I Have Legitimate Concerns About Islam And That's Not Bigotry

802 words, that’s how many you’ve expended on the above load of drivel and not once have you addressed the salient points raised in the video clip. Despite the fact that I’ve simplified those points for you twice. Or is that three times, I’ve lost count.

According to Andrea Harrn, who is a psychotherapist, passive/aggressive behaviour is defined as:

Passive aggressive behaviour takes many forms but can generally be described as a non-verbal aggression that manifests in negative behaviour. It is where you are angry with someone but do not or cannot tell them. Instead of communicating honestly when you feel upset, annoyed, irritated or disappointed you may instead bottle the feelings up, shut off verbally, give angry looks, make obvious changes in behaviour, be obstructive, sulky or put up a stone wall. It may also involve indirectly resisting requests from others by evading or creating confusion around the issue. Not going along with things. It can either be covert (concealed and hidden) or overt (blatant and obvious).

http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/counsellor-articles/what-is-passive-aggressive-behaviour

You can mess around with definitions all you like but definitions are what they are, not what you want them to be.

According to Webster’s dictionary, sophomoric is defined as:

1: conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature <asophomoric argument>
2: of, relating to, or characteristic of a sophomore <sophomoric humor>

Not only is your assertion a case of “the pot calling the kettle black”, it has no contextual relationship to your stated reason for accusing me of being sophomoric. I addressed Berangere because that’s who I wanted to talk to first. I wanted to talk to her first because I didn’t agree with her assessment of you being a Muslim Apologist. You’re simply not smart enough to one of those.

A couple of other definitions/distinctions that you need to clear up in your little brain.

To judge is not synonymous with hate. And yes, you have judged everybody that I have mentioned but I have never said that you expressed any hatred towards them. I’ve just said that you skirt around the issue without actually addressing it and you do this in a hypocritical manner. And yes, you have spared Muslims from your judgmental nonsense.

Bridget Gabriel does not quote PEW, she says “intelligence agencies”. I mentioned them when I was challenging your assertions re the accuracy of her comments. I did not directly quote them, I said that, for off the cuff statistics, hers were pretty damned accurate. As to Germany and Japan during and before WW2, “huh?” indeed. It still baffles me that you can sit there and write off entire nations without even considering what was going on in those nations and how the general population got to the position that they were in. But you insist that I do that in the case of Iran. Yet more hypocrisy methinks.

The population of the Wiemar Republic in 1925 was approx. 62 million. In 1920, the membership of the Nazi party was less than 60. By 1945, it had risen to 8.5 million. There were a total of eleven rallies held at Nuremberg, by the Nazi party, from 1923 to 1939. It is estimated that 700,000 people attended the 6th Rally in 1934. Assuming that they were all Germans and that there were similar numbers at all of the other rallies and that none of the attendees went to more than one rally then, yeah, I suppose that we could end up with the millions that you assert.

“Although the Nazis won the greatest share of the popular vote in the two Reichstag general elections of 1932, they did not have a majority, so Hitler led a short-lived coalition government formed by the NSDAP and the German National People's Party. Under pressure from politicians, industrialists, and the business community, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933. This event is known as the Machtergreifung (seizure of power). In the following months, the NSDAP used a process termed Gleichschaltung (co-ordination) to rapidly bring all aspects of life under control of the party. All civilian organisations, including agricultural groups, volunteer organisations, and sports clubs, had their leadership replaced with Nazi sympathisers or party members. By June 1933, virtually the only organisations not in the control of the NSDAP were the army and the churches.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Rally

I’ve got no idea how many Germans were involved in Kristallnacht, I’m sure you’ve got some handy statistics somewhere but, does any of that prove that the majority of Germans were not peaceful moderates? I don’t think so. Also, if we are going to use Kristallnacht as the smoking gun, then surely we should also investigate the thousands and thousands of Muslims who demonstrated in the streets and attacked embassies and did god knows what else all because a Danish newspaper dared to publish some cartoons about their prophet. Either way, we have yet more straw man arguments. Here’s another definition for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then refuting that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

The argument that I put forward was that Islamic terrorism (of the form that we are dealing with today) can be traced back to Khomeini. Have you addressed that assertion? No, you have not. You have put forward a straw man argument about how he came into power. I said that your knowledge was inaccurate. You turned the clock back a further 25 years. All of this is irrelevant, all of this is the very definition of a straw man argument because, Khomeini was a fundamentalist Muslim cleric. His supporters were and are fundamentalist Muslims. Bottom line, secular politician or corrupt Shah, both would have been targets and both would have been deposed by Khomeini and his mob. Unless, of course, you have a crystal ball that says otherwise because, there is nothing in recent history that supports your implied stance that, had Mussadegh remained in power, all in the Iranian garden would have been rosy. In fact, the opposite is true.

British colonialism. Where is the evidence that supports the notion that there is a direct correlation between the British Empire as it was and Islamic terrorism as it is? There is no such evidence. The evidence is that Islamic nutjobs come into power and people die. All over the world!

I am interested in Lebanon and the why’s and wherefores of the various wars that have taken place in that country. What I’m not interested in is your presentation and interpretation of events. However, none of that is neither here nor there because none of it is relevant to the discussion at hand. You don’t like Brigette Gabriel, so what. As I said from the outset, I’m not holding her up as a paragon of virtue. You argue about her biography, so what. Because you think that she’s not credible? Is she a witness in some court case where her credibility would be relevant? Is she running for some election that I’ve not heard about? Does anything about her past impact on the salient points that she raises in the video clip? No, no, no, no, no. As I have said before, if you can’t make such discernments then there really is no point in listening to anything that you have to say about her. Or anything else for that matter.

And on and on and on it goes, ending with your little anecdote on hate speech. Who in this entire debate has said anything that inspires, incites or otherwise generates hate. I’m talking about reality now Northwest, not what’s going on in your furtive little imagination.

I have to be honest, I feel like a bit of a fool because I’ve fallen for your insipid straw man arguments yet again. But here’s a little fun fact for you to ponder. I mentioned slavery because you were banging on about the British. I decided to hit back about America. Silly of me I know. Anyway, the dialogue then went like this:

Northwest – “Though, I really wonder, who started the slave trade in the New World. I wonder who?”

Me – “Oh and by the way, your implication that it was the British who introduced slavery to the Americas is as daft as pretty much everything else that you’ve come out with. It was the Portuguese.”

Northwest – “To further add to your history lesson, the Portuguese shipped slaves to their colonies in South America. The British were responsible for most slave shipments to our shores.

I would suggest re-reading my first post.”

The term “New World” was coined by the Florentine explorer, Amerigo Vespucci, in the very early 1500’s and it referred to the South American continent and the islands of the Caribbean. During the 1400’s, the Portuguese were establishing trade routes between Europe and the New World (aka The Americas) upon arriving on the west coast of Africa, they found that slavery was a thriving industry. Some suggest that it was predominantly practiced by Muslims and/or Muslim Arabs but we can skip that bit. I don’t want you to accuse me of hate speech again. The Portuguese took advantage of this very cheap labour source and exported it to the Americas. Later, the British and the French and the Spanish and the Dutch all jumped on the slavery gravy train. Until that is, a British politician by the name of William Wilberforce had it abolished……..by democratic means. Eighty years later, the Americans also tried to abolish slavery only this time, it resulted in a civil war.

As I’ve already admitted, I’ve fallen into your straw man trap yet again. It won’t happen next time. In future, if you do not address the central points raised then this is all you will get from me:

TOTALLY IRRELAVANT. TRY AGAIN!

@Northwest. Whenever we employ rhetoric and hyperbole in a discussion, we inevitably end up losing sight of the central points of that discussion. Something that we’ve both been guilty of. However, as with most things, it’s often important to see who instigated these distractions and who reacted to them.

I posted the video clip without any accompanying comments. I’m not so disingenuous as to suggest that I have no motive or agenda. We’ll come to what my motives are later.

I got three responses which I dealt with as briefly as was warranted by the content and brevity of those responses. And then you came along. You start by pointing out the frequency that this video clip has been posted and commenting on the bonafides of Brigitte Gabriel. To me, these were nothing more than distractions. I have been to Lebanon a number of times. I have worked there, with Lebanese people. I know, and have worked with, many Lebanese people here in the UK. I know and have worked with many Maronites (both Lebanese and non-Lebanese) in my homeland. I know what happened in South Lebanon during the civil war. I know that the town of Marjayoun is a predominantly Christian town and has been for hundreds and hundreds of years. I know that the Maronite people have been persecuted, because of this religious choice, throughout their history. If all of that (and a career spent in a number of Middle Eastern and North African nations) makes me a demagogue, then so be it.

I’m not interested in whether Ms Gabriel may or may have not exaggerated her childhood traumas. What I’m interested in is her work. You, on the other hand, feel that these exaggerations go to her accuracy and her intent. I’m happy with her intent and the intent of others that I have specifically named. Others that you completely ignored. So let’s look at her accuracy.

“There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today. Of course, not all of them are radicals the majority of them are peaceful people. The radicals are estimated to be between 15% to 25% according to all intelligence services around the world.”

According to The Pew Research Centre, as of 2010, there were 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and that population is projected to grow by 35% between 2010 and 2050. In 2013 The Pew Research Centre polled Muslims around the world about attacks on civilians. Of those polled, 72% said that it was never justified but, there was a range of 14% to 40% (depending on country polled) who said that such violence was sometimes or often justified. I don’t know about you but, for an off the cuff bit of statistics, that’s pretty damned accurate to me.

“When you look throughout history, when you look at all the lessons of history most Germans were peaceful, yet the Nazis drove the agenda and as a result 60-million people died, almost 14-million in concentration camps, 6-million were Jews. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

When you look at Russia most Russians were peaceful as well, yet the Russians were able to kill 20-million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. When you look at China for example most Chinese were peaceful as well, yet the Chinese were able to kill 70-million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

When you look at Japan prior to World War II most Japanese were peaceful as well, yet Japan was able to butcher its way across Southeast Asia killing 12-million people mostly killed with bayonet and shovels. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.”

Your response to this is both ridiculous and hypocritical in the extreme. Nations go to war. People sign up to fight in these wars. People are conscripted to fight in these wars. They sign up because of patriotism and a sense of duty, because of basic survival, because of desperation and because of ignorance. But, to you, Russians are little more than aggressive sleepwalkers and Germans and Japanese were (are?) barbaric warmongers. And yet you have the audacity to state that people like me and Brigitte Gabriel are spreading messages of hate. And let’s just skip past your nonsense about maths and what constitutes a majority because it’s even more irrelevant than “the peaceful majority”.

But your most astounding distraction came when discussing Khomeini. I stated that it was his rise to power that kick started the Islamic terrorism that we are all suffering with today. Instead of addressing this point (if you have an issue with it) you chose to bang on about how he came to power and the role that Great Britain played in that event. Mate, that is the very definition of a strawman argument right there!

So why did you do that? What’s your motive? Do you honestly believe that Britain’s oil interests, twentyfive years prior to Khomeini’s ascension to power, were a determining factor in the advent of Islamic radicalization? Do you have a crystal ball that tells you what would have happened in Iran, and the rest of the Islamic world, if Mosaddegh had stayed in power? Do you somehow know that Khomeini wouldn’t have become Supreme Leader and there wouldn’t have been a rise in Islamic fundamentalism regardless? If you do then perhaps you should take another look at events in Tunisia, Lybia, Egypt and Syria since 2010. Also have a look at events in Afghanistan since 1978.

Or, maybe, what you were really doing was creating yet more distractions. Maybe, you looked at my profile, saw that I was British and decided to go on a path of pointless mud-slinging. Pretty rich given America’s track record. But guess what, I’m British by citizenship (something that I am proud to be able to say) only. My place of birth, my heritage, my culture, my inherent identity, all stem from a former British colony. For generations my family fought for independence. So I know better than most what British colonialism actually means. Oh and by the way, your implication that it was the British who introduced slavery to the Americas is as daft as pretty much everything else that you’ve come out with. It was the Portuguese.

I said earlier that we would come back to my motives for posting this video clip. Look at the title of this group. Look at my suggested solution for Islamic terrorism. Yes, education and better living conditions and better overall opportunities are all important but, these alone do nothing when religion is at the core of this form of terrorism. One has to seek reforms in that religion and reforms always start when the population involved actually begins to question the dogma and ideology of that religion. Also, lets not forget just how wealthy Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia are. Keeping this in mind, why is it up to the West to bring about these improvements?

Now, Mr Northwest, if you can restrict yourself to the pertinent points of this discussion, I would be happy to continue this dialogue. If, however, you want continue with rhetoric, hyperbole, strawman arguments and all other forms of distractions, then don’t be surprised at the response that you may get.

Hi Beranger, Northwest is not a Muslim Apologist, not in the correct sense of the phrase. An apologist is someone who seeks to explain the behaviour of another. It comes from the Greek word apologia (btw the letter gamma i.e. g, is not pronounced as guh, it’s a y as in yes or yellow or yacht). Where was I, oh yeah, apologia. It means to defend or to explain. It is the defensive side of the adversarial legal system, of debate, of discussion and, of the general exploration of ideas and concepts. Northwest has not tried to explain or defend. All he’s done is throw in one irrelevant factoid after another.

He accuses any who disagree with him of using strawman arguments, and doesn’t seem to realise that the only person guilty of that charge is himself. He probably heard the expression somewhere, thought that it sounded clever, and has been bandying it about ever since. For the record, a strawman argument is one which attempts to derail a debate by introducing irrelevant arguments.

He also yells “lies”, not realising that anybody with the reading capacity of a ten year old can see the evidence for themselves.

Northwest, you are hypocritical and judgmental and have failed to, no I’ll change that, you have not even tried to address any of the central points raised. You judged Brigitte Gabriel, the Germans, the Japanese, the Russians, I thought that you’d skipped the Chinese until you accused them of plotting world supremacy. You’ve judged the Maronites, the Lebanese Christians and the British. The only ones that you haven’t judged is Muslims.

Let’s pretend for a moment that I agree with your accusation that the British f****d up the Middle East, as you so charmingly put it. What does that acceptance actually achieve. Nothing. In fact, it’s completely counter-productive because, it enables the fundamentalists and the radicles and the jihadists and the terrorists to function unhindered. Why spend their oil money on bettering the lives of their Muslim brothers and sisters when they can keep them as cannon fodder, all the while blaming the West because, hey, the West are blaming themselves anyway. That’s the question that Scribbles tried to put to you. Your answer,

“@scribbles: I am not really sure what your post is about. Is it possible to provide some background?”.

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

Anyway, I’m not one for pretence, I’ll leave it to you because you seem to be an expert at pretending to engage in a discussion. The Middle East doesn’t need the British (or the West) to f**k it up. It’s been doing a grand job of that itself for the last thirteen hundred years. Ever since a mediocre merchant married an ambitions widow and, between them, they decided to rule the world by inventing a new religion. A religion that is founded on war and conflict.

I told you in my very first reply to you that you didn’t understand the meaning of the message in the video clip. I’ll revise that. You ignored the meaning. For the last time, I’ll explain it to you.

It doesn’t matter that there are peaceful, moderate Muslims in the world because, we are addressing the fundamentalists and the radicles and the jihadists and the terrorists.

It doesn’t matter that the peaceful, moderate Muslims are the majority because, the numbers of the fundamentalists and the radicles and the jihadists and the terrorists are so vast, their methods so heinous and their stated objective is so contrary to all that we value that, they are a real existential threat to life as we know it.

You’ve not answered either of those points. Not once. You’ve not even tried to refute them. All you’ve done is drown this page with irrelevant claptrap.

Northwest, put your strawmen back in the fields where they belong. The black crows are filling the skies and destroying anything of value that the rest of us are trying to grow.

Finally, for your information, I don’t have a passive/aggressive bone in my body. There is passive and there is aggressive. Between those two states of being, there is the whole spectrum of behaviour ranging from patient and tolerant to acerbic and dismissive. I’ve reached dismissive with you. So, do us all a favour and go peddle your irrelevant drivel elsewhere.

"Christopher Columbus touched the continent of South America in his 1498 third voyage. In his own 1499 letter to the Catholic Monarchs of Spain, reporting the results of his third voyage, Columbus relates how the massive waters of the Orinoco delta rushing into the Gulf of Paria implied that a previously unknown continent must lie behind it. However, bowing to the classical tripartite division of the world, Columbus discards that hypothesis and proposes instead that the South American landmass is not a "fourth" continent, but rather the terrestrial paradise of Biblical tradition, not a previously unknown "new" part of the world, but a land already "known" (but location undiscovered) by Christendom.[15] In another letter (to the nurse of Prince John, written 1500), Columbus refers to having reached a "new heavens and world" ("nuevo cielo e mundo") and that he had placed "another world" ("otro mundo") under the dominion of the Kings of Spain."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World

"I told you in my very first reply to you that you didn’t understand the meaning of the message in the video clip. I’ll revise that. You ignored the meaning. For the last time, I’ll explain it to you.

It doesn’t matter that there are peaceful, moderate Muslims in the world because, we are addressing the fundamentalists and the radicals and the jihadists and the terrorists.

It doesn’t matter that the peaceful, moderate Muslims are the majority because, the numbers of the fundamentalists and the radicals and the jihadists and the terrorists are so vast, their methods so heinous and their stated objective is so contrary to all that we value that, they are a real existential threat to life as we know it."

from my reply of three days ago. which was my third attempt at explaining the central points to you.

yet again......

TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. TRY AGAIN!

@room101:

I really don't care what your motives, and I did not speculate either. I pointed out Ms. Gabriel's fallacies, and yes, someone who falsifies her resume, is not to be trusted. Whatever she says, is the fruit of the poison tree.

Further, I did not think I was attacking you, insulting you, or tell you that you are not capable of reading. So, yes, let's start by figuring out who did it. "The point that Ms Gabriel was making (because you’ve obviously missed it) is that THE PEACEFUL, MODERATE MAJORITY IS IRRELEVANT." So, I would say, it's when, despite the fact that comments were about Ms. Gabriel's response, and the question itself, and despite the fact that I addressed her issues, you resorted to insults, by alluding that I am not capable of comprehending a simple hate video.

Once you insult me, you don't get to choose how I respond.

Further, your claim that "THE PEACEFUL, MODERATE MAJORITY IS IRRELEVANT." is wrong, as THE MAJORITY WAS NOT PEACEFUL. The opposite is true. I even had to point out to you, what history clearly recorded: rallies in the Million+ in Germany in support of Hitler. You tried sarcasm, but that only works if you have a valid point.

Some additional corrections...

The Maronite, originated in Syria, and you correct, they were persecuted, which is why they initially fled to Lebanon, to Wadi Qannobeen. Have you been there? I have. However, they were actually persecuted by other Christians, who disagreed with them on theology, and that conflict was very bloody. Rather than bore you with details, you're not going to appreciate, because it will go over your head, let's focus on the modern Lebanon.

The Maronites, are responsible for their own problems. They marginalized all other sects in Lebanon, and kept ALL the major positions in their hands. The Presidency, the Armed Forces command, Military Intelligence, and Internal Security Forces, despite the fact that they did not constitute the majority. The deputy speaker of the House, and the head of the Central Bank were also Christian, and the Parliament and Council of Ministers were 6/5 in favor of Christian. So, Christians in Lebanon, were not persecuted, they were the privileged. Your claim that the Christians of Lebanon are persecuted, is about as ridiculous as your other claims.

Anything else you'd like me to teach you about Lebanon. Oh, yes, about Ms. Gabriel's home town. It was the headquarters of the South Lebanese Army, an organization, started by, and supplied by Israel. It acted as a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon, and people did not spend their days and nights in bomb shelters. It's also about 50-50, Muslim/Christian, and has always been a crossroads, all the way back, to when Saladin defeated Baldwin IV, on the outskirts of town.

The main Christian Militia, when the war started, was modeled after Hitler's Brown Shirts, and Franco's Phalanges. Also, Christians were not unified in that war, and what followed. At least half of Lebanon's Christians, oppose the side Ms. Gabriel supports. They cannot even agree on a candidate for the Presidency, and that office has been vacant for more than 2 years, because Maronites who are split 50-50, politically, cannot agree on a consensus candidate. The real joke, is that Hariri, the former PM, supports Franjieh, an uneducated thug, because the former King, used to hunt with his grandfather. Another thug.

Your ridiculous claim that the Germans and Japanese, were led by the nose, into a WWII, is disproved by history. The leaders of both countries, were elected and democratically appointed to their positions.

As to the PEW research, Ms. Gabriel, true to her lies, does not quote the research properly. Here's a link to the real research: http://pewrsr.ch/2ahvujP

Not that I really put much stock into polls taken anywhere other in places, where you already have democracies.

Back to Kohmeini and Mosaddegh. Are you really that naive, to believe that the two are not related? Mosaddegh, a secular, who favored separation of state and religion, was elected the majority, proving that at the time, in 1951, the majority of Iranians, favored a secular country.

I understand that you're a denial of history, based on your claims of a peaceful majority in Germany and Japan, pre WWII, but the history of the coup in Iran is very well documented. A couple of links for you, seeing that you don't know how to research things that do not support your fantasies:

http://bit.ly/1snDH2Q
http://bit.ly/2aEftzM

It's actually quite easy. Just google iran + coup + 1953

The Shah threw popular secularists in jail, surrounded himself with corrupt middle management, that stole the people's money, and with a generation and a half, created a religious majority, looking for leadership and Khomeini was more than happy to fill the role.

How you became a British citizen, is also irrelevant to this discussion. I brought British Colonialism up, because you seem oblivious to its role in how the Middle East for fucked up.

To further add to your history lesson, the Portuguese shipped slaves to their colonies in South America. The British were responsible for most slave shipments to our shores.

I would suggest re-reading my first post.

@Northwest. Is there really any point in discussing this with somebody who clearly can only resort to pointless rhetoric. I’ll try. But forgive me if chose to deal in like for like.

Scratch the surface of pretty much any nation at pretty much any point in history and we find all manner of nefarious deeds. You know, like perpetuating slavery decades after it was banished in the UK, France and a number of other European countries. Or maybe a nation whose commercial interests govern everything from the wellbeing of its citizens to its foreign policy. Or maybe a nation which seemingly sees no value in the lives of its black citizens. But that’s not the point. As you say, we evolve. Shame that the “white folks” you speak of are still finding it almost impossible to evolve. But, we live in hope.

So what is the point, I hear you ask. It’s that evolution requires some kind of trigger. Some kind of change in the environment. I, Ms Gabriel, Maajid Nawaz and many others, see that change as coming from Islam itself. You know, just like it did in the Christian world during The Reformation. The next question being, how do we encourage such a reformation in the Islamic world. Well, I already gave my answer to that. Something that you chose to ignore and, instead, decided to focus on my poor maths. Erm, one little question (you’ve probably noticed that I like asking questions, just as I’m willing to offer solutions) where did I state that majority equals 100%?

As to your woefully inaccurate understanding of the events which led to Khomeini becoming the Supreme Leader of Iran; he had been in exile for fourteen years because of his opposition to the Shah and the U.S. He opposed the U.S. because of the influence your nation had over the Shah and, to him, you were The Great Satan. In January 1979, the Shah left Iran ostensibly on vacation. The reality being that he had been encouraged to leave by Iran’s Prime Minister, Shapour Bakhtiar, who convinced him that he would calm the political unrest in his absence. Within two weeks Khomeini had seized power. Within ten months the American embassy siege commenced and the world has lived under the threat of Islamic terrorism ever since.

Finally, I ended my previous reply to you by asking if you had a solution to this plague. You didn’t reply so, I’m asking again. What’s your suggestion?

Hi everybody, I’m back. Nope, I didn’t throw myself off the nearest tall building.

Berangere, there really is no point in trying to engage with Northwest. He’s far too busy sitting astride his great white steed, looking down on all of us fallible mortals and passing judgments. Judgments which have very little correlation with reality. And I love the way that he insists that you must quote sources from SW only and then, points you to his own meanderings on the topic.

Scribbles, you’re right, there is no “one answer fits all” to this problem. As is almost always the case. But, how can we hope for a solution to come from within if “within” is where the problem stems. Northwest and his ilk insist that Islamic fundamentalism, radicalization and terrorism all stem from the actions of the west. He seems to have a thing for the British.

Great Britain had the most far reaching empire in human history and yet, we don’t see this form of globalized terrorism from any of its former colonies. Other than from Palestine. Which just happens to a Muslim country.

He also points to the machinations of the British vis a vis oil. OPEC celebrated its 50th Anniversary last year which means that oil production, and pricing (and everything else), have been in the hands of the indigenous owners of those oil wells for fifty years. Of course the west has manipulated those owners, both politically and individually. But isn’t that always the case when there are large profits to be had. More so if the resource in question basically affects every walk of life. Therefore, if this manipulation is one of the root causes of terrorism, why don’t we see it in other situations where the west has stuck its oar in. Why only in Muslim countries.

Education, social equality, and general advancement are all important but, how is this “from within” thing supposed to happen if Islam itself doesn’t accept that it needs to change.

Oh yeah, through evolution. I wonder how many non-Muslim countries will survive that process.

" Which leads me on to the question of how do we defeat an ideology. But first let me ask a question. Would you say that the ingrained and institutionalised racism in America, during the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s (and before, and since) was an ideology? I would. Here’s another question. How did Martin Luther King deal with that ideology? He dealt with it, and to a great extent defeated it, by making ordinary, peaceful, moderate, WHITE Americans look at themselves and see what they were doing. "

I went back to rewatch the video, and ended up reading a few comments as well. Anyway your comment struck me as a good one. Maybe its because I had a moment with a student yesterday who has strong moral jiu-jitsu. Bullies beware :) And actually most children are constantly fighting ideologies in a multitude of ways. lol

My question is...where does one start?

defeating an ideology is a very difficult and time consuming business...even if its just fighting one person's ideology rather then millions. And i'm not sure it could be said that Martin Luther King to a great extent defeated it in America. He won some important battles. But in many places, I think Black people still have it very bad, and white people are just as ridiculous and racist as ever.

so maybe fighting a radical islamic ideology by shaming them and turning a mirror on them might help...so that groups like Isis are harder to form...but I think it would be terribly difficult...unless change comes from the inside of such groups as well. and how do you make someone want to change?

I don't know where or why or how Islamic fundamentalism, radicalism, or terrorism came from. or about many things some of you are saying. and part of me doesn't care...ok I do care just not much this second

mostly what I do care about is confronting the who, what, and why when someone is doing harm to another. the rest is just bickering details...isn't it? idk.

Things like education or evolution in particular are slow sure deaths for anything eventually. that is the nature of change. and can be nice to know it exists sometimes especially when one can believe one group is more apt to be adaptable and survive over another. But its also a whole lot of not doing much when it involves people who have no wish or no motivation to listen or change... and alot like giving up on the present or immediate future and the people that exist in that time. Its why i want little to nothing to do with the very fundamentalist culture and religion i grew up in. Its why I never became a social worker either. because its the same problem. or it makes me think of all the people who knew there was problems with my family...and my childhood and chose to do absolutely nothing and turn a blind eye. I guess a person can believe enough in it so they feel like something is being done. idk. but it doesn't do much for victims. and there is no justice in it either. and i know i generally don't care about justice, but its one thing to reject justice as a personal choice...and another for lots of other people.

maybe evolution is the only way for change. if so, i think that is very sad, but it shouldn't keep one from doing what they can to encourage constructive change either, right?

@room101:

Yes, given how complex geopolitics are, to continuously drag the past into the present, to score points, is, frankly, pointless. So, when I raised some legitimate issues, with the video:

1. Ms. Gabriel, being a known liar, starting with the fabrication of her own biography.

2. That she lied when she created an equivalency between WWII Japan and Germany, but saying that those who supported the war were a minority. No, they were a majority.

3. That she actually knows, that Radical Islam (whatever that means), represents at least 25% of Islam.

Well, that's it. #2, and #3 is the bulk of that video.

So, what you did, is immediately accuse me of being ignorant, and you brought Khomeini, a man who's been dead for 27 years, into it. At that point, I needed to remind you, that your government is the one that brought Khomeini to power, by re-instating, by force, the Shah of Iran, to keep British Petroleum in charge, not to mention having randomly drawn up a map of the Middle/Near East, 100 years ago, to favor British interest, leading to the fucked up situation we have today.

What's more interesting, is what you claim is my "woefully inaccurate understanding of the events which led to Khomeini becoming the Supreme Leader of Iran"

You're either a demagogue, or too ignorant of the facts. I'll leave it up to you to decide, but Khomeini, did not instantly become a leader in exile. It started with Mossadegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, from 1951 to 1953. Mossadegh, was moving the country toward a secular democracy, and the nationalization of the oil industry, something BP, and by extension, the British Government. So, MI6 talked the CIA, into organizing a coup, to oust Mossadegh, and re-installing the Shah as a supreme leader. The Shah empowered his entourage, and abused the people, leading to Khomeini's rise. Khomeini fled the country in 1964, and established the Islamic resistance, that eventually led to the Shah's demise.

So, you're welcome. Is your vision as Myopic, as your understanding of his history?

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and when you start slinging mud, don't be surprised if you get push back.

At that point, you threw a tantrum, and took us back to slavery. Though, I really wonder, who started the slave trade in the New World. I wonder who?

FYI: I didn't think something this simple needs explaining, but apparently, you need to be told that millions of Germans, attended Hitler's rallies, but not necessarily the same rally. Although, his biggest rallies, fit 350,000 in the parade grounds (Neuremberg) and upward of 1.5 million around it.

Majority = 100% is something you proposed, when you put all Americans in the same class as Trump. You said it was my logic, but it was simply a strawman, you threw into the mix.

Since you're poor at reading comprehension, I did respond to your proposal of peaceful resistance, to counter radical Islam, and told you that, in the US, it did not manage to change White attitude. That took decades, and it's still here, given the lessons of our last two elections.

Evolution, education, and improved socio-economic conditions, will fix that, if we allow it to. It will not happen, as long as people like you, and the phony Ms. Gabriel, keep spreading a message of hate.

room101@ I understand why you did this,but I hope you had a look at the article about that poor woman,if you want to see it I can post it,Northwest will not see it as you have blocked him.

As a matter of interest.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiquqWR0cTOAhVLHpQKHSBJAooQqQIILDAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fnews%2F2016-08-15%2Fislamic-islamophobia-when-muslims-are-not-muslim-enough-what-does-it-promise-rest-us&usg=AFQjCNGlHm3jeDwInhjrDelakzgmoeNecA&sig2=pjCS3gIKSsYPvMwu0O_hIw&bvm=bv.129422649,d.dGo

@Northwest.

“But you did. Even when you attempt sarcasm, it backfires on you.”

I ended with……….“so no Northwest, don't try again. you're full of shit and you have been all along.”

“Nations go to war. People sign up to fight in these wars. People are conscripted to fight in these wars. They sign up because of patriotism and a sense of duty, because of basic survival, because of desperation and because of ignorance. But, to you, Russians are little more than aggressive sleepwalkers and Germans and Japanese were (are?) barbaric warmongers.”

From my response to you circa 13th Aug (shame that SW doesn’t give specific dates).

Hitler was not democratically elected. FACT.

In 1925, right wing politicians in Japan enacted the Peace Preservation Law which basically put an end to political freedom.

Between 1932 to 1936, Japan was under Martial Rule. The very antithesis of democracy. This political ideology continued, in one form another, until the US dropped its atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The next time you try to bone up on history, I would strongly recommend that employ a human perspective. Instead of presenting events so that they support your judgmental and hypocritical claptrap, try and understand the simple points that I put to you approx. two weeks ago.

Christopher Columbus planted his flag in Venezuela on 1st Aug 1498.

Between 1418 and circa 1470, the Portuguese carried out voyages whose purpose was to remap the regions south of Portugal. They tried, but failed, to map what became the Eastern Seaboard of North America.

In 1526, the Portuguese completed the first slave run from Africa to the Americas.

The British arrived in North America in 1607. They brought with them indentured servants, who were primarily of European decent. The first recorded African slaves to be taken to North America, by the British, occurred in 1619.

“In a different version of her (not so spontaneous) speech, she attributes it to Pew research (another lie).”

From you approx. two days ago.

So now we have to critique every video clip on YouTube that features Brigitte Gabriel. Give me fucking break (to use your parlance). Previously you were creating straw men, now you’re just clutching at straws.

Go away Northwest. I’m sick of being subjected to the nonsense that spews forth from your keyboard.

Northwest@ In reply to your statement.


https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj2tK7khLPOAhUFJ5QKHVpzBUQQFggpMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2F2015-09-29%2Fsparrow-blind-eye-to-saudi-arabia%27s-brutality%2F6813422&usg=AFQjCNG2rrZNPc_til3ID-rQ8Bjc7yBPgQ&sig2=yjxBJ0bbhxOck42M6caOLg

@room101:

You're back with more lies.


This is really pathetic. A poor attempt at being passive aggressive. Are you that desperate? and is your argument so void of convincing arguments, you have to resort to this? If you don't know what passive aggressive behavior is, look it up.


This would be one of your lies.


Two lies, in one sentence. You're getting better at this. Previously, you were restricting yourself to one lie per sentence. For instance, your claim that modern day Lebanon's Christians, are persecuted.


You're mixing up different timeframes. I'm sure this is directed at those who think like you, as you all confuse things on regular basis. It does seem though, that you're a denier/inventory of history. Kind of like Sarah Palin, or Brigitte Gabriel

Some links to what actually happened.

http://bit.ly/1snDH2Q
http://bit.ly/1tkaJCy
http://bit.ly/2bhVUOD

While OPEC may be 50 years old, the events in question, are 63 years old, and led to a "manipulated" OPEC. When Ghaddafi was upset that he was powerless, within the OPEC framework, he sent Carlos to attack one of its meetings. When the US and Saudi wanted to bring Iran to its knees, Saudi ran its own production quotas...

Palestine is a Muslim Country? History of Palestine terrorism, in what was Palestine, and today, is Israel, the West Bank and Gazza, started with Jewish organizations. You conveniently forget the other thing that goes with Palestine: it is an occupied country, and parts of it, continue to be colonized by Evangelical-supported, Jewish extremists.

Your conclusion, is very similar to that of the Syrian "Intelligence" officer. They brought him a grasshopper. He cut off his front legs, and clapped. The grasshopper jumped. He cut off his middle legs, and clapped, the grasshopper jumped. He cut off his hind legs, and clapped. The grasshopper did not jump. His conclusion: if you cut off a grasshopper's legs, he will lose his hearing.

@room101: Passive aggressive behavior, is when you start recruiting others, in a subtle or not so subtle way, in your hateful quests.

For instance, instead of addressing me directly, you tell berangere about my issues. This is sophomoric behavior.

Use of terms like "He accuses any who disagree with him" is another indicator of passive aggressive behavior. This opinion is further enforced, when you say something like "The only ones that you haven’t judged is Muslims." Which of course is bullshit, starting with the use of the word "judged".

So, to re-iterate what I initially said:

Brigitte Gabriel, is a self-promoter, with a biography about as inflated as her Donald Trump's. She did not suffer the atrocities, she claims she did. She was never in a bomb shelter for 7 years. She was did not fear for her life from Muslims, where she grew up. The events that took place in her hometown, are very well documented. Her group was the "aggressor", not the other way around. The detention/torture jails in her town, are very well documented, a town that was under her group's control.

What I initially commented on, is the comparisons she made in her video:

So, I understand that Ms. Gabriel is quite adapt at making shit up, but it was a majority of the Germans and Japanese that supported the war efforts, not a minority. So, instead of accepting this simple historical fact, you argued that no stadium in Germany can hold a million people. Huh?

She also mis-quoted a PEW research report. I posted a link to the actual report, but you chose to ignore that. It's really simple. If 25% of Muslims in the West, support ISIS, and support suicide attacks, then how come we did not have 750,000 terrorist attacks in the USA? And that would be assuming that we only have 3M Muslims in the USA.

As to colonialism, the British, etc. This goes back to your strawman. You're attempt at sarcasm here, falls flat on its face, as you still don't realize what it means. Let me help you out a bit. You brought Khomeini into the discussion, and claimed that it all started out with him.

That's when I stepped in, and corrected you, because you seem to be ignorant of historical facts (after all, you are the one who supported Ms. Gabriel's WWII fantasies). If you want to open up the Khomeini can of worms, then you have to go back to what created Khomeini. Any 2nd grader can tell you, that it started out with the overthrow of Musaddegh in 1953 by MI6 and the CIA, to support BP's claims on Iranian oil. That's a statement of historical fact, and not hate.

Let's also examine your claims in regards to Lebanon's Maronites. You claim that I hate them, but you have no idea how laughable your claim is. I am simply setting the record straight, because you're lying. The Maronites (Eastern Catholics, in commune with Rome, since the 11th Century), have been the abusive party in Lebanon. Even as a minority (though the largest Christian group), they have constitutional right to the Presidency, The leadership of the Armed Forces, and control over both Military Intelligence and the Deuxieme Bureau (equivalent of MI5 and MI6, or the FBI and the CIA). In addition, the Christians of Lebanon had control of both the Parliament and the Council of Ministers, in a 6/5 formula.

Instead of using their power, to develop a more equitable situation for everyone in the country, they clung to power, and modeled their militia after the Hitler Youth. No, I am not simply tossing Hitler into the conversation. The leader of the Phalange Militia, was so impressed with the Hitler Youth, following the Berlin Olympics, that he modeled his own storm troopers, after the Hitler Youth.

Anyone who claims that Lebanese Christians were abused, is a plain liar (like Ms. Gabriel), or ignorant of the facts. I am sure that you, will now repeat your idiotic claim, that I hate Lebanon's Maronites. Which would be inaccurate. I did have that conversation (Lebanon's Christians culpability) with a couple of Maronite friends over lunch yesterday, at a new Lebanese restaurant, run by a former Phalange member, who ironically, had a Smith & Wesson in a hip holster, as he was standing behind the counter. No, we were not in Beirut. We were in a Seattle suburb, where open carry is legal. First time I see this. Not even in Texas.

Then again, perhaps the guy was nervous. Only a week ago, a Lebanese-American, Christian, was gunned down in front of his own house, in Oklahama, by a neighbor, who was screaming "ditry ayrabs, dirty moooslems". And I guess that was my final point: hate speech inspires people to do stupid shit.

it's been at least a week since i blocked Northwest and it's really bugging me. the guy irritated me no end but, blocking him? idk.......isn't that a form of censorship?

anyway, i've decided to unblock him. wish me luck lol

"the fruit of the poison tree"!!!! for gods sake just listen to yourself. that's why i reacted the way that i did to you. because you ignore the message and prattle on about her not being trustworthy.

mate, I DON'T CARE! what i care about is the message. she's not up for election. she's not somebody who is going to impact on my life or on the lives of my nearest and dearest. she's just another pundit. a pundit that, to me, has some value in her words and deeds. that's it. nothing more, nothing less. if you cannot make such simple discernments then why, by all that is holy, should anybody listen to a single word that you say?

if i can be bothered, i'll read the rest of your monologue later. if i haven't decided to jump off the nearest tall building by that point, i may reply.

@berangere: There were a handful of times in our (relatively) modern history, that people fleeing genocide, and the horrors of war, were turned away by wealthy and healthy nations. The Jews in WWII, various African nations' conflicts and more recently the mostly Muslim refugees from the Middle/Near East.

What's the common thread? they were all considered non-white, or coming from an undesirable religion.

So, now, you and some other people have legitimate concerns. There are always concerns, but we seem to set those aside, when it comes to people who may be "like" us.

Let's take the US for instance. At least half the population is up in arms, about the supposed influx of Syrian refugees. They are concerned about ISIS sleeper agents, and what Muslim refugees can do to the religious balance in the US. Mind you, no such influx exists now.

We did have an influx though. In 1980. Castro decided to allow Cubans, who have relatives in Miami, to flee the country. The Cuban community in Florida arranged for a boat lift, that ran for several months and brought 250,000 refugees. We knew that at least 10% of those refugees were hard core criminals (murderers, assassins, etc.) and that Castro was trying to clean up his jail, but no one raised a stink, because Cubans are mostly Catholic.

Since January 1st of this year, about 2,600 people have been shot in Chicago alone. These are not crimes related to ISIS or Islamism. They are however related to how poorly integrated our society is, and that the real source of crime, is not religion, but socio-economics and fear.

The type of far spread by propaganda, that's not hateful, but raises "concerns".

@room101 says (a whole lot of nothing and a mix of fantasy and what I can only assume, is alcohol/drug fueled barrage of inaccuracies, and sophomoric insults), and then he says:



Wow! That's really cool, given that Columbus reached the New World, on Oct 12, 1492.


and I will, just as soon as you raise points, instead of accusing people of not knowing what they're talking about.

PS: I could have saved you days of research, and told you that, when Hitler was named Chancellor, he did not have a majority, and it the military industrial complex, thought that he was a buffoon, they can control, or at best, a scapegoat. Surprise. Since you have no clue what you're talking about, stating it as it was, is not attacking nations.


It's stating the truth, and showing that your idol, Ms. Gabriel, has no clue what she's talking about. Not that you know much about Lebanon, judging by the claims you made.

Oh, and let's not forget about the hypocrisy issue. Bitching about an 802 word post, inside an 1,1748 words post. Nice.

@berangere: Seeing that you did not understand my previous two posts, I'll try one more time: I don't need to read the blog you posted a link to, to improve my understanding of why the West will not publicly condemn Saudi Arabia. I've already posted a much longer analysis, shortly after SW opened up for business.

People are big on talk, but when it comes to it, will not do what's needed to make a difference. Remind me again of what you're doing about Saudi Arabia, when you switch to a Hybrid, or to an electric car, with your own solar charger.

Not to mention those who cry foul when we try to cut a deal with Iran, only to realize that they "need" Saudi to counter Iran's influence.

[media=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z0hZrwy2Ns]

Northwest @ Did you really read that link? The link is spot on! It explains why politicians go easy on Saudi-Arabia and it is the same as condoning their actions.Saudi-Arabia was named THE HEAD OF THE HUMAN RIGHT COUNCIL! what a Joke! And they were about to do another beheading,a 21 year old Shia activist named Mohammed al-Nimr who had been imprisoned since the age of 17 for daring to speak up against their brand of Islam.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjrlZKIv7POAhVBLmMKHftWDcwQFggqMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.unwatch.org%2Findex.php%2F2015%2F09%2F20%2Fsaudi-arabia-wins-bid-to-behead-of-un-human-rights-council-panel%2F&usg=AFQjCNFA_BmHNQPNwZfCuHajTsHTjLhUQg&sig2=2-JduzDEIMKdyPO7V7D3jw

Northwest@ Politicians in the west do not tend to condemn Saudi-Arabia"s barbarous practices as much as they ought to, mostly for economic reasons,I believe the link I gave you below has answered your question.This is the point I am trying to make.

One of you might want to give northwest this chart so he can throw darts and come up with his next response regardless what the question is😀

I totally agree with what Brigitte says.Again that young woman is using the "all Muslims" card.

lol Imperial, no need to make anymore popcorn. not for now anyway. and isn't it always the way........we only reach those who agree with us.

@berangere: you know, the most ironic part about this, is that you have no clue who Frank Gaffney is. I'm betting his grandfather, is rolling in his grave.

You see Frank's grandfather, a Catholic, was accused of being a Catholic agent, trying to seize control of American institutions, and empower the Pope to control America.

Sounds familiar?

Actually, berangere, you and Gaffney have a lot in common. Consider that the ACU says about him (American Conservative Union) "has become personally and tiresomely obsessed with his weird belief that anyone who doesn't agree with him on everything all the time or treat him with the respect and deference he believes is his due, must be either ignorant of the dangers we face or, in extreme case, dupes of the nation's enemies"

Northwest@ I am sure you will have plenty to say about that young man!

[media=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrftNbVMJVo]

@Northwest: "You cannot make someone change" I was just thinking that...because I really believe that is true. You can break someone down until they compromise or hide who they are, or temper their actions or impulses or whatever...but they never really change their nature and prejudices. True for everyone, I think. And I often wonder...if a person is still be a bully...even for right reasons? and a person just have to live with that...like a lesser of two evils choice?idk

What do you think should be done about any form of radicalism?

Nortwest@ Then what do you want me to say? I said it already.

@berangere: If you wanted an opinion, on the why the West turns a blind eye (not the same as being an apologist, not by a long shot), then you should have read one of my SW posts on Saudi Arabia.

Not for nothing, but when I ask a question related to SW, please don't post irrelevant info from the web, on why we cannot do without Saudi's oil, and its deterrent factor against Iran.

I'm still waiting for a reference from SW.

@ Northwest. I’m not holding up Ms Gabriel as a paragon of virtue and, what difference does it make if this video clip has been circulated once or 10,000 times on this or any other internet forum.

Yes, thousands of Germans attended Hitlers rallies and yes, he was democratically elected. By your logic does that mean that, should Trump become your next president, every American is a racist, isolationist, hypocritical moron?

Yes, the Japanese had a very martial view of life in general. That’s why a tiny island nation was able to conquer the giant that is China. Not to mention their other military achievements, regardless of how distasteful those achievements are to us. But does that mean that, as a nation, they were any less peaceful than any other nation?

The point that Ms Gabriel was making (because you’ve obviously missed it) is that THE PEACEFUL, MODERATE MAJORITY IS IRRELEVANT. Which is what the Muslim woman opened her question with when she talked about how many billions of practicing Muslims there are in the world. Conveniently skipping the bit that, in percentage terms, the radicals make up a population the size of America’s. To me, what was even more important was Ms Gabriel’s observation that there was only one Muslim in the room.

Which leads me on to the question of how do we defeat an ideology. But first let me ask a question. Would you say that the ingrained and institutionalised racism in America, during the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s (and before, and since) was an ideology? I would. Here’s another question. How did Martin Luther King deal with that ideology? He dealt with it, and to a great extent defeated it, by making ordinary, peaceful, moderate, WHITE Americans look at themselves and see what they were doing.

To me that’s what Ms Gabriel is doing. That’s what organisations like Quilliam Foundation are doing. That’s what needs to be done.

If you have any other solutions to the problem that’s plaguing our planet and has been plaguing our planet since the rise to power of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, I would very much like to hear them.

Northwest @ I Cannot believe your trying to discredit that link! Unbelievable!!

Northwest@ Those videos make a great deal of sense and again you are trying to discredit them.The people taking part in those videos are highly respected and knowledgeable people that simply cannot be compared to the Nazis. You just do not make any sense.

Northwest@ you cannot blame Frank Gaffney for the actions of his grandfather.To me what he says makes a great deal of sense knowing how those particular Muslims operate to undermine the constitution of America.
And just below you twisted everything around.I said that the two videos I posted made a great deal of sense and they absolutely cannot be compared to Nazi propaganda.Please stop obfuscating the issue and making me say what I do not say!

Nortwest@ as our friend would say.I REST MY CASE!

@room101:

"Yes, thousands of Germans attended Hitlers rallies"

More like millions, making them the majority.

The point about her background, is that, well, she's a liar, so when she says that the Germans and Japanese, who supported the war, were a minority, it's another lie. Why am I saying it again? because it went over your head the first time.

Another thing you don't clearly understand, is that the reason why Japan was able to conquer China, is called advanced weaponry. The same reason Europeans were able to conquer the Americas.

Another thing that went over your head, is that I did not claim that majority=100%. Your logic, is about as flawed as your math.

If the majority if Germans, supported Hitler (not thousands, as you claim), it does not make all Germans racist.

So, that's my logic, and according to it, just because 13M Americans voted for Trump, it does not make all of us racists, bigots, liars, and xenophobes.

I guess, using that same logic, you're not a rapist, murderer, bigot, xenophobe, and a thief, just because the UK raped, murdered, and stole the resources of all the countries it enslaved.

You conveniently forgot to mention the reason Khomeini rose to power: that coup, by the British, supported by us, to bring the Shah back to power, just so we can make British Petroleum happy.

Another thing you clearly don't seem to understand: MLK's methods did not win over the white folks, but decades of evolution did. If in doubt, check out how many people support Trump. A few more decades of evolution, we might get there. A few more decades of recovery from British colonialism, might get the Middle East to a better place.

I am reading your posts properly, and I am quoting you properly. You said:


And I responded specifically about Saudi Arabia. If you're aware of anyone, apologizing for Saudi Arabia's behavior, post a link. Don't blame me for what you post.

Northwest @ I DID NOT SAY that the videos and propaganda of the Nazi did not make any sense I said YOU did not make any sense comparing the two videos I posted below to Nazi propaganda.

Northwest@ that is your opinion.

@berangere says:
When in fact, she said:

@betangere: I'm always amazed when people think their religions, or the religions they support, are different from those they critique.

When you say that Islam has a self appointed "prophet", don't you think you're singling that religion out? It's as if all the other religions have prophets who are not self appointed.

Islam is as diverse as Christianity, and today, I don't see Islam waging war on anyone. Some extremists, who adhere to their own interpretation of Islam, are waging war, mostly on other Muslims. It's kind of like Bush, starting a war that killed hundreds of thiusands, because he thought God inspired him to do so. As to Judaism, do I need to remind you of the violent nature of Netanyahu's government?

Northwest@ I believe that Frank Gaffney has vision and those who have a clear understanding of what is really going on regarding the Muslim situation are often discredited and demonized by those who should wake up or those who know exactly what is going on but have an agenda in seeing the Muslim ideology of world domination succeed.Many apologists I believe have that agenda because one must be really blind not to see the atrocities committed in the name of that barbarous Islamic ideology all over the world, the thousands of deaths and counting. It beggars belief!

Northwest@ Now you are telling me that people who voice very legitimate fears about Islam are not called RACISTS by Islam apologists? What have YOU been smoking!! I was not talking about people criticizing the Saudi-Arabia's regime being called racists,please read my posts properly.

Northwest@ I would be more concerned about the Muslims and their ideology than I would be about any Christian outfits. Frank Gaffney, is exposing the truth about the infiltration of sharia law into the American constitution,step by step.There is active jihad that everybody know about and passive jihad that very few people suspect is taking place and the enemy within is a very good description of it and we need people like Frank Gaffney to expose it and warn us all,regardless whether the protestants used the same argument against his Catholic grandfather.What you are saying is irrelevent.

A very insightful video.

[media=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD5v_6q9_Aw]

Thanks for the clarification, so you decided to respond with 1,748 words of irrelevance. Nice.

Still waiting on your tale of time travel, to explain how the Portuguese, were perfecting their slave trade, to the New World, throughout the 1,400s.

Probably explain your claim that "thousands" of Germans supported Hitler.

Keep them coming.

Reminder: I will respond to issue, when actual issues are presented.

But, do entertain me please, and tell me again, how Lebanon's Christians were persecuted.

Wow.