PDA

View Full Version : A long paranoid rant with xenophobic overtones.


Stingaling
27th May 2008, 09:15
Yes it is a copy and paste from an email received this morning.


To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1 When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
*Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie,Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran , Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi , Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden , Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)
2 Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor,
3 Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4 What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%.
5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).
(seehttp://www.Nazis.testimony.co.UK/7-a.htm
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US , but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements
-- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?
6 So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1 Can we lose this war?
2 What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:
We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their t rain and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we do n't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.
Without our support, Great Britain will go, also recently, I read that there are more mosques in England than churches. I wish to add here I recently had friends fromEnglandstay in my home for 3 weeks { 3 different people } who are saying , this is true, and they are afraid.. E K L.
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?
The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory ... and, in fact, added many more since that time.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose.
I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq And, still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
Can they be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither w e, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.
These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't!
If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to in crease the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach, little by little, on the established French traditions.
The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.
And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.
Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the masses.
What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the "peaceful Muslims?"
I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about Do whatever you can to preserve it. I reiterate: our national election is under way.
After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for ourselves, but for our children, our grandchildren, our country, and our world. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal .... and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world.
Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those who find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!
Lastly, I wish to add: at the risk of offending, I sincerely think that anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the seriousness of this issue, or just deletes it without sending it on, is part of the problem.

GobonaStick
27th May 2008, 09:24
Oh please.

Vernon Chong never wrote this (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp). If you can't even get that bit right, then I'm not going to bother checking the rest of your 'facts'.

Next you'll be wondering why people think Americans are gullible.

Stingaling
27th May 2008, 09:37
GobonaStick

Duly edited for your benefit.

I cant really fault the content, can you?

"Oh please." reads very gay. Are you gay? Nothing to be embarrassed about. Hmmm........

Jetex Jim
27th May 2008, 09:43
"Oh please." reads very gay. Are you gay? Nothing to be embarrassed about. Hmmm........
highly intellectual rebutal, (for a 12 year old)

BBE777
27th May 2008, 09:48
oh man... it took me long to read but i got to the end....

lets see...

1st, if you believed evrething that gets forwaard to your email, is sad!

2nd, so this is not about the "peaceful muslism" but the terrorist ones... well, i think that this is a rascist attack because to start with if you think that muslims are the "only" terrorists in the world, then you need to read more...

3rd, muslms=nazi??? is that what I wrote there? God, so from the statment above you could say that there were nazis that didnt want to kill anybody for being different...?? (real nazis, not scared bodies of death)

4th, you, with this thing, are just shaking hands with xenophobia

5th, the biggest terrorist is the one supplying all this brain-washing things...

i dont like this:(

It's Not Working
27th May 2008, 10:14
Gob

Next you'll be wondering why people think Americans are gullible.

Did you know that the word 'gullible' is not listed in any dictionary?

BBE777
27th May 2008, 10:24
hey!

I'm American...

Im from the continent called AMERICA...

but.... Im not from northamerica specificaly not from USA...

:= dont get confused!

:)

tony draper
27th May 2008, 10:40
Yup, named after Amerigo Vesputi, just as well his brother Arseine Vesputi didn't get there first.
:rolleyes:

henry crun
27th May 2008, 10:41
It's Not Working: See The Concise English Dictionary, published by Omega Books,
ISBN 0 9078 53 15 3

"Gullible" )gul' i bel, a. Credulous, easily deceived. gullibility, n

BlueDiamond
27th May 2008, 10:42
"Oh please." reads very gay. Are you gay? Nothing to be embarrassed about. Hmmm........Stingaling ... if that is your standard of interraction/debate I doubt if anyone, even here in the pit that is Jet Blast, will ever take you seriously.

Lift your game.

Stingaling
27th May 2008, 10:43
Hey come on guys, loosen up. This forum is named jetblast, is it not? It says at the top, or have I screwed that up to?

"Stay out if you are faint hearted".,


Tell ya' all what I'll do. If anyone can point out anywhere in the copied email, where there is and untruth and can prove it I will gladly delete the thread, if of course the mods don't beat me to it.:}

Sallyann1234
27th May 2008, 10:56
Henry Crun

You fell for it!

BBE777
27th May 2008, 10:57
hum....
I'd love you to delete this thing... but unfortunatelly im not going to play your game....
I just let you thing that you are right... see how far can we get...

I tell you something now:

read soemthing about MULTICULTURAL!:ok:

and... Im wondering why you are not there "fighting against terrorism", oh I know... lets let others save my country.....

:ugh:

Sallyann1234
27th May 2008, 10:59
Tell ya' all what I'll do. If anyone can point out anywhere in the copied email, where there is and untruth and can prove it I will gladly delete the thread, if of course the mods don't beat me to it.

OK. Please give us a credible reference for the bit about

There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons

Stingaling
27th May 2008, 11:05
Of course I connot prove it!

Can you disprove it!

Is it an untruth? You prove to me.

selfloadingcargo
27th May 2008, 11:22
You weren't asked to prove it. Just to provide a credible reference.....

Effluent Man
27th May 2008, 11:38
Depends on your definition of a "Christian". That religion tends to try to claim all those who have not self declared as anything else for themselves.So, I suppose you could include a proportion of the Russian dead on the basis that once religion was no longer proscribed they returned to the fold.

Russians were certainly killed for political reasons and Uncle Joe returned the favour.Most Germans captured by the Red Army were imprisoned and died.

The original document was rather over egged,but I do believe that the basic aim of Islam is to either convert or destroy.I suspect that 15/20% of British Muslims would have sympathy with Al Quaida. Islam is a religion seriously out of step with life in the 21st century and it is going to be very difficult to reconcile.

BBE777
27th May 2008, 11:44
lets talk about the KU KLUX KLAN!

ah.... i do belive it has a lots of thing in common.....

certainly not all catholics belong to the kkk.....
so... do all musulism belong to the "terrorist part of that religion" ???

Wiley
27th May 2008, 11:53
I have NOT read all of POST # 1 or any of the replies. However, I could not pass this commentWhy were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.without remarking that it would REALLY pay the average American to read what their government gets up to in many countries outside the USA to "protect (our (as is "your"]) freedoms".

Want to know why some of "the Muslims" are p1ssed off with the good ole US of A? To get an answer that makes a bit more sense than the puerile "Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms", my first reading suggestion would be "Killing Hope: U. S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" by William Blum.

Put1992
27th May 2008, 12:00
"Oh please." reads very gay. Are you gay? Nothing to be embarrassed about. Hmmm........

How on earth can you interpret that as being gay?

Stingaling
27th May 2008, 12:02
BBE777

Good point about the KKK.

The similarity ends here. If you are a mossie, your in for life mate. Don't believe me? Then go down to the local M and convert, if you aren't one already, then try and convert back. Then see what happens.

What a loving religion.

eastern wiseguy
27th May 2008, 12:17
Without our support, Great Britain will go, also recently, I read that there are more mosques in England than churches. I wish to add here I recently had friends fromEnglandstay in my home for 3 weeks { 3 different people } who are saying , this is true, and they are afraid.. E K L.




I can't find a figure for number of mosques in the UK(Orac?) BUT I doubt very much if there are as many as this Church Of England graphic shows.


Turkey strikes me as a relatively liberal muslim society.....but lets not let our xenophobia be challenged.



http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/builtheritage/buildingfaith/map.html

Binoculars
27th May 2008, 13:20
Why is anybody replying to this lunatic?

More importantly, given the arbitrary threads that have been closed by the mods, why on earth is this one still active?

corsair
27th May 2008, 13:29
certainly not all catholics belong to the kkk.....

BBE777, I don't think any Catholics belong to the KKK. Given that it's strictly WASP organisation. (White Anglo Saxon Protestant). It is in fact Anti Catholic.

As for the wall o' text in the first posting. Well it's the usual inaccurate, distorted, xenophobic rant that adds nothing to the debate and only inflames the ignorant. But it was headlined as such. So at least we knew.

It's just another right wing rant about the decline of our civilisation and the threat from Islam. Yawn! The author also ignores the astonishing fact that most people killed by radical Isllamists have in fact been Muslim. That the front line in the war on terror is invariably in Muslim countries. That most of the allies of the USA and west in general are Muslim countries.

Unfortunately you cannot argue with ignorance.

Capt.KAOS
27th May 2008, 13:48
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1 When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
*Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie,Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran , Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi , Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden , Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)
2 Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor,
3 Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4 What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%.
5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).
(seehttp://www.Nazis.testimony.co.UK/7-a.htm
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US , but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements
-- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?
6 So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1 Can we lose this war?
2 What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:
We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalo.......:zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:.....:zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

Salusa
27th May 2008, 13:50
The similarity ends here. If you are a mossie, your in for life mate. Don't believe me? Then go down to the local M and convert, if you aren't one already, then try and convert back. Then see what happens.

Oh you mean like the thousands of Muslim woman who convert to Christianity so they can marry Christian husbands over here?

My mate "Dave" ;)has 'converted' back and forth a few times now. Been through 3 marriages. Two Muslim wives, one Christian. I did suggest he stick to Islam and marry several wives but he punched me on the nose at that point to snap me out of the madness.

I was down the bar on Saturday night with my Muslim wife, whom incidentally I was living in sin with for a year before we got married (in a Mosque), and she was four months pregnant at the time! Oh how we had to hang our heads in shame. :rolleyes:

Now try to consider that not all you read and hear is actually reality. To be honest you come across as being xenophobic and quite possibly racist but thats just my opinion.

Stingaling
27th May 2008, 14:30
Binoculars

Now that wasn't very nice was it. I think you are an extremely naughty boy actually.

Hmmm Australia, oh yes. You lot have just voted out planning permission for a Muslim school to be set up, in jerk water creek or some place like that. Whats the problem, don't like the mossies?

I was in Southern Africa, in the mid '70's, in the days when things worked and it hadn't completely gone to the d***. I remember the Australian Gov pointing the finger at the Regime in SA, screaming racism, when all the while they were packing the abo's out to some god forsaken hole, in the bush.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Believe it or not I have a Muslim GF. You see i am open minded!

Dan D'air
27th May 2008, 14:40
I'm not going to contribute to the debate, I just wanted to have posted on this thread before it becomes another in the legendary vein of the Piers Sandhurst / Tall & Tasty banning episode.

I can now go to my death bed knowing full well that I have achieved everything in life that I ever wanted to.

Ozzy
27th May 2008, 15:39
read soemthing about MULTICULTURAL!

As far as I'm concerned, MULTICULTURAL is part of the problem. What we should be aiming for is a SINGLE CULTURE in the country of reference with those arriving in it to live becoming part of that culture. That is, we aim for integration. They do it well in the middle eastern countries where the one culture rules and immigrants must comply and become part of it. The same should happen here.

Ozzy

frostbite
27th May 2008, 15:45
"I can now go to my death bed knowing full well that I have achieved everything in life that I ever wanted to."


You're very brave. You never even told us you were ill.

BBE777
27th May 2008, 16:08
To corsair:

so... saying that the Islam is "terrorist" is not xenophobia....
yeah right...
I am not saying they are the perfect religion, but for sure, I would rather go against real problems like:
why would you go outside when the problem is inside?

To ozzy:

Do you really think that when they kill people is because they are not islamist???? they go somewhere else to kill people for not being islamist?
why am I not dead yet then???

What I say is:
This is not a cultural problem! but some empty-brains want people to think so, this is that the story is deeper than that is a politic matter but yet people belive that the problem is the religion...

so Im with you corsair when you say : Unfortunately you cannot argue with ignorance.

Clare Prop
27th May 2008, 16:30
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

From Wiki:

"In 1851, the United States Congress passed the Indian Appropriations Act which authorized the creation of Native American reservations in modern day Oklahoma. Relations between settlers and natives had grown increasingly worse as the settlers encroached on territory and natural resources in the West.

Grant pursued a stated "Peace Policy" as a possible solution to the conflict. The policy included a reorganization of the Indian Service, with the goal of relocating various tribes from their ancestral homes to parcels of lands established specifically for their inhabitation."

Could you provide a reference for "packing the abos off to a godforsaken hole in the bush"
BTW the word "abo" is deemed offensive by many.

Ozzy
27th May 2008, 16:30
Do you really think that when they kill people is because they are not islamist???? they go somewhere else to kill people for not being islamist?
why am I not dead yet then???


Eh? where did I say go kill people? I am not talking religion. I am talking culture and the need to assimilate or integrate just as the immigrants to the US did when building this country. Look at Spain, it is a single culture, or Finland, or whatever. How you went from that to killing people and Islam is beyond me. But then you may have chip on your shoulder and have the need to spout off for any excuse.:ugh:

Ozzy

Stingaling
27th May 2008, 16:42
Clare Prop

"Could you provide a reference.............." I could but I wont. Why because I cant be bothered.

You know the recent history of Australia and your leader has just managed to apologize for past acts towards the indigenous population.

Sorry for the offencive shorthand version of the above but I cant spell the proper word. Did not mean to offend as you can see from my previous posts.

BBE777
27th May 2008, 16:45
Ozzy:
I thoght you say:
As far as I'm concerned, MULTICULTURAL is part of the problem.
Maybe this is not what you wanted to say but is there...



Im sorry if im being agressive...dont mean it.
but I think it has to do with my experience. I think I know very well inmigration .... in fact Im an inmigrant...

Anyway, I dont see many foreign women with burkas when they go to an islam country...

If integration is the solution, it has to be a rule for evreyone without exeptions...

chuks
27th May 2008, 16:50
Here in the desert it is just me and a lot of Muslims. Should I worry about this? If so, how much?

If they do get me, the bastids, does that go in the "win" or the "lose" column for America, given that I think George W. Bush is such a raving tosser?

Stingaling, I wouldn't brag too much about your bint what with everything that goes on in this our multi-cultural world of today. For instance, have you ever had occasion to wonder why your girl has such large hands and such a prominent Adam's apple, for even a Muslim girl? Just asking, mind you! I met some girls in Bangkok like that but maybe they were Buddhists... Is there a difference?

Papists in the Klan... whatever next?

Beatriz Fontana
27th May 2008, 17:13
Look, will you lot stop talking about terrorism without knowing the definition!!

Even the UN can't agree on what it means. What we're talking about is murdering criminal extortionists, nothing more.

Any religious justification by these criminals is malicious and dangerous but it does not mean they deserve a special classification. In fact, by giving them such a thing actually gives them apparent credibility.

Sorry, gets my goat.

airfoilmod
27th May 2008, 17:23
Technically, there cannot be a War until the French surrender.

Sunray Minor
27th May 2008, 17:29
Stingaling
I was in Southern Africa, in the mid '70's, in the days when things worked and it hadn't completely gone to the d***

Ahhh, the true colours showing there....a time when things really worked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DurbanSign1989.jpg). You are either a troll or astoundingly ignorant...maybe even both.

airfoilmod
27th May 2008, 17:39
Wholeheartedly w/Ozzy. Last Fourth of July there were far more Mexican Flags in Los Angeles than American. Without Borders, Culture and Language, one inhabits merely a territory, open to conquest by whomever invades with highest numbers. Most disturbing that soft heads don't see that through their "proper" (PC) perspective. There is no "multicultural", for without a dominant Culture, there is "a-cultural", madness.

Hagbard the Amateur
27th May 2008, 18:05
Ozzy,

With all respect, Spain is far from being a "single culture" but everybody gets along most of the time if you don't count the occasional Vasco (Basque) ETA incursions - and the Basques speak Vasco - not always Spanish. They want to be independent. Also, with non violent agendas, Catalunya wants to be independent and they also speak a different version of Spanish (Catalan.) In Andalucia, they speak another variation called Andaluz which is almost dialectical enough to be another language and many inhabitants, especially in Granada province consider themselves to be equally as Arab as Spanish (moorish occupation a few hundred years ago - they left some nice things and customs behind.)
Yet Galicia in the North West has more ties with Portuguese and Celtic culture. Oh, and they speak Gallego.
They might all like tapas and boccadillos but one culture - no way.

Stingaling
27th May 2008, 18:32
chuks

How did you know my girl friend has big hands and an adams apple? She is nice and tall too, as she needs to be as I'm 6' 2".

I am not GAY!! Ya' hear!!

Jetex Jim
27th May 2008, 18:58
I am not GAY!! Ya' hear!!

homophobic and xenophobic.

Wiki identifies some additional phobias:

Chemophobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemophobia), prejudice against artificial substances in favour of 'natural' substances.

Christianophobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_discrimination), fear or dislike of Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian) or Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity).
Ephebophobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophobia), fear of youth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth) or adolescents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescence)
Islamophobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia), fear or dislike of Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims) or Islamic culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam).
Xenophobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia), fear or dislike of strangers or the unknown, sometimes used to describe nationalistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalist) political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics) beliefs and movements. It is also used in fictional work to describe the fear or dislike of the space aliens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_aliens).
Zardariphobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zardariphobia&action=edit&redlink=1),

Why not collect them all!

PS you have not yet specified the nature of your dislike of space aliens.

airfoilmod
27th May 2008, 19:14
Fear is a motivator; in general it leads to ad Hominem attack on people with whom there is disagreement. Fear of disagreement is the most basic of all fears and manifests in those who generally have a puerile or immature view of their world. Generally those who Need affirmation, due to a lack of confidence in their own viewpoint (oddly enough).

Airfoil

Stingaling
27th May 2008, 19:26
Jetex Jim

Yup I gotta full house.

BBE777
27th May 2008, 19:28
jetx jim: hehehehehehe well said