The only thing that gives me hope is that sometimes people see the light:

Absolutely Uncertain (You Tube video by “Irina”)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgvMGLdc908&list=PLC2A32D103123C08E#t=73
18-minute mini-documentary follows the journey of Irina, a 23-year-old liberal, Jewish New Yorker who voted for Obama in 2008

Why I'm burning my last bridge with Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIMnIh10po0
Join me as I wreck my last artifact of support for the war criminal-in-chief!! *I figured out the fraud a while back, but recently found this shirt in my closet

The problem with this country is it doesn't read. It doesn't inform itself on the issues. I'd probably still be a major nigger hating racist if it wasn't for books. If you want the skinny on that go to my Facebook Notes and read my "Racism Speech" which really isn't a speech so much as it is part of my memoirs to my two boys.

I wasn't really into this Islam thing until I happened to read The Haj by Leon Uris and Because They Hate by Brigitte Gabrielle almost back to back. I'll submit the following to give you an idea of what happened.

“we may describe it, (jihad), as a surgeon's lancet and not a butcher's knife.” Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (I'm sure there are about 200 million dead people that would disagree with him. And this from the guy who's been called the Mahatma Ghandi of Islam.)

About two years ago I ordered some reading material, including Taha's "Second Message", and a “study” Koran to find out what this "Islam thing" was all about. When I was sixteen I was chanting nam yo ho renge kyo to a piece of paper, (gahonzen?), having NO idea what I was doing. A few years later, hair down to my ass and a knapsack on my back, I hitchhiked cross country, got saved in Nashville Tenn. and went to live on a Christian farm in Mansfield Ohio. (Not the prison.) My gra'mom called me a "seeker". As I said, there came a time when I wanted to understand this "religion of peace". It was Humaid's article on jihad I found in my Summarized Bukhari that decided “things” for me.

If Islam is the “religion of peace”, where in Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid's article on jihad can I find the equivalent of “Love Thy Neighbor” and “good will toward men”? And explain its prominence, and significance almost as an “Introduction”, in a book that's described as “the most authentic and true among the books of the Prophet”: My Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari. Also address “jihad” as it's defined in Reliance of the Traveller and answer the same question. (Chapter O-9.0: Jihad O: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.” And explain why the “greater” jihad is only mentioned once here and never seen again in this “Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”.)

Compare Humaid's “jihad” and Emmet Fox' Sermon on the Mount and tell me which one best represents a spirit of Love and “compassion”.

Lastly; would you pick Sheikh bin Humaid to sit on a Human Rights Commission? (That's a trick question by the way.)

Maybe you can throw in an explanation of the Jews are “monkeys, pigs and rats” on page 656 and the part where Mo says, “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” on page 613 in the chapter on Jihad.

Also, explain why Humaid's “jihad” shouldn't be “Exhibit A” in refuting the “religion of peace” claim.

I've posted this many times to many Muslims and have yet to get a single response. Well, I did receive a response from some goofball named “Dr.” Mohsen El-Guindy asking me to read his books. Instead I downloaded a bunch of his articles. Which were pure rants. An Imam, sidestepped it by telling me I had to “study Islam” to gain a greater understanding.

Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah by 'Sheikh Abdullâh bin Muhammad bin Humaid
ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?233460-Jihad-in-the-Qur-an-and-Sunnah&s=4df3fc2e4e0596eb3b38115ef4b8f506 ),

Subscribe to Jihad/Campus Watch and the Middle East Forum/Quarterly, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Gatestone Institue, FrontPage Magazine, American Thinker,The Clarion Project, Cross Muslims: Muhammad unveiled, Religion of Peace (dot com) and read Raymond Ibrahim, Efraim Karsh, Patrick Poole, Caroline Glick, Bat Ye'or and others.

“She's Buried Chest High”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXdy5Fwwfzg

“An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last. Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance.” Winston Churchill

“What the horn is to the rhinoceros, what the sting is to the wasp, the Mohammedan faith is to the Arabs of the Sudan-a faculty of offence. All the warlike operations of Mohammedan peoples are characterised by fanatacism” Winston Churchill

“While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.” Mahatma Gandhi

I agree with you on many of your points, but the United State's misdeeds don't make Putin any better of a person or politician. Russia Today is certainly pro Putin and he does have a great deal at stake in Syria in terms of arms agreements and military bases. I wouldn't exactly be quoting him as a voice of reason in the world.

Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had valid points about US policy's when he visited the UN. Anyone can do that as you well pointed out. I just don't think Putin's motives are as altruistic as he would have us believe.

>> ^CaptainObvious:

>> ^Asmo:
>> ^CaptainObvious:
Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |
Or, ya know, the right of self determination?

"The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists...
The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments... such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians....
...execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists), and restrictions on [[freedom of religion[[ and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion)...
...execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes....
Under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s human rights record "has deteriorated markedly," ... --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_
Iran
Not all countries are built the same.
"right of self determination" - well, where do you draw the line? Can dictators pull this card out as well?


You are conflating two entirely different issues, and doing a bad job of it to boot...

Iran has done the same things for years, but the only thing that get's the US and Israel wet is when nuclear is involved. Don't kid yourself for a second in believing either country would go in to save the people from a dictatorial regime, all they care about is someone else dealing themselves in to the nuclear game. I suspect you know this very well of course but it makes a much more compelling case to break out the violins and claim the action is humanitarian.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^CaptainObvious:
Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |
Or, ya know, the right of self determination?


"The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists...

The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments... such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians....

...execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists), and restrictions on [[freedom of religion[[ and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion)...

...execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes....

Under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s human rights record "has deteriorated markedly," ... --

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

Not all countries are built the same.

"right of self determination" - well, where do you draw the line? Can dictators pull this card out as well?

Best Ad EVER! Anyone see the TV quickly flash between Obama and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Just amazing...the lipstick chick telling you to shush, love it. Seriously we need more ads like this, inventive fun ads that look like a movie trailer.

>>@bmacs27: marbles
Who flew planes into the WTC on 9/11? By the way, I read "Which Path to Persia".
Have you heard of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"



Haha, let me guess. You have a argument to make that the "Which Path to Persia" manual is fraudulent?

So is that 9/11 question troll bait or what? Who made all the abnormal amount of Wall Street put bets on American Airlines and United between Sept 6 and 7. And on American Sept 10 at the Chicago Board of Options Exchange. Better yet, who sent US government made anthrax with hand written notes saying "Allah is great" to Congress men who were likely to oppose the Patriot Act?

Oh the alleged hijackers (courtesy of Paul Joseph Watson/Infowars.com):
Every single shred of evidence concerning the alleged 9/11 hijackers points to the fact that they were patsies controlled by informants working for the US government.
The US Special Operations Command’s Able Danger program identified the hijackers and their accomplices long before 9/11, but when the head of the program, Colonel Anthony Shaffer, tried to pass the information on to the 9/11 Commission, he was gagged and slandered and the vital information his team had passed on was ignored and buried.
Curt Weldon, Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, documented how the US government tracked the hijackers’ movements before 9/11.
Louai al-Sakka, the man who trained six of the hijackers, was a CIA informant. A number of the other alleged hijackers were trained at US air bases. In the months prior to 9/11, alleged hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi were renting rooms in a house owned and lived in by an FBI informant.
In a 2002 article entitled The Hijackers We Let Escape, Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman documented how, “The CIA tracked two suspected terrorists to a Qaeda summit in Malaysia in January 2000, then looked on as they re-entered America and began preparations for September 11.”
The fact that there were numerous Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists involved in the pre-planning stages of 9/11 is unsurprising given former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds’ testimony that Bin Laden was working for the US right up until the day of 9/11.

On the very morning of 9/11, the money man behind the alleged hijackers, Pakistan’s ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with U.S. government and intelligence officials.
Indeed, even after 9/11, the so-called spiritual leader of the very hijackers who allegedly slammed Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Anwar al-Awlaki, was himself invited to dine with Pentagon top brass mere months after the attack.

>> ^entr0py:

So... is this a response to the demonstrably false propaganda about the Libyan regime bombing people? If they did carry out air raids on unarmed protesters, we should consider stepping in. But there's no good reason to think that will happen. Unless you take your news from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


History can repeat itself as it has elsewhere. Never hurts to be prepared. But like KP points out, being ready for something we can't afford to finish might just be a case of posturing.

So... is this a response to the demonstrably false propaganda about the Libyan regime bombing people? If they did carry out air raids on unarmed protesters, we should consider stepping in. But there's no good reason to think that will happen. Unless you take your news from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mohammed VI on the phone with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

Mohammed: Inorite? It's fucking bullshit! Gah...

Mahmoud: Don't worry Mo, we'll make them some bullshit false promises and they will go home.

Mohammed: Well they fucking better. You know what? This is all fucking Hosni's fault. That fucking pussy couldn't keep his fucking peasants under control. Bastard.

Mahmoud: Ya... Hosni's always been a pretty big pussy. Hey listen, Mo, I gotta go, but call me if you need me. Otherwise, I'll see you at Abdullah's next week. He's going to be fighting a bear against a lion! Yippeeee!

Mohammed: Hahaha! Ok, take care Mahmoud.

The story behind the development of these planes must have been like this:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: We will strike fear in the hearts of our enemies with our advanced Iranian technology!!!
Government Pansy: Sir, we don't really have enough money or resources to develop proper weapons. But we do have these 20 old canoes, and 40 leftover airplane wings, oh, and about 40 WW2 machine guns as well. Maybe we can glue some of them together.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: PERFECT!!! MUAHAHAHAHHA (evil laugh)

This is an excellent summary of why things won't change here in the foreseeable future. The drug addict metaphor is very accurate. A part of the problem is the unending funds coming in from the US, and the lack of any requirements for them, enabling the addict.

Regardless of that, however there is no political force for peace on either side of this conflict. Israel's government is made up of mostly religious, settler and right-wing parties, and the Palestinian "government" is undergoing a power shift that will possibly result in full Hamas control of both Gaza and the West Bank. The current chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu-Mazen) declared recently that he won't be running in the coming election, leaving the Palestinians with no clear leader and a very divided political system.

So how does anyone expect this crisis to be solved, when the only people who actually care about a peaceful solution here do so for 3-4 minutes while watching a Youtube clip?

do some islamic cultures use islam to oppress women?...yes.
is this truly indicative of the original teachings of islam?...no.

You know, it would be interesting to find out more about these elusive "original teachings" of different religions, they always seems to be perfectly aligned with modern, secular, liberal values of the most gentle kind. I guess the "original" islamists knew exactly how to ignore the right verses of the Quran, like the ones describing how a womans word is worth half that of a mans word, or how they are generally impure and have to stay away from funerals, prayer etc

Because, you know, when I read the Quran, I see none of this liberal stuff shining through, on every page it seems to demand one hundred percent submission to the one true god, and descibe how unbelievers who have heard of this god (and rejected it) will burn in hell forever, unless they later embrace Islam. I seem to remember Jews being compared to "Apes and pigs", Christians and unbelievers being treated as some for of disease you'd better avoid, women as birthmachines that we (the readers, who are always men) must pretend to own and raise like we do with cattle.

If I didnt know better, I think I'd describe the Quran as a book that , if you actually followed it teachings, you'd look like Osama bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and nothing like a liberal leftie at all.

^It didn't change, Andrew Sullivan (&gwiz) interpreted the sentence "The Presidency of the Council of the EU closely followed the course of the Presidential elections held on 12 June 2009 and notices Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected" to mean they acknowledge his victory.

Mousavi is going to march in about half an hour. There have been rumors that the march was cancelled, but this was misinformation by the government. "#iranElection" on twitter and the "IRAN" group on facebook remain best sources of information. The mainstream media really dropped the ball on this one, and their headlines are a couple of hours or more behind, and not entirely reliable.

Kinda wish he had used a different word then "eliminate" near the end there.

Words must mean something.

Perhaps something that was not synonymous in meaning with words like "annihilate" or "murder" might have been a better choice? The last thing we need is for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to feel like he actually needs nuclear weapons to protect his country from the same force presently invading two of his neighbours...