UK Muslims cheer for global peace

Do you think N Korean nukes would have capability(range) of more than a child's radio controlled car?

I don't.

As for India, let me tell you, the very fact that we have these weapons at al, it is a disgrace to genius, and to humanity. However, if nations do have them, then they clearly have to be bound to the strictest of rules.

These rules should include robust and indepedent inspection, for safety, among other things.

What sets Israel aside from India, is that India are clear about their ownership, and are transparent about that part of it.

Israel aren't.

 

You dont have a clue. North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel are not signatories to the NPT treaty arent subjected to any rules, but you only have a problem with that in the case of jews.

 

So? Both states are in full compliance with international law. India chose to disclose its nuclear capabilities, Israel, being in a totally different strategic and geopolitical situation (i.e. surrendered by enemies), chose to exercise the policy of nuclear ambiguity. Neither decision is good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immortal, both are fully legal and legimitate.

 

First of all, as far as I am aware 'Jews' do not generally tend to own nukes.

Israel might, and Israel may be in the grip of an idealogy that is fundamentally racist, and fundamentally considers all those who are not Zionist Jews as lesser, but that is quite different, of course, from suggesting that 'Jews' have nukes.

The reader may wish to question why India were even brought into this, given that India were not being discussed, and no satisfactory answers were being given to the actual topic at hand - deflection tactic? 'Hey, never mind Israel, what about (insert nation)'.

This tactic is used to get the debator to discuss the political situation of another country, that has nothing at all to do with the original matter. Indeed, almost any discussion point that doesn't involve talking about Israeli accountablity is okay to use, so long as it does it's job, right?

If you took the time to read my previous posts, you will see that I addressed the matter of Israeli nukes v for example, those of North Korea, another nation unsurprisingly dragged into this now.

N Korea are not the power that you have been led to believe. Most of their hardware is dated, and ineffective. It is highly improbable that N Korea would ever use a nuke, nor do they have the capability to do so over any sort of distance. Every so often, they like to engage in a little baiting of the US and S Korean, by way of a little testing - it is just their attempt at a little show, if you will. In short, for all that N Koreans are demonised in the US media, I would say that in the grander scheme of nuclear threats, there one is v small.

By contrast, do I have the same confidence that the Israeli threat from nuke war is equally remote? Sadly not.

Indeed, were I to select the nation most inclined to do the unthinkable, it would be the state of Israel.

 

Ah...international law, a great philosophy, only...guess who has more violations of international law against them, than almost any other in the World?

Yes, that's right...Israel.

They don't like to tell you in the US media about the long history of Israel pissing all over international law, and UN Resolutions. If the US POLITIC had any honesty about it, any nobility, it would have the grace to stop using it's power of veto, to endorse Jewish terrorism, in Gaza. If the US POLITIC had any honour about it, it would no longer tax it's own people to give money to an affluent foreign power. It would demand that Israel recognise this international law that you speak of, starting with, but by no means ending with, the ILLEGAL settlements.

Again, they don't really like to give that sort of thing too much exposure, on US television.

I have a question to you, sir.

I propose to you that, out of step with the hysterical perception of the mass, that the bombers, those that planned and executed them, at 9/11, were neither 'monsters', nor were they 'insane'.

I appreciate that it may be easier for the psyche of some to think of them in such simple terms, but really, when looking at what may drive apparently educated and intelligent men to gain their piots licences, and drive a plane into those buildings, the motive for that must be a bit more sophisitcated than in terms of thinking of the bombers in that context.

That is, if anything worthwhile is to be learned, and I am going to assume that people do wish to learn something from those attacks, so that those that died, did not do so in vain.

In the US, politicians, and those that host a plethora of so called political style shows, they were more than happy to spend many hours discussing 9/11, while almost every single one of them failed to ask the most important question of all - which is why did these men, men who had lived in the US, and went on record as saying that they had no special complaint with life in the US as such, men who were educated, why did they do this?

It's a reasonable question isn't it - and one which almost everyone in US politics would fudge.

Because the answer, as they v well know is ... unconditional support for Israel. I believe that those behind it have even gone on record as saying that was their motive.

So, if this was the motive for what they did, just why did so many in the US politic want to fudge the answer.

By now, the answer should be obvious - to roundly accept that this was what drove the anger, UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL, would be to risk too many in the US gradually waking up to the fact, more and more, that this (laughably called) 'special relationship' between the US and Tel Aviv is actually damaging to the US.

I am not defending what the people behind 911 did, before anyone decides to try that one on me, but even a basic detective is interested in MOTIVE, what drove person A to do action B, as it were. Yet really getting at the motive, it was the one thing that the US politic didn't want to get into, opting instead to simplify it down to 'good v evil'. However, I am also confident that 911 also would never have taken place, had the US political arena not been hijacked by an alien idealogy, that being Zionism, that then, without any kind of democratic process, signed the American people up for UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT of Israel.

 

In other words we can both agree that Israel's nuclear program (or lack of thereof) and Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity is in full compliance with international law, your lengthy and totally unrelated rant notwithstanding, right?

 

Because you were whining that Israel doesnt submit to inspections of their nukes and claimed "we would use force to get them to comply" if any other country refused inspections. WHEN IN FACT, Pakistan, India, and North Korea dont allow inspection, AND, we have not used force to get them to comply. They have signed no treaty requiring them to comply.

 

You have to realize that the people that accuse the "moderate Muslim" of not doing enough are simply making excuses just as most Arab countries that accuse Israel of being responsible for all of their problems are making excuses. Everyone needs someone to blame besides themselves.

I'm glad he made this announcement. Its sad that he had to do this despite the fact that many thousands of Muslims have actively laid their lives down to fight and defeat extremist, Salafist Islam.

Further, there is no point in trying to convince bigots who believe, irrationally and irreconcilably, that all Muslims or all people of any faith are bad or prone to violence.

By arguing with them, you give them legitimacy. They just deserved to be pointed and laughed at for being the paranoid fools that they are.

 

Hmm, I doubt anyone in the right mind has ever claimed that all muslims are violent. Nice straw man though.

On the other hand the claim that virtually all terror attacks in the world are committed by muslims does have merits, together with the claim that "moderate" muslims are not doing nearly enough to rid their ranks of their extremist brethren. Instead of unconditionally condemning terror the "moderate" muslims often come up with excuses, explanations and justifications along the lines of "terrorism is wrong but we are very mad at Israel and the US and if only the US complied with the demands of the terrorists the attacks would stop". Don't take my word for it though, read Jack's post above, that's exactly the message he is trying to convey.

 

Like I said, I have no interest in engaging with closed minded bigots who believe that a religion or religious group is fundamentally violent.

 

We can see who it is that is closed minded.

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah...

2.216] Fighting is enjoined on you, and h is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.

[2.244] And fight in the way of Allah,...

[2.246] ...May it not be that you would not fight if fighting is ordained for you? They said: And what reason have we that we should not fight in the way of Allah, and we have indeed been compelled to abandon our homes and our children. But when fighting was ordained for them, they turned back, except a few of them, and Allah knows the unjust.

[3.169] And reckon not those who are killed in Allah's way as dead; nay, they are alive (and) are provided sustenance from their Lord;

[4.74] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.

[4.76] Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak.

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain;

[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

[47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them,


Islam is not merely a belief, so that it is enough merely to preach it. Islam, which is a way of life, takes practical steps to organize a movement for freeing man. Other societies do not give it any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems, as they are obstacles in the way of universal freedom. ...

This religion is really a universal declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men and from servitude to his own desires, which is also a form of human servitude; it is a declaration that sovereignty belongs to God alone and that He is the Lord of all the worlds. It means a challenge to all kinds and forms of systems which are based on the concept of the sovereignty of man; in other words, where man has usurped the Divine attribute. Any system in which the final decisions are referred to human beings, and in which the sources of all authority are human, deifies human beings by designating others than God as lords over men. This declaration means that the usurped authority of God be returned to Him and the usurpers be thrown out-those who by themselves devise laws for others to follow, thus elevating themselves to the status of lords and reducing others to the status of slaves. In short, to proclaim the authority and sovereignty of God means to eliminate all human kingship and to announce the rule of the Sustainer of the universe over the entire earth. ...
http://web.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/hold/chapter_4.htm


Number 25: Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause."

in contrast to

Matthew 22:36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

 

Really?

Is that all you took from it?

I will ensure to keep my responses short for you, in future.

Like the tabloids do.

Thanks

 

I've briefly explained the differences.

If you wish to dedicate a threat to India or N Korea, feel free.

If it is interesting, I may join in.