Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 256424 comments on the The Brussels Journal story from Aug 24, 2007, titled Who Is Allah?. In it, The Brussels Journal reports that:

“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? [...] What does God care what we call him?”

From the desk of Soeren Kern on Fri, 2007-08-24 11:56 Europeans love to mock the salience of religion in American society. via The Brussels Journal

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Brussels Journal.


Kingston, Jamaica

#174139 Apr 29, 2013
JOEL wrote:
<quoted text>
To be truly successful and to roll ahead with the higher evolutionary wave, one should be good looking, intelligent, generous, clean-hearted, wealthy, energetic, eco-sensitive, mystical, aesthetic and secular.
Honestly, I can't call the African race "handsome" or "intelligent" in any way. They resemble the atavistic types (no racism intended).
Opinion noted. I can assure you that if you take your head of the rear of others and look around you then perhaps you will see beauty and intelligence in every race.

I can FACTUALLY assert that most Indians are NOT my equal in terms of INTELLIGENCE and looks.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#174140 Apr 29, 2013
JOEL wrote:
<quoted text>
To be truly successful and to roll ahead with the higher evolutionary wave, one should be good looking, intelligent, generous, clean-hearted, wealthy, energetic, eco-sensitive, mystical, aesthetic and secular.

Honestly, I can't call the African race "handsome" or "intelligent" in any way. They resemble the atavistic types (no racism intended).
If you were a man of class and substance, you would not have written that at all.

You have already shown that you are a racist, Bigot!

Kingston, Jamaica

#174141 Apr 29, 2013
Joel dear, there is NO national average on INTELLIGENCE that is close to my INTELLIGENCE and I am including the top country Singapore.

Do YOU understand the implications, Einstein?

I have to go now.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#174142 Apr 29, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you mean, Bangladesh on par with India?
lol! You are right.

Should have put it that way.

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#174145 Apr 29, 2013
HughBe wrote:
Joel dear, there is NO national average on INTELLIGENCE that is close to my INTELLIGENCE and I am including the top country Singapore.

Do YOU understand the implications, Einstein?

I have to go now.
Thank you, HughBe.

Good night from Singapore. Have a nice day.

rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#174146 Apr 29, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what went wrong with Jesus' real name but how did (Didacus) Diego in Spanish, become James in English? Any clue?
rabbee: there not quite, exactly the same. diego means he who supplantes, whereas james means supplanter.

Norfolk, VA

#174147 Apr 29, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what went wrong with Jesus' real name but how did (Didacus) Diego in Spanish, become James in English? Any clue?
I don't know bmz, you'd have to consult a linguist. There was supposed to be a clue to which version of the bible to read in English in the Messiahs declaration on 12/13/83 at ODU. The Messiah was born in San Diego, Ca.

Mumbai, India

#174148 Apr 29, 2013


Question 1: Can one obtain an enriched fraction of a subcellular organelle or cell type?

Question 2: How does one know that the disruptive procedure does not change the biochemistry of the fraction significantly?

Question 3: Why does one assume that homogenisation and centrifugation do not change the entropy, and therefore the free energy and the equilibria of reactions in subcellular particles? Why are not controls always carried out for subcellular fractionation, except for total recoveries relative to the crude homogenates?

Question 4: Why is it believed that each biochemical pathway or cycle has its own structural compartment when prokaryotes can carry out virtually all the same reactions in only one compartment?

Question 5: Does the finding that a chemical substance or activity is located in the same subcellular fraction and a structure identified by electron microscopy mean that the same chemical activity was located in that particular organelle in the living cell of the intact animal or plant.

Question 6: How is intracellular movement possible, and why is the viscosity of cytoplasm so low in the intact cell, if there is a cytoskeleton present?

Question 7: Where do protein synthesis and acid hydrolysis occur in cells in which ribosomes and lysosomes cannot be seen?

Question 8: What is the evidence that the microsomal fraction consists of cell membranes and endoplasmic reticulum?

Question 9: Why is it assumed that homogenisation and centrifugation do not affect the chemistry of receptors, or their affinities for transmitters, hormones, drugs, ligands, toxins?

Question 10: Can a particle and a vacuole both be lysosomes?

Question 11: Can one calibrate substances originating from tissues using pure solutions in simple salines of approximately the same concentrations?

Question 12: How can one study membranes by electron microscopy, when they are believed to contain lipids which the procedure extracts?

Question 13: What is the real evidence that rapid deep freezing for electron microscopy causes less shrinkage and distortion of tissues, cells and organelles, than classical transmission electron microscopy?

Question 14: Why do those who calculate dimensions from electron micrographs not take into account the shrinkage during preparation and examination of their sections, cells and organelles?

Question 15: Do membranes in cells appear to be normal to the plane of section more often than solid geometry would permit?

Question 16: Can one know the thickness in life of any biological membrane?

Question 17: Why should it be necessary to tilt the stage of the electron microscope to see randomly orientated membranes in all orientations, when this is not necessary with the light microscope?

Question 18: How can carriers assist the passage of ions, aminoacids, etc. across membrane, when the combination must be bigger than the substance carried?

Question 19: Why have few or no carriers been isolated?

Question 20: What is transport?

Mumbai, India

#174149 Apr 29, 2013

Question 21: Why are receptors and channels, which have been characterised, sequenced and their sizes measured or calculated, not seen on membranes by transmission electron microscopy?

Question 22: Can an electron microscopist looking at a metal deposit on a biological structure derive any information about its chemistry?

Question 23: Why do the lamellae of the myelin sheath appear to be equal distances apart irrespective of the thickness or depth of the longitudinal section cut?

Question 24: Is the repeating distance of the lamellae in the myelin sheath sufficient to regard it as a good model for the cell membrane?

Question 25: Since the myelin sheath is believed to consist of a scroll of membranes, and membranes appear darker by light microscopy than cytoplasm, why does not the myelin sheath appear darker than the axoplasm?

Question 26: Why is it assumed that the receptors for transmitters, hormones, messengers, antibodies, drugs and toxins are on the surface of the cell membrane?

Question 27: How valid is the use of agonists, antagonists and ligands to detect receptors, instead of the transmitters, hormones, antigens, drugs and toxins themselves?

Question 28: Why are the dimensions and numbers of synapses different by light and electron microscopy?

Question 29: Why are there no light micrographs in the literature showing the connection of one cell body by a dendritic pre-synaptic fibre to a synapse on another cell body?

Question 30: Does the chemical theory of synaptic transmission contain unprovable and unproved hypotheses?

Question 31: Why is it assumed that evidence derived from experiments on neuromuscular junctions is relevant to transmission in the central nervous system?

Question 32: If nuclear pores allow RNA to pass through, how do they prevent smaller molecules and ions going through at the same time, and why is there a potential difference across the nuclear membrane?

Question 33: What is the evidence that each cell of a particular plant or animal contains the same quantity of DNA?

Question 34: If the cell membrane is fluid mechanically, how can cells maintain their integrity?

Question 35: In immunocytochemistry, is it assumed that the fixatives, dehydrating reagents, washings, and primary and secondary antibodies, do not change the reaction of the antibody to the antigen believed to be in a particular cell or part of a cell?

Question 36: Is it reasonable to believe that processes or dendrites contain different antigens from the cell bodies from which they arise?

Question 37: Under what conditions can tissue cultures be used in the study of the tissues from which they originated?

Question 38: Is it warrantable to assume that growth of tissues in culture does not change their morphology, biochemistry, or immuno-reactivity?

Mumbai, India

#174150 Apr 29, 2013

Question 39: Does not the use of the term neuroglia imply that the authors can not distinguish between astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, and microglia?

Question 40: Why are the individual types of neuroglial cells so rarely seen by light microscopy of healthy central nervous systems?

Question 41: Since the latter three alleged cell types were described by classical histological techniques during the first half of the twentieth century, does this not imply that anyone using antibodies to mark them specifically must first identify them by these criteria?

Question 42: Why is there no common agreement about the staining procedures, which are supposed to identify astrocytes, oligodendrocytes and microglia histologically?

Question 43: Why is it necessary to use tissue cultures of the alleged cell types to identify them and their markers?

Question 44: If each cell in an organism contains the same DNA, but some produce different proteins, is the existence of suppressor genes the only possible explanation for the difference of the proteins?

Question 45: In diseases believed to be auto-immune, either organ-specific or tissue-specific, why does the body not reject the specific organ or tissue, as it rejects incompatible transplanted hearts, or blood of the wrong group, often making the patients ill, or even killing them?

Question 46: Why are pure proteins used for calibration, when different tissues contain different mixtures of proteins, which have different calibration curves?

Question 47: Why do synapses seen by electron microscopy appear so much smaller than those seen by light microscopy?

Mumbai, India

#174151 Apr 29, 2013

Biology since about 1960:

About two-thirds of the work done in biology in the half-century since about 1945 is fraudulent, or, more politely, based on foundations so insecure that it will have to be rejected.

This has been allowed to happen through secretiveness, lack of honesty probably fed by the desire for funding, and the general expense and inaccessibility of equipment, as well as excessive compartmentalization of the subject. And the incompetence and dishonesty of research councils, media and civil service personnel.

Many people feel modern biology & medicine are disappointing: they vaguely sense the lack of progress with 'AIDS', Alzheimers, arthritis, cancer, Parkinsons, schizophrenia, and degenerative diseases; they may be concerned about dangerous drugs and vaccination; they may dislike animal experiments.

However, most criticisms are ad hoc and have had no general purchase on the problem—until now. This piece is intended to be a radical examination, in a literal sense, of modern biology.

To impose order on my account, most of my information is arranged around the work of Dr Harold Hillman, MB, BSc, MRCS, PhD, who I've known and liked for many years. In my opinion he is a very great scientist. But there must be other actors in this drama, including people who are completely unknown to me, who may have had parallel careers.

I must stress that this piece has not been written with his approval or cooperation; it is my own work. I've often pleaded with him to put his life's work on Internet, since this is the first medium ever with this sort of freedom—a piece of luck unlikely to last. But my attempts came to nothing—I think because he was held back by a hankering after respectability in the biological/medical establishment, something incompatible with his work. I've even thought he might have sunk to the level of wanting to be a Nobel 'Laureate'.

My narrative is largely chronological, structured around Hillman's books, in the sequence he happened to write them, and what they prove. To combine science with human interest, I've added illustrative material on related subjects in way which is adapted to Internet (separate screens each contributing a piece to the puzzle), trying to throw light on the complicated systems of motives which have led to the present unhappy position — Rae West.


Mumbai, India

#174152 Apr 29, 2013

The Living Cell, Hillman & Peter Sartory.(Packard Publishing, U.K.)

A fairly short but very detailed book which examines actual cells, in life, rather than the techniques which are applied to them. Peter Sartory was a highly skilful observer with both microscopes and telescopes.

Some deductions from it include:-

1) The location of DNA within cells is in doubt.

2) The 'Golgi Body' doesn't exist.

3) The cell wall as a double structure is a mistake.

4) The 'endoplasmic reticulum' is a myth.

5)'Rough endosplasmic reticulum' as place proteins are made, on 'ribosomes', is a myth.

6) Sodium and potassium and other 'pumps' in cell walls are non-existent.

7) Idea that 'receptors' exist in the walls of cells is wrong; the whole basis of immunology is wrong, and for example 'Beta Blockers' are a mistake.

8) Synapses' in the brain - the model with chemical transmission between nerves - are a mistake.

9) The traditional structures ('oligodendrocytes' etc) are insecurely founded.

10)'Neural networks' don't model the way the brain works.

11) We have some explanation for the fact that people even with severe hydrocephalus can have normal brain function.

Mumbai, India

#174153 Apr 29, 2013


Israel Created Mordechai Vanunu, Not Nukes.

Vanunu is a Mossad cutout.

Israel created Vanunu in order to add verisimilitude to their claim of having nuclear weapons. Israel has no nuclear weapons. It is a bluff.

Israel has never had a viable nuclear weapons program.

The "policy of ambiguity" itself is the first sign, for if they did have nukes they would, like any other country who has them, furnish evidence, thus making their deterrent useful.

Nukes Are Too Close For Comfort.

Next, Israel is too small to benefit from nukes.

It doesn't have enough landbase to assure that their nukes could not be taken out in one fell swoop along with all their major cities by a first strike against them.

Also, Israel's enemies are too close in proximity to Israel for Israel to consider nuking them. Israel would invariably suffer at least radioactive contamination if they attacked their neighbors. It may be even rendered uninhabitable.

Never a Nuke Test.

Another reason Israel has no nukes is: Where and when have they tested them? All countries with nuclear programs have left evidence of multiple tests. Israel has not. Are they really trying to convince the world that they have a huge arsenal which they created without so much as a single test, let alone the hundreds that are the mark of a large and developing program? No ambiguity here.

Too Broke to Afford Nukes.

Finally, follow the money. Israel has been on the dole from the beginning. Please tell me how it can afford a secret nuclear weapons program when in reality Israel's entire conventional military and its upkeep is part of a known welfare package? Simply estimate the costs of a nuclear weapons program and then look at the year to year flow of military aid to Israel and what it accounts for. You will find that there is no possiblity that Israel could come up with ambiguous trillions to accomplish this feat. Nor is it possible to believe that Israel would make its own nukes when it simply asks for and gets everything else military as a sort of political ransom to the long suffering Jews with their holocaust bludgeon and their insinuation into the affairs of Christianity.

And why would Israel spend money, money which it doesn't have, on something that would not be useful for it for the reasons as demonstrated above? Answer: It wouldn't.

Mumbai, India

#174154 Apr 29, 2013
Think About It:

Israel merely demands that the United States arm it to the teeth with conventional weapons and then that the United States fight Israel's enemies for Israel. Clearly, if Israel wanted to start a nuclear war, it would simply demand the US fight it on their behalf and provide the neccessary bribes and blackmail. Israel does not need its own nukes when it has America's.

The conclusion is that Israel is not a state in any real sense. It is predominantly a haven for international Jewry. It's weakness as a state, as a treaty signatory, as a partner in international law, further shows that it is not willing to invest what is neccessary to have a nuclear weapons program.

Mordechai Vanunu never spent time in prison. He simply lived under an assumed identity for the 18 years following his over dramatized mossad arrest. His ongoing publicity is a continuation of Israel's deception of the world about its non-existant nukes. The Mossad's motto is "By means of deception, thou shalt do war."

"The Samson Option" Deception--Seymour Hersh Lends a Hand.

Because the use of nuclear weapons would be suicidal in the Middle East it has raised doubts that Israel would actually use nuclear weapons – even if they had them. Seymour Hersh's book the Samson Option tries to convince the goy reader that Israel would commit suicide and take the whole world with it if pushed to using nuclear weapons. The book’s main purpose is to reinforce the idea that Israel has nuclear weapons, just as the imprisonment of Vanunu was designed to make us believe.

This bluff has been going on for a very long time – for at least forty years. I believe that the problems of convincing the non-Jewish world that these weapons would really be useful to the Israelis have made their charade suspect and less effectual than they have hoped – even with Hersh’s Samson Option assurances.

The Myth of the Neutron Bomb, and Other Vegetables
I believe that is why the neutron bomb was “invented”. I use the word “invented” in the sense of propaganda, not scientific invention. The neutron bomb was supposed to kill people, but leave real estate intact and uncontaminated. No more need to commit suicide and take the whole world along. The neutron bomb could be used successfully in the Middle East without creating the proverbial glass parking lot. It became the better bluff.

But I find the whole story of the neutron bomb suspect. First of all it was “invented” by one Sam Cohen who claims to have received a peace medal by Pope John Paul II for his invention. It is decidedly strange that the Pope would give a peace medal for a bomb that kills people but leaves the infrastructure intact. If the neutron bomb is the more humane weapon why isn’t it used? If you read Mr. Cohen’s biography I think you may come away with the same sense I got – that this is just another Jewish myth with the underlying purpose of bamboozling the non-Jewish public. The number of Jewish frauds that I have discovered has made me inveterately suspicious of even the most celebrated of Jewish icons – Einstein, Teller, Wiesel, Bettelheim, Freud, Boaz, Daniel Goldhagen, Stephen Spielberg, Jared Diamond, etc. I think Sam Cohen belongs on the list.

....from the internet


Mumbai, India

#174156 Apr 29, 2013
So, if Israel doesn't have nukes then what? My take is that Israel has been gifted with ready-made nukes by the international cabal that runs the world...
Alex123 WM

London, UK

#174157 Apr 29, 2013
<quoted text>
Be careful with your warnings, you can be easily label as Islamophobic. I knew some Muslims and am not scared to be killed by them.
Evil messages such as 9:29 only works in the mind of gullible people.
This "three" faced fascist who suffers from obsessive compulsive terminological inexactitude, hasn't the guts to admit that he is a closet catholic.
Alex123 WM

London, UK

#174158 Apr 29, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>Its bull-shit to you because you never read the real Bible of God.
Non "Christians" please BEWARE of a NUTCASE who tells you to pluck your eye out:

Matthew 18:9
..And if your eye causes you to stumble, GOUGE IT OUT and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell...

Trinity was not mentioned or promoted by Jesus.
"Christianity" was never mentioned by Jesus!!
The only "religious" bit of the Christian bible is made of Jewish books that were stolen and butchered!!
Alex123 WM

London, UK

#174159 Apr 29, 2013
JOEL wrote:
Why ARE Jamaica, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Qatar and the rest of the Muslim nations not participating in the ITER (hot fusion) experiment?
So, devotion to El-Jesus and to Allah-Rasool hasn't translated into intelligence that's high enough to design and experiment with high energy physics.
hey CHEAP sea lounge boy!!
You did not reply to my post about your cheap menu..or did I miss it?
Rabbeen Al Jihad

Salt Lake City, UT

#174160 Apr 29, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Very true, Junior.
There is one very important point, which the Church fathers saw and took immediate action to butcher the Hebrew Scriptures.
And that was Peter after visiting the unoccupied tomb, went home wondering what had happened? That is when the digging started, following by stealing and forging the scripture, only to be called the Old Testament.
But Misquoting Jesus aka the New Testament took about 600 plus years.
Salaamz O wonderous wazeer. I have always been impressed with your natural inclination towards civilized candor,and do appreciate your responses. Here,s another pointed fact that ALLAH never sanction'd; C 140 A.D. a monk named Marcion of Rome begins teaching of two gods(this may be the first authorized use of the term Father in reference to the Almighty),ABBA the kind and loveing Father-God,vs Yahweh The cruel dessert God.During his appointed tasks of writeing scripture he keeps only 10 letters from Paul,2/3rds of luke,and allows his anti semetic side to overcome logic by attempting to delete any and all references to jesus,s Jewishness! Fortunately the pope of the times intervenes,confiscates all Marcions writeings and forces the mainstream church to decide on a core-canon. Another "banner" example of the misled trying to mislead.LOL! CheerZ

Kingston, Jamaica

#174161 Apr 29, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, HughBe.
Good night from Singapore. Have a nice day.
Rest well, BMZ.

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.

Archaeology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Peru seeks dog breed status for ancient llama h... (Sep '06) May 11 Parden Pard 3
News Ancient artifacts seized from Hobby Lobby retur... May 2 WarForOil 2
An Exceptional Discovery-Unearthed Child at Pom... Apr 30 Jeff 5
News Archaeologists find ancient mass child sacrific... Apr 30 Poster Child for ... 1
News Experts unite to condemn plans for road tunnel ... Apr 23 TheNi6htTrain 1
News Florida beachgoers discover 'holy grail of ship... Apr '18 Vicki 1
News Mystery rock is 330,000 years old and proves an... Feb '18 Chris 1