The Pathology of Double Standards

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy's Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase.


Pages: 1 2

The surreal moral idiocy that characterizes hatred of Israel is illustrated daily by states whose actions are shrugged away by the international media. Consider the recent Turkish invasion of northern Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish militants who killed 24 soldiers at military posts near the border. Turkish special forces crossed the border, and the air force bombed targets in Iraq. Some speculate a ground invasion in force is in the works. Since the U.S. supplies much of the military hardware used in the attack, along with intelligence gathered by drones, unsurprisingly the White House “strongly condemn[ed]” the “outrageous terrorist attack against Turkey,” and promised to “continue our strong cooperation” to help Turkey defeat the Kurdish militant separatists.

Apologists for Turkey would argue that the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) is a terrorist organization, as designated by both the E.U. and the U.S., one that since the beginning of its armed struggle in 1984 has killed 12,000 Turks. Thus Turkey is within its rights under international law to cross into another sovereign nation in order to punish and deter further attacks. Leaving aside the accuracy of deeming Kurdish separatists to be terrorists, the behavior of the Turks raises a more interesting question: why isn’t this same consideration given to Turkey afforded to Israel?

Comparison with Israel’s struggle against Arab terrorism reveals the extent of the malignant double standards applied to Israel. In fact, the Kurdish people have a much stronger case for independence than do the Arabs called Palestinians. The 30 million Kurds in the Middle East have a documented 2400-year presence in their homeland, a region that now includes parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. They also have a distinct language and customs. The only thing they lack to be a formal nation is their own country, a consequence of the way the British carved up the Ottoman Empire after World War I, a process that served England’s imperial interests rather than the historically justified claims of peoples to national self-determination.

The less than 2 million Palestinians in the so-called West Bank, on the other hand, are ethnically, linguistically, and culturally similar to the Arabs of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. There is no historical record of a distinct Palestinian people, nor was Palestine ever an Arab “homeland.” This is why in 1948 and 1967, Arab armies attacked Israel not to establish an independent Palestinian state, but to destroy Israel and divide its territory among the victors. Arabs ended up in Palestine by the same process that brought them to North Africa, Egypt, and Iraq––as the descendants of conquerors, occupiers, colonists, and immigrants. Palestinian “national aspirations” insofar as they are sincere are a result of military failure, institutionalized victimization, and betrayal by their fellow Arabs, who have found in the displaced Palestinian “refugees” a useful public relations weapon for marginalizing Israel and questioning her legitimacy.

Given the weaker foundations for Palestinian statehood, not to mention the ghoulish carnage wreaked worldwide by decades of Palestinian terrorism, one would think that when it comes to international support for “national aspirations,” the Kurds would near the top of the list while the Palestinians wouldn’t even qualify. Yet global support for the Palestinians, and its attendant hatred of Israel, dwarfs any sympathy for the national aspirations of the Kurds. The West has sent billions in aid to the Palestinians, has anxiously brokered summits, conferences, and other negotiations in an attempt to solve the crisis; the U.N. has demonized, ostracized, and criticized Israel, and her own allies have demanded more and more suicidal concessions. Meanwhile the PKK is condemned as a villainous terrorist organization, and the legitimate complaints of the Kurds––including the suppression of their culture and language, the serial violation of their human rights, the destruction by some estimates of 8,000 Kurdish villages, the deaths of over 30,000 Kurds, and the creation of 3-4 million refugees––are ignored by the same international media and institutions that vilify Israel’s legitimate attempts to defend her citizens.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://www.mebeljatijepara.com/contact mebel jati jepara

    Very nice post. I simply stumbled upon your weblog and wished to mention that I have really loved browsing your weblog posts. After all I?ll be subscribing in your feed and I hope you write again very soon!

  • Larry

    That's because the Israelis are eevuul joos!!!!! and actually dare to stand on their own two feet as a nation. The leftards hate them because they are successful, the neo-nazis hate them because they are successful, and the muslims hate them because they are not muslims.

    All in all it's a toxic group of genocide desirers, but as the old saying goes "by their enemies you shall know them", and this makes the Israelis seriously good people.

    • Herman Caintonette

      Let's focus on the pathology of double-standards, and the charge that columnists on this website indulge them. Article 11 of U.N. General Assembly Res. 194 provides, in pertinent part:

      "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

      The ostensible casus belli for our imperial invasion of Iraq was that Saddam had been defying UN Resolutions. Israel is the most notorious and consistent violator of UN Resolutions. So, the bombing of Tel Aviv starts when?

      • kafirman

        You're reading the wrong section. You need to look up the section not on "refugees" who desire "self-determination," but the section on "dehumanized victims of Allah" who celebrate the killings of innocent Israeli's by naming streets after the perpetrators in that s&^t hole ruled by Allah, who celebrate the animalistic strike of 911 and who celebrate the vigilante killing of Islamic apostates. Somehow though, I don't think you will find this "pertinent" section under "Article 11 of U.N. General Assembly Res. 194." The point is the UN is not "pertinent" to morality. Neither is the main of Islam.

      • pagegl

        If you're really serious about that idiocy of refugees how do you feel about the Jews who have been stripped of all property except the clothes on their back and forced to leave various Middle Eastern Muslim nations?

        • Herman Caintonette

          I'm consistent; I oppose that kind of action in all forms. But that having been said, it is preposterous to demand that the indigenous Palestinians should be held responsible for the actions of a mullah in Marrakesh. Two wrongs do not make a right.

          • Larry

            What indigenous "Palestinians"? And why is it that the arabs in Israel are the only "refugees" any where, any time, that have been guaranteed the "right of return"?

            I notice it doesn't apply to the Germans, Poles, Greeks, Cypriots, Hindus, Jews, Turks, Armenians, etc, etc, only to that one small group of arabs.

            This is the definition of double standards, mealy mouthed caviling aside.

          • Herman Caintonette

            Those who were living there, pursuant to deeds issued by the Crown, at the time that David Ben-Gurion and his Zionist forces forced them off their land. As Nahum Goldmann relates:

            "I don't understand your optimism," Ben-Gurion declared. "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"

            With all respect, I can find no difference between the Zionists and the Nazis. Both practiced the Hitlerian form of expansionism known as Lebensraum.

          • kafirman

            Your modus operandi is "use moral equivalence to elevate the evil of Islam and the same to denigrate Judiasm and/or Christianity." But such a priori strategy does not capitulate to reason or morality. As one can imagine — and indeed see from this discussion — having a "debate" with such an individual is as pointless as talking to the moon god. I still await your first sound argument.

          • Dave

            I agree, the Zionists want a country the size of Wales, it's disgusting expansionism. Hitler wanted to conquer the whole of Europe and then the world, wiping out entire groups of people like Gays, the handicapped, the Jews and the Gypsys along the way. It is exactly the same.

          • intrcptr2

            You forgot the Catholics and Evangelicals…

          • intrcptr2

            Lebensraum was not a policy, son; it was the dream of the Heartland.
            Hitler did not invent it, he borrowed it.

            And it is the Arab Middle East that has been cleansed, not the Zionist Levant; thus, 15% of Israel is Arab today.

            But, just to be clear, are you suggesting/demanding that everything that associates discuss in private conversations are absolute truth, and should be taken as positively indicative of unshakeable indications of his deepest beliefs and desires?

            Please note that Goldmann was conciliatory to the Arabs to the point of having talks with Arafat in the early 70s (Before Jordan exiled him), and sought Israel's security in the UN. His testimony, from the perspective of his motives, is suspect.
            Ben Gurion is placing himself in their place, rhetorically, for one. Two, the Arabs did indeed claim Hitler's cause as their own in the war, so yes, they are to blame.

            My opening point stands; Israel is not Arabrein, but the rest of the Middle East is; your conception of Zionism does not explain this. This can also not explain Camp David and Begin's return of the Sinai.

          • Herman Caintonette

            Israel gave them an excuse. Remember that this didn't happen until the Zionists were given their own country. And as for extermination of the Arabs, there are plenty of quotes from Zionists evidencing that intent; only the outcry of the international community stayed their hand.

          • intrcptr2

            Well now, I am amazed, you've just given away the farm, you poor, poor impoverished Pali.

            They gave them an excuse.

            So let's review shall we?
            1922-Arab riots in Jerusalem kill dozens, of Jews.
            1948-Half the Arab Middle East rejects the two-state solution, based on self-determination, and launches a military assault into the Levant, with the sole purpose of pushing the Jew into the sea.
            1973-Six years after getting caught red-handed preparing for a second war, and losing their shirts, the Arabs gear up again, and almost lose the farm (Communist Realpolitik saving their chestnuts).
            1976-Entebbe
            1982-Hizbollah
            1987-Intifada 1
            2000-Intifada 2

            Thank you so much for justifying all the Israeli responses to the palestinian peace initiatives over the last few decades, since the Palis gave them excuses…

            Go ahead and find Israel on the map; in contradistinction to Pali maps, it is actually there; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_israeli_conflic

          • Herman Caintonette

            Arab riots? It seems that they understood the implications of Zionist immigration (permitted by the Crown, pursuant to the Balfour Declaration), much as conservatives here decry the flood of illegal Latino immigration. To claim that these were unprovoked is to ignore the obvious.

          • intrcptr2

            Thank you for justifying the '67 war.

          • intrcptr2

            And why question the riots? They were.

            And again, you just reversed yourself. You demand that the Jews exhibit a desire to live as neighbors, but then when the Arabs start killing them because of talk of a state, they have been provoked?
            Since the Jews were acting well within British law, and later UN sanction, why should they take it on the chin, rather than the British overlords, or the UN?

            Ultimately, provocation is not justification for immorality or illegality… You have already stated that two wrongs do not make a right, so if the Jews are wrong, what is it that makes it right for the Arabs to follow that with more wrongs?

          • intrcptr2

            And just to clarify yet again, how does the conflict in the Levant, allowing that palestinians are distinct from the Arabs of other lands (Which they are not), justify the Saudi kingdom, Syria, Iraq or any other Muslim country in the region cleansing Jews?

            Your rhetoric and logic are so brilliant, I may have missed that.

          • intrcptr2

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Palestine_riots

            Hmm, 1920, according my understanding of the Gregorian calendar, came before Ben-Gurion declared the state of Israel in 1948.

          • Herman Caintonette

            Let us not forget Irgun, and the complaints involving the Muslim invasion of Europe that Zionists so lustily decry. All of these uprisings had an underlying cause, as all riots do.

          • intrcptr2

            Sure let us not forget Irgun, which, curiously enough was created a decade after the 1920 riot, arguably as a response to Arab, mmm, provocations.

            And was disbanded as soon as the state was declared.

            It is not Zionists who bewail the Muslim conquest of Europe (I really do not get where you get this stuff).

            So please tell me, what is the underlying cause of Muslim immigration to Europe, AND the abject refusal to assimilate to European cultures and politics (I thought Islam was undergoing a reformation which is accomodating it to liberal democracy)?

          • Western Canadian

            You are consistant, only in your habit of being both ignorant and arrogant. You don’t hesitate in the least in offering up opinion without merit. A rather nasty habit, you should try breaking it.

          • Herman Caintonette

            Et tu, Brute? I have yet to discern any evidence that you have an opinion with any merit. Perhaps you should confine yourself to the hockey rink and do the only thing Albertans seem to do well.

          • ziontruth

            The Jews, and none other, are the indigenous Palestinians. Arab settler-colonist land-thieves out of Palestine now, all of them!

          • Western Canadian

            No HC (shameful, you mocking another with your childish troll/handle), you are the one who has only opinion, none of it valid. You are sickening ignorant or dishonest about islam and its ultra-violent history, and accept, as do the ignorant islamists, any smear about jews, past and present. Yes, you could merely be the product of a degenerate western education system, or you are merely a PA troll. Pity for you.

      • intrcptr2

        Yes, indeed, let us focus on this for a moment.

        Three things torpedo your point;
        1. The "palestinians" have repeatedly made it clear that they do not wish to live in peace with their neighbors, unless those neighbors are not Jewish (Considering their fractiousness, even this last is conditional).
        2. The relevant principle in international law is the one that governs land acquired in war; the agressors may not lay claim to it, defenders may.
        3. Your conception of pathology needs work. The disjunction between the world's consideration of Turkey's treatment of the Kurds versus Israel's "treatment" of the "palestinians" is irrelevant to UN Res 194. What is relevant is the Arab world's hypocrisy, and with them your type of equivocating, over the abject denial that Res 194 should apply to the Arab states that are today Judenrein. Who today condemns Syria or Jordan for ignoring it?
        If Arabs go home, or get paid to stay where they are, then Jews get paid to stay they are as well.

        • Herman Caintonette

          As the Zionists were the aggressor here, (no conflict without Balfour), point 2 MAKES my point. Imposition of a Jewish state is an act of aggression, which gives the indigenous Arab the moral right to fight back. But what I find most tragic is that if the Zionists had actually practiced their faith, this conflict would have been unnecessary:

          "The Zionists drew on this ancient spiritual potential to build a political movement. A stirring slogan was spread abroad:

          "A land without people for a people without land"

          ignoring the fact that the Palestinians themselves, well over half a million at the turn of the century, lived in Palestine, that it was their home. The great Zionist humanist, Ahad Ha'am warned against the violation of the rights of the Palestinian people,"
          http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/796f8bc05ec4f30

          If the early Zionists had embraced the wisdom of Ha'am and Hillel, making themselves more valuable to the indigenous people as neighbors than if they were not there, there would have been no conflict.

          "Ahad Ha'am returned to the Arab problem … in February 1914 … '[the Zionists] wax angry towards those who remind them that there is still another people in Eretz Yisrael that has been living there and does not intend at all to leave its place. In a future when this illusion will have been torn from their hearts and they will look with open eyes upon the reality as it is, they will certainly understand how important this question is and how great our duty to work for its solution'." Id.

          There WAS a solution, found easily in Jewish humanism. That is the tragedy.

          • intrcptr2

            Declaring a state is not waging war; where do you come up with this sh*t?

            Are you using indigenous narrowly, meaning those who lived there, or broadly, meaning uncivilized, savages? If it is the latter, than yes, the Palis are. If it is the former, then the Jews have as much right to a state in the levant as the Arabs.

            WOW, that was easy… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jews_in_Ott

            In case you've fogotten, the perfect man, after being rejected as a prophet, claimed that further rejection of the Jew was enjoined upon all who follow his moon god. http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml
            The Arabs of the Middle East did not, have not, and sadly likely will not, demonstrate, ever, a desire to live as neighbors with the Jew, especially in The Land.

            Ultimately, why is it you blame the Jews for not being humanist, but not the palestinians? http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&a

          • Herman Caintonette

            intr: "Declaring a state is not waging war"

            It constitutes a casus belli and facially, met the conditions for just war.

            intr: "Are you using indigenous narrowly, meaning those who lived there,"

            Yes. A nation must, as a precondition to its being a nation, be able to determine who may or may not be invited to enter. The Arabs who had inhabited that region for centuries — prior to WWI, Jews only comprised a small fraction of those who were living there — were promised the ultimate right of self-determination, in exchange for their support during that war. Britain broke that promise, using "Israel" as a solution to the European problem of anti-Semitism.

          • intrcptr2

            Sorry, but without explicit reference to international law, you are wrong. And anyway, a reason for war is still not the same as waging a war (Which, if you'd care to read, is what I said).

            Just how have you decided that ethnic cleansing is a fundamental basis of statehood (Please note the difference between nation and nation-state)? Nations do not inherently possess land, witness the Australian aborigines, Native Americans, the Roma, and yes, the Jews.
            It is only once a state has been declared, or recognized, that de facto control of the territory is even possible, much less legal.

            The only reason the Arabs possessed anything was because of conquest. And the Turks were the ones who owned it, not the Arabs. When the Jews declared their state, an act which did not in the least preclude the local Arabs doing the exact same thing, they were acting perfectly within their human rights, and international law and sanction.

            Your spin on Hussein-McMahon is quaint. It is also not based in international law. Not indeed is it even strictly speaking, completely accurate. McMahon was a diplomat, in a region of sceondary importance to the Crown; his voice did not determine British policies. Attempting to justify over 80 years of murder and mayhem on his letters is positively perverse.
            And I frankly think the British solution to antisemitism far superior to the German, or Arab, one…

            And anyway, since was does this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon%E2%80%93Huss
            exclude any minorities? The Jews lived there long before Muhammad was born, and have ever since.

            Was American slavery justified because there were more whites here than blacks?

          • Western Canadian

            Not one original thought, nor valid historical fact. Utter rubbish, from someone who imbibed jew-hatred with his mothers milk. Sickening.

  • Victor

    Great article, thanks. You've articulated very rapidly what I was discovering just recently: the international mass-media, even the "respectable" "titans" tend actually to distort the reality very badly, reframing things into their opposite.

    Just check the furor around Ukraine: how she is mobbed for punishing a corrupt, populist and criminal politician.

    The coverage in big mass-media all around the world is a distant from the reality that it morphs into fiction.

    • Herman Caintonette

      The FAUX Propaganda Channel demonstrates this beyond cavil. I have yet to see a newspaper get a story that I have been involved in right. But Mark Twain reputedly caught this one a century ago: "If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you’re misinformed."

      That's why I love coming to sites like this and Daily Kos and mixing it up. The best way to test your understanding of a subject is through debate.

      • Larry

        Mark Twain prior to the Zionist return described the place as a virtually unpopulated wasteland.

      • Western Canadian

        So, when are you going to quit name-calling, smearing and hiding behind logical falicies, and try debating?? Oh, never. Right.

      • intrcptr2

        "that I have been involved in"

        So you're trying to tell us that you are a "newsmaker"?

        Do tell, I am curious just who our newest troll actually is.
        And why is it you all have such a healthy capacity to select such brainless/tasteless pseudonyms?

  • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

    It’s the “so-called West Bank” now?

    • Herman Caintonette

      In their religion-addled mind, it is all Eretz Yisrael.

      Ever since the concept of One God was invented in Egypt, men have been killing in its name. Mitochondrially, the Arabs and Jews are close cousins, but religion keeps them apart. More importantly, religion has always been about sex with children (see e.g., http://www.halakhah.com/kethuboth/kethuboth_13.ht… (Kethuboth 13a); when a Jew denounces Mohammed as a child-molester, he forgets his own heritage.

      • kafirman

        HC: "religion has always been about sex with children"

        That is a misconception. ISLAM has always been about sex with children, multiple wives, the prophet's sex with his daughter-in-law, the prophet's sex with captives of war, the prophet's sanction of Muslim males to have sex with captives of war, requiring woman victim's of rape to have four male witnesses to their rape, the killing of woman Muslim victims of rape, an erotic afterlife crafted after the image of the earthly life (but involving young boys and 72 perpetual virgins with plump breasts) dangled as a carrot to get boys with more testosterone than brains to savage non-Muslims.

        But keep defending Allah if you choose.

      • aspacia

        Get real. The Peloponnysian Wars, The Trojan War??? Shall I continue. Another loony toon is in town.

        No, faith is not about sex with children; faith is a belief in a higher being.

        Go to a valid Jewish site, Ask a Rabbi, to learn about what rabbis actually teach.

      • aspacia

        Currently, do Jews condone marrying children because Abraham or Moses or Noah did? The Old Testament/Torah argues to stone certain criminals to death, however, I do not know of any faithful who stone criminals to death except Muslims. Mad Mo was a pillager, slave trader, rapist, pedophile, was Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Noah any of these?

        Islam lives by the tenets of a Medieval warlord, most others have adapted to modernity.

        Similar to the Latin language, Islam will perish because its adherents refuse to change and adapt to modernity.

        Hopefully, Islam will perish before it causes the loss of too many more innocent lives.

        • intrcptr2

          One can make the argument that modernity is another child of the faith.

          Now, post-modernity is another, mmm, issue entirely.
          But yes, Mohammad quite failed to provide a path to the future for his followers.

      • Dave

        This is just one example of how anti-semites take Talmud passages out of
        context. This passage is often quoted out of context by anti-semites to
        falsely make people think that Jews advocate sodomizing children below the
        age of nine. The goal is to cause people to hate Jews. The Nazis of
        Germany quoted the same passage out of context with the same goal, to cause
        people to hate Jews and in this case to think that Jews sodmize young
        children.

        This is just sick and propogated by sick hateful anti semites.

        There is no place for such sick propaganda.

        You did not get this passage from studying the Talmud because had you done
        so you could plainly see that you were quoting it out of context.
        (actually you misquoted it also). Unless you deliberately took it out of
        context.

      • intrcptr2

        Mmm, no, mitochondrially, the Jews (maternal descent) are Jewish. Biblically (And linguistically), they are cousins with Ishmaelites.

        Freud was a crackhead; monotheism was not invented, anywhere, and the Hebrews didn't pick it up from Egypt (Their one Pharaoh who liked the idea got lynched, and excised from the monuments).

        And please, explain to me how religion has always been about sex, since the Bible condemns, in no uncertain terms, prositution, adultery, beastiality, fornication, lust itself.

        And, unless you are a trained Rabbi, please do not reference the Talmud. And even if you are, do not reference the Talmud to try explaining the source of a religion that predates IT by 2000 years.

      • ziontruth

        "Ever since the concept of One God was invented in Egypt, men have been killing in its name."

        100,000,000 dead in the name of Marxism show no religion is needed; the evil passion clinging to every human being is enough.

        "The Talmud outlined the rules for having sex with children, claiming that there is no legal harm if the child is under three."

        Liar. The minimum legal age for marriage according to Jewish Law is 12½ for girls, and no sexual activity is allowed outside marriage.

    • intrcptr2

      Always was.

      That's OK, we understand you don't read maps.
      Why do the Jordanians get to name it?

  • StephenD

    Great job with this. I recently watched a small documentary of the Kurds that fear when the US leaves they will be wiped out by Turkey. Apparently, the Turks are confident enough to know they need not wait for us to be out of Iraq. With Obama practically praising their move on the Kurds, I expect they'll grow even bolder and take more intrusive action in short order( including genocidal actions). On the world stage, we'll probably call them heroes.

  • Herman Caintonette

    It seems that the only standard in politics IS the double-standard. It was surreal to hear Republicans like McCain, Graham, and Rubio heap praise on the French–that's right; that is not a typo–for the death of Gadhafi (we can forget how to spell his name now), despite the fact that he was found by a Predator drone. Let's face it: if Obama were a Republican, and he nailed bin Laden, al-Awlaki, and Gadhafi in a single year, those clowns would demand that his image be placed on Mount Rushmore.

    I come to sites like these to poke fun at the people who scream about their opponents' alleged double-standards when they fail utterly to recognize their own abundant crop of double-standards.

    • kafirman

      The real double standard is the failure of the West to see Islam as evil. Multiculturalism forbids this thesis, so Americaphobes like Bush and B. Hussein Soetorro say things like "Islam is a religion of Peace" and "The US is not, and will never be, at war with Islam." Excuse me mr. multiculturalists, but what if Islam is at war with us? Would it then still be the "religion of piece"? Would it then be appropriate to refuse to protect ourselves?

      • Herman Caintonette

        I don't see Islam as inherently evil, any more than Judaism or Christianity; rather, I see public anger channeled through terrorism because there was no other way to express it.

        We have been meddling in the M.E. for 60 years, and it always seemed to benefit strongmen and dictators. By way of example, Operation Ajax overthrew a perfectly functional Western-style and West-friendly parliamentary democracy, headed by a graduate of Le Sorbonne. We installed the execrable Shah and his brutal SAVAK; the people had no vehicle for revolution that didn't involve creation of an Islamic theocracy.

        Iran is, by any objective measure, our fault. But now, the mullahs have lost the trust of the people, and revolution is inevitable. If we had not strengthened the mullahs' hand through our belligerence, it would have come sooner, rather than later.

        I am buoyed by the hope that the Arab Spring has changed that paradigm. Libya in particular seems headed for a renaissance, as they have pristine beaches, a lovely climate, and lots of oil. They are especially friendly to the West, and their likely customers. If Libya and Tunisia develop the way they should, they will serve as a model for the region. And if Israel disappeared, the Islamist threat would, as well.

        • kafirman

          HC: "I don't see Islam as inherently evil, any more than Judaism or Christianity"

          Allow me to help.
          Islam: “[force non-Muslims to] pay the tax in acknowledgment of [the] superiority [of Islam over whatever religion the non-Muslims believe in] and [to insure] they [i.e., the non-Muslims] are in a state of subjection [or 'being brought low' Pickthal translation]” (Koran 9:29, Shakir translation).

          Christianity: "But we urge you, brethren, to excel still more, and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you, so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need. (Paul’s First letter to the Thessalonians 4:10b-12, written circa 51 AD)"

          HC, you are, like Islam, destroying everything you touch. By moral equivalencing Islam with Judiasm or Christianity you are perverting morality. By taking the name HC, you pervert the reputation of a man who is nowhere near the darkness you embody. By implying that Jimmy Carter was operating according to the same blueprint as the Bush invasions of Iraq, you conflate the Western left with the Western right.

          The lesson of AJAX is that there are regimes that can be worse than the run of the mill totalitarian oppression: there can be Islamic regimes.

          Rather "by any objective measure" the 270 million murders, in the name Islam, belongs at the feet of Islam. http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/tears-of-jihad

          • Herman Caintonette

            Christianity has more than its share of blood on its hands, as well. History will never forgive Cortez, the eradication of aboriginals in Tasmania, and any number of similar acts. And as a non-Christian living in a Christian nation, I have experienced dhimmitude and religious persecution personally. The god of the Torah not only openly endorses genocide, but affirmatively commanded it. For this reason, I find it hard to denounce Islam (which I carry no brief for, btw) without painting those religions with the same brush.

          • kafirman

            Christianity has brought civility to the world. It is Christianity that has kept the world from cannibalism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaY1eVaPQ5U I believe in the negation of your moral world.

            Apparently you also equated morally Koran 9:29 with 1 Thes. 4:10-12. My time is being wasted on a blind heart as yours. In contrast to Christianity, Islam has truly brought bloodshed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP3fCyQiXSI&fe

          • Herman Caintonette

            Islam brought civility to the Western world a millenium beforehand; at its zenith, there were more schools of Islam than there were books in the Vatican. A millenium ago, Cordoba was the most sophisticated city Europe had ever seen.

            Christianity didn't bring civility to the world, so much as the Enlightenment brought it to Christianity. Conservative Christianity is a backwater of barbarism, even today.

          • kafirman

            HC, you've got it exactly backwards. Cordoba was a conquest mosque built on the evil spirit of Koran 9:29 "to make the kafir feel oppressed."
            Islam embodies evil (as I have noted in these comments) and you call it "sophisticat[ion]." You are an evil person.

          • intrcptr2

            Nothing of the Golden Age of Islam was due to the Quran; it was the subject people who prospered the Muslim conquests. Once that cultural and intellectual intertia had expended itself, Muslim Europe collapsed upon itself under its own anti-intellectualism, especially once the Gates of Inquiry were closed.

          • intrcptr2

            I am sorry you feel so put upon, but no, you have not experienced dhimmitude living as a non-believer in a "christian" land. The concept does not exist in Christianity to begin with. And, as so many are so willing to remind us, America isn't christian.

            Of course this last point is open to wild interpretation and speculation. Muslims will tell you it is, but then that is their reason for waging jihad against the West; to win it for Allah and institute proper dhimmitude, which sadly would mean your death, which, now that I think of it, proves my point about your lack of dhimmitude "under" Christians.

            And again, if you'd like to find an Amalekite, then we can dicuss Yahweh's genocidal edicts, if you are a Hebrew, that is. Otherwise, drop the canard, it is a bit limp by now.

          • http://www.dikaesha.pbwiki.com Foolster41

            Once again, Conquests and violence done in the name of Christianity was DESPITE the teachings of Jesus, and his followers such as Paul.
            The "Chrsitanity/Judeism is violent too" is a tired, dishonest line used by Islamic supremiscists trying to cover for what they can't defend, or militant Judeochristiaphboes.

            Please do cite New Testament verses that command violence and subjugation of non-believers, and show me how they are being carried out today. Also please explain how they co-exist with the verses that contradict this message (Jesus' command to Peter to put away his sword, the peaceful admonitions of Paul, etc. )

          • intrcptr2

            To add to the argument here, shall we inquire about what Muslim jurists did with the Roman/Christian concepts of just war and the christian truce?

            Romans thought hard about justifying their wars, and christians, at least after Constantine had convicned them that fighting them was acceptable, spent a good deal of time trying to meld pagan martial philosophy with biblical pronouncements on killing and peacemaking.
            Muslims have no such intellectual history.

            And unless I am mistaken, they have one rule that justifies war; Muslims are waging it against shirk or Jahiliyyah.

        • pagegl

          "If Libya and Tunisia develop the way they should, they will serve as a model for the region." Your assumption by this is that they will become democratic states. Do you believe that the Muslim Brotherhood will let that happen?

          If Israel disppears little will change, radical Islam will continue its attempt to spread by violent jihad. That is their belief as defined, perhaps only in their interpretation, in the Koran. Given the history of Islam and the fact that its spread as been mostly, if not totally, at the point of a sword, we have no reason to believe they will change any time in the forseeable future.

          • Herman Caintonette

            Yes, I do. Did you know that the largest concentration of Muslims is not in the Middle East? Islam and liberal democracy are not mutually exclusive.

            Religious nuts invariably crave power, and want to impose their worldview on others by force. Look at our Religious Right. Is it really any different from the Brotherhood?

            Christianity was routinely spread by force and coercion; practitioners of the Old Religion were frequently involuntary guests at barbeques. Now that Islam has come to the West, it appears that it is in the midst of reformation — Christianity changed with the times, and Islam is likely to follow suit. I am actually optimistic on this score, based on the Muslims I know.

          • Matt

            Herman,
            "Christianity was routinely spread by force and coercion…"
            You are confusing Roman Catholism with Chrisianity, contrary to popular belief they are not one & the same. It is the Roman Catholic church; that teaches it has replaced the Jew's as Gods chosen people, that forces its belief onto others ie; the Crusades, under the false pretence of christianity, not Christianity itself.

            In contrast to Christianity, Islam’s objective is not to coexist peacefully in a tolerant world of religious freedom but to convert the world to Islam, if necessary, by the sword. Every Muslim knows this because it is preached in every mosque throughout the world.

            “O Ye who believe! Murder those of the unbelievers…and let them find harshness in you.” [Koran, Repentance: 123]
            “Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute.” [Koran, Repentance: 29]

          • Herman Caintonette

            "Suffer not a witch to live." Exodus 22:18.

          • intrcptr2

            Unless you are a Hebrew living over 2000 years ago in Judea, this is perfectly irrelevant.

            The Torah was not given to Gentiles, and so has no bearing whatsoever on them.
            Christ has done away with the demands of the Torah, including the civil commandments, which themselves were intended exclusively for those who lived under the judges and kings of Israel.

            An example; do you drink alcohol?
            How do you explain your transgressing the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution?

          • intrcptr2

            No comment.

          • Western Canadian

            Amazing. A comment about largest concentration of muslims, followed by an utter load of rubbish about islam and liberal democracy not being mutually exclusive…. So name the muslim countries that are liberal democracies, or to make it easier for you, name the muslim countries that are not sewers that treat non-muslims or wrong-muslims like sub-humans. We are waiting.

        • zionista

          If islamofascism gets a foothold in the US G-d forbid, useful idiots like you and trolls like flipside will be the first to get your heads lopped off – that's the thing about being a useful idiot – you are SOOOOOOO dispensible

          • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

            You’re so dumb. You act like I am not armed and able to defend myself against men in pajamas with swords.

          • intrcptr2

            What do guns have to do with the establishment of sharia?

        • aspacia

          It will be an Islamic Winter.

          • intrcptr2

            So you're saying that democracy and peace being established in the Muslim Middle East has a snowball's chance in hell?

          • aspacia

            Yes

        • Western Canadian

          You are either a troll for islamists, or a willfully and happily ignorant lout. You literally have a head full of rubbish and ignorance. And are proud of it.

          American involvment in the ‘middle east’ goes back much longer than 60 years, and the rest of your post is just as sad.

        • intrcptr2

          Yeah, I recall the Pasha telling Sobieski that he was in Vienna protesting Israeli construction of apartment blocks in Jerusalem.

        • Western Canadian

          If you stopped your last rant at the “I don’t see”, you would have offered up your first honest post. Alas, you blew it. No, the ‘west-friendly’ crew prior to the shah was NOT west friendly, more soviet friendly than anything. Amusing that you are so harsh with the shah, who was a flower loving boy scout compared to the sub-animal founder of islam.

          The revolutions in the middle-east will go the same way as Lebanon… Islamic hell-holes. Your ignorance is staggering. Or you are merely dishonest.

          • aspacia

            True, the Shah was bad, but nothing compared to the mullahs. What is it with Muslims? They want totalitarianism not liberation—Fear of responsibility???

        • ziontruth

          "I don't see Islam as inherently evil,…"

          Then you're ignorant of it. You're ignorant of it having a global political program little different than that of Marxism or Nazism.

          "…rather, I see public anger channeled through terrorism because there was no other way to express it. … We have been meddling in the M.E. for 60 years,…"

          Another "Blame Ourselves First" traitor.

          Western colonialism (and general interventionism) ended about 30 years ago; the Muslim world must own its failures (which it will as likely do as Democrats will stop blaming Bush and "white racism").

        • Western Canadian

          Absolutely amazing, the way you embrace every fiction and distortion about the past glories of islam…… And accept every smear and hate filled load of drivel about israel, jews, the torah….. You must try hard.

          Don’t worry, some day you will run out of straws to grasp, and reality will smack you in your undoubtedly fat face….

    • aspacia

      Yes, we have been aiding and abetting the Libyan rebels who will bite us just as the Taliban did.

      Most Republicans do praise O for publically and bloodily exterminating the insects bin Laden, al-Awlaki, and assistance provided in Gadhafi's bloody demise. Good! Most Republican applaud the fact that O is following Wby's war tactics and strategies. Gitmo is still open, drone attacks have increased. Many ranking terrorists have been incinerated or blown to bits. This is not a double standard.

      I am not a Republican and only voted for a Republican president during the last election, am a social liberal, but fiscal conservative.

      You are sterotyping Republicans, just as many Republican stereotype Democrats, Libertarians, and other parties.

      Look in a mirror.

  • Herman Caintonette

    BT: "Turkey has sought greater legitimacy among the Muslim umma by turning viciously on Israel, most grievously in the support given to the 2010 “Gaza Freedom Flotilla” that attempted to run the legal Israeli blockade of Gaza."

    Nations don't have friends; they have interests. We have allied ourselves with Pinochet, Noriega, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Mubarak, Saddam, and to a lesser extent Gadhafi. Turkey sees its national interest coinciding with that of its Arab League brethren, and has taken a position consonant with that interest. How does that constitute a "vicious" act?

    Israel spies on us. Are they truly our friends? Of course not! They have their interest, and would sell us out in a New York minute. Nations don't have friends.

    As to the legality of the Gaza blockade, it is dubious at best. http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011

    • kafirman

      HC: "Turkey sees its national interest coinciding with that of its Arab League brethren, and has taken a position consonant with that interest. How does that constitute a "vicious" act? "

      "Arab League brethren" is a euphemism for "fellow travelers in the dehumanization fields of Allah."
      Which of these "Arab brethren" will denounce the Koran's sanction of raping kafir women in Koran 4:3?
      Which of these "Arab brethren" will celebrate the "self determination" of Muslims to leave Islam?
      Which of these "Arab brethren" renounce their complicity with the Third Reich?
      Which of these "Arab brethren" renounce the Koran's express command to make the kafir "feel oppressed" by the Jizya tax (Koran 9:29)?

      For educated people to articulate such evil (as you have done here), is a greater evil than had such evil been articulated by someone with lesser faculties. You must be a Muslim. I pity you.

      • Herman Caintonette

        No, I am not a Muslim. Nor am I a Jew or Christian; I don't have a dog in this hunt, when it comes to comparative religion. As far as the Reich goes, given that YHWH (ostensibly, through Moses) not only counsels but affirmatively advocates genocide (Deut. 20:16-17). Following Hillel, you aren't in a position to condemn, unless your condemnation includes the god of the Israelites.

        • Sallie G. Schaffer

          If you are not a Muslim, or a Jew or a Christian. You must be a nothing.

          • Herman Caintonette

            I could be a Hindu, a Jainist, a Buddhist, a $cientologist, or belong to any number of faiths, or even no faith at all. How does that make me a non-person?

        • Sallie G. Schaffer

          If you are not a Muslim, or a Jew or a Christian. You must be a nothing.

        • kafirman

          HC you have a dog in this hunt. Perhaps it is your multicultural dog. Nonetheless, you are a Muslim's best friend. For the time being.

          Acts of genocide encouraged by the God of the Bible are time specific only. However the Koran and Islam gives the highest honor to jihad and genocide at all times (e.g., Koran 9:5, 9:29).

          • Herman Caintonette

            Genocide is genocide; I don't see how time restrictions make it acceptable. After all, by that odd metric, the Nazi atrocities could have been permissible, whereas the acts of the Australians in Tasmania and the Armenian Holocaust were not.

            I oppose genocide anywhere, at any time. Any god who would condone it is not worthy of the honorific.

          • kafirman

            HC: "Genocide is genocide; I don't see how time restrictions make it acceptable."

            HC, moral equivalency is your nature. You are clueless about morality.

            The Bible, for example, says "Do not murder." There is a difference between murder and killing. If someone want's to rape my daughter, I will do whatever I can to stop this. If necessary, I will kill.

            But I do not believe in murder.

            Just as morality distinguishes between murder and killing, so it is morally plausible to justify a particular genocide. But really the beef against Judaism should be why, when the world and the Jews did not honor God, did God wish for Israel to be blessing to the entire world (Gen. 12:3)? Why did the God of Judaism continue to bless Israel and to bless the whole world (e.g., John. 3:16)?

          • Herman Caintonette

            IOW, an infant deserves death because he said "Goo" when he really meant "Gaaaaa?" If you endorse genocide, you also endorse group punishment, which means that all Jews can be blamed for the acts of bad Jews. Do you really want to go there?

            Also, Deut. 20:16-17 is problematic, as YHWH's genocide was part of a scheme to steal land. And the more things change, the more they stay the same. Theft is theft, even if your psychotic flavor of god ostensibly endorses it. Even David Ben-Gurion understood that he was stealing land:

            "I don't understand your optimism," Ben-Gurion declared. "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"

            Nahum Goldmann, The Jewish Paradox: A Personal Memoir of Historic Encounters that Shaped the drama of Modern Jewry 99, (Grosset & Dunlap, 1978)

          • kafirman

            HC: IOW, an infant deserves death because he said "Goo" when he really meant "Gaaaaa?"

            Absolutely not. There is no evidence for the sanction of frivolous genocide in the Bible. But there are plenty of evidence for depraved cultures (which can be difficult to identify by moral equivalencers).

            Ironically the Bible underscores the evil of such cultures by their practice of sacrificing their own children.

            You can recognize the evil in capriciously killing infants, but not the evil in a non-Western culture which worshipped Molech.

            You have no moral clue do you?

            P.S. "Palestinians" enclaves formed near the border with Israel in order to benefit from trade and other benevolences with Israel. As Adam Smith noted, the first rule in economics is to wish that you have wealthy neighbors with whom to engage in commerce. Zionists thus contributed to the increased population of Arabs in the Holy Land and created an economic oasis amidst the desert of Islamic commerce.

          • aspacia

            Caintonette, at the moment a 13 year-old has been expelled from school and is threatened with physical harm for misspelling Mad Mo's name. You also appear to have double standards.

            Few, is any in the West, especially Israel promote genocide. Why are you pulling this red herring. It is most of the Muslims who reside in this area who call for genocide against Israeli Jews. In fact, the Arab populations in this area has increased since the creation of Israel and under its legal control of the West Bank and Gaza. They are the ones who refuse to create a Muslimfrei land, whereas most Jews and more recently Christians have been massacred and driven from Muslim-majority lands.

            Hamas was duly elected, hence Israel can morally hold them responsible for their violent, dubious leadership, but they do not. Israel goes to extremes to avoid civilian deaths; in contrast Hamas targets Israeli civilians.

            Ben Gurion was mistaken in his claim because the Qu'ran orders the Muslims to leave the land of the Jews to the Jews. That is, Ben Gurion did not really know the Muslim book. Also, Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Qu'ran, and most Muslims lie about this fact.

        • Western Canadian

          You are not a jew, muslim or christian…. Well, definitely not a jew or a christian. What you are in an unspeakably ignorant individual, with a weird and somewhat irritating hatred of jews and christians.

    • pagegl

      Using a leftist, one-world government advocate as a reference to determine the legality of Israel's blockade is disingenous. Given various actions and writings of the man it is very probable that his opinion regarding the legality of Israel's blockade is very stilted.

      • Herman Caintonette

        The legality of the blockade is in legitimate dispute. Blockades are acts of war, and can be met legally by violent reprisals — like blowing up Jewish children on a bus (it should be noted that Islam does not permit this). I have a problem with both, but if you let one happen, you don't have the standing to complain about the other.

        • aspacia

          So, even if it is an act of war, Hamas is sworn to destroy Israel and they have always been at war with Jews. Their leaders want all Jews to return to Israel so it will be easier to annihilate all of them.

          Hence, according to your logic, since the Muslim World initiated the violence, Israel has every legal right to exterminate every one of their Muslim neighbors including babes, just as Muslims murder Jewish children.

          Actually Islam does permit and call for the killing of all infidels.

          Debate Spencer — he will decimate you just has decimates all his opponents. He uses accepted Islamic scholars to refute claims and all these idiots do is use fallacious ad hom attacks against him.

        • intrcptr2

          The blockade is a response to the buses, cafes, and weddings that the Palis have been blowing up for years; if you wish to claim that you are the one who is being even-handed and unbiased, then perhaps you might get your history straight and admit that Israel, which has nukes and its own military industry, has done more than any nation in history to accomodate its mortal enemy.

          Recall too, the blockade allows legitimate trade to pass, it is concerned only with military contraband. When a bus blows up, no one goes home; the two do not equate.

          Rather than attacking the Jews as maniacally as you do, could you perhaps tells us just what the Palis do do that you condemn? Note also, quoting the pope to lay the blame for the violence at the feet of Israel IS NOT evidence of equanimity.

          • Herman Caintonette

            Life experiences change your perspective. As one who has been on the business end of persecution, I am a lot more solicitous of those who fight back by any means available, because all means are permissible. Read Sun-Tzu and learn. If the Palestinians had Predator drones and Hellfire missiles, they wouldn't have to resort to blowing their precious children up on buses, but a if guerrilla war is your only option, it is the one you choose.

            Ask that famous terrorist, Menachem Begin.

          • aspacia

            Rather nasty insult to Begin, especially after the Holocaust. Read about the Holocaust visited on Jews by the Mufti–Begin's work saving Jews and targeting British military pales in comparison.

        • Western Canadian

          Blockades can be an act of war, or a defense against an agressor. A legitimate response to war. The blockade can be, and in this instance is, a legal response to gun running criminals.

          Islam permits any act of violence against any none-muslim. There is no such thing as an innocent non-muslim, of any age, race, sex…. period. And since you have done nothing about the gun-running, you have admitted you have no standing to complain about the blockade

        • pagegl

          Several legal scholars in the USA, including Alan Dershowitz, say the blockade is legal. Acts of terrorism, such as blowing up noncombatants, in no way is considered legal.

          We can debate whether the blockade is legal, but if you suggest that acts of terrorism are I would reply that you have a serious lack of credibility

          Gaza is not a state. Given that much of the terrorism directed at Israel comes form Gaza, given that Hamas, which rules Gaza has stated time and time again their goal is the destruction of Israel, Israel's attempts to make sure weapons are not shipped to Gaza is understandable. Further, Israel is not stopping valid humanitarian goods, only weapons. Apparently, you have a problem with a legitimate attempt by Israel to defend itself.

    • aspacia

      Caintonette,

      I will further refute your claims tomorrow, as it has been a long day, actually, like most working U.S. citizens, it always is a long working day.

      Many of your claims are logical, and correct, nations do not have friends they have allies, usually allies with shared beliefs and goals. At the moment, we have zero shared beliefs and goals as you claim because many Muslims call for Sharia Law which is oxymoronic to our freedom and Constitution.

      Do you renounce Sharia Law?

      I will discuss this further tomorrow.

      Oh, and please, do not provide you friend ??? is is Flipped??? with too many academic words because he makes himself look like the fool he is when he misuses them.

      Regards,

      A Deist

    • aspacia

      Aj is not a reliable source. This media source has zero balance, is often mendacious and usually omits opposing opinion. Similar to you, I troll on Jizz, provide opposing opinions, and never use ad hom attacks to rattle their cages.

      Yes, the U.S. has often sided with tyrants for our economic, political and security interests.

      You are mistaken about Israel because many Israelis made Aliyah from the U.S. and many still have economic interests in the states. Many U.S. Jews realize, that we may turn on them, just as Russian, England, Germany and every other has, and support Israel because it may be their only safety net left in a hostile world.

    • intrcptr2

      Did you just reference a Muslim outlet, which itself is referencing a UN report which, paradoxically, decided that something Israel is doing, blockading Gaza, is indeed legal, and then try to argue that the legality of the blockade is dubious?

      I should think that when the UN finds in favor of Israel, all debate is ended.

      Mr Falk, exposes his own fallacious thinking, and blatant hypocrisy, in the underlying issues section of his opinion piece. Without a shred of support, he states that the only satisfactory result would have been a statement that the blockade is illegal. But the panel was not meant to investigate that to start with, and such reasoning is presuptive and prejudicial; in law, one does not argue backwards from his conclusion.
      I suppose I ought not ascribe such logic to you, though; my apologies.

    • Western Canadian

      Again, you demonstrate a habit of offering up your ignorance and lack of ability to reason…. You might actually have some small background in law. Law school or jail-house variety, would be the next question.

    • Ken

      If you think I am going to believe ANYTHING Al Jazeera reports, I have swamland Arizona to sell you!!

  • kafirman

    Excellent article Mr. Thornton. I found it worth reading and defending.

  • kafirman

    Speaking of double standards, I could not help but think of the contrast between Obama's moral equivalency at Egypt's savaging the Copts versus his condemnation of the PKK.

  • mrbean

    We need to stop acting as if the Israeli government and the Palestinian regime were morally equal. The Israeli government represents a free country, which protects (to a large extent) the individual rights of its citizens, and acts only in self-defense to eliminate the terrorists that threaten its people. The Palestinian regime, in sharp contrast, is a collection of terrorists and supporters of terrorism. The Palestinian regime that has no respect for the individual rights of its own people, and whose main goal is the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jewish people.

    • Herman Caintonette

      One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter. I am sure that Parliament would have agreed with you in, say, 1776….

      • mrbean

        I always am amused at a reply that is usually a regurgitated bromide from the non-judgemental progressive crowd whose capacity for evasion takes on the property of almost infinite elasticity when things are well defined.

      • Western Canadian

        Gee, another era and location in history that you are willfully ignorant or habitually dishonest about.

      • intrcptr2

        Actually William Pitt the Younger agreed with the colonists that the King's men were the terrorists.

        And please, Adams et al had both a legal basis, even aside from Jefferson's claims, against the Crown (So please stop trying ever so pitiably to dress palestinians in blue and tricorns). Arafat et al are little more than thugs, seeking only death, first for their neighbors and then for themselves (How do you justify this http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=farfu
        Perhaps this is why Mohammad took little girls as wives, and why so many Muslims do today…

        • Herman Caintonette

          By Pitt's metric, the Zionists are also terrorists. Sucks for your argument….

          • intrcptr2

            I'm sorry it took me so long to respond to you, I had to pick myself off the floor.

            What is so amazing about this is that you are serious. For your sake, allow me to qualify; you made the argument, out of utter ignorance, and I punctured it. Try again.

            You claim that the British Parliament likely thought of the Colonists as terrorists, and when I point out that the Prime Minister of England sided with them, you somehow conclude that that means that he would side with those who are routinely screaming death, indoctrinating their children with suicidal rage, and refuse even to talk.
            Take a very close look at the Declaration of Independence, go sit in on any Jewish holiday, read the Bible; and then get back to me.

            It is now official, you are a blithering idiot, with the intellectual capacity of a slug, frankly lower than even flipside.
            I do hope your techie knows how do dry all that drool off your keyboard.

          • ziontruth

            "…read the Bible…"

            intrcptr2, you're talking to a professional blasphemer. You're wasting your time on this future hellfire fuel.

          • Western Canadian

            So now we know that besides your ignorance of christianity and its history, judism and its history, islam and its unspeakably bloody history, american history, you also know nothing about Pitt, or the workings of his mind.

            And you also have the bad habit of trying to pretend a degree of sophistication (and failing at it), by off topic and pointless references to shakespeare.

            Your efforts to take on a mantle of oppression, are actually rather funny. Dhimmitude?? Your ignorance is showing again.

            You are one sick puppy.

  • Ben

    Right,hypocrisy rules the world.Moral athorities of the churches and "human right defenders" are on the level that allows them doesn`t notice persecuted Christians,Gypsies and thousands of others. You wish they`ll love Jews?
    Lease,find some moral authority of today`

  • ObamaYoMoma

    I'm just curious, can flipside or anyone else explain the difference between the jihad of conquest the Islamic world is waging perpetually against the Jewish infidels in Israel via its Palestinian proxy from the jihads of conquest the Islamic world is also waging perpetually against the Hindu infidels in Kashmir, Jammu, and India, the Buddhist infidels in Thailand, the Christian infidels in the Philippines, the atheist and Orthodox Christian infidels in Chechnya and Russia, the animist and Christian infidels in Cote D'Ivoire, Nigeria, Sudan, and Somalia, the Orthodox Christian Serb infidels in Bosnia and Kosovo, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum? Not to mention the non-violent stealth and deceptive jihads of conquest being waged throughout the West via mass Muslim immigration for the purpose of demographic conquest. Indeed, why should the world single out only the Jewish infidels in Israel for excoriation at the same time the world totally ignores all the other many aforementioned jihads of conquest also being waged perpetually by the Islamic world against various and sundry infidels around the world?

    • intrcptr2

      Oops.

      Damned facts. Now what?

      • tagalog

        Are you, like, the last of the V-8 intrcptrs?

    • Herman Caintonette

      We unleashed the scourge of Islamic extremism. We gave it traction. And now, we are shocked by its virulence?

      I have always said that Israel was a bridge too far; that it could not be defended by the West. Demographics made this inevitable.

      • ziontruth

        "We unleashed the scourge of Islamic extremism."

        Traitor. Deluded fool. Fifth-columnist.

        "I have always said that Israel was a bridge too far; that it could not be defended by the West."

        We don't need your "defense," which cannot be relied upon and always comes with a price (usually, land concessions) afterward. Take your aid and shove it.

        • ziontruth

          I wanted to add:

          What do you mean, "unleashed the scourge of Islamic extremism"? Are they dogs or bacteria, that you unleash their scourge by opening some gate to them?

          No, they're human beings, responsible for their actions, and accountable for their imperialist aggression. It is to the shame of the Left that it absolves human beings of their accountability and effectively treats them like children, or worse.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        We unleashed the scourge of Islamic extremism. We gave it traction. And now, we are shocked by its virulence?

        We unleashed the scourge of Islamic extremism? I hate to rain on your unhinged self-hating loon parade, but when you claim that we unleashed the scourge of Islamic extremism you imply that beforehand Islam was somehow moderate, but that is a lame PC multicultural myth, as Islam's sole purpose and main goal has always been to make Islam supreme throughout the world via the imposition of Sharia.

        Indeed, how ignorant of history can any one moonbat be? What about the previous almost 1400 years of Islamic history, when Islam not only conquered and colonized the world from Portugal to the East Indies, but when it also repeatedly tried relentlessly to conquer Europe and was stopped at the Battle of Tours, the Battle of Lapanto, and finally the last time at the Gates of Vienna in 1683, when subsequently Judeo-Christian Western civilization suddenly became far more technologically advanced relative to Islamic civilization and the tables were finally turned.

        You want to talk about alleged imperialism, well study Islamic history, as Islamic civilization, which is a completely alien civilization to our Judeo-Christian Western civilization, is the study of the most imperialistic civilization ever in the history of the world, as again Islam conquered the world from Portugal to the East Indies putting to death by the sword in the process hundreds of millions of Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and Black animists, while forcefully converting the rest via harsh and degrading dhimmitude to Islam.

        As a matter of fact, from the 1500s to about 1780, Islamic civilization, which invented and ran the slave trade since its creation in 622, enslaved even more White Europeans than Black Africans. Indeed, the English word Slav for the Slavic people evolved from the Islamic world's practice of raiding that part of Eastern Europe to acquire slaves, and it was that habit of continually raiding Europe by Muslims for the acquisition of slaves as far away as in Iceland and the British Isles that eventually led to the Islamic world being colonized by Europeans in self defense in order to stop the relentless slave raids. Hell, even the nascent state of America was forced to fight a war against the Islamic world in the Barbary Wars. Indeed, how incredibly ignorant of history can you be?

        I hate to rain only your blame America first self-hating loon parade you moonbat, but what unleashed this latest round of jihad conquest by the Islamic world was not America, but instead the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world from the West to the Islamic world thanks to a geological freak accident of nature called oil.

        I have always said that Israel was a bridge too far; that it could not be defended by the West. Demographics made this inevitable.

        You are a gullible useful idiot that has had his ignorance's, which are obviously incredibly enormous, exploited to the hilt by slick Islamic taqiyya artists. In fact, you are so gullible, dumb, and stupid that it is very easy to see how you became a delusional leftist!

        In any event, I'm just curious, can you explain the difference between the jihad of conquest the Islamic world is waging perpetually against the Jewish infidels in Israel via its Palestinian proxy from the jihads of conquest the Islamic world is also waging perpetually against the Hindu infidels in Kashmir, Jammu, and India, the Buddhist infidels in Thailand, the Christian infidels in the Philippines, the atheist and Orthodox Christian infidels in Chechnya and Russia, the animist and Christian infidels in Cote D'Ivoire, Nigeria, Sudan, and Somalia, the Orthodox Christian Serb infidels in Bosnia and Kosovo, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum? Not to mention the non-violent stealth and deceptive jihads of conquest being waged throughout the West via mass Muslim immigration for the purpose of demographic conquest. Indeed, why should the world single out only the Jewish infidels in Israel for excoriation at the same time the world totally ignores all the other many aforementioned jihads of conquest also being waged perpetually by the Islamic world against various and sundry infidels around the world?

        In addition, can you also please explain why Christians and all other non-Muslim unbelievers living throughout the Islamic world today as second-class dhimmi citizens are violently oppressed and systematically persecuted when not outright slaughtered altogether in every Islamic country in the world today without exception, yet you are dumb enough to imply that Islamic civilization and Muslims were moderate until America unleashed the scourge of Islamic extremism?

        While you are at it also please explain why in country after country and anywhere and everywhere mass Muslim immigration is occurring in the world today the vast overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants like clockwork flat out refuse to assimilate and integrate and instead form segregated Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia as fifth columns and in direct contravention to the laws of the states in which they reside.

        • Western Canadian

          Don’t expect a rational or honest response from HC Moonbat. He is beyond ignorant, and his GPS is not working…..

      • pagegl

        We did not unleash Islamic terrorism; it has been a fact of life, in various levels, since 622.

      • Beth

        The koran is what caused "Islamic extremism". When young children are taught their whole lives to "kill the infidels" for generations upon generations – what else should anyone expect from Islam? but bloodshed?

        The tree is known by its fruit. If you support murder Herman Caintonette – then you're a murderer. Therefore, your comments are no surprise to me.

  • Michael

    What a nonsense article. First off Israel has no place to talk about countries formed through terrorism (Irgun, Lehi, Hagana).

    Secondly, The "Palestinians" are not, as you claim, no different to the Arabs elsewhere in the region. There are Palestinian Arabs of the Christian faith who hold a local festival for Moses's birthday, there are types of Palestinian dress and costume going back hundreds of years. And then you have Israel, with a by comparison non-homogeneous society, the only such national costume being military fatigues.

    As usual from an Israel apologist, an article full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    • Western Canadian

      As usual from a jew-hating lout, rubbish from start to finish.

    • ziontruth

      "There are Palestinian Arabs of the Christian faith who hold a local festival for Moses's birthday,…"

      Seeing as their Christians situated on the Land of Israel, why wouldn't they? That doesn't make them a separate nation, and besides, the local Muslims have no such custom.

      "…there are types of Palestinian dress and costume going back hundreds of years."

      They're general Levantine (East Mediterranean coast), not particular to Palestine.

      "And then you have Israel, with a by comparison non-homogeneous society,…"

      One Jewish nation.

      "…the only such national costume being military fatigues."

      Au contraire, my fine slippery friend: It's your Arab colonist friends who have something to show in that department, in the form of their "national" costume called the suicide vest.

      • Herman Caintonette

        We killed to secure our rights under law. How, then, can we deny that prerogative when others exercise theirs?

        Sun-Tzu teaches that military exigencies determine one's tactics. If the Palestinians had Predator drones, do you honestly think that they would blow up their children?

        • ziontruth

          "We killed to secure our rights under law. How, then, can we deny that prerogative when others exercise theirs?"

          There's another option: You can be a true isolationist and unpoke your nose out of affairs that are no concern of yours.

          "If the [Arab settlers] had Predator drones, do you honestly think that they would blow up their children?"

          Yes. Suicide-murder is part of the Islamic way of war even when they have weaponry that obviates it. Patton said the soldier's goal is not to die for his country but to make the soldier on the other side die for his; Patton, however, was no Muslim, and that quote reflects an antithesis to the Islamic warrior-ethos. For the Muslim warrior, dying in battle is a goal—it ensures an eternal reward, according to the Islamic belief-system.

          Anyway, my arguments don't depend on the Arab colonists blowing themselves up. Even if they never did that, it's enough that the Land of Israel is the Jews' land and they have no right to it—that's enough for Jewish Law to call for their mass expulsion from this entire land.

        • pagegl

          Our fore fathers engaged in warfare with members of the British military and other representatives of the crown. They did not terrorize loyalists.

          Would they blow up their own children? Do you have any idea of what is really going on outside of your parents basement? Muslims have killed more Muslims than we or the Israelis Have. One of their tactics in war is to surround themselves with civilians while they are fighting. They launch rockets into Israel from schools, hospitals, neighborhoods, and anywhere else noncombatants are found. Hell, yes they would kill their own, all for the greater glory of Allah.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      What a nonsense article. First off Israel has no place to talk about countries formed through terrorism (Irgun, Lehi, Hagana).

      The only people that claim the various Jewish militia groups were terrorists are the Brits, who also labeled the various American militia groups during the American Revolutionary War terrorists as well, but the various Jewish militia groups like the various American militia groups too targeted the British military, which is a legitimate military target and therefore doesn't constitute terrorism. Indeed, the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which is always cited by you moronic moonbats to make your point, was the military headquarters of the British military and therefore a legitimate military target. Of course, Muslims, which are waging a perpetual jihad of conquest against not only the Jewish unbelievers in Israel but also all other non-Muslim unbelievers in the world including you and me, and unhinged mentally deficient bigots like you jumped on the bandwagon and labeled those various Jewish militia groups terrorists too.

      Secondly, The "Palestinians" are not, as you claim, no different to the Arabs elsewhere in the region. There are Palestinian Arabs of the Christian faith who hold a local festival for Moses's birthday, there are types of Palestinian dress and costume going back hundreds of years. And then you have Israel, with a by comparison non-homogeneous society, the only such national costume being military fatigues.

      Indeed, it is very easy to see how your ignorance's got exploited to the hilt, as you are incredibly naïve, gullible, dumb, and ignorant to say the least. Nevertheless, the so-called Palestinian people were created in Moscow in 1964 by the Soviet KGB in order to camouflage the Islamic world's perpetual genocidal jihad of conquest under a cloak of nationalism to dupe gullible useful idiots like you. But in any event, don't take my word for it, read Zuheir Mohsen's words instead:

      "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

      "For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

      By the way, for your information Zuheir Mohsen was a PLO official and former Defense Minister of Syria.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuheir_Mohsen

      With respect to Palestinian Christians, give me a break you moonbat, Palestinian Christians are violently oppressed and systematically persecuted when not outright slaughtered altogether exactly like all other Christians and all other non-Muslim unbelievers living throughout the Islamic world as second-class dhimmi citizens in every Islamic country in the world without exception. Just how incredibly narrow-minded and dumb can you be?

      Regarding those types of Palestinian dress and costumes going back hundreds of years, for sh!ts and kicks can you please provide references to confirm that this obvious stupidity isn't a fiction used to dupe and exploit your enormous ignorance to the hilt. Indeed, if so-called Palestinians have existed for hundreds of years, then what is their language, what was their boundaries, who were their leaders, and where is their history you moonbat?

      The truth is you loon, until the early Zionist Jews started returning back to Israel in the end of the 19th century and early 20th century, the land comprising Israel today was mostly abandoned and consisted of mostly malaria infested swamps and dry sandy deserts. Do you really believe that backwards assed and primitive Muslims still living in the 7th century and with a life expectancy of just 29 years were technologically advanced enough to drain the malaria infested swamps and to make the sandy deserts bloom? If you do then I have a bridge I need to sell you!

      As for the rest of your unhinged garbage, please excuse me if I refrain from commenting as anyone can easily see that you are more than just a little mentally handicapped.

  • Tonio

    I agree with Michael, and it is a matter of fact Palestine is actually a recognized State by much of the world.

    Defending the rights of one people like the Kurdish at the expense of neglecting the rights of other people like the Palestinians is having a double standard as well.

    • ziontruth

      "…and it is a matter of fact Palestine is actually a recognized State by much of the world."

      The world can support that shell of the state that is without the kernel of a nation.

      "…the rights of other people like the Palestinians…"

      The Arab colonist land-grabbers in Palestine are not a nation in its own right. The Jewish nation is the one and only true Palestinian nation. To support the Arab settlers wishing to steal the Jews' one and only rightful land in the world is to support imperialist aggression and colonialist injustice.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      In other words, you are an extremely gullible useful idiot just like Michael. Okay.

  • PatriotX

    The message is clear “ISLAM UNTOUCHABLE”. In the dictionary by “double standards” it should read “also see alternate spelling “ISLAM”. Have you noticed that you can’t be critical of Islam anywhere now? Well, we know what happens in a state with shariah laws, you wind up a head shorter but what’s disturbing and becoming an issue is the same is starting to be true in once free nations. Our nation included, well, minus the head chopping, has adopted this PC, double standard bs as well. Islam is never held accountable for it’s violence or hatred it’s always the victims of their violence or hatred that brought it on themselves.

    For example, 9-11. When the liberal lame stream media covered the 10th anniversary ceremonies, you never heard Islam mentioned in any of the speeches, did you? No, of course not, it was portrayed as an unfortunate accident. It makes me want vomit.

    Kurt Westergaard, the Danish cartoonist that, committed the horrible crime of practicing free speech in his cartoon of Muhammad, which of course sparked a wave of violence, through riots, firebombings and murders. Kurt Westergaard was portrayed as the person that sparked the unrest, of course but no not Islam. Why, if it wasn’t for that cartoon he drew we wouldn’t have had all of that civil unrest. That troublemaker!!! Yea right.

    Women who are ganged raped in many of the European nations that have warmly accepted these immigrants. It’s the woman’s fault, of course. That hedonistic harlot, caused an irresistable temptation to that bunch of sub-animal slime buckets that raped her but oh, no, never the fault of Islam’s teachings of entitlemen and special priveleges to men. Never the teaching that allows them to do rape. Even more disgusting is to punish the victims legally afterwards for being temptresses. but oh, no, never, not that!!!! It was the victim’s fault.

    Terry Jones, make no mistake about it I’m not a fan of this man or his church however he burns the Koran and of course this sparks world wide threats of retaliation for the desecration of Islam’s holy book. The violence that happened in Afghanistan was his fault, not the violent teachings of Islam, it was him that infidel, heathen troublemaker of the Great Satan, not islam, never!!!! You hear no condemnation from the UN. By the way, let’s overlook the fact that you can burn an American flag in Islamic countries, shoot at crosses to train insurgents, force Christians to convert through rape and torture and burn bibles in Iran, but darnit, you better not dare think about desecrating our holy book. Really?

    Westboro baptist, (not a fan of them either) can protest and say hateful things at funerals of U.S. service members but just not in front of a mosque or any other Islamic facility.

    It’s a guaranteed death penalty to teach anything other than Islam in Islamic nations or for that matter to even display a religious symbol depticting Jesus. Yet a mosque is being build by GROUND ZERO WHERE THOUSANDS DIED IN AN “UNFORTUNATE ACCIDENT”. I can only imagine the reaction from the Islamic community if we even suggest erecting a cross in the city of Mecca.

    The problem isn’t unfairness the problem is the teachings of Radical Islam and the lunatics that twist and embed even more evil into it’s concepts.

    • Beth

      I'm waiting for many more people to wake up! and feel exactly the same way.

      Thoroughly offended by islam (and rightfully so)

      Well said Patriot

  • Herman Caintonette

    WC: "No, the 'west-friendly' crew prior to the shah was NOT west friendly, more soviet friendly than anything."

    Again, your ignorance could blanket Nunavut. The Tudeh Party was a virulent critic of Mossadegh, who believed that the sweetheart contracts between the British puppet government and the oil companies were not in Iran's self-interest, and warranted some form of renegotiation.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Hey moonbat, Mossadegh was secular and therefore an infidel. Indeed, had he still been alive back in 1979 when the ruling Mullahs hijacked the Iranian revolution from their Leftwing useful idiots, he would have been among the first infidels executed by the new Islamic regime. Indeed, the notion that the ouster of Mossadegh, who was hated by the vast overwhelming majority of the Iranian people by the time he was ousted, is the reason for the Iranian revolution much less the rise of Islamic extremism, which is an absurd PC multicultural myth to begin with, is irrefutable proof that you are not only extremely gullible, naïve, and ignorant to say the least, but also that you are more than just a little unhinged and mentally handicapped as well. Try again.

      • Herman Caintonette

        it seems that you invariably call your opponents "a little unhinged and mentally handicapped," irrespective of the quality of their arguments; if you think that everyone else is off the reservation, you are probably the one who is a few bricks short of a load..

        Operation Ajax was an attempt to destroy Mossadegh's reputation and ironically, the Anglo-American plot was aided by Tudeh (the Iranian Communist Party). He was a social progressive, who instituted reforms not unlike those in force in the United States:

        "During Mossadegh's time, Iranian peasants were freed from forced labor in their landlords' estates, factory owners were ordered to pay benefits to sick and injured workers, and unemployment compensation was established. The giant caused 20% of the money landlords received in rent to be placed in a fund to pay for development projects such as pest control, rural housing and public baths."
        http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FI15Ak03

        Dr. Mossadegh was the most popular Iranian politician of his day, having been appointed to the position of Prime Minister by 90% of Parliament. His views were nationalist and progressive:

        "Mossadegh envisioned an Iran that was independent, free and democratic. He believed no country could be politically independent and free unless it first achieved economic independence. As he put it, "The moral aspect of oil nationalization is more important than its economic aspect." He sought to renegotiate and reach an equitable and fair restitution of rights of Iran but was faced with intransigence by the company. To put an end to 150 years of British political interference, economic exploitation and plundering of Iran's national resources, Mossadegh engineered the nationalization of the oil industry."
        http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/biography/

        Of course, that last move bothered the insatiably greedy Christian scum-suckers in America and Britain, who engineered a coup. Whereas you and Yeagley may be fans of the Shah and SAVAK, you are not entitled to rewrite history.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          it seems that you invariably call your opponents "a little unhinged and mentally handicapped," irrespective of the quality of their arguments;

          Not hardly, only the ones that are obviously more than just a little unhinged and mentally handicapped like yourself, for instance. As for as the quality of your arguments go, they irrefutably demonstrate that like I said you are more than just a little unhinged and mentally handicapped. However, I have to admit that you are pretty decent at regurgitating what is exceedingly lame propaganda.

          Irrespective of the garbage propaganda you spew surrounding the ouster of Mossadegh, which is a regurgitation of old Soviet claptrap freshened up with a few new minor details to make it more updated in order to vilify America and capitalism as Western imperialism, it is total and complete self-hating blame America first garbage that not only indicates that you are more than just a little unhinged and mentally handicapped as already noted, but also that you are extremely, naïve, gullible, and ignorant as well, since to believe that insane bunk one would have to be totally ignorant of Islam and its almost 1400 year history of jihad conquest, imperialism, colonialism, and dhimmitude.

          Thus, regurgitate that Operation Ajax nonsense all you want you moronic loon, all it indicates as previously already noted is that you are more than just a little unhinged and mentally deficient. Indeed, the only moonbats dumb enough to believe that lame garbage are unhinged self-hating Ron Paul anarcho-kooks who are dumb enough to believe that the 9/11 jihad attacks were America's chickens coming home to roost and self-hating blame America first delusional leftwing useful idiots, both of which constantly vilify and demonize America and at the same time like the bigots they are incessantly incite hatred and violence against Israel to help facilitate another mass genocidal holocaust of Jews.

          Dude, if you want to understand why Muslims wage jihad against non-Muslim unbelievers, don't listen to mentally incompetent kooks like Ron Paul and his ilk, study the history of the world, the history of Islamic civilization, and Islam itself, as you obviously skipped history for some odd reason and consequently your ignorance's are being exploited to the hilt by lame propagandists.

          • Herman Caintonette

            The facts are what they are (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/ ), but to you, they are an undiscovered country. " The most interesting new tidbit here is that the CIA’s agents harassed religious leaders and bombed one’s home in order to turn them against Mossadeq."

            Your load of bovine droppings would fill in the Grand Canyon, O, lamest of Zionazi propagandists.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Like I said you moonbat stick Operation Ajax and Mossadegh up where the sun doesn't shine, as since Mossadegh was secular, he would have been one of the first infidels executed by the new Mullah regime in 1979 had he still been alive. Indeed, if Mossadegh was secular and therefore an infidel, then please explain how the ouster of Mossadegh in 1953 almost 60 years ago could have so enraged the Islamic world that it would have led to the rise of Islamic extremism, which is, by the way, a PC multicultural myth to begin with in any event, as jihad (holy fighting in the cause of Allah against unbelievers to make Islam supreme) is not Islamic extremism, it is instead the sixth and most important pillar of which Islam stands, as Muslims have been both violently and non-violently waging jihad perpetually against non-Muslim unbelievers in the cause of Allah to make Islam supreme since the days Muhammad was still alive and murdering, pillaging, torturing, and raping kafir infidel unbelievers on the Arabian peninsular almost 1400 years ago? Study the history of Islamic civilization you moonbat.

            Indeed, if your entire basis for becoming an unhinged self-hating blame America first Ron Paul anarcho-kook is based on Operation Ajax, which according to your unhinged calculations is what led to the rise of Islamic extremism, then it couldn't be anymore obvious that you are more than just a little unhinged and mentally handicapped. Indeed, what about the Battle of Tours, the Battle of Lepanto, the Gates of Vienna, the Barbary Coast War, the 270 million non-Muslim unbelievers that died by the swords of Islam, and the tens of millions of Blacks and Whites enslaved, none of that happened? Dude you couldn't be more ignorant of history and Islam and thus as a result you couldn't have had your ignorance's more exploited to the hilt as a result. Pick up a history book and then come back and see us, and please stop boring us by spamming your lame ass propaganda.

          • Herman Caintonette

            I've read a lot of history books, but none spew the nonsense you have accumulated over the years

          • ObamaYoMoma

            I've read a lot of history books, but none spew the nonsense you have accumulated over the years

            The only thing you have read is propaganda and pseudo history from one very incorrect point of view, as your ignorance's have obviously been exploited to the hilt. Which is why you are dumb enough to believe the ouster of Mossadegh, who was a secular kafir infidel no less, led to Islamic extremism, which in itself is also a dumb political correct myth. Indeed, no one could be dumb enough to believe that absurd garbage unless they were incredibly ignorant to begin with, and apparently those absurdities today form the basis of your entire worldview. Thus, your entire unhinged worldview is based on pseudo history and PC multicultural myths with respect to Islam and Muslims, which is also why when most people read the unhinged garbage you spew they consider you to be an unhinged self-hating kook, because you are an unhinged self-hating kook. Indeed, you are the epitome of an unhinged self-hating kook and thankfully unhinged self-hatting kooks like you and your idol Ron Paul only make up a tiny fringe element of society.

    • Western Canadian

      Your stupidity and arrogance could blanket our universe, and any others that may exist in a multiverse. He was taken out, because he was left leaning. A somewhat less repulsive and blatant chavez, if you will. Left wing. Holding hands with islamists. Did that make it any clearer to you, it would be hard to dumb it down any further. No? didn’t think so.

    • Western Canadian

      Funny the way he left the contracts with the soviets alone…..

  • Herman Caintonette

    HC: "…rather, I see public anger channeled through terrorism because there was no other way to express it. … We have been meddling in the M.E. for 60 years,…"

    ZionT: "Another "Blame Ourselves First" traitor."

    Unlike you, I'm more into chess than checkers. History counsels that all actions have predictable consequences; moves that might have been expedient during the Cold War have sown the seeds of Islamic extremism and now, we are reaping that foul harvest.

    The individual's desire to be free is unquenchable, and will find some outlet. What we did in Iran (read Sandra Mackey's book, and study up on "Operation Ajax") was short-sighted, and motivated in no small part by the kind of imperialism rightly denounced by Smedley Butler. If we had renegotiated the oil leases in such a way that they benefited the Iranian people, Iran would be a mature democracy by now.

    • ziontruth

      "…moves that might have been expedient during the Cold War have sown the seeds of Islamic extremism and now, we are reaping that foul harvest."

      I'd be the first to agree Reagan was wrong to arm the Taliban, even in the context of the Cold War (but, as they say, hindsight is 20/20). However, one act of interventionism isn't made right by an opposite act of interventionism.

      If you want the U.S. to cut aid to all Mideast countries including Israel, to get out of all foreign entanglements—fine with me. I'm a staunch advocate of national sovereignty, of the right of (real) nations to do as they wish with their own resources. In fact, I oppose all international organizations and laws because of that very principle.

      But if it's appeasement of the Muslims on Israel's expense you seek, in pressuring Israel to give up its meager piece of land to the Arab imperialists enemies who want her all, then you're an interventionist and an enemy of the Jewish nation. You have your interests, but the freedom to stretch your finger ends at the tip of my nose; if you talk the isolationist talk, you're going to have to walk the isolationist walk, otherwise you're nothing but a Marxist fifth-columnist hiding behind a deceptive mask of "hard-nosed realpolitik."

      • Herman Caintonette

        I say, fine. Get your Fifth Column out of American politics, and pay back what you have stolen from us with interest. We can do what we want as a nation, and our natural interest lies with the folks who have oil.

        If Israel fell into the Med tomorrow, would America even miss it? It has no natural resources to speak of, and it costs us more in aid than we get back in exports. Really, we wouldn't miss it.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      History counsels that all actions have predictable consequences; moves that might have been expedient during the Cold War have sown the seeds of Islamic extremism and now, we are reaping that foul harvest.

      With all due respect, to believe that insane garbage, one would have to ignore almost 1400 years of Islamic conquest, imperialism, colonialism, dhimmitude, and history. The only way someone could be dumb enough to believe that absurd nonsense is if they were incredibly ignorant and stupid to begin with, not to mention also being dumb, naïve, and gullible enough to swallow ludicrous propaganda meant to exploit their enormous ignorance’s to the hilt.

      The individual's desire to be free is unquenchable, and will find some outlet. What we did in Iran (read Sandra Mackey's book, and study up on "Operation Ajax") was short-sighted, and motivated in no small part by the kind of imperialism rightly denounced by Smedley Butler. If we had renegotiated the oil leases in such a way that they benefited the Iranian people, Iran would be a mature democracy by now.

      Again you moonbat, Mossadegh was secular and therefore an infidel. Indeed, had he still been alive back in 1979 when the ruling Mullahs hijacked the Iranian revolution from their Leftwing commie useful idiots, he would have been among the first infidels executed by the new Islamic regime. Indeed, the notion that the ouster of Mossadegh, who was hated by the vast overwhelming majority of the Iranian people by the time he was ousted, is the reason for the Iranian revolution much less the rise of Islamic extremism, which is an absurd PC multicultural myth to begin with in any event, is irrefutable proof that you are not only extremely gullible, naïve, and ignorant to say the least, but also that you are more than just a little unhinged and mentally handicapped as well. Try again.

      The reality is there are no true democracies in the Islamic world because democracy as opposed to Islam is the rule of man, whereas Islam, on the other hand, is the rule of Allah, and the rule of man is fallible by definition because it emanates from man, while Islam, in stark contrast, is infallible because it is divine since it emanates directly from Allah (God). Hence, according to Muslims democracy is an abomination that must be obliterated.

      Therefore, no political systems that allows for liberty and freedom like in the West can possibly survive in the Islamic world, as that liberty and freedom will inevitably get exploited to obliterate any democracy or other system of government that allows for freedom and liberty. Thus, anyone assuming that the Arab Spring in the Islamic world is a democratic movement to cast off the chains of oppression, is naïve, gullible, and ignorant to the extreme, as democracy in the Islamic world cannot survive in the long run as again it will inevitably get obliterated in due time.

      As a matter of fact, the so-called democracies the US supposedly established in Iraq and Afghanistan are not democracies at all but instead Sharia states, since thanks to former Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, a non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadist that penetrated our illustrious State Department, Sharia has been made the highest authority for law in both respective countries' constitutions in Afghanistan and Iraq, which effectively makes both respective governments in effect Sharia states. Indeed, the last time I checked, the only freedom that Sharia allows is the freedom for Muslims to become more devout slaves of Allah. Thus, if anyone is gullible and dumb enough to believe that those two Sharia states we are stupidly propping up and rebuilding will be loyal friends and allies with the USA and the West, then I have a bridge I need to sell them.

      • Herman Caintonette

        Indonesia. The attitude there is much like our attitude toward Christian shari'a, as the Telegraph reports:

        "The poll of 8,000 people in the world's most populous Muslim country, home to 200 million Muslims, found that 52 per cent favoured some form of Islamic legal code, such as religious arbitration in family disputes.

        Asked if women should be made to wear a head scarf 45 per cent said yes, while 40 per cent favoured chopping off the hands of thieves.

        "A lot of people think the idea is very good, but when you start talking of every day implications, the number dropped," said Ira Soekirman of Roy Morgan Research, an Australian company which conducted the survey."
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/in

        76% of Americans favor "a constitutional amendment to allow voluntary prayer in public schools." http://www.gallup.com/poll/18136/public-favors-vo… A form of Shari'a.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Indonesia. The attitude there is much like our attitude toward Christian shari'a, as the Telegraph reports:

          What the F–k is Christian Sharia? Are you a moron, as only morons are stupid and dumb enough to morally equate Islam with true faith-based religions? Never mind, that is already obvious. Apparently you are trying to impress me.

          Indeed, regarding your incredibly dumb moral equivalence, it further confirms that like I previously stated that you are more than just a little unhinged and mentally handicapped. Like I said stop swallowing poison pills regurgitated by kooks like Ron Paul and his unhinged ilk and study world history, the history of Islamic civilization, and Islam itself to find out how incredibly dumb, gullible, and ignorant you really are. Believe me you Ron Paul anarcho-kooks aren't smarter than everyone else. Indeed, there is a reason the vast overwhelming majority of Americans call you moonbats kooks. Indeed, it's because you are!

          • Western Canadian

            Of course he is a moron. Only someone with a level of criminal ignorance could possibly come out with such sick and unjust comparisons. You have to admit though, he is consistant. Sickening, and consistant.

        • PatriotX

          I’m interested to know where did you get “Christian shariah” and where did you get these statistics from? Certainly, you couldn’t have gotten either from this planet.

  • Herman Caintonette

    intercptr: "And please, Adams et al had both a legal basis, even aside from Jefferson's claims, against the Crown"

    They did. Now, try to articulate them in terms of Anglo-American law, which has held since before Magna Carta that the citizen has an absolute legal right to use violence to defend his life and liberties as against the depredations of an oppressor, without acknowledging that the Palestinians also have this right. We argue that private property is the sine qua non of personal liberty, and must be defended; we would describe it as a duty (see, our DoI). Well, the Israelis stole the Palestinians' private property, and they have both a legal and moral right to kill their Jewish oppressors. And yes, their allies have an equal right to use lethal force in support of that aim, as we have done that on numerous occasions around the world.

    • ziontruth

      "Well, the Israelis stole the Palestinians' private property,…"

      The Jews are the only Palestinians; the Arab settler-colonist land-thieves, falsely calling themselves "Palestinians" to pull the wool over the world's eyes, are the oppressors and land-grabbers here. The Jews, being the only true Palestinians, have the right to expel all the Arab settler-colonist imperialist invaders off this land.

      • Herman Caintonette

        I can find no credible, independent evidence to support your fatuous claims. The Jews of the steppes have no colorable claim on the land, as most are far more European, genetically speaking, than the Palestinians.

        • ziontruth

          "I can find no credible, independent evidence to support your fatuous claims."

          Just what I wanted to say about each and every one of your spoutings.

          "The Jews of the steppes have no colorable claim on the land, as most are far more European,…"

          Irrelevant. Jewishness is not defined by race. The option of joining the Jewish ethnos through religious conversion means Jews can be of any human genetic lineage. This has been so ever since an Egyptian woman was taken by marriage into Joseph's house (Asenath the daugther of Potiphar).

          As we can see, anti-Zionism is racism, or at the very least has a racist core.

    • intrcptr2

      Well, no, we do not define "property" as the sine qua non of personal liberty; that is why Jefferson changed Locke's words, and also why franchise expanded so dramatically after the War of 1812, we realized that these rights belonged even to the propertiless.

      The rights that Jefferson identified he found in English tradition, culture, law and religion; Islam exhibits none of these, and in fact disparages much of it. A Muslim Jefferson, whom we have yet to meet, would have to reference extra-cultural concepts. You are aware, I do hope, that the great charter is not written in Arabic?

      Both parties have been in a conflict for centuries. Their common father, Abraham, bought Hebron from a Hittite, the ruling polity of his time. He passed his inheritance down through his legal offspring, Isaac; Arabs were cut out of that, and granted other lands. The transaction is recorded, and Arabs (And Palis) have no such deeds.

      Jefferson wrote that our rights (And I have no problems with extending these rights to all mankind) come not from the dirt we possess, but from our Creator; God for the Jew and Christian, Allah for the Muslim, Stephen Hawking for a good many others, I suppose. Taking the right to life from another, for the sake of property, is not defensible in this manner; or rather, this does not generate a "moral right" to kill.

      Perhaps I should exercise my "moral right", relying on my Indian heritage through my maternal grandfather, and find you and retrieve my heritage?

      Trying to justify wider antisemitism on the part of Muslims worldwide, because they find common cause with palestinians, is also not defensible in this way (Just what possible connection can you draw between Gaza and Mumbai?); Jews have not stolen land from anyone, anywhere; and ultimately, they have always held title to The Levant by virtue of being the sons of Abraham.

      • Herman Caintonette

        Another case of "the lying pen of scribes" (Jer. 8:8).

        After you kill yourself in revenge for the theft (most First Nations people didn't really understand the concept of land ownership, trading away their rights through treaties, but that doesn't make the contracts any less binding), get back to me.

    • intrcptr2

      Just for sh*ts and giggles, can you shjow me documentary evidence for your assertion here, that "Anglo-American" law has held from before the Magna Carta, that a man may kill to fend off an oppressor?

      I shall not do ask you suggest because Jefferson already did the heavy lifting in 1776.

      As I recall, English common law held only that a man could defend himself against immediate threat, and of course interpreting crime as oppression is horrendous, and rather insulting to those actually being oppressed.

      • Herman Caintonette

        As a matter of fact, I can. Bishop John of Salisbury wrote that "[t]o kill a tyrant is not merely lawful, but right and just … the law rightly takes arms against him who disarms the laws, and the public power rages in fury against him who strives to bring to nought the public force.” John of Salisbury, Policraticus, Bk. iii, ch. 15, reprinted in, The Statesman’s Book of John of Salisbury lxxiii (John Dickenson trans., Russell & Russell, 1963) (1159). Aquinas concurred, in observing that a violent response to tyranny is not merely permissible, but predictable: “[M]en remove themselves from a tyrant as from cruel beasts, and to be subject to a tyrant seems the same as to be mauled by a cruel animal.” St. Thomas Aquinas, De Regimine Principum, in St. Thomas Aquinas: Political Writings 15 (R.W. Dyson trans., Cambridge U. Press 2002) (1267). It is recognized by implication in Magna Carta (1215), para. 61.

        It can further be traced to the Roman ius civil, which is the grandfather of all forms of European law. When it comes to law, I usually know what I'm talking about.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      We argue that private property is the sine qua non of personal liberty, and must be defended; we would describe it as a duty (see, our DoI). Well, the Israelis stole the Palestinians' private property, and they have both a legal and moral right to kill their Jewish oppressors.

      With all due respect that is so lame that only a bigoted Ron Paul anarcho-kook dumb enough to believe that the ouster of Mossadegh, a secular infidel no less, somehow so outraged the Islamic world that it led to the rise of Islamic extremism, could be mentally incompetent, dumb, and unhinged enough to regurgitate such utter nonsense. The Jewish unbelievers in Israel didn't oust and steal so-called Palestinian private property, instead the Muslims left what is Israel today at the behest of their Imams, which had been ordered by the Arab Higher Committee to tell them to leave to make way for the invading Muslim armies that were going to wage a jihad of conquest and an illegal war of aggression to wipe out the Jewish unbelievers in the nascent state of Israel and drive the infidels into the Mediterranean Sea.

      Now, on the other hand, in response to the defeat of the jihad waged by the Islamic world against the Jewish unbelievers in Israel, the Islamic world subsequently ethnically cleansed from their countries approximately 900,000 Jews with nothing but the shirts on their backs, confiscating their property and murdering thousands of them in pogroms in the process. Thus, the real reality is you are inverting reality like the bigot and unhinged Ron Paul anarcho-kook you are. Meanwhile, you wonder why the vast majority of right thinking Americans consider Ron Paul and his unhinged acolytes to be kooks.

      And yes, their allies have an equal right to use lethal force in support of that aim, as we have done that on numerous occasions around the world.

      We have on numerous occasions specifically targeted and murdered primarily women, children, and elderly civilian non-combatants around the world for those aims? Really, where and when? Take your meds, you are obviously extremely delusional!

  • Herman Caintonette

    kafirman: "There is no evidence for the sanction of frivolous genocide in the Bible. But there are plenty of evidence for depraved cultures (which can be difficult to identify by moral equivalencers)."

    You mean, "depraved cultures" like the Jews? Remember that the Nazis came to the conclusion that the Jews were sub-human, and acted on that premise. I can find no moral argument for ANY form of genocide — let alone, genocides sanctioned by a "just and holy God." After all, if an all-powerful God wanted to get people off the land, all He would need to do is give them an overwhelming desire to move to Cleveland.

    I find ALL forms of Holocaust incompatible with any coherent expression of objective morality.

  • Herman Caintonette

    aspacia: "Do you renounce Sharia Law?"

    As I have never embraced Shari'a — either in its Islamic or Evangelical form — I see no need to denounce it specifically. As a general proposition, I can find no reason that an advanced and civilized society should ever embrace a law simply because it was first promulgated by B-vitamin-deprived goat-herders who thought they heard voices in their heads. By way of example, anti-abortion and anti-suicide laws are founded in religious dogma, and cannot survive in the crucible of rational examination.

    I would embrace Hillel's one-legged summation of the Torah. Judaism is Deism with ritual; along with Hinayama Buddhism, it is about the closest approximation we have to a rational religion.

    • ziontruth

      "By way of example, anti-abortion … laws are founded in religious dogma, and cannot survive in the crucible of rational examination."

      So murdering a baby as a way of escaping the consequences of a bad decision* is irrational in your eyes. That speaks volumes of the moral universe you inhabit.

      "Judaism is Deism with ritual;…"

      Deism holds the Creator to have gone off to sleep after finishing the work of creation. Judaism says He continues to intervene every moment, in every tiny aspect of the universe, from sub-atomic particles to galaxies; and that He intervenes in history as well. The Jewish emphasis on HaShem's being is much less on "Creator of Heavens and Earth," and much more on "The Lord Thy God Who Has Brought Thee Out Of Egypt." The God of history, in other words; not the god of the philosophers as the Deists and Pantheists conceive. Judaism and Deism are in manifest contradiction.

      *Jewish Law permits abortion for saving the life of the mother. No other exception is made.

      • Herman Caintonette

        It does, ZT? I've always understood Exod. 21:22-23 as going out of the way to draw a distinction between the mother and fetus; yeled 'yatsa describes a miscarriage, as a live birth would constitute a blessed event. At the moment of birth, the child ingests his soul in that first breath, which makes the fetus soulless. But as I said, ask three rabbis and you'll get seven opinions.

        As for God micromanaging the universe, by definition, it would make your god unjust, and unworthy of reverence or worship. Rabbi Feshbach counters:

        "God does not cause earthquakes. Our tradition may posit a God who controls the path of every quark and every creature, the motion of the molecules inside and the paths of the planets above. But I simply don’t believe that God micromanages the universe. It wasn’t b’shert. And it didn’t “happen for a reason.”"
        http://www.templeshalom.net/index.php/writings_de

        Again, three rabbis, seven opinions. I've learned not to be dogmatic when stating what Jews believe, which is why I distinguish Zionists from Jews.

        • ziontruth

          "As for God micromanaging the universe, by definition, it would make your god unjust,…"

          You got things a little backward there. It is not you who determine if God is just, but God who determines if you are just.

          "Rabbi Feshbach counters:…"

          I gather from your link (Temple Shalom) that this is a Reform rabbi. Reform "Judaism" isn't really Judaism, it's just the trendy cause du jour spiced up with a few tangentially relevant Jewish sources. Real Judaism as descended from Mount Sinai is Orthodox Judaism. All Orthodox Jews believe God is in control of every aspect of creation (with the exception of human free will).

          "…I distinguish Zionists from Jews."

          Zionism is Jewish nationalism. To be anti-Zionist is by definition to be anti-Jewish, just as opposition to the Greeks' drive toward independence in the 1820s would have made you anti-Greek.

    • Fred Dawes

      we must all come to understand this nation is dead and the only hope is the coming mass race war which will free us and murder us but that is what happens when you don't understand laws

    • intrcptr2

      Rational examination, taking a strong cue from the Declaration of Independence, positively demands that all abortion is murder; ALL men are CREATED…with the right to life…

      There is no alternative.

      What society does with this fact, and how compasionately it applies this reality to frail humans is another matter. But religious dogma (Ironic that, considering how varied even Jews themselves are on the matter, let alone others, like pagan Romans, who, religious though they too were, practiced exposure) actually trumps your rationalism merely by precedence.

      As for your cowardly dodge concerning sharia, why is it you renounce Christianity? Or more to the point, do you renounce Nazism?

      One need not be an adherent to renounce something…

      • Herman Caintonette

        There is a difference between renunciation and denunciation; to renounce Nazism, Shari'a, or Christianity, you must abandon it. Thus by definition, I cannot renounce either Nazism or Shari'a, although as a former Christian, I can properly renounce it.

        As for abortion being murder, you seem to forget that our Constitution did not fully recognize the humanity of 40-year-old slaves; to suggest that it intended to protect 40-day-old fetii is absurd on its face. Moreover, more than 90% of women faced with a Down Syndrome-afflicted fetus abort; your dogmatic declaration has been abandoned by virtually everyone, and with good reason.

        Think about it. If you passed a personhood amendment, all forms of hormonal birth control would become illegal, and all miscarriages would have to be subject to criminal homicide investigations. Our solution is the only rational one, and the one consonant with the concept of individual rights and limited government.

        I don't have a dog in the hunt. So, why should I have a say in the question as to whether your daughter can be compelled by law to carry her rapist's child?

        • Western Canadian

          Your constitution reduced the status of slaves, to prevent slave states from having the population…. Oh why bother. You are so bloody ignorant, that it is amazing you haven’t noticed the more than slight differences between your rants and the real world…. Your claim to being a former christian who renounced it…. If you ever were a christian (your ignorance puts that in serious doubt), you didn’t renounce it, you ran from it because it was more than you are capable of being.

          As for your suggestion that the 3/5′s status of slaves was a failure to protect blacks, comparing it to the failure to protect a preborn human, hardly bolsters your case. It presents you as the type of lawyer (your thinking is muddy enough, could indicate you are one) who cares not for the content or justice of law, only the money to be sucked out of it.

  • Herman Caintonette

    kafirman: "Your modus operandi is "use moral equivalence to elevate the evil of Islam and the same to denigrate Judiasm and/or Christianity."

    I rely on Hillel's one-legged summation of the Torah. By that metric, both Judaism and Christianity have much to answer for. I have found that the goal of all organized religion is to impose one's will on others, whether that domination involves a pope, a rabbi, or a mullah is immaterial.

    • ziontruth

      "I rely on Hillel's one-legged summation of the Torah."

      Shamai threw the would-be convert out of his house while Hillel gave him that one-legged summation. However, Shamai and Hillel both gave him the same answer: That the Torah cannot truly be summed up while standing on one leg. Shamai was simply more direct.

      Hillel said, "This is the whole of the Torah; the rest is commentary, go forth and learn." Where many people make a mistake is in putting (subconsciously, even), the word "mere" before "commentary." But in Judaism, there's nothing mere about commentary; it is the mechanism by which the rubber is put to meet the road. Without commentary, this message of "That which is hated unto you, do not do unto others" stays a nice-sounding idea, a mere slogan; in order to put that idea into practice, in-depth study of the Torah (impossible while standing on one foot) is required.

      Yes, being a mentsch is part of Jewishness; but Jewish Law also tells the Jewish believer how to be a mentsch, truly, and in accordance with God's will; this is not always the way people think it is (for example, how many people think twice before writing with a pen they've found lying on the table? According to Jewish Law, that is forbidden unless you ask the owner's permission first). Finally, being a mentsch does not entail turning the other cheek, appeasing your enemies with concessions of land and other such things that the enemies of the Jewish nation unjustly demand of the Jews. We Jews don't have to prove ourselves; it is enough that our religion gives us a modest-sized piece of land, in contrast to the world dominion promised to the Muslims; and it is enough that our religion says non-Jews don't have to follow our religion in order to be right with God, while other religions consign all unbelievers to hell. We're not on trial; our enemies are. They will pay. One day, maybe sooner, maybe later, they will pay.

      "I have found that the goal of all organized religion is to impose one's will on others,…"

      Marxist projection.

      • Herman Caintonette

        ZT: "But in Judaism, there's nothing mere about commentary; it is the mechanism by which the rubber is put to meet the road. Without commentary, this message of "That which is hated unto you, do not do unto others" stays a nice-sounding idea, a mere slogan;"

        As I said, three rabbis, seven opinions.

        I would argue that it is a statement of principles, which can be used to assay the acolyte's interpretation of Jewish law. Hillel's aphorism can be restated as, "if you come up with an interpretation which violates this principle, it is presumptively wrong." Hillel focuses on the process.

        • ziontruth

          "As I said, three rabbis, seven opinions."

          Not in everything. You new-agers make it sound like Judaism is a free-for-all. It isn't. True Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, is as rigid and demanding religion as Islam or medieval Catholicism.

    • Beth

      Herman Caintonette, I'll speak for Christianity because I'm a Christian:

      Christian Command:

      Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

      There are NO MORE LAWS for Christians. Not one. So whatever your beef is with Christianity, you need to speak to those who turned you against it so much so – that you feel the need to bash it.

      Every time you bash Christianity, you bash that teaching – which is the ONLY teaching that will actually bring peace to all – if all were willing to keep it.

      And know – there is not one single sentence that exists in the New Testament that teaches humans to be violent with each other. Not one.

      If you were truly as smart as you seem to think – you'd know these things.

      • Herman Caintonette

        You mean, fully half of the Ten Commandments are not binding on Christians?

  • Herman Caintonette

    aspacia: "Caintonette, at the moment a 13 year-old has been expelled from school and is threatened with physical harm for misspelling Mad Mo's name."

    And I deplore that, assuming the verity of your claims. As one who has faced more than his share of viewpoint-based censorship (e.g., Townhall has apparently banned me, and some of my posts have disappeared even here), I can find little about it to praise.

    • Fred Dawes

      one world love get mad real mad, and understand if a little kid can get expelled for that someday he or she can be murdered by the state for political reasons.

      • Herman Caintonette

        That is the problem … but the rights you claim for yourself are also the rights you must vigorously protect when others' are impaired.

  • Herman Caintonette

    intrcptr: "Both parties have been in a conflict for centuries. Their common father, Abraham, bought Hebron from a Hittite, the ruling polity of his time. He passed his inheritance down through his legal offspring, Isaac; Arabs were cut out of that, and granted other lands. The transaction is recorded, and Arabs (And Palis) have no such deeds."

    The alleged conveyance is A TRANSPARENT FRAUD, and quite obviously so.

    Even if we postulated the arrival of the Israelites in the Promised Land to be 1250 BCE (the latest practical date), using Exodus as a timeline, Sarah would have died in 1843 BCE. Problem is, the Hittite Empire wasn't even founded until 1740 BCE — a date which is determined from their own internal records and further corroborated with reference to Egyptian sources — in what is now northern Turkey. Moreover, by their own admission, for the next three centuries, their domain never extended to within 300 miles of Hebron.

    Your "deed" is A BERNIE MADOFF-CLASS FRAUD! So, why should anyone respect it?

    • Beth

      The koran mentions the name Israel – but never the name palestine. It is the islamic world that is demanding that palestine be established in place of Israel.

      They have no holy justification – not even in their own koran.

      Islam's sole purpose is for their hatred of the Jews – which exists for no other reason but that the koran preaches that hatred to them.

      None of your argument matters Herman Caintonette when looking at the bare (and present day) facts.

      • Herman Caintonette

        Neither religion can lay a credible claim to the land.

  • Herman Caintonette

    intrcptr: "Well, no, we do not define "property" as the sine qua non of personal liberty; that is why Jefferson changed Locke's words, and also why franchise expanded so dramatically after the War of 1812, we realized that these rights belonged even to the propertiless."

    Just as we have a liberty interest in our property, we also have a property interest in our liberty. I can trace it through the Framers' statements and the Constitution, but we don't seem to have a material disagreement on this point.

  • Lemuel

    It's fascinating but today's self-identified "Palestinians" can only pretend to be what the Kurds really are, the ethnic group indigenous to their area. "Palestinian"is a political label, invented in 1964 by the Arab League, to cover those ethnically diverse Arabs that left pre-state Israel in furtherance of the Arab High Command's war against Israel. "Palestinian" is not an ethnic designation. If one were to read Tristam's travels in 1865, each wretched cluster of mug brick shacks was of different origins, Druze,, Sunni, Shia, Bosnian, Greek, etc.

  • Herman Caintonette

    ziontruth: "There's another option: You can be a true isolationist and unpoke your nose out of affairs that are no concern of yours."

    Fine. Give us back the money Israel has stolen from our Treasury with interest, and shut down AIPAC, and we won't have a dog in the hunt.

    • ziontruth

      "Fine. Give us back the money Israel has stolen from our Treasury with interest,…"

      What an unexpected answer… Not.

      Isn't it funny, how those who scream about "money-grubbing Jewish money-lenders" are the first to propose that the Jews be made to pay through the nose. Jew-haters haven't changed essentially through the ages; only their excuse, the veneer wrapping their dark core, has undergone adaptations to the period in question.

      • Herman Caintonette

        Libya has pledged to repay NATO for the cost of military deployment expended on their behalf. Why shouldn't the Zionists do the same? Naaahhhh, you'd rather jew us over.

        • ziontruth

          "Libya has pledged to repay NATO for the cost of military deployment expended on their behalf."

          And if you believe them, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.

          "Why shouldn't the Zionists do the same? Naaahhhh, you'd rather jew us over."

          Ah, Herman, I see you've upgraded to a truecolor display. Congrats.

          Israel never asked for the U.S.A.'s "aid." It was given unsolicited, from Nixon's presidency onward, to be used for various purposes, among them extortion, as exemplified by Bush the Elder, and also you. It has been foisted on us like a drug by a pusher. We've been on the way to kicking the habit for over five years, starting with Netanyahu's former tenure as Minister of Finance. Going steady on that road, we can be totally weaned within a few years. However, it looks as if you are not willing to settle for cessation of this "aid," but are angling for bankrupting Israel.

          To you, and the likes of you, I say: Nuts. Yes, I know of the U.S.A.'s military power, and I well remember what you did to poor Serbia, siding with its Muslim enemies against a Christian friend. But Israel is different. Israel, as you well know, has something Serbia was unfortunate to lack. I hope it will never come to that, but you know what happens when you push an animal against the wall…

          • Herman Caintonette

            ZiT: "Israel never asked for the U.S.A.'s "aid." It was given unsolicited,"

            which is why AIPAC is so heavily involved with American politics, and why any politician who opposes aid to Israel is assaulted by the Zionist Fifth Column.

            HC: "Why shouldn't the Zionists do the same? Naaahhhh, you'd rather jew us over."

            ZiT: "Ah, Herman, I see you've upgraded to a truecolor display. Congrats."

            You've been calling me names on a non-stop basis for two days and more to the point, the phrase "jew over" — like "welching" on a bet — is accepted part of the English language. I did that to make a point: if it is fair for you to call me names and falsely accuse me, I can do the same.

          • ziontruth

            "which is why AIPAC is so heavily involved with American politics,…"

            A necessary counterbalance to the oil-greased Arab Lobby. I know, you'd rather the Jews turn the other cheek, concede defeat without a fight.

            "…and why any politician who opposes aid to Israel is assaulted by the Zionist Fifth Column."

            And you'd rather the Zionists just shut up and let the Marxist Fifth Column do their dirty work unhindered.

          • Herman Caintonette

            AIPAC is a hundred times as strong.

            I'll thank you to keep your filthy hands off our Treasury, Madoff.

          • ziontruth

            "AIPAC is a hundred times as strong."

            Last time I checked, the Arabs had all the oil, and oil is the thing that really talks.

            "I'll thank you to keep your filthy hands off our Treasury, Madoff."

            As I said, we're already well on that way; but as you said, that won't be enough for you—you want the Jews paying through the nose.

            I hope for your sake your country won't be on the receiving end of your kind of attitude from the ones who really own you today—the Chinese.

  • Herman Caintonette

    ziontruth: "Anyway, my arguments don't depend on the Arab colonists blowing themselves up. Even if they never did that, it's enough that the Land of Israel is the Jews' land"

    Again, that you claim it to be so doesn't make it so.

    • ziontruth

      "Again, that you claim it to be so doesn't make it so."

      And that you claim otherwise doesn't make it otherwise. Great game, huh?

      I don't do argumentation, anti-Zionist scum. Israel and Zionism are right by default, as far as I'm concerned. You're wrong no matter what, no matter if I lack an argument or lose the argument (not implying either of those things, but even if). The rightness of Zionism isn't up for discussion. Anti-Zionists, you will pay. One day, be it sooner, be it later, you will pay. HaShem is writing everything down.

      • Herman Caintonette

        You sound like the people who put together the vids about the Jew-eating rabbit, ZT. You can't responsibly complain about their blowing up your kids, because you are a peddler of the same kind of dogmatism and hate.

        ZT: "The rightness of Zionism isn't up for discussion."

        And neither is the rightness of the Palestinians' cause, in their eyes. A pox on both your houses!

        • ziontruth

          "You can't responsibly complain about their blowing up your kids, because you are a peddler of the same kind of dogmatism and hate."

          Yes I can. I can complain for the simple reason that it's my brothers and sisters they strive to blow up. I need no moral clean record in order to side with my kith and kin; unlike you Marxist quislings.

          "A pox on both your houses!"

          If you really believed that, you would have said only that, and none of everything else you have ever said on this forum.

          • Herman Caintonette

            ziontruth: "I can complain for the simple reason that it's my brothers and sisters they strive to blow up. I need no moral clean record in order to side with my kith and kin;"

            An argument which, if applied consistently, authorizes the attack on the Twin Towers. Nice move, ZiT.

          • ziontruth

            "An argument which, if applied consistently, authorizes the attack on the Twin Towers. Nice move, ZiT."

            So the Muslims have their justification for attacking the Twin Towers, big deal! If they didn't have this justification, they'd find another. But the thing with you sanctimonious moralizers is, you keep walking in their shooz*, trying to think their thoughts. It's time you started walking in your own shooz, your side's shooz, and stopped caring what the heck the enemy thinks, feels or otherwise offers to justify its actions.

            We are we, they are they; no matter what moral comparisons can be drawn between us and them, we have the right to defend ourselves from them because we are we and they are they. And the fact that they might think the same is irrelevant. Defending your own for the simple fact of them being your own is the most basic human tenet of existence.

            *Sorry about that. It's because the forum software rejects the correct spelling, probably flagging it as spam.

          • Herman Caintonette

            They use your argument to justify it. If your reasoning is sound, then so is theirs.

          • ziontruth

            "If your reasoning is sound, then so is theirs."

            Well it may be. But I don't care. As I said: We are we, they are they; no sane person should get himself so lost in the thought-experiment of trying to figure out what the other side thinks as to actually take the other side's position.

  • Herman Caintonette

    ObamaYo: "Indeed, how ignorant of history can any one moonbat be? What about the previous almost 1400 years of Islamic history, when Islam not only conquered and colonized the world from Portugal to the East Indies, but when it also repeatedly tried relentlessly to conquer Europe"

    You mean, like how the Christian West colonized the world, committing genocide half-way around the world? Cortez comes to mind, as does the total eradication of Tasmanian aboriginals and the Mystic Massacre. Terra nullius, my left foot! And let us not forget the etymology of the word "ghetto."

    I am hardly ignorant of history and unlike you, I am willing to examine it in a less partisan manner. Europe and Christendom have both had a bloody one; you have no standing to complain about the Muslims' expansion.

    • ziontruth

      "Europe and Christendom have both had a bloody one; you have no standing to complain about the Muslims' expansion."

      Implied here is that one needs to have a clean record to defend his home, country, family and homeland. This is a typical treasonous Marxist argument for multiculturalist suicide.

      I have news for you, quisling: The right of a people to defend themselves stands no matter the past record of that people; it is a basic, self-evident right and even an instinct found in the animal kingdom.

      (No, the Arab colonists in Palestine are not defending their homeland, which is Arabia and only Arabia; it is the Jews who are defending their one and only rightful homeland.)

      • Herman Caintonette

        Quisling? Last time I checked, Israel was not my home country.

        ZT: "Implied here is that one needs to have a clean record to defend his home, country, family and homeland."

        Not at all. However, you cannot responsibly claim that the Muslims are supremely evil, as objectively speaking, the Christian record is arguably much worse.

        ZT: "(No, the Arab colonists in Palestine are not defending their homeland, which is Arabia and only Arabia; it is the Jews who are defending their one and only rightful homeland.)"

        This is a statement devoid of legal or logical support. Debate by declaration is not really debate at all.

        • ziontruth

          "Quisling? Last time I checked, Israel was not my home country."

          I know. But the likes of you apply the same arguments to your own country. Not for nothing are you called the "Blame America First" crowd.

          "However, you cannot responsibly claim that the Muslims are supremely evil,…"

          I can, from my point of view. You see, I walk in my own shooz*, not in other people's shooz.

          "Debate by declaration is not really debate at all."

          For once I agree with you. It's not really debate at all. And you know why? Because this isn't really a debate at all. This is a war. Those moral-sounding arguments the Arab colonists have given, about them being an "indigenous Palestinian nation working the land from time immemorial," aren't, have never been, really arguments inviting debate, but tactics of war by subterfuge—smooth talk covering the turd of Arab imperialist aggression against the one and only Jewish State in a wrapper of post-colonialist moralizing.

          *Sorry about that. It's because the forum software rejects the correct spelling, probably flagging it as spam.

    • Beth

      Herman Caintonette "I am hardly ignorant of history and unlike you"

      Yes, you are ignorant – but I'll let you judge for yourself:

      Rom 13:9 For this (to be a Christian), Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

      There are no more Commands in Christianity. Not one. Those who murder (and I'm not talking about self defense) are not Christians…..no matter how much they claim to be:

      1Jo 3:15 no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

      The koran teaches the complete opposite – so why don't you put your energy to good use and start putting the blame where it belongs?

      You can start with this one:

      koran 033.061 They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy. {Incitement to carry out Mass Murder! – no matter how you look at

  • Herman Caintonette

    intrcptr: "William Pitt the Younger agreed with the colonists that the King's men were the terrorists."

    DumbCanuck: "Gee, another era and location in history that you are willfully ignorant or habitually dishonest about."

    And yet, you denounce ME for not knowing my history? Pitt was all of seventeen when our Revolution took place. http://www.victorianweb.org/history/pms/pitt.html The English regarded the Colonists as terrorists.

  • Herman Caintonette

    ObamaYo: "The only people that claim the various Jewish militia groups were terrorists are the Brits, who also labeled the various American militia groups during the American Revolutionary War terrorists as well, but the various Jewish militia groups like the various American militia groups too targeted the British military, which is a legitimate military target and therefore doesn't constitute terrorism."

    "As the nonimportation movement falters in January and February of 1770, some Bostonians take it upon themselves to discourage merchants from selling British goods. Importers' stores are vandalized and customers bullied."
    http://www.masshist.org/revolution/massacre.php

    See also, e.g., http://www.redcoat.me.uk/#D ; http://www.ncgenweb.us/orange/oc_tory.html ; http://books.google.com/books?id=KRRSfy7eVoIC&amp… . The American Revolution was as much of a civil war as it was a war for independence; Tories were given no quarter, during and after the War.

    Many acts committed during and even before the War could constitute war crimes and terrorist acts but as you well know, the winners get to write history.

  • Herman Caintonette

    intrcptr: "You claim that the British Parliament likely thought of the Colonists as terrorists, and when I point out that the Prime Minister of England sided with them, you somehow conclude that that means that he would side with those who are routinely screaming death, indoctrinating their children with suicidal rage, and refuse even to talk."

    As I pointed out, Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger was still a child at the start of the American Revolution. Your ignorance of history is not my problem.

  • Herman Caintonette

    intrcptr: "…read the Bible…"

    Ziontruth: "intrcptr2, you're talking to a professional blasphemer."

    IOW, someone more familiar with the Bible than either of you, and capable of using it against you like the famed Jewish community organizer Saul Alinsky. http://www.forestcouncil.org/tims_picks/view.php?…

    • ziontruth

      "IOW, someone more familiar with the Bible than either of you,…"

      The Bible was not given to people to be familiar with, but to be believed and followed. Your knowledge of the Bible will be an exhibit in the accusation against you at the Court On High.

  • Herman Caintonette

    intrcptr: "It is now official, you are a blithering idiot, with the intellectual capacity of a slug, frankly lower than even flipside."

    Translated, you lost the argument, and all you have left in the quiver is an bottomless sewer of ad hominems.

    ziontruth: "Jewishness is not defined by race. The option of joining the Jewish ethnos through religious conversion means Jews can be of any human genetic lineage. This has been so ever since an Egyptian woman was taken by marriage into Joseph's house (Asenath the daugther of Potiphar).

    As we can see, anti-Zionism is racism,"

    Again, you are trapped in an intellectual prison of your own making. Since Jewishness cannot be defined by race, prejudice against Jews cannot constitute racism, as a matter of definition. Moreover, as anyone could become a Jew, the Jews cannot lay ancestral claim to Israel, again as a matter of definition.

    • ziontruth

      "Since Jewishness cannot be defined by race, prejudice against Jews cannot constitute racism, as a matter of definition."

      Normally, no. But if you refer to the race of particular Jews (as you did in referring to "Jews from the steppes"), then you do make it racism. Anti-Zionism keeps harping on about how European Jews have no right to Palestine; in doing so, it makes a racist argument.

      "Moreover, as anyone could become a Jew, the Jews cannot lay ancestral claim to Israel, again as a matter of definition."

      What do I care if the claim is ancestral or not? It's a claim all the same.

  • Herman Caintonette

    zionT: "But the likes of you apply the same arguments to your own country. Not for nothing are you called the "Blame America First" crowd."

    It is the quintessence of patriotism. My country, right or wrong; when right, to support her, and when wrong, to make her right again.

    • ziontruth

      "My country, right or wrong; when right, to support her, and when wrong, to make her right again."

      But not to blame her for the aggression of her enemies against her. That is treason.

      • Herman Caintonette

        Treason is "The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government." To speak even painful truths does not qualify.

        If you bully everyone else around long enough, sooner or later, someone is going to poke you in the nose. It is, as Ward Churchill put it, the justice of roosting chickens.

        • ziontruth

          "Treason is 'The crime of betraying one's country…' "

          Your advocacy of appeasing the Islamic imperialists sure qualifies.

          "If you bully everyone else around long enough, sooner or later, someone is going to poke you in the nose."

          I hope the Muslims take that message to heart. They're making just about every non-Muslim nation on earth hate them.

          "It is, as Ward Churchill put it, the justice of roosting chickens."

          Quoting Ward "as real an Indian as the Arab colonists are Palestinians" Churchill now? I guess you dismiss the people who jumped out of the burning towers as "little Eichmanns," seeing as you consider his thoughts fit to take inspiration from.

          Traitors, all of you. All Marxists. All Ron Paulites. All who blame their own countries for the aggression of the Muslim imperialists. Foul fifth-columnists who ought to be deported all to a desert island for the benefit of sane humanity.

  • Herman Caintonette

    ObamaYo: "Not hardly, only the ones that are obviously more than just a little unhinged and mentally handicapped like yourself, for instance. As for as the quality of your arguments go, they irrefutably demonstrate that like I said you are more than just a little unhinged and mentally handicapped."

    The same may more fairly be said of you. Truly, you are a legend in your own mind.

  • Herman Caintonette

    ObamaYo: "Again, you moonbat…."

    I provide the facts, and you furnish the insults.

  • Herman Caintonette

    Ken: "If you think I am going to believe ANYTHING Al Jazeera reports, I have swamland Arizona to sell you!!"

    I feel the same way about Faux News.

  • Herman Caintonette

    Outta here. Life calls.

    • ziontruth

      "Outta here."

      I won't get mad at you if you make it permanent.

      "Life calls."

      Please. Who are you trying to kid? It's the comfortable basement bed that calls.

      • Western Canadian

        Huhs!! You’ll wake his mommy and daddy!

  • Beth

    The Culprit for all of the hatred and bloodshed:

    The koran, which teaches:

    005.041 O Messenger!let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: whether it be among those whosay "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie (EVIL HATRED – taught in the koran)

    Thier koran also teaches its followers:

    009.005 But when the forbidden months are past then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.

    033.061 They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy.

    - – -

    A ten yr-old can understand what those words are saying.

    And the international body of leaders – are HYPOCRITES!, because they claim to be "Humanitarians" (and no doubt, believe themselves to be wise)

    For the fact that ALL will eventually reap what the koran has sown, they are fools (and I don't use the word fool lightly).

  • Herman Caintonette

    ObamaYo: "What the F–k is Christian Sharia? Are you a moron, as only morons are stupid and dumb enough to morally equate Islam with true faith-based religions?"

    The imposition of Christian religious dogma upon society through law. Outlawing alcohol, prostitution, divorce (see, covenant marriages), pornography, sex education, premarital sex, and other things those crazy goat-herders forbade, blue laws, and mandated school prayers and Bible study come to mind. Fortunately, our madcap mullahs lost the culture wars, but it was not from lack of trying.

    Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all cut from the same cloth, with Christianity and Islam being tied for the most ridiculous.

    • Western Canadian

      You have referred to nothing that sets English common law apart from sharia, and are rather stupidly trying to make a dishonest comparison on that basis. Where did common law mandate murdering all who left the fate, a child for daring to love, rape as a legitimate male behaviour (in our out of war), multiple marriages (only for men), taking prisoners in war as slaves….. You are willfully ignorant of sharia, and debase and degrade the history of the west by your dishonest babbling…. You really should try a different hobby.

  • Western Canadian

    Sorry, long day. fate = faith, our = or

  • kafirman

    Yes, I did follow the link, but just as you conflate Islam with Judiasm and Christianity, the Western left and the Western right, you likewise make the mistake of conflating the Talmud with the Bible. Just becomes the Talmud says something does not mean Jews believe it or that it is an essential part of the Jewish faith.

    Of course by equivalencing Islam with Judiasm or Christianity you equate evil with good and you defend Allah.

    HC you cite an excellent article (Silas), but show no evidence of understanding it. For example Silas writes, "Would Jesus Christ allow soldiers to rape female slaves?"

    Yet this does not stop you from the baseless and perverse remark, "Bottom line, the Qu'ran essentially adopted the customs of the region."

    Abu Bakr, as you surely recall, was stunned that Mohammad had the pedophiliac audacity to ask to marry his 6 year old daughter, Aisha.

  • aspacia

    Your link is not valid. If it was Jewish site .org site then it might be valid.

  • intrcptr2

    You fool!
    That tractate is not dicussing pedophilia in the least.

    As to this comment, Moses did not "sanction" genocide, he wrote that God commanded that the Hebrews destroy the Caananites for their abominations. Since those peoples no longer exist, genocide is no part of Judaism.

    And to proceed with the ad hominem; in that culture sex with a slave was acceptable, much as your hero's rearing children with Sally Hemmings.

    I would also contend that the results from Abraham's actions concerning Hagar and Ishmael demonstrate God's disapproval of a culturally sanctioned practice, contrasted to your correct judgment of the Quran's source.

    In general an argument can be tendentious, like yours. Interpretations cannot.

  • Western Canadian

    Wrong again, which is to be expected of you. It has been years since I spent considerable time following the claims of hate groups about jews and the talmud back to their sources, and finding that not only were they wrong when they referred to some sections of the talmud that actually exist, but when needed, they would fabricate ‘quotes’ from sections of the talmud….. that they made up out of thin air. Seems you never took a similar journey. And never will

  • Herman Caintonette

    kafir: "Just becomes the Talmud says something does not mean Jews believe it or that it is an essential part of the Jewish faith."

    That the Talmud said it means only that it was a respectable view at the time. The Sadducees of the day didn't even believe in an afterlife; some factions were heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, owing largely to the Diaspora. What we know today as Pauline Christianity appears to be the result of a forced marriage between Judaism and Mithraism, which itself evolved from Zoroastrianism. An example is the tale of the Magi, which attempted to sell Jesus as the second coming of Aushedar.

    I'm not an expert on Islam (I still have my Holy Qu'ran lying somewhere around the house, provided by the Saudi Kingdom), but I see religion as being in a constant state of evolution. Christianity had to make its peace with the Enlightenment and higher criticism (what was once the Deist heresy has been assimilated), and thanks to the Internet, it appears that Islam is doing the same. Even today, you have a war in Christendom between traditionalists and those who embrace it as allegorical. Besides, given the situation in Iran, I doubt strenuously that a free people will embrace a similar regime.

    As for the marriage to Aisha, marriages were often arranged at a very young age and consummated upon the onset of puberty in that day, as life expectancy was short. Medically, "puberty normally begins in girls between the ages of 8 and 12," http://www.lupronped.com/central-precocious-puber… but can occur earlier. I don't have a serious problem with this, as it is entirely possible that she could have had her first menstrual period before the age of ten.

    When gods counsel genocide, good and evil are quaint and provincial concepts.

  • Herman Caintonette

    I do own a copy of the Qu'ran, provided by the Saudi government. Under the rules of English grammar, use of the possessive was appropriate. Besides, if I were a practicing Muslim, wouldn't my copy be in a prominent place in my house?

    As for the main thrust of your claim, your source went on to say: "[al-Haafiz says:] I say: To say with certainty, [that she was not yet at the age of puberty] is questionable, though it might possibly be so."

    You have no proof to support your claim — only a tendentious supposition — whereas I have a medical basis upon which to claim that she may have menstruated at the age of nine. There is no proof that Mohammed committed an act of pedophilia as the law appeared to define it, any more than the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuhhh) did.

    You can't credibly complain about purported Muslim lies about Judaism while defaming their religion and prophet. My point is the one encompassed by Hillel's summation of the Torah: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman." The Jews stole the Palestinians' land, and they kind-of want it back. The irony in this 30-second propaganda vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKSZys1wO-4&NR=1 ) is astounding.

    Let's modify Shylock's famous soliloquy, answering why he wanted his enemies dead:

    "To bait fish withal: if it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what's his reason? I am a PALESTINIAN. Hath not a PALESTINIAN eyes? hath not a PALESTINIAN hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a PALESTINIAN wrong a JEW, what is his humility? Revenge. If a JEW wrong a PALESTINIAN, what should his sufferance be by JEWISH example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction."

    The Merchant of Venice, Act 3, scene 1.

    As long as the Zionist Jews insist upon acting as thieves and oppressors, they can expect their victims to fight back. Pope John Paul II concurs, observing that any violent result of a struggle against an oppressor is morally "attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about." Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, Sec. 55, Encyclical Letter on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life, March 25, 1995. That is the reality that a Zionist (not every Jew agrees with the creation of Israel under the current terms) must face.

  • kafirman

    I'm not contesting the use of the grammatical possessive, but the moral blindness which calls "evil" instead "holy."

    After I gave proof to support my claim from Islamic sources that Mohammad introduced pedophilia into the Bedouin culture you write that I am "tendentious." But calling me a unseemly name does nothing to blunt my argument from Abu Bakr or from Mr. Silas's work.

    Your inability to impute evil onto Mohammad — even in the face of primary Islamic sources — makes me further suspicious that you are a Mohammadian.

    From the same act you can find Salarino's sagacious remark: "There is more difference between thy flesh and hers
    than between jet and ivory; more between your bloods
    than there is between red wine and rhenish." So much for your moral equivalency.

    And why not locate a more direct Papal quote about the moral nature of Islam: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached"?

  • aspacia

    Your link did not work. Are to referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo

  • aspacia

    They purchased the land and did not steal it! Another Arab lie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo

  • intrcptr2

    Shylock was not Jewish! He was the idea of a Jew, as conceived by an Englishman in 16th Century London.

    How can you justify paraprasing a fictional character as truth?

    Please to explain then, as per your quote of pope JohnPaul II, the Muslim culpability for stealing The Land in the first place.

  • intrcptr2

    "That the Talmud said it means only that it was a respectable view at the time"

    Again, no. The presence of something in the Talmud is not indicative of its approval as teaching or practice. It is indicative that it was acceptable to argue about it, a situation that still holds today, even though the Talmud itself is no longer being altered.

    I will counsel you now on your ancient history (Don't worry, there are many here who shall disagree). Paul did not marry Mithraism to Judaism. And Mithraism did not emerge from Zoroastrianism.
    The Mithraism of the Roman Empire was quite different from the Mithraism of earlier Persia. It was a male, astrology-based cultus, and it arose in the wake of the rise of Christanity.
    It is apparent, from archaeology of the worship sites, that the nascent Catholic Church borrowed a great deal from Mithraism. But Paul's teachings evince no knowledge whatsoever of the alternative religion. And the masculine exclusivity of Mediteranean Mithraism is foreign to the Bible (Misogynisitic Catholic and Talmudic Judaistic interpretations notwithstanding).

    Your final comment should give you pause, and food for thought toward Islam and Atheism.

  • intrcptr2

    I can't honestly tell if your understanding of Christanity is worse or better than your conception of Zoroastrianism.
    http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00875/text/Zo

    Suffice to say, this in no way approximates what is going on in Luke's Gospel.

  • intrcptr2

    Indeed!!!

    And I'm not neglecting our other thread on Gnosticism, I've just gotten busy.

  • aspacia

    Careful, I own the Gnostics Bible.

  • aspacia

    Of course Shylock was a fictional character, same as Hamlet, McBeth, et al.

    Do I have to explain how the land was originally purchased???

    Purchasing the land is better than the conquest that most nations have done.

  • aspacia

    What are you on about???

  • intrcptr2

    I think you may have misunderstood… I quite argee with your position about Jews buying the land.

    Our friend here was quoting the pope in an attempt to paint Zionism as colonialism.

    My reference to Shylock was disputing the applicability of Shakespeare's conception of a Jew to Zionism and the Arab-Israeli conflict, not a question of literature. As rhetoric, would we reference Hamlet to resolve Muslim immigration to Denmark, aside from the crack about rank scents, of course?

  • aspacia

    Robert Spencer-Jihad Watch. To date, not one "expert has been able to refute his claims. All comers are vanquished.

    Why the ad hom attack from the Qu'ranic Surah? This is fallacious. Besides, I am a Deist, Feminist, Goy, ZIONIST. Oh, yes, I was Baptized Catholic, and raised Episcopalian.

    LMFAO, Heinlein is one of my favorite sci fi authors, albeit SISL is poorly written. Lasaraus Long is also one of my favorite characters–Methusala's Children. He improves as he writes–invented the water bed and was a officer in the navy. Totally bisexual–Now I will be attacked.

    No, the believers from within Islam are rebelling and the hardliners are feeling threatened, much like the Pope 500 or so years ago–their economic, military and political power may wane, but not with the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood demanding Sharia Law.

    You might consider teaming with Jasser and his associates. I admire him, a very courageous man who puts himself and his family is danger to promote reform, similar to Martin Luther.

    Not all on this board are rabid misMuslimphobes, not at all. I do not care what you worship, as long as you are no threat to me, my brethren and my freedoms.

  • aspacia

    LOL, Shakespeare, similar to most of Anglos of his time, was antiJewish, sexist, and generally a brilliant xenophobe.

    What many do not understand, xenophobia is common throughout the world, always has been around, and probably always will be.

    As groups of humans come into contact with each other we often clash.

  • Herman Caintonette

    I'm not a Muslim, and don't even know all that much about Islam, as compared to Judaism and Christianity. That fact does not prevent me from pointing out the inconsistencies and injustice in your position.

  • aspacia

    You sure? An ex?

    What country or faith does not have injustice? I am stating that we do misdeeds, but so most other countries, and our misdeeds are not as bad as most.

    You do realize that you did not provide one inconsistency or injustice in my claim.