Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

451. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220460 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 28, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Personally I didn't know that there were "right" or "wrong" political views or systems. That would depend on your goals, and aims.

*dryly* I would expect no less from someone whose avatar is based on the sequel to Kannazuki no Miko.

If happiness on this earth is a value, if freedom is a value, if life itself is a value - then is a political system that is right - Capitalism - and dozens that are wrong, are evil: Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Islam.

452. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220307 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 28, 2008 at 9:37 am

Dr. Doctor I'm trying to work out what your point is.

Besides, I thought all the terrorist bombers involved in the 7/7 attacks and the later attempts all had jobs, but I admit I didn't keep up.

But I object to the "slacker/sponger/immigrant" to "terrorist" correlation.

Well, these don't necessarily correlate with each other, but they do correlate very well with Islam. The first bit results from the sense of jiyzah entitlement, and the second from the doctrines of Jihad.

Muslim populations in the dar al-Harb are a problem. No question about it.

453. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220282 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 28, 2008 at 9:19 am

Al, sorry to butt in, but there's one big omission in your list:

The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany.

454. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #220262 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 28, 2008 at 9:06 am

Nairb here are some of the figures:

http://www.indexmundi.com/netherlands/birth_rate.html

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

The point is that the average Muslim birth rate is around about 3.5 per couple, while the native dutch reproduce at about 1.64 per couple. Now, think about that. This means an inverted family tree. Four grandparents, two parents, one child. This is the exact opposite in the Muslim birthrates. It catches up quite quickly.

I've been out of it for some time, so sorry about the late response. I'll run the mathematical numbers when I get back home.

455. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220249 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 28, 2008 at 8:50 am

But, but... Islam is a RELIGION of PEACE!

Some of us have been pointing this out for a long, long time. So much for the 'vast, overwhelming majority of moderates'.

This is straying into uncomfortable prejudice from you. Plenty of non-Muslims take this piss and live off the state as well. Believe me on that. I grew in a very white and bog-standard Christian part of Wales and saw it all around me.

True, true. However, you see comparatively less of this nonsense amongst Hindu and Sikh immigrants. Conversely, the Muslim population is disproportionately highly represented in the gang-rape statistics.

Notice, as always the revolting apologetics:

Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students, condemned the study. "This disgusting report is a reflection of the biases and prejudices of a right-wing think tank â€" not the views of Muslim students across Britain," he said. "Only 632 Muslim students were asked vague and misleading questions, and their answers were wilfully misinterpreted."

Sure, it's just a 'right-wing thinktank' that's gulling the poor widdle muslims into saying that they support murder.

People like this should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

456. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #217339 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 24, 2008 at 8:26 am

al there's a word for it: misandrism.

Nairb I can't verify those numbers at the moment, but if you could give me until I get back home. I'm not ducking this one, but if you can give me a moment, that would be good.

hawt4dawk,

On a related note, the animosity towards "feminists" in some of these threads disturbs me. Even though I found my own mom's brand of feminism disturbing and even destructive, I can see that feminism is not even remotely a monolith. There are lots of different types of feminism. Some feminist theories are valid and have inspired our culture to finally give women the vote by (no later than 1929!), and since then to break the kinds of repression that are not-so-distant cousins to the things we find abhorrent in Islam.

You already know why I loathe the modern feminist organizations, their complete gutlessness when it comes to Islam. The name for this is Justice. You can't admire the true heroes like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Irshad Manji (disagree hugely with her, but she is very brave), Wafa Sultan and Bat Ye'or, while not feeling loathing for the contemptible likes of Germaine Greer.


Of course, I feel admiration for the original feminists, the suffragettes who fought tooth-and-nail to get equal rights for women. That is yet another reason why I despise the modern corruption that calls itself 'feminism'.

Islam might be growing, but it is getting more marginalised in Europe. Yes, they are growing in number but how many are actually "Muslim"?
.

Goldy, a truly terrifying number. Once again, I mention that the lickspittle John Esposito admits that 93 million Muslims absolutely and without question support 9/11, and (this was a 1 to 5 questionair) and the same again pretty much support them, and another three hundred million think the attacks can be 'somehow justified'.

As regards the views of Muslims here in the West, why don't we just look at the statistics from the UK, just for starters? You can find the whole lot here:

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist.html

There's alot there. Read it. Here are some choice pieces:

Find it acceptable "for religious or political groups to use violence for political ends": 4 percent.

Would not inform police if they suspected a fellow Muslim was planning a terror attack: 5 percent.

Back Shari`a courts to settle civil cases among Muslims, so long as penalties do not break the law: 61 percen

Agree that despite the right to free speech, in Britain, those who insult or criticise Islam should face criminal prosecution: 58 percent.

Support there being areas of Britain which are pre-dominantly Muslim and in which Sharia Law is introduced: 40 percent.

Would be proud if a family member decided to join al-Qaeda: 2 percent.

Would be indifferent if a family member decided to join al-Qaeda: 16 percent.

Wish to see Britain as an Islamic state: 28 percent

And so on and so forth. I truly hate these facts, but that doesn't change them.

457. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #217214 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 24, 2008 at 3:49 am

Joe, cut the crap. The Babylonians viewed the world as arising from water long before Islam crawled out of Arabia to plague us. Does that prove the existence of Marduk? Certain Christian fundies say that the thorough ass-kicking of the Muslim Arab nations at the hands of Israel during the Six Day War and others is exactly foretold in the Bible. Prove Christianity to you?

For the matter, the Cthulhu Mythos postulates one, primal source of all live, in the form of primitive cells, and we know that these are the most primitive forms of life. Doesn't make my worship Cthulhu or wait for the end times (okay, except for that one time involving my college-neighbor and the absinthe...)

The point I am getting at is that none of these discoveries were made by Muslims. None. No, it was Western minds that understood the Universe, and then, parasites you are, you scrambled to try and hitch a ride for your Qur'an. Sorry, not going to fly. If it was in there, you should have known about it long ago. You didn't, so it wasn't.

You still cannot answer my point about the abject stagnation and mental paralysis that Islam has brought to this world. You cite 'great experts', but never what they say. Here is Servier, again:

In literature, as in science and philosophy, the Arab has been a compiler. His intellectual beggary shows itself in his religious conceptions. In pagan times, before Mohammad, the Arab gods had no history, no legend lends poetry to their existence, no symbolism beautifies their cult. They are mere names, borrowed in all probability from other peoples, but behind these names there is . . . nothing.

Islam itself is not an original doctrine; it is a compilation of Greco-Latin traditions, biblical and Christian; but in assimilating materials so diverse, the Arab mind has stripped them of all poetical adornment, of the symbolism and philosophy he did not understand, and from all this he has evolved a religious doctrine cold and rigid as a geometrical theorem: â€" God, The Prophet, Mankind.

This doctrine is sometimes adorned by the nations who have adopted it and who have not the barren brain of the Arab, with quite an efflorescence of poetry and legend. But these foreign ornaments have been attacked with savage violence by the authorized representatives of Islamic dogma, and since the second century of the Hegira the Caliphs have decided, so as to avoid any variation of the religious dogma, to lay down exactly the spirit and the letter in the works of four orthodox doctors. It is forbidden to make any interpretation of the sacred texts not sanctioned by these works, which have fixed the dogma beyond all possibility of change, and by the same stroke have killed the spirit of initiative and of intelligent criticism among all Muslim peoples, who have thus become, as it were, mumified to such an extent that they have stayed fixed like rocks in the rushing torrent that is bearing the rest of humanity onward towards progress.

From this time forward, the doctrine of Islam, reduced to the simplicity of Arab conception, has carried on its work of death with perfect efficiency inasmuch as it governs every act of the believer's life; it takes charge of him in his cradle, and leads him to the grave, through all the vicissitudes of life, never allowing him in any sphere of thought or activity the least vestige of liberty or initiative. It is a pillory that only allows a certain number of movements previously fixed upon.

To sum up: the Arab has borrowed everything from other nations, literature, art, science, and even his religious ideas. He has passed it all through the sieve of his own narrow mind, and being incapable of rising to high philosophic conceptions, he has distorted, mutilated and desiccated everything. This destructive influence explains the decadence of Muslim nations and their powerlessness to break away from barbarism.

Emphasis mine. "He has distorted, mutilated, and desiccated everything". Well, quite.

458. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #217102 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 23, 2008 at 10:49 pm

Kill- to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay
Murder- the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson.

The typical distinction drawn is that murder is the taking of innocent life, or taking life unlawfully. That is, killing someone who has done no wrong, or killing soldiers who have surrendered, qualifies as murder.

Israel recently released some of these thugs that LGS so likes. Here's a little reminder of what they are, an eyewitness account of what they did:

It had been a peaceful Sabbath day. My husband, Danny, and I had picnicked with our little girls, Einat, 4, and Yael, 2, on the beach not far from our home in Nahariya, a city on the northern coast of Israel, about six miles south of the Lebanese border. Around midnight, we were asleep in our apartment when four terrorists, sent by Abu Abbas from Lebanon, landed in a rubber boat on the beach two blocks away. Gunfire and exploding grenades awakened us as the terrorists burst into our building. They had already killed a police officer. As they charged up to the floor above ours, I opened the door to our apartment. In the moment before the hall light went off, they turned and saw me. As they moved on, our neighbor from the upper floor came running down the stairs. I grabbed her and pushed her inside our apartment and slammed the door.

Outside, we could hear the men storming about. Desperately, we sought to hide. Danny helped our neighbor climb into a crawl space above our bedroom; I went in behind her with Yael in my arms. Then Danny grabbed Einat and was dashing out the front door to take refuge in an underground shelter when the terrorists came crashing into our flat. They held Danny and Einat while they searched for me and Yael, knowing there were more people in the apartment. I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades. I knew that if Yael cried out, the terrorists would toss a grenade into the crawl space and we would be killed. So I kept my hand over her mouth, hoping she could breathe. As I lay there, I remembered my mother telling me how she had hidden from the Nazis during the Holocaust. "This is just like what happened to my mother," I thought.

As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.

By the time we were rescued from the crawl space, hours later, Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her.

Emphasis mine.

459. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #216786 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 23, 2008 at 2:12 pm

I share Fanusi's concerns on this deceptive and almost machiavellian face of Islam. I would say this face of Islam is more frightening than the one that preaches intolerance.

*nods* Exactly. The Muslim leaders of the Jihad know they can't bring the West down militarily. Not yet. What they are gambling on is to destroy it from within. A memorandum, recovered from the Muslim brotherhood in 1991 showed that this was all part of their plan to tear the West down from inside, through infiltration, through immigration, through deception - until they are strong enough to take over.

It's five minutes to midnight for us. The Dutch parliment said that Holland would become Muslim majority in one or two decades. But that's not the scary bit. The danger begins to hit us when our young men reach parity. Because young men are your fighting force. So, based on that prediction, by 2025 at the latest, this continent will see bloody upheaval of a scale not seen since the Dark Ages. Wars that will make WWII seem like a cakewalk.

Every time another credible poll is published showing evidence that a huge portion of mulims in muslim coutries support violence (even if they're just 20, 30 or 40%, that still makes them 100s of millions of people), our sycophants to the religion of moderacy ignore it, declare it false without providing better evidence, or even deny such data exists at all.
If I'm wrong on this, I'd admit it. I just haven't seen plausible evidence to the contrary.

blackwolf, you won't. When I first began to grasp the horror of this, I desperately searched for evidence to the contrary. I found none.

We are up against the oldest, most terrible form of Fascism in human history. The sooner people realise this, the better our chances are at survival.

For anyone who doubts the seriousness and gravity of the situation, watch the following film:

Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against The West
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gMLJJEDDDGc

460. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #216553 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 23, 2008 at 9:34 am

This is not a freedom of speech issue. No one suggests that Muslims should be hauled off to jail,--well maybe except for Fanusi,-- for practicing their religion or even proselytizing.

Excuse me, I have made my point of view quite clear. Any support of Shariah law should result in loss of citizenship, and any advocacy of Jihad - that is, advocating the random murder of innocent fellow citizens - should be prosecuted as incitement to murder and treason, both punishable by death.

Now this brings me to my next point:

I'm going to go to bed now, but i will think more on your points. But please think on mine and tell me why you think curtailing the right to express and defend your ideas can be justified

Well, as I have said, if the advocacy of Jihad and Shariah had harsh punishment then the ICNA wouldn't be in business. This sort of advocacy could go on, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't express our disgust and loathing at it.

But this isn't happening; those who speak about the truth about Islam are not just under threat of death from the vile members of that religion, but are also marginalized, and spat on, and thrown out of their jobs, and out of their countries, and have legal charges brought to them. That is why my blood seethes at this nonsense.

461. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #216339 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 23, 2008 at 1:49 am

N.B.: Here is a speech by Ibn Warraq about the subject:

http://snaphanen.dk/2008/03/11/video-ibn-warraq´s-lecture-in-the-free-press-society-copenhagen-denmark/

462. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #216337 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 23, 2008 at 1:47 am

However that is off point. You are also denying them the freedom you say they would try to deny us (though to a much smaller degree, this is simply denying them a voice - though no one needs me to highlightwhy that is an issue).

I fail to see why. In Germany we have laws against Holocaust denial and fascist parties. Once again, I bring up the second world war: we'd have never tolerated Nazi or Japanese Imperial propaganda spread then, why should we tolerate Islamic propaganda now?

There's an idiotic word that's going around: Islamo-fascism. It's idiotic because it's redundant. He who says "Islam" says "Fascist", he who says "Fascist" says "like Islam".

And who is more likely to get into trouble trying to spread their views? The Muslims pushing their Mein Kampf? Or me who points out what is actually written in that book?

463. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #216296 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 22, 2008 at 11:59 pm

Felandath, good to see you again!

theantitheist I would have less of a problem if any attempt to tell the truth about Islam were not systematically stymied. Look at those countries that managed to survive, somewhat, Islam, like Turkey. They crack down heavily on public expressions of the faith, such as the veil, and they know it's necessary.

Lee Harris cites a parallel, I think it's with Locke, who when arguing for religions toleration meant tolerance amongst the Protestant sects but not the Catholics. The reason was simple: the Catholics were so strong that if they could set up shop, they'd wipe out the competing Protestant sects and any hope of religious plurarlism would come to an end. I submit the same applies to Islam.

UPDATE: felandath is entirely right. Here's the book:

Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman
http://musulmanbook.blogspot.com/

It's a very important, very accurate book that's been driven out of print.

464. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #216281 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 22, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Bit pointless really, where do they come up with the money for all this?

Come on, sage, where do you think? Saudi Oil money, of course.

If they allow christian ads then they should also allow muslim ads. It's just fair and equally weird.

...

Thier selling a brand, whats the problem? (Apart from the obvious false advertising bit)

To Broicher, theantitheist & everyone else who might not know it, this is technically called Da'wa, the targeted attempt to convert others to Islam.

Now the problem arises because Islam is inherently fascistic and totalitarian. Imagine posters saying "Uncle Adolf Wants You!".

The sponsers behind this little escapade is the Islamic Circle of North America, the ICNA, which was listed in the famous 1981 memo by the Muslim Brotherhood as part of a Grand Jihad to undermine and destroy Western civilization from within. Various methods listed were targeted Da'wa, how to present Islam nicely, encourage Islamic immigration etc.

This is bad news. I think it's legit to say, "Oh, sure, you can have your posters - when we get Christian posters, and "Imagine no religion" in Ryadh".

UPDATE: Also, if somone were to run adds saying the truth about Islam, or quoting, say Winston Churchill on it, there'd be screams of 'Racist! Islamophobe!' and no way it would be allowed.

The Churchill quote I am thinking of is here:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property -- either as a child, a wife, or a concubine -- must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science -- the science against which it had vainly struggled -- the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

465. Losing Sight of Progress

Comment #215528 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 22, 2008 at 3:58 am

Nice bitchslap of Ann Coulter by the Hitch *grins* Admitedly, this is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope, but it's still fun.

As regards evolutionary progress, I do agree with Richard Dawkins that there is a kind of progress, a tendency towards ever greater complexity, total. That is, once cyanobacteria produced Oxygen as a waste product, the basis for oxygen-breathers was laid. The deaths of plants created the topsoil from which new forms could grow. They also provide a new niche for grazers, who in turn provided a niche for predators, and all of them are niches for diseases and parasites, and these are food in turn - and so the structure schaukles upward.

466. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215525 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 22, 2008 at 3:50 am

I think Christians can be barbarous as well when they want to be. Even secular ones. And I also believe this story should sound as a warning to any minority that becomes too "powerful". Those wanting an Islamic rise would do well to watch how we in the civilised west treat the Roma...

I have trouble seeing how this particular barbarism is indicative of a widespread ideological onslaught. Unless, of course, you mean - and I suspect that you do - that the West is so corrupt that it has no moral right to defend itself against Islam. In which case I just say 'Nuts to you'.

I also notice the bottom-feeding lgs has crawled out from under his rock to spit his venom and inanity.

(yes, that last word is correctly spelt).

467. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #215483 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 22, 2008 at 2:12 am

just spotted this. I think this is usually the case but there are important exceptions.

As far as I can tell there wasn't any good economical reason for Genghis Khan to conquer half the world and then not knowing what to do with it.I am open to changing my mind on this, but based on all I know it the Mongolian conquest was simply an monumental act of vandalism fueled by vanity,

Also I cannot see what economical incentive Hitler might have for invading the U.S.S.R.

*nods* Exactly, Bonzai. This is the old, Marxist, materialist view of human history, and what it excludes is the fact that human beings have minds and the contents of those minds that guide them. Any model of human history that doesn't consider fanaticism, wide-scale, raw fanaticism, and the worship of power and war for their own sake, is doomed to fail.

The Jihadist mentality isn't limited to Islam. When Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, he did so because, in terms of his fantasy-ideology, he had to, he had to to prove, to others, but above all to himself, that he was recreating the Roman Empire. When Hitler spoke of the Thousand Year Reich, he was doing the same thing. Communism had a similar messianic vision, and thus desired to spread under the same method.

468. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #215447 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 21, 2008 at 11:43 pm

*yawns and stretches* Work is really heating up so I just managed to get round to this.

Joe you have cited a huge number of people, but you've never given facts. Not one fact that these supposedly great minds have said, in response to my challenge about the stagnation and misery that your hellish creed brings.

I don't care for Fanusi's somewhat glowing endorsement of Christianity,

*dryly* That sound you hear is my Christian friends doubled over with laughter.

and I have expressed this to him on the "Blind Faiths" thread. I would concur that Christianity can be a threat to civilization. It is the intellectual stagnation that any religion

al I've been over this. I don't have a 'glowing endorsement of Christianity'. For the record, I have been more fiercely critical of its fundamentals, in some ways, than even the Horsemen (I don't believe that Christ's credo of self-sacrifice and turning the other cheek is moral, but is profoundly evil). What I have said is, firstly, that likening Christianity to Islam and its horrors, isn't just profoundly unjust, but actively insane, and secondly, that there are important Christian legacies that have made our civilization possible; that is, ones that make it uniquely open to reform.

And now, I fear, I must turn to NC:

You may argue that Graeco-Latin civilization spread northwest after the fall of the Empire, but in that case it is legitimate to ask -- why northwest and not northeast into Russia or south into Africa? The answer has to do mainly with food production. You can't have specialized scholars if everyone's living hand-to-mouth.

What I would - and did - argue is that Russia did recieve some of the Helenic strain, which is why it produced Dostoyevsky and Tesla (amongs others), but it was by far the weaker legacy. Now, there was a much stronger influx into England of these ideals. Why is a very good question, and one worth some debate. And, of course, the Helenic strain never descended in Africa because of the formidable natural barriers to it. Nevertheless, North Africa was completely Hellenized before Islam came.

You seem to have conceded by basic point, that it is the presence of the Helenic strain underneath Christianity that made the Enlightenment possible. You have relegated food production to 'sundry causes'.

I still would like to hear why, if it weren't for Islam, Byzantium would not have undergone the Enlightenment.

Despite your individualistic political leanings, you insist on discussing Muslims as a collective unit,

How, exactly, am I supposed to discuss the effects of Muslim immigration and their views in any other way? Noone seems to gripe about using that kind of language about any other group, say, when looking at the recent ghastly polls about the number of American Christians who reject evolution. And when you have one hundred and eighty-six million who support the 9/11 attacks, and another three hundred million who think they were 'somehow justified', then I believe this language may have something going for it.

It's also ironic, since I'm the one who advocates an appeal to individual Muslim minds to help break the hold of Islam on them.

1 down.

You poured scorn on Scott Atran for saying only a few thousand Muslims pursued jihad. By the Qur'an's definition of jihad, which includes preaching and propaganda, you'd be right. But Atran makes it quite clear that by "jihad" he means specifically violence, and in particular terrorism. You can argue with his choice of terms, but to claim that you have defeated his argument with this definition is to commit the logical fallacy of equivocation

So, you're conceding that he has no idea what he's talking about when he uses the term Jihad? Good to have that out in the open. And the 'few thousand' figure is still utter nonsense. You don't kill two million Christians and Animists in the Sudan, in what was, yes, called a Jihad with a few thousand.

2 down

I said all wars had economic causes; you called this "so ignorant it's unbelievable". I replied that, while individuals might go to war or even lead others to war for ideological reasons, war is both such a costly and such a risky business that any war effort lacking solid economic underpinnings would fail. Therefore, conflicts that do escalate into major wars always have an economic basis.

Sorry, I read that as saying that wars had to have an exclusively, or primarily economic basis. If you are now saying that people don't go to war when they are physically unable to do so - who can argue with that? But it's a pointless tautology. When the means are there, wars are very often driven by ideology which the whole history of the Twentieth Century proves.

3 down

You told me I couldn't know that unless I'd actually visited Camden itself.

I said no such thing. I asked you to provide evidence that the views in Camden were the result of racism and not of legitimate fears about Islam. Which you still have failed to do.

4 down.

You've repeatedly accused the Palestinians of "genocide" and said that Israel has to hit back or it will be destroyed. I pointed out that the comparative body counts on the respective sides are highly unbalanced, and in precisely the opposite sense from what you are suggesting. According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for instance, the total Israeli death toll from Qassam rocket fire, ever, is 15 -- less than two days' worth of deaths on the Palestinian side from the retaliation.

What I have said is that the agenda of the Palestinians is explicitly genoidal, which is obvious to anyone who studies their propaganda in their television, radio, schoolbooks etc.. Israel is better armed than they, and a damn good thing too. If it weren't, it would have long since been wiped out by the Muslim Arabs.

5 down

I replied that this was only because no Christian country is currently suffering the same socioeconomic conditions as the Islamic world; and further predicted, in some detail, that when the economic effects of Peak Oil hit the United States we can expect to see what will be, effectively, a Christian Fascist explosion.

For the record, I have spoken - often - about this danger, but what would cause it is either catastrophic Islamic terror or the collapse of one of Europe's countries into civil war or Shariah. I keep pointing out that we deal with the problem now with harsh, but civilized measures, or face the unthinkable later.

6 down.

Before the Reformation, the Church was effectively a branch of the government in practically every European state -- "no bishop, no king". Why did the Reformation open the door to the Enlightenment when the Catholic/Orthodox split hadn't? Because the Reformation wasn't a geographical split. It created a situation where states could not favour one faith without falling prey to extremists from the other

"A branch" - hard to argue with that. But the Church and the Government were in perpetual conflict, and this opened the gap in which the Enlightenment could grow. This is because Christianity isn't a political doctrine in the way that Islam is.

Your comments that letting it into Western nations will make Islam less dangerous is refuted by the fact that there are preachers so radical in the UK that they would never be tolerated in, say, Iraq.

You are also ignoring that it took the slaughter of the 30 years war, not to mention all the other internecine fighting, to get people to realise that religious toleration was essential, as the alternative incurred simply too high a price. I think that the disillusionment we see with Islam in Iraq results from similar causes. But I don't want that experiment run in London and Berlin, thank you.

7 down.

You've repeatedly described the Crusades as a "defensive" conflict. If so, why did Crusaders kill Christians and Muslims alike in the countries they invaded

Because this is the Dark Ages we are talking about, when war wasn't a bowl of sugar pops. Get that straight. I've been harshly critical of that, especially the disastrous Fourth Crusade which weakened Byzantium fatally.

What I will not, however, hear is this nonsense that the poor widdle Muslims were just minding their own business and then those nasty European Christians waged war on them unprovoked. It's hogwash and mendacious hogwash at that.

8 down.

You say six million African Muslims convert to Christianity each year. I pointed out that Christian evangelists work by reaching out in hospitality to their target audience before -- take note of this, it's important -- before they declare any sympathy to Christianity or any dissatisfaction with their current belief. That is the key to the Christians' success. You clearly like the idea of adopting such a successful strategy, but you can't seem to bring yourself to commit to the central, indispensable, key tactic of it -- pre-emptive outreach.

Hmmm - didn't I say something about calling for a campaign of cultural Imperialism to break minds away from Islam? And that we should support those Muslims who have suffered from the Arab Supremacist ideology that is part and parcel of Islam, such as the blacks in the Sudan or the Kurds or the Berbers? Why, yes, yes I did.

9 down.

You want there to be "grave consequences" for publicly preaching jihad. How are you intending to prevent those who privately seek jihad from meeting secretly and plotting terror attacks?

Since we can't prevent the preaching entirely we should just roll over and demonstrate that we'll do nothing against those threatening our lives and our civilization? And that's going to dissuade the Muslims? Won't it rather show them that we're push-overs and unwilling to fight for our values, while dispiriting those who want to break free but are afraid to and see that if Westerners aren't willing to stand up against Islam, why should they?

10 down.

You think Muslims will spontaneously turn apostate from within the dar al-Islam -- I say apostasy is far more likely in contexts where there are genuine alternatives to Islam already in place to fit into. Blocking Muslim immigration would thus prevent many Muslims from apostasizing.

I've never said that. What I have said is that our first concern is our survival and separating ourselves from Islam and cordoning it off is essential to that. Breaking the hold of Islam on the minds of Muslims is a very long process and we can hardly do that when our own contries go under Shariah, now can we?

11 down.

Most cultures encompass multiple values and ideals, including freedom, justice, and decision-making by consent. An effective method of countering Islamic dominance would be to seek out social structures within the target cultures that embody those values, and enable and nurture those

Such as what, exactly? Those examples you cite are non-Islamic, a sign of its hold weakening. Well great. No problems there. Let's support that all the way. But seeking out 'moderate Islam', whatever the hell that is, is a waste of time.

12 down

Only... Milosevic was an Orthodox Christian Serb; the Bosnian Muslims were among his victims.

You have a magnificent ability to miss the point. Our first business is to survive. If someone is advocating Shariah, whether they believe it or are stupid or are doing it out of fear - what difference does that make? They're still a threat. And my point - for the millionth goddamn time, NC - is deal with the problem now or face far less pleasant solutions in the future.

14 down.

I provided an argument against Ayn Rand's central philosophical position. You said I was "taking refuge behind jargon", so I expanded it. I've presented that expansion twice now, on the Sharia Law and Ian McEwan threads, and I'm not going to do it a third time. Click the "Other comments by NakedCelt" link and you'll find it.

I don't have the time to go searching for it now; but the fact that you can't repeat it... You're track record with these points isn't too good so far, so let's leave that one as 'undecided.

Your proposition to halt immigration, not of brown people, nor of Arabs, nor of people who hold passports from Middle Eastern countries, but of people who believe one particular thing rather than another, would require border guards to become thought police. Basic political principle: when considering granting any government department new powers, always imagine first what a government with beliefs diametrically opposed to your own could do with them.

Er... During the Second World War, immigration from Germany was none too easy, and there was a sharp eye on sleepers. What, exactly, would the outcome have been if you had hundreds of thousands of Germans immigrating who openly declared their support for Nazism - or hundreds of thousands of Japanese who believed in the divinity of the Emperor?

15 down.

I compared the crime rate among Muslims in Europe to the crime rate among African Americans in the States. You said I was insulting African Americans. I said: check the statistics, then.

You are. You're drawing an equivalence between race and religion - the exact same equivalent you accuse me of, btw. So, are African Americans devoted largely to tyranny, do black churches routinely say rape and paedophilia is A.Ok? Do tell. I'd love to know the kind of sites you've been browsing.

16 down.

You have repeatedly asserted that they do, but never backed up the assertion, and as a large part of your case depends on it, I'd really like to see what your justification is.

*BEEP* The Third Reich, the USSR, Maoist China, North Korea, the KKK, slavery, the Jihad of fourteen centuries, the routine practice of Islamic child rape justified by and with reference to Muhammad's example - sorry, do you really know that little about humanity and its history?

17 down

If police protection is provided for Muslims who apostasize, as you suggest, those who are still scared "are of no use" and "that's their problem and not ours", you say. Fanusi -- A is A. A is not not-A. If Islam is a problem for us, then people who remain Islamic are our problem and not just their own.

Sleight-of-hand. Of course they remain a problem for us, and that is solved by ending Mulsim immigration, expelling Shariah supporters, practicing a vigorous campaign to expose Islam for what it is. What I have said is that we have no obligation, none, to risk our necks for those who won't, for whatever reason, begin to think and learn and find the courage that brings. If they apostasize, great. Every free mind is a valuable addition. If they leave our countries, not so great, but it gets the sword off our necks.

18 down.

Final tally: 18 shot down in flames, and one undecided.

I may answer the rest later.

469. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215223 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 21, 2008 at 1:58 pm

But, but... Islam is a religion of PEACE! And isn't it full of the rights of women? Don't nice, westenized converts keep telling us this?

*spits to get the taste out of his mouth*

You may also await the deafening silence of the Feminist organizations who, as per-fucking-usual, will say zip about this.

The expected result is that muslims will not grow to much more then 16%

Also be aware that the french have beeen having many babies since 2000. They now have the highest number of births per couple in Europe bar Ireland. The muslim population is contributing about 5% to this growth.

I hope you're right, Nairb. Because if not we'll be seeing this barbarity in Europe before long. Could you send me some sources on that?

Why is it always "sex offences"? Seems the only time we ever hear about vile religious dogma is when it involves sex. If it's not muslims stoning people to death because they have failed to be monogamous it's catholics and their condoms or anglicans getting in a flap about gay bishops

Just for the record, Cartomancer, however one may despise these views of the Christians, they are nothing in comparison with the abject barbarity of Islam.

Destroying Islam will be a service to humanity.

470. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #212591 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 17, 2008 at 11:55 am

hawt4dawk thanks for replying.

As for our political differences Fanusi, I couldn't quite read the specifics of your meaning. Maybe you would elucidate in a pm.

Will do.

The true questions are presumably "What do the nice Muslims really think?" What did the Islamic moderates have to say to you Fanusi?

Only one group replied and they addressed not one of my points, but went off om some wierd tangent that blamed the whole thing on Israel. Go figure.

The point about Muslim moderates is that they are moderate. Now, ask yourself: in what revolution, in what grand struggle in human history have 'moderates' of any stripe been worth a damn? Which barricade was manned, and what man stood tall on it and said "Brothers, we shall not give an inch, we shall fight to the last - for moderation!"

In short, I think that the moderates will be no help whatsoever in this fight, that there are two kinds of Muslims, largely, those who support Shariah and Jihad and those who will do nothing to stop it.

There's a real confusion about the nature of evil and evil ideas. You know the saying 'For evil to triumph, it is enough for good men to do nothing'? Well, the trick of all evil in all times has been to get good men to the point when they do nothing.

If you imbide a toxic doctrine such as multiculturalism or relativism, it will do no immediate damage. No immediate damage. But there will come a point in your life when you need every scrap of your courage, every piece of your integrity to do the right thing - and that's when the booby trap in your brain will go off, providing you with countless reasons to keep your mouth shut and your head down.

And that's the first step into the darkness. The effect of Islam on moderates will firstly be to paralyse them in the face of the radicals - and then to slowly turn them into radicals themselves. Because cowardice is inherently unstable. It is very, very difficult to be able to say "I know this is wrong, I know I should speak up - but I'm just too damn scared", and effectively impossible. The temptation to think that maybe, just maybe, the evil ones have a point. Of course, not that you'd agree with everything, but...

And that's the formula of moral corruption. Look around the web, and you can see it happening. A moderate Muslim webzine, 'The American Muslim' had an article on 'Islamism as a viable political philosophy'. Who are they trying to convince? Themselves. They are trying to drown out their batter conscience with that kind of thing.

This is why we see former moderates become fully fledged fanatics.

It's also why those of us who speak and fight against evil ideas are often considered 'extremists'; the other side is talking about half-measures, compromises, little developments. But evil needs to be fought at the root.

They were very nice young medical students from Qatar, two men and two women. So I have had images of them swirling in my mind along with thoughts of this discussion, wondering where they are in the scheme of things. The young women were wearing hijab and green (the color of Islam, as I'm sure you know) smocks over their clothes, not burqas, and were studying medicine. Does this go against the law of Islam?

Oh, certainly. Women - women of the faith - seeking an independant mind and self-reliance? Al-Ghazali is rotating in his grave fast enough to generate hydro-electricity.

Returning to my previous point, imagine a situation where there are Muslim pogroms happening in your region, where you were afraid to go out of the house. How sure are you that those students would speak up on your behalf and of your family?

Your comments on what "a kafir woman like you could expect" were disturbing, of course.

The truth can be very disturbing. I'll be honest: when I realized the truth, there were moments I thought about killing myself, rather than witness the darkness to come. What stopped me is this: if I'm going to die, I may as well die fighting Islam and in defence of everything I love.

I found a news article on this same Australian Mufti you mentioned about him being so upset when his remarks about rape were misinterpreted in the press that he had to lay in bed all day breathing through an oxygen mask

Another little game Muslims play. Catch them with their pants down, so to speak, catch then being honest for once, and they say they were 'misrepresented'. Have you seen the documentary 'Undercover Mosque'? It's on youtube or good vid. Anyway, after showing, clearely, what was going on in these mosques, the Muslims cried that 'it was out of context', that there is some mystic 'context' that will make statements that the woman is inherently inferior, or that a forty year old man can have sex with a nine year old, perfectly acceptable.

Here are some of those statements by the Mufti and you can judge for yourself, just with your own mind, whether or not there's any 'context' that can make them acceptable:

"A victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world. Why? No one to blame but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world . . .

"Strapless, backless, sleeveless, nothing but satanic skirts, slit skirts, translucent blouses, miniskirts, tight jeans: all this to tease man and appeal to his carnal nature."

"Would you put this sheep that you adore in the middle of hungry wolves? No . . . It would be devoured. It's the same situation here. You're putting this precious girl in front of lustful, satanic eyes of hungry wolves. What is the consequence? Catastrophic devastation, sexual harassment, perversion, promiscuity."

You'll fidn the whole thing here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005868.php

I'd like to close with a quote from the film "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West", which you can also find online.

"Ultimately, the price we're talking about, is the price of freedom. And in every generation, I think, at some point, we are called upon to stand up, for that ideal"

471. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #212033 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 16, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Sciros that is beneath contempt.

472. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #211997 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 16, 2008 at 12:57 pm

hawt4dawk, first of all, sorry for my somewhat sarcastic and short tones. It's just that I have heard this blank dismissal of facts and reason so often, with no other comment that 'it's just what the neocons say', with no proof, no argument, that I get a little bit prickly.

But you are obviously something that I'm sorry to say is rare today: honest in your desire to find out about this.

But I must say in 2003 I did see with my own eyes an outline on how best for the U.S. to rule the world on the website of a neo-conservative think-tank "Project for a New American Century

Oh dear, these guys. Don't get me started. Are they really so foolish as to think ruling the world is a matter of tanks and guns? No; what runs the world is ideas.

That's what's wrong with this Wilsonian nonsense in Iraq. It's a hang over from the materialist determinism of Marx. The belief that there is a defined progress of history.

Roughly speaking, they thought that, take out the tyrant Saddam and his thugs, and the Iraqis would find their way to a modern, industrialist democracy.

Not happening. Because you can't just graft an industrial superstructure on primitive barbarism. An industrial civilisation, with its pipelines, power plants, skyscrapers, aeroplanes - to be supported by the ravings of a seventh-century lunatic? No chance.

The Arab Muslims have taken ten trillion dollars in unearned wealth from beneath their sands. They haven't developed one step, and they won't do so, no matter how much they recieve unearned. They won't, because they can't. Our civilisation relies on one thing: the functioning human mind. And it is that above all that Islam tries to destroy.

So why not foment fear of Islam amongst liberal secular humanists and atheists as well? I still feel under-educated and I may sound naive, but I don't want to be credulous in the face of possible political manipulation.

Why not indeed? May I suggest something? When I first began to grasp the true horror of what's going on with Islam, I tried, desperately, to disprove those conclusions. I wrote to every 'moderate Muslim' organization I could find begging them to prove me wrong, and read all the stuff that might prove a counterargument. But I also read the arguments of the islamo-realist school. And I compared them, using only the judgement of my rational mind, and looked at who brought nothing but generalities and invective to the table, and those who brought facts, reason, and reality to it. That is what lead me to my current views, as much as I hate having to hold them.

Now, in terms of good resources, a good place to start is with Ibn Warraq's writings. If you have the chance to read Why I Am Not A Muslim, do so.

Then there are some good websites worth reading. JihadWatch is the resource par excellence on this phenomenon, and you can find it at http://www.jihadwatch.org/. The Qur'an blog is well worth the read, since Robert Spencer provides the essential context from the Hadith, Sira, Tafsir and so on, and shows how that books is still understood throughout the world. You can find it here: http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/27/blogging-the-quran/

Then there is FaithFreedom, maintained by the former Muslim and fiery polemecist Ali Sina (http://www.faithfreedom.org/). thereligionofpeace.com keeps an ongoing tally of the horrors of Islam.

MEMRI provides translations of what exactly is getting broadcast in the Muslim world. And, if you like some classical scholarship of the dementia Islam inculcates, try "Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman" by Andre Servier, out of print now, but online at: http://musulmanbook.blogspot.com/

That's more than enough to get anyone started. I'll just close with noting something. Take a moment to compare the measured scholarship of Ibn Warraw against drivel like Karen Armstrong's biography of Muhammad (a completely fraudulent account) or even Irshad Manji's "The Trouble with Islam Today". That'll tell you alot about who has the correct view of Islam.

I sure as hell don't want to go back to living as a woman from somewhere between the 7th and 14th centuries.

Oh, it's worse than you think. Everyone knows about the sufferings of Muslim women. But what isn't addressed is: if this is what the faithful women go through, what is the status of kafir women? The answer is simply this: rightless. I mean that literally. Under Islam, a kafir woman like you would have no rights whatsoever, being twice damned by not being a member of the faith and being a woman. For example, the Qur'an allows any Muslim man to rape an infidel woman with no consequence, and the hadith even encourage that. And this hasn't fallen into decay, like the Old Testament has. A year or so ago, the Head Mufti of Australia passed a fatwa saying that in 90% of the cases of rape, it's the woman's fault for provoking the man. This is probably why gang-rape in Western countries is predominantly a Muslim crime (and, yes, I have the statistics to back that up, if you want to know).

On the other hand, I don't want everything I know and love, including the unbelievably hard-won freedoms and knowledge brought on by the tempering of religious dominance and the flourishing of scientific inquiry, to be destroyed by any kind of totalitarianism (religious or otherwise).

Welcome aboard. Anyone, regardless of their background, who has a thinking mind is welcome.

Look, I suspect you have different political views to me, but what does that really matter? Pim Fortuyn was a gay, pro-drug legalization, pro-gay marriage, lefty, and he had the mind to understand what Islam is and the integrity to say so and say so loudly.

(N.B.: I actuall disagree with only two bits of Pim's characterisation that I listed above. Guess which.)

473. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #211674 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 16, 2008 at 8:38 am

"We have lost sincerity, morals, fidelity and attachment to our religions and to humanity," Abdullah

Actually, Abdullah, it's your attachment to your religion that has cost you the rest. Sincerity? Does the word taqqiya ring a bell? Morals? I fail to see how the rape of nine-year old girls is moral. Humanity? You mean like when the mutaween barricaded those girls inside a burning building?

Some of us have read your damn book, Abdul, and we know that you consider us kafirs less than human.

Goldy that damn stupid book by Esposito has been thoroughly dismembered. The fact is that if you look at the raw numbers they received, before they cooked the books, you end up with nearly two hundred million supporters of 9/11.

Let me repeat that for emphasis:

nearly two hundred million supporters of 9/11.

Details here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/066chpzg.asp?pg=2

Willkommen zu der verruckten Zeit, indeed.

Bottom line, Esposito is a lying sack of shit.

Back to our fiends, er, friends, the Saudis, a buddy of mine put it best: "Saudi Arabia basically is Mordor".

More from Abdul

"If God wills it, we will then meet with our brothers from other religions, including those of the Torah and the Gospel... to come up with ways to safeguard humanity,"

Here's a simple way to safeguard humanity: erase Islam from existence, and problem solved.

The conference starts today. I wonder what the results will be.

Aztek I can tell you what they'll be. There will be talk of 'extremists on all sides', and much ruminations of 'Islam is peace', and how all religions 'deserve respect'. There will be words like 'compromise', and 'understand', and 'dialogue'.

What there will not be is anything that stops the advance of the Jihad. Because the Saudis are fine with that, and even if they weren't and did try to oppose it, they'd have their throats cut the next morning.

474. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #211654 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 16, 2008 at 8:12 am

joe you have done no such thing. You have answered none of my points about the utter stagnation that Islam produces wherever this weed has sprouted. If there are all these 'scientific' discoveries in the Qur'an, why did Muslims have to wait for Westerners to discover these?

Because the truth is that there's nothing there. Western scientists and western minds unlocked the secrets of the Universe, and Islam hopes to parasitize them, to steal an unearned and undeserved ride. Not with me, bucko.

Come on. Go back to my original counterblast to you, if you have the guts. Read it and try and refute it. Come on.

Or is it that you know that you're wrong? That little voice in your consciousness that can't be silenced?

475. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #211605 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 16, 2008 at 7:44 am

Noted, al but on anything like the scale that Islam does? Anything even remotely that terrible?

476. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #211596 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 16, 2008 at 7:35 am

hawt4dawk I have to take strong exceptions to some of your writing:

Is it the same thing, how there are hideous things in the Old Testament and the New Testament that could be juxtaposed against ongoing news reports when, in fact, moderate Jews and Christians either don't know about them or simply ignore them, cherry-picking the lovely, inspiring golden bits for their focus?

No, it is not the same thing, not be long shot. The Qur'an is a very short book, less than the New Testament in length. And it wasn't composed by thirty authors - at least - scattered across a thousand years. There's no Prince of Peace to offset the horrors of the Old Testament. Imagine a religion based solely around Leviticus and Deuteronomy and you get some idea of what this is.

One of the games that Muslims and Islam-apologists play is to hack verses out of context. Take a classic one, "Whoever killed one innocent life, it would be the same as though they had murdered the whole world". Now just taking this statement, what the apologists never mention is that Islam considers any non-Muslim as having committed the worst sin imaginable, shirk, unbelief. So there is nothing here to encourage restraint. The verse then goes on to recommend that those who have made war against Allah and his Apostle should have be crucified or have their hands and feet cut off from opposite sides.

There are some verses in the Qur'an that genuinely mandate tolerance. But there's a problem here, because Islam is processive. There's a clearly defined way of resolving the Qur'an's internal contradictions. It's called naskh, which means abrogation, and is mentioned in the second surah. What this means is that later verses take precedence over earlier ones.

And here's where it gets ugly. When Muhammad was just a ridiculous preacher in Mecca he only got about a hundred and fifty followers. When he went to Medina, however, and became a military leader, he succeeded in wiping out all competing religions in Arabia. You can guess what the later verses are like. They are unequivocally about war.

The Bible, to return to the point of contrast, is a vast and vague book. Any Christian can easily find messages of humanity and even argue that they take precedence over the nastier portions of it. You cannot do this with the Qur'an, not least because the central pillar of Islam is that the Qur'an is the literal word of God. Not the word of men inspired by God, but of God himself, as dictated to Muhammad. Two-thirds of the Qur'an are about the perfidity and evil of the unbelievers and how every believer must wage war against them. Take that out, and you will have reformed Islam. You will also have destroyed it.

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that Islam is 'just another religion'. This is exactly wrong. Islam is a Total System. It doesn't stop at the Mosque door, as any Muslim will tell you. It's how you dress. How you eat. How you get married. How you greet people. What kind of work you can do. Even down to how you wipe your ass.

Total System. Islam is a nation. It is first and foremost a political project, then a matter of personal spirituality. And the political project is fascistic, right to the core. Read Ibn Warraq's essay Islam, the Middle East, and Fascism. In it he shows that Islam expresses every one of the characteristics that Umberto Eco ascribes to Ur-Fascism.

This isn't a new war, and it isn't Islam against the West. It's Islam against the West. Islam hates anything that isn't Islam, and even hates deviations within it (see the long, bloody history of Sunni-Shia war).

. Those Christians, in truth, are no threat at all and yet they do not stand up in America, in particular, and loudly proclaim how aghast they are at abortion clinic bombers and people who shoot doctors.

Excuse me, I know a few fundies and they in fact do speak up about this. Question, how many abortion doctors have been shot? Seven? There have been over eleven thousand deadly terror attacks since 9/11. Just this week jihadists have killed two hundred and fifty-one people.

No. There is no parallel to this insanity outside of the Third Reich. A parallel, btw, noted by Winston Churchill who called Mein Kampf 'the new Koran'.

I'm just asking for some input on this, because I had some issues with what I read in The End of Faith. I even thought, "Forget being a stalking horse for mysticism, is he a stalking horse for the neocons?"

Ah yes, the only ones worried about Islam are us vile, subhuman neo-cons, with our evil, scheming eyes, who continually plot in smoke-filled backrooms over brandy on how to best rule the world.

Neocons with names like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Walid Shoebat, Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer, Hugh FitzGerald, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Pim Fortuyn, Geert Wilders...

Study these names and you will find little ideological common ground. They span the spectrum from conservative to liberal, from atheist to Christian fundie, and the only thing they have in common is that they have taken a close look at Islam.

Drop this idea that it's only 'conservatives' who are worried about Islam. You can try telling it to the two million dead in Darfur. Or to the slaves being taken from Africa to be sold in Arab nations. Or to the seventy million Hindus massacred during Islam's rulership over the subcontinent. Etc.

There is a tendency in the West, it's true, for conservatives to be more clear eyed about Islam. But that implies nothing about Islam, and everything about what the left has become. Mark Steyn pointed out something that holds true for me "It should be the left's issue. I'm a 'social conservative'. When the Mullahs take over, I'll grow my beard out, get a few extra wives, and keep my head down. It's the gays and the feminists who'll have a rougher time of it."

Just drop this idea, okay? Conservative and liberal, right and left, believer and atheist - we're all in this together, we are all threatened by Islam.

477. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #211372 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 15, 2008 at 11:04 pm

So what - western societies lived in some form of nirvana? Western societies didn't practice war?

Excuse me, don't think that I share your delusions about tribal life, but apply them to the West. But since you brought it up: As regards the major genocide - the Holocaust - in the West, I'm not sure I see how a regression to tribal beliefs and paganism is an expoenent of reason. Leaving that asie there was a study that I'm pretty sure was cited in the presentation "We few, we happy few..." that showed that if the levels of violence present in tribal societies were present in the twentieth century, even the history we have would be nothing in comparison, that there would have been two billion killed.

You also mentioned slavery. Tell me, which other civilization has abolished slavery - or fought a civil war to end it?

Those Maori you so admire routienly committed massacres and genocidal raids.

They are based on what you want to believe

Are you saying my statements about Islam are incorrect? Which statements? Can you provide some evidence to prove it?

No, I doubt you can. Just like joe, you are capable of hurling invective, but not actually bringing facts and reason to the table. Unsurprising, since given your comments that tribal life is better than modern day capitalism, your voice has become as much of the cave as his.

Come one, Goldy. Drop the invective, drop the abuse, and try to bring some actual facts.

And if I may ask, what is this business about my 'sense of humour'? Were you joking when you said that tribal societies are better than capitalist, industrial ones? If so, aren't you then conceding my point?

I have a sense of humour. I just see nothing funny about a long list of abuse with no rhyme or reason to it.

478. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #211000 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 15, 2008 at 11:27 am

Surprise, surprise - we mention that kharzee being joe and he comes back to tell us it's not so.

I rest my case.

joe answer any of my points, or keep quiet.

479. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #210988 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 15, 2008 at 11:00 am

Remember the Buddhas of Bamiyan Your worship??? No? You just keep praising them and they will just keep destroying your culture, statues, liberties and then your lives.

Point.

480. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #210942 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 15, 2008 at 9:23 am

Thanks for the info, DavidJ but the same opinion was voiced in god is not Great, though I imagine that the Hitch would prefer prolonged dental surgery to following the Dalai's words.

481. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #210939 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 15, 2008 at 9:21 am

Oh, come on epeeist! Do you really think that this isn't joe under another guise?

Let's see now: a creationist windbag with A CAPS LOCK PROBLEM causes ruckus for along time. After repeatedly vowing to vanish off before coming back, he finally does come leave.

And then, all of a sudden, another creationist windbag with a caps lock problem shows up to take his place. Gee, what're the odds?

482. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #210888 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 15, 2008 at 7:52 am

al, yep, those are weasel words right there. Though I did notice one thing in the interview. Contra Hitchens, he said he doesn't want a return to absolutism. Maybe that's a recent change, but still.

A good analysis on the Dalai Lama's speech:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021776.php#more

Just from the intro:

The Dalai Lama does not recognize the existence of a civilization called Islam. Islam has a highly detailed political doctrine that determines 100% of what a Muslim does to kafirs (kafirs is what the Koran calls unbelievers). This political doctrine includes what being "nice and moderate" to kafirs really means.

His opinions are of no consequence to Islam. Islam defines absolutely everything about a Muslim, down to how to say, "Hello".

Read it all.

483. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #210795 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 15, 2008 at 4:35 am

Once again, proof that this guy knows nothing about anything important.

From mmuray's article:

Calling the 20th century "a century of war," the Dalai Lama said: "The 21st century should be a century of dialogue.

Right. What this guy doesn't understand is that the reason for the 20th century being one of war is precisely because people fell prey to the fallacy, common to all advanced civilizations, that you can solve everything by dialogue.

Here is Dan Simmons's comment on that time:

The Austro-Hungarian Empire, although invisibly hollowed out by rot and in its final failing years, seems in 1900 to have succeeded in bringing stability and sanity to Europe. The continent is at peace, so much so and for so long (and here the parallels to early 21 st Century Europe are disturbingly clear) that the continent's vacation from history's shocks and responsibilities have led the Sonnenscheins (and all logical, optimistic Europeans) to believe that any dispute can be settled by dialogue, any demands from would-be tyrants appeased by reason and diplomacy, any lack of security rectified by more binding treaties and international organizations, and any remaining vestiges of social injustic or economic disparity remedied through the courts and bureaucracies. More hopeful than that in 1900 is the general acceptance of reason and tolerance as the mediating institutions of humankind, as well as the growing recognition of our common humanity. These dynamics toward ever-greater tolerance seem poised, on New Year's Eve 1900, to govern all of the future interactions between nations and men.

See The Munich Accords for what is wrong with this jaw-jaw nonsense.

Long a voice for religious harmony, the Dalai Lama said there are what he called "mischievous people" in every religion, but that "a few mischievous people cannot represent whole systems or whole traditions.

One hundred and eighty-six million Muslims - minimum - who approve of the 9/11 attacks isn't 'a few mischievous people'.

the theme for the event was "Listen, Learn, Love."

Oh, I have Listened and Learned aplenty about Islam. It doesn't seem to lead to Love though. More like Hate.

By learning and listening, the Dalai Lama said, that basic, human compassion can gradually be cultivated to grow into an infinite, unbiased compassion that is no longer dependent on the actions or attitudes of others.

And here is the flaw in all this mystic garbage: What if certain people don't want their 'infinite, unbiased compassion' to grow? What if some people like hatred and rage? What will these infinitely unbiased compassionate people do then?

herefore, since Sept. 11, I try to reach out to Muslim brothers and sisters,

What if these brothers and sisters don't want you to reach out to them? After all, you're a kaffir, just like the rest of us. In Shia Islam, even the briefest physical contact with you would be considered unclean?

the Dalai Lama said the never-ending quest for something new and something more was part of the problem, as is the gap that exists between rich and poor.

Again incorrect. In the difference between wealth and poverty, the problem is the poverty, not the difference. Wealth is swell. Even guys like Deng Xioping get this.

To be fair, this latest Dalai Lama seems not like his predecessors who were nothing but privileged parasites and tyrants. But what he's saying is still nonsense. And the main fault lies with us, in that we are willing, almost eager, to embrace such nonsense.


UPDATE: Be that as it may, his thuggish followers threatening the Dorge Shugden worshippers places everything in a very different perspective.

484. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #210699 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 15, 2008 at 2:00 am

Goldy there seemed nothing 'tongue in cheek' about your original posts. Given that you go on to say something like this:

I do believe the San in Botswana might disagree with you, as would certain Aboriginals in Australia, Andaman Islanders and Amazonian Indians.
The style works for them. They like it. Giving them the western life gave them alcoholism and strife, mainly because they were not taught how to live it.

I don't believe that you're just joking around. Now, once again I actually grew up in Africa. The San live in the most desolate regions because they were driven there by the more ferocious tribes (the Zulus and Bantus).

Here's a brief comment by Michael Crichton about the tribal life you mention:

And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.

How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.

Emphasis mine.

I have a problem with this sort of woolly-minded guff because it has some really horrible consequences. Just at its most basic level, a failure to recognize just how horrible tribal life is leads to a failure to do anything about it.

I have a real problem with well-heeled Westerners (and that's all of us, by comparison with these societies) thinking that they know how swell things are amongst tribal people when they have never ever bothered to find out the true horror of that sort of life. Look, Goldy, read Hobbes on the subject. Take a good, close-up look at the kind of dwellings that, say, the Masai live in in Tanzania. And talk to some of them. You'll find that they are doing what they can to send their kids to school, so that they'll get jobs in factories and have a chance to get out of that hellish existence.

Tribes can seem terribly romantic from the outside. There's something heart-tugging about the thought that soon the Masai tribes will exist only in history books. But not for the people who actually have to live like that.

And now on to the abuse:

Fuck, you are so insultingly stupid. I'd read your comments with a bit more respect, but half of what you write is the sort of virulent anti-Islamic shite I'd expect a half educated lab tech to spout.
A fuckwit, one of the highest order

Notice that my comments have been declared 'shite' because I don't agree with Goldy and speak my mind about everything. Notice too, that my comments are considered 'virulent' by someone who uses the word 'fuck' three times in a minor post, with a sprinkling of minor expletives.

My comments on Islam are based on facts and evidence. As are my views on tribal societies. I can and I do give plenty of evidence to support these. And I don't need to resort to gutter language to prove a point.


UPDATE: Thanks for the clarification, Jiten. I'll use 'he' from now on.

485. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #210634 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 14, 2008 at 11:19 pm

History_Junky! I thought I was the only one who knew about Kanishka and so on.

486. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #210623 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 14, 2008 at 10:49 pm

BETHLEHEM, Pa. - The Dalai Lama said Sunday that "it's totally wrong, unfair" to call Islam a violent religion.

Thus demonstrating that 'His Material Highness' knows nothing whatsoever about the subject and is disinclined to learn.

I'm with Ian on this one. The Daila Lamas were nothing but parasites who lived on poverty-stricken, starved peasants.

Hitch get's it right as always:

. Among the untested assumptions of this billboard campaign is the widely and lazily held belief that "Oriental" religion is different from other faiths: less dogmatic, more contemplative, more ... transcendental.

Shonny, I'm sorry, but you're wrong: Islam is not just like Christianity or Judaism. It's something far more sinister.

Again I submit to everyone here the idea that while indeed benevolent and malevolent religious beliefs are equally incorrect as descriptions of reality,

Lucas I agree with your general point, but not with the specific one. I agree that today a belief in reincarnation is little more than frippery, but it was originally devised to justify the hideous class systems of India.

N.B.: Here Penn and Teller take on the Dalai Llama:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fYEOSCIOnrs

487. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #210316 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 14, 2008 at 8:48 am

Laurie, I don't disagree that the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was outrageous. But it's not that I criticize, but comments like this:

To believe that this mysterious entity, "communism", is universally coherent and evil, is simply childish.

Where, exactly, has communism not been a hideous evil? Russia? China? Vietnam? Well?

addam was the US's great friend for many a year, being supplied with arms and equipment because he was perceived as being a stable pro-western force at the time of Iran's revolution.

I'm reminded of what Christopher Hitchens said: "I like the current change in policy from prevent elections and installing dictators to ousting dictators and holding elections."

Ergo, domination of any country presumptive enough not to follow its model.

There is a technical term in Philosophy for this sort of comment: 'floating abstraction'. What is the U.S.'s model that it's now trying to export? Liberal democracy combined with capitalism. Now, to be sure, there are plenty of countries 'presumptive not to follow its model'. Cuba springs to mind. So does Zimbabwe. Not much democracy or capitalism in Saudi Arabia or Iran either. Not to mention North Korea. The fascistic rulership of Russia seems to be taking another route, too.

Rejecting the only model for human liberation and prosperity that works, simply because it's the one the U.S. advocates, seems to me to be the height of insanity.

UPDATE: there's an excellent article on this by Lee Harris. You may remember him; Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote a review of his book 'The Suicide of Reason',

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3458371.html

488. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #210304 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 14, 2008 at 8:28 am

I was pointing out, Sciros that for a nation hell bent on exerting control, the U.S. seems to hand alot of that control over to the nations it has been at war with.

489. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #210299 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 14, 2008 at 8:23 am

Things are usually more complex than "US wants oil" or "US wants to spread democracy" etc. What most of US's international military efforts have had in common is the desire to establish some control in whatever region, usually so someone else, someone worse, doesn't do it in their stead.

Well, let's see now: There's WWII which prevented Nazism from conquering all of Europe. There was Vietnam, whose stated aim was to ensure the South Vietnamese's 'right to self determination'. There was the removal of Slobodan Milosevic and the creation of an independent Kosovo (I have mixed feelings about this one). There was the military action to prevent Saddam Hussein from annihilating Kuwait. There was the attempt to bring an end to the tribal warfare in Somalia and end the famine. There was the arming of the mujahideen to prevent the Soviets from crushing Afghanistan (my feelings are considerably less mixed about this one). There's the current war which, at an insane cost is to give the Iraqis a free society (a fool's game, mind you).

Sorry, you were saying?

Of course there have been a ridiculous amount of coups instigated by the US, but these have been the result of its anti-imperialist bent. The US has no idea about colonies and empire, and more's the pity. Spreading the system of federal democracy and separation of powers would probably have been a huge benefit to the world.

True imperialism by the West is not, by the faintest stretch of the imagination, the worst thing that it can do. Kipling's "White man's burden" is horrible and racist, but it's a lot better than the modern left's attitude of "A genocide? Well, we'd better get multilateral, and send inspectors and talk to the UN and - hey, how come everyone's dead?" As just happened in Darfur.

490. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #210265 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 14, 2008 at 7:24 am

epeeist, read between the lines:

Here's Jiten's comments:

With respect to the comment that Communism is a stupid goal, she/he/whatever said:

Why exactly is it a stupid goal? Please elaborate.

Taken in combination with this:

Al What I am certain of is that I'm an anti-capitalist. The flaws of Capitalism are too numerous to go into now at this late hour here in London, and besides they have been covered admirably by others, including D'Arcy, Bonzai. However even I don't know how to bring about a communist society or the details of how that society would look. I certainly want to live in a free society too. Most definitely. However I don't want to live in a society with so much injustice

You can see where I draw my conclusions from.

Also, while Sciros doesn't advocate Communsim, he still can't see the fatal error inherent in statements like this:

shion. I think it's a stupid ideology that can never work and attempting to bring it into being cannot end well. But I am not prepared to say that it's the ideology rather than the people who come to power under its banner

And as regards Goldy's praise of tribalism - what else can I say?

N.B.: I have quite a bit of work on my plate at the moment, which is why I cannot always answer you guys in full.

491. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #210229 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 14, 2008 at 5:53 am

*dryly* The minor fact that I point to the actual, demonstrable effects of capitalism vs. communism in the real world, while the only response from the commies is to vanish into fantasy realms of rationalizations and dogma, kind of torpedos your smugness about evidence Laurie.

492. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #210226 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 14, 2008 at 5:47 am

Now, I have no problem with offering un-evidenced opinion so long as its flagged as such. Your original post on the Scandinavian technology contribution issue, however, was stated without such a flag (e.g. "in my opinion" etc.), and you have offered little evidence in return.

There is a reason for this, because from where I'm sitting it isn't just a matter of opinion. The most capitalist country in the West - America - is also the one leading the world in every branch of science. Yes, this includes embryonic stem cell research, where Mario Cappechi from the University of Utah recently received the Nobel Prize for his work in that subject.

Now, my more general point was that there is no system whatsoever that has a better track record with respect to any social problem than does capitalism.

In response, one thing that was cited was the Scandanavian countries, who's mixed economies are about to go bankrupt (something else that hasn't been addressed). The other nonsense idea mentioned by Goldy was tribal, family-based societies, which is so wrong as to defy description.

Returning to the subject of mixed economies, it is very significant that noone can name another system that works better, they just cite those societies that got wealthy thanks to the raw power of capitalism, and then decided that, being rich, they could afford to parasitize the system. They can't, which is something they are now finding out the hard way, but that's another discussion. The central point is that noone can name a better system.

We have, it's true, never had pure capitalism. But to the extent that our mixed economies were capitalist, they succeeded, and they failed to the exact extent that they were statist.

However, on this particular issue you have already made a number of demonstrably-false statements, which have been pinpointed to you by others, thereby calling into question the entire framework of your position.

Could you name one essential that I have been wrong about? I have stated that the result of communism is invariably bloodshed, which has not been refuted. I have pointed out that capitalism is the best system by any measure, which again has not been refuted. I have said that the idea that primitive tribes live in a better system is nonsense, which again has not been refuted.

493. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #210177 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 14, 2008 at 3:53 am

Goldy, phil rimmer & everyone else who has the attitude that it was great when I said what I thought about Islam, but doesn't think it's great when I say what I think about anything else, here is my position:

My business isn't to win any sort of popularity contest. My business is to say the truth to the full extent of my ability to do so. If I am wrong, I hope to be corrected - but I don't see any evidence of that so far.

Even if I was wrong about capitalism, how, phil, would this reflect on my views about Islam? I would expect to see my case judged upon its own merits.

The reason, Goldy I pour scorn on your post that implied there was nothing to choose from between tribal life and modern, capitalist life, and even said that tribal life was better is that this point of view is insane. Sierra Leone, just to take an example, has undergone a regression from capitalist to tribal life and the life expectance is now thirty-six years. You mentioned those tribes in the jungles. Well, which ones? The ones in Borneo, where you can see the Dyak longhouses with skulls nailed to the outsides, the skulls of the victims who were killed and eaten?

What I think is being argued for is the best use of social capital and for that you need a healthy and well educated populace.

What exactly is 'social capital' and who makes use of it?

494. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #209473 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 12, 2008 at 11:41 am

epeeist thank you for being one of the few who at least tries to provide me with some solid facts. Before I address them, let me comment on the following:

So which "commies" are these?

Jiten, for a start.

Now, on to your comments. Okay, I'll grant you mobile telephones. But where was the phone invented? Well, at AT&T labs.

That list of semiconductor inventors is excellent - but it all dates from the nineteen-thirties or earlier, when the world was far more capitalist than it is now. The other link goes to a company website. So, you are citing a company website as a way of arguing against capitalism?

All of this is concedes my basic point: even partially-capitalist, or semi-capitalist societies are light years ahead of the non-capitalist ones.

phil rimmer what standards were used to measure that graph? Because when I hop over to the Nobel Prize website, I see a stream of Americans.

Note, once again, that in an attempt to argue against capitalism you cannot cite the achievements of non-capitalist societies, because these are non-existant. The defence rests.

495. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #209462 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 12, 2008 at 10:41 am

I lived in London, mate, when Irish nationalists were dropping the odd bomb around

Oh cry me a river. The IRA killed, what, a hundred, two hundred people during its mainland campaign? (I'm using Wikipedia as my source). I've lived in places where that's the death toll of a brisk weekend.

You mention your mother being bombed by the Americans. I'll remind you that my Father is german, and I have heard far worse from the time of the Reich's fall (for which I hold no grudge, mind you).

This is all irrelevant. You tried to draw some sort of parallel between the hideous state of continuous warfare in tribal societies and life in capitalist societies. You ask me 'not to insult you'. Well, I didn't. You insulted yourself, your own intelligence and reasoning by that cretinous comparison.

epeeist the Scandanavian countries are in hock up to their eyeballs, and, as with the rest of Europe, are about to run out of cash. This is like saying the guy down the road with a morgage on his house and nothing but red in the bank, who drives a flashy car and throws big parties is successfull.

In any case, where's the contribution of these countries? Where did things like software, MRI scanners, silicon chips etc. come from? Uh-huh. They're just hitching a ride.

Just to clear something up- I do have a "fucking clue" what I'm talking about. I do applaud your most eloquent but rather accusing presumptions of what I have and have not read.

*gloomily* Get used to it, twp. This sort of thing passes for dialogue amongst the commies.

As regards these comments about colonialism, my point, which, as usual, hasn't been addressed, is as follows: the GDP of the entire world increased by orders of magnitude during the Industrial Revolution. Get it? That wealth was made, not stolen. Or do you think differently? Tell me, where was the internal combustion engine stolen from? The spinning jenny? The mechanical loom? The steam engine? The generator? The electric light bulb? The clock?

I'll close on a simple observation: when I denounce communism everyone scrambles to justify it by reference to some fantasy world that has never existed and never will. When I praise capitalism, people try to denounce it by its failing, real or not (usually not), in fact and reality.

This. is. piffle.

496. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #209314 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 12, 2008 at 2:55 am

And what exactly is the matter with making profit? How are you going to live if you don't produce more than you consume? And where's your job going to come from if the businessmen and industrialists don't make the profit that allows them to expand and develop?

There is something perverse about those who praise any non-profit organisation but curse the profit-makers that make them possible.

497. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #209312 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 12, 2008 at 2:53 am

Capitalism doesn't have a track record for solving social problems, so the answer to your question is: all of them.

Mordacious then put your money where you're mouth is. Piss off to Iran or Saudi Arabia, non capitalist theocracies, or to North Korea, or Cuba. Go on. After all, they're better, aren't there?

What we have here is the man of the double standard. Someone who praises one system, but lives by the other, and spends his time condemning that which keeps him alive.

Goldy Goldy, last comment to you for a while, as I have to get to work:

the fear of bills,

As a matter of fact, I have already said that I do. Am I safer when I can count on keeping an owning the product of my own mind to meet those bills - or where my product can be consumed by any passer by with the right sanction, that of society or Allah?

the grinding poverty,

Again, what grinding poverty? Compared with what? I've worked at the minimum wage level, and the way those people live is light-years better than the way people live in non-capitalist societies, a fact you keep evading.

the lack of social help,

What does this even mean? Private charity is highest in capitalist societies, and nonexistent in statist ones.

the slavery,

What slavery? Remember, in the civil war it was the Industrialized, capitalist north against the rural, agricultural, non-industrial, non-capitalist south.

the violence to women,

What are you talking about? Women in capitalist societies enjoy higher rights than anywhere else in the world, and equal rights are so well advanced that feminsts are reduced to whining about the lack of female pipe fitters.
There is one source of serious violence towards women here, which I have denounced right from the get go: Islamic immigration. A subject on which the feminists are, as per usual, completely silent, the moral cowards they are.

the constant bloody warfare

You know nothing, I mean absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. Have you ever escaped from a burning city? I have. Have you ever seen real continuous war? Do you have even the faintest conception of what that's like? You should live for a year in Somalia, or even in South Africa, and then you'd be begging to return to the capitalist world, and you would be giving thanks every day that you did not have to live in those societies.

498. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

<