So when is the EU gonna make the switch to Sharia Law? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

psili · 05-05-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlantisCash

My advice is stop pumping hate, You won't be making any benefit from this.

Would you / did you chant death to a cartoonist for mocking Mohammed?

BFT3K · 05-05-2009, 04:08 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30572929/

AtlantisCash · 05-05-2009, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psili

Would you / did you chant death to a cartoonist for mocking Mohamed?

No i didn't, but i wouldn't draw carton for Jesus though, saying that regardless to Muslims believed Jesus was/is a Prophet sent by GOD.

i mean i would never act disrespect to anyone's beliefs as that Guy did, because i learned not mocking with people's beliefs from my cultural heritage and traditions.

AtlantisCash · 05-05-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30572929/

a few Very simple question to You,

1. Taleban brought to head of the Afghanistan By who?

2. Stinger missiles was their one of the most powerful weapons, those stinger missiles granted to tale ban by who?

3. which country is the biggest weapon producer and where Taleban and other terrorist groups buying their guns?

Pleasurepays · 05-05-2009, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlantisCash

No i didn't, but i wouldn't draw carton for Jesus though, saying that regardless to Muslims believed Jesus was/is a Prophet sent by GOD.

i mean i would never act disrespect to anyone's beliefs as that Guy did, because i learned not mocking with people's beliefs from my cultural heritage and traditions.

yeah... muslims are well known across the globe for being tolerant of other peoples beliefs. islam loves infidels and their beliefs!

and fuck you. fuck your defense of people rioting and destroying shit and hurting people over a cartoon. you're an example of what is wrong with islam in the world and peoples image of it. we live in the free world jackass. not some quasi-failed, 3rd world state. in the developed world, we enjoy the freedom to express ourselves. its part of what makes others more human than you. you don't have to like whats being said.. but you should afford them the same respect for their opinions and views that you demand for your own. otherwise, your just a whiny bitch that's making my point for me.

you will defend some cunts refusal to take off her burka to get her drivers license picture... BUT, you fucking idiots would violently protest some chick wanting to take the pic in her bikini... so lets not pretend islam is the voice of reason, tolerance and fairness. its exactly the opposite.

AtlantisCash · 05-05-2009, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

yeah... Muslims are well known across the globe for being tolerant of other peoples beliefs. Islam loves infidels and their beliefs!

and fuck you. fuck your defense of people rioting and destroying shit and hurting people over a cartoon. you're an example of what is wrong with Islam in the world and peoples image of it. we live in the free world jackass. not some quasi-failed, 3rd world state. in the developed world, we enjoy the freedom to express ourselves. its part of what makes others more human than you. you don't have to like whats being said.. but you should afford them the same respect for their opinions and views that you demand for your own. otherwise, your just a whiny bitch that's making my point for me.

you will defend some cunts refusal to take off her burka to get her drivers license picture... BUT, you fucking idiots would violently protest some chick wanting to take the pic in her bikini... so lets not pretend Islam is the voice of reason, tolerance and fairness. its exactly the opposite.

do You read what i typed above or just ignore it and talking out of Your ass?

i never said i support some people harm and destroyed things, i just said i don't agree with what he did.

Yes i might be living in a developing country, but at least i defend my arguments as a humankind, unlike You defend Your argument with insults and name calling.

now take Your childish keyboard warrior insults in the ass and go fuck yourself, idiot

Pleasurepays · 05-05-2009, 06:56 PM

.... and fuck you again for Tarkan/Simarik.

had that retarded song stuck in my head for a few years and i don't even speak Turkish.

BFT3K · 05-05-2009, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlantisCash

a few Very simple question to You,

1. Taleban brought to head of the Afghanistan By who?

2. Stinger missiles was their one of the most powerful weapons, those stinger missiles granted to tale ban by who?

3. which country is the biggest weapon producer and where Taleban and other terrorist groups buying their guns?

Why are you asking ME? You think I had something to do with those decisions?

Why do YOU deal with the Saudis in any way whatsoever, when their people are entirely controlled by the exact ass-backward, religiously perverted, caveman-style legal system that the Taliban promote by force?

AtlantisCash · 05-05-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

.... and fuck you again for Tarkan/Simarik.

had that retarded song stuck in my head for a few years and i don't even speak Turkish.

Fuck tarkan, i deal and listen rap music, so fuck pop though, i don't like him as You do

DirtyDave · 05-05-2009, 07:03 PM

FROM THE AFTERWORD OF A BOOK I READ RECENTLY!

First of three parts!

Quote:

Unfortunately, the West itself has largely fallen under the control of civilizational Dr. Kevorkians. Some call them "Tranzis."

"Tranzi" is short for "Transnational Progressive" or "Transnational Progressivism." For a more complete account of their program, look up John O'Sullivan's Gulliver's Travails or some of what Steven Den Beste has written on the subject. You might, dear reader, also look at John Fonte's The Ideological War within the West. Lastly, for purposes of this little essay, look up Lee Harris' The Intellectual Origins of America Bashing. These should give you a good grounding in Tranzism: its motives, goals and operating techniques. All can be found online.

For now, suffice to say that Tranzism is the successor ideology to failed and discredited Marxist-Leninism. Many of the most prominent Tranzis are, in fact, "former" members of various communist parties, especially European communist parties. These have taken the failure of the Soviet Union personally and hard, and, brother, are they bitter about it.

Nonetheless, our purpose here is not to write up "Tranzism 101." It is to illustrate the Tranzi approach to the laws of war.

That's right, boys and girls. Pull up a chair. Grab a stool. Cop a squat. Light 'em if you've got 'em. (If not, bum 'em off Ringo; Kratman's fresh out.)

It's lecture time.

(WARNING! Authorial editorial follows. If you just adore the International Criminal Court, then read further at your own risk. You have been warned.)

One of the difficult things about analyzing Tranzis and their works is that they are not a conspiracy. What they are is a consensus. Don't be contemptuous; civilization is nothing more than a consensus. So is barbarism. Moreover, the Tranzis are a fairly cohesive consensus, especially on certain ultimate core issues. Nonetheless, if you are looking for absolute logical consistency on the part of Tranzis you will search in vain.

On the other hand, at the highest level, the ultimate Tranzi goal, there is complete agreement. They want an end to national sovereignty and they want global governance by an unelected, self-chosen "elite." Much of what they say and do will make no sense, even in Tranzi terms, unless that is borne in mind.

Below that ultimate level one cannot expect tactical logical consistency. Things are neither good nor bad, true nor false, except insofar as they support the ultimate Tranzi goal.

For example, if one were to ask a Tranzi, and especially a female and feminist Tranzi, about the propriety of men having any say over a woman's right to an abortion the Tranzi would probably be scandalized. After all, men don't even have babies. They know nothing about the subject from the inside, so to speak. Why should they have any say?

Nonetheless, that same Tranzi, if asked whether international lawyers and judges, and humanitarian activist nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs, should have the final say in the laws of war, would certainly approve. This is true despite the fact that the next lawyer, judge or NGO that understands as much about war as a man understands about childbirth will likely be the first.

Why do we say they know nothing about the subject? By their works shall you know them.

The International Criminal Court is, after the UN and European Union, the next most significant Tranzi project (Kyoto being dead on arrival) and arguably the most significant with regard to the laws of war. A majority, if a bare one, of the world's sovereign states have signed onto it while about half have ratified it.

The ICC claims jurisdiction over all the crimes mentioned in its founding statute, irrespective of who committed them, where they were committed, or whether the "crimes" are actually criminal under the traditional and customary law of war. This is called "universal jurisdiction."

Universal jurisdiction, as a concept, has a number of flaws. Among these are that it has zero valid legal precedence behind it.

Zero precedence? Tranzis will cite at least two precedents. One of these is the jurisdiction exercised from times immemorial by any sovereign power over pirates at sea, when any were caught. The other is Nuremberg. These are flawed. In the case of Nuremberg, the jurisdiction exercised was not "universal" but national jurisdiction of the coalition of the victors over a Germany whose sovereignty had been temporarily extinguished by crushing defeat in war.

The piracy precedent as applied to modern notions of universal jurisdiction doesn't stand close scrutiny any better. The Tranzis claim that universal jurisdiction was exercised over piracy because piracy was, in its conduct and effect, so ghastly. This is wrong on both counts. In the first place, pirates were not necessarily subject to universal jurisdiction except insofar as they were caught where national jurisdiction did not run; typically at sea, in other words. Moreover, alongside piracy there existed privateering. In their conduct the two were often enough indistinguishable. In other words, however "ghastly" privateering may have been?and the former residents of Portobello and Panama City could have told one it could be ghastly, indeed?it was still not subject to universal jurisdiction. No matter that piracy was no worse than privateering, it was so subject. The difference was that sovereign powers, nation-states in other words, exercised sovereign jurisdiction over privateers, were responsible for their actions, and punished them at need, while they did not and could not with pirates. It was the lack of sovereign jurisdiction, both as to their persons and as to the locus of their crimes, that left pirates open to universal jurisdiction and not any supposed "ghastliness" of those crimes.

Along with the lack of valid legal precedence, the ICC and universal jurisdiction suffer other flaws. Recall, dear reader, the lack of Tranzi logical consistency on the questions posed above about abortion and the laws of war.

Anti-imperialism is yet another Tranzi tactical cause. But what is imperialism beyond one or several states or people using force or color of law to make rules for another or other state or people? And what is the ICC, using all the staggering moral and military power of . . . oh . . . Fiji . . . France . . . West Fuckistan . . . but the attempt at enforcing rules made by one group of states upon others? It's imperialism, in other words.

Of course, imperialism in the service of a higher cause?the raising of unelected, self-styled, global elites to power, for example?is praiseworthy, in Tranzi terms.

Nothing deterred, the Tranzis claim that Tranzi courts, to include notionally national Tranzi courts like those of Spain, have universal jurisdiction. Why?

Tranzis hate national sovereignty. It cramps their style. It interferes with their program. It's aesthetically unappealing.

Their goal is the destruction of national sovereignty. The right of a people to democratically make their own laws, to govern themselves, is anathema to Tranzi goals and dreams. When they say "global governance," boys and girls, they mean it. They really intend that unelected bureaucrats and judges, and self-selected elites ought be able to tell you what to do, how to live, what to pay in taxes, what rights you are not entitled to.

Sovereignty stands in the way. The ultimate expression of sovereignty is a nation's and people's armed forces. No army; no ability to defend one's own laws and way of life; no sovereignty.

But how to do away with sovereign control of national armed forces? It's a toughie. They've got all these guns and shit, while the poor Tranzis have none.

"Aha! We know," say the Tranzis. "We can control a nation's armed forces if we can punish the soldiers and especially the officers and a nation refuses to stand up and defend them. No nation which permits a foreign court to exercise jurisdiction over its military can any longer be said to own that military. Instead, that military will be owned by the courts able to punish the leaders. Onward, into the future, comrades!"

Let them punish your soldiers and the soldiers can no longer be counted upon to defend the nation. Nor would you deserve being defended by your soldiers. Let them punish the soldiers and there is no principled distinction to prevent them punishing the President, the Legislature, even the Supreme Court. For who would defend the President, Legislature and courts once the same have let down their soldiers? Let them punish your soldiers and you deserve what you get . . . and to lose what you will lose.

DirtyDave · 05-05-2009, 07:04 PM

FROM THE AFTERWORD OF A BOOK I READ RECENTLY!

Second of three parts!

Quote:

It would be one thing if the ICC were something more than a misguided exercise in legalistic Tranzi mutual masturbation; if it could, in other words, be effective in limiting the horrors of war.

It cannot be effective. Ever.

This is because of the very nature of war itself. There is nothing a court can do that, in terms of punishment that deters, even begins to approach the horror men inflict on each other in war, routinely, in the course of normal and legal operations. There is nothing any court can do that can even hope to catch the interest of tired men, hungry men, men fighting for victory and their lives. No sensible court would even try.

There is some conduct which cannot be deterred. When life is at stake, the law recognizes no "no trespassing" signs. When the choice is between picking pockets at a mass hanging of pickpockets, and risking the noose, or facing slow starvation . . . well . . . at least the rope is fairly quick.

Similarly, when the choice on the battlefield is life or death, what power has some uncertain court distant in both time and space to deter anything? The simple answer is; it has none. What trivial power has the law with its trivial possible punishments to deter conduct that might save soldiers' lives, their comrades' and their country's in the here and now?

* * *

Yet we can see that, however imperfectly, the customary law of war has often worked?even without any such body as the ICC and without Spain's recent disgusting, illegal, morally putrescent attempt at exercising sovereignty over American soldiers. It has worked imperfectly, to be sure. Yet it has worked often enough . . . indeed, within western war it has worked more often than not.

Where the laws of war have worked to mitigate the horror and protect innocent life they have, by and large, done so when the combatants were of the same culture, shared the same values, and had what we might like to think of as a basic decency.

That's rarely been quite enough. It needed a little something else, some other reason to follow the rules.

The other reason was the threat and fear of reprisals.

Tranzis hate reprisals, which are war crimes in themselves but war crimes which become legal in order to punish an enemy who violates the law of war, deter him from violating it, and remove the advantages which accrue from such violations. The Tranzis don't hate reprisals merely because they're ugly, cause suffering of innocents, etc., though they hate them for those reasons, too. No, Tranzis hate reprisals because reprisals work to enforce the laws of war and their own silly courts fail.

Reprisals work? You're kidding us, right?

Wrong. Why wasn't poisonous gas used in the Second World War? The threat of reprisal. What happened when, in 1944, the Germans threatened to execute some numbers of French resistance fighters and the French Resistance, which was holding many German prisoners, answered, "We will kill one for one"? The French prisoners held by the Germans were left unharmed. Why didn't the Southern Confederacy during the American Civil War execute the white officers of black regiments as they had passed a law to do? Because the Union credibly threatened to hang a white Southern officer for every man of theirs so mistreated. Why didn't the United States or South Vietnam execute, generally, Viet Cong guerillas who had gravely violated the laws of war in the course of the insurgency there? Because the North Vietnamese had prisoners against whom they would have reprised had we or the South Vietnamese done so.

Reprisals work; courts and statutes do not. The law of war, because of the nature of war, must be self enforcing, through reprisals. Nothing else can work and any attempt to do away with reprisal is an indirect attack on and undermining of the law of war.

But then, the law of war and mitigating its horrors are not really what the Tranzis are about. Undermining national sovereignty? Replacing sovereign nations with themselves? That's what they're about.

The Tranzis aren't about eliminating war's horrors? Oh, John, Oh, Tom . . . say it isn't so. (Interject dual sigh at the vast iniquity of mankind here.)

It's so.

DirtyDave · 05-05-2009, 07:05 PM

FROM THE AFTERWORD OF A BOOK I READ RECENTLY!

Last of three parts!

Quote:

Recall that we mentioned that Tranzism is the successor philosophy to Marxist-Leninism. It should come as no great surprise, then, that one of the key pieces of Tranzi legislation on the law of war should have been sponsored and forced into existence by . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . . THE SOVIET UNION.

This key piece of Tranzi legislating on the law of war was Additional Protocol I to Geneva Convention IV. The protocol itself was shoved through by the Soviets at a time when it looked like People's Revolutionary War (guerilla war . . . communist insurgency) would continue to be a powerful weapon to advance the cause of communism. The United States has never ratified it and, pray God, it never shall. The Russians, who forced it through, have never paid it the slightest attention, as witnessed by their conduct in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989 and, more recently, in Chechnya.

The protocol is interesting for three reasons: what it purports to do, what it actually does, and for the admittedly slick way in which it tries to do it.

The slickness is in the way the protocol is structured. It begins with a pious preamble, typically enough. That isn't the slick part. What is clever is that it repeats much of what was already in Geneva Convention IV (GC IV), which is concerned with the protection of civilians caught up in war (as is the protocol), and then interweaves some very new things. The new things include major advantages, given gratis, to guerillas and especially communist guerillas, a broad ban on the use of what it calls "mercenaries," one rather unreasonable restriction on the use of food as a weapon, and a subtle way of saying "It's okay to push the Zionist beasts into the sea."

Then, when a nation refuses to ratify the additional protocol for any of the at least five really good reasons not to do so, it stands accused of anything from being in favor of mass rape to forced medical experiments a la Josef Mengele. Never mind that all that is prohibited by the original GC IV and that the additional protocol adds nothing of importance. "You refuse to ratify the additional protocol? You Nazi bastards!"

Are these guys slick or what?

As to what the protocol is supposed to do, protect civilians, one has to wonder. It is part of the traditional law of war that, in case of a siege, a city may have its food cut off and civilians attempting to escape may be fired upon, even killed, to drive them back to eat up the food. This is cruel to be sure, an "extreme measure" as the U.S. Army's manual on the subject admits. Cruel or not, this was upheld in the late '40s in the case of United States v. Ritter von Leeb and is still?up to a point?good law, outside of Tranzidom. Geneva Convention IV ameliorated this harsh rule, and reasonably so, by requiring that some evacuations for particular reasons (maternity, infancy, infirmity, for example) be allowed.

The protocol, however, does not allow food to be cut off or civilians to be driven back into a besieged town to eat up whatever food is there. Naturally, one cannot permit food to enter without at the same time feeding the garrison, which will ensure for itself that it eats first. Therefore, the besieger has a choice, sit there forever?which is generally impractical?or take the place by assault. Now imagine what will happen to the civilians if the town is stormed, when every room receives its donation of grenade and bullet. And this is supposed to protect them? Starvation, at least, while unpleasant, offered a good chance for a besieged town to fall after a few lean days without the massacre intendant on an assault.

What then is the purpose of the additional protocol? It is to disadvantage the West, to reduce its military power, thus to reduce its sovereignty. Since being forced into existence by the Soviets the protocol has had no other purpose.

The law of war nowhere mentions the phrase "illegal combatants." Tranzis will tell you that, therefore, there is no such thing. This is false.

There is a legal principle, a Latin expression, "Expresio unius exclusio alterius est," the inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other. While the law of war does not mention "illegal combatants," it goes to some length to explain what is required to be a legal combatant. If there is such a concept as legal combatancy, and rules which must be followed to attain that status, then failure to follow those rules places one in the implicit status of illegal combatant.

Those rules are four. To be a legal combatant under the original Geneva Convention, which is quite different from the additional protocol to which the United States is not a party, one must a) wear a fixed insignia recognizable at a distance, b) carry arms openly, c) be under the command of a person or chain of command responsible for your actions (much like a privateer was under a sovereign and a pirate, again, was not), and d) conduct operations in accordance with the customs and laws of war. Failure to meet any of these conditions makes one an illegal combatant.

Note, here, that individuals do not "conduct operations." Organizations conduct operations. This implies that one is responsible for the actions of one's organization as well as for one's own.

Can you hear the sound of Tranzi heads exploding over that last?

They might seem to have a point. Civil law normally doesn't permit people to be held responsible for the actions of others, right? Wrong. Look up "conspiracy." Once someone becomes part of a conspiracy they become responsible for everything their coconspirators do. Moreover, within the law of war's concept of reprisal, perfect innocents may be effectively responsible for what their side does. After all, what happens when a side violates the law by using a hospital, say, for an ammunition dump? The perfectly innocent and otherwise protected wounded are blasted from this world to the next in reprisal.

Equally so, within an armed force, both by "d)", above, and under the practical effect of the doctrine of reprisal a combatant is responsible for both his own actions and those of his organization.

It works the other way, too, by the way. Note that General Yamashita was hanged not for anything he ordered or could have prevented but for things subelements only notionally under his command did.

What does this mean for the current war? It means that every Saudi kid, inspired to go to Iraq to fight by watching some truck driver's head sawed of on Al Jazeera, has?in civil law terms?voluntarily joined a conspiracy to fight illegally and is thus an illegal combatant and that?in law of war terms?he is an illegal combatant even if he personally follows the rules completely.

Those who would grant him legal combatant status, the Tranzis in other words, thus are trying to improve and enhance the effectiveness of those who would and do violate the law of war.

This is something you would expect from an enemy, right?

So what can we do? What would John and Tom like to see done?

Number One: Never forget that the Tranzi purpose is inimical to our own, that they are the enemy as much as Hitler was or al Qaeda is. They want us, as a distinct nation and people, to cease to exist. They want our constitution overthrown or made subordinate to their law, which amounts to the same thing. They want our military made subordinate to their judges, so that it can be undermined and made unable or unwilling to defend us. They want us to lose our wars.

Number Two: Remembering that the Tranzis are the enemy, give them no aid, no money, no support. Do not give them a foothold into the armed forces and if such foothold exists (say, in the form of an institute devoted to peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance) close it down. Audit the Tranzis' books; they're as corrupt as imaginable and could not well stand auditing. They tend to lie, especially to raise money. Require that their charitable activities advertise truthfully and punish them when they do not. Jail a few of the bastards. On second thought, jail a lot of the bastards. Remove their tax exempt status on the first whiff of impropriety. When the ultimate Tranzi organization, the UN, cheats the Iraqi people and hides the details of the thefts, withhold the funds otherwise due to the UN and pay it to the Iraqis instead . . . with no chance of ever making good to the UN any such amounts withheld and given.

Number Three: Did you know that the United States has what amounts to a conditional declaration of war in place should anyone have the gall to grab one of our soldiers to turn over to the ICC or some other Tranzi court? It's called the American Servicemembers Protection Act and it passed unanimously in the Senate. (Sometimes your country just makes you proud.) We should look for an opportunity to exercise that law . . . and sometime soon. Spain might be a good place to start.

Number Four: Even when we have them on the ropes do not let up. Finish them off. Make the Tranzi organizations extinct and the parasites who live off of them spend the remainder of their days poor and hungry. Do not weep for the Tranzis.

Number Five: Don't, don't, DON'T give up hope. The Tranzis are not going to win. Their center of gravity, Europe, is dying to demographics. Within the United States and with our own Tranzis much the same thing is happening regionally and subculturally. The prize Tranzi projects, the UN and EU, are staggering under a burden of incompetence, ineffectuality and corruption. Moreover, say what you will about Muslim extremists, they're still damned good at demonstrating to the world outside of Europe what happens when you let the Tranzis take over.

AtlantisCash · 05-05-2009, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Why are you asking ME? You think I had something to do with those decisions?

Why do YOU deal with the Saudis in any way whatsoever, when their people are entirely controlled by the exact ass-backward, religiously perverted, caveman-style legal system that the Taliban promote by force?

Thanks for Your answer, so no one have right to accuse me with something that i m not even involved either right?

what i mean with (Me) here is an ordinary Muslim man.

as of myself, i m a person that pure modern looking dressed, educated and minding my own business,

even though i don't give a fuck about those politic bullshits, when somebody stereotyped a whole community, doesn't it mean that i have been pointed also?

Pleasurepays · 05-05-2009, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlantisCash

Fuck tarkan, i deal and listen rap music, so fuck pop though, i don't like him as You do

haha... i lived with a bunch of girls at the time in Russia and that song was playing everywhere. then they started playing the video on Russian MTV etc. i couldn't get away from it and that stupid "kiss kiss" sound.

AtlantisCash · 05-05-2009, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

haha... i lived with a bunch of girls at the time in Russia and that song was playing everywhere. then they started playing the video on Russian MTV etc. i couldn't get away from it and that stupid "kiss kiss" sound.

so at least we could agree with You in some ways even though it's off topic, shall we say peace?

yea i m a Muslim, i hate no one, i respect every one's beliefs, for example: my gf is a Christian, i have lots of Christian and even agnostic or atheist friends, i also meet with Jews in my real life, so all those tell You something about my point?

i don't mind what religion they follow, color, race or what so ever, when i hand shake with a person.

btw. i will be visiting Israel next month probably, if we can make some time from debate matchs, we can have a coffe together with Gfyers live in Israel

malkishooa · 05-06-2009, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

This will be amusing.

Take a look at Israel. Isn't their non Jewish population growing and soon there will be more non Jewish citizens than Jews? WTF is gonna happen then - Israel will no longer be a Jewish country?

being a jew living in Israel (we call that being an "Israeli" , not a "jew")that knows it's shit I can tell you:
in Judaism there is a command that orders for jews to have a lot of babies ("proo orbvoo").
so the religious fuckers have like 7 children each, but than again religious fuckers are a minority.
arabs are also a minority in Israel.
as long as both minorities make equally a lot of babies - Israel is safe - arab population will not outgrow Israelies.

about europe it's too late, it's only a matter of time when you look at the statistics of the past years.
I believe at this point we must accept the fact the europe will become muslim.

05-06-2009, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

Just curious.

Muslims in Europe are out-breeding you 3:1 and don't really like you or your culture, your history, your heritage and for the most part, don't care a whole lot about assimilation - your days are numbered it would seem.

you are spot on. Its shocking to see the Europeans so passive about this.
heres a good book people should read if they doubt you
http://www.amazon.com/While-Europe-S.../dp/0385514727

malkishooa · 05-06-2009, 12:32 AM

.....................nevermind

webjoker · 05-06-2009, 12:35 AM

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ka-iOlXl1HI

papill0n · 05-06-2009, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

yeah... muslims are well known across the globe for being tolerant of other peoples beliefs. islam loves infidels and their beliefs!

and fuck you. fuck your defense of people rioting and destroying shit and hurting people over a cartoon. you're an example of what is wrong with islam in the world and peoples image of it. we live in the free world jackass. not some quasi-failed, 3rd world state. in the developed world, we enjoy the freedom to express ourselves. its part of what makes others more human than you. you don't have to like whats being said.. but you should afford them the same respect for their opinions and views that you demand for your own. otherwise, your just a whiny bitch that's making my point for me.

you will defend some cunts refusal to take off her burka to get her drivers license picture... BUT, you fucking idiots would violently protest some chick wanting to take the pic in her bikini... so lets not pretend islam is the voice of reason, tolerance and fairness. its exactly the opposite.

here you are going on about accepting other peoples opinions while you call the guy a cunt and tell him to fuck himself

webjoker · 05-06-2009, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

This will be amusing.

What's going to happen in Europe when their Muslim population decides that all women in Europe need to be covered from head to toe?

I swear to god, the day that someone introduces a law in the US that requires all women to be covered from head to toe is the same day I'm going up into my attic, pulling out my AR15 and my handguns, making sure they are in working order, and buying up some ammo.

there are things a lot worse than that in the sharia.
for example if one of your kids are caught stealing candy the sharia law says to cut off one if their hands.
did you even steal anything in your life as a child ?

webjoker · 05-06-2009, 12:42 AM

not to mention you might have to send one of your kids to blow them self up as a "shahid" for crazy reasons that you don't completely believe in and in the name of Alla

Zester · 05-06-2009, 12:50 AM

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ka-iOlXl1HI

Huggles · 05-06-2009, 12:54 AM

I don't want to see a war break out, but I believe it will happen no matter what.

Pleasurepays · 05-06-2009, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RageCash-Ben

here you are going on about accepting other peoples opinions while you call the guy a cunt and tell him to fuck himself

well.. i didn't say i was about openness and tolerance. i never claim to be the webmaster of peace.

the rationalization for Muslims freaking out world wide about the cartoon is the lack of respect that was shown towards a religious figure. the paradox of that position is that it requires a lack of respect of the opinions of others as its own foundation to exist.

"respect" in this case means "you should never say something i don't want to hear"

Pleasurepays · 05-06-2009, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlantisCash

so at least we could agree with You in some ways even though it's off topic, shall we say peace?

of course!

this is just pixels on a monitor. i have always wanted to go to Isreal but never made it. i made plans a few times to go to turkey when i was living in Russia just because so many Russians go there and it was cheap but never did. My wife went there with her mother a couple years ago. i love world history and Turkey (the region anyway) has certainly has a prominent role in the last couple thousand years in shaping history in the area and beyond.

viencarl · 05-06-2009, 06:18 AM

simple solution ban all Muslims in your country

Sukiho · 05-06-2009, 10:30 AM

I wouldnt worry, adults never assimilate but the kids do

Zester · 05-06-2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webjoker

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ka-iOlXl1HI

wow... I just watched the whole series... you ow me 2 hours

Bossman · 05-06-2009, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlantisCash

i don't mind what religion they follow, color, race or what so ever, when i hand shake with a person.

Don´t mix ideology (ex. religion) with race... you can´t choose your race, but you can choose your ideology! So of course you should mock irrational ideology (ex. islam), like you should point out, if people are doing something stupid.

Silence is not a virtue, if you see stupidty!

malkishooa · 05-10-2009, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossman

Silence is not a virtue, if you see stupidty!

i see stupidty everyday on GFY

Sausage · 05-10-2009, 06:35 AM

Look just give up. They are more determined than we are and there are more of them than us, its only a matter of time. It will be forced on us sooner or later. They will overtake us, they are willing to die doing it and we aren't willing to die to defend ourselves.

Templar · 05-10-2009, 06:51 AM

Dictators have always relied on what Lenin called "useful idiots" and the Western world is just FULL of them. Instead of identifying and dealing with a real threat to our liberty and democracy the useful idiot will cry "racism", "hate", "bigotry" and then make some asinine moral equivalency argument about an evil that a western country may have performed 200 years ago!! If Muslims actually do take over a western democracy and impose Sharia law I have no doubt that the last words of the "useful idiots" in that country will be "We deserve it..." and be relieved that at least they aren't being beheaded by evil, bigoted, white westerners.

Labeling as "racist" those who are concerned about the very real threat of Islamofascist expansion is as RIDICULOUS as labeling someone racist for being concerned with the spread of Nazism in 30s!

ThumbLord · 05-10-2009, 09:47 AM

the exact date would be probably 12-21-2012

ilbb · 05-10-2009, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Say goodbye to freedom, maybe not in our generation, but in the not too distant future.

open your eyes bro...there is not freedom already

big brother is watching you

Rangermoore · 05-10-2009, 10:42 AM

What they said

AtlantisCash · 05-10-2009, 02:44 PM

https://youtube.com/watch?v=8T_uAs40Aa4
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NUULo...eature=related

AtlantisCash · 05-10-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webjoker

there are things a lot worse than that in the sharia.
for example if one of your kids are caught stealing candy the sharia law says to cut off one if their hands.
did you even steal anything in your life as a child ?

where do You get Your sources?

for Islamic sharia, if the person is poor and hungry and stole something to eat he/she won't get punished,

for clarifying this, there's a limit government can determine, if that's above the rate he/she will get punished, otherwise not.

btw. government can not do this out of their asses, it depends some factors

AtlantisCash · 05-10-2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossman

Don´t mix ideology (ex. religion) with race... you can´t choose your race, but you can choose your ideology! So of course you should mock irrational ideology (ex. Islam), like you should point out, if people are doing something stupid.

Silence is not a virtue, if you see stupidity!

but there must be a line that separates the people's stupidity and religion it self or even though they believe in the same religion the difference between proper people and jackasses right?

AtlantisCash · 05-10-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

of course!

this is just pixels on a monitor. i have always wanted to go to Isreal but never made it. i made plans a few times to go to turkey when i was living in Russia just because so many Russians go there and it was cheap but never did. My wife went there with her mother a couple years ago. i love world history and Turkey (the region anyway) has certainly has a prominent role in the last couple thousand years in shaping history in the area and beyond.

lm know when ever You plan visiting Istanbul, we can have a few drinks together

AtlantisCash · 05-10-2009, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sukiho

I wouldnt worry, adults never assimilate but the kids do

thats what some people don't understand, for example: even here in Tr, there are a few difference between older and some people in Younger generations all though i don't like it in some ways.

topnotch, standup guy · 05-10-2009, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webjoker

not to mention you might have to send one of your kids to blow them self up as a "shahid" for crazy reasons that you don't completely believe in and in the name of Alla

And then, there's this

cykoe6 · 05-10-2009, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Templar

Dictators have always relied on what Lenin called "useful idiots" and the Western world is just FULL of them. Instead of identifying and dealing with a real threat to our liberty and democracy the useful idiot will cry "racism", "hate", "bigotry" and then make some asinine moral equivalency argument about an evil that a western country may have performed 200 years ago!! If Muslims actually do take over a western democracy and impose Sharia law I have no doubt that the last words of the "useful idiots" in that country will be "We deserve it..." and be relieved that at least they aren't being beheaded by evil, bigoted, white westerners.

Labeling as "racist" those who are concerned about the very real threat of Islamofascist expansion is as RIDICULOUS as labeling someone racist for being concerned with the spread of Nazism in 30s!

Very well said.

dig420 · 05-10-2009, 04:26 PM

When are right-wingers going to realize that they're absolutely wrong about virtually everything they choose to have an ill-informed opinion about?

AtlantisCash · 05-10-2009, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by topnotch, standup guy

And then, there's this

some of You people are amazing, you don't even read carefully what You post;

"in truth, it is not even mentioned in the Koran, and only ambiguously in the Hadith (a collection of oral traditions about the life of the prophet Mohammed)."

TheDoc · 05-10-2009, 04:40 PM

Badmaash · 05-10-2009, 04:47 PM

I was watching a program on Da Vinci Code and was quite suprised that even back in the days Muslims were trying to conquer Europe but could not do it due to the Templar Knights

You guys have got the wrong end of the stick about how you feel Sharai Law will prevale and you will have everyone living under Islamic law. From what I have heard, elements of SHaria law will be implemented within UK law to help solve disputes amongts Muslims at a domestic level. These laws will not be incorporated for the entirew population just Muslims. An example of a slightly different priciple is with new banks in UK or facilities availble in exsiting banks that do not give iterest on money held in a bank and this is know as funnily 'Halal banking'

Western laws will not be changed to Islamic law unless the West is fully conquered by some sort of state of the art Islamic army and that will not happen in a million years...

Peace to all.

Pleasurepays · 05-10-2009, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

When are right-wingers going to realize that they're absolutely wrong about virtually everything they choose to have an ill-informed opinion about?

about the same time you realize you are more extreme in your views than those who oppose your views are.

... what does "right wing" have to do with rapidly shifting demographics and birth rates?

Bossman · 05-10-2009, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlantisCash

but there must be a line that separates the people's stupidity and religion it self or even though they believe in the same religion the difference between proper people and jackasses right?

Irrational ideas are still irrational - no matter who belives in them. Sure you can divide irrational ideas into how harmful they are, and treat them accordingly, but it doesn´t free you from pointing out and/or mocking the stupidity, if you see yourself as part of a community.

Community means you are sharing an environment, where your ideas and actions are affecting the identity of the participants, so it does matter if the ideas and actions are based on irrationality (illogical) or rationality (logical).

An irrational environment creates irrational people, which ends up segregating the community into weaker and weaker communities, because there is no rational for the differences (just look at the stand still of Islam, with all its different branches of Islam).

A rational environment creates rational people, which creates stronger communities, because there is a rational for the differences (just look at the achievements in science, since the scientific method was adopted by the scientific community).

As a human you do have a choice here in life - you can go by instinct, and keep wandering around in the same darkness generations before you did, or you can use your intellect and build a brighter future for you and the generations ahead of you...

Of course you can also choose to do nothing, which will just mean religion (ideology) will end in racial segregation:

AtlantisCash · 05-10-2009, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossman

Irrational ideas are still irrational - no matter who belives in them. Sure you can divide irrational ideas into how harmful they are, and treat them accordingly, but it doesn´t free you from pointing out and/or mocking the stupidity, if you see yourself as part of a community.

Community means you are sharing an environment, where your ideas and actions are affecting the identity of the participants, so it does matter if the ideas and actions are based on irrationality (illogical) or rationality (logical).

An irrational environment creates irrational people, which ends up segregating the community into weaker and weaker communities, because there is no rational for the differences (just look at the stand still of Islam, with all its different branches of Islam).

A rational environment creates rational people, which creates stronger communities, because there is a rational for the differences (just look at the achievements in science, since the scientific method was adopted by the scientific community).

As a human you do have a choice here in life - you can go by instinct, and keep wandering around in the same darkness generations before you did, or you can use your intellect and build a brighter future for you and the generations ahead of you...

Of course you can also choose to do nothing, which will just mean religion (ideology) will end in racial segregation:

Thanks for the detailed reply, but what i said breethly, don't generalize people, do not stereotype them, hate brings hate, nothing more, plain and simple

05-06-2009, 12:32 AM	#68
malkishooa Registered User Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Israel Posts: 55	.....................nevermind Last edited by malkishooa; 05-06-2009 at 12:36 AM..

05-06-2009, 12:35 AM	#69
webjoker Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 367	https://youtube.com/watch?v=ka-iOlXl1HI __________________ hehe

05-06-2009, 12:42 AM	#72
webjoker Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 367	not to mention you might have to send one of your kids to blow them self up as a "shahid" for crazy reasons that you don't completely believe in and in the name of Alla __________________ hehe

05-06-2009, 12:50 AM	#73
Zester Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,344	https://youtube.com/watch?v=ka-iOlXl1HI __________________ * Mainstream ? $65 per sale * new male contraception

05-06-2009, 12:54 AM	#74
Huggles GFY'S #1 retard Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Kelowna Posts: 10,655	I don't want to see a war break out, but I believe it will happen no matter what. __________________ I make my money from people jerking off

05-05-2009, 04:08 PM	#52
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30572929/

05-05-2009, 06:56 PM	#57
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	.... and fuck you again for Tarkan/Simarik. had that retarded song stuck in my head for a few years and i don't even speak Turkish.

05-06-2009, 06:18 AM	#77
viencarl Confirmed User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 4,234	simple solution ban all Muslims in your country __________________ Tubebingo Tube Profiles NSA Cams Free Teen Porn Blog Teen Boobs Blog Webcam Sex Post Younger Babes Blog Interracial Sexguide Asian Models Blog Sugar Babes Blog Woman Single Hardcore Sexpost Showbiz Pimp Teen Nude Blog Anime Babes Blog Teen Panties Blog Hot Babes Pimp My Daily Teen Blog Teen Bikini Blog Tubebingo Blog

05-06-2009, 10:30 AM	#78
Sukiho Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: SE Asia Posts: 111	I wouldnt worry, adults never assimilate but the kids do

05-10-2009, 06:35 AM	#82
Sausage Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 3,012	Look just give up. They are more determined than we are and there are more of them than us, its only a matter of time. It will be forced on us sooner or later. They will overtake us, they are willing to die doing it and we aren't willing to die to defend ourselves. Last edited by Sausage; 05-10-2009 at 06:37 AM..

05-10-2009, 06:51 AM	#83
Templar Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 100	Dictators have always relied on what Lenin called "useful idiots" and the Western world is just FULL of them. Instead of identifying and dealing with a real threat to our liberty and democracy the useful idiot will cry "racism", "hate", "bigotry" and then make some asinine moral equivalency argument about an evil that a western country may have performed 200 years ago!! If Muslims actually do take over a western democracy and impose Sharia law I have no doubt that the last words of the "useful idiots" in that country will be "We deserve it..." and be relieved that at least they aren't being beheaded by evil, bigoted, white westerners. Labeling as "racist" those who are concerned about the very real threat of Islamofascist expansion is as RIDICULOUS as labeling someone racist for being concerned with the spread of Nazism in 30s! __________________ WeirdandSexy.com webdirectory

05-10-2009, 09:47 AM	#84
ThumbLord Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Aruba Posts: 1,932	the exact date would be probably 12-21-2012 __________________ We Sell Domains \| ThumbLords \| ICQ 128106905 \| TubeLords \| Traffic Holder \| eRoken

05-10-2009, 10:42 AM	#86
Rangermoore Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: EVERYWHERE Posts: 1,541	What they said __________________

05-10-2009, 02:44 PM	#87
AtlantisCash Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Istanbul - Turkiye Posts: 3,169	https://youtube.com/watch?v=8T_uAs40Aa4 https://youtube.com/watch?v=NUULo...eature=related

05-10-2009, 04:26 PM	#94
dig420 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 9,240	When are right-wingers going to realize that they're absolutely wrong about virtually everything they choose to have an ill-informed opinion about?

05-10-2009, 04:40 PM	#96
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	__________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation

05-10-2009, 04:47 PM	#97
Badmaash Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 2,695	I was watching a program on Da Vinci Code and was quite suprised that even back in the days Muslims were trying to conquer Europe but could not do it due to the Templar Knights You guys have got the wrong end of the stick about how you feel Sharai Law will prevale and you will have everyone living under Islamic law. From what I have heard, elements of SHaria law will be implemented within UK law to help solve disputes amongts Muslims at a domestic level. These laws will not be incorporated for the entirew population just Muslims. An example of a slightly different priciple is with new banks in UK or facilities availble in exsiting banks that do not give iterest on money held in a bank and this is know as funnily 'Halal banking' Western laws will not be changed to Islamic law unless the West is fully conquered by some sort of state of the art Islamic army and that will not happen in a million years... Peace to all. __________________ best cbd oil uk - Hit me up on ICQ 400607632