[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:
You better stop watching the BBC, or most other British networks. Oh wait, I just mentioned the BBC, didn't simey put up a link to a 2 year old article saying, well, nothnig really, but writings of what others said on both sdes.

Look, give me your address, I wilL SEND YOU A VIDEO CASSETTE OF THE MASSACRE FILMED BY MY FRIEND WHO IS A WELL-KNOWN JOURNALIST. Just becauese some of the agencies who drew up the conclusions on Jenin say there was n massacre, does not make it true. They willingly ignored many filmed evidence.

You guys are really funny.

Is your friends' initials, M.M., perchance?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:
You better stop watching the BBC, or most other British networks.

What made these unreliable and misleading reports all the more remarkable was that many of the worst of them emerged in the most respected and influential organizations in the British media. The British Broadcasting Corporation and three of the four so-called "quality" daily newspapers -- The Times, The Independent and The Guardian -- fell for the "Massacre Myth" hook, line and sinker. Even the more cautious and -- as it proved -- reliable "Daily Telegraph" was not entirely immune either.

From the UPI link above.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:
You better stop watching the BBC, or most other British networks. Oh wait, I just mentioned the BBC, didn't simey put up a link to a 2 year old article saying, well, nothnig really, but writings of what others said on both sdes.

I don't watch the BBC or get my news from them really. I don't trust them. They are pro-terrorist.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Compare, contrast:

Read, comprehend. You forgot to quote the rest of your spiel above, implying more than what you just wrote. What was that little jibe about Al-Jazeera and the BBC? Not really mainstream to you now, are they? Or did yo just ignore that little bit in your post.

Know what? bet I'm dealing with a bunch of Net jockies with their tightly guarded opinions, but never undertake any research in these matters outside of reading through websites.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
From the UPI link above.

L O L, now you crack me up. Hey, why not post somethng by the various human rights groups around the world. Go on, I dare ya.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I don't watch the BBC or get my news from them really. I don't trust them. They are pro-terrorist.

You and Simey will get on great. I mean, he did say that most mainstream media cnocluded that Jenin never happened. Yet he also said that Fallujah will become another Jenin with the BBC complicit in this analogy.

LOL, too easy.

[BoomStick]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:

Look, give me your address, I wilL SEND YOU A VIDEO CASSETTE OF THE MASSACRE FILMED BY MY FRIEND WHO IS A WELL-KNOWN JOURNALIST.

Well I probably have never heard of him, but I love a good snuff flick.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
Well I probably have never heard of him, but I love a good snuff flick.

You probably have, one of the few Western journalists to interview Bin Laden.

[bamburg dunes]

Anyway, happy surfing tonight Net denizens. Time to go study reality for a change. Hey, why not visit Israel Simey, there's a plan for ya

[BoomStick]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:
You probably have, one of the few Western journalists to interview Bin Laden.

Daniel Pearl?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:
Read, comprehend. You forgot to quote the rest of your spiel above, impolying more than what you just wrote. What was that little jobe about Al-Jazeera and the BBC? Not really mainstream to you now, are they? Or did yo just ignore that little bit in your post.

Know what? bet I'm dealing with a bunch of Net jocklkes with their tightly guarded opinions but never undertake any research in these matters outside of reading through websites.

Dude, I'll put this politely as I can. You are spouting long-debunked propaganda, and the more you do so, the worse your spelling is becoming and the more you are discrediting your own side of the argument. The BBC did fall for the Jenin Massacre myth, which is just one of the reasons I don't trust it. Nevertheless, the BBC also corrected itself, as did the other sources cited above. The UN, which isn't noted for its friendliness to Israel also investigated, and confirmed that the reports of massacres with 3000 casualties were wildly wrong.

This is so well established that I am amazed that anyone still thinks he can be taken seriously denying it. Let alone by citing mysterious and unnamed "friends" who just happen to have been there to document the whole thing that the rest of the world apparently missed.

Your name isn't Kelly Hogan by any chance, is it? I'm having a strange feeling of deja vu.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:
WTF are you doing?

Eating french bread and cheddar cheese. Why?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by PacHead:
He is proving the kitten wrong.

He failed. Miserably. And now I see that he is just as willfully ignorant as you.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Instead of looking for sites that support your ignorant views, how about you actually make the effort to learn what the Islamic religion actually says?

The site you used is run by the Hyde Park Christian Fellowship ffs!

Does that mean we can just summarily dismiss anything from al Jazeera?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
He failed. Miserably. And now I see that he is just as willfully ignorant as you.

http://www.squ.edu.om/lan/GuideToOmanSec1.html

A Comprehensive Guide to Life in

the Sultanate of Oman

By Len Hobbs
Section 1: Living in a Muslim Country

Oman is of course a Muslim country, and as guests in this country we should try to get to know and respect the local customs. Although it is a fairly liberal and tolerant country, expatriates should be aware of what is acceptable and behave in an appropriate manner, so as not to offend our hosts.

Religion. Life in the Gulf revolves around the Islamic religion strongly affecting the daily life of all its inhabitants, both Muslims and non-Muslims. The essence of Islam is the belief in the peoples� duty to believe in and serve the only God. This is done by observing the five pillars of faith. These are; the professing of faith (Shahadah), the making of prayers (Salat), fasting (Sawm), the giving of charity (Zakat), and the pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj). Salat occurs five times a day at dawn, noon, mid afternoon, one and a half hours before sunset, and at sunset. (You may well remember this call to prayers as one of the most distinct aspects of life in the Muslim world). Sawm is a primary requirement during the holy month of Ramadhan. Muslims may not eat drink or smoke from sunrise to sunset. Besides this there are obligations for Muslims to follow, such as only eating meat slaughtered the Muslim way (Halal), and the prohibition on eating pork.

During Ramadhan, expatriates must exercise special care not to cause offence. As well as extra restrictions on dress, public entertainment and the consumption of alcohol, everyone regardless of their religion is required to observe the fast in public, which includes the prohibition of smoking, as well as eating and drinking during daylight hours. In fact these activities are forbidden by law. Restaurants will be closed during the day, except for a handful of large hotels in Muscat, which will have one restaurant open for guests that will be carefully screened off. All alcohol shops, bars and discos will be closed, and there will be no live entertainment such as musical groups in hotels. Shops, clinics, and office (and university) working hours change from their regular schedules during Ramadhan. In fact restaurants will generally have much longer opening hours in the evening as will shops.The ban on alcohol and live entertainment also occurs during other Muslim religious holidays, such as the Prophet�s birthday and the Islamic New Year.

Muslim women may not marry non-Muslim men, but Muslim men may marry Christian women. Given these restrictions, it is not really acceptable for expatriate males to have more than slight social contact with Muslim women. Non-Muslims in the Gulf may not enter a mosque.

Dress. The simplest rule for expatriate women to follow is to cover shoulders and knees, and avoid figure-hugging clothes. Women and older girls should really not wear shorts, strap sundresses, mini skirts or low-necked dresses in public places such as parks or shopping areas. (In fact some supermarkets have had to put up signs about appropriate clothing to be worn there).For beachwear, one-piece costumes only should be worn, except in hotel areas or private member clubs such as P.D.O. (Petroleum Development Oman), where bikinis are acceptable. (The University Staff Club has had to extend the ban on bikinis at the swimming pool to all females over ten years old due to complaints from members!). Men and teenage boys should preferably wear long trousers in public. They should also not wear Omani clothes, as this is part of the local identity, and local people may think you are making fun of them if you try and adopt their dress.

Special care should be taken to be appropriately dressed during Ramadhan, and also when exploring the interior particularly when there are villages nearby. It is a good idea for women to have a wrap around skirt handy, if for example they are hiking in shorts.

Note: this advice on dress code is on the conservative side, and during your stay in Oman, you are bound to see expatriates dressed inappropriately, particularly with regard to hiking in the interior in shorts. However you should not feel tempted to cause possible offence by joining them.

Etiquette. An important custom is the traditional Arab greeting. These are still widely observed, and it is good manners to exchange handshakes. When you are going to meet an Omani, it is considered polite not to rush immediately into the reason for your visit, but to exchange a few pleasantries first, such as enquiring after the person�s health and family etc. A few words of Arabic help enormously to break the ice. Do not be offended if a man or a woman refuses a handshake, especially with someone of the opposite sex. Usually the person will bow the head politely with the hand on the chest, you may acknowledge with a smile and do the same. One reason for this may be that Muslims prepare for prayers five times a day, and may not wish to shake hands after prayer preparation. Remember to take off your shoes when entering an arabic household. It is usual when someone enters the room to stand up, and you will find they will shake hands with everyone including yourself, even though they don�t know you. It is better when sitting on cushions on a carpet not to have your soles pointing at someone else, and remember not to eat or offer things with your left hand!

Throughout the Arab world, it is common to attach forms of address to people�s first name not surname. So you will often find yourself being referred to for example, as Mr. (or more commonly at work), Dr. David. Another important custom involves refreshment. You will often find yourself being offered a cold drink, or more normally tea or coffee, together with dates and occasionally "halwa" (a sweet sticky dessert). It can be considered very impolite to refuse this offer. Especially when travelling in the interior, you may be offered Arabic coffee "Kahwa" (very strong black and flavoured with cardamom and sometimes saffron). After finishing your coffee, hold out your cup in your right hand for more. If you have had enough, rock the cup back and forth to indicate that you�re finished. It is generally considered impolite to drink more than three cups, especially as it is common only to have a limited number of cups and your host may be waiting his turn.

Public Holidays. Non-Islamic holidays are not officially observed and in theory, even public sector workers may have to work on for example Christmas day. In practice the university normally tries to give these major holidays off, but it cannot be assumed automatically that this is the case. Islamic holidays are based on lunar months, and depend upon the official sighting of the moon. This can be rather inconvenient when planning holidays and local trips that require flight and accommodation bookings. The exact duration is often not announced in advance either. (People usually resort to multiple bookings before hand, which are only finalised when the dates are known). Holidays are announced on Oman TV (and sometimes in the newspaper), the evening before the holiday. Also note that Islamic dates begin at sundown.

The main public holidays and days of special significance are as follows:

* Islamic New Year. This is not an official public holiday. Note the Islamic calendar is calculated from the "Hijara", the departure of the Prophet from Mecca to Medina.

* The Prophet�s Birthday. A one-day holiday.

* Ramadhan. This is not a public holiday, but a holy month of fasting, spiritualism, meditation and abstinence. The five fixed prayers are more rigidly observed than usual, and during daylight Muslims may not eat, drink, or smoke. Elaborate meals are enjoyed after "Iftar", the sundown break of fast, as well as visits between family and friends. Shops and restaurants are open late, and our students usually have late nights as well. Ramadhan is based on a lunar month of 29 or 30 days.

* Eid Al-Fitr. (Eid means holiday or celebration). This is probably the main holiday of the year for Muslims, and is the first day following the end of Ramadhan. It is a time of celebration, the breaking of the holy fast. It usually lasts for a week, but the exact number of days is determined at the time of the official announcement. (Note the first one or two days are usually the only time of the year that most shops and services are actually closed).

* Eid Al-Adha. Festivities which conclude the Haj (pilgrimage) period. It is a commemoration of the time when Ibrahim (Abraham), considered the sacrifice of Ismail (Isaac), so that the ritual of sacrifice and distribution of food takes place. During this time, Muslims need no invitation to call on each other and as with Eid Al-Fitr, a special prayer is offered after sunrise and sometimes spontaneous public dancing in the streets occurs, even in Muscat. It usually lasts for three days, but again the exact length of the holiday is only known at the time of the official announcement.

Hejira Year
New Year
Prophet�s Birthday
Ramadhan
Begins
Eid Al-Fitr
Eid Al-Adha

Because Muslim holidays are based on cycles of the moon, the dates given in this table may vary by several days in either direction. Also as the Islamic calendar is 11 days shorter than the Gregorian (Western) calendar, the holidays mentioned will move back accordingly in subsequent years.

In addition the following secular holidays are celebrated in Oman:
* New Year�s Day (January 1).

* Renaissance Day (July 23).

* National Day (November 18). As many people (particularly government workers) participate in the official celebrations, there is a two or three day public holiday, a week or so after the actual event.

Photography. Care must be exercised if taking pictures of people, especially women. It is always better to ask permission, and it�s generally better for men not to try to take pictures of women at all. Generally children like having their photograph taken. There is no problem with photographing the outside of mosques, but it is forbidden to take photographs of military or police facilities.

Alcohol. Although of course it is not really permitted for Muslims to purchase or consume alcohol, it is possible for a small minority to do so in a limited number of controlled situations in licensed premises in hotels and a few restaurants, mainly located in Muscat. The sale of alcohol for consumption outside of these premises is limited to expatriates only, at "Retail Outlets" through a licensing system.Great care should be taken not to cause offence through the use or abuse of alcohol. Alcohol should not be consumed in public anywhere outside of the licensed premises, particularly where you may be observed by the local population. During Ramadhan, alcohol may not be sold anywhere. The sales outlets are closed for the entire month and during the following Eid holidays. Although not strictly enforced, it should be noted that in theory it is illegal to carry alcohol in your car, except from the point of sale directly to your home. It is also illegal to resell alcohol to others. As the alcohol permits state, " No resident has a right to a liquor permit. It is issued only as a privilege".

It should be noted that the police take an extremely serious view of traffic offences in which alcohol is involved, and heavy fines and even prison sentences and expulsion from the country may be imposed as punishments! You should also be aware that your vehicle insurance would be invalidated if you were involved in a traffic accident while under the influence of alcohol.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Prediction: Falluja will be the next "Jenin."

CNN describes the fighting as "sporadic." No doubt Al-Jezeera and the BBC will report otherwise.


Edit: CNN just updated their story, which I linked to above. The current version includes this interesting note:

Just before I go out, I just had to reply, again, to this post after everything that has been said.

Simey, don't you think your objectivity is lacking a bit here? I mean it's what you said to me earlier, but I think you really do stand out as a prime contender for a game of pot, black and ol' kettle.

LMAO, you crack me up

Also, I just remembered one important thing here, the standards and criteria for what constitutes something, like... a massacre.

10 kids shot dead in a school in the US is considred, a massacre. 20 people blown tp pieces in Moscow is... a massacre. 30 people gunned down in N. Ireland is? you got it, a massacre!

In Palestine, 50+ people blown to bits is just a misunderstanding, nothing really, and certainly not a massacre, because to call it that is to really make Israel look bad. God forsake us if the number was really far higher. Lucky I have the evidence.

Night all, keep dreaming up new ways to describe a massacre. I love it.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Does that mean we can just summarily dismiss anything from al Jazeera?

You're comparing apples with oranges.

All media institutions are biased, you have to be able to discern fact from media distortion by reading a variety of different sources.

Religious fact can be distorted too but there's a key difference - you can actually go and verify it by reading the actual religious texts. They are the source of factual information. You refuse to read the facts.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
You're comparing apples with oranges.

All media institutions are biased, you have to be able to discern fact from media distortion by reading a variety of different sources.

Religious fact can be distorted too but there's a key difference - you can actually go and verify it by reading the actual religious texts. They are the source of factual information. You refuse to read the facts.

Oh, I'm reading a lot of stuff, but I can't read anything you'd like because you haven't produced anything here.

Soooo, in the mean time...

http://debate.org.uk/topics/socio/social.htm

The Social Attraction of Islam

C4: Peace
Perhaps the area of Islamic attraction which is the most puzzling is the perception by some of the non-violence within Islam today, that it is a religion of peace. It is difficult to know where the truth lies. While the West documents and publishes its criminal activities openly, the Muslim countries say very little. Lists which delineate where each country stands in relation to murders, sex offenses and criminality include most of the Western countries, yet only 4 Muslim countries out of 32 have offered statistics for the number of internal murders, while only 6 have offered a list of sex offenses, and only 4 have divulged their level of criminality. Therefore, until more Muslim countries are willing to come forward with statistics, it is impossible to evaluate their claims: that Western "Christian" states have more degradation and criminality than that of Muslim states.

We do know, however, that in the 1980's, of the 14 countries who were involved in ongoing "general wars," 9 of them were Muslim countries, while only one was a non-Western Christian country.

Though statistics can be numbing after a while, from what we have seen so far, these statistics help point out, rather harshly in many cases, that Muslim countries today are not meeting the basic needs for the majority of their populations in areas such as literacy, food, education, the freedom of expression, health, and in the general quality of life.

The defense can and is made that these are not true Muslim countries, that the individuals who run them are corrupt and therefore are not representative of a true Islamic ideal. Therefore, they should not be used as examples. Yet, these countries make the claim that they hold to Muslim principles, and as such, are the only examples we have today by which we can judge whether or not Islam can provide an adequate social environment in the 20th century.

Moreover, to contend that it is merely corrupt individuals who are somehow responsible for the state these countries are in, is not only debatable, but dishonest. Muslims waste little time in denouncing the sins of western society, maintaining that it is due to Christianity's feebleness that our countries are in the state they are in. We could just as easily say that Western countries are also run by corrupt and inept administrators, yet somehow these same "corrupt" western societies still maintain a much better record in terms of providing an adequate social environment for their populations than do those who claim to be run along Islamic principles. The fact that many of the very critics of western society are those who choose to remain here and not return to their own countries points to the hollowness of their argument.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Oh, I'm reading a lot of stuff, but I can't read anything you'd like because you haven't produced anything here.

uh....*cough*

[Isaac]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
You have made posts in favor of anarchy. I think bringing that to the attention of the readers here sufficiently sums up my comments to your post.

you don't even know what anarhy is... don't comment if you don't know anything about what you are talking about

[bamburg dunes]

Here's what some Arab papers are saying about the attack, not good for the Arab world.

Wait a minute, I smell a few people rushing in here to say, 'oh those are just Arabs, they lie, you can't trust their media'. LMAO. Yeah, that just about sums up the attitude towards the Arabs by certain quarters. It';s as if they have no voice, unles it reflects one's own biased view.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3995035.stm

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
Daniel Pearl?

I think he's referring to ABC reporter John Miller.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...interview.html

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Isaac:
you don't even know what anarhy is... don't comment if you don't know anything about what you are talking about

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=3#post2233489


"I belive all people are equal, and I belive that all people are peers. I belive that force is not an acceptable tool in relations. taking this to it's logical conclusion, I belive in anarchy"

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:


We do know, however, that in the 1980's, of the 14 countries who were involved in ongoing "general wars," 9 of them were Muslim countries, while only one was a non-Western Christian country.

Now that's funny, that site judges on Islam on the ground of the foreign policy of secular dictatorships that oppresses its own islamic population and which more often than not are installed and supported by the US to serve US-interests?
Not only that grave mistake is being done, it also picks randomly a decade that makes it easy for that site to make a point it likes to do. I could as well look at the 1940's and easily come to the conclusion that christian countries are really some warmongers parexcellence, oh, why stop at that and not include the genocide commited by christian germans on jews and other poeple in that timeframe, or the using of chemical gas by the British empire against the kurds, not to forget all the great warcrimes the US has commited and to a smaller extent Israel's started wars..., it's really endless, and I haven't even talked about colonialism, direct and neocolonialism and all its nice sideeffects.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Though statistics can be numbing after a while, from what we have seen so far, these statistics help point out, rather harshly in many cases, that Muslim countries today are not meeting the basic needs for the majority of their populations in areas such as literacy, food, education, the freedom of expression, health, and in the general quality of life.

The defense can and is made that these are not true Muslim countries, that the individuals who run them are corrupt and therefore are not representative of a true Islamic ideal. Therefore, they should not be used as examples. Yet, these countries make the claim that they hold to Muslim principles, and as such, are the only examples we have today by which we can judge whether or not Islam can provide an adequate social environment in the 20th century.

Moreover, to contend that it is merely corrupt individuals who are somehow responsible for the state these countries are in, is not only debatable, but dishonest. Muslims waste little time in denouncing the sins of western society, maintaining that it is due to Christianity's feebleness that our countries are in the state they are in. We could just as easily say that Western countries are also run by corrupt and inept administrators, yet somehow these same "corrupt" western societies still maintain a much better record in terms of providing an adequate social environment for their populations than do those who claim to be run along Islamic principles. The fact that many of the very critics of western society are those who choose to remain here and not return to their own countries points to the hollowness of their argument.

Now that has to be the most ignorant argument I have heard for months. The site makes the argument that the economic weakness of the arabic countries is proof that Islam got something wrong, completely ignoring european colonialism, the collapse of the ottoman empire, which was itself an occupation of islamic countries, the thirdworld-position of most islamic countries due to the previous mentioned circumstances, the influence of ressource-interested mights that installed and supported dictatorships that should act in the interest of said mights and against the interest of their own people, etc...

Taliesin

[bamburg dunes]

One has to feel so sorry for the people in Fallujah, the insurgents too. Hundreds of them have been killed, god knows how many civilians. Yet the US and Iraqi troops have only taken light casualties, kinda shows the disproportionate use of force.

Once again, reporters are saying the whole city has been redicved to rubble, much like Kabul. That really saddens me.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:
One has to feel so sorry for the people in Fallujah, the insurgents too. Hundreds of them have been killed, god knows how many civilians. Yet the US and Iraqi troops have only taken light casualties, kinda shows the disproportionate use of force.

I'm so sorry that you are disappointed that not enough Americans are being killed. But this does not show disproportionate force. It shows disproportionate training and equipment -- which is exactly how it should be. They were fools to take the US Army on, and they will die if they continue. It's as simple as that.

The insurgents (or whatever euphamism you prefer) can end this at any moment. They can surrender at any time. They will not be killed if they do, no Americans will saw their heads off as they would do to captured Americans or to their own countrymen who are fighting for a free Iraq. That's the difference between a civilized Army and the rabble of killers they are fighting.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
They will not be killed if they do, no Americans will saw their heads off as they would do to captured Americans......

No, they'd just beat and sexually abuse them instead.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm so sorry that you are disappointed that not enough Americans are being killed. But this does not show disproportionate force. It shows disproportionate training and equipment -- which is exactly how it should be. They were fools to take the US Army on, and they will die if they continue. It's as simple as that.

You're a funny guy, but your rationale doesn't wash with me. Amazes me how we de-humanize the so-called enemy, willing him to be killed, dead, etc; yet even the slightest hint of support for them is met with such reactions as yours. It's all fine and well to yell out how we are killing those Iraqis, how we are bringing freedom, yet I'm jus a little too cynical for that kind of crap.

As to your comments on me wishing Americans would die, please go back and re-comprehend what I said, might help you in future before leaping to wrong conclusions.
I've never bought your line of thinking in al my life, and never will.

As to the beheadings, please do some research as to who is actually doing what.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Okay, you asked for it.

1. The value of human life


The life of a Muslim is considered superior to that of a non-Muslim, so much so that whilst a non-Muslim killing a Muslim would be executed, the reverse would not occur. [5] This is despite the fact that murder is normally considered a capital offence in Islam, with regular executions in most Muslim states. This inequity is also demonstrable in the blood rate paid to non-Muslims where murder or injury has occurred, which is half that of a Muslim. [6] Effectively, this ruling means that a Muslim need not fear the usual retribution for murder if he kills a non-Muslim. The law deliberately and consciously does not protect non-Muslims as it does Muslims. The position of Islamic law is not that human life is sacred, but that Muslim life is so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong, no life is seen as superior in Islam. All life has been created by God and only God is allowed to take lifes away if he wishes so. The killing of a civilian human, except in a case of being attacked, by accident or for retaliation for own killed civilians in wartimes, is seen as like the murderer has killed whole humanity, regardless of what belief or disbelief the killed human might have had.

Like always the site uses nowadays existing secular dictatorships that even oppress the own islamic population as proof. Dictatorships themselves are not islamic concepts.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
2. The value of evidence

What we have just stated about Justice becomes very pertinent when considering evidence in a court. Haneef's assertions can be immediately questioned by pointing to the fact that in Islam, the court testimony of a non-Muslim is considered inferior to that of a Muslim, a practice given official sanction in countries like Pakistan.

Again it uses unislamic secular dictatorships as proof.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
3. The value of human dignity

What we have just examined becomes very important when we consider the issue of human dignity. It almost naturally follows that if the life of a non-Muslim is considered inferior to that of a Muslim, the dignity of the former will be held in the same lack of esteem. Rape in most Muslim countries usually results in execution for the offender where the victim is a Muslim. Where the victim is a non-Muslim, and the perpetrator is a Muslim, this is not the case.

Wrong again, see above.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
4. The value of human property

The right to the defence of personal property is usually considered a fundamental liberty, and its violation by theft is punishable in all societies, again, irrespective of the religious identity of the thief or his victim. This is not the case in all circumstance in Islamic law. The situation is somewhat ambiguous at times, especially if items haram to Muslims are concerned. [11]

Another ruling, however, suggests that if a Muslim stole an item from a Christian, such as a gold crucifix, and then stated that he did so in order to destroy this 'infidel' object, he may escape prosecution. [12] Hence, there is nothing clear-cut in Islamic law which protects the property of Christian subjects, as would be the case in most Western systems which protects all property per se, whatever people's race or faith.

Again wrong. What the site completely fails to understand is that in Islam and the Quran clearly says so, the explicit crimes are being punished regardless of who was wronged. A murderer should be punished because he commited murder regardless who the murdered one was, except in the cases I mentioned above. Someone who stole something gets punished because he stole something, except in the case to prevent an otherwise secure death through starvation, regardless from whom he stole it, etc... The basic rules, that deal with murder, stealing, adultery, etc.. are the ten commands of Moses that are also part of the Quran, and are to be applied regardless of who the wronged one is and what belief he might have.

It may well be that some socalled islamic societies practice otherwise but they do it, espescially in secular dictatorships of today and maybe even in some parts of the ottoman empire, but that isn't due to Islam but quite the opposite the lack of Islam and the lack of knowledge of the Quran and the islamic religion and a lack of belief in God.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
5. Religious liberty

Most Western constitutions today guarantee complete religious liberty, in opinion, practice and propagation. A person is perfectly free to hold or change his opinions, or even hold no religious opinions whatsoever. Under Islamic law, however, this is not the case. Whilst a person may be free to be a Muslim, Jew, Christian or Zoroastrian, he may not hold other religious opinions, as the ban on paganism illustrates. [13]

Moreover, whilst a non-Muslim may change his religion to Islam or one other 'Scriptuary' faith, a Muslim who converts from Islam faces execution. [14] It follows from this that Christians are forbidden to proselytise Muslims, though no such reciprocal ban exists on Muslims. This also affects marriages, since if a Muslim apostatises, the marriage is dissolved, and there is at least one recent example of this in Egypt, where a liberal Muslim was declared apostate by a court, and his marriage dissolved, necessitating the couple's removal to the West, illustrating that the ruling is not merely theoretical. [15]

Most blatantly, whilst the post-war era, especially since the 1970s, have seen an energetic upsurge of mosque construction in the West, there has been no corresponding development in Christian religious buildings in the Muslim world, since Islamic law permits only the repair of existing buildings, forbidding the construction of new ones.

Again, it uses the practice of secular dictatorships which oppress the own islamic population as proof against Islam. Even Saudi Arabia is a secular dictatorship with merely a skin-deep-Islam-face, that like most dictatorships tries to appease muslims by favouring them a little bit in a few cases, so that they can keep the country stable while withholding its population, islamic or not, participation in government and uncensored information, knowledge and higher education for the masses.

The last argument in that paragraph was the one with the difference between the rate with which new mosques get build in Europe and the rate with which new churches get build in islamic countries. Regardless of the muslim-appeasing and at the same time oppressing dictatorships, there is another reason for the discrepancies: Europe had invited a lot of people from the thirdworld, including a lot of muslims to work in Europe's industries and to help in rebuilding Europe after ww2. But there was no comparable flow of christians into islamic countries, so the difference between the rate of new mosques in Europe and churches in islamic countries is quite understandable.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
This is not the case with the Jizyah, which is a tax that the Dhimmi uniquely had to pay. It has its origins in Surah Tauba 9:29, where it is explicitly revealed as a sign of the subjugation of conquered non-Muslims. [17] Hence, the tax is clearly a tribute, and a sign of subjection, in no way equivalent to the alms tax Zakat. Yusuf Ali's comment on the Jizyah clarifies this:

The tax varied in amount, and there were exemptions for the poor, for females and children (according to Abu Hanifa), for slaves, and for monks and hermits. Being a tax on able-bodied males of military age, it was in a sense a commutation for military service. But see the next note. (9.29)
1282 'An Yadin (literally, from the hand) has been variously interpreted. The hand being the symbol of power and authority. I accept the interpretation "in token of willing submission." The Jizya was thus partly symbolic and partly a commutation for military service, but as the amount was insignificant and the exemptions numerous, its symbolic character predominated.

Like always the argument is mixed with a lot of ignorance and anti-Islam-bashing, so I shortened it to the essential core.

The symbolic tax on jews and christians and on other people that had a non-polytheistic faith was a possibility for the jews and christians and other people to ensure autonomy for their own people, so that they would be freed from participating in an islamic state, which would also include military service, which could lead to an interest-conflict, should a christian country like the roman empire attack. The tax was low and there were a lot of exceptions like that site begrudgingly had to admit.

As to the fact that christians or jews are practically never part of islamic governments, how many muslims are in a position of power in the US-government? Not even talking about the reality and fate of muslims and jews in truly christian states (as opposed to secular states that have a predominantly christian population).

Lil'babykitten has provided a very good link describing a lot of the answers you seek regarding islamic concepts of life, property, freedom etc.., though I think it misses out on the question of women's rights or I might have overlooked it.

Taliesin

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
No, they'd just beat and sexually abuse them instead.

I've got a bunch of lovely pics (not Abu Ghraib) showing US troops in a blood-soaked room, with an Iraqi being 'interrogated'. Not very nice.

In fact, when I get back to the US, I'm going to put up a website on some of the photgraphic, and video evidence that I, and my friends have gathered, but no-one really paid any attention to in the Government.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes: Amazes me how we de-humanize the so-called enemy, willing him to be killed, dead, etc; yet even the slightest hint of support for [the enemy who are killing Americans] met with such reactions as yours.

What a surprise.

Indefinite "them" replaced in above quote for clarity of what exactly you are saying. What you are saying is you support your country's enemies and are disappointed that they aren't killing enough Americans.

Take my advice, stay overseas. Turn in that passport you besmirch.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What a surprise.

Indefinite "them" replaced in above quote for clarity of what exactly you are saying.

Oh god, so now you're re-writing my words, putting in your interpretations. You don't get it, do you? They aren't the enemy in my mind, maybe yours, but not mine. So how dare you try to imply that I should adopt a moral, and therefore logical support for a side that is so black & white.

Nice one, keep re-writing, you're good at it.


edited for brevity.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Lil'babykitten has provided a very good link describing a lot of the answers you seek regarding islamic concepts of life, property, freedom etc.., though I think it misses out on the question of women's rights or I might have overlooked it.

A discussion on women's rights is located in a different section on the site I linked to.

Gender Equity in Islam

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What a surprise.

Indefinite "them" replaced in above quote for clarity of what exactly you are saying. What you are saying is you support your country's enemies and are disappointed that they aren't killing enough Americans.

Take my advice, stay overseas. Turn in that passport you besmirch.

*SMACKDOWN*



Please stay overseas.

Where you're wanted.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...05-terror.html
Freedom squelches terrorist violence

KSG associate professor researches freedom-terrorism link

By Alvin Powell
Harvard News Office

"A John F. Kennedy School of Government researcher has cast doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom.

Associate Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie examined data on terrorism and variables such as wealth, political freedom, geography, and ethnic fractionalization for nations that have been targets of terrorist attacks..."

The researcher is partly right, but there are a lot of very different sorts of terrorism that are just trhown together in media and elsewhere. There is the sort of terrorism used by oppressed people to get free from oppression, legitimate resistance, there is terrorism used by militarily superior states upon oppressed and occupied people or upon weaker nations, and there is the terrorism within one and the same country committed by people against the own people in order to gain political power. That last one is existent in unstable and weak nations, in which the governments are not legitimised enough to govern and often corrupt, etc.. and therefore use oppressive methods to stay in power. The research seems to talk about that last form of terrorism and ignores the other forms.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
The Jizyah Tax:
Equality And Dignity Under Islamic Law?

"Only by the wildest stretch of the imagination could the situation of non-Muslims under Islamic law be seen as one conferring equal citizenship, whatever Muslim apologists claim. Similarly, only a leap of fantasy could ever believe that such a situation is one that non-Muslims would welcome. The honour, dignity, equality and even the lives of non-Muslims are by no means guaranteed under Islamic law. The Jizyah tax in particular demonstrates the constitutional inferiority and humiliation such a legal arrangement confers. For non-Muslims, it is rather like permanently walking under the sword of Damocles, ready to fall at any moment. If Muslims wish Christians and others to regard an Islamic political order as something attractive, their scholars had best engage in a some heavy work of ijtihad to revise those elements of Islamic jurisprudence and legislation which are particularly offensive to non-Muslims."

Eventhough the law that is often referred to as islamic law, which was used by the ottoman empire, which was an occupation of islamic countries, and the laws used by arabic and often secular dictatorships are indeed discriminating laws, the Quran and the islamic religion opposes such concepts. To take the tax on jews and christians as an example for that, is not helping in that regard, as the tax is clearly a tax to ensure autonomy for christian and jewish communities in an islamic state and for the exception from having to serve in the military of the islamic state.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Would you like more evidence or would you rather just STFU, instead?

Evidence, hmm, I wish, I would have seen some evidence, but where is it nowadays, is it taking vacation?

Taliesin

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Take my advice, stay overseas. Turn in that passport you besmirch.

I forgot this little gem. Erm, how to reply to such an attack. *** you? Nah, too strong. How about... you quit trying to manipulate my words into meanings that suit you, and to direct people's thoughts in another direction.

How about you reply to the other comments I made. How about you get a grip on reality, and realize that to be an American, DOES NOT mean I blindly support every little thing we do.

But I think I have the perfect reply for someone who uses dirty tactics like you do, just ignore your inane comments.

[lil'babykitten]

Lt Gen Thomas Metz, the multinational ground force commander in Iraq, warned of "several more days of tough urban fighting" ahead, adding that rebel leaders such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - America's most wanted man in Iraq - appeared to have fled before the assault began.

Somebody remind me why the assault on Fallujah is taking place.

[Spliffdaddy]

Stay put.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
*SMACKDOWN*



Please stay overseas.

Where you're wanted.

Huh? Smackdown? On what? I'm sorry, but I don't watch wrestling matches, so erm, enjoy your smack.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Somebody remind me why the assault on Fallujah is taking place.

Because Ramadan only lasts a month?

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
A discussion on women's rights is located in a different section on the site I linked to.

Gender Equity in Islam

Thanks for the headup.

Taliesin

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Thanks for the headup.

Taliesin

Yeah, I'm just reading that just now, very interesting. I didn't quite realize the extent of women's rights in Islam.

Thanks.

[bamburg dunes]

Somre more news on Fallujah at the BBC website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3998049.stm

Oh, Simey, one last thing.
Look, pal. If you can't debate something without getting into personal insults, attacks, or ad hominem remarks towards me, then there's nothing left to discuss. I won't lower myself to that. I'll just ignore you, or report you, your choice.

Understand?

[Spliffdaddy]

You got smacked down.

Deal with it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

It's utterly amazing. Someone says he supports the "so-called enemy" and gets huffy when I clarify his outrageous remarks by replacing (using brackets to indicate where I edited the quote) the ambiguous word "them" with the concept "them" gramatically referred to in that sentence. I guess some people get upset when their own words and arguments are highlighted.

The only reason I can think of for that is that there is a little voice of concience somewhere saying to that person "you are being extreme" when he supports the killing of American troops in the field. And of course, siding with the enemy against your own countrymen is extreme.

Or maybe that should be "former" or "nominal" countrymen.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And of course, siding with the enemy against your own countrymenis extreme.

The one's suffering the most out of this assault on Fallujah are civilians. Iraqi civilians are supposedly the ones you went in there to liberate and now you are blowing them to pieces. The man in charge of operations in Fallujah has himself said that Zarqawi and Co. probably left Fallujah before the attack began. You're not even fighting the enemy, you're fighting civilians.

Any decent, moral human being would feel for the thousands of Iraqi civilians being murdered at the hands of the US military.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's utterly amazing. Someone says he supports the "so-called enemy" and gets huffy when I clarify his outrageous remarks by replacing (using brackets to indicate where I edited the quote) the ambiguous word "them" with the concept "them" gramatically referred to in that sentence. I guess some people get upset when their own words and arguments are highlighted.

Are you really blind? I got annoyed at you for telling me to not come back to the US, and some nonsense about besmirching my passport, or citizenship.

Also, you didn't clarify a thing, except to inject your thoughts into my words, while conveiently avoiding the rest of what I said, and also the little diatribe about my allegiance to the US. Get a grip on what you say in future. Don't worry, I certainly don't get into fit over a debate like this, but more about your dumb remarks which were just extraneous. I'll certainly tackle you on any mater, but leave out the ad hom crap.

Once again, I am pi$$ed at you for that remark, and that alone, God, if you couldn't see that, then there is definitely something wrong.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
You got smacked down.

Deal with it.

Deal with what? My obvious remarks on this matter, only to be re-interpreted by someone else to mean something completely different with obvious devious motives? Why did it need re-writing? It was obvious what I wrote.

Once again, I am annoyed at the ad hom remarks by that guy AFTER his little post, nothing more, nothing less.

So deal with it, dude.

[bamburg dunes]

Just to clarify things, this is what you said: Simey:" Take my advice, stay overseas. Turn in that passport you besmirch. ". The rest of your post was nothing of interest, but just meandering re-interpretation to suit you.

So I take offence at that above. I fnid that insulting, if you can't discuss things without resorting to such tactics, then like I said before, there's nothing to discuss.

[Spliffdaddy]

Can I help you apply for citizenship wherever you currently happen to be?

There's no way to weasel out of what you said and how you feel about America. Frankly, I'd be thrilled to help you avoid coming back to this miserable patch of Earth. Because I'm a man who cares.