rebuttal in brief is to cite Vice Consul Ishmael Khaldi of Israel, from a recent San Francisco Chronicle article in response to College campus Israel Apartheid week events:
>> . . . My perspective is unique, both as the vice consul for Israel in San Francisco, and as a Bedouin and the highest-ranking Muslim representing the Israel in the United States. I was born into a Bedouin tribe in Northern Israel, one of 11 children, and began life as shepherd living in our family tent. I went on to serve in the Israeli border police, and later earned a master’s degree in political science from Tel Aviv University before joining the Israel Foreign Ministry.
I am a proud Israeli – along with many other non-Jewish Israelis such as Druze, Bahai, Bedouin, Christians and Muslims, who live in one of the most culturally diversified societies and the only true democracy in the Middle East. Like America, Israeli society is far from perfect, but let us deals honestly. By any yardstick you choose – educational opportunity, economic development, women and gay’s rights, freedom of speech and assembly, legislative representation – Israel’s minorities fare far better than any other country in the Middle East . . . .
If Israel were an apartheid state, I would not have been appointed here, nor would I have chosen to take upon myself this duty. There are many Arabs, both within Israel and in the Palestinian territories who have taken great courage to walk the path of peace. You should stand with us, rather than against us . . . .
If you are really idealistic and committed to a better world, stop with the false rhetoric . . . .
Do Israel’s Arab citizens suffer from disadvantage? You better believe it. Do African Americans 10 minutes from the Berkeley campus suffer from disadvantage – you better believe it, too. So should we launch a Berkeley Apartheid Week, or should we seek real ways to better our societies and make opportunity more available . . . .
Your radicalism is undermining the forces for peace in Israel and in the Palestinian territories. We are working hard to move toward a peace agreement that recognizes the legitimate rights of both Israel and the Palestinian people, and you are tearing down by falsely vilifying one side . . . >>
Those who repeat the Israel = Apartheid talking points should soberly reflect on this response, and should consider what forces and consequences they are enabling by that advocacy.
Since there are many, many similar propagandistic attacks made against Israel, I link a systematic response to many such attacks, here.
I cannot prevent further slanders or accusations, but I can point out enough that fair minded people who are willing to do a little homework can see what is really going on.
4] Of the lessons of the 1930’s
Above, I had pointed out the significance of the global conquest attempts of C20, by the nazis and the Communists. In particular, I pointed out that turning back these menaces cost in excess of 100 million lives, and highlighted that failure to firmly block nazi ambitions and aggressive moves in 1935 – 38 set the stage for a horrendous war that devastated a continent and cost up to 40 million lives.
In attempting to discredit this warning from lessons of history, someone has objected that the first “coup” attempt vs Hitler [I think assassination attempt is more accurate] took place in 1938. This side steps the direct testimony of the surviving generals etc that had Hitler’s adventures in the mid 1930’s misfired a coup would have taken him out of power, starting with the bluff that allowed him to take control of the Rhinelands and fortify the western front. (If memory serves, he actually had about 4 battalions of troops available for the effort. Remember France had an alliance with the Czechs etc which would have put an east front backed by the Sudetenland defence line that was the focus of Hitler’s bogus campaign to slice off that region on the pretext that the ethnic Germans there were being horribly oppressed. but with a line in the W blocking France and the Sudetenland in his hands, as well as control of the Skoda factories that used to arm Austria and the Czech tank and truck fleets in hand, he was free to move against all comers.])
In short, the tactic being used by NS is a half truth on a tangential issue.
Worse, the idea that the notorious “peace in our time” piece of paper Munich settlement of 1938 gained a breathing space to defend successfully against German aggression is a myth.
First, the German forces, with the ex-Czech T35s and T38s — Pz I and Ii tanks were grossly inadequate and underarmed [machine guns and 20 mm guns resp.], and Pz II and IV tanks were just coming into production — and with the injection of trucks from the same place, were able to mount a successful blitz that knocked France out of the war in six weeks in 1940.
In other words the unprincipled throwing of the Czech people to the wolves in 1938 did NOT succeed in preparing an adequate defence in 1940. In fact, it only succeeded in helping Hitler gain the decisive strategic position and key items of equipment to strengthen the blows that came in 1939 and 1940.
That is a direct, easily researched fact of history.
Similarly, the resulting conquest of France put the Luftwaffe on the shores of the Channel and allowed an aerial blitz on a scale that came within an ace of knocking Britain out. (Had Hitler and Goering stuck to the pattern of hitting the RAF instead of switching to bombing London, they very likely would have destroyed Fighter Command and decided the war. As it was 11 Group was hanging on by its fingernails. [Britain very nearly ran out of fighter pilots in the battle.])
But we need not delve on ever more tangential issues. The key lessons are plain, and the principle has been long since put to us by Santayanna.
Paraphrasing:
>> History teaches us two lessons:
1] those who refuse to learn from it are doomed to repeat its worst chapters.
2] by and large we refuse to learn form history.>>
So, will we the educated people of the Caribbean learn from history, or will we join the long history of all too preventable marches of blind and ruinous folly?
In particular, will we face the unpleasant fact that Islamism — as opposed to many ordinary Muslims such as the Israeli Consul cited above — is a global conquest totalitarian ideology, one that is now at the threshold of acquiring nuclear arms? one that sponsors front organisations — such as CAIR — to soften us up ideologically for the strokes that hey intend to bring into play once the balance of forces is favourable?
One that exploits fellow travellers, whether naive and misinformed, or willing and agenda driven?
One that seeks to use our understandable resentment against the history of Western colonialism etc as a part of that process?
So, should we not make sure that we will not blindly jump from the frying pan into the fire?
De Dictionary
Technician // October 28, 2009 at 6:02 AM
Dictionary is a blatant LIAR and his side- kick Zoe is a sheep…..my opinion.
We can go on and with both sides but I can see their agendas.
The BU family can decide for themselves…….to each their own.
Dictionary // October 28, 2009 at 7:07 AM
Mr Pearson:
Technician has crossed serious lines, first by resort to vulgarity, now by making an unsubstantiated — and false — accusation of lying.
I ask you to speak to him about his uncivil conduct.
GEM of TKI
Dictionary // October 28, 2009 at 7:19 AM
PS: I previously communicated some substantiating materials, as follows; which somehow did not get through. Pardon if this results in a double submission, but it is important to demonstrate in-thread [not just in links] that I am NOT lying.
this article is also a necessary balance to what has been said above by some advocates of post-colonialist narratives above:
________________
The forgotten Oriental Jews
Lyn Julius
Lyn Julius says it is time for Israel’s refugees from Arab lands to be
brought back into the peace equation
Do an Internet search for ‘Middle Eastern refugees’, and you get 16 million entries. These refer overwhelmingly to Palestinian refugees. A search for
‘Middle Eastern Jewish refugees’ turns up four million references. This is
strange, as there were more Jewish refugees from Arab countries than Arab
refugees from what is now Israel.
The Mizrahim (Oriental Jews) were expelled from countries like Iraq, Egypt and Algeria – or ushered towards the exit by insidious marginalisation and intimidation, as in Morocco and Tunisia.
The dispossessed lost far more than the Palestinians. Of 870,000 Mizrahi
refugees, 600,000 sought refuge in Israel, where they now form half the
Jewish population. There were between 300,000 and 750, 000 Arab refugees, but four million is often quoted, as, uniquely, their descendants are allowed to inherit refugee status.
For almost 60 years peacemaking efforts have run aground on the
Palestinian ‘right of return’. But what of the right of Jewish refugees not
to return to despotic countries where civil and human rights violations are
rife?
The Jewish refugees give the lie to the myth that the Israelis are western
colonial interlopers who ’stole the land from the native Arabs’. Jewish
communities were founded 1,000 years before Islam. The Mizrahim, now
integrated into Israel, never left the Middle East. Israel today has over a
million Arab citizens. Yet there are barely 5,000 Jews left in the Arab
world. Just who is guilty of ‘ethnic cleansing’?
The Arabs need to come to terms with their own history of anti-Semitism. Until ‘dhimmitude’ was ended by the colonial powers, non-Muslim dhimmis lived in a system of institutionalised humiliation. Political rights were denied to all but Muslims. This is a huge, underrated factor in Arab and Muslim rejection of Israel’s right to exist.
The argument that Israel is the price paid by innocent Arabs for European
anti-Semitism and the Holocaust ignores the Mizrahi need for a safe Jewish haven. The myth needs to be nailed that Jews and Arabs coexisted in total harmony before Israel. Jews were massacred in Morocco in 1912, Algeria in 1934, Iraq in 1941 and Libya in 1945 – all pre-dating the modern state of Israel.
It is a mystery why Israel has not hitherto made the case for the Jewish
refugees. By keeping shtum, it has vacated the moral high ground and allowed history to be distorted. This silence sets back the cause of peace by
reinforcing the Arabs’ one-sided sense of victimhood, while alienating the
Mizrahim, who tend to vote for right-wing parties.
Things are slowly changing. Organisations such as Justice for Jews from Arab Countries are trying to raise the refugee issue. They want families to
record their stories and lost assets on the website http://www.justiceforjews.com
- before the last generation of Jews born in Arab countries dies out.
But we still need to do more to raise awareness of the injustice committed
against the Jews from Arab countries. Restoring them to the Middle East
narrative can only advance prospects for peace and reconciliation.
Lyn Julius helped found Harif, an association of Jews from the Middle East and North Africa.
_________________
You do not need to agree with Mr Julius, but you do need to address the issues he raises on the merits, if you are to have a responsible and informed position.
kiki // October 28, 2009 at 7:20 AM
1.Rasta Pon Top – Twinkle BROS.
2.Politician – Barry Brown
3.Freedom – Max Romeo
4.Charcoal Bridges – Lloyd Brown
5.Recession – Frankie Paul
6.Jah Shaka
7.Brotherman (3 Cuts) – Al Campbell, Mykal Rose..
8.New Day – Twinkle Bros
9.Protect We
10.Hallelujah (2cuts) – D.TaFari
http://ambassada.podOmatic.com/player/web/2009-01-19T17_08_44-08_00
Technician // October 28, 2009 at 8:49 AM
@ Dicktionary..
FYI..
I answer to no one on this blog…ban me ..I dont care!!
It is you and your ego that needs this blog more than I do.
I am quite happy in my life as it is now.
As I have said before, in MY opinion you are a LIAR, DECEITFUL, BIASED and sadly (or gladly) not a Christian.
How can a Christian promote such hate towards another religion?
Is it because it does not conform to your standards?
Time and time again you have posted what YOU think is the gospel. Others have rebutted your claims with TRUTH.
Your take on the Palestinian people shows your bias and agendas. These people are being collectively punished for the wrongs of their leaders and you chose to paint them all with the same brush.
Forget Hamas, forget Islam, Muslims, Jews etc.
Just for one moment, look at the suffering of the HUMAN beings. Look at the way they are being treated by the people you defend!!
There are countless cases of an APARTHEID system TRUTHFULLY documented by many different credible sources around the world, going on in Israel. The IDF destroys homes,lives an families everyday, do you care about human suffering, or only when it fits into your agenda?
….and you call yourself a Christian?!?
Humanity should be foremost but all you do is harp on their ideology, as if yours is any better!
There will always be good and evil but fairness should also be a factor in how we live with each other. You are NOT a fair person. You should, and any others of your ilk, be ashamed to be called Christian….least of all a human!!
Hopi // October 28, 2009 at 9:31 AM
@Straight T………….For your post @ 4:47 am , I say thank you!
Dictionary // October 28, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Onlookers:
I came by for a more or less final cross check.
You will see, again, that it is quite evident that all Technician has is angry accusations and propagandistic assertions; which have already been duly exploded by pinpricks of fact. He plainly has no solid evidence for what he imagines is the truth; as we saw above when he was confronted with some inconvenient facts such as the reality of 600 + thousand Jewish refugees and their descendants in Israel, who have living memory knowledge of dhimmitude under Islamist regimes.
So, let us again listen to Aristotle: the truth says of what is that it is, and of what is not,t hat it is not. So, it will meet up well with the well-confirmed facts, it will stick together and it will make good sense out of the world. (in this case, the fact of continent-wide dhimmitude imposed on subject peoples for centuries, the creation of a civilisation of oppression under that dhimmitude, and the resulting driving out of 800+ k Jewish refugees in the 1940’s and 50’s are hard facts that any true account of the ME will have to address. Islam is in need of reform from its own history, even as Western civilisation — in some respects historically a worse sinner — is at least trying. the moderates like that Israeli ambassador are the ones the reform will come from, not the militant, uncivil islamists and their fellow travellers. In the meanwhile we of the Caribbean must not leap from frying pan into fire.)
Similarly, we should observe how T has reacted when he sees a genuine moderate Muslim who is an ambassador for Israel speaking out to correct the Israel = apartheid [thence = nazi] slur, he has no answer on the facts. Silence on the merits, compounded by more outbursts of rage and insistence that the facts are lies. Classic signs of a mind closed by rage.
And we can go on and on, all the way back to the original issues.
Sad. Ever so sad.
But we, as we look on, need to learn from the tactics of propagandistic destruction of civility, mutual respect and serious dialogue on the merits of issues. For, this is the first stage to so intensely poisoning and polarising our region that we reach the point where extremism, hate and what flows from hate begin to seem seem normal or even “justified.” And while t may be simply a naive fellow traveller caught up in the hysteria of the agit-prop, we must understand that this does not make the agit prop any less dangerous and destructive. (A LOT of people saw though Hitler and nazism, but hey did not act in good time. bad ideas and worse men prevailed in Germany and 40 millions paid with their lives. So, let us learn the lesson from that sad history that we must never let hysteria fed by the rhetoric of incivility triumph in our region.)
Surely, we cannot allow our region to go down that road.
A much better approach is the one that Jesus counsels, one that starts with each of us:
>> Matt 7:7:3 Why3 do you see the speck4 in your brother’s eye, but fail to see5 the beam of wood6 in your own? 7:4 Or how can you say7 to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 7:5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. >>
This is not a counsel of silence in the face of the fact that we all have moral struggles.
No, for that would mean that we all end up winking at the sins each of the other, approving evil by our silence and allowing our community to slide down the sewer into self-destruction.
Instead, we must face the evident facts of our finitude, fallibility and fallen-ness.
Then, by progressively dealing with the problems we all have, we can reach out and help others. that way we can spur one another on to a different path, the path of mutual respect, mutual forgiveness, growth and reform.
Good bye.
De Dictionary.
Technician // October 28, 2009 at 1:33 PM
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Zoe // October 28, 2009 at 1:37 PM
@Dictionary, Technician IS like an *ant* that has found itself *trapped* in
the epidermis of an Elephants foot, thrown there by the wind of *Ignorance* folly, and utter stupidity, and CANNOT move, helpless! He will die in his own uninlightened, vacuous, empty, brain!
After Egypt et al tried to eliminate Israel hours after its officially sanctioned statehood, 1n 1948, and FAILED, in 1967, the combined military forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, attempted ONCE again to annihilate the state of Israel from the map.
Here are the facts on this vicious, diabolical attempt by these Arab states, against Israel.
The Miracle of the 6-Day War of 1967.
Mrs. Golda Meir, former Prime Minister of Israel said:
“We Jews have a secret weapon in our struggle with the Arabs, we have NO PLACE to go.”
The Threats.
Several weeks before the war of 1967, Egypt issued a postage showing Nasser (then President of Egypt) with a map of Israel IN FLAMES at his right hand. On May 18, 1967, Nasser demanded the withdrawal of UN forces from Sinai. The UN readily complied. And the Arab nations began massing troups on the borders of Israel. Egypt lined up 80,000 men; Syria 40,000; Jordan 40,000; Saudi Arabia 20,000. Iraq sent 5,000 troops to help Syria.
On May 22, Nasser announced that the Gulf of Aqaba would be closed to Israeli shipping. Since Egypt had denied Israel’s use of the Suez Canal, the Port of Elath was Israel’s only port to the Red Sea, and the closing of Aqaba threatened its survival.
Before fighting started, the radio in Cairo announced:
“Our people have been waiting 20 years for this battle. NOW, they will teach Israel the lesson of DEATH!”
Nasser went on the radio to say that any war with Israel “Will be TOTAL, and the objective will be to DESTROY Israel.” A Syrian army commander predicted Israel’s DESTRUCTION in 4 days.
Israel WAS hedged in on 3 sides by Arab forces, and OUTNUMBERED 20-1.
Arming Egypt.
According to Newsweek, the most important new factor in the start of the 1967 war, was “the instillation of an estimated 60 new missile sites. All told, the Egyptians now have some 180 Soviet installed SAM-2 ground-to-air missiles and 240 of the more advanced SAM-3s. Egypt’s air defense has been further bolstered by a Soviet radar system along the Mediterranean coast, and by the addition of 50 new MIG-21s, giving Cairo an air force of 450 Soviet jets.
“Beneath this air umbrella, the Russians have armed the 100,000 Egyptians troops along the canal with a vast array of modern weapons. This includes 750 Soviet-built tanks, 350 Czechoslovakian amphibious craft and perhaps as many as 1,000 artillery pieces. (Three dozen of these are the mighty Russian 203-millimeter howitzers, which can lob a 200-pound warhead on to Israel’s Bar Lev line from 18 miles inside Egyptian lines). There are also reports that the Egyptians have received Russian “Frog” ground-to-air missiles which can fire 800-pound warheads 30 to 40 miles. And stiffening the Egyptian ranks, there are some 12,000 Russians, half of them operational troops, manning SAM-3 sites and the MIG-21s.
With the above detailed forces, arrayed on the borders of Israel, outnumbering Israeli defense forces by 20-1, clearly, as Nasser declared, “Now they will teach Israel the lesson ofDEATH”,…any war with Israel, “will be TOTAL, and the objective will be to DESTROY Israel.”
The War.
When Israeli radar picked up flights of enemy bombers, they launched a pre-emptive strike simultaneously against Egypt, Jordan and Syria, attacking 25 Arab air bases. When the air war cleared, 400 hundred Arab warplanes were gone.
With Israel in control of the air, it was no problem for its army to drive the Egyptians from Sinai and gain control of the Gulf of Aqaba.
The hardest fighting, however, took place in Jordan against Jordan’s cracked Arab Legion. On the second day of the war, the Israelis took the Old City of Jerusalem. The Jordanians were driven east of the river Jordan, and the Israelis also advanced to the Dead Sea.
These Arab nations, whose sole intent and purpose, in arranging this vast array of military might, aided by the powerful Soviets, all toll, outnumbered the Israelis by 20-1, WAS to DESTROY the nation of Israel.
BUT, the Arabs NOW called for a ceasefire, DON’T mess with Israel!
Jerusalem, for the first time in nearly 2,600 years, come under Jewish control, its rightful capital. In one week’s time, Israel’s land, by international law, having being attacked by Arab forces, increased from 8,000 to 34,000 square miles, or four times its original territory.
What is particularly interesting here, IS, that the increased square miles, to 34,000 more or less, brought Israel back to the almost exact land area, that was originally mandated in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and the British Mandate of 1922,which outlined the borders of Israel to be from Egypt in the south, right up to Syria in the north, to Iraq in the east, down to Arabia in the south east.
But, when Britain gave Transjordan to Abdullah, it specificaaly violated Article 5 of the Mandate given unanimous approval by the League of Nations at the San Remo Conference on July 24, 1922. What Britain carved out, represented 75% of the mandated land for Israel, 35,000 square miles, 80% of Israel’s promised mandated land, given to create the state of Transjordan, which became, IS in effect the *Real* Palestinian State.
Isn’t it interesting, that the 35,000 square miles, *carved* out from Israel, for Transjordan, robbing Israel of 80% of its mandated land, is not too far from the 34,000 miles Israel regained from an vicious Arab attack to *destroy* her.
But, amazingly, this area of land mandated by the League of Nations for Israel’s right to its ancient home land, (1948) IS more or less the same borders outlined by Almighty God in Genesis 15: 18).
“In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, ;Unto they seed (the Jews) have I given THIS land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river Euphrates.”
Shortest War In History.
Between June 5 -10, 1967, Israel won the shortest war in history. All three confrontation states, Egypt, Syria and Jordan were defeated.
Let us never forget, Almighty God’s irrevocable, unconditional, covenant with Abraham and his descendants, the Jews.
“I will bless those who bless you. And I will curse him who curses you.” (Gen. 12:3a).
Oh, the facts and truth of this deadly hatred against Israel, is all there, and NO master how many LIES are told against these facts, by ‘Turnspeak’ TRUTH will always win out at the end of the day!
Technician // October 28, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Spoken like a true ZIONIST.
kiki // October 28, 2009 at 4:55 PM
I thought this thread was deado
it’s not even on page 1 anymore
deado
The action of dying in a glorious manner.
if anyone is entitled to the last word,
l’état, c’est moi
middle east blogs always go pear-
shaped
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/the-middle-east/
À Bientôt / Au revoir
c’est un Faux Pas (or stupidly wrong)
Dictionary // October 28, 2009 at 4:58 PM
1967 6-day war timeline
kiki // October 28, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Big Up Noam Chomsky
Respeck
Chomsky on religion and the ethics of war
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/10/chomsky_on_religion_and_the_et.html#P
Anonymous // October 28, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Straight Talk appears to be anything but a straight talker! On Oct 27 at 7:21 he wrote “the exact phrase translated from Farsi was “erase Israel from the map of the middle east”.
However on 28 Oct at 4:47 the apparently same Straight Talk wrote
“So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh”, is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said.”
ROK // October 28, 2009 at 8:25 PM
@Dictionary
“I have been asked to respond to onward claims and rhetorical assertions. For the record, I do so below.”
You have to be asked to respond? Can’t you respond because you want to? Who summoned you?
Not Saved // October 28, 2009 at 11:37 PM
@GEM,
“In short, the tactic being used by NS is a half truth on a tangential issue.”
Oh really?
To bring some objectivity to the analysis, I will post an extract from the wiki:
+++
In 1961 this view of appeasement as avoidable error and cowardice was set on its head by A.J.P. Taylor in his book The Origins of the Second World War. Taylor argued that Hitler did not have a blueprint for war and was behaving much as any other German leader might have done. Appeasement was an active policy, and not a passive one; allowing Hitler to consolidate himself was a policy implemented by “men confronted with real problems, doing their best in the circumstances of their time”. Taylor said that appeasement ought to be seen as a rational response to an unpredictable leader, appropriate to the time both diplomatically and politically.
His view has been shared by other historians, for example, Paul Kennedy, who says of the choices facing politicians at the time, “Each course brought its share of disadvantages: there was only a choice of evils. The crisis in the British global position by this time was such that it was, in the last resort, insoluble, in the sense that there was no good or proper solution.”[1] Martin Gilbert has expressed a similar view: “At bottom, the old appeasement was a mood of hope, Victorian in its optimism, Burkean in its belief that societies evolved from bad to good and that progress could only be for the better. The new appeasement was a mood of fear, Hobbesian in its insistence upon swallowing the bad in order to preserve some remnant of the good, pessimistic in its belief that Nazism was there to stay and, however horrible it might be, should be accepted as a way of life with which Britain ought to deal.”[15]
The arguments in Taylor’s Origins of the Second World War (sometimes described as “revisionist”[6][16]) were rejected by many historians at the time and reviews of his book in the UK and USA were generally critical. Nevertheless, he was praised for some of his insights. By showing that appeasement was a popular policy and that there was continuity in British foreign policy after 1933, he shattered the common view of the appeasers as a small, degenerate clique that had mysteriously hijacked the British government sometime in the 1930s and who had carried out their policies in the face of massive public resistance; and by portraying the leaders of the 1930s as real people attempting to deal with real problems, he made the first strides towards attempting to explain the actions of the appeasers rather than merely to condemn them.
+++
To the situation is somewhat more nuanced than you would have us believe.
But then you do not take an objective point of view.
You take a view to suit your agenda.
It suits you to sit from your comfortable perspective and call people cowards.
Not Saved // October 28, 2009 at 11:43 PM
@GEM,
Of what of the wider purpose for using your rhetorical tactic?
You have no argument on the merits so you appeal to a fear mongering analogy to justify your desired actions.
This is a well worn tactic, from North Korea to Iraq.
Not Saved // October 28, 2009 at 11:57 PM
@GEM,
“First, let us recall that the prime issue in this blog thread is that it reports on an ongoing expose of an Islamist advocacy group connected to the Hamas and its parent organization the Muslim Brotherhood. The issue of islamism stands, as a serious and too often unacknowledged threat to our civilisation.”
+++
You have failed to respond to the challenge on the credibility of the authors of these claims
You have failed to explain how the US is threatened with “Islamism” from 2 members of congress. (and a christian majority of 90%)
You have failed to explain that despite your claim of 12,ooo pages of documents why only a single benign document was presented for investigation which shows that CAIR is nothing more than a lobbying group.
You have failed to show why no investigation into ties to Hamas or other terrorist organisation has been launched.
You have failed to demonstrate other than that this book is nothing more than anti muslim hate speech and not an anti jihad expose.
You have failed to explain how violent aggression is necessary for “defence”
You have failed to reconcile the teachings of your personal deity with your own war mongering desires (“limited strikes”) as so succinctly laid out by MME.
You have failed to explain why such “defensive” techniques are not available to your enemies.
You have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that the Iranian Government plans suicide nuclear attacks against any western country justifying your call to kill innocent people.
You have failed to lay down how violent attacks against a sovereign nation is in the interests of peace and cooperation between nations or religion.
You have also failed (thankfully) to incite hatred on this blog which is clearly your agenda.
In short, you have failed.
Not Saved // October 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM
You have come to this blog;
- to promote hate and racial intolerance
- to justify violent aggression as a means of “defence”
- to defend those who would commit crimes against humanity.
The latter you do so with a maniacal fervor which is as distasteful as it is disturbing.
In short, you have become all that you claim to despise.
Your moral certitude comes from a delusion, a very very dangerous delusion.
That you know the mind of god(s), that you are guided by god(s), that your actions are blessed and infallible.
You personify the very worse of religion, something akin to an evil, something that is a danger to us all.
Now go on, dismiss the rhetoric, and continue to comfort yourself in your own delusion.
Dictionary // October 29, 2009 at 5:51 AM
Moderators:
It is a good thing that I came back for a cross check, as it seems that some would slanderously distort and dismiss.
Sorry to have to make a further corrective intervention.
++++++++++
Onlookers:
Unfortunately, it seems that someone thinks it rhetorically appropriate to set up and soak a strawman in slanderous ad hominems, then ignite it.
A few notes in rebuttal will suffice.
1] CAIR etc:
Attacking one particular source is not effective since this Islamist advocacy organisation has been the subject of several investigations and court convictions, e.g. through its links to Holy land Foundation and a cluster of its key leaders. In addition, the recent 12,000 pp of documents found speak for themselves as they are internal documents captured through an undercover investigation, and are in significant part corroborated by other findings of various agencies and even news organisations. A helpful first summary is here, for those interested in onward cross checks. Excerpting:
>> Among the findings from co-authors Gaubatz and Paul Sperry: that CAIR wildly exaggerates its membership numbers, that it is plagued by budget problems and dissension, and that it is financially dependent on a small network of wealthy Persian Gulf-based donors. In many cases, the book adds precision to general facts about CAIR that already are in the public domain.
For example, the Washington Times reported on CAIR’s dwindling membership rolls in 2007, only to have officials vehemently deny the story. According to Muslim Mafia, however, CAIR had just 5,133 members at that time, a far cry from its claim of 50,000 members and further still from its stated goal of 100,000 members set at a 2002 board meeting.
CAIR has sought to blame its membership and financial problems on the U.S. government’s decision to list it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror-finance case. But its problems started well before the designation. Internal records from the 2002 meeting showed CAIR’s membership was just 9,211 nationwide – with 903 people in California, 1,219 in Virginia, 870 in Texas, 775 in Illinois and 768 in New York.
Those figures, the authors argue, challenge CAIR’s claim that it is a representative of the American Muslim community [My NB: thankfully, as this opens up room for addressing teh more moderate Muslim leaders]. . . . Meanwhile, IRS tax filings show CAIR’s income from membership dues has been plummeting. In 2006, CAIR operated at a loss of more than $160,000 – more than triple the $50,000 deficit the group sustained in 2005. In 2004, by contrast, CAIR had a surplus of more than $338,000 . . . .
The bottom line, the authors say, is that “CAIR is unsupported by the broader Muslim population, which finds it more a liability than an asset. And given the anemic size of its member database, CAIR cannot possibly deliver on its threats to bring the weight of the Muslim community to bear against national politicians, CEOs, or advertisers for media personalities it doesn’t like.”
But even though CAIR is a paper tiger when it comes to mobilizing Muslim voters, the organization has had numerous successes in other areas – particularly in undermining law-enforcement efforts to secure Muslim cooperation in terrorism investigations.
In January, the Investigative Project on Terrorism broke the news that the FBI had cut off access to CAIR after evidence in the HLF trial showed CAIR founders were part of a Hamas-support network in the U.S. In a subsequent letter, an FBI official said questions about CAIR’s relationship to Hamas led to the conclusion the agency could “not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner” . . . .
Most of the attention Muslim Mafia has received thus far focuses on details of CAIR’s efforts to place interns in congressional offices, especially with members serving on committees covering Justice and Homeland Security. The authors publish a 2007 memo in which Saylor reports that he placed Samia Elshafie in a “Congressional Fellowship” in the office of Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX). The authors identify Elshafie as “the congresswoman’s office contact for human rights issues.”
On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, who wrote the book’s foreword, was joined by three fellow Republicans in asking the House Sergeant at Arms to investigate whether CAIR infiltrated congressional offices – specifically judiciary, homeland security and intelligence committees. Additionally, the lawmakers are asking the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the legality of CAIR’s tax-exempt status . . . . >>
A second IPT report adds:
>>CAIR also has roots in a Hamas support network dating back to
1994 and a consistent record of criticizing terror and terror-financing investigations that will be documented in this report. Those who detail that record or subject to ad hominem attacks as a diversion from the facts presented. Any critic is labeled a
bigot or an Islamophobe, from Daniel Pipes and IPT Executive Director Steven Emerson, to free speech and civil liberties advocate Nat Hentoff. The labeling of all CAIR opposition as being Islamophobic is an effort to portray CAIR, a political organization, as a legitimate representative of the faith of Islam and of all American
Muslims . . . .
Prosecutors included CAIR on a list of unindicted co-conspirators in the HLF
case and Burns labeled CAIR a front group for Hamas during sworn testimony last fall.
These assessments were based on internal documents Burns and other FBI agents seized from Hamas supporters during the HLF investigation.
As CAIR acknowledges above, its founders Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad were previously involved with the Islamic Association for Palestine. Evidence from the HLF trial shows that the IAP was a founding member of the Palestine Committee, which an internal IAP report described as a Muslim Brotherhood creation “whose
job is to make the Palestinian cause victorious and to support it with what it needs of media, money, men and all of that.” The memo also called on Committee members to “increase the financial and the moral support for Hamas” and to “fight surrendering solutions.”
The IAP published Hamas communiqués announcing attacks as well as publishing the virulently anti-Semitic Hamas charter. This booklet, published by the IAP,
labels “The Jew” as “America’s Greatest Enemy.”
In addition to spreading Hamas propaganda, the IAP repeatedly organized fundraisers with HLF that featured Hamas leaders, and songs and skits praising Hamas.
Independent reviews have concluded there was a nexus between the IAP and
Hamas. In November 2004, a federal magistrate determined the IAP was liable for damages in the 1996 murder of an American teenager by a Hamas gunman. Judge Arlander Keys found “an abundance of evidence” that “IAP…desired to help Hamas’ activities succeed, and…engaged in some act of helping those activities succeed.” She added, “If IAP has never outrightly cheered on Hamas’ terrorist
activities, it has come awfully close.” [etc etc, with onward links on key documents]>>
As to the underlying Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot, Hamas, it is clear from documents in discovery in recent trials that indeed they have a strategy of subversion of Western institutions towards imposition of Sharia.
So, picking and attacking one source is simply the attack the man to discredit and dismiss the unwelcome message fallacy. Note as well the consistent resort to the accusation of “racism” to discredit those who object to Islamism.
That is exactly what happened in this thread.
And, it is plainly not a coincidence.
2] AJP Taylor as cited and all that
Hitler was simply not your “ordinary” post WW I German leader.
There were several such “ordinary” leaders, in the Wiemar republic. They may have skirted the edges of the Versailles process [as did the armaments designers at Krupps through their buying into Bofors in Sweden and into a Dutch concern whose name I have forgotten], but they did not kick over the traces, nor did they have programmes of expansion that projected dates by which they expected to fight major wars including naval wars with the British [recall Raeder's challenges over naval expansion and Plan Z].
Indeed, the only real parallel German leader on irrational militaristic and naval expansionism was Wilhelm, the Kaiser of the just past ruinous war.
The “ordinary” German leaders may have been overly lenient with “nationalistic” street thugs and militias [including Hitler after his 1923 attempted putsch . . . ], but they did not “own” the biggest and worst such paramilitary organisation, the SA.
And they certainly did not hold nights of the long knives in which internal party disputes were settled by widespread extra-judicial killings. Nor did they compel military and naval officers to swear personal fealty to politicians ruling under Dictators’ enabling acts rammed through on propagandistic manipulations of Reichstag fires set by half-mad dutch-men.
In short, Hitler was anything but an “ordinary” early C 20 German leader.
And, As I recall from my reading of AJP, his argument actually ran more or less that Hitler’s “typicality” was that he — like selected previous German leaders going back to the middle ages — pursued expansionism and aggression, with extermination as a part of the ticket. That is, the “typicality” (which I dispute) was not a typicality of moderation.
His summary, therefore, was that the historic recipe for peace in Europe — given that aggressive nation in its midst — was to keep Germany divided and keep its neighbours strong. (That is, he implicitly agreed with the idea of splitting Germany into the E and W halves of the cold war era, and he would warn on the dangers of having a united Germany in Europe today.)
The rebuttal thesis fails.
3] NS: You have come to this blog; – to promote hate and racial intolerance – to justify violent aggression as a means of “defence”- to defend those who would commit crimes against humanity.
A comparison with what I ACTUALLY have advocated above will show that these are slanderous distortions to the point of outright incivility and even libel.
a –> I have EXPOSED hate and racial and gender intolerance [note the case of pre-execution rapes of virginal women in Iran, as linked above . . . ], highlighting by contrast moderate Muslims who are opposing the Jihadist faction. Onlookers, kindly read above the cases of Feisal Hussein in 1919 (with the Versailles side agreement) and the current case of the Israeli Vice Consul who is a Bedouin Muslim from Galilee and former border police man. Both of these are Arabs and Muslims of a different temper from the leaders of Hamas and their ilk.
b –> I have pointed out, on “violence,” that force in the community or in dealing with those external to it, comes in a range of forms, from force of words to force of money to force of the sword (whether in internal policing or in defence from external attacks), and I have distinguished force from violence, the latter being the IMMORAL or unjustifiable use of such force. [And the slanderous distortion you have just imposed is a case of verbal violence: words can harm, destroy or kill too, in case you do not know NS. That is why there are laws on libel and slander. But hen, I dealt with the case of such a slander against life [Ac 21 - 23 ff], with Paul in 57 AD as a main part of the discussion on the justification of the sword in defence of justice; a discussion in which I pointed out he failings of not only Jewish but also pagan leaders and hinged at Paul’s own failings — his outburst on being slapped and lame defence tell us something about Paul the man and his personal struggles. NS has tellingly ignored or suppressed material evidence.]
c –> I have thus pointed out that use of force (in any form, from words on up) has to be MORALLY justified. A real case of “violent aggression” would certainly fail the test, being an expression of tyranny warranting interposition, correction and if necessary removal of the offending officer by other magistrates acting with the people. All of this I have discussed and linked on. All of this was ignored in the haste to set up a slanderous strawman and set it aflame to poison and confuse the atmosphere. Sad.
d –> Of course what has actually happened is that NS has chosen to label cases of arguable defence he does not like “violent aggression.” [And I am very aware that in a real world case, there will be awful things that happen on both sides in any such case once the horror we call war has entered the fray. That is why Courts Martial etc exist, as I have pointed out. However, the horrible calculus that the need to resist the wolves forces on us includes having to reckon with what happens if one does not resist by reasonable and effective means. Surrender to annihilation or enslavement from without or druggie warlordism from within etc is not a reasonable option for a society.]
e –> In examining and analysing the Biblical teaching on the subject, this is what I have actually said in summary, which of course has not been examined and responded to but slanderously distorterd into an ad hominem laced strawman ignited to confuse, cloud and poison the atmosphere:
>> . . . we should not be waspish, we should go the extra mile, we should respect legitimate authority from the teacher to the Queen, the civil officer has a duty to protect the civil peace, when a leader goes wrong, other leaders are duty bound to act in defence of justice, and that if a leader cannot be corrected he should be removed by responsible authorities and the people, with the general election being a specific mechanism for doing so peacefully. And, that in this context the force of words, the force of boycott, the force of the court of law, or the force of the sword are all instruments of force that must be judged on principles of justice and defence of the civil peace. >>
f –> These are of course broad-brush principles, and application to particular cases will always be fraught with difficulties and the challenge of our own fallen-ness, finitude and fallibility. And, where a case is controversial, strong feelings will run on both sides, with apparently persuasive arguments in train. That is why we need to sort out basics and why we need to ferret out less well publicised but pivotal facts, to test the claims advanced by both sides.
g –> For instance the timeline to the June 1967 war makes it clear that this was an intended war of annihilation of the Jews of Israel on the part of key Arab leaders, using strangulation by blockade and an iron ring of tanks and men to back it up; with the side option to do a dash across the narrow waist of the Negev to cut off Eilat as a de facto imposition of further oil strangulation. [This was abandoned by Nasser a day or two before it was to have been done in late May 1967, when the Israelis found out, and under pressure from the USA and USSR]. This is similar to the case of the 1947 – 49 war; all in a context where it is clear that Jews, Arabs and several other minorities have clear historic roots in the Holy Land and should come to a compromise. [The 1919 agreement I have repeatedly pointed out would have been a god start point for a positive alrternative history thart would have made the Middle east a paradise. Sadly, this is "what might have been . . . "]
h –> That the 2000 compromise (like the fairly similar 1947 International partition) was unacceptable to and rejected by the Arabs; who then resorted to terrorism, precipitating the latest cycle of wars, is telling on what is driving the problem, and from whose side. In this context the use of that horrible hadith of slaughter of Jews by Hamas in Clause 7 of its charter tells us a lot about he nature of the underlying ideology of Jihadism.
i –> I have also pointed to the significance of the existence of an un-headlined ME refugee population [600+ k to Israel, 200+ k to the rest of the world], the Mizrahim, or oriental Jews from the Arab regions of the ME, who are now ressettled in Israel and form the largest single part of its Jewish population, having been stripped of wealth that on net present value exceeds US$ 80 billions. Jews who are NOT Ashkenazi — and I have noted the implications of the Y-chromosome genetic studies that tie the Ashkenazi to the populations of the ME.
j –> That is, there is a genetic Abraham, and there is evidence of a genetic dispersal of the Jewish population, which by C1 was at least several percent of the population of the Roman Empire, in addition to the related population in the Parthian Empire.
____________
So, NS’s Parthian shot fails.
De Dictionary
Micro Mock Engineer // October 29, 2009 at 6:29 AM
“And, that in this context the force of words, the force of boycott, the force of the court of law, or the force of the sword are all instruments of force that must be judged on principles of justice and defence of the civil peace. ”
—————
The “the force of the sword” is violent resistance. Christ specifically spoke out against using the force of the sword in personal defense or the defense of others… it may be a hard pill to swallow, but the instructions are explicitly clear.
The “force of words, the force of boycott, the force of the court of law” are clearly distinguished from “the force of the sword” by Christ, both through his words and actions.
Dictionary // October 29, 2009 at 6:49 AM
PS: Observe the article here for more on CAIR. Snipping:
______________
>> While CAIR strongly condemns the audacity of members of Congress calling for an investigation of CAIR based on Muslim Mafia’s revelations, the simple fact remains that during all of CAIR’s false cries of victimhood, CAIR has not refuted one single charge or accusation made in the book.
Not one. . . .
Long before “Muslim Mafia” (co-authored by Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry) was published, however, several members of Congress had warned of CAIR’s disturbing origins. One of the first consistent and fearless critics of CAIR has been Democrat Senator Charles Schumer who said: “We know [CAIR] has ties to terrorism…intimate links with Hamas.” Senator Schumer made these statements during a September 2003 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security where the evidence against CAIR was laid out in detail. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad was invited to testify at this gathering, but chose to avoid the meeting and instead submitted a crude and absurd written statement listing CAIR’s “accomplishments” and childishly attacking critics.
Senator Schumer continues to give unapologetic support in efforts to investigate and exclude CAIR from involvement in government programs, including “training” the FBI. In February of 2009, Senator Schumer joined Senators Kyl and Coburn in contacting the FBI to state their support for the FBI severing ties to CAIR saying “We certainly support that action…”
Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer has also called out CAIR. She recalled an award to CAIR’s Basim Elkarra when she researched and learned of his involvement with CAIR and CAIR’s ties to Hamas. In addition to recalling the award, Senator Boxer also told CAIR to remove her statement endorsing CAIR from their web site. CAIR blasted Senator Boxer saying her actions were rooted in “Islamophobia.” Senator Boxer made clear her feelings about CAIR when she said: “To praise [CAIR] because they haven’t been indicted is like somebody saying, ‘I’m not a crook’”
When Representative Sue Myrick was joined by congressional colleagues and members of the Anti-Terrorism Caucus at a news conference to announce their request for the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate efforts by the CAIR to lobby congress illegally and place CAIR interns in sensitive agencies, CAIR thought they had an easy mark with eager media assistance to vilify these Republican representatives as “attacking Muslims” and deflect the attention away from the evidence of CAIR’s dubious ties to terrorism. However, Sue Myrick founded the bipartisan Anti-Terrorism Caucus which consists of over 120 congressional members and includes Representatives Bud Cramer (D-AL), Kay Granger (R-TX), and Jane Harman (D-CA) who are the Caucus co-chairs. A Caucus statement demonstrates that CAIR is a serious problem for all Americans, not just an issue for one political party . . . ” . . . .
CAIR’s “attacking Muslims” meme is their classic ploy to misdirect the issue away from CAIR’s creation for supporting Hamas. Their documented defensive tactic of attacking the messenger because “the credibility of the message depends on the credibility of the messenger” is now in full operational mode. As soon as Myrick and her colleagues made their announcement, CAIR damage-control went into high gear issuing bleating media reports and having CAIR apologists appear on cue to falsely accuse the authors of “Muslim Mafia” and congressional members of being “anti-Islam” and “Islamophobes.”
CAIR has pressed the narrative that author Gaubatz is “anti-Islam” and “anti-Muslim” even though the evidence shows the exact opposite is true. Gaubatz has risked his life helping Muslims, which includes leading a dangerous mission in 2003 to extract members of an Iraqi Muslim family out of Iraq who now affectionately call Gaubatz the “American Angel”. Gaubatz has also come to the aid of Muslims under assault by CAIR . . . >>
_____________
Thankfully, the falling membership rolls of CAIR, from 9,000+ a few years ago to just over 5,000 today tell us that the majority of Muslims in the US do not agree with its agendas, and tactics — which is precisely what I would expect from the views of my friends and acquaintances who have been Muslims over the years.
In short the sort of moderation of that Israeli Vice Consul, Bedouin and Muslim that I highlighted above is more widespread than we might think based on what grabs headlines.
Jihadism is not to be equated with being Muslim, and there are more options than a pessimistic reading of documents and history would suggest.
But, we have to get out here and strongly back moderation for it to prevail over radicalism, subversion and violence.
Dictionary // October 29, 2009 at 7:11 AM
MME:
Again, remember words can harm or kill too, through their predictable impact.
And Jesus spoke to that as well.
There is not so neat a dividing line between the word and the sword as you imagine.
I repeat, Paul was an apostle of Christ appointed by him as his emissary to the nations, and accepted by the college of apostles and elders as such [cf Ac 15]. In the course of carrying out that duty, he taught us very explicitly what is in Rom 13:1 – 10, on the issues connected to civil authority and citizenship.
Within months of penning that now classic letter of commendation for Phoebe, as Ac 21 – 23 records, he had to face the issue on the ground where slanderous words almost cost him his life and he had to be protected by civil authorities wielding the sword. (Remember a detachment of 400 foot [200 gladius, 200 spear] and 70 horse [lance and/or bow] escorted him to Ceasarea, as the Tribune in Jerusalem acted in his defence. In the face of an attempt to do murder in the name of a court hearing, based on slander and mob-rule. Thus, interposition in action: a case where a PAGAN was more right than the Judaean Jewish authorities of Jeruslaem; cf Rom 2 on this issue.)
In short, there is a Biblical justification of the case where the sword has to be wielded in defence of the civil peace and wronged individuals, never mind all the troubling issues that dog it and the officers who — frailties and fallen-ness and all — have to do so.
Moreover, Jesus’ teaching was that he came to fulfill not supplant the context of the Tanach. Yes we are to be as merciful and as peaceful as is reasonable, but that does not entail that the civil peace does not have to be defended from the wolves who only know the language of superior force. And — with all due notes on correcting and even removing abusers of the power — it is crystal clear that the state with the sword is God’s servant to do us good by so defending the civil peace. And, it is clear that men of God may serve as officers of the state, in roles equivalent to today’s policeman on up to head of state or chief advisers.
I find myself seriously concerned when I see no willingness to acknowledge that this is at least a serious and arguable side of the theological issue, much less accept that it has the weight of the evidence in its favour.
Worse, I find it shameful and unacceptable for commenters to try to discredit such counsel by trying to raise controversial issues of all sorts and types, and to thereby assert or imply all kinds of slanders on advocacy of violence, aggression and racism.
Indeed, I find such looks uncommonly like enabling behaviour that ends up supporting or fellow travelling with wolves in various guises.
Please, think again.
D
Anonymous // October 29, 2009 at 7:25 AM
Not Saved has written that Dictionary has come to this blog to promote hatred and racial intolerance. He has condemned this supposed agenda of Dictionary. Good for him. Now where was NS’s ire (and many others) when Negroman was posting?
Dictionary // October 29, 2009 at 7:38 AM
Footnote: The Iraqi family rescued by Gaubatz in 2003 was that of a man who helped save Pvt Jessica Lynch.
Dictionary // October 29, 2009 at 7:55 AM
Anonymous:
The supposed agenda projected onto me by NS et al is a slander; and obviously so.
Jihadism is a FACTION of Islam, and as I and others have pointed out, there have long been moderate alternatives, which had they been followed from 1919 on, would have made for a very different outcome for the Middle East.
Put in other words:
1 –> the Jihadists do not speak for Islam as a whole,
2 –> many of those who oppose their agendas are not only of the same religion but of the same race and nationality, and
3 –> they and innocent Muslim bystanders have been in fact the overwhelming majority of victims of Islamist terrorism and tyranny over the past 90 years.
4 –> Derfending ourselves from islamist terrorism or aggression and subversion is not materially different from defending ourselves from druggie driven crime, corruption and warlordism, ofr from Nazism, or from global conquest Communism.
5 –> And though those who seek to defend us are finite, fallible and fallen also, their charge under God to defend the civil peace from the wolves who would destroy it is plain.
6 –> I find that if a Christian can legitimately be a policeman, he can also be a senior officer in the police, or a senior civil servant, or an officer in the defence force, or a Minister of Government, or a Prime Minister or Premier.
7 –> And, where such an officer goes wrong, correction or if necessary removal are also mandates from God.
8 –> So, even if I were to have grossly misunderstood the situations of the Jewish people in the ME, or the implications of global terrorism post 9-11 or the nature of the 9-11 attacks, or Hitler, etc etc — and I have highlighted why I think I am at least roughly right on the main points of these issues once they were raised by way of attempted distracting and discrediting objections — the principles would still remain valid and it is plainly not racism or advocacy of violent aggression or hypocritical and un-Christian etc etc etc to stand up for them.
D
Zoe // October 29, 2009 at 10:26 AM
@Not Saved to Dictionary,
“You have come to this blog;
-To promote hate and racial intolerance;
-To justify violent aggression as a means of ‘defense’ etc, etc…”
As the *rabid* ungenerate *atheist* and demented *Leftist* that you are, one cannot expect other than your utter convoluted, rancid distortion, *deformity* misstate, perverted, warped, *deformed* contorted, misrepresention of Dictionary’s well balanced, carefully presented *facts*
which *YOU* and those those of your ilk, whose dead ’spirit’ are incapable of reading through objectively, in its proper context, as NO WHERE in any of Dictionary’s submissions, did he EVER advocate hate, and any kind whatsoever, of racial intolerance!
In a court of law, this vicious charge you have brought against Dictionary, in the face of his submissions, would cost you dearly, and you would be found to be what you are:
A STRANGER TO THE TRUTH, and a malignant, malicious, malevolent, libelous, slanderer!
Not Saved // October 29, 2009 at 8:21 PM
1]
CAIR
So the institution for which you support the claim that it threatens to overturn the US constitution, you now in fact admit is struggling for membership.
I think you have rather shot yourself in the foot there.
“And given the anemic size of its member database, CAIR cannot possibly deliver on its threats to bring the weight of the Muslim community to bear against national politicians, CEOs, or advertisers for media personalities it doesn’t like.”
LOL
I agree ! (did you really write that?, LOL)
But have you not been telling us of the great danger from this organisation?
+++
Now to discredit CAIR,
You quote (multiple statements/articles but only from) two further sources.
One is the website Anti-CAIR org.
Objective? I think not.
And you reference IPT.
Steve Emerson is behind IPT and here are some comments from the wiki about him.
“Emerson has been accused of exaggerating the threats posed by Islamists, a willingness “to push an extremely thin story–with potentially explosive consequences,” and of “mistakes and distortions.” Examples of such stories and errors include an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India and his claim that Yugoslavians were behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. [12]
FAIR reported that a New York Times review (5/9/91) of his 1991 book Terrorist “chided that it was “‘marred by factual errors…and by a pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias,’” and that “his 1994 PBS video, Jihad in America was faulted for bigotry and misrepresentations”. In the same article, FAIR says that “veteran reporter Robert Friedman accused Emerson of ‘creating mass hysteria against American Arabs.’ ” [12]
The FAIR article references CBS News in that Emerson, in his commentary on the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, said it showed “a Middle Eastern trait” because it “was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible.”[12] These type of comments by Emerson, and others were seen as having led to “a backlash against the American Muslim community during the first few days after the explosion” according to the American Journalism Review. [13]
+++
In the interests of objectivity, here are some comments about CAIR also from the wiki:
“Indeed the New York Times called efforts to link the organization to Hamas and Hezbollah “unsuccessful,” citing a former FBI official who suggests that no one believing the allegations is ever capable of producing any “cold hard facts”. The Times also points out that even though a handful of its former members have faced prosecution no criminal charges have ever been linked to CAIR. The article further suggests that because CAIR’s Washington chapter has repeatedly issued controversial statements, it has been difficult “for senior government officials to associate with the group.” Barbara Boxer notably withdrew a “certificate of accomplishment” originally given to former CAIR official Basim Elkarra after learning that he had worked for the organization. [48] Yet Boxer’s decision “provoked an outcry from organizations that vouch for the group’s advocacy, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the California Council of Churches. ‘They have been a leading organization that has advocated for civil rights and civil liberties in the face of fear and intolerance, in the face of religious and ethnic profiling,’ said Maya Harris, the executive director of the ACLU of Northern California.”
+++
So it would seem you are nothing more than a propagandist.
Are you able to find a credible mainstream organisation to support the charges?
You attempt to create mass anti muslim hysteria about a benign, inept and struggling organisation.
Your motives are apparent.
Congressman John Conyers had this to say about the charges against CAIR,
“It shouldn’t need to be said in 2009, and after the historic election of our first African-American president, but let me remind all my colleagues that patriotic Americans of all races, religions, and beliefs have the right – and the responsibility – to participate in our political process, including by volunteering to work in Congressional offices. Numerous Muslim-American interns have served the House ably and they deserve our appreciation and respect, not attacks on their character or patriotism.”
Zoe // October 29, 2009 at 9:12 PM
The “Lefists” love affair with some of the most devilish, wicked men who ruled, and in some countries continue to rule viciously, through their reign of oppressive *Tyranny* is an revealing study in itself.
“Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while *slaughtering* any enemy that falls into my hands! My nostrils dilate savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and *blood*. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred flight and join the triumphant proletrait with a bestial howl.”
-Che Guevara, Motorcycle Diaries.
When compared to the statements uttered by Nasser of Egypt, 1967, et al of other Arab nations demonic hatred for the Jew and their duly sanctioned state of Israel, and the still present day fury that comes from the *nostrils* of virulent Islamists against America and Israel, one can easily connect the *psyche* of the *Leftist* and the *Islamists* who vent from the same ‘pit’ of hatred, against democratic, freedom thinking socities.
Until July 26, 2008, Fidel Castro ruled Cuba with an *iron* grip for nearly five decades.
Having seized power on January 1, 1959, Fidel Castro followed the tradition of Valdimir Lenin, and immediately turned his country into a *slave* camp. It is a fact, ever since, Cuba has distinguished itself as one of the most *monstrous* humam-rights abusers in the world.
Half a million human beings have passed through Cuba’s gulag. Since Cuba’s total population is only around 11 million, that gives Castro’s *depotism* the highest political incarceration rate per capita on earth. Firing squads have carried out more than 15,000 executions. Torture has been *institutionalized*, myriad human rights organizations have documented the regime’s use of electric shock, dark coffin-sized isolation cells, and beatings to punish “anti-socialist elements.” The Castro regime barbarity is best epitomized by the Camilo Cienfuegos Plan, the program of horrors followed in the forced-labor camp on the Isle of Pines. Forced to work almost naked, prisoners were made to cut grass with their teeth, and to sit in latrine trenches for long periods of time. Torture is routine!
The horrifying experience of Armando Valladares, a Cuban poet who endured 27 years of torture and imprisonment for merely raising the ussue of *freedom* is a testimony to the regime’s barbarity.
The point that must be constantly stressed, which has been blured over the ages of these *tyrants* and since Castro’s *death* cult, like other *Leftist* ideologies, believes that human blood purifies the earth; since manifestations of grief, affirm the reality of the individual, and thus, are anathema to the totality; mourning for the departed became taboo. Just like Mao’s China, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Castro’s Cuba warned family members of murdered dissidents NOT to cry at their funerals.
The Castro regime also has a long grotesque record of torturing and mudering Americans. During the Vietnam War, Castro sent some of his henchmen to run the “Cuban Program” at the Cu Loc POW camp in Hanoi, which became known as “the Zoo.” Its primary objective was to determine how much physical and psycological agony a human being could withstand. A Cuban nicknamed “Fidel” the main torturer at the Zoo, initiated his own personal reign of terror. The ordeal of Lieutenant Colonel Earl Cobeil, an F-105 pilot, illustrates the Nazi-like nature of the experiment. Among Fidel’s torture techniques were beatings and wippings over every part of his victims body, without remission. Former POW John Hubbell described the scene as Fidel forced Cobeil into the cell of fellow POW Col. Jack Bomar.
“The man [Cobeil] could barely walk, he suffled slowly, painfully. His clothes were torn to shreds. He was bleeding everywhere, terribly swollen, and a dirty, yellowish black and purple from head to toe. The man’s head was down, he made no attempt to look at anyone…He stood unmoving, his head down. Fidel smashed a fist into the man’s face, driving him against the wall. Then he was brought to the center of the room and made to get down on his knees. Screaming in rage, Fidel took a length of black rubber hose from a guard and lashed it as hard as he could into the man’s face. The prisoner did not react; he did not cry out or even blink an eye. His failure to react seemed to fuel Fidel’s rage, and again he wipped the rubber hose across the man’s face…Again and again and again, a dozen times, Fidel smashed the man’s face with the hose. Not once did the fearsome abuse elicit the slightest response from the prisoner…His body was ripped and torn everywhere; hell cuffs appeared almost to have severed the wrists, strap marks still wound around the arms all the way to the shoulders, slivers of bamboo were embedded in the bloodied shins and there were what appeared to be tread marks from the hose across the chest, back, and legs.”
Earl Cobeil died as a result of Fidel’s torture.
Because Castro belief in “socialism OR death” Cuba is now a beggar nation. Even Haitian refugges avoid Cuba.
And, the above gruesome attrocities under Castro’s gulag, IS just a glimmer of what has/is still going on.
Naturally, the *Leftist* initiated a love affair with Castro and his slave camp, just as it did with Lenin’s and Stalin’s Gulag. American leftists in 1969 formed the Venceremos Brigade, a coalition whose members traveled to work in Cuba to show their solidarity with the communist revolution.
High-profile Western *Leftists* including Susan Sontag, Jean-Paul Sartre, Norman Mailer, and Abbie Hoffman, also made the pilgrimages to Cuba.
As earlier Leftists had done with Stalin, Castro’s devotees heaped grossly disproportionate praise upon him.
Of course, Castro lays out the red-carpet treatment on these deluded Leftist, treating them so kindly, giving them the utterly false impression, that he is such a good man.
In the fall of 1960, Paul Sweezy made a pilgrimage to Cuba with another leftist, the two ended up receiving all the attention they craved from their father-god, marvelling at how “lucky” they were to spend “two long evenings with Fidel, in relaxed surroundings and with only a few present.” After their visit, thet reported that:
“Fidel is a passionate humanitarian, not in the fruadulent sense that he loves all humanity, but in the meaningful sense that he feels compassion for human suffering, hates injustice, because it causes unnecessary suffering, and is totally committed to building in Cuba a society in which the poor and the underprivileged shall be able to hold up their heads and enjoy a fair share of the good things of life. He treats people within this framework , kindly, sternly, implacably, according to their actual or potential role in creating or hindering the creation of the good society.”
Castro personally drove his guests around to certain locations he wanted them to see.
And these foolish, blinded Leftists, believe the ’show’ that was put on to impress them, that all is well with Fidel, and his Gulag society.
In true leftist traditon, Western *Leftist* continue to shower adulation on Castro to this day, even right here in B’dos, he was given such a warm welcome, Branford Taite, embraced him like a ‘god’ and other “Lefties” like Comissiong, and Ricky Singh, die-hard communist, heap adulation on this tyrant of a dictator.
Humbero Fontova has written a succinct account of the Left’s continuing dalliance with Castro in ‘Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant.”
Here is just a portion of his compilation of leftist praise for the death cult leader.
“Cuba’s own Elvis – that’s how Dan Rather once described his friend Fidel Castro. Oliver Stone, another friend, described Fidel as a “very selfess and moral” and “one of the world’s wisest men.” “A genius” agreed Jack Nicholson. Naomi Campbell said meeting Castro was “a dream come true!” According to Norman Mailer, Castro is “the first and greatest hero to appear in the world since the Second World War.” Jean-Paul Sarte said, “Castro is at the same time the island, the men, the cattle, and the earth. He is the whole island…” Actress Gina Lollobrigida cooed, “Castro is an extraordinary man. He is warm and understanding and seems extremely humane.” Francis Coppola simply said, “Fidel, I love you. We both have the same initials. We both have beards. We both have power and want to use it for good purposes.” Harry Belafonte added: “If you believe in freedom, If you believe in justice, if you believe in democracy, you have no choice but to support Fidel Castro.”
Steven Spielberg visited the father-god in Havana in the fall of 2002. He called the meeting with Castro “the most important eight hours in my life.”
Castro’s Cuba has been an exhilarating gift to the American Left, presenting it with a totalitarian *death* cult to worship with a wonderful geographical bonus, it is close to home, just ninrty miles from the Florida coast!
The history of the *Leftists* gives an amazing example of what the Word of God warned would happen, that many would call *Evil* good, and *Good* evil, having no discernment, for right and wrong, good and evil.
The world IS truly ripe, in blinded ignorance to the reality of what is good vs evil, making vast multitudes prime targets for the *rise* of the Antichrist, who will utterly decieve the majority of humankind with his masteful deception that he IS God, as he sits in the Temple in Jerusalem and declares himself to be!
The season, generation, for the greatest deception ever, is just around the corner!
Micro Mock Engineer // October 29, 2009 at 9:14 PM
Dictionary,
Your accounts of Acts 21-23 does indeed present a example of the sword being wielded in defense of Paul, but this does not provide justification for it being an appropriate Christian response. It is simply a historical account of what transpired (the Roman army defending a Roman citizen from the Jews)… and it runs counter to Jesus’ advice and example.
Paul’s actions do not negate Jesus’ instructions on how we should live as Christians. Truth be told, the disciples acted inappropriately on several occasions, oftentimes out of fear and weakness… they were, after all, just men. For example, Peter denied Christ three times to avoid persecution… this does not mean that it is appropriate for Christians to deny Christ if it means ‘saving your skin’.
It might be instructive if you did a little research on the first three centuries of Christianity (up until the edict of Milan in 313)… otherwise known as the Age of Martyrs. Did these Christians engage in armed defense?
Ditionary, I am so concerned about how far you and Zoe have strayed, that I am assigning both of you some homework…
- What was Origen’s response to Celsus, when the Christians were accused of refusing to serve in the military?
- To whom did St. Justin refer when he claimed that ‘they’ had forgotten the ways of war and violence?
- Who said , while refusing to serve in Caesar’s army, “I am soldier of Christ’s and it is not lawful for me to fight”?
- Who was Maximilian of Thebeste and what was his ‘claim to fame’?
- Who said “We refrain from making war on our enemies, and cannot bear to see a man killed, even if killed justly.”
Dictionary… life in the palace has spoiled you and Zoe. Maybe a few weeks in the catacombs will reenergise your faith. “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus” – Philippians 2:5
ROK // October 29, 2009 at 9:22 PM
@Zoe
You obviously do not have the first clue about Cuba and speaking like an authoritarian. The literature on Castro, Cuba and the Iron Curtain is available, how you did not find it?
Did you understand that Castro saw the Soviets as no better than the Americans – White Imperialists?
Did you know that Castro prevented the KGB from infiltrating Cuba to put it under the grip you speak of?
Did you know that the Soviets made more than one attempt to assassinate Castro?
The same thing you do with the bible and your brand of christianity you coming to do with Cuba. You spouting pure propaganda that is very estrange from the truth.
Not Saved // October 29, 2009 at 9:52 PM
2]
Not sure about your rambling discource about Hitler.
Here is a further extraction from the wiki which challenges your hypothesis that appeasement was cowardly (“lacking gumption”) leading DIRECTLY to all lives lost in WWII.
“In the early 1990s a new theory of appeasement, sometimes called “counter-revisionist”,[16] emerged as historians argued that appeasement was probably the only choice for the British government in the 1930s, but that it was poorly implemented, carried out too late and not enforced strongly enough to constrain Hitler.
Appeasement was considered a viable policy, considering the strains that the British Empire faced in recuperating from World War I, and Chamberlain was said to have adopted a policy suitable to Britain’s cultural and political needs. Frank McDonough is a leading proponent of this view of appeasement and describes his book Nevile Chamberlain, Appeasement and the British Road to War[17] as a “post revisionist” study.[18]
Appeasement was a crisis management strategy seeking a peaceful settlement of Hitler’s grievances. “Chamberlain’s worst error,” says McDonough, “was to believe that he could march Hitler on the yellow brick road to peace when in reality Hitler was marching very firmly on the road to war.” He has criticised revisionist historians for concentrating on Chamberlain’s motivations rather than how appeasement worked in practice – as a “usable policy” to deal with Hitler.”
+++
Your hypothesis remains weak, at best.
In any case you are unable to meet the challenge to make your case for “defense” on its merits, rather than simply invoking the spectre of Hitler to justify force against imagined or invented threats.
I shall add a quote from Chomsky which I think instructive,
“Preventive war is, very simply, the “supreme crime” condemned at Nuremberg.”
Not Saved // October 29, 2009 at 10:16 PM
3]
First a correction. I meant to say “religious intolerance”.
Yes very cleverly, you do not advocate hate directly, but you are happy to promote the works of those who do !
Moreover, you promote hysteria over the benign lobbying actions of an apparently inept typical lobbying group.
You strive to link this organistion to terrorism (now what could be the motive?) and have been “unsucessful” according to the New York Times.
Gaubatz is a member of SANE who claim that “adherence to Islam as a Muslim is prima facie evidence of an act in support of the overthrow of the US.”
Sperry advocated the poisoning of afghan water supply with pigs blood.
Emerson of whom you have quoted extensively is a notorious islamophobe.
Here are some more details from loonwatch,
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/05/steve-emerson-wowser/
+++
Do you condemn these men or endorse them?
Your comments above speak volumes.
Condemn these men and I will withdraw the charge.
Otherwise it is you who are the proverbial wolf in sheeps clothing. Quietly promoting the works of anti muslim extremists while feigning innocence.
Not Saved // October 29, 2009 at 10:26 PM
“I have distinguished force from violence, the latter being the IMMORAL or unjustifiable use of such force.”
That is a remarkable achievement.
Is the recipient likewise able to distinguish between force and violence? or is that the preserve of the protagonist.
++++
“I have thus pointed out that use of force (in any form, from words on up) has to be MORALLY justified”
And how do you morally justify “limited strikes” against Iran?
Dictionary // October 30, 2009 at 5:19 AM
Moderator:
I further comment in response to a slander.
NS:
1] You have failed to apologise for slander. Thus, you have shown yourself to be a willful indulger in verbal violence. Onlookers, kindly observe.
2] Sources vs substance
Onlookers, NS — including through his own slanders against me — has resorted to a common tactic when one has not the substance — attack the source.
In fact the onward cites and links I gave are replete with detailed onward links and themselves indicate the breadth of the understanding that CAIR is a subversive and Jihadistic group: FBI reports, Court testimony and record (the documents in discovery at the Holy Land Foundation trial — this link is to Wiki which puts the conviction on retrial in a short paragraph, cf Dallas Morning news here, and the arabic document and translation [pp15 ff] and discussion here, plus this more detailed documentation compilation and notes here by IPT, also this summary on a key point — are a treasure trove on what is going on all by themselves . . . ), testimony by a wide array of Congresspeople of the US who are not otherwise noted to be in general agreement. (And, BTW, sometimes, it is those who are specifically motivated who are the best sources on an issue. the issue is not who, but the balance on the facts and related reasoning. Notice how in the cited AP report and commentary by JW, the “standard” rebuttal tactic is to attach the man not deal with the facts . . . )
AND, the author of the book-length expose/report in question — which recall rests on 12,000 pp of largely internal and undeniable CAIR documents, and 300 hrs of videotape [which have actually not been objected to, CAIR has instead attacked the person] — is authored by a person whose personal life and career highlights give lie to he accusation that it is motivated by racial bigotry etc.
So, onlookers, I leave you to decide for yourselves whose report you will believe on the merits, why.
3] CAIR 5k vs 50 k
Of course CAIR’s membership levels and trends show that it is thankfully not dominant in the US Muslim population.
However, it has long been a major media and official voice, even used by the US Government in training etc; on the previous understanding that it is a spokesman for the Muslim people of the USA, and that it is moderate.
In short, a major issue with CAIR is that given its foundational connnexions to HAMAS and so the Muslim Brotherhood and the pattern of exposed behaviour linked to terrorism support by word and funding, is that it serves as a agent of subversive influence. As we should recall from the Cold War era, agents of influence do not have to have great numbers, just the access to media, academy and official circles to exert subversive force. And the intent to do that is documented in the AP article linked already:
________________
>>. . . The 1991 bylaws of a group called the Palestine Committee say it was created to be the highest authority on “work for the Palestinian cause on the American front.” The committee was led by Mousa Abu Marzook, later deported to Jordan and labeled a terrorist by the U.S. government.
The committee oversaw a number of former and current Muslim organizations in the United States.
One was Holy Land [Foundation], which was shut down in December 2001 and is accused of being a fundraising front for Hamas. Five of its former leaders are on trial in Dallas, charged with sending more than $12 million in illegal aid to Hamas. [On the retrial, they were convicted on all 108 counts in Nov 2008.]
Another was the Islamic Association for Palestine, which closed in 2004 after a federal judge found it and then-defunct Holy Land liable in the killing of an American teenager in Israel by Hamas gunmen.
And a third was the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, which has emerged as a leading advocacy group for American Muslims.
For the first time, evidence in the case put CAIR’s founder, Nihad Awad, at a Philadelphia meeting of alleged Hamas supporters that was secretly watched and recorded by the FBI.
The groups had overlapping rosters of leaders. Documents introduced by prosecutors in the Holy Land trial list several of the charity’s leaders as officials in the Islamic Association for Palestine….
“It’s clear these groups grew out of an effort to carry out a specific strategy in the United States,” Farah said. “It’s in their own words, it’s a political infiltration that worked for 40 years.” . . . .
One of the documents is a memo about the goals for the U.S. organization of the U.S. faction of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members included some of the Holy Land leaders now on trial.
The memo’s writer, Mohamed Akram, wrote that members of the Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” >>
( In supplement, I cite from the strategy document in Arabic and translation:
>> The Ikhwan [the Muslim Brotherhood's name for itself] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. …
They are then to work to employ, direct, and unify Muslims’ efforts and powers for this process. In order to do that, we must possess a mastery of the art of “coalitions,” the art of “absorption,” and the principles of “cooperation.” >>)
__________________
What is now happening, is that formerly hidden connexions to terrorism and lines of consciously subversive influence are now coming out, though trials, through exposure of financial backing and key personnel, and through now an undercover investigation.
4] CAIR’s boycott threats
A boycott threat depends on the perception of widespread support.
So, the expose of lack of such widespread support is an important step in breaking the undue influence of CAIR.
Your “shoot in the foot” analogy breaks down.
5] NS, On appeasement
I have pointed out — revisionist historians notwithstanding — that the surviving German generals themselves are the source on what would have happened had France and the UK stood up to Hitler in the early stages of the power moves of the 1930’s. Let us not forget: MUSSOLINI stopped the first attempt to intimidate and subvert Austria, by sending was it eight divisions to the Brenner pass in 1934.
When Hiter moved against the Rhinelands, he disposed of 4 available battalions as I recall. In so moving he broke the treaty of Versailles openly — and invited a military response. (So much for the nasty attempt to imply that a strong response in defence of a peaceful order is to be equated as a “war crime” substantially comparable with the preparatory moves for a continent-wide and global power grab. ONLOOKERS, NOTICE HOW HITLER IS BEING “REHABILITATED” BY THOSE WHO OBJECT TO MY CITATION OF RELEVANT HISTORY, THROUGH THE RHETORIC OF IMMORAL EQUIVALENCE. Take warning . . . )
The French had more than enough troops (and tanks too . .. ) to back up the treaty’s terms, but with the half-heartedness of the British — who I primarily blame on this one — they were unwilling to stand up.
Once Hitler re-occupied this forward position, he fortified the line and discombobulated the western front. By 1936 Belgium peeled off the Western alliance and set its forlorn hopes on neutrality — which played a significant part in events in 1940.
Once Britain and France confronted a German defence line, they thought back to the Somme and Verdun and assaults on the Hindenberg line in 1917 that broke French morale and triggered mutiny, and were intimidated into passivity.
Hitler spent a year or two building up his forces to as more credible level, then struck against Austria and Czechoslovakia in rapid succession.
Thus he outflanked Czechoslovakia and took away its key defence line. In turn, taking Czechoslovakia outflanked Poland. And then — after being strategically dislocated — at last the British found the gumption to stand up, when it was all but too late. And it WAS too late for the Austrians, the Czechs, the Poles, the Belgians, the Dutch and even the French.
As for the British, it was a near-run thing.
The rest is history as they say.
So, I simply do not buy the revisionism, on the facts of the actual correlation of forces c 1934 – 36, what happened when Mussolini stood up to Hitler, and what we now know from the German generals; actually have known ever since the Liddell-Hart interviews.
As to the notion that the author of Mein Kampf could ever have been appeased, I will simply cite from that book, in Ch X of its first part:
_____________
>>Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness . . . .
The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice . . . . >>
____________________
Appeasement presupposes a reasonable person willing to compromise.
Or, that by buying time one can make a better stand later. The evidence runs in the opposite direction, on both counts.
6] MME on Ac 21 – 23
MME has neatly snipped out the telling CONTEXT for Ac 21 – 23, which I highlighted.
I cited the section of the Ac — and ALL Scripture is profitable for instruction! — in the specific context that it was an outworking on the ground of the teachings in Rom 13:1 – 10 given just a few months previously, with the background of events in Nehemiah, Daniel and even the Pentateuch [Exodus]. In short, we see here scripture-twisting in the face of being given specific context and discussion. (Since people will usually not follow details of a complex matter step by step, this sort of strawman tactic works surprisingly often.)
The doctrine of interposition is well established and the context of Romans recognises the Roman state as a legitimate civil authority accountable to God to defend Justice. That Nero spectacularly failed in this duty once he discarded Seneca and Burris, does not change this; save that it gives further point to the issue of accountability under God.
Indeed, the famous coin incident in the gospels gives further force to this.
There is that which is of Caesar, and that which is of God. Given the reality that God is creator and that he has created the nations [cf Ac 17], Who has given Caesar that which is in his sphere of responsibility? to whom, then will Caesar account for his stewardship of justice and the power of the purse, the law and the sword? (The answers are self-evident.)
7] On force vs violence again
Force is a reality in a world in which there are wolves that have to be stopped; on pain of destroying the civil peace that protects us all.
So, whether force of words — and “life and death lie in the power of the tongue” — or force of the purse or force of the law and the court, or the force that backs that up, the sword, we have to address the issue of when force is just and when it is unjust.
This is a moral question, inescapably. And, it is a proper distinction to designate unjust use of force — from tongue [e.g. destructive slander] to the sword — as VIOLENCE.
So, words are far more dangerous and accountable than some are inclined to think, and to abuse. Of course, the naked sword is obviously a force of lethal potential, but so is the destructive tongue.
I repeat, every resort to force has to be justified, on moral grounds. And, in the context of the sword, the well known results of the breakdown of the civil peace and the domination of the sheep by the wolf make the justification plain.
I have already spoken tot he issue of the shepherd gone bad, and his correction or removal by the interposition of other civil authorities and the people. I have noted that the general election is a means to that end.
8] Strikes against Iran . . .
Of course such have not happened to date.
And, the onward tactic is a dilemma: (i) address a controversial issue on an unpopular side and aleinate many emotionally, or (ii) be made to look like you are dodging issues — never mind the actual track record above of ever increasingly tangential and polarising rhetoric using misleading rhetoric, to distract attention from and dismiss the main issue from the original post: we have an islamist fifth column at work in our civilisation.
I will go though the middle,a s hter is a thrd option — the dilemma is a false one, though any response will be used doubtless to try to furter polarise the discussion. The real issue is: what is a responsible course of action in the face of a plainly growing threat.
For, only a few months back, we saw a country that had its “leaders” steal an election and abuse the power of the sword to block the people from protesting. [Notice the studied silence on such. A key step here would be to support the people of Iran and their legitimate representatives in their liberation struggle against their Islamist tyrants.]
I would think, beyond this, that a credible alternative to take out the Iranian nuke weapons programme before cities begin to go up in smoke as per declarations by Mr Ahmadinejad and co, would be a base for a serious diplomatically worked out interdiction and/or dismantling of such developments.
(Of course the gradual subversion of any such alternative — as say the Iraq multi-billion dollar bribery of international officials scandal highlighted — is another issue that has to be faced; and constrains the credible list of realistic options. Oil money can corrupt international institutions, as we have seen in recent years. So, the issue is neither simple nor easy to address.)
If such diplomacy backed by resolution fails, we have the very plain lesson of the 1930’s in front of us. We must not forget it, lest we repeat its worst chapters, with nukes in play in the hands of an unhinged dictator this time.
That lesson is that it only takes a few years to move from a minor cloud on the horizon to a world threatening reality. But, along that path, would- be aggressors will have broken key treaties designed to protect the international peace.
So, it is those who by their arguments imply that cities have to go up in nuclear smoke and fire before serious responses can be taken [by those crippled by such blows?], who have a case to prove.
That case, I would like to hear.
____________
Onlookers, let us hope that we and our children will not face the consequences of failing to act with good sense and determination in good time even as the nuclear storm clouds gather before our eyes. And, let us hope that we will recognise the rhetorical stratagems of agents of influence and others of like ilk, that are plainly designed to confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, so that we will not see our need to act with determination before it is too late.
Good day
De Dictionary
Dictionary // October 30, 2009 at 5:23 AM
Moderators:
I must further comment in response to a slander. Pardon a two parter . . .
NS:
1] You have failed to apologise for slander. Thus, you have shown yourself to be a willful indulger in verbal violence. Onlookers, kindly observe.
2] Sources vs substance
Onlookers, NS — including through his own slanders against me — has resorted to a common tactic when one has not the substance — attack the source.
In fact the onward cites and links I gave are replete with detailed onward links and themselves indicate the breadth of the understanding that CAIR is a subversive and Jihadistic group: FBI reports, Court testimony and record (the documents in discovery at the Holy Land Foundation trial — this link is to Wiki which puts the conviction on retrial in a short paragraph, cf Dallas Morning news here, and the arabic document and translation [pp15 ff] and discussion here, plus this more detailed documentation compilation and notes here by IPT, also this summary on a key point — are a treasure trove on what is going on all by themselves . . . ), testimony by a wide array of Congresspeople of the US who are not otherwise noted to be in general agreement. (And, BTW, sometimes, it is those who are specifically motivated who are the best sources on an issue. the issue is not who, but the balance on the facts and related reasoning. Notice how in the cited AP report and commentary by JW, the “standard” rebuttal tactic is to attach the man not deal with the facts . . . )
AND, the author of the book-length expose/report in question — which recall rests on 12,000 pp of largely internal and undeniable CAIR documents, and 300 hrs of videotape [which have actually not been objected to, CAIR has instead attacked the person] — is authored by a person whose personal life and career highlights give lie to he accusation that it is motivated by racial bigotry etc.
So, onlookers, I leave you to decide for yourselves whose report you will believe on the merits, why.
3] CAIR 5k vs 50 k
Of course CAIR’s membership levels and trends show that it is thankfully not dominant in the US Muslim population.
However, it has long been a major media and official voice, even used by the US Government in training etc; on the previous understanding that it is a spokesman for the Muslim people of the USA, and that it is moderate.
In short, a major issue with CAIR is that given its foundational connnexions to HAMAS and so the Muslim Brotherhood and the pattern of exposed behaviour linked to terrorism support by word and funding, is that it serves as a agent of subversive influence. As we should recall from the Cold War era, agents of influence do not have to have great numbers, just the access to media, academy and official circles to exert subversive force. And the intent to do that is documented in the AP article linked already:
________________
>>. . . The 1991 bylaws of a group called the Palestine Committee say it was created to be the highest authority on “work for the Palestinian cause on the American front.” The committee was led by Mousa Abu Marzook, later deported to Jordan and labeled a terrorist by the U.S. government.
The committee oversaw a number of former and current Muslim organizations in the United States.
One was Holy Land [Foundation], which was shut down in December 2001 and is accused of being a fundraising front for Hamas. Five of its former leaders are on trial in Dallas, charged with sending more than $12 million in illegal aid to Hamas. [On the retrial, they were convicted on all 108 counts in Nov 2008.]
Another was the Islamic Association for Palestine, which closed in 2004 after a federal judge found it and then-defunct Holy Land liable in the killing of an American teenager in Israel by Hamas gunmen.
And a third was the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, which has emerged as a leading advocacy group for American Muslims.
For the first time, evidence in the case put CAIR’s founder, Nihad Awad, at a Philadelphia meeting of alleged Hamas supporters that was secretly watched and recorded by the FBI.
The groups had overlapping rosters of leaders. Documents introduced by prosecutors in the Holy Land trial list several of the charity’s leaders as officials in the Islamic Association for Palestine….
“It’s clear these groups grew out of an effort to carry out a specific strategy in the United States,” Farah said. “It’s in their own words, it’s a political infiltration that worked for 40 years.” . . . .
One of the documents is a memo about the goals for the U.S. organization of the U.S. faction of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members included some of the Holy Land leaders now on trial.
The memo’s writer, Mohamed Akram, wrote that members of the Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” >>
( In supplement, I cite from the strategy document in Arabic and translation:
>> The Ikhwan [the Muslim Brotherhood's name for itself] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. …
They are then to work to employ, direct, and unify Muslims’ efforts and powers for this process. In order to do that, we must possess a mastery of the art of “coalitions,” the art of “absorption,” and the principles of “cooperation.” >>)
__________________
What is now happening, is that formerly hidden connexions to terrorism and lines of consciously subversive influence are now coming out, though trials, through exposure of financial backing and key personnel, and through now an undercover investigation.
[ Cont's . . . . ]
Dictionary // October 30, 2009 at 5:43 AM
Moderators (and onlookers):
I have responded to the above by NS and MME especially here.
In particular, you will find there links and cites that substantiate the matters raised in the original post. (I suspect too many links for BU triggered as filter off.)
G’day
D
Dictionary // October 30, 2009 at 6:16 AM
PS: Just one excerpt from that response:
___________
a major issue with CAIR is that given its foundational connnexions to HAMAS and so the Muslim Brotherhood and the pattern of exposed behaviour linked to terrorism support by word and funding, is that it serves as a agent of subversive influence. As we should recall from the Cold War era, agents of influence do not have to have great numbers, just the access to media, academy and official circles to exert subversive force. And the intent to do that is documented in the AP article linked already:
________________
>>. . . The 1991 bylaws of a group called the Palestine Committee say it was created to be the highest authority on “work for the Palestinian cause on the American front.” The committee was led by Mousa Abu Marzook, later deported to Jordan and labeled a terrorist by the U.S. government.
The committee oversaw a number of former and current Muslim organizations in the United States.
One was Holy Land [Foundation], which was shut down in December 2001 and is accused of being a fundraising front for Hamas. Five of its former leaders are on trial in Dallas, charged with sending more than $12 million in illegal aid to Hamas. [On the retrial, they were convicted on all 108 counts in Nov 2008.]
Another was the Islamic Association for Palestine, which closed in 2004 after a federal judge found it and then-defunct Holy Land liable in the killing of an American teenager in Israel by Hamas gunmen.
And a third was the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, which has emerged as a leading advocacy group for American Muslims.
For the first time, evidence in the case put CAIR’s founder, Nihad Awad, at a Philadelphia meeting of alleged Hamas supporters that was secretly watched and recorded by the FBI.
The groups had overlapping rosters of leaders. Documents introduced by prosecutors in the Holy Land trial list several of the charity’s leaders as officials in the Islamic Association for Palestine….
“It’s clear these groups grew out of an effort to carry out a specific strategy in the United States,” Farah said. “It’s in their own words, it’s a political infiltration that worked for 40 years.” . . . .
One of the documents is a memo about the goals for the U.S. organization of the U.S. faction of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members included some of the Holy Land leaders now on trial.
The memo’s writer, Mohamed Akram, wrote that members of the Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” >>
( In supplement, I cite from the strategy document in Arabic and translation:
>> The Ikhwan [the Muslim Brotherhood's name for itself] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. …
They are then to work to employ, direct, and unify Muslims’ efforts and powers for this process. In order to do that, we must possess a mastery of the art of “coalitions,” the art of “absorption,” and the principles of “cooperation.” >>)
__________________
[CAIR is one of the organisations founded and funded though that strategy. Cf here.]
What is now happening, is that formerly hidden connexions to terrorism and lines of consciously subversive influence are now coming out, though trials, through exposure of financial backing and key personnel, and through now an undercover investigation.
______________
Dictionary // October 30, 2009 at 6:20 AM
PPS: A second, on appeasement and attempts to “rehabilitate” Hitler though revisionistic history, leading up tot he idea that limited use of force in the early stages of a developing threat is to be morally equated to world-conquest aggression:
_____________
5] NS, On appeasement
I have pointed out — revisionist historians notwithstanding — that the surviving German generals themselves are the source on what would have happened had France and the UK stood up to Hitler in the early stages of the power moves of the 1930’s. Let us not forget: MUSSOLINI stopped the first attempt to intimidate and subvert Austria, by sending was it eight divisions to the Brenner pass in 1934.
When Hiter moved against the Rhinelands, he disposed of 4 available battalions as I recall. In so moving he broke the treaty of Versailles openly — and invited a military response. (So much for the nasty attempt to imply that a strong response in defence of a peaceful order is to be equated as a “war crime” substantially comparable with the preparatory moves for a continent-wide and global power grab. ONLOOKERS, NOTICE HOW HITLER IS BEING “REHABILITATED” BY THOSE WHO OBJECT TO MY CITATION OF RELEVANT HISTORY, THROUGH THE RHETORIC OF IMMORAL EQUIVALENCE. Take warning . . . )
The French had more than enough troops (and tanks too . .. ) to back up the treaty’s terms, but with the half-heartedness of the British — who I primarily blame on this one — they were unwilling to stand up.
Once Hitler re-occupied this forward position, he fortified the line and discombobulated the western front. By 1936 Belgium peeled off the Western alliance and set its forlorn hopes on neutrality — which played a significant part in events in 1940.
Once Britain and France confronted a German defence line, they thought back to the Somme and Verdun and assaults on the Hindenberg line in 1917 that broke French morale and triggered mutiny, and were intimidated into passivity.
Hitler spent a year or two building up his forces to as more credible level, then struck against Austria and Czechoslovakia in rapid succession.
Thus he outflanked Czechoslovakia and took away its key defence line. In turn, taking Czechoslovakia outflanked Poland. And then — after being strategically dislocated — at last the British found the gumption to stand up, when it was all but too late. And it WAS too late for the Austrians, the Czechs, the Poles, the Belgians, the Dutch and even the French.
As for the British, it was a near-run thing.
The rest is history as they say.
So, I simply do not buy the revisionism, on the facts of the actual correlation of forces c 1934 – 36, what happened when Mussolini stood up to Hitler, and what we now know from the German generals; actually have known ever since the Liddell-Hart interviews.
As to the notion that the author of Mein Kampf could ever have been appeased, I will simply cite from that book, in Ch X of its first part:
_____________
>>Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness . . . .
The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice . . . . >>
____________________
Appeasement presupposes a reasonable person willing to compromise.
Or, that by buying time one can make a better stand later. The evidence runs in the opposite direction, on both counts.
_______________
Dictionary // October 30, 2009 at 6:31 AM
PPPS: And, on the way we should read scriptures (including how we should use historical/narrative texts in teaching and Bible study):
_______________
6] MME on Ac 21 – 23
MME has neatly snipped out the telling CONTEXT for Ac 21 – 23, which I highlighted.
I cited the section of the Ac — and ALL Scripture is profitable for instruction! — in the specific context that it was an outworking on the ground of the teachings in Rom 13:1 – 10 given just a few months previously, with the background of events in Nehemiah, Daniel and even the Pentateuch [Exodus]. In short, we see here scripture-twisting in the face of being given specific context and discussion. (Since people will usually not follow details of a complex matter step by step, this sort of strawman tactic works surprisingly often.)
The doctrine of interposition is well established and the context of Romans recognises the Roman state as a legitimate civil authority accountable to God to defend Justice. That Nero spectacularly failed in this duty once he discarded Seneca and Burris, does not change this; save that it gives further point to the issue of accountability under God.
Indeed, the famous coin incident in the gospels gives further force to this.
There is that which is of Caesar, and that which is of God. Given the reality that God is creator and that he has created the nations [cf Ac 17], Who has given Caesar that which is in his sphere of responsibility? to whom, then will Caesar account for his stewardship of justice and the power of the purse, the law and the sword? (The answers are self-evident.)
7] On force vs violence again
Force is a reality in a world in which there are wolves that have to be stopped; on pain of destroying the civil peace that protects us all.
So, whether force of words — and “life and death lie in the power of the tongue” — or force of the purse or force of the law and the court, or the force that backs that up, the sword, we have to address the issue of when force is just and when it is unjust.
This is a moral question, inescapably. And, it is a proper distinction to designate unjust use of force — from tongue [e.g. destructive slander] to the sword — as VIOLENCE.
So, words are far more dangerous and accountable than some are inclined to think, and to abuse. Of course, the naked sword is obviously a force of lethal potential, but so is the destructive tongue.
I repeat, every resort to force has to be justified, on moral grounds. And, in the context of the sword, the well known results of the breakdown of the civil peace and the domination of the sheep by the wolf make the justification plain.
I have already spoken to the issue of the shepherd gone bad, and his correction or removal by the interposition of other civil authorities and the people. I have noted that the general election is a means to that end.
___________________
Given the priority of the scriptures in our theology, we should take heed to both the instructions in Rom 13:1 – 10 and the example that took place only a few month later that illustrate the force of the principles in action. Yes, force is a hard thing to have to resort to, and in an ideal world one wishes one did not have to do so — but we live in a world with wolves. And, that issue starts with the force of words as “life and death lie in the power of the tongue”; which should be sobering to us all. Next, it moves to the schoolyard: should teachers allow bullies to prevail? [But we see a protest -- the sword hardly ever comes into play there.] So, on to the policeman on the street — are we to abolish or disarm our police forces and courts and laws? [What would be the predictable outcome? And if one insists yes, how is this vindicated in light of Rom 13:1 - 10?] At the next level, when properly used, are not armies and the commanders thereof not police forces writ large, to deal with bigger wolf packs than criminal gangs normally have?
Micro Mock Engineer // October 30, 2009 at 6:42 AM
Dictionary,
I guess the homework was too hard for you… not a single question answered. To make matters worse, you invoke the wolf-sheep-shepherd analogy in your attempt to justify “the naked sword”.
For being a difficult student, I am adding one more homework question to the previously unanswered ones…
How do sheep defend themselves against wolves?
Anonymous // October 30, 2009 at 8:26 AM
MME,
I ain’t no Bible scholar (in fact I ain’t no kind of scholar at all) but you acknowledge that ” Acts 21-23 does indeed present a example of the sword being wielded in defense of Paul, but this does not provide justification for it being an appropriate Christian response.” Now my questions?
Did Paul explicitly reject this “wielding of the sword?” Did he as a good (?) Christian under the influence of the Holy Spirit write something like “look here fellows thanks but no thanks, my God would have looked after me. No need for all the heavy weaponry.” Amazing that we follow so much of what he wrote as Gospel (pun intended) but here you are implying that Paul benefited from an unchristian response. In mathematics according to proof by counter example it only takes one counter example to reject a hypothesis so is the whole modern Christian theology (essentially informed by Paul’s writings) wrong or at best subject to review in the light of new information like say …(gasp) science?
Dictionary // October 30, 2009 at 8:54 AM
MME:
A follow up.
On the contrary.
It is you who have the challenge to address the import of Rom 13:1 – 10, AND the context of Acts 21 – 23 as an on the ground working out only a few months later. Recall, the former is explicit:
>>Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment,1 and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority2 resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 13:3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 13:4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. 13:5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities3 but also because of your conscience.4 13:6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities5 are God’s servants devoted to governing.6 13:7 Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 13:9 For the commandments,7 “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,”8 (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”9 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. >>
Cf here for my own discussion, in light of Daniel. (I suspect I will get around to putting in Ac 21 – 23 sometime.)
Theologians, and snippets from their writings, can err after all; that was the premise of the Protestant reformation.
Paraphrasing Luther:
>> Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.
On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me. >>
So, now kindly provide your evident reason on Rom 13:1 – 10, in context of Ac 21 – 23. And explain how doing away with those ever so prone to corruption cops will improve the order of the community. [BTW, domestic sheep survive in the presence of wolves by being protected by shepherds. David the shepherd boy and all that. Wild sheep, run to the highest precipices and hang on for dear life. But, there ain't no highest precipices where entire societies in our region and beyond can run to for refuge in our time. ]
D
PS: Barnabas Fund on the current trend to reject jihadist islamism, and a case in point.
PPS: Anonymous, I think Paul is a lot more on target on evolutionary materialist scientific pretensions than you might be comfortable with, once you adjust for today’s images and endarkening stories often being in museums and textbooks and TV or computer screens. (Cf here on how assumed and imposed a priori evolutionary materialism is distorting science, down to the very definition. This, on the modern controversies, may help. But please no further tangents.)
Zoe // October 30, 2009 at 10:31 AM
@MME, All of a sudden, you are the consumate theologian and church historian, whose hermeneutics, exegesis, and contextual analysis, is way of base!
One has to to grounded in these establised principles of sound interpretation, which you simply do not understand! Hence, your repeated irrevelant distractions in questions that are not based on the central ‘issue’ of God’s Word, in ‘Relation to Government’ and its God given, God ordained authority, Civil right, to “…for he IS the minister of God, a revenger to execute *wrath* upon him that doeth evil.” (v.4b).
The word for ’sword’ indicates that it was shaped like a sabre and was carried by magistrates to show that they had the power to punish, even to death. Therefore, one should hold government in healthy respect, both from *within* the national civil bounderies, AND, to defend against forces from *without*, this IS the Scriptural injunction and imperative, but, it IS also, logical, reasonable, and right.
One cannot take so-called proof text, (in isolation from) excluding other discourses on the same subject matter, and hope to arrive at any proper, interpretation of God’s Word. This you have stubbornly done.
Pride is a killer!
Zoe // October 30, 2009 at 11:23 AM
A bit more factual info on Castro’s tyrannical, despotic reign on the Cuban people.
The reign of terror against American POWs in Vietnam was just a reflection of Castro’s treatment on his own people. In addition to physical hardships even those who do not wind up in prison or labor camp, his police state had denied Cubans any freedom at all. Cubans do NOT have the right to travel out of their country. They do NOT have the right of free asociation or the right to form political parties, independent unions, or religious or cultural organizations. The regime has outlawed free expression, it has consistently censored publications, radio, televison, and film. A Commitee for the Defense of the Cuban Revolution (CDR) governs every single city block, and every agricultural production unit. The CDRs purpose is to monitor the affairs of every family and to report anything suspicious. A Cuban’s entire life IS spent under surveillance of his CDR, which controls everything from his food rations to his employment to his use of free time. A vicious racism against blacks accompanies this repression. In pre-Castro Cuba, blacks enjoyed upward social mobility, and served in many government positions. In Castro’s Cuba, the jail population, IS 80% black, while the government heirarchy is 100 percent white/Latino.
Cuban communism follows Lenin’s and Stalin’s idea of “equality” wherein members of the *nomenklatura* live like millionaires, while ordinary Cubans live in utter proverty.
The $5-billion-a-year Soviet subsidy that just barely kept the Cuban economy afloat during the Cold War is long gone. And, notwithstanding the $100 billion that the Soviets pumped in over the decades, Cuba has become one of the poorest nations in the world.
Denied the right to vote under Castro, Cubans have voted with their feet. Pre-Castro Cuba had the highest per capita immigration rate in the Western hemisphere. Under Castro, approximately 2,000,000 Cuban citizens (out of eleven million) have escaped their country. Many have done so by floating on rafts or inner tubes in shark-infested waters. An estimated 50,000 – 87,000 have lost their lives. Not content to trust the sharkes, Castro has sent helicopters to drop sandbags onto the rafts of would-be-escapers, or just to gun them all down. Epitomizing this barbarity was the Tugboat Massacre of July 13, 1994, in which Castro ordered Cuban patrol boats to kill 41 unarmed Cuban civilians, 10 of them children, who were using an old wooden tugboat in their attempt to flee Cuba.
Castro is a vile, wicked, evil, tyrant, the documented facts of his barbarity on his own people, especially if any sould attempt to dissent from his despotic rule, are all well documented facts.
Bush Tea // October 30, 2009 at 6:22 PM
LOL MME, ..the men like them got yuh by the ’short and curley’… ha ha
I have no doubt that you will come to the realization that you have erred on this particular matter…. Admittedly, it is a fairly complex matter.
Here is Bush Tea’s take on the issue.
The natural order of things is survival of the fittest (usually the ‘baddest’ or the smartest). You have to admit that even where a clearly innocent child breaks one of the natural laws, (step off a cliff, run into traffic, jump into a pool….etc) the consequences are harsh, constant and unyielding.
Before the coming of the ‘Saviour’, judgment was based on these natural laws -like an eye for an eye etc and it was clearly demonstrated that mankind did not have what it takes to achieve the intended objectives along this natural path.
The new dispensation of ’salvation through grace’ never claimed to remove the natural laws, but instead provides an alternative route which is ‘do-able’ – through this new ‘way’ that has been provided.
Obviously, in promoting this new ‘way’ (one that defies the natural order of things), there is much emphasis on the fact that it is not by works, physical efforts and defeating challengers that one now needs to seek a successful life. At the same time, not one iota of the law has been changed.
Indeed, if we really wanted to get controversial, it may be argued that far from avoiding all violence, the concept of righteous indignation and the pursuit of justice by a truly righteous man could very well include the application of violence – even deadly violence- where circumstances dictates such…
A perfect example of course is my former Headmaster who on more than one occasion brutalized my behind in a manner that you seem to think should be criminal. However it is now clear that this man genuinely cared about my future and in his wisdom, took decisive and took practical action to protect my future success… despite my own ignorance of his strategic perspective at the time.
Face it MME, violence and Force are fundamental realities in the structure of our world. pretending otherwise is – quite frankly, beneath you.
The wise thing to do therefore is to adopt and manage this basic force in the interest of the longterm goodwill of all society.
The foolish way is to ignore it and allow the dark forces to then use it to challenge and destroy our way of life.
To cut a long story short, there will always be gangs and violent persons…. We should ensure that the biggest and baddest ‘gang’ is our police force.
Children will always have the potential to be troublesome and mischievous… Parents should be ‘badder’ in enforcing that which is right.
Micro Mock Engineer // October 30, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Dictionary & Zoe,
I asked you both some simple and direct questions, but rather than answer these you have run off on another tirade. Were you unable to find answers, or just uncomfortable with them? ROTFL.
———–
Anonymous, yes I am saying that Paul benefited from an unchristian response, just as Peter benefitted from an unchristian response when he denied Christ. You have made some good points, but something you said confuses me… surely you realise that the scriptures that Dictionary and Zoe have referred to so far (Romans, Acts etc.) are not Gospel, don’t you?
Anonymous // October 30, 2009 at 7:37 PM
MME
So the letters of Paul (Acts, Romans etc) do not provide Divinely inspired instruction for believers? Only the four Gospels are the true canons of Christian faith? Say it ain’t so!
With no intention to be facetious: What part of the Bible is negotiable and what part isn’t?
kiki // October 30, 2009 at 8:03 PM
2 Analysis
2.1 “Our Father, which art in Heaven”
2.2 “Hallowed be thy Name”
2.3 “Thy kingdom come”
2.4 “Thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven”
2.5 “Give us this day our daily bread”
2.6 “And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us”
2.7 “And lead us not into temptation”
2.8 “But deliver us from evil”
2.9 “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen”
Zoe // October 30, 2009 at 8:28 PM
@MME, You are beginning to sound just like Catholics and Anglicans, “…surely you realize that the Scriptures that Dictionary and Zoe have referred to so far (Romans, Acts etc.) are not Gospel, don’t you?”
MME, Is the book of Acts, the Letters, Epistles, any lest Divinely Inspired Scripture, than the synoptic Gospels?
Further, who did Almighty God, through the Holy Spirit, divinely inspire, to pen the most profound theological discourses ever written; especially on Law vs Grace, Justification by Grace through Faith alone in Christ Jesus; the God *ordained* and instituted, Civil authorties, (government) (Rom 13) and a number of other doctrinal, moral, and other matters, pertaining to the Church, and Civil order?
Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, did NOT elaberate on the finer, intricate details of Salvation, i.e., Justification, Sanctification, Glorification, Law vs Grace, etc., He left these deeper and profound matters to be dealt with *after* His ascension, when He said:
“I have yet *many* things to say unto you, BUT ye cannot bear them now”
Howbeit, *when* he, the Spirit of *truth* (The Holy Spirit) is come, he will guide you into *All* truth…” (John 16: 12, 13a).
One of the biggest mistakes the Catholics, and by extension the Anglicans made, WAS exactly what you are apparently doing; to belittle the Letters and Espitles, YES, the Gospels are significant, they give us the Life, Ministry, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ, BUT, without the Letters and Epistles, which the Holy Spirit, ALSO, divinely inspired, we would NOT have the central *core* of New Testament *Doctrine* for that IS how the Lord so ordered it to be!
I can honestly understand why you ‘may’ be having this problem, as is now coming out! If you, like most other Bajans, were raised under the traditional churches, Anglican, Methodist, and Catholic, then, you would, naturally have this *bias* against Paul’s writings, considering them to be somewhat, lesser in authority, than the Gospels, this IS not so, as there IS no contradiction whatsoever, between what Jesus taught, through in some cases, not very explicit, as He intended the *fuller* clarification, articulation, etc, to be dealt with, when *He* the Holy Spirit is come, and THIS did in fact happen, in the Letters and Epistles, especially from Paul.
Dictionary // October 31, 2009 at 5:38 AM
MME:
Our “scientific” culture — both in the region and the broader Western Civilisation — has intellectual blind spots, and one of these is that we do not understand the way actions by agents in a situation can tell us much about underlying dynamics etc. As a result, we often tend to deprecate the study of history and of character and fail to appreciate the subtleties of good literature.
Luke, author of Acts, is operating in a different matrix: he was a Greek physician, steeped in a culture whose principal teaching tool on life was the epic poems of Homer, and which had a centuries deep tradition of history and biography as instructional tools; with Herodotus and Thucydides as key progenitors.
Acts is in that cultural context,and is addressed to a cultured Greek as part 2 of a grounding study on the history of God’s intervention into the world in Christ and the church. In that context, he begins each volume with a classic thesis statement, the first an introductory, the second a continuation:
_____________
>>LK: 1:1 Now1 many have undertaken to compile an account2 of the things3 that have been fulfilled4 among us, 1:2 like the accounts5 passed on6 to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word7 from the beginning.8 1:3 So9 it seemed good to me as well,10 because I have followed11 all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account12 for you, most excellent Theophilus, 1:4 so that you may know for certain13 the things you were taught . . . .
AC: 1:1 I wrote1 the former2 account,3 Theophilus,4 about all that Jesus began to do and teach 1:2 until the day he was taken up to heaven,5 after he had given orders6 by7 the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 1:3 To the same apostles8 also, after his suffering,9 he presented himself alive with many convincing proofs. He was seen by them over a forty-day period10 and spoke about matters concerning the kingdom of God . . . . 1:6 So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him,20 “Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 1:7 He told them, “You are not permitted to know21 the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts22 of the earth.” 1:9 After23 he had said this, while they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight. 1:10 As24 they were still staring into the sky while he was going, suddenly25 two men in white clothing stood near them 1:11 and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand here26 looking up into the sky? This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven27 will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven.”
>>
_____________
Here we see a focus on the life of teh Christ, to provide an orderly, well-warranted ground for the specifically theological claims that had been taught. Thereafter, the focus shifts to the dynamics of how this gospel would go out in the Spirit’s power, carried especially by anointed men, chief among whom would be the apostles.
THIS MEANS THAT LUKE IS TEACHING BY HISTORICAL EXEMPLAR AND KEY CASE STUDY, quite similar in many ways to the use of classical cases to teach or diagnose in medicine. he will also hint at more than he says explicitly, assuming that an educated reader will understand that he is laying out exemplars of the course of the disease of sin in the world and the ways the Divine Doctor’s interventions work on the ground; i.e though the Christ and his chosen vessels sent out and anointed by his Spirit.
In this context, it is not at all a surprise to pick up key patterns based on consistent themes, and it is expected that once a protagonist-hero has been identified, his example is as authoritative (save where specific corrections are listed or hinted at) as his speech. So:
1 –> Consistently in Lk-Ac [and the other gospels] the crowd is ignorant and prone to being manipulated by the deceitful, leading to mob behaviour. Of this the crowd in the temple in Ac 21 that pulled Paul out and called down more people to beat him to death on slanders and assumed crimes not tested properly in an orderly court is a TYPICAL pattern.
2 –> So are the manipulations of courts and other levers of power by deceptive elites. In Ac 22 – 23, this developed into attempted murder under the cover of a court hearing, though a collaboration between the elites and the mob.
3 –> All of this is a strong commentary on the destructive possibilities of democratic polities; something that is often most unwelcome in our ears in our time — but which we had better heed before it is too late. [NB: This culminates in the case in Ac 27, where the ship at Fair Havens is actually a good model in miniature of the ship of state! (I have actually used this to teach key management and decision making principles and political principles of prophetic intellectual and cultural leadership in a potentially hostile culture.)]
4 –> It is no great surprise to learn that in the Ac, the main protagonists are Peter in the first half, and Paul in the second; the leading apostle to the Jews and the leading apostle to the gentiles. In this context, the Jerusalem council of AD 48, in Ac 15, with the letter of charter to the gentile churches and commendation of their foundational apostolic leadership and their teachings, is pivotal. Jesus set out the apostles and the first circle of apostles subsequently recognised the apostolic commission — recall here Ac 9 – 10 — of those sent to the gentiles, especially Paul.
5 –> In this context the exchanges between Peter and Paul over the former’s withdrawal from fellowship with gentile Christians, is key [Cf Ac 15 and Gal 2:11 ff]. Apostles — unlike the Saviour — are mere men and can err (notice the contrast with the Islamist view that seems to have made M into a perfect model without room for balance and correction of fallible imperfect men or addressing of context . . . ); but the Spirit-led college is right and the Spirit will correct an error through other voices. So too, apostles sent by Christ are authoritative, save where such a specific error is highlighted for correction through the leading of the chief protagonist in the Acts, the Spirit who fills the church and leads it into action in life- and culture- transforming witness to he Lord’s crucified and risen Christ.
(Note the “minor” case in Ac 23:1 – 5 where Paul for a moment loses his temper in reaction to sore provocation — being slapped as he opens his defence statement, by order of as it turns out the High Priest himself. Paul rebukes, is accused of lese majeste, and corrects himself on a key OT scripture, apologising that he did not realise it was the High Priest. Of course, the point that he was struck contrary to the very law they were judigning him under was also made. [Recall here the pummelling of Jesus in his trial. The implicit contrast is corrective, but the subtle hint is that in any case abusive authorities are not fit judges and will act unjustly. Within days, the same judges would try to use a further hearing as an opportunity for assassination. Which sets up the tribune's action to send Paul to Caesarea under escort of 400 armed foot and 70 armed horse; i.e. the doctrine of interposition by a civil authority in defence of justice in the teeth of corrupt authority is illustrated. And -- sadly, given Rom 2:14 ff -- the PAGAN does rather better than the High Priest of God. this shows how "they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." of course, this is to say that he core Biblical morality reflects the character of our Creator and are stamped in our hearts and minds so that they are evident to the thoughtful and disinterested eye. In other words, unless "fe we corns bein' mashed," we know and can reason pretty well enough what is fair and just.])
6 –> This is the context for Paul’s remark to the Corinthians who were prone to challenge his authority:
>> 1 Cor 14:37 If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, he should acknowledge that what I write to you is the Lord’s command. 14:38 If someone does not recognize this, he is not recognized . . . >>
7 –> To this, Peter adds a proviso of caution to the unlearned:
>> 2 Pet 3:15 And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation,51 just as also our dear brother Paul52 wrote to you,53 according to the wisdom given to him, 3:16 speaking of these things in all his letters.54 Some things in these letters55 are hard to understand, things56 the ignorant and unstable twist57 to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures.58 3:17 Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned,59 be on your guard that you do not get led astray by the error of these unprincipled men60 and fall from your firm grasp on the truth.61 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge62 of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the honor both now and on63 that eternal day. >>
8 –> By these, we may easily enough test the quality of the spirituality of those who hold forth on matters theological.
9 –> For, if they are unwilling to accept Paul (or other apostles, by reasonable extension), and if they mishandle the scriptures by failing to read them objectively and fairly in an informed manner, they disqualify themselves as teachers or preachers.
10 –> Coming back to the matter under current focus, we have rather explicit teachings by Paul in Rom 13:1 – 10, an historical outworking within months of composition of that letter, and a general biblical context tracing back to Moses with many shining exemplars such as Daniel and Nehemiah and David along the way.
11 –> So, the issue is actually quite simple: whose report will we believe, why. To which, the proper answer is that God has commissioned the apostles and has led them through situations and cases that made them and their close associates record examples and explicit teachings that guide the church through the days of our age until that Day that is soon to dawn.
12 –> As for me and my house, we will believe the report of the Lord. For:
____________
>>2 Tim 3:12 Now in fact all who want to live godly lives in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 3:13 But evil people and charlatans will go from bad to worse,18 deceiving others and being deceived themselves.19 3:14 You, however, must continue20 in the things you have learned and are confident about. You know21 who taught you22 3:15 and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 3:16 Every scripture23 is inspired by God24 and useful for teaching, for reproof,25 for correction, and for training in righteousness, 3:17 that the person dedicated to God26 may be capable27 and equipped for every good work. >>
____________
And, that includes the work of living in civil society, and supporting the civil peace of justice that enables the gospel to have free course.
Good day
De Dictionary
Dictionary // October 31, 2009 at 6:00 AM
PS: Maybe I need to make it explicit: Paul’s epistles are as much scripture as “the other scriptures” and so if someone is unwilling to heed them or otherwise wrenches them away from an informed and contextually well grounded reading, he disqualifies himself as a teacher of the Gospel. (In this context, let us not forget: Paul’s epistles are the FIRST of the NT scriptures — and in that record the key creedal statement of the gospel in 1 Cor 15:1 – 11 that credibly dates to AD 35 – 38 — and indeed if one looks at Peter’s theology from his epistles, one will find that hey are very close indeed to Paul. Paul, inter alia was the church’s first and greatest systematising theologian; and was recogniseed as such by the very first Church Council, which was led by the circle of the 12 and the wider cluster of elders who would by and larger have known Jesus and his life and teaching personally. That is why the apostate have always hated or distorted his works. BTW, Luke was the first church historian, and Jesus is the Church’s Lord and master teacher, whose instructions emphasised what is even more important than systematics in many ways: moral transformation through liberation from the demonic [and I do not mean that figuratively, there is a personally active occult principle of bondage, chaos and deception in our world . . . the basic motivation of say a false political messiah such as a Hitler (who had a clear fascination with the occult, and would fall to the ground, foaming at he mouth and chewing the carpet in his extreme rages, while exerting an uncanny personal magnetism and persuasiveness . . . )], spiritual rebirth and growth, leading to the shining of a light in a dark world.
Dictionary // October 31, 2009 at 6:33 AM
PPS: Note as well the fulfillment of prophecy focus in Luke etc. which adds a new dimension to the historical focus of Greek thought. There is Someone who controls the future and so can predict it accurately. One who loves us and has acted into history to save us from our sins and the chaos that results form bondage to sin and error.
This is based on the OT challenge we may read in Isaiah, exposing the futility of dumb — save when the priests rig a mechanism and speaking tube — and powerless idols:
_____________
>> ISA 41:21 “Present your case,” says the LORD.
“Set forth your arguments,” says Jacob’s King.
ISA 41:22 “Bring in your idols to tell us
what is going to happen.
Tell us what the former things were,
so that we may consider them
and know their final outcome.
Or declare to us the things to come,
ISA 41:23 tell us what the future holds,
so we may know that you are gods.
Do something, whether good or bad,
so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear.
ISA 41:24 But you are less than nothing
and your works are utterly worthless;
he who chooses you is detestable . . . >>
__________
And of course, this is fulfilled in grand measure as we compare 1 Cor 15:1 – 11 with Isaiah 53:
_______________
>> ISA 53:1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
ISA 53:4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
ISA 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
ISA 53:6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
ISA 53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
ISA 53:9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
ISA 53:10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
ISA 53:11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
ISA 53:12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors. >>
Compare this to 1 Cor 15, recording teachings dating to the mid 30’s, c. 55 AD:
>> 1 Cor 15: 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born . . . . 11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed. >>
________________
So much is this the case, that various attempts have been made to deflect its force. they fail, spectacularly. (Cf this, also.)
Dictionary // October 31, 2009 at 6:51 AM
PPPS: A suggestion, for those seeking to build up a Bible study base; though of course nothing substitutes for a serious study programme in the relevant fields.. Go to the eSword site, and download eSword and a good cluster of resources. [I have got myself something like 1 & 1/2 gigs worth without half trying, so make sure you have the HD space.] In particular, get the Matthew Henry complete commentary, and while you are at it look up serious subsidiary sites that provide eSword resources [try D Cox for starters; NB you may need to manually load files into target folders so make sure you know what to do for those cases], and get them, e.g. Barnes Notes, Darby, Clarke, JFB etc, and the classic Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias, like ISBE 1915. Also get some original language resources — I love my original language versions with hotlink to Strongs numbers Gk and Heb MSS. Read the remarks in the classic MH commentary for Acts 21 – 23. “Muy interesante.” In fact, mind-blowing. (Or, start here at CCEL.)
Micro Mock Engineer // October 31, 2009 at 7:02 AM
“@MME, You are beginning to sound just like Catholics and Anglicans”
ROTFL… no Zoe, I am beginning to sound like virtually all Christians did before they sold their soul for secular power (circa 313 A.D…. lookup the Edict of Milan). I am beginning to sound like Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius, Clement of Alexandria, Taitan, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Arnobius, Cyprian of Carthage, Athenagoras of Athens… and the list goes on. It ‘may’ do you and Dictionary a world of good to conduct some research on each of these individuals. When you’re done, I also highly recommend the works and biographies of more recent Christians like Leo Tolstoy and Martin Luther King Jr.
———————————–
@Anonymous, man you trying to get me in trouble or wha? Why you asking me dem tough questions? The parts of the Bible that are negotiable, are those parts which are subject to interpretation… for what is interpretation but a negotiation of meaning :-)
You also asked about items in the Bible being subject to review in the light of new information like science… I happen to agree. St. Augustine does a good job of elaborating on this in his work “The Literal Interpretation of Genesis”… well worth a Google or Wikipedia search.
————————————-
@Bush Tea… man it tek you long enough to jump in, but I had a feeling those animal analogies would have dragged you out. LOL.
But BT… I agree entirely that “violence and force are fundamental realities in the structure of our world”. I also agree that we should “manage this basic force in the interest of the long-term goodwill of all society”… where we part ways is when you suggest that our method of managing it should be to “adopt” it ourselves in retaliation.
Evil and suffering may make us stronger, and are necessary ingredients in this “vale of Soul-making”… however this should not be seen as justification or encouragement for ourselves perpetrating evil and suffering on others.
Bush Tea // October 31, 2009 at 7:20 AM
….besides MME,
you should know better than to argue with someone name Dictionary – and sounding like GP’s big brother…. LOL
Dictionary // October 31, 2009 at 7:50 AM
MME:
I a well aware of the Fathers.
So was Luther 9far moreso than you or I), and you may observe his response to the attempt to impose the then official reading based on said fathers, councils and the pope.
The key issue is: back to the root sources, and a serious grappling with their import.
That is what you consistently refuse to do, and the reason is fairly obvious, from above: the sources devastate your claims.
Yes, Christians should be peaceful people, and the death by force of anyone is a horrible thing, so much so that it should rest heavily on the Christian heart and mind.
But equally, we live in a world where there are wolves, some of them running raw and naked, some hiding under sheep’s clothing, some even under shepherds’ clothing. In such a world, the apostle to the nations is clear, e.g. Rom 13:4b: God has ordained the civil authority as his sword-bearer, accountable to him for the defence of the civil peace of justice.
That starts with the rookie cop on beat patrol, and it goes all the way up to heads of state.
And, as we look in the whole counsel of scripture, we find men of god as civl authorities, all the way up to heads of state and chief ministers of heads of state.
So, this brings the matter back full circle to the pattern of the teachings of the scriptures, with footnotes for our civilisation; as previously sumarised:
_____________
. . . we should not be waspish, we should go the extra mile, we should respect legitimate authority from the teacher to the Queen, the civil officer has a duty to protect the civil peace, when a leader goes wrong, other leaders are duty bound to act in defence of justice, and that if a leader cannot be corrected he should be removed by responsible authorities and the people, with the general election being a specific mechanism for doing so peacefully. And, that in this context the force of words, the force of boycott, the force of the court of law, or the force of the sword are all instruments of force that must be judged on principles of justice and defence of the civil peace.
_______________
And, MME, if the head of state is not empowered to hold the sword in defence of the civil peace, neither is the policeman. (And do you hold that Christians should not be policemen? On what grounds?)
Think about where that points, MME.
D
Dictionary // October 31, 2009 at 7:57 AM
PS: MME, justice, including the sword of justice, is not an imposition of evil. Evil, being a perversion of what exists to ends that do not conform to the moral character of our Creator; a character which among other things is just. And just because sometimes we do fail does not excuse us from the duty of virtue, including justice through the defence of the civil peace.
Micro Mock Engineer // October 31, 2009 at 8:25 AM
@Dictionary…. so now you relying on Luther to refute the teachings and example set by the ‘Fathers’… LOL
Luther had his strong points and his weak points… as I am sure you are well aware. Do you share his views on books like James, Jude and Revelation :-)
————————-
@BT… man I know you like to see MME hold blows… LOL… here is another appropriate response in the circumstances…
“It seems to me that God has put us on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe. To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. Yet when we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly.” -1 Corinthians 4:9-13
Anonymous // October 31, 2009 at 8:33 AM
Zoe,
Catholics not only regard the complete bible as guidance for believers but church history and tradition (e.g veneration of Mary etc).
Zoe, Dictionary, MME
at least one of you is wrong! In the light of MME’s comment re “beginning to sound like virtually all Christians did before they sold their soul for secular power”, the stakes are high. (btw MME I am not suggesting that you are right).
Not Saved, don’t you find this all amusing?
Micro Mock Engineer // October 31, 2009 at 8:41 AM
Look…. I can understand why it is hard to accept Christ’s advice when the lure of secular power is so appealing… I even understand why others might conclude it is illogical advice… in fact, those who don’t believe in souls or something greater than our physical existence, are acting quite rationally when they reject the doctrine of nonviolent resistance. However it would be hypocritical of Christians who have examined the history, origin and behavior of the first practitioners of their religion, to condone violent resistance.
Anonymous // October 31, 2009 at 8:55 AM
MME
my final (?) comment on this matter,
I do not challenge your sincerity in aligning your beliefs with those of the first practitioners but find it disturbing that in the light of your comment re selling their souls, that so many, for so long got it so wrong with so much pain and suffering for so many others. And this I am asked to believe is divinely inspired?
Bush Tea // October 31, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Thing is MME, that essentially you are correct.
The issue here is your carte blank position that the use of power is exclusively secular. It isn’t!
If you understand that the whole purpose and focus of life on earth is the development of righteous character, then it should be clear that there is a relatively advanced state of personal development where the RIGHTEOUS use of force becomes an issue.
Put another way, if our aim is to learn to be ‘like’ God, then at some stage there is the need and indeed -requirement, to learn to exercise the correct use of force.
Few can rationalize the fact that God created the devil (and other evils) in this world and that God exercises absolute force on an ongoing basis.
But that is the reality.
The use of force to achieve secular ends is one thing. The righteous use of force by authorities in pursuit of Godly ends is exactly on the opposite end of the scale my friend….
Zoe // October 31, 2009 at 1:00 PM
@MME, “…No Zoe, I am beginning to sound like virtually *all* Christians before *they* sold their soul for secular power (Circa 313 A.D).”
How many volumes of competent, well recognized Church history do you have?
Don’t try teaching me about church history, and the fathers, I have access to ALL of it right here in my personal library!
Further, your virtual carte blanche sweep of ‘…virtually *all* Christians…” Is grossly inaccurate , as prior to the beginning of Roman Catholicism, the official state/church union with Constantine and his edict of toleration in 313 A.D, Christianity had already without a stroke of sword or intrigue, achieved over false religion the internal victory of spirit over matter, truth over falsehood, of faith over superstition, of worship of the One True Living God, over idolatry, of morality over corruption.
Under three hundred years of oppression, it had preserved its irrepressible moral vigor, and abundantly earned its new social position.
BUT, MME, here is where you are so wrong in saying *all* Christians yielded to the secular powers, for it is vital to always remember, that God never leaves Himself without a true witness(s) to the True Gospel of Christ; and even through the hybrid state/church of the Empire produced Roman Catholicism, there HAS ALWAYS being a remnant of true believers, that still remained faithful to Jesus Christ, and, therefore, the dissenting sects, who derived NO benefit from this state/church union, BUT, were rather subject to persecution from the state and from established Roman Catholicism.
In this regard, Turtullian had even held that the Christian profession to be irreconciliable with the office of a Roman Emperor.
Zoe // October 31, 2009 at 2:13 PM
@MME, Back to Romans 13, verses 1-7.
The Secular Life of The Christians.
The believer is to recognize:
1. The Responsibilities of A Nation’s
Leaders (13: 1-6)
A. Their Godward Responsibilities
(13: 1-2)
1. Governments Are Appointed by God
(13:1)
2. Governments Are Approved by God
(13:2)
B. They are Governmental
Responsibilities ( 13: 3-6)
1, They Are Responsible for National
Security (13: 3-5)
a. To Protect the Community
(13: 3-4a)
(1) By Resisting Outlawed Members
of the Community (13:3a)
(2) By Recognizing Outstanding
Members of the Community
(13:3b-4a)
b. To Punish the Criminal (13: 4b-5)
II. The Rights Of A Nation’s Leaders
(13:7)
A. Their Right to Our Monetary
Support
1. To Our Tribute
2. To Our Custom
B. Their Right to Our Moral
Support
1. Fear – Rendered to Bad Rulers
2. Honor – Rendered to Good
Rulers.
The Godward Responsibility of Rulers (13: 1-2).
Human government derives its authority from God. Paul shows that governments are (1) appointed by God. He says, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, For there IS NO POWER but of God; the POWERS that be are ORDAINED of God” (v.1). Human government WAS inaugurated by God afther the flood, when He placed into Noah’s hand, the *sword* of the magistrate. “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man (civil authority) shall his blood be shed (Gen. 9:6) were the words which launched man on the road to self-government under God. The highest function of government IS the judicial taking of life, the one thing emphasized in the divine decree. All other functions of government are implied in that.
Like everything else entrusted to man, human government has failed terribly, in many instances, over and over again. The sword of the magistrate became the sword of the conqueror.The right to legislate and govern man proved to be a heady wine for a fallen, sinful race. The story of the tower of Babel shows how man used his new-found authority to plan organized rebellion against the very throne of God itself. Up until this time rebellion had been on an individual basis, BUT, now, it had become federated. The world’s first “united nations” with headquarters at Babylon symbolizes the last one. Genesis 11 and 12 foreshadow Revelation 13, 17-18.
Despite the abuses of government power, human government IS still a divine institution. “The powers that be ARE ordained of God.” The word “powers” here means “delegated authorities” and the word “ordained” means “appointed.”
Evil men may be elected to power, or may seize power. They may have no thought of God at all, but the very fact that He permits them to seize the reigns of government, means that He has a purpose to fulfill even through their misrule. It is a saying well worth considering, that ‘people get the kind of government they deserve.’ Governments may be weak or strong, just or oppressive, benevolent or cruel, wise or foolish, BUT, in each case God has His way and moves His own soveriegn plans forward. God balances one nation off against another. He uses one nation to chastise another. Nations come and go, kingdoms rise and fall, empires wax and wane, BUT, behind them all, IS Almighty God, overruling in the affairs of men. Wars and rumors of war, famines and pestilences, depressions and disasters, all are woven into the fabric of history. From our viewpoint, the stands may seem tangled, meaningless, hopelessly knotted, unequal and wrong. BUT, the tapestry He is weaving, IS perfect, and all the pressures of Satanic force, and human sin are gloriously overruled by a God, who IS both Omnipotent, and Omniscient. What James Russel Lowell said of individuals is just as true of nations:
“Careless seems the great Avenger; history’s pages but record
One death-grapple in the darkness ‘twixt old systems and the Word
Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne-
Yet that scaffold sways the future and, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own.”
Nebuchadnezzar, mighty king of Babylon, had to learn the hard way, that, “the heavens do rule” (Dan. 4:26) After his terrible experience, this soveriegn truth was brought before him, in which he asserted:
“I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured Him, that liveth for ever, whose *dominion* IS an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom IS from generation to generation, and ALL the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and NONE can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest thou?” (dan. 4:34-35).
The whole of Bible history is intended to reinforce the truth, that;
“The powers that be ARE ordained of God”
Zoe // October 31, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Now, back to the *Leftist* as there are a number of them right here in Bimshire, and some expressing their twisted perception of reality on BU.
In Love with Hanoi’s Butchers.
In the mid-1960s, while the Stalin-like experiment was fillings Leftists’ hearts with warmth, hope, and inspiration, the Vietnam War began significantly escalating. This, naturally, gave Leftists a new object of worship; a rutheless dictatorship that was at war with the United States, and killling American soldiers. For the Left, this was a god-send, just as *Islamist* terrorism against Americans would be a generation later.
Just like Stalin’s Soviet Union and Castro’s Cuba, Communist North Vietnam perpertrated a Red Terror on a mass scale. Purges eliminated ALL opposition. Trotskyites, for example were decimated and their leader was put to death. Some 50,000 executions occurred in the countryside alone. As Jean-Louis Margolin, the authority on the North Vietnamese gulag, has noted:
“Between 50,000 and 100,000 people were imprisoned, 86% of the members of Party cells in the countryside were purged, as were 95% of the *cadres* in the Anti-French resistance.”
The regime focused its terror especially on intellectuals. Margolin notes, that in 1958 alone, “476 ‘ideological saboteurs’ were forced to make public acts of self-criticism, and were sent either to work camps or to the Vietnamese equivalent of the Chinese *laogai* [camps for 're-education through labor'].”
The regime also followed its Stalinist and Maoist role models in initiating a program of forced collectivization of agriculture, with horrifying results. With instruction and supervision from their Chinese mentors. the North Vietnamese enforced a “land reform” campaign in which tens of thousands of innocent Vietnamese peasants were exterminated. Noting, that this “land reform” was “a deliberate and brutal act of mass murder.” American scholar Stephen Morris comments on the overall nature of North Vietnamese terror:
“It was a nation run by a Marxist-Leninist vanguard party, monolithic in its internal organization, its secret police and its insistence on either co-opting or mudering ALL of its political rivals. It was Stalinist in its ambition to control every aspect of society, its intent to *destroy* all autonomous social forces, and its primitive ideology of a united communist world.”
As occurred in every socialist testing ground that shared a border with a free society, a mass exodus ensued. More than a 1,000,000 northerners fled to South Vietnam to escape the monstrous communist regime.
Faced with these horrors, *Leftist* celebrated the new killing machine all the more eagerly. Content with venerating the regime from afar at first, Leftists could no longer contain themselves once tyranny found itself at war with the United States. In the mid-1960s they began making pilgrimages to North Vietnam to express their devotion in person.
When one understands the psychological mindset, *psychosis* of the *Leftist* it made perfect sense, as the diagnosis explains, Leftists’ veneration for an adversarial society always increases along with that society’s antagonism toward the United States. Being at war with the United States, wins a totlitarian regime the most points. This reality has resurfaced in the terror war some forty years after the first pilgrimages to Hanoi.
Without doubt, the Vietnam war provided a priceless gift to the Left. Lefists were now able to claim that the Vietnam conflict itself was the cause of their rage, when in fact, it was just a *symptom* of their own inner dysfunctionality. Jerry Rubin boasted:
“If there had been NO Vietnam War, we would have invented one.”
As Paul Hollander explains, leftist fury about Vietnam:
“Had sources other than the aggrieved concern with the consequences of the war per se, Vietnam mobilized the rejection, criticism, or hatred, as the case may be, of American society that had been dormant or partially articulated earlier. The war gave new vehemence and assurance to the social critics who languished during the placid fifties without major issues or causes that could have “offered the key to a systematic criticism of America.” Vietnam was more a catalyst than a root cause of the rejection of American society in the 1960s. It confirmed all lurking apprehensions about the United States among the critically disposed and the estranged.”
The phrase Hollander quotes in this passage comes from Susan Sontag: :Vietnam offered the key to a systematic criticism of America.”
Therefore, when the war escalated in the mid-1960s the *Leftist* began to experience the bloodshed vicariously through the Vietcong, the protest in America exploded. As Leftist Rubin put it, speaking on behalf of the antiwar activists:
“And in America we are all learning how to become Viet Kong.” Leftists’ were able to reject their own society as never before, while identifying with a new *brutal* tyranny. And as they jabbed their angry fists in the air, the political pligrimages began.
Sontag and novelist Mary McCarthy both visited Hanoi in the spring of 1968, a few months before Sontag visited Cuba. It was a most fitting time to pay homage to these *tyrannical* regimes.
In the Tet offensive of January-February, the Vietcong had done what attracted *Leftist* most; they perpetrated a *massacre* during the few weeks that the communist controlled the city of Hue’ the ancient imperial capital, as Margolin notes:
“[a]t least 3,000 people were massacred, including Vietnamese priests, French religious workers, German doctors, and a number of officals and government workers. The number of deaths was higher than in the massacres carried out by Americans. Some of the victims were buried alive, others were taken away to “study sessions,” from which they never returned.”
As the bloodshed peaked, Leftists flocked to the scene.
Sontag’s memoir of her odessey to North Vietnam, ‘Trip to Hanoi’ contains almost every sympton noted in the Leftist’s diagnosis. Every page of her account gives voice to her self-flagellating sense of guilt for being a wealthy citizen of the imperialist power that was in her mind, vitimizing the Vietnamese for some vague and sinister reason. Her message is clear; she loathes herself for having been poisoned by her capitalist society and its sinful pleasures:
“Of course, I could live in Vietnam, or an ethical society like this one – but not without the loss of a big part of myself. Though I believe incorporation into such a society will greatly improve the lives of most people in the world (and therefore support the advent of such societies). I imagine it will in many ways improvish mine. I live in an unethical society that coarsens the sensibilities and thwarts the capacities for goodness of most people that makes available for minority consumption an astonishing array of intellectual and aesthetic pleasures. Those who don’t enjoy (in both senses) my pleasures have every right, from their side, to regard my consciousness as spoiled, corrupt, decadent. I, from my side, can’t deny the immense richness of these pleasures, or my addiction to them.”
And, so poor Susan Sontag, cannot afford the luxury of living in the paradise she venerates. She does not consider herself good enough; that entitlement she leaves for the enslaved Vietnamese.
A schizophrenic outlook emerges, as Sontag believes she has found paradise in Hanoi, YET, considers herself luckier than the North Vietnamse because of the wealthier society from which she hails. She feels guilty for reaping the benefits of a society that she admits gives her more; but which she nonetheless HATES. She forgives herself for this grievous sin, by identifying herself with the victims of the society she worships.
What utter delusion, lives in the distorted, irrational minds of Leftist!
Micro Mock Engineer // October 31, 2009 at 7:11 PM
“Don’t try teaching me about church history, and the fathers, I have access to ALL of it right here in my personal library!”
ROTFL… maybe they spent too much time on the shelf, and not enough time being read and studied.
Read and study Romans 12, and maybe Romans 13 will make more sense to you. Either Paul was a complete fool who contradicted himself in successive verses, or you have misinterpreted the passage.
Of course we must subordinate ourselves to the authorities, but this does not mean swearing allegiance or fighting wars for it… it simply means, in keeping with Romans 12, that we should not fight the authorities or vie for secular power ourselves, but rather we should be a people set apart from this world… as Paul says in Roman 12 “be not conformed to this world”…
“bless them which persecute you”… “recompense to no man evil for evil”… “avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”… “if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.”… “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.”… it is bewildering that anyone reading this in the preceding verse could have the interpretation that you and Dictionary have of Romans 13. If you want to understand what the submission to authorities described in Romans 13 is all about, you need look no further than Christ’s example of submission and death at the hands of authorities.
You know, I can understand Anonymous’ position because as far as he is concerned the whole thing is a load of crap… but for the life of me, I cannot understand how you and Dictionary could apply such illogical interpretations to Romans 13… especially in light of the examples set by Christ himself and the early Christian leaders.
As I said… bewildering… maybe it stems from confusing ’submission’ with ‘allegiance’… I don’t know, but my advice to you is to dust off those books and take another read.
Micro Mock Engineer // October 31, 2009 at 7:28 PM
“The righteous use of force by authorities in pursuit of Godly ends is exactly on the opposite end of the scale my friend”
……………….
Which side is righteous in the Middle East conflict BT? Which army does BBE support in that conflict?
The only righteous war is the one that will end all wars. :-)
Bush Tea // October 31, 2009 at 8:33 PM
@ MME
….who do you think you are??
….Zoe? LOL!!
…you are using an example where two idiots are fighting each other to present an argument that NO fight is ever worthy of being waged?
….what about the fight that presents itself when you come across a young thug mugging your elderly widowed neighbour….? do you turn HER other cheek?
What about the fight that presents itself when a few misguided students tries to terrorize a whole school, or even community, to the total ruin of everyone else?
…are you then saying that in such situations, authorities (and Christian neighbors) are not to act forcefully to protect that which is right.
So here is my point.
Christians should not use force or violence for secular ends – so in that I agree with your position 100%.
But we are in a battle – not against flesh and blood, but against highly organised principalities of spiritual wickedness. Why is it inconceivable that the use of force – properly applied – would be one of the tools in a mature Christian’s arsenal?
This is also reinforced by the well repeated principles of sparing the rod with children (that we love), and of forcefully dealing with those who break societies’ laws.
….note that Jesus was not reluctant to use ‘force’ for good…. like healing, and even raising the dead…. But NEVER in his own secular interest.
ROK // October 31, 2009 at 8:48 PM
@BT
You choose to speak about evil and making sacrifices making men stronger. Would you agree to a generalisation of the two as challenges? and that it is overcoming challenges that make men stronger?
Bush Tea // October 31, 2009 at 11:19 PM
@ ROK
I have no idea what you are speaking about…. and Bush Tea rarely agrees to generalizations…
Zoe // November 1, 2009 at 12:04 AM
@MME, Paul was most certainly NO fool, neither did he contradict himself in successive verses, and I have not misinterpreted any of Paul’s teachings!
You, as I’ve said before, have a problem in not understanding the proper principles of Biblical Hermeneutics, Contextual Analysis, and Linguistic Exegesis, thereby confusing different themes, that are not always directly related to others that follow. I.e., Romans 12, and what Paul is dealing with here, as distinct from Romans 13.
“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your *bodies* a living sacrifice, holy acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.”
“And be NOT conformed to this world: but be ye *transformed* by the renewing of your *mind* that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” (Rom. 12: 1-2). emphasis added.
The last section of Romans is in two parts. First, Paul discusses ‘the laws of Christian life (12: 1-13:7), and then he dicusses the laws of Christian love (13: 8-16:24). The first of these sections is in three parts, and deals respectively with the believer’s *spiritual* *social* and *secular* relationships of life.
The discussion of the *spiritual* life of the Christian is in two parts. First, Paul deals with the Christian as a *believer* (12:1-2), and then with the Christian as a *brother* (12:3-13).
Romans 12:1, is dealing with the challenge to do with the believer’s *body* which Paul now reveals to be the ultimate key to the practice of the victorious Christian life. It is of little avail to know theoretically the truths of Romans 6-8, if the *body* is not surrendered so that the life of Christ can be expressed in the everyday affairs of life.
The express reason that Paul first identifies the *body* IS because our 5 senses, taste, scent, sight, hearing, and touch, are the primary things in our physical bodies, that invariably *RULE* our carnal, sinful nature, and still affects Christians in a serious way.
Think of each of the following expressions: “I don’t like the smell,” “It’s too hot.” “I’m too tired.” “Does it taste good.” “What does it feel like?” ‘Don’t do that, it hurts.” “Isn’t it ugly?” “Let me tell you what Betty said.” Each of these statements reflects a physical reaction. People are ruled by the senses, by which they see, feel, hear, taste or smell.
Therefore, Paul is beseeching Christians, to take control of these *senses* and do NOT allow them to rule their lives, bodies, (Gk.somata).
Secondly, Paul now turns to the their *minds* (nous), where the *inner* life of a man comes from, his thoughts, desires, intellect, will, and expresses itself in how we behave, relate, carry on our daily lives. Because, the *world* system around the Christian IS driven by the ’senses’ and carnally , unregenerate ‘minds’, Paul is saying ‘…NOT to be conformed to this world, BUT be transformed by the *renewing* of your mind…” (v.2)
I will deal with the other verses you mentioned in Romans 12 tomorrow. However, I must take you up on your latter statement, tonight.
“If you want to understand what submission to authorities described in Romans 13, is all about, you must look no further than Christ’s example of submission and death at the hands of authorities.”
MME, this statement really confirms not only how little you know about correct interpretation of God’s Word, BUT, also, how little you know and understand about Jesus’ His death, (crucifixion) and the eternal purpose for which He offered Himself, as a propitiation, substitution, for the redemption, of mankind.
What Jesus did in *offering* Himself has no direct bearing on our discussion re Romans 13.
Hear Him:
” As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father, and I *lay* down My Life for the sheep.”
“Therefore doth My Father love Me, because I *lay* down My life, that I might TAKE it again.”
Now, read carefully, what Jesus then goes on to say:
“NO MAN taketh it from ME, but I *lay* it down of Myself. I have the *power* to *lay* it down, and I have the power to take it again. This commandment have I received of My Father.” (John. 10: 15, 17, 18) emphasis added.
No individual, group, or government (authorities) had the power to kill Christ. He voluntarily died for our sins!
Dictionary // November 1, 2009 at 6:16 AM
Once more . . .
MME:
You will first note that I pointed to Luther as a witness to the objectively true fundamental problem of the Fathers and theologians more generally: if you simply scan their opinions, they are all over the place.
So, mere weight of citations and excerpts piled up is not good enough, as they differ and plainly can err.
The issue is that which is foundational, i.e. the classic and correct challenge of the Protestant Reformation, for all its inevitable flaws.
So, re: >> Look…. I can understand why it is hard to accept Christ’s advice when the lure of secular power is so appealing… I even understand why others might conclude it is illogical advice… >>
1 –> We must not confuse our reading for Christ’s teaching properly understood in its context. A subtle but easily made error. And, Jesus was not being irrational (“spiritual” does not equate to “irrational” . . . ! Cf Rom 12:1 – 2 etc: a renewed mind is a reformed one not an irrational one, and our spiritual worship is “reasonable”: NB Strongs here: Gk log-ik-os’ From G3056; rational (“logical”) . . . “); but instead it is your misreading that is leading you to reductio ad absurdum, which you are then projecting back out onto our Lord, Him who is the Logos of Jn 1, i.e. Reason Himself! (BTW pope Benedict XVI made a very interesting lecture on this at Regensberg that was much twisted and derided in the apostate media.)
2 –> The actual text, again, of Christ’s teachings in the Sermon on the Mount (as previously given by me):
>>MT 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them . . . . 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’45 5:39 But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer.46 But whoever strikes you on the47 right cheek, turn the other to him as well. 5:40 And if someone wants to sue you and to take your tunic,48 give him your coat also. 5:41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile,49 go with him two . . . >>
3 –> His teaching on God and Caesar, actual text again:
>> Matt 22:15 Then the Pharisees9 went out and planned together to entrap him with his own words.10 22:16 They sent to him their disciples along with the Herodians,11 saying, “Teacher, we know that you are truthful, and teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.12 You do not court anyone’s favor because you show no partiality.13 22:17 Tell us then, what do you think? Is it right14 to pay taxes15 to Caesar16 or not?”
22:18 But Jesus realized their evil intentions and said, “Hypocrites! Why are you testing me? 22:19 Show me the coin used for the tax.” So17 they brought him a denarius.18 22:20 Jesus19 said to them, “Whose image20 is this, and whose inscription?” 22:21 They replied,21 “Caesar’s.” He said to them,22 “Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”23 22:22 Now when they heard this they were stunned,24 and they left him and went away. >>
4 –> Teaching of his Apostle to the nations [notice the thematic connexion on Caesar and taxpaying . . . i.e. Paul is here elaborating on Jesus in light of the span of OT teaching that Christ came to "fulfill"], Paul (whom we are counselled by the college of Apostles — the base source on the gospels, BTW), wrote scripture that is prone to being wrenched destructively by the ill-instructed. And, we are thus given the test of scripture as a criterion of soundness:
>>Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment,1 and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority2 resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 13:3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 13:4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. 13:5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities3 but also because of your conscience.4 13:6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities5 are God’s servants devoted to governing.6 13:7 Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 13:9 For the commandments,7 “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,”8 (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”9 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. >>
5 –> Laid out like this, we can AGAIN see that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is primarily addressing how we deal with a personally offensive situation: we are not to be retaliatory or waspish. That is, so much as it lies with us, we are to support the civil peace. (This was presented before, but ignored and buried under mounds of irrelevant remarks, a well known distractive rhetorical pattern.)
6 –> At the same time, Jesus was not counselling passivity in the face of oppression or injustice: he was after all a reforming prophet who at least once and possibly twice cleansed the temple of moneychangers; whip in hand and tables tumbling away with ill-gotten gains rolling across the floor. that is, not being waspish is a basis for being a prophetic reformer, not a substitute for it.
7 –> Now, too, in teaching on love of neighbour [I won't cite in extenso as that would make this utterly too long], Jesus’ point in the Good Samaritan speaks again to the context of the civil peace: we extend peace across lines of enmity, and we act to succor the victims of enemies of that peace.
8 –> But, given a world in which wolves always abound, how is that peace set up and defended? At personal level, obviously, we must not join the wolves or join the indifferent and callous. But, there is also a civil level, which calls for different things.
9 –> At first level this comes out with the issue of Caesar and taxes. Jesus is answering a trick trap-question (an implicit destructive dilemma: yes pay tax and you alienate Israel chafing under colonial domination and violation of the Law that the King should be a brother Israelite, no don’t and you are a rebel against Rome) so he is not elaborate. But in his answer he is clear: Caesar — a pagan though he be and too often unjust though he be — has a role, and he has a right to taxes in support of that role.
10 –> Paul’s elaboration gives the context (and Zoe correctly points to the root Biblical history and teaching on government — onlookers notice the attempted dismissal by attack to the man instead of coming to grips with the substance; revealing the sad fundamental irresponsibility of the objectors).
11 –> In so elaborating Paul highlights that nationhood and government are instituted by God to guard the civil peace of justice. (By dividing humanity into nations with separate governments, languages and cultures, God ensures that here will be no easy way for one rebellious and tyrannical dictator to rise up, dominate and domineer all of humanity. This is the hidden danger in world government under sinful, rebellious and apostate men. And, in Rev, when such emerges again, it is a part of the final judgement of God on sinful man.)
12 –> Since the wolves, foreign and domestic, will not yield to reason or to gentle forbearance, Paul — following the mass of relevant Biblical teaching — explicitly highlights that the civil authority is armed with the sword of justice. That is, we are not now dealing with neighbours but those who have waged war against the civil peace and who will not be moved by gentle remonstrance or appeals to reform of error and abuse. So, law and law enforcement including defence forces, are specific institutions of government under God.
13 –> It is that context of doing the civil community good by protecting it, that Paul states that the sword is in the hands of the civil authority. (ONLOOKERS, OBSERVE THAT EVERY TIME I HAVE POINTED TO THE FIRST LEVEL OF SWORD-BEARING CIVIL AUTHORITY, THE POLICE, OBJECTORS HAVE FALLEN SILENT. No prizes for guessing why.)
14 –> And, it is in support of that task that the civil authority has taxing power. Which is of course an instrument of force: what happens if you refuse to pay your taxes, why? (Cf here Paul’s observations of rightly fearing the authority if one does the wrong.)
15 –> Of course there are many subtle balances, some of which I have brought out by discussing the events that happened only a few months after Paul wrote these words in AD 57.
16 –> Namely, we saw how the mob slandered against the life of Paul and sought to turn rule by the people into murder by the people. the tribune intervened with a significant armed contingent that broke up the riot, and tried to find out the charges and the defence, to seek a just outcome.
17 –> A hearing with the local civl authority, the Sanhedrin, led to abuse: Paul being slapped when he tried to make his defence statement and when he understandably retaliated (but in so doing overstepped Jesus’ turn the other cheek counsel — see the difference here?) he was accused of lese majeste. Soon the hearing broke up in disorder, once Paul had put his core point, which was a theological position not a crime against the civil peace.
18 –> Soon, a plot was made to use the pretext of a follow up hearing to set up murder by members of the mob acting as vigilantes. But, on learning of the plot the tribune acted to defend the prisoner, escorting him under armed guard — 400 foot and 70 horse — to the roman provincial capital; from which after years and various hearings in which he was found to be without fault, he had to appeal further to the throne as the final court of appeal.
19 –> So, here we see the same pattern of interposition as in Daniel: even a relatively junior official is an agent of justice under God, so he has a duty of justice, including corrective intervention officially or with the people, as appropriate. [All this is elaborated in the document here that I have linked before.]
20 –> Thus, we can see that there is no contradiction between Jesus and Paul, there is no inconsistency in the Biblical view; just, the objectors are missing the difference between being civil and gentle or showing forbearance within the civil peace and the public duty of the civil official to defend that peace from the wolves.
21 –> Onlookers, note how consistently the objectors avoid this topic, and how they refuse the point that one is responsible morally for the reasonably predictable or probable consequences of one’s counsel.
22 –> Similarly, the idea of the Christian as a part of a tiny isolated group with no civic duties to the community and/or no call to be involved in the civil functions and offices is also irresponsible. yes, we are not to be waspish, and we must be vigilant against abuse of office and the power of force [starting with words, not just the sword!], oppression, deception etc, but we must also see that the civil authority is God’s servant to defend the civil peace of justice.
_____________
There comes a time when we must draw the bottomline, and that time has now come.
for, we can clearly enough see the weight of the substance on the ethical and biblical/theological merits, and it is clear that the attempt to dismiss or ignore the counsel of the Apostle to the Nations indicates a fundamental error.
For, some plainly would take the counsel that we must not be waspish but rather forbear with our neighbour and use it to artificially cast one scripture against another in contention; ending up in a position that in effect says “wolves, welcome: sheep for lunch freely available.”
And that in the teeth of explicit teaching that God has established the civil authority to defend the civil peace; arming it with the only means effective against wolves: the sword. (And BTW, a big part of the issue is that the purpose of Government has in large part been dislocated, form defending the civl peace and setting up a zone of blessing in whch we may build a community, into the Benefasctor who uses taxing power to give plums tot he politically powerful at the expense of those who are less powerful on balance under the rules of the relevant polity. in a democratic polity, that means use of explicit taxation and inflationism — a hidden tax — to sustain “free” government services that are economically ruinous in the long run. So, let us learn that the resulting breakdown historically leads to fascist dictatorship as masses idolatrously seek political messiahs in the face of resulting crises, and let us hope we will act wisely. Sadly, current world and regional events do not give me much hope on this.)
Sadly, in our day, even in the face of patent reduction to absurdity, positions are often stoutly advocated.
MME (and others), please, please, please; think again.
De Dictionary
Dictionary // November 1, 2009 at 6:53 AM
PS: MME, I note your
>>Read and study Romans 12, and maybe Romans 13 will make more sense to you. Either Paul was a complete fool who contradicted himself in successive verses, or you have misinterpreted the passage. Of course we must subordinate ourselves to the authorities, but this does not mean swearing allegiance or fighting wars for it… it simply means, in keeping with Romans 12, that we should not fight the authorities or vie for secular power ourselves, but rather we should be a people set apart from this world… as Paul says in Roman 12 “be not conformed to this world”…
“bless them which persecute you”… “recompense to no man evil for evil”… “avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”… If you want to understand what the submission to authorities described in Romans 13 is all about, you need look no further than Christ’s example of submission and death at the hands of authorities. >>
. . . and think a word or two are in order.
Do y0u not see that the above shows that : (a) we are not to be waspish (the way of the world), but (b) it is also true that God has ordained the civil authority and armed it to defend the civil peace of justice; which (c) are entirely consistent one with the other?
Defending the civil peace of justice is not taking vengeance or recompensing evil for evil etc — note the underlying subtly slanderous projection of evil motive on just actions! — but instead it is the protective role of the shepherd who defends his flock from the wolf packs: think about what your misreading implies about the police, the first level of sword-bearing authority in defence of the civil peace!
In short, you have projected a twisted view of the civil authority onto the reading of Rom 13 you give; onward, that misreading would imply that God commands us to fund the perpetration of “evil” and “vengeance” through paying taxes.
Not at all.
The more correct, far more coherent understanding is that we are to be more than reasonable in upholding the civil peace through being forbearing with those who attack us within the civil community (so we are not to be vengeful, sharp tongued, vindictive, but do good to those who do us evil, pray for and patiently correct those who slander us and do us wrong otherwise, etc) AND we are to support the cause of justice as the armed shield of the civil peace, first of all with our taxes. And, on the strength of the whole counsel of Scripture, some of us will serve — as called by God — in the civil government. Others will be prophetic reformers, seeking to correct evils. Some will indeed be like Wilberforce, both. But all of us will be good citizens who act with neighbour love and do no harm that damages neighbour. Where, wolves are not neighbours, but enemies of all. So, even though we respect that the wolves are made in God’s image and are fellow persons [so we do not treat hem abusively or cruelly], we must defend the civil peace, starting with paying our taxes, supporting the police (and the police writ large . . . i.e. defence forces) and voting for good government that enacts and enforces just law.
Dictionary // November 1, 2009 at 7:09 AM
PPS: And on “vengeance is mine, I will repay says the Lord, directly observe Rom 13:4 >> [the civil authority] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution [Strongs: ek'-dik-os From G1537 and G1349; carrying justice out, that is, a punisher: - a (re-) venger] on the wrongdoer . . . >> What is God’s normal means of repaying those who break the civil peace and harm their neighbours: the civil authority is God’s servant, bearing the sword to execute punishment under justice; i.e. dovetailing precisely with the principle that we are not to be personally vengeful nor should we take the part of a vigilante or lynch mob.
Micro Mock Engineer // November 1, 2009 at 10:35 AM
“NO MAN taketh it from ME, but I *lay* it down of Myself.”
Zoe… that is the very definition of submission… and if that example isn’t good enough for you… here are some disciples submitting to authority (all the while praying for their attackers)…
Peter… crucified upside down
Andrew… crucified on an x-shaped cross
Bartholemew… flayed alive and beheaded
Thomas… stabbed with a lance at Corehandal
Jude… battered to death with a club and beheaded
Philip… crucified at Heirapole
Matthew… beheaded in Ethiopia
James… stabbed with a sword by King Herod
James the Lesser… stoned and beaten to death
Simon… crucified in Persia
Tahddeus… shot to death by arrows
… not one of these employed violent resistance or wielded a weapon in their defense. Similar can be said of the Church ‘Fathers’ of the first three centuries, many of whom suffered similar fates. Go figure. Dust off those books Zoe :-)
Micro Mock Engineer // November 1, 2009 at 10:37 AM
“@ MME ….who do you think you are?? ….Zoe? LOL!!”
LOL BT… I consider that a violent attack, but I will not respond in kind :-)
Before I address the ‘old widow’, and internal policing-type issues that seem to be challenging so many, let me ask you another question… which war over the past 2,000 years was just, and which army righteous?
By the way… I like that closing example of using “… ‘force’ for good…. like healing, and even raising the dead”. LOL… when I refer to violent resistance, it is not that type of force I am speaking of.
Micro Mock Engineer // November 1, 2009 at 10:39 AM
“You will first note that I pointed to Luther as a witness to the objectively true fundamental problem of the Fathers and theologians more generally: if you simply scan their opinions, they are all over the place.”
……………………………
Dictionary,
… and ‘Christians’ in Luther’s time and today are not all over the place? LOL… but seeing that you have invited me to scan their opinions, I accept this gracious offer and request that you assist me by providing one example of a pre-313 ‘Father’ whose opinion on war and violent resistance differed from that which I have presented… if you run into any difficulties, you can call on Zoe… he has access to all the volumes of competent, well recognized Church history in his personal library.
Zoe // November 1, 2009 at 12:18 PM
@MME, You are going around and around in circles of concentric *stubbornness* recalcitrance, bullheaded, cantankerous, and yes, ignorance, as you wilfully refuse in your obdurate folly, to accept the clear obvious biblical distinction between the individual, NOTE, the individual Christian who is called NOT to offer vile resistance, hate, etc., against those who do him wrong, as Dictionary has painstakingly expounded, time and again, with rational biblical citations, even BT has submitted his own rational arguments and questions, to which you REFUSE to answer, I KNOW that you see and understand all that has been submitted, BUT, *PRIDE* will not allow you to concede that you are wrong in your erroneous, stubbornness which has been glaringly exposed.
Civil authorities, who have been *ordained* by Almighty God, Romans 13, to act on behalf of the society, nation, with the *sword* if necessary, be it internal dissention, OR external threat, to its peace and safty; IS an entirely different matter to the *individual* imperative of not reacting with force, as was, the case with Peter down to Tahddeus, et al, right up to this very day, i.e., Sudan et al countries, BUT, this IS not to be confused with the *CIVIL* authorities, God ordained *right* Romans 13, and beginnings with Noah in Genesis, after the flood, to execute *wrath* against those who seek to subvert justice and civil order, be it a national uprising, OR from external tyrants.
MME, you remind me of Japan’s Stubbornness Club, where Stubbornness caused a split, formed by 2o people who considered themselves *obstinate* people, (like you) but wanted to be worthwhile members of society. Their monthly meetings became increasingly heated, and the vice-president resigned to form a rival Society for the Preservation of Stubbornness.
Stubborn Disease.
At least a quarter million and possibly a million citrus trees in California suffer from “stubborn disease,” according to a California plant pathologist. While the cause of “stubborn disease” in citrus is not known, we certainly know where *your* stubborn born disease comes from, in man is no mystery. This ailment can be traced back to the Garden of Eden!
BTW, MME, my library is in constant us, no dust here!
Micro Mock Engineer // November 1, 2009 at 3:48 PM
“as you wilfully refuse in your obdurate folly, to accept the clear obvious biblical distinction between the individual…”
ROTFL… ok Zoe… if you cant find any ‘individual’ examples, as is evidently the case, feel free to substitute an army or any group of pre-313 Christians engaged in violent resistance. After all, they had as good a reason as any group throughout history to wage ‘righteous war’ against their persecutors.
@Bush Tea… Zoe has cited you in defense of his doctrine of violent resistance… LOL… be careful of the company you keep :-)
Getting back to the example of your elderly widowed neighbour… the Christian response (based on pre-313 ‘first principles’) would be to defend her non-violently… even at the risk of suffering violence yourself. Ask yourself how Christ would have responded. I know this response is unlikely to satisfy most people, for certain not the BU Christian Soldiers, but anyone who checks the historical records can verify that this is indeed what Christianity’s first practitioners taught before their successors signed a pact with Constantine.
Micro Mock Engineer // November 1, 2009 at 4:08 PM
I recommend the works of Tolstoy, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. for those who have difficulty with the ‘practicality’ of nonviolent resistance.
Chapter 13 in Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Stride Toward Freedom”, specifically the paragraph titled “Muste, Nietzsche and Gandhi” is a good place to turn for quick insight… here are some of his words…
“Prior to reading Gandhi, I had about concluded that the ethics of Jesus were only effective in individual relationship. The “turn the other cheek” philosophy and the “love your enemies” philosophy were only valid, I felt, when individuals were in conflict with other individuals; when racial groups and nations were in conflict a more realistic approach seemed necessary. But after reading Gandhi, I saw how utterly mistaken I was.”
The full chapter can be read here…
http://salsa.net/peace/conv/8weekconv4-4.html
Anonymous // November 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Am I the only one sleeping well ’bout here? Imagine hardly a true Christian anywhere since 313 AD.
Bush Tea // November 1, 2009 at 9:00 PM
@MME
Man the pressure of this blogging thing like it getting to you yuh!! … or maybe you catching a version of the Stockholm syndrome …. you starting to behave like your persecutors.. LOL (real hard!!)
…step back a bit MM….(and remember the ‘E’)
…the point of contention is whether the use of force by Christians is ever justified….. you keep referring to wars, revenge, secular power and assorted other red herrings.
What war what?!?
We all agree that Christians should be way above things like these.
Now can we talk about the kinds of battles that Christians SHOULD be involved in? … and discuss whether any use of force may ever be appropriate?
As you know, our fight is not against flesh and blood (i.e. not about anything secular, or earthly) but against principalities and spiritual wickedness….
Now follow me carefully, -unlike Zoe and GP and those bright boys, Bush men do not have reference books, concordances and those other fancy things, (I have a bible somewhere, but have not seen it in years…)
The lesson about how Christians should behave lies in the raising of our youth…. (after careful thought, you will understand that this was the point that Jesus was making when he said ’suffer the children to come to me -for of such is the Kingdom….’)
Children are born with empty slates and are raised by society to hopefully join the community as successful adults one day.
(Christians begin with empty slates and hopefully grow ‘in the spirit’ to hopefully join the Kingdom (become members of the BBE clan) one day.
Do you really think that a good school Principal uses the cane for fun or personal gratification?
…or is it more likely that, using his vast experience, and because he loves and cares about his student’s welfare, he takes action to protect that wayward student from the wicked influences that threaten their future success?
So Senior teachers may use the rod….Likewise, any use of righteous force would be by highly developed Christians (not those still on milk as Paul described it..) ,,,and may well include healing, defending justice, and uplifting the weak…
Christian policeman?
You interpretation of the admonition to be in the world but not OF the world is rather simplistic… (especially for an Ing.) … this does nor forbid Christians from doing jobs like policeman, and even Soldiers. However, whatever the job, the Christian stands out as ‘not of this world’ by their outlook, focus on the Kingdom, and their example of righteousness.
Finally, take my foolish advice and stop arguing about anything that Paul says about Christianity. Paul was blessed with a special perception and understanding that makes him a misleading teacher…
..in short, Paul knew too much draft for his own good…. Bush Tea would know…rotfl
…Check the very last thing that Peter says in the new testament…. he understood the problem with Paul too…
Zoe // November 1, 2009 at 9:12 PM
@MME, the pre-313 Christians, individually and collectively, represented, were, the ‘Church’ persecuted, they were *NOT* the civil authorities, in the teeth of an pagan empire, torturing and killing them in the most brutal manner, there WAS no such civil authorities to come to their assistance, hence they could only depend of Christ to carry them through this horror; as they were NOT called to be an army to bear the *sword* and the *civil* authority, WAS the Roman soldiers, who persecuted and killed the Christians.
Now, as we come on down through the centuries, i.e., Ganghi, India, and Martin Luther King Jr, in the United States, we find an entirely different set of social, political, and civil dynamics at work.
Gandhi’s non-violent protest had the civil authorities, notwithstanding the colonial ’spirit’, to some extent, protecting him and his cause, as did King, which would have been unheard of in the days of the pre-313 era, or even today in any *Islamist* nation, as NO such non-violent demonstration IS permitted in these tyrannical regimes!
MME, can you imagine a world, hypothetically speaking, where there are NO civil authorities, as we have in Western culture, to bear the *sword* against those who hated what Gandhi and King were fighting for? If all nations were Islamist, Gandhi and King would have been executed instantly!
I, personally have gone through terrible oppression, slander, hatred, even my very ‘life’ was threatened on live Radio, as a direct result of uncompromisingly standing up for The Lord Jesus Christ, and His Word, and, I never sought to engage in any violent reaction, I fearlessly, stood my ground verbally, relentlessly, as I still do, ‘Earnestly Contending for the *faith* (doctrinal substance), once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3)
However, if our nation discovers a subversive plot, as America has discovered,(Islamist) to subtly take it over , then, I whole-heartedly support our God ordained *civil* authorities, i.e., Army, Police, etc, that must protect us from such subversive invasion, to rob us our our God-given freedom and civil rights.
So help me God, I can do no other!
Because, it IS biblically based, as God has ordained it to be so; until Jesus returns to establish His soveriegn riegn on earth!
Dictionary // November 2, 2009 at 5:40 AM
MME:
Right now, I am taking a pause from counselling a legislator on integrity legislation with teeth for a Caribbean country. (So, here I am wielding the sword at a couple of steps removed . . . and seeing on the ground how words exert force, especially when they are words of law.)
As I look at your latest dismissive remarks, I find again a conspicuous failure to engage the responsibility of civil authority to defend the civil peace of justice. That starts with the police, immigration and customs, all armed with the force of law and backed up by courts and in the end guns. (Even here in tiny islands, money does not move without MP5s etc to guard it these days. Gone are the days when the old .38 or even .32 service revolver was enough.)
the police officers who hold those MP5s and wear flack jackets know full well that they may be called upon to use the power of the sword; and that their lives are on the line too.
Indeed, shifting just slightly, in the yard of the main police station here (right in front of the gaol) sits a canvas-covered sturdy wooden boat a bit shy of 40 ft long, modelled off a Cigarette, with SEVEN outboard motors on its stern; and it had one more sitting in it, a spare.
A few months back, satellites picked up the boat running north from Venezuela, up to I think St Maarten, apparently running at about 60 – 80 mph in serious seas. On the way back, with Antigua CG chasing from behind, and with French CG [Guadeloupe] blocking in front, it turned in towards E coast here, in the exclusion zone.
Our little souped up inflatable had to stand int he way, with Antigua coming up in the rear in support. Attempted ramming (of our boat) and responsive gunfire; it seems from A’ga CG.
Our boys had to actually go up in a Zodiac with inner fibreglass bottom against a boat with a dozen likely druggie terrs in it. Turns out dozens of drums of gasoline for the engines were in the smuggler.
One dead druggie and I think two wounded in the end. Could have been worse, a lot worse.
Now, I am talking here about ordinary cops who go to church come Sunday or Saturday morning, who may sit on deacon’s boards etc; in a community the pop of a village in Barbados. A community that may have one murder every several years and whose biggest single crime problem is probably white collar corruption.
Now, should such cops lay down their weapons, and should they refuse to use the zodiac like that, even in the face of in effect armed drug terrorists?
What would predictably happen?
Now, so happens that I know one of the key cops in question reasonably well. Nice guy; real peaceful. But, he is the one who had to go up in a zodiac with maybe an MP5 if so much against probably SMG armed druggies in a boat that could easily simply have run down and smashed the Zodiac.
My reading of Rom 13 is that this man should not be personally vindictive or waspish, but that as an officer of civil government he is armed with the sword to defend the civil peace from evildoers like this. A peace that needs defending in a world where literally over the course of a night druggie terrs loaded for bear can reach here from Venezuela, in a souped up speedboat doing maybe 80 mph. A Venezuela that also just happens to have Hezbollah bases and that just happens to be an ALLY of Iran that just publicly offered to host an offshore Iranian nuke programme and has just plunked down billions for subs, jets and tanks etc; while takign steps to shut down the independent voices in the media.
All, to deafening silence from CARICOM, including it seems Barbados. (Which has not had its mouth stuffed with Petrocaribe dollars and debt. Talk about financial force . . . )
My reading is that this man is not an evil doer [just to know him would make that ridiculous], nor is he acting vengefully. he is an avenger of justice, so appointed by God, and thus accountable before God with that stricter judgement that obtains for any who take up official positions. He needs prayer, support and counsel [as well as decent pay and provision for his widow and orphans if he should fall in the line of duty, as could so easily have happened that horrible morning only a few months ago], not demonisation and assertions or implications/ insinuations that simply for standing up to evil in defence of the community, he is evil himself.
Nor, do I find any compelling reason to read the Bible NT or OT to infer that he is an evil man to stand up in defence of justice, armed with a . . . Zodiac inflatable boat and maybe an MP5 if the authorities thought in advance that such should be issued. (And I remember the days in J’ca where cops with .38s and old WW 1 era .303s [the old bullnose version SMLE, not the W 2 era ones I saw in Barbados] and maybe a 12 ga shotgun, went up against terrorists armed with M 16s and AK 47s etc.)
I have repeatedly cited Rom 13, on that.
Maybe, I should add from Colossians, to make the matter further clear:
>>Col 1: 15He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together . . . .
Rom 13: 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Love, for the Day is Near
8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,”[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. >>
__________
Clear enough.
Good day.
De Dictionary
PS: Onlookers, observe how MME again failed to address the question on the merits on Luther, who cited a fact that is easily shown: the diversity across the fathers is proof enough that apart from the examination of the grounds for their opinion, simply mounting up lists of cites and claiming “consensus” is useless. No authority is better than his facts, assumptions and reasoning. I have laid out my reasoning, and cited Luther on the importance of doing that, explicitly disavowing him as any authority to be blindly followed. MME’s distractive attempt to dismiss Luther the man therefore shows that something is very wrong with how he is arguing.
PPS: here is 2 Cor 10:4 – 5 in Amp to clarify the locus of the spiritual warfare in view:
>> 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 (Amplified Bible)
4For the weapons of our warfare are not physical [weapons of flesh and blood], but they are mighty before God for the overthrow and destruction of strongholds,
5[Inasmuch as we] refute arguments and theories and reasonings and every proud and lofty thing that sets itself up against the [true] knowledge of God; and we lead every thought and purpose away captive into the obedience of Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One) . . . >>
That is, corrective argument is the spiritual strategy and weapon in view; countering the weapons of deception and confusion, principal devices of the Devil. And, by God’s grace, that is the weapon I have sought to wield. MME, maybe this, this and this will help you see and fix what has gone wrong with how you are reasoning.
Dictionary // November 2, 2009 at 5:42 AM
PPPS: Sorry on the italic. Also, try this on fallacies and agitprop
Dictionary // November 2, 2009 at 5:43 AM
P4s: try again: this on fallacies and agitprop
kiki // November 2, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Be Conscious
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/be-conscious/
Micro Mock Engineer // November 2, 2009 at 8:51 PM
“the diversity across the fathers is proof enough that apart from the examination of the grounds for their opinion, simply mounting up lists of cites and claiming “consensus” is useless.”
@Dictionary… if you disagree with the early Church ‘fathers’ position with respect to nonviolent resistance, say so, but don’t try to mislead people into believing that it is some sort of coincidence they all spoke and behaved in exactly the same way when it came to this issue.
There was absolutely no diversity across the early Church ‘fathers’ on the issue of nonviolent resistance… none. It is more than a passing curiosity that a group of people so diverse in opinions, would be unanimous on this one.
…………………………………….
@BT… LOL… so wait… you reduce my submissions to the question of whether Christians can be police? ROTFL… talk bout simplistic analysis. Don’t worry; it will all make sense to you in the end.
Without releasing too much draft, here is a rhetorical question… I am sure a discerning mind like yours will make the connection … Do you believe that ‘Christians’ have a monopoly on salvation? [Note, I said rhetorical… the last thing I want, is to start Zoe and Dictionary up again] :-)
Not Saved // November 2, 2009 at 8:52 PM
@GEM,
” [Notice the studied silence on such. A key step here would be to support the people of Iran and their legitimate representatives in their liberation struggle against their Islamist tyrants.]”
++++
The silence is because it has not (yet) become a topic of discussion.
But you know that.
As you have done many many times, you take the opportunity for a nasty swipe.
Shall I condemn you for every crime you have failed to mention and condemn?
And here, another nasty, callous accusation:
“ONLOOKERS, NOTICE HOW HITLER IS BEING “REHABILITATED” ”
Why? because I dont share your hypothesis? I dont care if you dont accept the views of the historians I presented. It is simply enough, they have an alternative, creditable view.
And how about this nasty closing strawman,
“So, it is those who by their arguments imply that cities have to go up in nuclear smoke and fire before serious responses can be taken [by those crippled by such blows?], who have a case to prove.”
Really? you have resorted to that?
Now look what is sad.
++++
You cant even have a conversation with MME without this kind of assertion:
“……maybe this, this and this will help you see and fix what has gone wrong with how you are reasoning.”
No, Mr GEM, sometimes people dont accept your reasoning.
Deal with it.
Micro Mock Engineer // November 2, 2009 at 9:03 PM
I en drop a classic poem in a long time… :-)
“Stand ye calm and resolute,
Like a forest close and mute,
With folded arms and looks which are
Weapons of unvanquished war.
And if then the tyrants dare,
Let them ride among you there,
Slash, and stab, and maim and hew,
What they like, that let them do.
With folded arms and steady eyes,
And little fear, and less surprise
Look upon them as they slay
Till their rage has died away
Then they will return with shame
To the place from which they came,
And the blood thus shed will speak
In hot blushes on their cheek.
Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you-
Ye are many — they are few”
- P.B. Shelley
Not Saved // November 2, 2009 at 9:15 PM
@MME,
I think you are quite correct in your view.
Question: did Jesus and Paul advocate the same religion?
Not Saved // November 2, 2009 at 9:34 PM
Two “greatest commandments”
- love god etc
- love your neighbours as yourself
On these commandments “hang all the law and the prophets”
Pretty clear to me.
Preemptive strikes not allowed !
Bush Tea // November 2, 2009 at 9:40 PM
@MME
I feel that some architect or something using your handle MME….this is not like you…
…instead of responding to specific challenges, you seem to be cherry picking minor points and then asking questions in response……
I take it that you get my point about righteous force…??
You ask….
“Do you believe that ‘Christians’ have a monopoly on salvation? ”
IMHO…
All that true ‘Christians’ have, is an opportunity to live a successful life. This ‘opportunity’ is conferred when the very spirit of God unlocks a previously closed aspect of their psyche.
(Since you raised this, the secular parallel to this is represented when the spirit (sperm) of a man fertilizes the egg of a woman; – providing a previously doomed egg with the potential to complete a 9-month term and IF SUCCESSFUL, to be born into the man’s family.)
Of course others can reap salvation besides Christians. …(a man can adopt…)
Besides,
The old prophets, and men of God, and also the coming phase will present unimaginable opportunities…
BTW
“Without releasing too much draft,…”
…you still screeching the draft after all these years? LOL
Man drop the draft….
Bush Tea // November 2, 2009 at 9:47 PM
@ Not Saved
WAIT….. you is some kind of Deacon now? I thought that you did not believe any of this stuff… now you is MME’s right hand man?
Which Paul you talking ’bout?
McCartney?
ROTFL…
Bush Tea // November 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM
@MME
“Ye are many — they are few”
That poem is fatally flawed.
…the opposite is true now.
Not Saved // November 2, 2009 at 10:19 PM
@BT,
LOL
And you still giving us the gospel according to the church of BT.
Not Saved // November 2, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Not Saved // November 2, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Seems we have a 5th column demonic clear and present danger.
Perhaps our BU christian soldiers will exhort us to take up the sword against them.
Dictionary // November 3, 2009 at 6:52 AM
MME and NS:
I am sorry.
You have now passed the threshold of reasonable discussion. (And certainly, I have spent far more time in trying to explain, correct and balance, step by step than is required by the principle of going the second mile.)
NS, recall you accused me unjustly of racism, justification of violent aggression etc, and posted several posts trying to argue that Hitler was acting like other german leaders; in a context that suggested moderation and reasonableness of his actions, as your allusion to AJP Taylor shows. It is I who had to point out that AJP was speaking of Hitler as being typical of behaviours that were anything but moderate, in light of largely medieval exemplars. But the issues of immoderation and aggression I rased were not on “hypotheses” but on evident facts and well-known testimony, tracing to the surviving german genrals, Churchill [a participant and witness himself -- read 1st vol of his history, focussing on the FACTS in evidence e.g. on the confidential german dissident testimony on the arms buildup that he broached in disguise in the UK parliament etc.] and others.
Your resort to further attacks to the man may well confuse those who will not scroll up, but the track record above speaks for itself. So far, it is deeply evident that you are not being serious on the merits.
Your snide use of a video with the radical secularist Rev Barry Lynn is a proof positive of that.
When you were called on what you have done, you failed to correct your mishbehaviour or apologise. You now add to your pattern of uncivil conduct.
That tells the sober minded onlooker what is really going on.
Please, think, change your mind and do better.
MME, I have already shown you enough to address the issue of the defence of the civil peace of justice, on the merits, if you really want to do so.
And, it is most definitely NOT misleading to point out that on many subjects the fathers were all over the place — and indeed I could give you in extenso on Augustine — greatest of the Latin fathers — from City of God on his views on civil authority. (Think about his discussion on the counsel the prophet John gave to Theodosius regarding military challenges and resulting battles.)
Of course Augustine was post Nicea.
That brings up the point: it is the merits on the facts not the personal circumstances that count; otherwise one indulges in appeals to or against the person, not the merits of the case. On those merits, for a considerable time now, you have a lot of the foundational C1 documentation and its implications presented above, with onward linked discussions. You have never been able to soundly address it, attempts to use excerpts from Rom 12 notwithstanding. For instance, the counsel to be civil with neighbours is not to be confused with or cast into contradiction to the duty of the civil official to defend the civil peace of justice.
I suggest you start from the issue as to whether the police should be armed in defence of the law, and whether a Christian can be a policeman; in light of the relevant texts and context. (The same test case you have repeatedly ignored.)
NS: you need to ask yourself whether the police, immigration etc had a proper duty and right to defend the general public of the USA [etc] from the 9-11 terrorist circle — who had no previous terrorism convictions or the like — in the months leading up to Sept 10 – 11, 2001. Defend them through enforcing the law, backed up with the force of arms. Defend them from a 5th column in their midst, comprising students at flying schools etc. defend them from a long planned attack that cost 3,000 their lives, destroyed major financial centres by turning hostage filled commercial airliners into suicide cruise missiles and in the process triggering major economic upheavals, while coming close to being a successful leadership decapitation strike on the leading western power.
Similarly were the passengers on flight 93 right to rise up against their hijackers, with improvised weapons?
[Onlookers, see what is really at stake? See what a 5th column is in reality, not the caricatured dismissals of NS?]
Good day
Dictionary
Micro Mock Engineer // November 3, 2009 at 7:02 AM
“I feel that some architect or something using your handle MME”
LOL… low blow
“Ye are many – they are few”
Context BT… Shelley was an atheist… his last line means that the oppressed outnumber the oppressors… as opposed to the ‘saved’ outnumbering the ‘unsaved’… but his use of Christian imagery and the irony of a nonbeliever promoting the strategy of nonviolent resistance against an oppressive ‘Christian’ regime (as would be repeated by another famous ‘nonbeliever’ from India)… that is priceless :-)
“Of course others can reap salvation besides Christians. …(a man can adopt…)”
… but look at my crosses though. I ask you about a half dozen easy yes/no questions higher up the thread that you refuse to answer… yet you choose to answer the one question I specifically ask you not to respond to…
… you on your own when the ‘righteous brothers’ show up with guns blazing. :-)
Micro Mock Engineer // November 3, 2009 at 7:16 AM
… you know what else is priceless?
Dictionary uses Augustine as an example of Church fathers being all over the place…
“it is most definitely NOT misleading to point out that on many subjects the fathers were all over the place — and indeed I could give you in extenso on Augustine”
… but then goes on to contradict himself by acknowledging that St. Augustine was one of those who came after most ‘Christians’ had sold their soul…
“Of course Augustine was post Nicea.”
This is as illogical a response to my submission as you can get.
ROTFL… What happen Dictionary… had trouble finding a pre-313 example to support your argument? Maybe Zoe and his exhaustive library on Church history can come to your rescue.
… by the way, show some respect and put the man title “Saint” before his name… LOL
Dictionary // November 3, 2009 at 12:02 PM
PS: Sigh. A summary on the subject of NS’s cirtes from Wiki on AJP [BTW, read the whole of that article!] from Hitler, Stresemann and the Discontinuity of German Foreign Policy Feuchtwanger, Edgar.
______________
>>When Hitler remilitarised the Rhineland in March 1936, it was a decisive turning point in the move of the Third Reich towards territorial expansion and war. Up to then Hitler might have been stopped without war and the Nazi regime might have been toppled as a result. With Germany’s western frontier again defended and soon fortified, as came to be the case after 1936, the Versailles system of security in Europe was finally undermined and the road was open to German expansion. Hitler’s coup in the spring of 1936, which he himself described as the most nerve-racking 24 hours of his career, would have been impossible had not the Allies withdrawn their troops from the Rhineland in June 1930, five years ahead of the date envisaged in the Treaty of Versailles. This withdrawal was the final achievement of Gustav Stresemann, the strong man of the Weimar Republic, who controlled German foreign policy continuously from 1923 until his death in October 1929. From this and from other revisions of the Versailles treaty negotiated by Stresemann it can be argued that his policy prepared the ground for Hitler’s drive towards war and conquest. An argument along these lines was advanced by A.J.P. Taylor in his revisionist book The Origins of the Second World War, published in 1961. According to Taylor, Hitler was not essentially different from other German leaders, going back well beyond Bismarck, who had all striven for expansion and domination. Yet few historians would now subscribe without reservation to this thesis, especially since Taylor failed to acknowledge the significance of Nazi ideology in bringing about war. In this article it is intended to highlight the deep differences between the policies pursued during the Weimar years, principally by Stresemann, and the racial ideology that motivated Hitler’s conduct . . . .
When Hitler became chancellor on 30 January 1933 much of the Versailles system had already been dismantled. This enabled him initially to give the impression that his foreign policy would be simply a continuation of that pursued by previous German governments. The impression was confirmed by his retention of the same foreign minister, von Neurath, a career diplomat who had served in the cabinets of Papen and Schleicher. This deceptive continuity in foreign policy had its counterpart in the domestic situation, where the veneer of legality had enabled Hitler and his party to take over the whole state apparatus without resistance. In fact the Nazi take-over was a profound revolution, arguably the most significant of the twentieth century, and the prelude to the greatest upheaval of the century, the second world war. In private Hitler made little secret of his intentions. In an address to the leading generals of the army, given within days of becoming chancellor, he spoke of ‘the conquest of new living space [Lebensraum] in the east and its ruthless Germanisation’. [NB: as announced in his Mein Kampf, c 1925] To achieve this there would be a complete reversal of the current situation at home: ‘the most stringent authoritarian regime, removal of the cancer of democracy … total extermination of Marxism’. There would be re-armament, military training for all, and pacifism would be completely expunged. It was to be war at home and abroad. Few of the generals listening to their new chancellor realised the full implications of what he was saying. As on many other occasions, Hitler was telling his audience what they wanted to hear. The aims of conservative German nationalists and the aims of Hitler were for the moment pointing in the same direction.
Hitler’s revolution
Initially Hitler did indeed proceed with considerable caution. He could not be sure that the Western Allies, suspecting his true aims, would not mount a pre-emptive strike while Germany was still disarmed. He was not the driving force behind early anti-Versailles moves in 1933, such as the German departure from the League of Nations and from the disarmament conference. He went out of his way to calm foreign fears about his regime, which were particularly aroused by his anti-Jewish measures. In a speech on 17 May 1933 he was profuse with declarations of peaceful intent, while also claiming that Germany had the right to equality with other nations. Even the SPD had to give its support to this speech, when it was in fact within days of being totally suppressed. Hitler had great success in hiding his ultimate purpose, arousing illusions both at home and abroad and feeding the hopes of those minded to appease him.
Hitler’s first major unilateral defiance of the Versailles treaty was his announcement, in March 1935, that conscription would be reintroduced and that an army of 55 divisions, as well as an air force, would be rapidly created. The remilitarisation of the Rhineland a year later, Mussolini’s breach with the Western powers over Abyssinia, and the Spanish civil war created a situation increasingly favourable to his intention of radically redrawing the map of Europe. By the end of 1937, Hitler, at the meeting with his senior advisers on 5 November recorded by Colonel Hossbach, was projecting immediate territorial expansion against Czechoslovakia and Austria. He was about to practise what he had envisaged in his book Mein Kampf, written in 1925 as a justification of his ideas after the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch. Thereafter his conduct of policy became increasingly reckless, until, with his attack on Poland in September 1939, he deliberately precipitated war, when he could have achieved his immediate aims without it. (When in 1945 he was holed up in his bunker, soon to commit suicide, he still regretted that he had not started the war a year earlier over Czechoslovakia.) Hitler’s impatience was fuelled by the fear that the rearmament of Britain and France would soon catch up with Germany’s, and by the knowledge that his charismatic leadership, the linchpin of the whole Nazi regime, had constantly to be renewed by ever more sensational successes. Rearmament at break-neck speed, on which he had insisted, was also compelling him into early action.
Change or continuity?
There was a world of difference between Hitler’s revolutionary drive for a racially-based empire and the cautious policy of Stresemann, conscious that even a revived Germany would have strict limits to her power. It was indeed one of the tragedies of the situation that the Allies, and France in particular, only made reluctant concessions to the democratic governments of Weimar, while it took them a long time to summon up the will to resist Hitler’s brutal creation of accomplished facts. The illusions which led to the policy of appeasement were fed, amongst other factors, by the difficulty of distinguishing between the aims of moderate German nationalists and the extremism of Hitler. Many in Britain thought that at Versailles Germany had been treated badly and that a far-reaching revision of the Versailles system was a price well worth paying for the maintenance of peace. In Germany conservative nationalists, such as the leaders of the army, thought that Hitler was advancing along the same road they wanted to tread. Even Stresemann had envisaged that changes, particularly of the German-Polish border, would in due course become feasible and that the Locarno treaties had not closed the door to this. The smoke-screen with which Hitler successfully disguised his radical aims meant that it eventually required a world war, entailing immense loss of life and destruction, to frustrate the Nazi project of domination and racial supremacy . . .
___________
Edgar Feuchtwanger teaches history at Southampton University and is the author of From Weimar to Hitler: Germany 1918-33 (2nd edn., Macmillan, 1995). He is at present writing a book on Imperial Germany and a biography of Bismarck. >>
_________________
Onlookers, I trust this helps set a base for a clearer understanding of the defects of the rhetoric used above to try to distract from the historically underscored issue of the failure of appeasement with the radically unappeasable and the significance of responding in good time to serious breaches of treaties meant to preserve a delicate balance of peace, before the situation spins utterly out of control.
Dictionary // November 3, 2009 at 12:03 PM
pardon, messed up a link
Zoe // November 3, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Asking ‘Not Saved’ as Dictionary has so graciously done, “Please, think, change you mind and do better.” Is like asking a leopard to change its *spots* or a *Fox* not to be *cunning* or *sly*
Not Saved is like his (spiritual) ‘father’ unable to think objectively, cannot discern ‘Truth’ from falsehood nor downright *lies* entirely consistent with being a rancorous *atheist* and the *befuddled* “Leftist” that he is!
MME, on the other hand, an intelligent man, BUT, treading into the arena of Biblical theology, and Chruch history,without having the necessary preparatory skills, expertise, know-how, in order to engage in any substantial, tangible, debate, meaningful to the facts, etc, etc.
Also, and this is where I am disappointed in MME, unlike Not Saved, who is *dead* spiritually; MME, has, based on the merited, condign, warranted facts, biblically, has chosen to be, *intellectually* dishonest, to save face, rather than admit he is wrong!
Pat // November 3, 2009 at 8:28 PM
This thread is like comedy central. Dictionary reads like a stuffed shirt, and halloween just gone.
anon // November 3, 2009 at 8:46 PM
Dictionary is obviuosly well educated, and an untellectual- not quite life the rift raf that frequents BU.
Does he not have the right to be himself.
Can you add anything of substance to the debate Pat, except for your little dirty jabs?
anon // November 3, 2009 at 8:52 PM
@ MME
by the way, show some respect and put the man title “Saint” before his name… LOL
Why? Do you think that Augustine wanted to be canonized?
What is the bibical definition of a saint?
It certainly is not one who has been canonnized by the RC church- the only organisation that does this.
What is the Biblical warrant for caslling some body Saint X? There is none!
Not Saved // November 3, 2009 at 9:23 PM
anon?
Come on Georgie, we know that is you, show yourself.
Dirty little jabs? Dictionary/GEM is the king.
LOL
Pat // November 3, 2009 at 9:34 PM
anon // November 3, 2009 at 8:46 PM
***********************
And which “Anon” are you?
Do you think that because someone can cut and paste and link to others opinions that they are educated and intellectual?
Well poor you! What do you have to add, except for being the “police” of this blog? Who appointed you “overseer”?
Cheupse….
Bush Tea // November 3, 2009 at 9:47 PM
Touche MME,
….you trick me with the Shelley thing…. you know full well that unlike Zoe, my library was largely made up of Biggles… when I had one, that is…!
LOL.
What would a bushman know about Shelley anyway?!! rotfl…
If as man, you would just admit that the use of force -in the right circumstances, with the right motive and in the right hands, is quite appropriate for a Christian we can all move on to more substantial topics….
….after all, there is no greater ‘user of force’ than BBE, and Christians are charged to strive to become like BBE…
…and if we cannot be trusted with using small force now, how can we ever be trusted with the ultimate…?
review the parable of the talents again…
……..
Current score= 2 to you; and 1 to BT
Bush Tea // November 3, 2009 at 10:02 PM
@MME
“… you on your own when the ‘righteous brothers’ show up with guns blazing. :-)”
LOL
…as if you normally provide any covering fire when the bushman comes under such attack…. ROTFL…
…..BT is trembling in his boots… Ha ha
I still can’t believe that you got NS on your side on this blog!!!
THAT alone should tell you that yuh wrong!!!! ha ha ha HA HA
Zoe // November 3, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Now, back to the central theme of this thread, *MUSLIM Mafia*, and the recently released, devastating book, uncovering the Islamist agenda that’s conspiring to Islamize America, from within, the “Council on American-Islamic Relations” (CAIR) not withstanding the massive volume of evidence stacked against it, exposing its deadly Islamist plot and plan, based on its *roots* in the “Muslim Brotherhood Credo” which states:
“Allah IS our goal, the Prophet (Muhammad) IS our guide, the Quran IS our constitution, Jihad IS our way, and *DEATH* for the glory of Allah IS our greatest ambition.” emphasis added.
Chris Gaubatz, along with two young ladies, pretended to convert to Islam, he grew a baird, they wore veils, and were able to infiltrate CAIR, whose national headquaters is just three blocks from the US Capitol, clandestinely, and legally, were able to remove, literally tons of evidence conforming the sinister plans by CAIR to *Islamize* America.
It is a fact, that CAIR is known by the U.S. government to be a Saudi-funded *terrorist* front group, whose terror connections caused the FBI earlier this year to cut off ties with the organization. The U.S Justice Department has likewise branded CAIR an “unindicted c0-conspirator” in the largest terror-funding trial in U.S. history. In other words, in law enforcement terms CAIR is a “nasty” organization. It has supported known terror groups like *Hamas*, it has engaged in placing interns and staffers in key congressional offices, and works ceaselessly to undermine America’s post-911 security, supported by numerous FBI agents confirmation.
Just like ACORN, who rather than admitting to its obvious corruption, once exposed, maintained its innocence, suing the duo who videotaped them, CAIR, yesterday, began the same thing, denying everything, blaming the FBI, and disputing the Justice Department designation as terror co-conspirator, and condemning members of Congress, who based on the irrefutable evidence from ‘within’ CAIR headquarters, have recently called for three separate federal probes into CAIR.
True to form, CAIR, yesterday, filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C., a lawsuit against Chris Gaubatz and his father, “Muslim Mafia” co-author, P. David Gaubatz.
On the Middle East side of things, the following is an article by Dr. David Zangen, Ma’ariv, 27. 10.09, p.2)
ISRAELI DOCTOR: DEAR JUDGE GOLDSTONE, THEY DECEIVED YOU, YOU ARE WRONG.
“Dear Judge Goldstone,
My name is Dr. David Zangen, I am consultant in Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes at Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem. Over 50% of my patients population is Palestinian from Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. I speak Arabic and initiated the first program for Palestinian physicians in the feild of Pediatric Endocrinology. The trained physicians were fully respected and were included as first authors of our studies that are published in the world’s leading professional journals.
But, at the same time, I happened to be the Chief Medical Officer of my brigade during Operation Defensive Shield, in Jenin, 2002. I was responsible for the medical treatment of our soldiers, but also for enabling the hospital in Jenin to provide full medical services to the civilian population, and I was personally involved in numerous medical treatments that Palestinians (including fighters) received from Isaeli physicians.
During and after the operation the Jenin Hospital was a source for what has been falsely called the massacre in Jenin in which 5,000 people were slaughtered. This same person, Dr. Abu Rali, has claimed that one part of the Jenin hospital was destrpyed by Israeli tank missiles: “12 tank rockets were shot at the hospital.” You should know, honorable Judge, that these statements have been proven and documented as outright lies, not only by Israeli sources but also by Human rights Watch and UN organizations, which counted only 52 dead on the Paslestinian side and 23 on the Israeli side. These organizations, and photograps of Jenin Hospital following the operation, showed no evidence of any destruction at the hospital buildings. this Dr. Abu Rali, a hospital director and physician, lies and incites in the service of false testimony. I cannot understand it. And you cannot understand it. But, unfortunately, this is what happened. Even people who would normally be considered reliable sources become advocates of blatant lies. Tragically, moral misbehaviour of doctors in the Palestinian Authority is not new. The Pediatrician, George Habash, sent his terrorists to kill children in Israeli schools, as did Hamas’ leader and pediatrician, Dr. Abd al-Aziz Rantisi, as well as pedistrician, Dr. Mahmud Zaher, who continues to encourage the launching of rockets from Gaza against innocent Israeli schools.
Please Judge Goldstone, you should really be careful when such blatant liars serve as the basis for your report. I am sure that you mean well, but being an eyewitness, both to the events in Jenin and to the subsequent media, and initially flase, UN reporting, I do understand what happened to you, how a person of such statue and integrity, could become associated with such a faulty report. Look, Judge Goldstone, at your report on the Al Fakhura incident on January 5-6th 2009 (paragraphs 652-688). You do report how Israel was accused for directly bombing the UNRWA school. It took two weeks for this accusation to be withdrawn. But you, honored Judge, went back to get your testimony only from the same people who spread the blood libel of the school bombing. Moreover, when analyzing the scene you claim that you could not verify the numbers of 24 dead and 40 wounded, but these numbers are not considered exaggerated. Finally, in the Factual Findings’ section, you already determine that 24 people were killed and 40 injured!
Did you, by any chance, try to validate any of these invented and inciting details. Did you look at the Al Jazeera or BBC reports from the same very day of the event? Did you try to validate your ‘Factual Findings’ conclusions by at least getting emergency room charts on the people admitted to their trauma department on this very day? Did you go over the ID’s of the “dead” and the place or cemetery where they were supposedly buried? No, you didn’t!
As a Judge I am sure that you did not mean to hurt Israel. I try to believe that you came to Gaza without prejudice. But a judge is expected to look, at least, for some evidence and varification (media, emergency room registration, burial places, etc) of the testimonies and not accept impossible “facts”. You have allowed yourself to be mislead by frabication made either by terrorists or doctors such as Dr. Abu Rali from Jenin.
I and my colleagues in Israel, are pround of the medical service that is given equally to every human being regardless of origin, we are also proud to belong to a nation that is identifed as having higher moral strandards than others.
I can tell you Judge Goldstone. Take this Al Fakhura incident, look at the media coverage from the very same day. See the events in their context. Try to live one day with the rrsponsibility for the existence of this small nation of 6,000,000 Jwes threatened consistantly by 300 million Muslims. I call on you to try and not draw conclusions from such lies and misleading witnesses, even if they come from so-called professionls. In the modern world, propaganda and lies are definitely a part of war. And as a judge, you should not serve as a tool for augmenting hatred and conflicts.
We desire peace. We love peace. And we try our utmost to fight for our right to exist while maintaining the highest possible moral standards, even at the cost of our lives.”
Another honest report from one was there, helping to care and attend, even wounded Palestinain fighters.
kiki // November 4, 2009 at 5:01 AM
Whoa… hello,hello,hello,helloooooooo .
Helloooo Please give a helping hand oh
jah to guide all of us together people are
straying and straying dividing themse…
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/vice-versa-love/
kiki // November 4, 2009 at 5:40 AM
Hip Hop Fury – GZA
Dictionary // November 4, 2009 at 6:47 AM
MME, re Augustine:
I simply chose to give you the leading Latin Father [who discussed the Christian and the state in extenso in the best known work from the fathers, City of God].
As I further explicitly stated (and which you ducked in responding, thus falling into a strawman fallacy), I used the post Nicea issue to show that the question is not persons and dates but issues and also the foundational teaching. And BTW, there is no good ground for inferring or suggesting or hinting that there was a sudden and dramatic imposed change in key church theology post 325 AD. (Dan Brown et al are propagating slanderous myths; myths they knew or should have known are false. that is there is a serious breach of duties of care here, especially when one asserts in one’s best selling work that the statements on artwork, documents etc are true. They demonstrably — cf here for simple starters and here for a solid theological response in extenso — are NOT.)
Thereafter there was indeed a progressively closer involvement of church and state but this was controversial, and records have survived on both sides.
So, the issue is back to what Luther said: given that the Fathers etc are in fact coming from diverse views on any number of topics, what they have to say may be interesting or even helpful on any given topic, but is plainly not decisive. For the Christian, what is decisive is the foundational teaching and example. Which is what I have laid out time and again above, step by step, with onward links for more.
And, while pacifism and indeed absolutised pacifism have been popular in many eras of church history, this is one side of the story. there is another side too, and the issue is what is the balanced, well-warranted view. Having surveyed the text and showed my reasons in outline, with onward links, I have summarised:
__________
>> . . . we should not be waspish, we should go the extra mile, we should respect legitimate authority from the teacher to the Queen, the civil officer has a duty to protect the civil peace, when a leader goes wrong, other leaders are duty bound to act in defence of justice, and that if a leader cannot be corrected he should be removed by responsible authorities and the people, with the general election being a specific mechanism for doing so peacefully. And, that in this context the force of words, the force of boycott, the force of the court of law, or the force of the sword are all instruments of force that must be judged on principles of justice and defence of the civil peace. >>
_____________
I have now given general and specific cases on the police as a key test.
In short: given that the police are plainly necessary, if your theology implies that he police are inherently unnecessary and evil, something is wrong. And, if Rom 13 etc show tha the civl authority is God’s servant to do us good by defending justice, one is hard pressed indeed to justify why a Christian cannot then serve as a policeman.
To date, you have provided no serious Bible study much less exegetical grounds or valid common sense reason [in light of the policeman example] that shows your point of view is correct to the C1, foundational era and teachings.
And, the astute onlooker can easily enough see that.
It is also why I am treating your attempt to divert from the foundational teachings to a subsequent era and sources that are lesser weight, as a fallacy of distraction.
G’day
Dictionary
__________
PS: On the actual theme in the main, cf developments here, where CAIR has reportedly filed a lawsuit against Gaubatz. of note from the article:
>> In the lawsuit, however, CAIR, which describes itself as a Muslim civil-rights group, does not defend itself against the book’s claims . . . . CAIR says it seeks to prevent any further disclosure or distribution of the 12,000 pages of documents Chris Gaubatz acquired from the group while working as an intern under the pseudonym David Marshall . . . .
Dave Gaubatz told WND the “research project pertaining to CAIR was conducted in a professional and legal manner.”
He said it was “funded by a high profile U.S. organization with very close ties to senior law enforcement and U.S. government officials.” . . . .
The publisher of “Muslim Mafia,” WND CEO Joseph Farah, defended the Gaubatzes two weeks ago in a letter to members of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus who had been warned by CAIR not to go ahead with a press conference calling for investigations of the book’s findings.
Farah asserted the CAIR material was legally obtained by Chris Gaubatz, who had been asked by CAIR officials “to shred documents he believed might be criminal evidence … and involve matters of national security.”
“On advice from counsel, he collected those documents and preserved them. None of the documents were ’stolen,’” Farah said.
“They were, in fact, handed to him by CAIR employees for destruction,” Farah wrote to the Congress members. “All of the documents are available for review by appropriate law-enforcement authorities and, in fact, some have already been provided to them.”
Farah concluded Chris Gaubatz’s “patriotic activities within CAIR, an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator, were done on advice of counsel at every step, and were in accordance with District of Columbia and Virginia state law.”
According to a Washington attorney, “it is a federal and state crime to participate in the destruction of evidence of a crime if reasonable suspicion exists the documents are evidence of criminal activity.”
David Gaubatz said he continues to maintain contact with law enforcement officials . . . >>
Smoking guns?
PPS: Link on the article cited yesterday on Hitler’s intent and action and why appeasement failed. The astute onlooker will recognise that apart from grumbling on excerpts [from REAL experts on the subject!], NS etc are unable to defend their revisionising of Hitler. Let us draw the appropriate lesson on what happens when we try to appease the unreasonable, so that we will not be doomed to repeat some of the worst chapters of history, this time with nukes in play.
PPPS: I trust, too, that onlookers will understand that — pace NS’s mockery above — the sort of hostage taking cutting the throats of stewardesses to gain access to cockpits, murder of flight deck crew and the deliberate flying of civil airliners filled with hostages into buildings where ordinary people were going about the ordinary affairs of life that took place on Sept 11 2001 was plainly demonic evil.
P4s: Peter on how Paul can be wrenched: >> 2 Pet 3:15 And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation,51 just as also our dear brother Paul52 wrote to you,53 according to the wisdom given to him, 3:16 speaking of these things in all his letters.54 Some things in these letters55 are hard to understand, things56 the ignorant and unstable twist57 to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures.58 3:17 Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned,59 be on your guard that you do not get led astray by the error of these unprincipled men60 and fall from your firm grasp on the truth.61 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge62 of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the honor both now and on63 that eternal day. >> We have been warned, not just on Paul but on the Scriptures as a whole.
Dictionary // November 4, 2009 at 6:54 AM
Footnote: A link on basic principles of sound Bible study. I have already highly recommended the eSWORD freeware Bible software [there are others out there too such as The Word and Xiphos] for those who want to dig in, accessing a rich library of original language texts, research tools, dictionaries, commentaries, and much more.
kiki // November 4, 2009 at 7:24 AM
Fittest of the Fittest
http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/fittest-of-the-fittest/
Zoe // November 4, 2009 at 11:19 AM
No preponderance of views/opinions coming from either the post-apostolic fathers, or for that matter any other group thereafter, IS valid, if it does not rest on sound exegesis and hermeneutics based on the self-authenticating authority of God’s Word.
It is patently obvious from the writings of many of the early ‘fathers’ that they did NOT grasp some of Paul’s profoundly inspired theology; i.e., Baptism, ‘Does Baptism Save Anyone?’ On this issue, our first explicit reference to infant baptism, which is unscriptural, comes from Terullian, a leader in the church in North Africa (ca 200). The second reference to infant baptism comes from the writings of Origen from Alexandria, Egypt. the third reference is found in the writngs of Cyprian, also from North Africa, in about ca 251.
Augustine is our fourth witness from North Africa who advocated infant baptism, and infant Communion, hear Augustine.
“If then, as so many divine testimonies agree, neither salvation nor eternal life is to be hoped for by any, *without* baptism and the body and blood of our Lord, it is in vain promised to infants without them.”
This practice of infant baptism, contrary to any scriptural warrant, then arose in North Africa in the latter part of the second century, largely due to the (unscriptual) belief that forgiveness of sins came through the sacraments. In keeping with this sacramentalism, Communion was also given to infants as well.
Only, the sealed authority of God’s Word, NOT the preponderance of views, held to by any amount of ‘fathers’ can validate any doctrine, this IS why millions of “Christians” deemed heretics, were slaughtered in the most brutal fashion, by Roman Catholicism, as they would NOT ‘recant’ their resolute ‘belief’ in God’s Word, for the FALSE doctrine of Romanism!
So, you see MME, they were always, the dissenting sects, before ca 313, and way after, who would NOT budge from the absolute doctrinal *truth* of God’s Word, “…Once for ALL delivered to the saints.” (Jude).
Zoe // November 4, 2009 at 3:11 PM
FRONTING FOR HAMAS
“From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.”
-U.S. Justice Department.
As the Trinidadians say, ‘Taking in front before in front take you.”
Because there is such *tons* of incriminating evidence against CAIR, systematically linking and connecting this Islamist organization to its covert agenda, within America, for the express purpose of eventually replacing the American Constitution with *Shariah* Islamist law, and the fact that:
“Sheet to sheet, the pages of evidence would stretch more than two miles, or the length of about thirty-five football fields. Stacked on top of each other, the boxes of printed material would weigh nearly a quarter of a ton and require a forklift to move it. They include:
*confidential internal memos; *propriertary minutes of board meetings; *budget reports; * real estate records; * strategy papers; * agendas;
*employee evaluations,;bank statements, *proposals, *handwritten notes; *letters; *brochures; *spreadsheets; *visitors logs; and *a host of other raw materials not reported by the media or even by law enforcement.”
(MUSLIM MAFIA, Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America, P. David Gaubatz, Former Agent, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Paul Sperry, Author of Infiltration, Preface, pp.iii-1v).
“In addition, this book is backed by more than three hundred hours of videotaped footage taken by professionally trained investigators and researchers working undercover inside CAIR’s headquarters, located just three blocks from the U,S. Capitol building in Washington DC.” (Ibid, iv).
“Together with recently declassified FBI evidence, the internal documents and video surveillance for the first time provide a clear road map to the criminal conspiracy by CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, and other outwardly benign Muslim organizations to support violent jihad and undermine law enforcement – with the ultimate goal of “eliminating and destroying” American society “from within.” This ‘grand jihad,” as they refer to it in their secret Arabic writings, requires infiltrating our political system and using our religious and political freedoms against us.”
“Now the tables are turned on the bad guys. For the first time, their own system has been infiltrated.” (Ibid., pp.iv-v).
In light of this massive pile of evidence, it is no wonder then, that two days ago, CAIR filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C., a lawsuit against Chris Gaubatz and his father, “Muslim Mafia” co-author P. David Gaubatz.
Naturally, CAIR are claiming that the 12,000 pages of incriminating internal evidence was stolen by them. This is an attempt to short-circuit the federal probe into this INFERO of evidence, to play for time, as CAIR and its Islamist cohorts have been found out, it was just a matter of time before it would all come together, and IT HAS!
HAMAS, that tyrannical organization of TERROR based in Gaza, whose sole intention, as stated in article 7 of its charter, IS to destroy Israel, has deep connections with CAIR in the U.S.
“During last years’s Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial, FBI agent Lara Burns took the stand to go over wiretap transcripts from a secret 1993 Philadelphia meeting held by HAMAS leaders in America. Federal prosecutors asked her about a passage from Shukri Abu Baker, who recorded talking about the need to form a new front organization to support their “movement,” one seemingly detached from the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Prosecutor Barry Jonas – deputy chief of the Justice Department terrorist financing unit- asked agent burns whether any groups formed after the 1993 meeting fit their description, “CAIR,” she replied.”
“It has taken fifteen years for all of the extremist baggage to catch up to this self-proclaimed “moderate” Muslim group. But now there is no denying its terrorist roots.” (Ibid., p.42).
How did this Hamas front all come about?
“It’s instructive to go back to the beginning days of the Brotherhood movement in America, when the Brotherhood leaders created CAIR’s parent. They called in the Islamic Association for Palestine, or IAP, and there’s no doubt it was a U.S. “front” for Palestinian Jihad against Israel, because that’s the language they used to describe it in their secret manifestos.”
“Two well-educated, if radicalized, members of the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee took over the reins of IAP not long after Hamas launched its “blessed Intifada” against Israel in the late ’80s. Omar Agmad and Nihad Awad were born in the same Palestinian refugee camp and they *burned* with *hatred* toward Israel as well as their adopted counry for supporting the Jewish nation economically and militarily.”
“In 1992, Hamas asked the committee for more American money to finance suicide bombing operations against Israel, complaining its “financial needs” were not being met, “Provide us with what helps us of funds and weapons,” it pleaded in one letter from Gaza Strip. “Weapons, weapons, our brothers.”
“Jihad in Palestine is different from an Jihad,” the letter continued. “The meaning of killing a Jew for the liberation of Palestine *cannot* be compared to any *Jihad* on earth.”
“Ahmad dutifully stepped up support. Among other things, he brought in Hamas speakers to IAP conferences to help raise funds and joined them in exalting suicide bombers as martyers for Islam.”
“Then in October 1993, Ahmad called to order a secret Hamas summit at a Courtyard by Marriott hotel in Philiadelphia. There, IAP and Holy Land officials hatched a scheme to disguise payments to Hamas terrorists and their families as charity. Wiretaps also record them stating the need to *deceive* Americans about the true objective while Hamas launched a campaign of terror attacks.” (Ibid., pp.42-43).
Yes, its ALL there in RAW evidence, and this is only skimming the surface of the voluminous stacks of *evidence* against these evil Jihadists!
Zoe // November 4, 2009 at 7:16 PM
‘A MEDIA TWINKLE’
A further peep into the birth of CAIR in the U.S. from inside sources, as earlier posted. All quotation are taken from ‘MUSLIM MAFIA, by P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry.
” The (Islamic Association for Palestine ) IAP and Holy Land officials worried, however, that the Hamas infrastructure in America was insufficiently equipped to launch a convincing propaganda campaign, Missing was a media office savvy enough to seduce both the American media and the government into looking the other way as they advanced their radical agenda of supporting *violent* Jihad abroad while slowly institutionlizing a *shariah* theocracy at home. They needed a new front group that, in Abu Baker’s words, could give their subversive agenda “a media twinkle.”
“CAIR is first mentioned by name in Brotherhood documents as part of the July 30, 1994, agenda of the Palestine Committee. This IS the smoking gun linking CAIR directly to the Hamas network inside America. Minutes reveal the purpose of the meeting was to discuss “suggestions to develop [the] work of CAIR” and its “coordination” with the HAMAS triumvirate of IAO, Holy Land ( which shared its Dallas offices with IAP), and the Washington-based United Association for Studies and Research, or UASR. Along with IAP, USAR was co-founded by the deputy chief of Hamas’s political operation, Mousa Abu Marzook, who led the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee in America before being designated a terrorist by the U.S. He is now considered a fugitive living in Syria.”
“He and other participants at the July 1994 committee meeting also talked about satisfying the “need for trained resources in the media and political fields” to “exert more efforts in the advancement of the Palestine Cause from the Islamic aspect.”
“Fittingly, CAIR was incorporated less than two months later, on September 15, 1994.”
“The group’s leadership was plucked directly from IAP and the Palestine Committee. In fact, all three CAIR incorporators – Ahmad, Awad, and Rafeeq Jaber – have held senior positions at IAP. The *Troika* simply shifted positions to CAIR.. Also, Ibrahim “Dougie” Hooper, a Muslim convert and TV producer also assisted Awad’s media efforts at IAP, became CAIR’s communications director. And Mohammed Nimer, a protege of Marzook at UASR, transfered to CAIR to head up its research department.”
“It’s one big happy *Islamofascist* family at the new ‘alternative’ front for HAMAS in America.” (Ibid., pp, 44, 45) emphasis added.
So, to those on this BU thread, who jokingly and stupidly laughed at this revelation weeks ago, either were/are still HEAD buried deep in the sand, with their feet firmly planted in “mid-air” OR, are *Leftist* and or Islamists oriented supporters of this diabolical, wicked, evil, godless agenda spawned by the *Muslim Brotherhood” in Egypt, whose blatant credo, spells out succintly in so many words:
“Allah IS our goal, the Prophet IS our guide, the Quran IS our constitution, JIHAD IS our way, and DEATH for the glory of Allah IS our greatest ambition.” emphasis added.
Emphatically, then, as repeated over and over again, the DESTRUCTION of Israel and all Jews, IS their primary target, with the United States following closely behind, and other Western democratic nations, then the whole world must be subdued, if necessary by FORCE to be ruled by *Shariah* Islamic law.
Logically, it is only rationally expected, that such covert activities, by these Islamist radicals are quietly organizing themselves well within our region; as Hamas is alrady suspected to be in Venezuela, and no doubt already planted within our Caribbean Island chain, mixing and interacting with many of us, appearing ‘harmless’ as we are just small fish in a big world-wide pond, to be ultimately conquered for Allah, the Prophet and their DEATH cult.
Technician // November 4, 2009 at 8:56 PM
…….STTTTUUUPPPPPSSSSSEEEEE!!!!
If all this is prophesied in the Bible and has to be fulfilled, why harp on it…..just make yourself right and you should be ok.
Obviously there is nothing anyone can do to change prophecy.
Micro Mock Engineer // November 4, 2009 at 9:38 PM
“Why? Do you think that Augustine wanted to be canonized?”
No Dr. ‘Anon’, I don’t think Saint Augustine wanted to be canonized… by the way, welcome to the discussion. :-)
Calling Dictionary an “untellectual” was quite harsh… it is not customary to throw out insults so early in a debate… but I know you are not one to mix words LOL.
………………………….
@BT… you sure you want to use the parable of talents in defense of violent resistance? LOL… I am much more comfortable dealing with the low hanging fruit presented by Zoe and Dictionary than with your questions, nonetheless…
The parable of talents is not unique in this regard… eight of the parables actually end quite violently… the Tares (Matt 13:24-30), Drawing in the Net (Matt 13:47-50), Unmerciful Servant (Matt 18:23-35), Wicked Husbandmen (Matt 21:33-43), Wedding Feast (Matt 22:1-14), Faithful Servant (Matt 24:42-51), Talents (Matt 25:14-30) and the Sheep and the Goats (Matt 25:31-46). We see everything ranging from being thrown into a fiery pit, to being crushed and torn to pieces, as punishment for evildoers.
How do we reconcile these violent endings with Jesus’ explicit instruction not to return violence with violence?
You actually touched on the answer in the “What Stop What Bullying What” thread, when, in one of your responses to me you said…
“As to how JC would deal with bullies… probably turn the cheek, or walk away – or even allow them to crucify him. But this is because he understood the overall much bigger picture to come in future phases.When the next phase comes- it is THEN that you will see real righteous bullying”…
You are quite right… and this ‘righteous bullying’ at the END of phase 1 is exactly what these parables all refer to. The instructions given by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, and the examples he set for how we should respond to persecution and violent aggressors, are rules for living in the here and now… the gruesome endings described in those eight parables are symbolic of what will happen at the time of reckoning (the endgame) if our house is not in order, and are exclusively within BBE’s jurisdiction… “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Roman 12:19
Dictionary // November 5, 2009 at 3:29 AM
Onlookers:
I observe, sadly, that MME has yet to cogently and substantially address the simple test case of the need for the police and the question of whether a Christian can legitimately be a policeman.
That should tell us a lot about the significance of Rom 13:1 – 10 and Ac 21 – 23 as already discussed in light of Paul’s status as apostle to the nations appointed by the risen Christ [Ac 9] and acknowledged [cf Ac 15] by the college of apostles in the council of Jerusalem of 48 AD.
G’day
D
PS: Zoe has added some significant developments on the original issue, which we would do well to heed; and to note the onward substantiation in the teeth of the sorts of dismissals that were made in early comments, e.g. NS’s remarks in the very first comment: “A Wing Nut Daily Book.” [Looks like the "wing nuts" have a use after all . . . just check your friendly local hardware store.]
PPS: Biblical prophecy is not about fatalism, it is about letting us see who is in ultimate control of history despite the raging of rebellious and sinful men, especially those who wield power. It is also an implicit warning to keep out of joining in rebellions and conspiracies against God and his righteous requirements; which in the end will be in vain. [Cf Psalm 2]
Dictionary // November 5, 2009 at 7:05 AM
FOOTNOTE:
MME, I invite you to observe with me BBE’s normal way of addressing evildoers under current circumstances; observing the distinction made between personal waspishness and the upholding of the community peace of justice by the delegated power of the sword:
______________
>> Rom 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil; consider what is good before all people.12 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all people.13 12:19 Do not avenge yourselves, dear friends, but give place to God’s wrath,14 for it is written, “Vengeance [ ekdikesis
Thayer Definition: 1) a revenging, vengeance, punishment] is mine, I will repay,”15 says the Lord. 12:20 Rather, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing this you will be heaping burning coals on his head.16 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment,1 and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority2 resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 13:3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad [notice the stipulation, i.e the "correct" situation is being specified; thus onward the issue of interposition by magistrates acting correctly defending the public or individuals from those that are doing the opposite, as in Ac 21 - 23 and Daniel Ch 1 etc]). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 13:4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword [ machaira Thayer Definition: . . . 2) a small sword, as distinguished from a large sword
2a) curved sword, for a cutting stroke 2b) a straight sword, for thrusting] in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution [ekdikos Thayer Definition: . . . 2) exacting penalty from one
2a) an avenger, punisher] on the wrongdoer. 13:5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities3 but also because of your conscience.4 13:6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities5 are God’s servants devoted to governing.6 13:7 Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 13:9 For the commandments,7 “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,”8 (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”9 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.>>
_________
Again, we see the contrast between personal behaviour within the circle of civil peace, and the duty of the civil authority as God’s servant of justice to defend that civil peace from evildoers, domestic or foreign. And, if civil authority is a sphere of service under God, and an ordination of God, then those who acknowledge themselves to be God’s penitent and forgiven servants (having been rebels and resisters against God’s goodness and justice) through faith in the Christ who died for our sins, was buried and rose — with over 500 eyewitnesses [cf 1 Cor 15:1 - 11] — can if they are called to do so serve as God’s servants in government. For instance, in the police force. (And, judging by what just happened in Guyana, we need much more of that!)
It is on the balance of the counsel of scripture — and the associated common sense understanding of a world of sheep, wolves and armed shepherds who defend the sheep from the wolves even at hazard of their lives (a very biblical image) — that I find it impossible to justify absolutised pacifism either biblically or ethically/ philosophically or on common sense grounds.
Clearly, we are not to be waspish [living at peace with all insofar as it lies with ours, going the second mile etc], but we must support justice in the community, with taxes and with support for the government authorities armed with the sword to defend justice. And, that is what Paul teaches us. Insofar as later Fathers and theologians have often tended to absolutise pacifism, they are in error; a noble error but a serious one and one with potentially disastrous consequences for the community. As the history of the 1930’s soberly reminds us: there are evil doers who can only be resisted, not reasoned or compromised with.
Insofar as we might seek to “contain” them diplomatically, only when they have good reason to know that the words of treaties are backed up by swords will they pay any attention to them. For, “the gentiles always break their treaties.”
D
Dictionary // November 5, 2009 at 9:28 AM
FURTHER FOOTNOTE:
MME:
Peter, on the Christian in society, English majority text version:
____________
>> 1 Pet 2: 11 Beloved, I implore you as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from the lusts of the flesh which war against the soul; 12 having your manner of life noble among the Gentiles, so that, whenever they speak against you as evildoers, when they observe the good works, they may glorify God in the day of visitation.
13 Therefore subject yourselves to every human institution on account of the Lord: whether to the king as [to one] having authority, 14 or to governors, as to those being sent for the punishment [Ekdikesis (Thayer) 1. a revenging, vengeance, punishment In 2 Cor 7:11 -- meeting out of justice; doing justice to allparties. See Luke 18:3, 21:22. The word also has the sense ofacquittal and carries the sense of vindication. - Vincent III p. 329 ] of evildoers and for the praise [of those] doing good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may silence the ignorance of foolish men- 16 as free, yet not using freedom as a cover for wickedness, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all [people]. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king . . . .
1 Pet 4:3 . . . we have spent enough of our past lifetime to accomplish the will of the Gentiles-having walked in wantonness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. 4 In regard to these, they are surprised that you do not run with them in the same flood of debauchery, reviling you. 5 They will render an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 Unto this [end] was the gospel proclaimed also to those who are dead, in order that they might be judged according to men in [the] flesh, but [that] they might live according to God in [the] spirit . . . . >>
__________
You will note just how close that theology is to the teachings of Paul in Rom 13, down to words being used.
No surprise, 1 Peter was likely composed in Rome [or just possibly in the literal Babylon, then still in business, or in a town more or less a suburb of Alexandria . . . ] , several years after Romans. And Peter’s theology is often surprisingly close to Paul’s. (Maybe that is part of how he knew that here were things in Paul that are hard to understand . . . )
D
Zoe // November 5, 2009 at 11:37 AM
MUSLIM MAFIA.
Hear a bit more from within CAIR’s executive files.
“Washington must attempt to understand Islamic movements in the area, and start supporting Islamic groups including Mr, Bin Laden and his associates.”
-Draft of 2004 talking points memo found in CAIR’s execuative files.
“It comes as little suprise that a Palestinian terrorist front rule by Palestinian refugees and created from a Palestinian terrorist group would support Palestinian terrorists. But CAIR also supports Al-Qaida and Taliban terrorists, as well as homegrown terrorists who kill cops. It’s a full-service terror support group.” (Ibid., p 50).
“Entries in CAIR’s visitor register reveal its headquarters has an open door policy for such terrorists. CAIR is the only place in America (outside of criminal defense law firms) where terrorists are valued clients.”
“Curiously, there are no clients or visitors listed in CAIR’s national register during the month of September 2001. By comparison, numerous visitors made entries during the month of August 2001 and October 2001.” (Ibid., p 53).
The rock star of the Jihad preaching circuit, Anwar N. Aulaqi, has cultivated some fans amomg CAIR. One Affad Shaikh, who has listened to Aulaqi’s lectures and posted links to his Web site on his blog *Muslamics*. Shaikh, appears to have a death wish.
“In death there is something to celebrate.” “Our culture of martydom needs to be revived.” the *imam* fumes, “because the enemy of Allah fears nothing more than our *love* of death.” Global domination is the goal. “We will impliment the rule of Allah on earth by the tip of the *sword* whether the masses like it or not.” He has written.” (Ibid., p 62).
“A senior Homeland Security official warns that Aulaqi, whom he describes as “an al-Qaida supporter” – is actively targeting “U.S. Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen.”
“Aulaqi also was involed briefly with the Virginia Jihad Network,led by a CAIR official. Before fleeing the country, Aulaqi met with the spiritual advisor to the Virginia Jihadists, whose ringleader, Royer, worked out of CAIR’s national headquarters.” (Ibid., pp 64,65).
Washington and New York will ‘Tremble’
“…Maulana Maududi, the late violent Pakistani radical who preached that Islam will destroy the West.”
“The objective of Islamic Jihad IS to put and end to the dominance of un-Islamic systems of government and replace them with Islamic rule,” wrote Maududi, founder of Pakistan’s religious party Jammaat e-Islami. “A time will come when capitalistic demoncracy will tremble for its safty in Washington and New York,” he ominously warned before the 9/11 attacks on those cities.”
“CAIR actually uses works by Maududi for internal training, and recommends his book as “sources of *dawah* training material,” according to a document found at its headquarters. Dawah is the Muslim mission to convert others to Islam.” (Ibid, p.77).
THE GUYANA BUNCH.
“In a related development, recently declassified U.S. Muslim Brotherhood documents reveal that the Brotherhood in America, which is led in part by CAIR’s founder, has established operations in, of all places, the South American country of GUYANA.”
“El-Shukrijumah happens to have been raised in Guyana, and some suspect he may be hiding there, if not in Pakistan.”
“Brotherhood leaders over the past couple of decades have sent money to GUYANA to support an unnamed *imam* and his mosque, and an unidentified “institute,” according to one document.”
“They’ve also trevelled to GUYANA to visit the “Guyana brothers,” but it’s not immediately known if any of them had contacts with el-Shukrijumahs while traveling there. Known among al-Qaida operatives as the “south American,” el-Shukrijumah has a Guyanese passport, as well as possibly a *Trinidadian* passport. His late father, Sheik Gulshair, was born in Guyana and worked there as a Muslim missionary, helping to establish a mosque with Saudi funding. He also has aunts and uncles who still live there.”
Including the Caribbean.
“In that same, little-noticed Brotherhood document listing the 1991-1992 goals of its “South American Committee” ( which includes the CARIBBEAN), the final item on the list , goal No, 169: “Organizing the CARIBBEAN group in cooperation with Sh. New York.” (Ibid., pp. 93-94) emphasis added.
That info was taken from CAIR documents for the period 1991-1992, goals. Certainly, they have established these Jihadists cells, not only in Guyana, but, only God knows to what extent they are also well planted within our Caribbean region, and right here at home in Barbados!
Dictionary // November 6, 2009 at 4:03 AM
H’mm:
Seems the CAIR issue may be directly relevant to our region after all.
D
Dictionary // November 6, 2009 at 4:20 AM
PS: Is the recent mass-shooting of 43 soldiers (12 dead) at Fort Hood by a reportedly “troubled” US Army psychiatrist — who lists his nationality as “Palestinian” and who recently was investigated for praising suicide bombers — a related development? [Cf Power Line blog's report here. The publishers and authors of the Muslim Mafia book that is the prime focus of this blog threadcomment here. Money-quote snippet: >> Hasan is just the tip of a jihadist Fifth Column operating within the ranks of the U.S. military – which is too blinded by political correctness to see the threat . . . . Quoting from a classified military briefing, "Muslim Mafia" reveals that this Fifth Column has penetrated "every branch of the U.S. military." The Islamist enemy has even infiltrated the al-Qaida detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba . . . . "Three years of investigations have revealed the presence of pro-jihad/anti-Western activities among the civilian contractor and military linguist population serving Joint Task Force Guantanamo," states a copy of the classified Gitmo briefing, which was prepared in May 2009 for the FBI and CIA, as well as the congressional intelligence committees . . . >> ]
Zoe // November 6, 2009 at 7:12 AM
In keeping with the fact that these Islamist Jihadists are only a small fraction of the world wide population of Islam, nevertheless, we may have forgotten from history’s pages what minority tyrants have done to multitudes the world over.
Here’s a reminder from a well respected German psychiatrist.
A German’s View on Islam.
“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. ‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
“We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that ISLAM is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrevelent. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somwhow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.”
“The fact is that the fanatics RULE Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worlwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christians or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and become suicide bombers. The hard quantifiable fact, is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.”
“Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrevelent.”
“China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communist managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians, most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.”
“Who can forget Rwanda, which collaped into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?
“History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, YET, for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrevelent by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.”
“Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.”
Oh, how history repeats itself, almost always, because we just don’t listen, do we?
Zoe // November 6, 2009 at 8:37 AM
MUSLIM MAFIA.
“Political correctness had darn near beaten comon-sense police work to death.”
-Ben R. Furman, former FBI counterterrorism Chief, Detroit.
I’m sure most of us remember a few days after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush, appeared at the Islamic Center of Washington, standing next to officials representing what appeared to be a innocent, well-meaning group of Muslims, Bush said, with these Muslims standing at his side.
“It is my honor to be meeting with leaders who ‘FEEL’ just the same way I do…They’re outraged, they’re sad. They love America just as much as I do.”
Bush was so deceived, just like many high ranking officials at the FBI, Police, and the very Department of Homeland Security.
Let us learn a bit more from inside CAIR’s devious plans to gradually infiltrate, even the very White House.
“Cameras captured the Muslim leaders rubbing shoulders with the President during an ill-advised photo opportunity, which unfortunately was just one of many that provided CAIR and other Muslim mob boses with valuable political insurance.” (Ibid., p 100).
“CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad stands to the President’s left,” CAIR notes below a treasured photo of Bush and Awad that the group has posted on its Web site. It offers proof that “CAIR officials have met or regularly meet with U.S. presidents.” And therefore can’t possibly be in league with terrorists.”
“The radical front group is even prouder of its engagement with federal law enforcement. It’s a relationship based for the most part on threats and appeasement, however, with CAIR charging cultural insensitivity or outright discrimination, and federal authorities bending over backward to prove otherwise.”
“On its Web site, CAIR clucks about senior FBI officials attending its annual banquets, and senior CAIR officials huddling with FBI brass at the J. Edgar Hoover Building inWashington.”
“CAIR has established a status of enviable prestige within [the] highest echelons of the “Washington establishment,” the group brags.”
“While CAIR has been known to exaggerate, its boast are all too true in this case. In fact, CAIR’s hostile information campaign against the feds has been so successful that both the FBI and Homeland Security have invited it to conduct sensitivity training seminars for their agents, a dangerous disinformation campaign designed to desensitize police to the threat from Islamic terrorism.”
“How did this happen? After 9/11, the PC-addled FBI- the organization that’s suppose to be on the front line in our domestic defense against terrorists and their supporters, made outreach to CAIR and other dubious Muslim groups a top priority, and even tied senior level performance bonuses to outreach activity.”
“In perhaps the ultimate concession, headquarters recently proposed sending agents on field trips to area mosques allied with CAIR and its sister group ISNA for cultural awareness education. The FBI also offered to sponsor special summer camps for Muslim youth, internal burea documents reveal.”
“The FBI praises CAIR’s dedication in representing the heart of the Muslim American community.” the agency gushed in one congratulatory letter to CAIR.” (Ibid., p. 101).
CAIR, and these deceitful, vicious Muslims, whose sole purpose and intent, was to quietly befriend from the very President, FBI, Homeland Security officials, et al, giving the impression that they ‘love’ America, all the while working behind the scenes, with their *deadly* Muslim Brotherhood brothers, in the Middle East, just waiting and planning, at the right moment, to *TERRORIZE* America with Jihad!
“But then in summer of 2008, the bureau suddenly stopped blowing kisses to CAIR. And the group’s unfettered political acccess, and blanket immunity, came to an abrupt halt.”
“During a previous search of a terrorist suspect’s home in the Washington suburbs, agents with the FBI’s Washington field office discovered a trove of secret documents naming CAIR and other “mainstream” groups as part of a Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy to suppor and infiltrate the American system from within. The documents were entered as evidence in the largest terror-financing case in American history, and prosecutors listed CAIR among the front groups participating in the conspiracy.”
“The listing reopened the debate over CAIR’s terror ties, and made outreach to CAIR politically untenable for the bureau, as much as some politically correct higher-ups wanted it to continue. Fresh evidence also emerged triggering a closer look at CAIR’s executives and their connections to HAMAS , namely, CAIR’s founding chairman Omar Agmad and its active director Awad. CAIR’s legal defense team tried to flash the group’s grip-and-grin photos with President Bush as proof it was not radical, but the federal judge hearing the case was not impressed. He left CAIR on the government blacklist.”
“We were laughing about that one in the office,” says a senior FBI agent in the Washington field office. “We said we wouldn’t have to dig very deep and we can get you a picture of Alamoudi standing with Bush as well, and that guy is sttting in the pen.” Abdurahman Alamoudi, another Muslim Brotherhood leader and a former CAIR advisory board member, schmoozed Washington politicians while secretly raising millions for al-Qaida, and is now serving twenty-three years in federal prison for plotting terroism.” (Ibid., pp. 101-102).
No one, is beyond deception, BUT, truth, confirmed by facts and evidence will ALWAYS prevail, one way or the other!
Hopi // November 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM
They’ve done it again! Just a few months before 9/11 John Miller from NBC…? interviewed Bin Laden….? in some cave in the Graveyard of Empires, then 3 building in Babylon imploded.
What do we have today? Another muslim being accused of another mass murder! Just after someone put out a report on CAIR!
More smoke n’ mirrors! I smell another stinking rat. Somewhere, somehow, something is going down!
Not Saved // November 6, 2009 at 11:38 PM
“Hasan is just the tip of a jihadist Fifth Column operating within the ranks of the U.S. military ”
+++
Did not take long for the fear mongering and hate mongering to start.
Not Saved // November 6, 2009 at 11:49 PM
WND falsely claimed alleged Fort Hood shooter “advised Obama transition”
Details here:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200911060011
Dictionary // November 7, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Onlookers:
It should be clear that Hopi and NS are in need of a reality check, in light of previous article details, some of which were excerpted Nov 6 4:20 am.
Especially as there is evidence of a Muslim Brotherhood campaign of penetration and there is a record of specific incidents of attacks [a fragging incident in Kuwait cmes to immediate mind] and manipulation of translations and of even spying. Facts are stubborn things, and the reality of covert penetration by opposite forces in a war is a reality of war; not a stirring of hate or bigotry. (Mind you there is also a problem of Cripps and Bloods penetration in the US armed forces, and other similar problems too.)
In short, we see here the repeated resort to malicious atmosphere-poisoning accusations again; in a context where there has been failure to apologise for previous false accusation.
A good start to reality checking is Mark Steyn at NRO:
____________
>> Friday, November 06, 2009
Shooting Raises Fears For Sanity Of Entire Western World [Mark Steyn]
The Headline of the Day, from the BBC:
Shooting Raises Fears For Muslims In US Army
Really? Right now the body count stands at:
Non-Muslims 13
Muslims 0
I was reading from some of this kind of coverage on the Rush Limbaugh show today. Even if you are concerned that it would be terribly unfair if all Muslims were to be tarred by Major Hasan’s brush, it is, to put it at its mildest, the grossest bad taste to default every single time within minutes to the position that what’s of most interest about an actual atrocity with real victims is that it may provoke an entirely hypothetical atrocity with entirely hypothetical victims. I refer you yet again to this note-perfect parody:
British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow’s Train Bombing
This kind of media coverage is really a form of mental illness far more advanced than whatever Major Hasan’s lawyers eventually enter in mitigation, and apparently pandemic, at least among the western media.
On a related note, from David Horowitz: “Is everybody out of their mind?”
Bonus: “We’re the ones who love death – our own.” >>
______________
Power Line’s Hinderaker has a useful comment too:
______________
>> Living in a World Gone Mad
Share Post Print
November 6, 2009 Posted by John at 6:40 PM
Mark Steyn, at The Corner:
The Headline of the Day, from the BBC:
Shooting Raises Fears For Muslims In US Army
Really? Right now the body count stands at:
Non-Muslims 13
Muslims 0
…Even if you take the view that it would be grossly unfair if all Muslims were to be tarred by Major Hasan’s brush, it is, to put it at its mildest, the grossest bad taste to default every single time within minutes to the position that what’s of most interest about an actual actrocity with real victims is that it may provoke an entirely hypothetical atrocity with entirely hypothetical victims.
The BBC article is actually worse than the headline. There is, though, a certain black humor to this kind of news coverage. For example:
Kamran Memon of the organisation Muslims For a Safe America says the subject splits America’s Muslim community down the middle.
“Those at one end of the spectrum say we should have nothing to do with the US armed forces as they are involved in wars with our fellow Muslims abroad,” he told the BBC.
“Those at the other end say we should definitely serve and help defend our country against those who wish to attack it.
“There is no easy answer to this.”
It’s a puzzle, all right.
Mr Memon says the vast majority of Muslim citizens in America are “able to live peaceful lives”, even though they have probably suffered some discrimination, if only a hostile look, since the 11 September 2001 attacks.
Raise your hand if no one has given you a hostile look since 2001. I actually get a lot of them, but then, I’m a lawyer.
However, there have been some high profile incidents in recent years that have fuelled tensions.
At a camp in Kuwait, as his unit prepared to move into Iraq in March 2003, Sergeant Hasan Akbar threw hand grenades and opened fire on a tent full of sleeping soldiers in the early hours of the morning.
Yes, that could tend to fuel tensions. Maybe even lead to a hostile look. Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for that hypothetical atrocity, as Mark put it, with its hypothetical victims. >>
D
PS: Going back to the new incident, it is being reported 9adni saw an earlier report under Drudge] — subject to confirmation or disconfirmation of course — that Major Hasan gave out the traditional war cry of muslim warriors before shooting:
>> Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan reportedly shouted the familiar Islamic phrase asserting the supremacy of Allah, “Allahu Akbar,” before he killed at least 13 fellow soldiers and wounded 28 at Fort Hood in Texas, according to the base commander.
Lt. Gen. Robert Cone told reporters he’s received unconfirmed reports that Hasan uttered the Arabic phrase meaning “Allah is the greatest.”
The father of one of the soldiers who was at a staging area for medical and dental checks said she heard the shooter exclaim “Allahu Akbar” as he opened fire, reported KSL-TV in Salt Lake City.
She described the incident as an attack by terrorists.
KSL did not identify the family, saying they agreed to talk on condition of anonymity, because they feared their daughter could get in trouble with her superiors. >>
This, if confirmed, would be consistent with a terrorist attack by a jihadist sympathiser.
As long since noted this is a minority faction in Islam, and in fact the vast majority of their victims over the years are fellow muslims [who they conveniently reclassify as apostates and heretics; as former jihadist Hassan Butt of the UK reminded us some years ago].
PPS: Media Matters vs WND. A check at Wiki will show that MM is:
>> a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock. Media Matters for America describes itself as “a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” Media Matters for America defines “conservative misinformation” as “news or commentary presented in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda.” >>
In short, it is an anti-conservative PR operation, which from that perspective would take in a libertarian news-site. (From WND’s perspective it is Libertarian as opposed to Conservative; i.e. it has an intrinsic suspicion of government powers [tends towards anarchism but recognises, perhaps grudgingly that some govt powers are necessary . . . IMHO, this is contrary to Rom 13:1 - 10], not just a rejection of particular left-leaning policies as conservatives tend to have.) That should be noted in evaluating its claims.
PPPS: WND report claims. A check of the relevant taskforce report — subntitled: PROCEEDINGS REPORT OF THE HSPI PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION TASK FORCE April 2008-January 2009 — indicates that in the list of workshop participants p. 29 there is a certain >>Nidal Hasan
Uniformed Services University School of Medicine.>> In reporting on this, Corsi of WND states:
______________
>> NEW YORK – Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in yesterday’s massacre at Fort Hood, played a homeland security advisory role in President Barack Obama’s transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document.
The Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University published a document May 19, entitled “Thinking Anew – Security Priorities for the Next Administration: Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force, April 2008 – January 2009,” in which Hasan of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine is listed on page 29 of the document as a Task Force Event Participant . . . .
Daniel Kaniewski, deputy director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University affirmed to WND in a telephone interview this morning that the Nidal Hasan listed as attending the meetings of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force was the same person as the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood massacre.
Kaniewski said Hasan attended the meetings in his capacity as a member of the faculty of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine, not as a member of the HSPI Presidential Task Force.
Kaniewski believed Hasan applied on the institute’s website to attend the meeting and was accepted because of his professional credentials.
Kaniewski could not tell WND whether or not Hasan made comments from the audience that influenced the task force recommendations or not.
He further confirmed Hasan had attended several meetings held by the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University and that the institute is currently searching conference records to see if it is possible to determine what additional institute conferences he attended . . . .
EDITOR’S NOTE: Shortly after this story was posted, the Huffington Post ran a piece claiming WND was attempting to “smear” President Obama by naming him “as the man who guided Nidal Malik Hasan to his murderous rampage at Ft. Hood yesterday.”
However, Hasan is being reported as a participant in the GWU Homeland Security Policy Institute’s Presidential Transition Task Force, not as a member, noting the group was a university think-tank, not part of the Obama administration official transition team.
Further, the institute’s deputy director is quoted saying he is unable to say if Hasan made any input to the group’s final recommendations.
Other participants in the task force included many members of congressional staff who work with both the House and Senate homeland security committees, as well as staff from the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice. >>
______________
Onlookers should be able to assess the claims and counterclaims for themselves in light of the actual substance of what WND reports and the underlying phone interview and documentation. (I think the first paragraph of Corsi’s report is overblown, but that the underlying point that we have a case here of one who — based on the recent incident at Ft Hood –may well have acted as a jihadi terrorist being in meetings that did set out to advise on future policy on terrorism and related matters. that does tend to give credence to concerns on jihadist infiltration of US Govt and related thinktanks and initiatives.)
Dictionary // November 7, 2009 at 10:02 AM
FOOTNOTE: This report in the London Sun, may be helpful for those trying to get a handle on the facts of the case.
Money-shot scoop-outs:
____________
>>A WOMAN traffic cop was hailed a heroine yesterday after bringing the Fort Hood massacre to an end with a bloody gun fight.
Sgt Kimberly Munley, 34, was shot in the leg by crazed army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan – but still managed to fell him with four shots.
The mother of one had stumbled upon the mayhem, which left 13 dead, while on a routine patrol . . . .
The 39-year-old Muslim is against the War on Terror and is believed to have been investigated by the FBI for more than six months over internet messages praising suicide bombers.
He was furious that he was going to be sent to Afghanistan on November 28. But he smiled and appeared relaxed just hours before shooting dead 12 soldiers and a civilian worker and injuring 31 others.
At 6.30am on Thursday he was seen on CCTV at a store on the base buying coffee and hash browns. He wore a traditional white robe and hat he usually donned while off duty.
He went into work, changed into his uniform and armed himself with two pistols – one of them a semi-automatic. Neither was military issue as soldiers at the base only carry weapons during training exercises.
At 1.30pm Hasan left his office in the Soldier Readiness Processing Centre, where troops about to be deployed overseas undergo health and dental checks.
Witnesses said he cried: “Allahu Akbar” – “God is great” in Arabic, and a battle cry often used in al-Qaeda terror attacks . . . .
After the massacre FBI investigators went to single Hasan’s apartment. Last night they were scouring his computer.
He is reported to have written: “If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory.
“Their intention is not to die because of some despair. Their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam.”
Another read: “To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. It’s more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause.”
Hasam had frequent rows with colleagues about the War on Terror.
Retired Colonel Terry Lee, who worked with Hasan, said he had warned him about showing support for terrorists.
He recalled: “He was reacting with open glee at the death of some soldiers by a suicide bomber.
“I told him, ‘You might not agree with this but this is the army and we are here to serve the country.’
“He was so outspoken I once said to him, ‘Look, you gotta cool it’.” Lee said Hasan had also repeatedly demanded: “Muslims should rise up against the aggressors” and said he hoped President Barack Obama would pull troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Hasan’s cousin Nader claimed the gunman had suffered constant taunts because of his Muslim background and had been troubled by the horrific experiences of his patients.
Nader said: “He deals with stories and he’d tell us how he would hear things – horrific things . . . >>
Read the whole account, to get a baseline on both sides.
____________
Dictionary // November 7, 2009 at 10:30 AM
FURTHER FOOTNOTE: I think a read of the thesis http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf“>here should help gain some serious perspective on what is going on.
Zoe // November 7, 2009 at 11:10 AM
MUSLIM MAFIA.
As I read carefuly the amazing expose of these Jihadists Islamists who run CAIR, I have NEVER, EVER, seen such deliberate, masterfully planned *DECEPTION* the very act of wilfully setting out to to deceive, with such dubious intent to create utter *falsehood* chicanery, double-dealing, fraud, cunning deceit, guile, cozeing, bamboozling, hoaxing, manipulation, and yes, dissimulation of this plan across America, with ONE sole intent and purpose, to *infiltrate* the American political system from the very top, to through the process of gradualism, impose Islamic *Shariah* law on the American society.
As the facts, from within CAIR’s headquarters become more and more known, even some Muslims are distancing themselves from this dubious organization, out of shame and disgust over what their fellow Muslims have being doing right in the very heart of Washington.
Notwithstanding the inherent failures of America, these evil Islamists are still allowed due process in law, and are still living and moving about freely, as they try to counter their fate, with more LIES, on top of LIES!
CAIR’S ARAB PAYMASTERS
“UAE, sovereign wealth, Qatar, Saudi, you name it. Pick anywhere in the Gulf. This is [CAIR's] donor now.”
“If The Council on American-Islamic Relations doesn’t get its money from grassroots members, where does it get its money?”
“That’s a question even members of Congress are beginning to ask, including GOP Representative Frank Wolf of Virgina, co-chair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, who recently queried federal agencies: ‘Does CAIR receive contributions from foreign sources?’
“Only he and other lawmakers aren’t getting clear answers. By IRS law, the identities and addreses if CAIR’s major donors – like those of other tax-exempt nonprofit groups – are kept secret. So the bulk of the Hamas front group’s financing remains shrouded in mystery.” (Ibid., p,164).
“But there is no doubt that CAIR receives direct funding from foreign sources, including Arab nations tied to the 9/11 plot and other anti-Western terrorism. It’s actively getting major infusions of overseas cash to fund its campaign of deceit.”
“Of course this is a closely guarded secret at CAIR. Publicly acknowledging it is bankrolled by Arab paymasters would risk raising alarms in Washington that it is controlled by foreign interest in the Middle East, further limiting its access to the political establishment.”
“CAIR stil insists, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, that it is a ‘grass-roots’ organization’ supported by dues-paying members while strenuously denying it receives foreign cash. In fact, in press releases CAIR has stated unequivocally that it receives no ’support from any overseas group or government.”
“Once again, CAIR is dissembling. While there was a time when CAIR got most of its revenue from small American donors and dues-paying members, it’s now bankrolled by a handfull of fat-cat donors and *sheiks* from the Persian Gulf, raising serious questions about its independence and tax-exempt status.”
“Qatar is where the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, is based. Championed by CAIR as a ‘prominent scholar.” Qaradawi has been banned from entering the U.S. due to his *fatwahs* calling for the killing of American troops and his leadership in a charity blacklisted by the U.S. Treasury as a terrorist organization, Doha-based Qaradawi has referred to CAIR as ‘our brothers there’ in America.”
WIRE TRANSFERS FROM SAUDI BANKS.
“Next door in Saudi Arabia, members of the ruling family have transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds directly from their accounts held at the Saudi National Commercial Bank to CAIR’s Citibank account in the U.S., records show.”
“For instance, Saudi Prince Abdullah bin Mosa’ad in 2007 wired $112,000 to CAIR, according to internal bank records kept by CAIR. ‘CAIR thanks you and HRH Prince Abdullah bin Mosa’ad for this generous contribution to CAIR.” The national office wrote in an email to the prince’s Saudi-based lawyer after varifying the funds were deposited into CAIR’s account.”
“CAIR’s board recently proposed hiring an’international activities manager’ to help coordinate all the fundraising and other foreign activities. It has even created a special committee on ‘international affairs’ headed by Awad to help tailor its pro-Arab message to American policymakers. To that end, Awad not long ago took a trip to Saudi to meet with the secretary general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to ‘discuss future CAIR-OIC projects.” The OIC, a Muslim Brotherhood stronghold which promotes the interest of fifty-seven Muslim nations, has defended HAMAS terorists as ‘freedom fighters,’ and rationalized the 9/11 attacks as an act of Muslim ‘frustration’ built up over years of ‘aggression commited by the West.” (Ibid., p. 164-166).
“The Saudi pipeline to CAIR doesn’t end there.”
“CAIR also has received at least $250,000 from a Saudi-based bank headed by former director of the Muslim World League, a charity founded by the Saudi royal family and overseen in part by the kingdom’s chief Islamic cleric, himself a government official. Osama bin Laden has identified the Muslim World League a a primary source of al-Qaida funds. Its U.S. offices also were raided after 9/11.”
“Similarly, CAIR has downplayed revelations that textbooks issued at the Islamic Saudi Academy in northern Virgina teach Muslim children that Judaism and Christianity are false religions. The *madrassa*, which has graduated terrorists, is run by the Saudi embassy.”
“CAIR actually helps the Saudi embassy spread its hateful ideology. According to correspondence obtained from CAIR’s executive files, CAIR routinely orders religious materials from the embassy to distribute to members and to use in converting to Islam. The request includes volumes of militant interpretations of the *hadith* or reports of the sayings and actions of Muhammad. All three text are *violent* and call for the killing of Jews, Christians, and Muslims who do not adhere to *Shariah*.
“Bother Nihad Awad, Brother Omar Ahmad, and all the brothers and sisters from CAIR send their ‘Salaam’ and regards to everyone at the embassy.” wrote then-CAIR Operations Director Khalid Iqbal in closing out his order to the Saudis.” (Ibid., pp. 176-177).
“Far from representing grassroots American interest, CAIR acts as an organ for Arab regimes that have faciliated *terrorist* attacks on America and are fanning a subversive Islamist movement here. Members of Congress who cozy up to CAIR should take heed when its unregistered lobbylists darken their doorways.” (Ibid., p.178).
CAIR is a blatant outright front for the Islamist agenda, to bring America under Islamic Shariah, one way or the other. No other organization in the history of America, has so deviously infiltrated the American system as has CAIR!
More to come!
Dictionary // November 8, 2009 at 2:44 AM
Onlookers:
Further background information, from two key Islamist memoranda associated with the global Muslim Brotherhood; the first from 1991 for our hemisphere and esp. North America, the second from 1982 for the world.
This time-frame is also consistent with the observed pattern of developments of the Dawah in the Caribbean, as it first came to public notice through headlines and events and the rise of people adopting distinctly Islamic dress; and as it has now begun to push for supremacy here too.
We should note too that in recent years, several Caribbean people or descendants have come to prominent exposure in connexion with the global Jihad, ranging from the Shoe Bomber to one of the London bombers, to an Imam gaoled for subversion in the UK to el Shukrijumah and the plotters against JFK airport in NY.
So, we should consider the relevance to ourselves of:
1] A strategic infiltration and institutional/ cultural subversion “settlement” — as opposed to immigration — plan memo by “Mohamed Akram,” dating to 1991 for North America, and a part of the Holy Land Foundation trial documents. Read from p. 15 on, for the English translation. Note the statement on point 4 p. 21 of 32:
>> The process of settlement is a Civilization-Jihadist process, with all that the word means. The Ikhwan [Brotherhood, in Arabic -- i.e. Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” and destroying its miserable house [NB: classical Islamic teaching divides the world into the house of Islam ( = submission to Allah, his prophet, law and armed state) and the house of war] by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s [= Allah's] religion is made victorious over all other religions [alludes to Q 9:29, whereby the people of the book (Jews, Christians and by extension other established faiths) are militarily reduced to impoverishing tribute and hopeless humiliation under Islamic rule, i.e. dhimmitude]. Without this level of understanding we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack [i.e. dismisses moderate Muslims as slackers from their mandate under Allah]. But would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.>>
–> Remember, MB is the parent organisation of Hamas, so “armed struggle” is a part and parcel of the understanding of “Jihad” involved.
–> Q 9:5 and 29 [cf text here] are the key mandates that drive the vision involved in the Islamist-Jihadist reading adopted by the Muslim Brotherhood etc:
>>009.005 [the Sword Verse]
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful . . . .
009.029 [The verse of Tribute]
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. >>
–> In that context, the above is a clear statement of general strategy of settlement, internally based subversion, and overthrow; precisely what fifth columnists are about.
–> Within that context, the actions of Maj Hasan are immediately recognisable as lone-wolf terrorist tactics [if he was a lone wolf] or else if he was a part of a team, Jihad by Bands as described by Coughlin in the Masters thesis linked above.
–> Lone wolf terrorist tactics come out by the indoctrination of radicalised people, and counting on disturbed individuals taking the message to heart and putting it into action. Such individuals (similar to those who are moving towards suicide or similarly extreme behaviours) usually give off signals, but will often be misinterpreted by those taking a sympathetic or optimistic view — until they explode.
–> And if we see one swallow, summer is on the way, i.e. if one has reached the pitch of explosion, others may well be nearing that level.
2] The 1982 Muslim Brotherhood 100 year global subjugation plan, here at Scribd. Recovered in a raid by Swiss police on an Islamist financier’s residence there, and translated.
Select key points:
>> This report presents a global vision of a worldwide strategy for Islamic policy [or "political Islam"]. Local Islamic policies will be drawn up in the different regions in accordance with its guidelines. It acts, first of all, to define the points of departure of that policy, then to set up the components and the most important procedures linked to each point of departure; finally we suggest several missions, by way of example only, may Allah protect us . . . . Point of Departure 5: To be used to establish an Islamic State; parallel, progressive efforts targeted at controlling the local centers of power through institutional action.
Point of Departure 6: To work with loyalty alongside Islamic groups and institutions in multiple areas to agree on common ground, in order to “cooperate on the points of agreement and set aside the points of disagreement”.
Point of Departure 7: To accept the principle of temporary cooperation between Islamic movements and nationalist movements in the broad sphere and on common ground such as the struggle against colonialism, preaching and the Jewish state, without however having to form alliances. This will require, on the other hand, limited contacts between certain leaders, on a case by case basis, as long as these contacts do not violate the [shari’a] law. Nevertheless, one must not give them allegiance or take them into confidence, bearing in mind that the Islamic movement must be the origin of the initiatives and orientations taken . . . .
Point of Departure 9: To construct a permanent force of the Islamic dawa and support movements engaged in jihad across the Muslim world, to varying degrees and insofar as possible . . . .
Point of Departure 11: To adopt the Palestinian cause as part of a worldwide Islamic plan, with the policy plan and by means of jihad, since it acts as the keystone of the renaissance of the Arab world today . . . . >>
_________
Reality check . . .
Dictionary
Dictionary // November 8, 2009 at 7:41 AM
PS: WSJ report on Ft Hood massacre.
Dictionary // November 8, 2009 at 9:39 AM
A heroine:
From the WSJ story:
>>The first 911 calls to the police station on base came in at 1:23 p.m. Officers across the sprawling base sprang into action.
Kimberly Munley, a 35-year-old police officer, happened to be nearby, waiting for her squad car to get a tune-up, when she heard the commotion. She raced to the scene, according to her boss, Chuck Medley, director of emergency services on base.
As she rounded a corner, she saw Maj. Hasan chasing a wounded soldier through an open courtyard. He looked as though he was trying to “finish off” the wounded soldier, Mr. Medley said.
“He looked extremely focused,” said Francisco De La Serna, a 23-year-old medic who had fled the building and was watching the same scene unfold from a hiding spot across the street.
Ms. Munley’s first shot missed Maj. Hasan. He spun to face her and began charging, Mr. Medley said.
The time was 1:27 p.m., just four minutes after the initial 911 call.
Authorities haven’t said precisely how many shots were fired during the running gun battle between Maj. Hasan and Ms. Munley. But one of her shots hit Mr. Hasan in the torso, knocking him to the ground [he was hit at least four times, by Mrs Munley and mark Todd another officer who apparently arrived on the scene after Munley], from the Wiki account]. With that, officials say, she quite likely prevented more injuries or deaths on the base.
Ms. Munley took two bullets to her legs. Both entered her left thigh, ripped through the flesh and lodged in her right thigh. She also received a minor wound to the right wrist.
Specialist De La Serna, the medic hiding across the street, sprinted to the scene as the shooting stopped and put a tourniquet on Ms. Munley, who was fading in and out of consciousness, he said. Then he moved to Maj. Hasan, who had a gunshot wound through the chest. Mr. De La Serna described the wounded major as calm and quiet, conscious but weak, a handgun at his side.
Ms. Munley underwent surgery Thursday night to halt bleeding and faces at least two more operations to remove the bullets in her thigh. Authorities said her husband, a soldier stationed at Fort Bragg, was on his way. Her Twitter account filled with messages of thanks and admiration from strangers world-wide. >>
D
PS: I trust this case help clarify the necessity and importance of “sword”-wielding police, per Rom 13:4.
Dictionary // November 8, 2009 at 9:52 AM
PPS: Forgot. Note the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia Hasan attended in VA, led by an imam who Daily Telegraph lists as “spiritual advisor” to three of the 9-11 hijackers. Accor to DT:
_____________
>>Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother’s funeral was held there in May that year.
The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.
Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday’s horrific shooting spree.
As investigators look at Hasan’s motives and mindset, his attendance at the mosque could be an important piece of the jigsaw. Al-Awlaki moved to Dar al-Hijrah as imam in January, 2001, from the west coast, and three months later the September 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour began attending his services. A third hijacker attended his services in California.
Hasan was praying at Dar al-Hijrah at about the same time, and the FBI will now want to investigate whether he met the two terrorists.
Charles Allen, a former under-secretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, has described al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, as an “al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers… who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen”. >>
______________
Thus, the best explanation to date is that the major was radicalised and became a Jihadist; which also makes sense of this part of Wiki’s report:
____________
>> Hasan entered his workplace, the Soldier Readiness Center—where personnel receive routine medical treatment immediately prior to and on return from deployment—at approximately 1:34 pm (CST). According to eyewitnesses he opened fire with two handguns: an FN Five-seven semi-automatic pistol and a .357 Magnum Smith & Wesson revolver,[5] at soldiers processing through cubicles in the center and on a crowd gathered 30 minutes before a scheduled college graduation ceremony in a nearby theater.[6] At the start of the attack, Hasan reportedly jumped up on a desk and shouted “Allahu Akbar!”[4][7][8][9] before allegedly firing more than 100 rounds in the soldier processing center.[10] A medic who treated Hasan said the pockets of his combat fatigues were full of pistol magazines. >>
_______________
Zoe // November 8, 2009 at 10:45 AM
MUSLIM MAFIA HALL OF SHAME
“The Noble Quran appoints the Muslim as guardians over humanity and grants them the right of *dominion* over the world in order to carry out this sublime commission. It is their duty to establish *sovereignty* over the world.”
-late Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, heralded by Ikhwans as an “Islamic martyr” after his assassination in Egypt.
“Islam wishes to do away with *all* states and governments anywhere which are opposed to this ideology and program of Islam. Islam requires the *earth* – not just a portion, but the *entire* planet.”
-Maulana Abdul Ala Maududi, late Pakistini disciple of al-Banna.
“No political system or material power should put hinderance in the way of preaching Islam. If someone does this, then it is the duty of Islam to fight him until either he is *killed* or until he declares his submission…Bringing about the *enforcement* of the Divine Law (Shariah) and the abolition of man-made laws cannot be achieved only through preaching. When the above-mentioned obstacles and practical difficulties are put in its way, it has no recourse but to remove them by force…Islam has the right to take the initiative. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions. It is the duty of Islam to *innihilate* all such systems…Jihad in Islam is simply a name for striving to make this system of life *dominant* in the world. Wherever an Islamic community exist which is a concrete example of the Divinely ordained system of life, it has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the Divine system on earth.”
-late Muslin Brotherhood leader Sayyid Quth of Egypt, bin Laden’s spiritual father (Milestone).
“We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not through the sword but through dawah [Islamic proselytizing].”
-current Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born, Qatar-based cleric, 1995.
“If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshall our resources, we’d take this country in a very short time.”
-American Muslim cleric Zaid Shakir.
This is the strategic plan of the Muslim Brotherhood operating within America, “…like Imam Zaid Shakir preach to the Muslim community in America about waging a *cultural jihad* now, and a *violent jihad* later – once the proper “infrastructure’ is in place.”
“The work we should be doing is laying the infrastructure – the administrative, logistical infrastructure – putting that into place, so that if Allah put us in a situation where we did have to *fight* physically, we could translate that fighting into tangible politica gains.” Shakir advised Muslims during a lecture in the San Francisco Bay area, the contents of which are being revealed publicly here for the first time.” (Ibid., p.259).
This has been precisely what the Muslim Brotherhood has sought to achieve over the past 15 years within America, cozeing up to law inforcement agencies, FBI, et al, infiltrating Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, Educational Institutions, up to the very White House.
“This fits with the strategic plan outlined in the Brotherhood’s secret manifesto. It calls for achieving domination in the host country of America in stages, following the strategy of their prophet when he fled Medina.”
“In the initial stages, when the Brotherhood is weak, the plan is to accumulate power here through peaceful means. Then in the final stages, when the Brotherhood is strong, the plan is to use coercive power – including *violence* if necessary. to take over the government and enforce *Shariah*. The Brotherhood’s plan to *Islamize* America, investigators say, essentially consist of five phases:”
“Phase I: Establishment of an elite Muslim leadership, while raising *taqwa* or Islamic consciousness, in the Muslim community”.
“Phase II: Creation of Islamic institutions the leadership can control, along with the formation of autonomous Muslim enclaves.”
“Phase III: Infiltration and Islamization of America’s political, social, economic, and educational systems, forming a shadow state within the state. Escalation of religious conversions to Islam. Manuipulation of mass media, and sanitization of language offensive to Islam.”
“Phase IV: Openly hostile public confrontation over U.S. policies, including rioting, and militant demands for special rights and accommodations for Muslims.”
“Phase V: Final conflict and overthrow (Jihad).” (Ibid., pp.259,260).
“The Brotherhood is now in Phase III, but patience is key to their strategy. They are willing to waite ‘a hundred years’ to achieve their subversive goal, as Alamoudi put it.”
“Shakir, mistakenly considered mainstream and moderate by the media, warns that the faithful should be patient and avoid repeating the mistakes of Muslims in other *kaffir* nations who raised their swords too soon and died in vain.”
“In many places where Muslims are doing jihad and killing, *kaffirs*, this infrastructural work hasn’t been done,” he said. ‘As a result, Muslims are fighting and dying, but there’s very little tangible political benefit as a result of that fighting and dying.”
“Be smarter than that – “think stragetically”- he advises, Muslim Americans, and hold off on the violent phase until it can ‘translate into political gains.”
“For now, he says, wage informational and financial juhad, using words and money to defeat the infidels. When the Muslim community’s numbers are large enough and its political ‘infrastructure’ is strong enough, then use bombs.”
“First infiltrate and convert, then wage *jihad*, he reiterates. Use deception and propaganda, putting on a friendly face, until the tme is right. Then drive the sword into the backs of the enemy.”
“We have to start doing the real tough, nitty-gritty, unglamorous boring work of developing our organizational and institutional strength in this country,” Shakir said. ‘If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshaled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time.” (Ibid., pp. 260, 261).
And, the Muslim Brotherhood certainly have a willing President in Obama, who either knowingly, or ignorantly, has/is opening many doors for them to infiltrate the system, from the White House, right on down!
More to come..!
Technician // November 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM
…..’Thus, the best explanation to date is that the major was radicalised and became a Jihadist; which also makes sense of this part of Wiki’s report:
Is it really the ‘best’?….or the one that more fits your agenda?
Didn’t take you and your side kick long to jump all over this.
What find amazing, is that after this incident, all these reports and ‘facts’ are now coming out. It leaves me to wonder what the so called authorities were doing all along…maybe the dead soldiers are just ‘collateral’ damage in the grand scheme of bigger things to come….*sigh*.
Zoe // November 8, 2009 at 2:59 PM
NOTE: I see that *ant* is still alive, while unable to move or escape from the *epidermis* of the elephants foot, utterly unable to make any objective, rational sense of the facts!
IGNORACE! What a curse!!!
Technician // November 8, 2009 at 6:28 PM
…also …the suppository is still firmly embedded in the anus of it’s host.
Fear mongering……what deceit!!
Technician // November 8, 2009 at 6:32 PM
…Go to the *ant* thou sluggard, consider her/his ways and be wise. Which having no guide, overseer or ruler…….
Seems to me I am in good company…ROTFLMAO!!
Dictionary // November 8, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Technician
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Face a few facts and provide a clear alternative account that makes better sense of the facts, or you face some consequences of your remarks above.
If you cannot justify your dismissal and demonisation, we are entitled to observe that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, the best explanation to date — in absence of convincing evidence otherwise — is that it is a duck.
T (and onlookers), look at the multiply confirmed, multiple-source evidence that Maj Hasan jumped on a desk and shouted the traditional Islamic war cry before opening fire.
Opening fire on people he knew were, by regulation in force, unarmed and out of quick reach of weapons; he was shooting fish in a barrel.
This is the all too well- known modus operandi of Islamist terrorists.
(Remember what happened to the flight crews and passengers on the 9-11 planes? Not to mention office workers?)
Next, observe the pattern of issues, statements and associations — not to mention investigations — that have now surfaced, culminating in his reported spiritual home in a known radicalised IslamIST — not just Muslim — mosque and under the leadership that “nurtured” three of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers.
This looks, walks, swims and quacks like a very familiar kind of duck, Technician.
A jihadist duck, which as has been repeatedly noted is a FACTION of Muslims (whose overwhelming majority of victims are other Muslims; whom they conveniently categorise as slackers and apostates).
In absence of a serious engagement of the facts, your ad hominem laced dismissal leads only to the reasonable conclusion that you are either in deep denial that blinds you to evidence, or else that you are a jihadist or fellow traveler or useful dupe.
So, T, since you have insinuated agenda-driven dishonesty on my part, kindly show us convincing facts otherwise than has been summarised and linked above, and provide a credible explanation that addresses all the credible facts.
Or, you stand exposed as one willing to denigrate, pejoratively label, demonise and dismiss, without having good evidence and reasons. All, in service to your own agendas or interests or preferred worldviews.
So, T, which will it be?
G’night
D
Dictionary // November 8, 2009 at 7:34 PM
PS: Onlookers, have a look here at the testimony of “Richard,” a recent Muslim convert, and fellow officer at Ft Hood, who knew Maj Hasan and actually worshipped with him in a local mosque hours before the shooting.
Dictionary // November 8, 2009 at 7:40 PM
PPS: Some more facts and issues for T.
Technician // November 8, 2009 at 8:42 PM
….is the Muslim phrase …“Allah u Akbar!”only used by Jihadists before they carry out murder?
As far as I know (from experience) this is used every day by Muslims just as much as you people say ‘praise God’…what is the difference?
Could it not be a case of the persecution of fellow marines because he was a Muslim (especially if they were of you or Zoe’s ilk) that drove him to this?
Timothy McVeigh was NOT Muslim but his actions were much worse.
You ..Dictionary have called me on this blog a Jihadist…Now..where in that do I look like a duck?
I am no more Muslim than you are Christian but you seem to think that as long as the great dick put a label, it is gospel.
Call me stupid, an ant, Jihadist ….whatever…I really dont give a shit..your words mean nothing to me as you do not control my life.
What i will not