Why should Australians fear from Musl...

Why should Australians fear from Muslims?

There are 46752 comments on the Scoop story from Dec 23, 2007, titled Why should Australians fear from Muslims?. In it, Scoop reports that:

About 800 people gathered in Camden, NSW and raised their voice against the plan for an Islamic School to be built in the area.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Scoop.


Blackbutt, Australia

#39249 May 10, 2013
Islam is stuck in the past , and cannot deal with the modern world.....it won't be around for too much longer......they seem to be eating each other alive in those countries , between all the different brands of islam ....suni bath wahabe etc etc ...no peace within islam it seems.


#39250 May 10, 2013

It is the second time a Sri Lankan asylum seeker living in the community has allegedly committed indecent assault this year after a university student was allegedly set upon in her dorm.

Dirty filthy illegal immigrants.

“Free Speech in a Free World ”

Since: May 10

May the Force be with You .

#39251 May 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Those who started 'White Civilization" in Australia and South America and North America for that purpose.
The British empire invaded and named this land Australia, I suppose much like Islam when it invaded other lands and expected native populations to become Muslim.
Slavery by Arabs can be seen as no different to the value of convicts that the British brought with them to perform their forced labour without pay.


#39252 May 10, 2013
When Europeans invade other countries and steal their land , resources and teach the natives to worship a European God . When Muslims invade other countries they teach the natives to worship one God that has no gender or color .

“Free Speech in a Free World ”

Since: May 10

May the Force be with You .

#39253 May 10, 2013
Truth wrote:
When Europeans invade other countries and steal their land , resources and teach the natives to worship a European God . When Muslims invade other countries they teach the natives to worship one God that has no gender or color .
When Muslims "invade" ,what description of god do they provide ?
pointy pune poster

Pune, India

#39254 May 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
They are the "best example" that History has to offer of Warriors and conquers of nations and the Rule of Law and the Rule of Justice that they established on the land they went into.
It is only because of their sincerity and justice and the way they dealt with people of other nations that they accepted Islam and they are still Muslims even after 1400 years.
What have you against them any how?
history of india is contrary evidence to that. for a thousand years hindu women lived in fear that they could be picked up and carried away by Muslims to been slaved and raped into accepting islam.

So India's free society was no more and parents started forcing their daughters into staying indoors and covered.

islamic idea of a woman's modesty is one of the stupidest and most twisted idea that considers only modest women as honorable - totally contrary to any idea of civility or human rights. Women forced to cover up cause Muslim men are pigs who lose all control if they see an attractive woman. Thus only way is to force women to cover up and deny them their birth right to be a WOMAN. Indeed the burkha is a sign of muslim men's total dishonor and islams total failure.

That is what the khalifs imposed and that too by force on people who were in foreign lands after much much blood letting.

That was and is wrong in every way one can think off. Islam is humanities biggest mistake perhaps. And certainly Asia and middle easts biggest weakness which allows selfish supers powers to exploit us for oil.

An islam free asia would not be so easy to fool. But the automatic and inevitable fall of islam is being stalled by US UK EU oil interests and they are quick to attack or place sanctions on the more progressive countries like Iraq or Iran where increasing education levels lead to concomitant increase in rationalism and huge numbers of people leaving islam for atheism or even rationalism. The most progressive Iraq is now a ruined haven for islamic deviants. Imagine the gloom the real people of Iraq must be feeling.

Sydney, Australia

#39255 May 10, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Those who started 'White Civilization" in Australia and South America and North America for that purpose.

MUQ, do you think the Muslims here can have a " Civilized " election ?
pointy pune poster

Pune, India

#39256 May 10, 2013
Truth wrote:
When Europeans invade other countries and steal their land , resources and teach the natives to worship a European God . When Muslims invade other countries they teach the natives to worship one God that has no gender or color .
Invading was wrong. Islam invaded to force (not teach) other wiser peoples to worship their god. A good idea never needed violence to spread. Did Galileo have to kill a 100 million people to make humanity accept his ideas? Did Newton have to do that? Did the ancient rishi-muni of India ever use violence or army to make people accept their claims. No they used debate and logic in fear free environments. Only then is true understanding possible.[rishi = guides), muni = thinkers, expert user of mana ie mind]

And non existent islamic god is equally bad in the hands of muslims as the non existent European god was in the hands of europeans.

But most thoughtful and rational people around the world are moving ahead. Muslims are not, they would too, but they are denied a chance by the hardliners like in Bangladesh. All good people from around the world need to come together to support the de-brainwashed and educated amongst the muslims. And we need to (if need be) strike terror in the hearts of islamists who would use violence to deny these brave yet gentle souls simply because they realized the obvious, Islam is a regressive culture and have decided to exercise their freedom of religion / non religion, really the freedom of opinion. If offense is the only defense, then for every one non muslim killed by islamists, we should answer times ten. Do this a few times and they'll stop using terror, not touch the hair of anybody who gives up islam. Violence is (and was) the only language islamists understand.

Why don't you all muslims just give up this stupid islam, take up rationalism, for a better and immediately more peaceful world, less for our sakes and a lot more for yourselves.

God was once rightfully stripped of color and gender, now it is time to strip humanity of god. And replace with rationalism that is the logics of goodness and civility and love and peacefulness and other gentle ways of wise men that continue to deliver us from evil.
pointy pune poster

Pune, India

#39257 May 10, 2013
A good idea never needed violence to spread. Did Galileo have to kill a 100 million people to make ALL OF HUMANITY accept his ideas?

Why did humans accept his ideas, in every continent, race across religions and non religions? What property or attribute of man is in play here?

Answer is understanding and ability to think and understand. Something all humans are born with - our Intellect.

Hinduism (vedic schools of thought really) spread like that. Buddism spread like that. Christianity used both violence and preaching, ISLAM USED ONLY VIOLENCE.

Chermside, Australia

#39258 May 10, 2013
Truth wrote:
When Europeans invade other countries and steal their land , resources and teach the natives to worship a European God . When Muslims invade other countries they teach the natives to worship one God that has no gender or color .
And if they don't accept your genderless colourless god the have their heads separated from their bodies or if they are lucky they are allowed to live as persecuted animals and pay tax to islam for their existence. By the way what colour is the christian god, I can't remember ever seeing or hearing any reference to that.


#39259 May 10, 2013

MAY 07, 2013 “An Eye for an Eye”

The Terrorist “Radicalization” of the Tsarnaev Brothers


Where, how, when, why and by whom were the Tsarnaev brothers “radicalized”? These are the questions mainstream journalism poses and strives to answer. But one antonym of “radical”—“superficial”—descri bes this line of approach.
Leave aside the fact that “radicalization” is a vague, unhelpful concept without any definite political or moral content, and that many of us have been radicalized about various matters in appropriate, positive ways. In the 1960s, a sort of “radicalization” was a function of political awareness and decency.(What was “radical” then—opposition to the Vietnam War, support for Black Power, women’s liberation, gay rights—is hardly controversial today.) This use of language insults (leftist, Marxist, anti-imperialist) radicals such as myself and posits implicitly a collaborationist “moderation” as the desired norm. But the main problem with this approach is that it obfuscates the real issue: how did the brothers come to believe that it was okay to kill random civilians?
You Shouldn’t Kill, But…
For most people it’s difficult to fathom. What’s more fundamental to the social contract underlying human society than the rule,“You shall not kill”? The principle is enshrined in all law codes and religious traditions. Still, these same traditions allow, even sometimes mandate, exceptions.
The same Laws of Moses that state “You shall not kill” require the execution of adulterers (Deuteronomy 22:22) and any man “who lies with” other men (Leviticus 20:13). Worse, the same god who sets down the law orders his Chosen People to wipe out whole peoples. He obliges the Hebrew leader Joshua to execute the “curse of destruction” on the city of Jericho:“man and women, young and old, including the oxen, the sheep and the donkeys, slaughtering them all”(Joshua 6:21). The Lord of Hosts orders King Saul to punish the Amalakites for deeds of their ancestors:“Now, go and crush Amalek: put him under the curse of destruction with all that he possesses. Do not spare him, but kill man and woman, babe and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey”(1 Samuel 15:3).
One could go on and on with such citations, but I do not mean to solely target the Judeo-Christian tradition (or the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, since these three Abrahamic faiths all draw upon Old Testament myths and values). Pagans’ moral codes similarly banned killing but with various exceptions. The Vikings had firm laws against homicide within their own communities. But when off on raids on the coasts of Britain, Ireland or France they had no qualms about slaughtering at random. Going a-viking was to take a break from the normal morals practiced around the fjords.
Normal domestic morality can contrast with the morality applied towards outsiders. This was nicely illustrated in 1944 when 13% of people polled in the U.S. declared that U.S. troops should “kill allJapanese.” On just one night in March 1945 U.S. forces killed 100,000 men, women and children in Tokyo through conventional bombing. This was the calculated intention; Gen. Curtis LeMay boasted of his desire to “scorch and boil and bake to death” countless Japanese.(LeMay went on to become the vice-presidential candidate on a ticket headed by segregationist Alabama governor George Wallace.) The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed over 200,000 more. Those ordering the strikes could justify in their own minds this deliberate infliction of terror. Truman felt no qualms about dropping nukes on babies. Why not?


#39260 May 10, 2013
Because they attacked us. So don’t they deserve to be bombed?
Surely there were other factors at play, not least of which was racism, which helps to explain the massive civilian death toll in the Korean, Vietnam, Afghan and Iraq wars as well. It’s easier to slaughter people if you think them less human than you. My point is just that the notion of collective guilt justified, and continues to justify, random butchery.
This willingness to conflate civilians and military, the guilty and the innocent, by virtue of nationality, and to kill “man and women, young and old,” is a feature of terrorist mentality. We are accustomed to associating it with “militant Islamists,”“Muslim extremists.” Some people associate it with Islam in general, although one searches the Qur’an in vain for tales of divinely ordered genocide such as those that occur in the Bible. But how many innocent civilians have been killed by Muslim terrorist attacks in the last century, and how many by U.S. bombs and U.S.-backed death squads?
Why Did the Tsarnaevs Come to Think It Was Right to Kill?
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has told his interrogators that he and his brother were spurred to set off bombs in Boston on Marathon Monday by the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That this should be the catalyst is unsurprising. A 2003 UN-commissioned study found that the “War on Terror” was in fact increasing terrorism. Gareth Evans, former Australian foreign minister and head of the International Crisis Group, noted the same thing in 2004:“The unhappy truth is that the net result of the war on terror, so far at least, has been more war and more terror.” A 2006 National Intelligence Estimate representing the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies stated that the Iraq war had “made the overall terrorism problem worse.”
Some become “terrorists”(or, in some cases, decide to take up arms against U.S. occupiers and invaders, whom Washington and the Pentagon might regard as terrorists—or “illegal combatants”—although we should feel free to question such designations) because a loved one perished in a drone attack or was tortured during interrogation. They are motivated by personal vengeance and honor. Others see fellow Muslims somewhere victimized by the U.S. and hear the call to jihad in some far-off country. Others opt to vent their fury by blowing up random people in what they see as the belly of the beast.
Let’s imagine that the Tsarnaev brothers were indeed outraged by the things that offend many normal people. Let’s imagine that both came to see the war in Iraq, raging from 2003 (when the boys were 9 and 16) to 2011 (when they were 16 and 24) for what it really was: a war based on lies, producing over 100,000 civilian deaths. A horrendous war crime with enduring horrific repercussions for which no one has ever been tried or held to account.
No doubt they saw the disgusting photos of the humiliation and torture of Muslim prisoners in Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad made public in 2004. They could have made an impression on eleven and eighteen year old boys. Perhaps they learned that such treatment of Muslim prisoners, most of them charged with nothing and entirely innocent, was typical in Bagram in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo as well. One can imagine some feelings of indignation.
Maybe they saw the cockpit gunsight footage of the Apache helicopter attack over Baghdad in 2007, released by WikiLeaks in 2010, showing pilots and ground crew cavalierly discussing the killing of a dozen innocent Iraqi men including two Reuters employees.“Come on, let us shoot!” shouts someone requesting permission to fire as a van pulls up. The shooting resumes, injuring two children who were being driven to school.“Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle,” one pilot says.


#39261 May 10, 2013
Maybe they were outraged, like regular decent folks, at the gunners’ bloodlust (maybe bolstered by the false belief that they were avenging the 9/11 victims). That outrage itself would have been entirely appropriate, would it have not?
Who is an Innocent Civilian?
Of course one should distinguish between those responsible for all these crimes and the people of this country, like you and me. That’s indeed our premise in asking: how did these young men ever come to think otherwise?
But the distinction between the culpable regime and the innocent “American people” becomes muddied when you read polls showing that as recently as March 42% of the people in the U.S. believe the Iraq War was “not a mistake,” while (only) 53% believe otherwise. That forty-two percent of the U.S. adult population is roughly one hundred million people. Their opinions shouldn’t damn them; they are in any case largely shaped by the mass media, the pulpit and their own ignorance. But the fact that there is so much popular support at any particular time for U.S. atrocities among the people of this country (and sometimes it is overwhelming!) must make many around the world question the presumption of our collective innocence.
Why, they surely ask, do the Americans enjoying the “freedom” to participate in elections, always elect these people who attack, invade and bomb us? Why do they not drive them from power when they do? Why do they instead re-elect them, and never prosecute any leaders for war crimes? If their government is really “theirs”—freely chosen and supported—are they not our enemies as much as their leaders?
(By the way: is it not also an outrage that these polls in the aftermath of wars, including those in Vietnam and Iraq, always give the respondent the two options “mistake?” or “not a mistake”? Those responsible for war are thus assumed to have had good intentions. There is no way to respond:“I believe it was a calculated crime.” This tells the world something about U.S. capacity for self-criticism.)
The distinction between regime and people also blurs when you read that 65% of U.S. residents polled support the drone strikes producing more terror in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia. Or even when you go to Fenway Park in Boston, just wanting to enjoy the baseball, and are forced to listen to the requisite tributes to “our heroes” supposedly “defending our freedoms,” and note the enthusiastic crowd response to any mention of “our men and women in uniform.” Must it not sound to many like applause for the slaughter of innocents?
And mustn’t the sight of crowds of flag-wavers chanting USA! USA! USA!, aggressively affirming their pride in “their” country (uniting implicitly with the 1% who actually control this country) send chills down any conscious person’s spine? This after all sounds very much like this.
One might compassionately think,“Well, these people are ignorant, brainwashed.” Or one might think, these people are just evil. If you are a Muslim, part of a community under constant surveillance and suspicion, you might see every unprovoked U.S. killing of Muslims abroad as an attack on yourself. Is not mindless U.S. patriotism and knee-jerk support for each new war also a threat to yourself? How then to respond?
The U.S. responded to an attack on itself by some Muslims twelve years ago by attacking numerous Muslims with no connection to the attack. The ongoing slaughter in Afghanistan has nothing to do with al-Qaeda and 9/11 but is rather an effort to contain the resurgent Taliban (who are not and never were the same as al-Qaeda) and aligned forces fighting to topple the U.S.-imposed, highly corrupt, unpopular Karzai regime. In this effort, as in Iraq, U.S. forces are killing civilians with impunity.


#39262 May 10, 2013
The moral question thus arises: If George W. Bush could slaughter Iraqi civilians in the name of fighting Muslim extremism, and if Barack Obama can bomb innocents in several Muslim countries virtually at will, why can’t Muslims kill U.S. civilians in the name of fighting back? Isn’t it a matter of “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” as it says in the Bible (Exodus 21:24; see also the Qur’an 2:178)? At some point the older brother seems to have concluded precisely thus.
One should mention that there’s actually a difference between the tribal mentality “us vs. them” and the “eye for an eye” principle. The latter was apparently intended to curb the practice of indiscriminate and disproportionate revenge. Rather than killing everyone in the neighboring village for the death of one of your own at the hands of one of theirs, you just kill one and call it even.(I won’t digress on the irony involved in the fact that contemporary Israeli leaders, in effect rejecting Exodus 21:24, boast of their deliberately “disproportionate responses” to any attack on themselves. It is an effort to terrify all foes.)
In the history of religion one sees a further evolution from this “eye for an eye” principle to the (arguably higher) principle of forgiveness. Thus we find in the Buddhist Dhammapada:
“How will hate leave him if a man forever thinks,
‘He abused me, he hit me, he defeated me, he robbed me’?
Will hate ever touch him if he does not think,
‘He abused me, he hit me, he defeated me, he robbed me’?
There is only one eternal law:
Hate never destroys hate: only love does.”
And of course Jesus is supposed to have said (Matthew 5:38):
“You have heard how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer no resistance to the wicked. On the contrary, if someone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well…” In the theology of St. Paul, the “New Law” of Christian forgiveness supersedes the “Old Law” of retribution of Mosaic law.
But such refined thoughts have rarely impacted the behavior of modern states. Indeed the rule has been:“Isn’t it ok to make them feel our pain—by killing their children, so rich in hope and promise, shattering their peace of mind as they go about their lives, actively or just tacitly supporting their government that has provoked us?” That’s how Gen. Curtis LeMay felt, surely, in waging his war without mercy. I think this is how the Tsarnaevs also came to feel.
Some Comparisons
On April 15, the brothers’ bombs killed two young women and a little boy, occasioning a national outpouring of grief and countless tributes to the imagined bravery of we Bostonians and the heroism of local police.
On that same day in Baghdad, according to Iraq Body Count, 30 civilians were killed by car bombs and IEDs for reasons directly connected to the U.S. invasion and occupation. In all 62 were killed in Iraq by bombs or gunfire for such reasons, just another typical day in that wrecked country.
On the same day, nine Afghan civilians were killed in the ongoing civil war sparked by the invasion and occupation. A roadside bomb killed seven. Four were killed by an IED the next day. A week before U.S. airstrikes had killed 17 civilians including 12 children in Kunar province; the public clamor forced President Karzai to order U.S. special forces out of the province.


#39263 May 10, 2013
According to NATO, 475 civilians were killed in the Afghan conflict from January to March of this year. In Iraq, 561 civilians were killed in bombings or shootings in April alone. Such is the magnitude of suffering inflicted by U.S. imperialism on just these two countries within the Muslim world. Meanwhile Libya is worse off then ever after getting “liberated” by U.S.-NATO bombing; Mali suffers from the fallout of the Libya intervention; Syria and Iran remain in the U.S. crosshairs; and in Yemen resentment smolders at the drone strikes (up to 54 in April alone).
Some Muslim clerics—one must stress, a tiny minority—look at this big picture and say,“Islam is under attack from the U.S. It is our religious obligation to defend our brothers and sisters. Since we cannot defeat this enemy through conventional ways, we must use terror to make them realize there is a price for their own terror.” It is precisely the sentiment conveyed by an unknown Hebrew poet two and a half millennia ago, in venting his rage against the Babylonians who’d conquered and dispersed his people:
Daughter of Babel, doomed to destruction,
A blessing on anyone
Who treats you as you treated us,
A blessing on anyone who seizes your babies
And shatters them against a rock!
Spine-chilling you say? Yet it is, for Jews and Christians, Holy Writ: the ending of Psalm 137:8-9. And you will find no end of Jewish and Christian cleric-bloggers who jump to its defense.“One of the unsurpassed biblical hymns of all time,” says one.“Nowhere does it say that God approves of the Psalmist’s request,” writes another,“ or that he fulfilled it. Just because it is recorded that the Psalmist wrote the imprecation, doesn’t mean it was approved by God.” Another writes:“Now the psalmist says that soon someone will destroy Babylon. He was right!” Others write that the poet is simply expressing satisfaction that prophecy will be fulfilled.
An Eye for an Eye, Including Your Baby’s
But there’s really no question that this justifies mass-murder, or at least surely did, for some people, for a period of time. It is more than “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” It’s “the eye or the tooth of any of your people including the innocent child” or rather an expression of the notion that there are no “innocents” in this great conflict between the People of God and their enemies. There is no great leap between this (sick) mentality and that of the occasional Islamic imam who depicts everyone in this country as an appropriate target.
But did the Tsarnaevs need some sort of religious-political mentor (the mysterious Misha, William Plotnikov, Mansur Nidal, Awlaki) to make the leap from mere outrage to the righteous shattering of babies against the rock? Or was the moral model already at hand, there in the wars based on lies, in the Abu Ghraib photos, the Blackwater Baghdad murders of Sept. 2007, the Baghdad collateral murder video?
“It’s their fault for bringing their kids,” said the pilot in the leaked video, proud to have picked off eight Iraqis. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, proud to have killed three Bostonians, might say with precisely the same degree of moral legitimacy,“It’s their fault for attacking Muslim kids!”
To fail to understand this is to invite the endless exchange of eyes for eyes and teeth for teeth. One senses this was what Osama bin Laden wanted when he planned or approved the 9/11 attacks. He reasoned that the U.S. would launch a general crusade, including attacks on targets with nothing to do with al-Qaeda (like Iraq) thereby uniting more Muslims in hostility to itself. Prompting more terrorism, it would respond with more, begetting more in response, and so on, polarizing the world, drawing an ever firmer line between the west and a revived Islam with visions of a new global Caliphate. Could he have imagined that two irreligious Avar-Chechen boys from Kirgizia, growing up in the U.S., would ever climb aboard the jihadi-terrorist bandwagon?


#39264 May 10, 2013
He probably wouldn’t have been surprised, supposing that the course of events itself would “radicalize” those hitherto apathetic. An online al-Qaeda publication reportedly urges supporters in western countries to stay at home and take action in their own countries. The current leaders probably think that exploits like the Marathon bombing will sharpen the sense of “us vs. them,” produce anti-Muslim backlashes, leading to more violence within clearer battle lines, paving the way to ultimate victory. The vision, while insane and impossible, acquires more resonance with each new report of a Muslim civilian death at U.S. hands.
Radicalized Here or There? What Difference Does It Make?
Gandhi is supposed to have said “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” The even more primitive “us vs. them” mentality has long since blinded most of the political class and the mainstream media.
In the face of the Boston tragedy, all they can ask is,“Were the boys radicalized abroad? Or did it happen here?” Rephrased: Was their decision to express their outrage at the Iraq and Afghan wars through terrorism something implanted in their minds by Muslims met abroad, in dangerous mosques in Dagestan or Chechnya? Or did it stem from their own failure to assimilate into U.S. society, and a hatred towards this country rooted in their own hereditary religion? Either way the issue becomes merely us versus “radical Islam”—leaving the wars unmentioned, as though they played only a marginal role in the boys’“radicalization.”
The blind are leading the blind. George W. Bush’s instinct the day of 9/11 was to attack Iraq! and to declare an indefinite “War on Terror” against anyone who could be smeared with the charge of supporting “terrorists” or pursuing WMD programs. Never mind that these are very different phenomena in themselves, or that the U.S. supports terrorists on occasion and also maintains half the world’s nuclear arsenal. While insisting publicly that the U.S. was not against Islam (gosh, he wondered, why would anyone think that?) Bush used ignorant anti-Muslim sentiment to garner support for his war on Iraq, depicting that war as one of response to 9/11.
“You’re for us or against us,” he bellowed, obviously and shamelessly invoking Jesus’ statement “Anyone who is not with me is against me”(Matthew 12:30), to divide the world in two. Obama has not stepped back from that crude Manicheanism. He criticized the Iraq War as a “strategic blunder” but has never questioned the morality of using the “us versus them” mentality to garner support for that criminal act. Instead he has praised Iraq War vets as “heroes” and pointedly declined to direct the Justice Department to pursue any charges against officials responsible for a criminal war.
He has always embraced the invasion of Afghanistan, sharply escalating it while terrorizing the people of neighboring Pakistan presumed collectively responsible for aiding the Taliban(s) that now flourish in both countries. He contemplates attacks on targets in Syria, Iran, perhaps Mali, that pose no more threat to you or me than Saddam’s imagined WMDs.
Much of humankind sees all this. It is not blinded. It looks on in unease if not horror at the scale and impunity of U.S. violence. If it becomes radicalized (in a positive life-affirming way), it is not by religion or a passion for holy war, but by natural human revulsion at the antics of a wounded Cyclops—the one-eyed monster that is twenty-first century U.S. imperialism.
GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion,(AK Press). He can be reached at: [email protected]


#39265 May 10, 2013


#39266 May 10, 2013
Trucker wrote:
<quoted text>no ! We would have to dumb ourselves down 45iq points with a lobotomy and live under a rock all our lives to be as dimb as uou ! not even imagine there was a Easter bunny, santa Claus , or a religion badly copied from books of others in a land far away with Ali Babas in charge. It is why Muslims flee Islam by the million every year . The moon god of the desert tribes Allah , the alter of Hindus "Kaaba", the al Aqsa built on the foundations of a stolen Jew Temple Mount . And a despot religious leader whom God did never utter one word to Maybe God too busy speak Mohammed ? Sent a messenger ? Maybe God playing golf that day !
I wasn't addressing you slum-dog, sure you don't understand, you only understand Bombay smells, LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,LLOL, feeling a little homesick are you wobble head? next time bark only when addressed,this lesson is for convicts only...LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,LLOL,

Calgary, Canada

#39268 May 10, 2013
immigrant wrote:
Immigrant, why don't you go back to your country, you know, the sh^thole you and your forefathers built?
Nobody in the west likes sh^tty muzzies, so just fk off!!

Qatif, Saudi Arabia

#39269 May 10, 2013
Neville Thompson wrote:
<quoted text>
The British empire invaded and named this land Australia, I suppose much like Islam when it invaded other lands and expected native populations to become Muslim.
Slavery by Arabs can be seen as no different to the value of convicts that the British brought with them to perform their forced labour without pay.
When Muslims invaded any country, they did not "exterminate" the people living there as White Europeans did in South and North America and in Australia and New Zealand.

Muslims did not make any nations as their "colony" just to exploit there economic and raw materials and make them "selling markets" for their products.

Muslims "adopted" every country they went into. Gave the same right to any one who accepted Islam and left those who did not accept Islam by paying a "token money for getting state protection".

How can you compare What Muslims did in Egypt with what Christians did it there in 300 years?

Please do not teach us "how to treat other nations and how to rule foreign people".

Our record is much better than any other nation on the face of this earth.

Earliest Muslims were "as perfect specimen" of truth and honesty as humanly possible.

The world has not seen the likes of him and never shall be.

They were "disciples and coached by the Last and Final Prophet, they were passout of his school"!!

No other prophet got so many dedicated followers as our prophet and no prophet was as successful as our prophet. This is fact!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Terrorism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Being overweight may be caused by the clock in ... 20 hr Tex-Ankini 32
News AG Holder worries about revenge for bin Laden (May '11) Thu Senile graybeard 210
News Plea hearing set for Ohio man linked to extremists Jun 18 Big Johnson 3
News APNewsBreak: About 4,000 more US troops to go t... Jun 16 Aspirin Between M... 1
News Court filing: Man to plead in case linked to ex... Jun 16 Reality Speaks 2
News Qatar, in regional crisis, hires former US atto... Jun 13 Retribution 4
News 'The War Is Not Over' (Sep '06) Jun 12 Just Slim 276,632
More from around the web