Well well. And the Catholic Church didn't even excommunicate Hitler!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm
"Muslim leaders of African and Arab communities have also issued a fatwa, or
religious order, against the riots.
"It is strictly forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any action that
strikes blindly at private or public property or that could threaten the
lives of others," the fatwa by the Union of Islamic Organisations in France
said. "
.
|
|
| User: "dreamwalker" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
07 Nov 2005 09:31:37 PM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:dknijf$qrp$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
Well well. And the Catholic Church didn't even excommunicate Hitler!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm
"Muslim leaders of African and Arab communities have also issued a fatwa, or
religious order, against the riots.
"It is strictly forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any action that
strikes blindly at private or public property or that could threaten the
lives of others," the fatwa by the Union of Islamic Organisations in France
said. "
So what? France is still burning.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tugboat Captain" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
07 Nov 2005 11:42:15 AM |
|
|
tw wrote / skrev:
Well well. And the Catholic Church didn't even excommunicate Hitler!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm
"Muslim leaders of African and Arab communities have also issued a fatwa, or
religious order, against the riots.
"It is strictly forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any action that
strikes blindly at private or public property or that could threaten the
lives of others," the fatwa by the Union of Islamic Organisations in France
said. "
What else could they say? Of course they fear the future. But it would
be interesting to see those taking this fatwa for real. Will they kill
their brothers?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
08 Nov 2005 02:51:30 AM |
|
|
"Tugboat Captain" <Tug@boat.captain> wrote in message
news:XlMbf.37711$d5.194478@newsb.telia.net...
tw wrote / skrev:
Well well. And the Catholic Church didn't even excommunicate Hitler!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm
"Muslim leaders of African and Arab communities have also issued a
fatwa, or
religious order, against the riots.
"It is strictly forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any action
that
strikes blindly at private or public property or that could threaten the
lives of others," the fatwa by the Union of Islamic Organisations in
France
said. "
What else could they say? Of course they fear the future. But it would
be interesting to see those taking this fatwa for real. Will they kill
their brothers?
Eh? A Fatwa is not a death sentence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tugboat Captain" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
08 Nov 2005 09:54:14 AM |
|
|
tw wrote / skrev:
"Tugboat Captain" <Tug@boat.captain> wrote in message
news:XlMbf.37711$d5.194478@newsb.telia.net...
tw wrote / skrev:
Well well. And the Catholic Church didn't even excommunicate Hitler!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm
"Muslim leaders of African and Arab communities have also issued a
fatwa, or
religious order, against the riots.
"It is strictly forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any action
that
strikes blindly at private or public property or that could threaten the
lives of others," the fatwa by the Union of Islamic Organisations in
France
said. "
What else could they say? Of course they fear the future. But it would
be interesting to see those taking this fatwa for real. Will they kill
their brothers?
Eh? A Fatwa is not a death sentence.
Well, it CAN be. What was it this time then? "Stop that, naughty boys,
or you'll be grounded..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
09 Nov 2005 02:34:09 AM |
|
|
"Tugboat Captain" <Tug@boat.captain> wrote in message
news:GS3cf.37786$d5.194601@newsb.telia.net...
tw wrote / skrev:
"Tugboat Captain" <Tug@boat.captain> wrote in message
news:XlMbf.37711$d5.194478@newsb.telia.net...
tw wrote / skrev:
Well well. And the Catholic Church didn't even excommunicate Hitler!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm
"Muslim leaders of African and Arab communities have also issued a
fatwa, or
religious order, against the riots.
"It is strictly forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any action
that
strikes blindly at private or public property or that could threaten
the
lives of others," the fatwa by the Union of Islamic Organisations in
France
said. "
What else could they say? Of course they fear the future. But it would
be interesting to see those taking this fatwa for real. Will they kill
their brothers?
Eh? A Fatwa is not a death sentence.
Well, it CAN be.
Certainly, but as I understand it, it's like a Papal Decree or something. It
merely means a statement has been made which Muslims should obey.
What was it this time then? "Stop that, naughty boys, or you'll be
grounded..."
Well, it's up there at the beginning of the thread: "It is strictly
forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any (riot -style) action.."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tugboat Captain" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
09 Nov 2005 04:53:20 AM |
|
|
tw wrote / skrev:
"Tugboat Captain" <Tug@boat.captain> wrote in message
news:GS3cf.37786$d5.194601@newsb.telia.net...
tw wrote / skrev:
"Tugboat Captain" <Tug@boat.captain> wrote in message
news:XlMbf.37711$d5.194478@newsb.telia.net...
tw wrote / skrev:
Well well. And the Catholic Church didn't even excommunicate Hitler!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm
"Muslim leaders of African and Arab communities have also issued a
fatwa, or
religious order, against the riots.
"It is strictly forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any action
that
strikes blindly at private or public property or that could threaten
the
lives of others," the fatwa by the Union of Islamic Organisations in
France
said. "
What else could they say? Of course they fear the future. But it would
be interesting to see those taking this fatwa for real. Will they kill
their brothers?
Eh? A Fatwa is not a death sentence.
Well, it CAN be.
Certainly, but as I understand it, it's like a Papal Decree or something. It
merely means a statement has been made which Muslims should obey.
What was it this time then? "Stop that, naughty boys, or you'll be
grounded..."
Well, it's up there at the beginning of the thread: "It is strictly
forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any (riot -style) action.."
But what will happen to those that break the fatwa?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
09 Nov 2005 05:26:04 AM |
|
|
"Tugboat Captain" <Tug@boat.captain> wrote in message
news:Aykcf.37850$d5.194498@newsb.telia.net...
tw wrote / skrev:
"Tugboat Captain" <Tug@boat.captain> wrote in message
news:GS3cf.37786$d5.194601@newsb.telia.net...
tw wrote / skrev:
"Tugboat Captain" <Tug@boat.captain> wrote in message
news:XlMbf.37711$d5.194478@newsb.telia.net...
tw wrote / skrev:
Well well. And the Catholic Church didn't even excommunicate Hitler!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm
"Muslim leaders of African and Arab communities have also issued a
fatwa, or
religious order, against the riots.
"It is strictly forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any
action
that
strikes blindly at private or public property or that could threaten
the
lives of others," the fatwa by the Union of Islamic Organisations in
France
said. "
What else could they say? Of course they fear the future. But it would
be interesting to see those taking this fatwa for real. Will they kill
their brothers?
Eh? A Fatwa is not a death sentence.
Well, it CAN be.
Certainly, but as I understand it, it's like a Papal Decree or
something. It
merely means a statement has been made which Muslims should obey.
What was it this time then? "Stop that, naughty boys, or you'll be
grounded..."
Well, it's up there at the beginning of the thread: "It is strictly
forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any (riot -style) action.."
But what will happen to those that break the fatwa?
Presumably they will be regarded as not Muslims any mroe, since it is
forbidden for a Muslim to take part in such activities..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Never Anonymous Bud" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
09 Nov 2005 09:02:03 AM |
|
|
Using a finger dipped in purple ink, "tw" <no@no.com> scribed:
But what will happen to those that break the fatwa?
Presumably they will be regarded as not Muslims any mroe, since it is
forbidden for a Muslim to take part in such activities..
Well, they MIGHT not get their 72 virgins,
unless they follow a DIFFERENT Imam.
Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity...
Remove XYZ to email me
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
09 Nov 2005 09:09:29 AM |
|
|
"Never Anonymous Bud" <newskat@katxyzkave.net> wrote in message
news:gq34n19il58aho47giifpf4s8bbdt0c12m@4ax.com...
Using a finger dipped in purple ink, "tw" <no@no.com> scribed:
But what will happen to those that break the fatwa?
Presumably they will be regarded as not Muslims any mroe, since it is
forbidden for a Muslim to take part in such activities..
Well, they MIGHT not get their 72 virgins,
unless they follow a DIFFERENT Imam.
I'll take your word for it. I have no idea what the consequences of ignoring
a fatwah or a papal decree are. Thank Cliff.
Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity...
Remove XYZ to email me
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
07 Nov 2005 09:11:26 PM |
|
|
Tugboat Captain wrote:
tw wrote / skrev:
Well well. And the Catholic Church didn't even excommunicate Hitler!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm
"Muslim leaders of African and Arab communities have also issued a
fatwa, or
religious order, against the riots.
"It is strictly forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any action
that
strikes blindly at private or public property or that could threaten the
lives of others," the fatwa by the Union of Islamic Organisations in
France
said. "
What else could they say? Of course they fear the future. But it would
be interesting to see those taking this fatwa for real. Will they kill
their brothers?
Fatwa doesn't mean killing, for most of Islam - it means overcoming.
Typically, it's used in the context of overcoming one's own shortcomings.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
07 Nov 2005 09:10:10 PM |
|
|
tw wrote:
Well well. And the Catholic Church didn't even excommunicate Hitler!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm
"Muslim leaders of African and Arab communities have also issued a fatwa, or
religious order, against the riots.
"It is strictly forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any action that
strikes blindly at private or public property or that could threaten the
lives of others," the fatwa by the Union of Islamic Organisations in France
said. "
Nothing like invoking Godwin's Law on the first post in the thread!! 0-o
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
07 Nov 2005 11:21:24 PM |
|
|
tw wrote:
Well well. And the Catholic Church didn't even excommunicate Hitler!
Was Hitler an active, practicing Catholic?
Did Muslims issue a fatwa against the Mufti when he spent the war as
Hitler's guest in Berlin? I don't know if they did or not, that's why
I'm asking.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm
"Muslim leaders of African and Arab communities have also issued a fatwa, or
religious order, against the riots.
"It is strictly forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any action that
strikes blindly at private or public property or that could threaten the
lives of others," the fatwa by the Union of Islamic Organisations in France
said. "
I thought the politically correct theme is that the riots have nothing
to do with Islam. Nevetheless, it is encouraging that the Islamic group
issued the fatwa.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
08 Nov 2005 08:37:00 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131427284.328482.109680@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
Well well. And the Catholic Church didn't even excommunicate Hitler!
Was Hitler an active, practicing Catholic?
Presumably, seeing as his army had "God is with us" inscribed on their belt
buckles and t is evident from reading the relevant passages of Mein Kampf.
Also, given the traditional anti-semitism of both Catholicism and
Lutheranism, it seems he WAS practising at least one area of their dogma..
Of course, a more pertinent question would be - are all these rioters
active, practising Muslims?
Did Muslims issue a fatwa against the Mufti when he spent the war as
Hitler's guest in Berlin?
You already excused his behaviour, remember? You said it's OK to team up
with murderous genocidal psychopaths as long as there's something in it for
you. E.g. teh US teaming up with Iraq when Iran was holding a few hostages
and saying nasty stuff about the US (of course, Saddam was feeding babies
into shredding machines at that point and gassing Kurds with US equipment..
but that's not as bad as holding Americans hostage you know! Depriving them
of Ben & Jerry's and no access to Happy Days.. why it's the very peak of
inhumanity.
I don't know if they did or not, that's why I'm asking.
I dunno. I doubt it, for the reasons above. I doubt they came to inspect the
Mufti's troops or stood around giving Nazi saultes like this lot though:
http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm Hey! There's even a pic of
Hitler praying!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm
"Muslim leaders of African and Arab communities have also issued a
fatwa, or
religious order, against the riots.
"It is strictly forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any action
that
strikes blindly at private or public property or that could threaten the
lives of others," the fatwa by the Union of Islamic Organisations in Fra
nce
said. "
I thought the politically correct theme is that the riots have nothing
to do with Islam.
...and they don't - or at least, it certainly isn't the main factor - and
that's not PC, that's realism. However, a lot of the people that live in
these areas and are taking part are from traditionally Muslim societies.
Nevetheless, it is encouraging that the Islamic group issued the fatwa.
Yeah, compare the Christian groups in e.g. Northern Ireland - they's be
essentially exhorting their congregations to go out on the streets and burn
stuff...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
08 Nov 2005 02:11:50 PM |
|
|
tw wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131427284.328482.109680@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
Well well. And the Catholic Church didn't even excommunicate Hitler!
Was Hitler an active, practicing Catholic?
Presumably, seeing as his army had "God is with us" inscribed on their belt
buckles and t is evident from reading the relevant passages of Mein Kampf.
Also, given the traditional anti-semitism of both Catholicism and
Lutheranism, it seems he WAS practising at least one area of their dogma..
I don' t think he was darkening the door of a Catholic Church every
Sunday. He was not an active Catholic.
Of course, a more pertinent question would be - are all these rioters
active, practising Muslims?
Good question. I have not made the argument that the riots are all
about Islam.
Did Muslims issue a fatwa against the Mufti when he spent the war as
Hitler's guest in Berlin?
You already excused his behaviour, remember?
No, actually I have done the opposite.
You said it's OK to team up with murderous genocidal psychopaths as long
as there's something in it for you.
No, that is a complete (and, most probably, intentional)
mischaracterization of what I said. As I have corrected you previously,
I said it is sometimes NECESSARY to ally with one EVIL to defeat an
even LARGER evil. And if you believe the Mufti was allied with Hitler
to defeat an even larger evil, then you have taken the side of Hitler.
E.g. teh US teaming up with Iraq when Iran was holding a few hostages
and saying nasty stuff about the US (of course, Saddam was feeding babies
into shredding machines at that point and gassing Kurds with US equipment..
but that's not as bad as holding Americans hostage you know! Depriving them
of Ben & Jerry's and no access to Happy Days.. why it's the very peak of
inhumanity.
A complete (and, most likely, intentional) over-simplification of the
situation. The Islamic Republic of Iran became a threat to the entire
region, and the Ayatollah was threatening to overrun Iraq and turn Iraq
into an extension of the Islamic Republic of Iran. At the time, it was
more important to thwart the Ayatollah than it was to allow the
Ayatollah to take over Iraq. It was not the time for regime change in
Iraq, just as WWII was not the time to fight with Stalin -- even though
the Soviet Union was a potential enemy once Hitler was stopped.
I don't know if they did or not, that's why I'm asking.
I dunno. I doubt it, for the reasons above. I doubt they came to inspect the
Mufti's troops or stood around giving Nazi saultes like this lot though:
What year was that? You know, the world community held the 1936
OIympics in Berlin. This all happened BEFORE the war -- while the Mufti
PARTICIPATED in Hitler's war!
http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm Hey! There's even a pic of
Hitler praying!
Probably to the devil!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm
"Muslim leaders of African and Arab communities have also issued a
fatwa, or
religious order, against the riots.
"It is strictly forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any action
that
strikes blindly at private or public property or that could threaten the
lives of others," the fatwa by the Union of Islamic Organisations in
France said. "
I thought the politically correct theme is that the riots have nothing
to do with Islam.
..and they don't - or at least, it certainly isn't the main factor - and
that's not PC, that's realism. However, a lot of the people that live in
these areas and are taking part are from traditionally Muslim societies.
Nevetheless, it is encouraging that the Islamic group issued the fatwa.
Yeah, compare the Christian groups in e.g. Northern Ireland - they's be
essentially exhorting their congregations to go out on the streets and burn
stuff...
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
09 Nov 2005 02:44:27 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131480710.716220.241740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131427284.328482.109680@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
Well well. And the Catholic Church didn't even excommunicate Hitler!
Was Hitler an active, practicing Catholic?
Presumably, seeing as his army had "God is with us" inscribed on their
belt
buckles and t is evident from reading the relevant passages of Mein
Kampf.
Also, given the traditional anti-semitism of both Catholicism and
Lutheranism, it seems he WAS practising at least one area of their
dogma..
I don' t think he was darkening the door of a Catholic Church every
Sunday.
No? Is that what it takes to be a Catholic? There were pictures of him
praying and hanging out with the Catholic clergy in that link, they
obviously regarded him as one of their own.
He was not an active Catholic.
Well, you HAVE to say that, don't you?
Of course, a more pertinent question would be - are all these rioters
active, practising Muslims?
Good question. I have not made the argument that the riots are all
about Islam.
So what does it matter if Hitler was a practising Catholic or not then?! THe
point is, the Muslim clergy saw these kids rioting, thought many of them
might be Muslim and issued a fatwah telling them not to get involved. The
Catholic church, on the other hands, supported Catholic Hitler's rise to
power and then hung out, goose-stepped and sieg-heiled merrily as the
ghettos burned...
Did Muslims issue a fatwa against the Mufti when he spent the war as
Hitler's guest in Berlin?
You already excused his behaviour, remember?
No, actually I have done the opposite.
YOu seem confused.
You said it's OK to team up with murderous genocidal psychopaths as long
as there's something in it for you.
No, that is a complete (and, most probably, intentional)
mischaracterization of what I said. As I have corrected you previously,
I said it is sometimes NECESSARY to ally with one EVIL to defeat an
even LARGER evil.
...and how was Iran a larger eveil than Iraq back in the 80'? It merely posed
(you thought) a greater threat to the goold ol' US of A.
And if you believe the Mufti was allied with Hitler
to defeat an even larger evil, then you have taken the side of Hitler.
No, I wasn't the one who made up this excuse, it was you. But while we're
here, how, exactly was the Ayatollah a GREATER EVIL than Baby-roasting,
rape-room-romping Kurd-gassing (with US equiment!) Saddam?
E.g. teh US teaming up with Iraq when Iran was holding a few hostages
and saying nasty stuff about the US (of course, Saddam was feeding
babies
into shredding machines at that point and gassing Kurds with US
equipment..
but that's not as bad as holding Americans hostage you know! Depriving
them
of Ben & Jerry's and no access to Happy Days.. why it's the very peak of
inhumanity.
A complete (and, most likely, intentional) over-simplification of the
situation. The Islamic Republic of Iran became a threat to the entire
region,
How? If this were the case, how come the other states in the region didn't
join Iraq to defeat this "threat"?
and the Ayatollah was threatening to overrun Iraq and turn Iraq
into an extension of the Islamic Republic of Iran. At the time, it was
more important to thwart the Ayatollah than it was to allow the
Ayatollah to take over Iraq.
So you admit, it has nothing to do with "greater evils" all that matters is
which one is a greater threat to teh US.. just liek the Mufti.
It was not the time for regime change in
Iraq, just as WWII was not the time to fight with Stalin -- even though
the Soviet Union was a potential enemy once Hitler was stopped.
Jesus... this is almost as amusing as when you tried to tell me the
inquisition was a resonse to Muslim aggression. How was Iran analagous to
Hitler while Iraq was analagous to Stalin again? What was so much mroe evil
about Iran?
I don't know if they did or not, that's why I'm asking.
I dunno. I doubt it, for the reasons above. I doubt they came to inspect
the
Mufti's troops or stood around giving Nazi saultes like this lot though:
What year was that?
How is taht relevant? Seeing as many of the pics on the site are from
Croatia, it must have been post 1940
You know, the world community held the 1936
OIympics in Berlin. This all happened BEFORE the war -- while the Mufti
PARTICIPATED in Hitler's war!
As you say, as far as the Mufti was concerened, a Zionist state was the
"greater evil" for his people. Post-war events have proven him right, it
seems
http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm Hey! There's even a pic of
Hitler praying!
Probably to the devil!
Do you think that's who Catholics pray to?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm
"Muslim leaders of African and Arab communities have also issued a
fatwa, or
religious order, against the riots.
"It is strictly forbidden for any Muslim... to take part in any
action
that
strikes blindly at private or public property or that could threaten
the
lives of others," the fatwa by the Union of Islamic Organisations in
France said. "
I thought the politically correct theme is that the riots have nothing
to do with Islam.
..and they don't - or at least, it certainly isn't the main factor - and
that's not PC, that's realism. However, a lot of the people that live in
these areas and are taking part are from traditionally Muslim societies.
Nevetheless, it is encouraging that the Islamic group issued the
fatwa.
Yeah, compare the Christian groups in e.g. Northern Ireland - they's be
essentially exhorting their congregations to go out on the streets and
burn
stuff...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
09 Nov 2005 11:04:30 PM |
|
|
tw wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131480710.716220.241740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131427284.328482.109680@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
Well well. And the Catholic Church didn't even excommunicate Hitl=
er!
Was Hitler an active, practicing Catholic?
Presumably, seeing as his army had "God is with us" inscribed on their
belt
buckles and t is evident from reading the relevant passages of Mein
Kampf.
Also, given the traditional anti-semitism of both Catholicism and
Lutheranism, it seems he WAS practising at least one area of their
dogma..
I don' t think he was darkening the door of a Catholic Church every
Sunday.
No? Is that what it takes to be a Catholic? There were pictures of him
praying and hanging out with the Catholic clergy in that link, they
obviously regarded him as one of their own.
Maybe if they had had better foresight, they would have shunned him.
Maybe if the world had had better foresight, they wouldn't have held
the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. Maybe if Prime Minister Chamberlain had
had better foresight, he wouldn't have appeased him. Maybe if you had
even better hindsight than you already do, you'd be even more
judgemental than you already are.
He was not an active Catholic.
Well, you HAVE to say that, don't you?
Obviously you want to hold someone to a religion they may have been
raised with, but have since left behind. That's what I did, but you'd
have me still as a member of the religion I was raised with, even
though I no longer attend that church's services.
Of course, a more pertinent question would be - are all these rioters
active, practising Muslims?
Good question. I have not made the argument that the riots are all
about Islam.
So what does it matter if Hitler was a practising Catholic or not then?! =
THe
point is, the Muslim clergy saw these kids rioting, thought many of them
might be Muslim and issued a fatwah telling them not to get involved. The
Catholic church, on the other hands, supported Catholic Hitler's rise to
power and then hung out, goose-stepped and sieg-heiled merrily as the
ghettos burned...
There is also evidence that once the extent of the Holocaust became
fully known, the Pope took *some* actions to help Jews who were in
jeopardy. But there was also the danger of Hitler turning on the
church. It must have been terrible to have to co-exist with a monster
like Hitler -- unless, of course, one happened to be the Mufti -- the
Mufti got to live in the confiscated home of a Jew condemned to death
by his buddy, Hitler.
Did Muslims issue a fatwa against the Mufti when he spent the war as
Hitler's guest in Berlin?
You already excused his behaviour, remember?
No, actually I have done the opposite.
YOu seem confused
You ARE confused.
You said it's OK to team up with murderous genocidal psychopaths as l=
ong
as there's something in it for you.
No, that is a complete (and, most probably, intentional)
mischaracterization of what I said. As I have corrected you previously,
I said it is sometimes NECESSARY to ally with one EVIL to defeat an
even LARGER evil.
..and how was Iran a larger eveil than Iraq back in the 80'? It merely po=
sed
(you thought) a greater threat to the goold ol' US of A.
It becomes tedious having to repeat myself with you every few months.
I've posted in the past the various terrorist acts the Islamic Republic
of Iran conducted through the 80's. And since you have no clue how the
"region" felt about the Ayatollah's Revolution, read this:
[quoting] On the other hand, Iranian Shia Muslims had carried out the
successful revolution against the shah's secular government. Their
success excited many Iraqi Shias with the possibility of similar gains
in their country. Although Shiaes also constitute the majority of
Muslims in Iraq, the Sunnis (Sunni Islam) had long held political power
in Iraq's secular government. Cautiously, the domestic opposition to
Hussein's strong-handed government became emboldened. One Iraqi
religious leader in particular, Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, emerged with
ideas very similar to Khomeini's. Al-Sadr was soon arrested and
executed, bringing protests from some Iraqi Shias as well as a crisis
in Iranian-Iraqi relations.
While these events were unfolding, some Iranian officials made no
secret of their desire to have other Muslim countries follow their path
of Islamic revolution.
http://encarta.msn.com/text_761580640__1/Iran-Iraq_War.html
[quoting] The leaders of Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States
were also distressed by the Iranian revolution and feared similar
events in their own nations. Thus, in 1980, Iraq, with financial
support from the other nations and the backing of the United States,
invaded Iran in an attempt to destroy the revolution in its infancy.
This began the eight year Iran-Iraq War that would see a huge cost in
lives and resources.
The invasion by Iraq helped rally the people of Iran behind the new
regime and past differences were largely abandoned in the face of the
external threat. In the same year the new constitution was passed in a
referendum by a large majority. For those who did remain opposed to the
new regime, mostly the Soviet-backed leftist groups, the war became an
excuse for harsh treatment that saw the new regime use torture and
illegal imprisonments just as the Shah had.
While Iraq was, in the end, unsuccessful at defeating the revolution,
the Islamic revolution failed to spread beyond the borders of Iran.
[end quoted material]
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/I/Iranian-Revolution.htm
And if you believe the Mufti was allied with Hitler
to defeat an even larger evil, then you have taken the side of Hitler.
No, I wasn't the one who made up this excuse, it was you. But while we're
here, how, exactly was the Ayatollah a GREATER EVIL than Baby-roasting,
rape-room-romping Kurd-gassing (with US equiment!) Saddam?
I wouldn't want the Ayatollah's terroristic Islamic Revolution to have
spread around that region -- okay? Not good enough for you? Too bad. He
was thwarted, and that's a good thing. And now Saddam has been removed
from power, and that's a good thing too.
E.g. teh US teaming up with Iraq when Iran was holding a few hostages
and saying nasty stuff about the US (of course, Saddam was feeding
babies
into shredding machines at that point and gassing Kurds with US
equipment..
but that's not as bad as holding Americans hostage you know! Depriving
them
of Ben & Jerry's and no access to Happy Days.. why it's the very peak=
of
inhumanity.
A complete (and, most likely, intentional) over-simplification of the
situation. The Islamic Republic of Iran became a threat to the entire
region,
How? If this were the case, how come the other states in the region didn't
join Iraq to defeat this "threat"?
What makes you think they didn't?
and the Ayatollah was threatening to overrun Iraq and turn Iraq
into an extension of the Islamic Republic of Iran. At the time, it was
more important to thwart the Ayatollah than it was to allow the
Ayatollah to take over Iraq.
So you admit, it has nothing to do with "greater evils" all that matters =
is
which one is a greater threat to teh US.. just liek the Mufti.
And, at that time, to that entire region.
It was not the time for regime change in
Iraq, just as WWII was not the time to fight with Stalin -- even though
the Soviet Union was a potential enemy once Hitler was stopped.
Jesus... this is almost as amusing as when you tried to tell me the
inquisition was a resonse to Muslim aggression.
Why? We allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler. What's so amusing about
that? As for Muslim aggression in the 7th through 11th centuries, why
are you so anxious to downplay its brutality and significance in
causing a backlash that turned into Crusades and Inquisition? Somewhere
you said Islam had "ceased" to be a force in Spain prior to the Spanish
Inquistion. It just ceased? Sort of just ran out of gas? No, Islam
focibly spread itself into Spain, and there were various battles to
eradicate it -- until ultimately, it was FORCIBLY REMOVED as a force in
Spain -- it didn't just "cease" to be a force. And I believe there was
a backlash that eventually took the form of the Spanish Inquistion.
Unfortunately, some Jews got caught up in that backlash. But I believe
if Islam had NEVER been a force in Spain, the Spanish Inquistion may
have never taken place.
[quoting] The Ornament of the World by Mar=EDa Rosa Menocal, and the
comments regarding this book by Stephen Schwartz in his recent NRO
letter, promote a utopian "vision" divorced from reality. Their idyllic
view of Muslim Spain completely misrepresents the dhimmis=B4 (i.e.,
non-Muslim vanquished peoples) existence. Ms. Menocal claims, "The new
Islamic polity not only allowed Jews and Christians to survive, but
following Quranic mandate, by and large protected them..." The laws of
dhimmitude, as opposed to flimsy notions of "tolerance" and
"protection" determined the actual sociopolitical, and economic status
of Christians and Jews conquered by jihad wars.
Unfortunately, the so-called "tolerance" and "protection" alluded to
was afforded only upon submission to Islamic domination by a "Pact"--or
Dhimma--which imposed degrading and discriminatory regulations. The
main principles of dhimmitude were (and continue to be): (i) the
inequality of rights in all domains between Muslims and dhimmis; (ii)
the social and economic discrimination against the dhimmis; (iii) the
humiliation and vulnerability of the dhimmis. Moreover, Ms. Menocal
seems to be totally unaware of the dire consequences for infidel
dhimmis in Muslim Spain who rebelled against the repressive Dhimma:
slaughter of the rebels, and enslavement of their women and children.
In reality, Muslim Spain was a country of constant jihad ruled under
Maliki jurisdiction, which offered one of the most severe, repressive
interpretations of Islamic law. Muslim Spain was populated by tens of
thousands of Christian slaves, and humiliated and oppressed Christian
dhimmis, in addition to a small minority of privileged Christian
notables. The muwallads (neo-converts to Islam) were in nearly
perpetual revolt against the Arab immigrants who had claimed large
estates for themselves, farmed by Christian serfs or slaves.
Expropriations and fiscal extortions ignited the flames of continual
rebellion by both muwallads and mozarabs (Christian dhimmis) throughout
the Iberian peninsula. Leaders of these rebellions were crucified, and
their insurgent followers were put to the sword. These bloody
conflicts, which occurred throughout the Hispano-Umayyad emirate until
the tenth century, fueled endemic religious hatred. An 828 letter from
Louis the Pious to the Christians of Merida summarized their plight
under Abd al-Rahman II, and during the preceeding reign: confiscation
of their property, unfair increase of their exacted tribute, removal of
their freedom (probably meaning slavery), and oppression by excessive
taxes.
The leader of the muwallad rebellion in southern Andalusia (near
Ronda), Ibn Hafsun (d. 918), roused the peasants against the Muslim
government which he accused of confiscating their property, and
subjecting them to heavy tribute, and against the Arabs who were
crushing them with humiliations, while treating them as slaves. In
Grenada, the Jewish viziers Samuel Ibn Naghrela, and his son Joseph,
who protected a once flourishing Jewish community, were both
assassinated between 1056 to 1066, followed by the annihilation of the
Jewish population by the local Muslim community (at least three
thousand Jews perished in an uprising surrounding the 1066
assasination, alone). Finally, although Maimonides is frequently
referred to by Menocal as a paragon of Jewish achievement facilitated
by the enlightened rule of Muslim Spain, his own words debunk Menocal's
utopian view of Islamic treatment of Jews: "..the Arabs have persecuted
us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against
us...Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as
they.."
For those not hopelessly enamored of (false) utopianism, a much more
accurate assessment of interfaith relationships in Muslim Spain can be
found in Richard Fletcher's very engaging Moorish Spain. Mr. Fletcher
offers these unromantic, but unassailable observations: "The simple and
verifiable historical truth is that Moorish Spain was more often a land
of turmoil than it was of tranquility...But in the cultural conditions
that prevail in the west today the past has to be marketed, and to be
successfully marketed it has to be attractively packaged. Medieval
Spain in a state of nature lacks wide appeal. Self-indulgent fantasies
of glamour...do wonders for sharpening up its image."
Following the cataclysmic events of September 11, 2001 there has been a
decided tendency to recall nebulous "Golden Ages" of idyllic
multireligious societies, invented so effectively (as Ms. Menocal has
done, for example) that today one feels defenseless and disoriented,
when brought face-to-face with the conflicts from another age,
deliberately erased from history. We must forego this whitewashing and
opt instead for a shared, candid reflection on the painful living
legacy of dhimmitude to unite us in a joint effort for peace and mutual
respect. It is a calumny to label as "Islamophobic" individuals wishing
to promote this kind of difficult, but meaningful dialogue. [end quote]
Andrew G. Bostom, M.D.
Brown University Medical School
Providence, R.I.
http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/bostom_ltr_nro_25jul02.html
How was Iran analagous to Hitler while Iraq was analagous to
Stalin again? What was so much mroe evil about Iran?
You are so tedious.
I don't know if they did or not, that's why I'm asking.
I dunno. I doubt it, for the reasons above. I doubt they came to insp=
ect
the
Mufti's troops or stood around giving Nazi saultes like this lot thou=
gh:
What year was that?
How is taht relevant?
What year was the picture you referred to?
Seeing as many of the pics on the site are from
Croatia, it must have been post 1940
What year was the picture you referred to?
You know, the world community held the 1936
OIympics in Berlin. This all happened BEFORE the war -- while the Mufti
PARTICIPATED in Hitler's war!
As you say, as far as the Mufti was concerened, a Zionist state was the
"greater evil" for his people. Post-war events have proven him right, it
seems
Why? He was so xenophobic, he couldn't tolerate the existence of some
Jews living on a piece of ground where some of them had already bought
large tracts of land? And what great evil are you implying the Jews
represent? Hmm?
http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm Hey! There's even a pic =
of
Hitler praying!
Probably to the devil!
Do you think that's who Catholics pray to?
No, I think that's who Hitler prayed to. And if you insist Hitler on
keeping Hitler as a Catholic, then I suppose you must also insist I
remain a member of the religion I was raised with. Do you insist? And
what about converts to Islam -- possibly former Christians, who now
consider themselves Muslim -- but by your standards, you'll insist they
are still Christians. Correct?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
10 Nov 2005 02:47:31 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131599070.246877.63690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
No? Is that what it takes to be a Catholic? There were pictures of him
praying and hanging out with the Catholic clergy in that link, they
obviously regarded him as one of their own.
Maybe if they had had better foresight, they would have shunned him.
And if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle. It had *****-all to do with
foresight - it was QUITE obviosu where Hitler was head, certainly from 1936
onward. Of course, the Catholic Church was still toadying to him throughout
the war. It certainly never condemned him
<snip tedious irellevancy>
No, that is a complete (and, most probably, intentional)
mischaracterization of what I said. As I have corrected you
previously,
I said it is sometimes NECESSARY to ally with one EVIL to defeat an
even LARGER evil.
..and how was Iran a larger eveil than Iraq back in the 80'? It merely
posed
(you thought) a greater threat to the goold ol' US of A.
It becomes tedious having to repeat myself with you every few months.
Well then give a proper answer for once instead.
I've posted in the past the various terrorist acts the Islamic Republic
of Iran conducted through the 80's.
How does that make them MORE EVIL than baby-raping, genocidal WMD toting
Saddam? It doesn't, it was just that the US thought IRan was the greater
threat, hence they supported Saddam. there was no morality involved, just
selfishness. The parallel with the mufti is evident.
And since you have no clue how the
"region" felt about the Ayatollah's Revolution,
A VERY VERY BIG clue is that no one (from the middle east) was fighting
alongside Saddam against the Ayatollah.
read this:
http://encarta.msn.com/text_761580640__1/Iran-Iraq_War.html
[quoting] The leaders of Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States
were also distressed by the Iranian revolution and feared similar
events in their own nations. Thus, in 1980, Iraq, with financial
support from the other nations
Financial support. Wow.
and the backing of the United States, invaded Iran in an attempt to
destroy the revolution in its infancy.
Are you honestly contending that the casus belli for Iran/Iraq was teh
revolution? That's....interesting.
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/I/Iranian-Revolution.htm
STILL no evidence for your claim that the Shah was somehow more evil than
Saddam! It gets tedious having to watch you squirm out of answering these
questions again and again..
And if you believe the Mufti was allied with Hitler
to defeat an even larger evil, then you have taken the side of Hitler.
No, I wasn't the one who made up this excuse, it was you. But while
we're
here, how, exactly was the Ayatollah a GREATER EVIL than Baby-roasting,
rape-room-romping Kurd-gassing (with US equiment!) Saddam?
I wouldn't want the Ayatollah's terroristic Islamic Revolution to have
spread around that region -- okay? Not good enough for you?
Nope, YOu still haven't expalined how the leader of a populist movement is a
greater evil than a baby-raping-roasting-romping genocidal tyrant, other
that than the former was a trheat to the US...
Too bad.
Yes, your argyment is exactly that.
He was thwarted, and that's a good thing. And now Saddam has been removed
from power, and that's a good thing too.
I suspect you wouldn't have had to bother doing the latter if you hadn't
propped him up against the former, eh Douggie?
E.g. teh US teaming up with Iraq when Iran was holding a few
hostages
and saying nasty stuff about the US (of course, Saddam was feeding
babies
into shredding machines at that point and gassing Kurds with US
equipment..
but that's not as bad as holding Americans hostage you know!
Depriving
them
of Ben & Jerry's and no access to Happy Days.. why it's the very
peak of
inhumanity.
A complete (and, most likely, intentional) over-simplification of the
situation. The Islamic Republic of Iran became a threat to the entire
region,
How? If this were the case, how come the other states in the region
didn't
join Iraq to defeat this "threat"?
What makes you think they didn't?
The complete lack of troops or equpiment of theirs fighting against Iran?
and the Ayatollah was threatening to overrun Iraq and turn Iraq
into an extension of the Islamic Republic of Iran. At the time, it was
more important to thwart the Ayatollah than it was to allow the
Ayatollah to take over Iraq.
So you admit, it has nothing to do with "greater evils" all that matters
is
which one is a greater threat to teh US.. just liek the Mufti.
And, at that time, to that entire region.
No, only to the dictatorships and emirates of that region who feared their
own people might revolt and overthrow them...
So a greater trheat to the Status Quo of th US and its rich oil buddies...
how was he MORE EVIL again? MORE EVEIL than Saddam? With his rape rooms? His
special baby-shredding machines and the roomfull of cute little puppies he
and his sons used to rake with automatic fire every morning?
It was not the time for regime change in
Iraq, just as WWII was not the time to fight with Stalin -- even
though
the Soviet Union was a potential enemy once Hitler was stopped.
Jesus... this is almost as amusing as when you tried to tell me the
inquisition was a resonse to Muslim aggression.
Why?
Well, because your claim tah the inquisition, liek your claim that the Sha
was somehow more evil than Saddam, is utter laughable ***** with no
grounding in anything remotely resembling history.
We allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler. hat's so amusing about
that? As for Muslim aggression in the 7th through 11th centuries, why
are you so anxious to downplay its brutality and significance in
causing a backlash that turned into Crusades and Inquisition?
Because it didn't, you silly man, that's merely more of your tedious,
bigoted spin.
Somewhere you said Islam had "ceased" to be a force in Spain prior to the
Spanish
Inquistion. It just ceased? Sort of just ran out of gas? No, Islam
focibly spread itself into Spain, and there were various battles to
eradicate it -- until ultimately, it was FORCIBLY REMOVED as a force in
Spain -- it didn't just "cease" to be a force. And I believe there was
a backlash that eventually took the form of the Spanish Inquistion.
Yes, but you're quite clearly wrong. Read a book or two on teh subject.
Unfortunately, some Jews got caught up in that backlash.
LOL! They were the main target.
But I believe if Islam had NEVER been a force in Spain, the Spanish
Inquistion may
have never taken place.
Yes, but you quite clearly believe all kinds of crazy, erroneous *****.
<snip apologia for catholic anti-semitism>
How was Iran analagous to Hitler while Iraq was analagous to
< > Stalin again? What was so much mroe evil about Iran?
You are so tedious.
That's still not an asnwer. I take it uo simply can't tell me how, and
instead you'll have to mumble out threats of popular uprisings in teh area
(I though tthat was what teh US was all about? Wasn't it a popular uprising
which gave birth to your country), but you can't actually tell me why the
Shah was A GREATER EVIL than Saddam... so, by yor own standards, the mufti
remains excused.
Seeing as many of the pics on the site are from
Croatia, it must have been post 1940
What year was the picture you referred to?
it must have been post 1940
You know, the world community held the 1936
OIympics in Berlin. This all happened BEFORE the war -- while the
Mufti
PARTICIPATED in Hitler's war!
As you say, as far as the Mufti was concerened, a Zionist state was the
"greater evil" for his people. Post-war events have proven him right, it
seems
Why?
Oh gee, I dunno. Maybe because him and his peopel had Jerusalem stolen from
them?
He was so xenophobic, he couldn't tolerate the existence of some
Jews living on a piece of ground where some of them had already bought
large tracts of land?
Hey, I'm not the one jumping through hoops to defend his policy of allying
with those who opposed enemies of his.
And what great evil are you implying the Jews represent? Hmm?
I'm not.
http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm Hey! There's even a pic
of
Hitler praying!
Probably to the devil!
Do you think that's who Catholics pray to?
No, I think that's who Hitler prayed to.
And once again, you are completely wrong. Hitler was clearly a theist.
And if you insist Hitler on keeping Hitler as a Catholic, then I suppose
you must also insist I
remain a member of the religion I was raised with. Do you insist? And
what about converts to Islam -- possibly former Christians, who now
consider themselves Muslim -- but by your standards, you'll insist they
are still Christians. Correct?
As I've said before, it's all the same ***** in different buckets really.
Makes no difference to me. It' sobvious that Hitler was a theist, raised in
the Catholic tradition who retained the support of the Catholic church and
was quite clearly (from his own writings) a religous man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
10 Nov 2005 08:29:16 PM |
|
|
tw wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131599070.246877.63690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
No? Is that what it takes to be a Catholic? There were pictures of him
praying and hanging out with the Catholic clergy in that link, they
obviously regarded him as one of their own.
Maybe if they had had better foresight, they would have shunned him.
And if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle. It had *****-all to do with
foresight - it was QUITE obviosu where Hitler was head, certainly from 1936
onward. Of course, the Catholic Church was still toadying to him throughout
the war. It certainly never condemned him
The picture I believe you referred to was taken in 1933. Another
picture you may have been referring to was taken in 1935. So you would
have the Church condemn him during his reign of terror, and what would
have happened to the Catholic Church in Germany? Or anywhere else
Hitler had control? Yes, it's so easy for you to sit there all day and
judge people who lived in conditions you can't even imagine. And by the
way, once the extent of the Holocaust became known, the Pope did take
steps to save some Jews from Hitler's and the Mufti's Holocaust.
<snip tedious irellevancy>
Good idea -- thank you. By the way, in 1980, it seems President Carter
decided the priority was to help his Middle East allies prevent the
Ayatollah's Islamic Revolution from spreading to their nations.
November 11, 1996
Iran's State of Terror
A Berlin murder trial provides details of how top-ranking Iranian
leaders administer a bloody international terror network
By THOMAS SANCTON
[excerpt] In addition to nearly 80 assassinations of Iranian dissidents
abroad, the mullahs or their surrogates are believed to have been
behind dozens of major terrorist attacks around the world. Among them:
the suicide bombings of U.S. and French military barracks in Beirut in
1983 (299 dead);
a string of Paris bombings in September 1986 (12 dead);
and attacks on the Israeli embassy and a Jewish community center in
Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994 (125 dead).
In the past two and a half years alone, 134 people in Israel and the
Palestinian territories have died in suicide bombings carried out by
Iranian-supported groups. According to U.S. and Saudi sources, Saudi
officials are holding 40 suspects for the bombing that killed 19
Americans in Dhahran last June and say they have evidence implicating
Iran as the instigator of the attack.
The Saudi charges, if confirmed, coincide with other recent Iranian
attempts to destabilize moderate Arab states. Egyptian President Hosni
Mubarak claims Iran was behind a foiled assassination attempt against
him last year. Last June, authorities in Bahrain announced a
Tehran-backed plot to topple the Khalifa monarchy and replace it with a
pro-Iranian Islamic Republic.
Moreover, Tehran's adamant opposition to the Middle East peace process,
its efforts to acquire nuclear arms technology, and the recent buildup
of its chemical and conventional arsenals, all add up to a capacity for
international troublemaking unrivaled by any other country. [end
excerpt]
COPYRIGHT ? 2000 TIME INC.
http://www.time.com/time/europe/timetrails/iran/ir961111.html
That's what happened, and you can rant until the day you die for all I
care. But I'm done arguing these points with you. It's beyond tedious
having to repeat the same arguments every few months. Move on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
11 Nov 2005 02:42:52 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131676156.616873.67330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131599070.246877.63690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
No? Is that what it takes to be a Catholic? There were pictures of him
praying and hanging out with the Catholic clergy in that link, they
obviously regarded him as one of their own.
Maybe if they had had better foresight, they would have shunned him.
And if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle. It had *****-all to do
with
foresight - it was QUITE obviosu where Hitler was head, certainly from
1936
onward. Of course, the Catholic Church was still toadying to him
throughout
the war. It certainly never condemned him
The picture I believe you referred to was taken in 1933. Another
picture you may have been referring to was taken in 1935.
Here's some more information about teh Catholic Church and Nazis in Croatia.
"Cornwell lists some of the major facts of church collaboration with
Pavelic's regime:
While Pavelic's men were killing thousands of innocent Serb men, women and
children, Pope Pius XII greeted Pavelic at the Vatican in 1941. The Vatican
was fully informed of the genocide, yet continued to support the Croat
regime, and rejoiced in the huge number of conversions to Catholicism. How
the church believed these conversions were the result of anything other than
terror is not known.
Pius gave a personal audience to Croat police in Rome in **1941**.
Pius gave a personal audience to Ustashe youth in Rome in **1942**.
Pius received Ustashe Police at the Vatican in **1943***.
So you would have the Church condemn him during his reign of terror,
It probably woudl have been a good idea, yes. Or they could have just been
neutral..instead they were cutting deals left, right and center
and what would have happened to the Catholic Church in Germany?
They woudl presumably have done their job and even created a few new martyrs
on the way.
Or anywhere else Hitler had control? Yes, it's so easy for you to sit
there all day and
judge people who lived in conditions you can't even imagine.
Like you do with e.g. Palestine..
And by the way, once the extent of the Holocaust became known, the Pope
did take
steps to save some Jews from Hitler's and the Mufti's Holocaust
Such as? "The Mufti's holocaust" - don't be such a drama queen, Stevie.
<snip tedious irellevancy>
Good idea -- thank you. By the way, in 1980, it seems President Carter
decided the priority was to help his Middle East allies prevent the
Ayatollah's Islamic Revolution from spreading to their nations.
LOL! Carter!
November 11, 1996
Iran's State of Terror
A Berlin murder trial provides details of how top-ranking Iranian
leaders administer a bloody international terror network
Yet Iraq is obviously a far, far greater evil - I mean the US has invaded
Iraq twice and never touched Iran (except for a BADLY bungled "rescue"
mission)
It's just not consistent is it? So the Iranians can set off a few car bombs
if they want... Saddam, according to you was raping babies everyday, feeding
peopel into shredding machines, developing chemical agents, nukes, bio
weapons blah blah blah yet you STILL want to claim the Ayatollah was teh
greater evil!
<snip short list of Iranian sponsored terror - comparabel to Iraq's but
without the baby-raping/shredding rooms, WMD and all the opther stuff
attributed to Saddam>
http://www.time.com/time/europe/timetrails/iran/ir961111.html
That's what happened, and you can rant until the day you die for all I
care. But I'm done arguing these points with you. It's beyond tedious
having to repeat the same arguments every few months. Move on.
LOL! In other words you admit you can't support your ridiculous assertion
that the Ayatollah was a greater evil (speaking from an objective moral
standpoint) than Saddam. The ayatollah was merelty a greater threat to US
interests circa 1979, which is why the US supported the baby-mincing
genocidal Hitler-esque Saddam. Exactly as it was in the Mufti's
self-interest to support Hitler. What a terrible excuse, shame on you for
justifiying it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
11 Nov 2005 11:24:15 AM |
|
|
tw wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
By the way, in 1980, it seems President Carter
decided the priority was to help his Middle East allies prevent the
Ayatollah's Islamic Revolution from spreading to their nations.
LOL! Carter!
Is Carter funny? He was President of the United States in 1980.
November 11, 1996
Iran's State of Terror
A Berlin murder trial provides details of how top-ranking Iranian
leaders administer a bloody international terror network
Yet Iraq is obviously a far, far greater evil - I mean the US has invaded
Iraq twice and never touched Iran (except for a BADLY bungled "rescue"
mission)
It's just not consistent is it? So the Iranians can set off a few car bombs
if they want... Saddam, according to you was raping babies everyday, feeding
peopel into shredding machines, developing chemical agents, nukes, bio
weapons blah blah blah yet you STILL want to claim the Ayatollah was teh
greater evil!
<snip short list of Iranian sponsored terror - comparabel to Iraq's but
without the baby-raping/shredding rooms, WMD and all the opther stuff
attributed to Saddam>
http://www.time.com/time/europe/timetrails/iran/ir961111.html
That's what happened, and you can rant until the day you die for all I
care. But I'm done arguing these points with you. It's beyond tedious
having to repeat the same arguments every few months. Move on.
LOL! In other words you admit you can't support your ridiculous assertion
that the Ayatollah was a greater evil (speaking from an objective moral
standpoint) than Saddam.
No, in other words, I'm tired of making the same argument over and over
again. Doc is tired of me making the same argument over and over again
(though he reserves his criticism for me alone, and apparently gives
you a pass for your 50% responsibility in this
arguing). And I wonder why WH doesn't call you a parrot for making the
same tired argument over and over again? He reserves his criticism in
that regard for me, though it certainly applies to you since you repeat
the same things over and over and over again.
The ayatollah was merelty a greater threat to US
interests circa 1979, which is why the US supported the baby-mincing
genocidal Hitler-esque Saddam. Exactly as it was in the Mufti's
self-interest to support Hitler. What a terrible excuse, shame on you for
justifiying it.
I did nothing of the sort. That is you twisting my words into something
you'd like it to be. You know perfectly well how I feel about the
Mufti's involvement in the Holocaust. And it seems to be you who
constantly tries to diminish the high level of his evil deeds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
11 Nov 2005 02:19:51 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131729855.720309.242630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
By the way, in 1980, it seems President Carter
decided the priority was to help his Middle East allies prevent the
Ayatollah's Islamic Revolution from spreading to their nations.
LOL! Carter!
Is Carter funny? He was President of the United States in 1980.
Yes, he has a well developed sense of humor, unlike you, Stevie boy.
November 11, 1996
Iran's State of Terror
A Berlin murder trial provides details of how top-ranking Iranian
leaders administer a bloody international terror network
Yet Iraq is obviously a far, far greater evil - I mean the US has
invaded
Iraq twice and never touched Iran (except for a BADLY bungled "rescue"
mission)
It's just not consistent is it? So the Iranians can set off a few car
bombs
if they want... Saddam, according to you was raping babies everyday,
feeding
peopel into shredding machines, developing chemical agents, nukes, bio
weapons blah blah blah yet you STILL want to claim the Ayatollah was
teh
greater evil!
<snip short list of Iranian sponsored terror - comparabel to Iraq's but
without the baby-raping/shredding rooms, WMD and all the opther stuff
attributed to Saddam>
http://www.time.com/time/europe/timetrails/iran/ir961111.html
That's what happened, and you can rant until the day you die for all
I
care. But I'm done arguing these points with you. It's beyond tedious
having to repeat the same arguments every few months. Move on.
LOL! In other words you admit you can't support your ridiculous
assertion
that the Ayatollah was a greater evil (speaking from an objective moral
standpoint) than Saddam.
No, in other words, I'm tired of making the same argument over and over
again. Doc is tired of me making the same argument over and over again
(though he reserves his criticism for me alone, and apparently gives
you a pass for your 50% responsibility in this
arguing). And I wonder why WH doesn't call you a parrot for making the
same tired argument over and over again? He reserves his criticism in
that regard for me, though it certainly applies to you since you repeat
the same things over and over and over again.
The ayatollah was merelty a greater threat to US
interests circa 1979, which is why the US supported the baby-mincing
genocidal Hitler-esque Saddam. Exactly as it was in the Mufti's
self-interest to support Hitler. What a terrible excuse, shame on you
for
justifiying it.
I did nothing of the sort. That is you twisting my words into something
you'd like it to be. You know perfectly well how I feel about the
Mufti's involvement in the Holocaust. And it seems to be you who
constantly tries to diminish the high level of his evil deeds.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
11 Nov 2005 12:36:28 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131729855.720309.242630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
By the way, in 1980, it seems President Carter
decided the priority was to help his Middle East allies prevent the
Ayatollah's Islamic Revolution from spreading to their nations.
LOL! Carter!
Is Carter funny? He was President of the United States in 1980.
You'd think they would have liked Carter! While a great man in his private
life, he was weak and ineffectual as President. Thought that was what
everyone wants for the US!
Jane
November 11, 1996
Iran's State of Terror
A Berlin murder trial provides details of how top-ranking Iranian
leaders administer a bloody international terror network
Yet Iraq is obviously a far, far greater evil - I mean the US has invaded
Iraq twice and never touched Iran (except for a BADLY bungled "rescue"
mission)
It's just not consistent is it? So the Iranians can set off a few car
bombs
if they want... Saddam, according to you was raping babies everyday,
feeding
peopel into shredding machines, developing chemical agents, nukes, bio
weapons blah blah blah yet you STILL want to claim the Ayatollah was teh
greater evil!
<snip short list of Iranian sponsored terror - comparabel to Iraq's but
without the baby-raping/shredding rooms, WMD and all the opther stuff
attributed to Saddam>
http://www.time.com/time/europe/timetrails/iran/ir961111.html
That's what happened, and you can rant until the day you die for all I
care. But I'm done arguing these points with you. It's beyond tedious
having to repeat the same arguments every few months. Move on.
LOL! In other words you admit you can't support your ridiculous assertion
that the Ayatollah was a greater evil (speaking from an objective moral
standpoint) than Saddam.
No, in other words, I'm tired of making the same argument over and over
again. Doc is tired of me making the same argument over and over again
(though he reserves his criticism for me alone, and apparently gives
you a pass for your 50% responsibility in this
arguing). And I wonder why WH doesn't call you a parrot for making the
same tired argument over and over again? He reserves his criticism in
that regard for me, though it certainly applies to you since you repeat
the same things over and over and over again.
The ayatollah was merelty a greater threat to US
interests circa 1979, which is why the US supported the baby-mincing
genocidal Hitler-esque Saddam. Exactly as it was in the Mufti's
self-interest to support Hitler. What a terrible excuse, shame on you for
justifiying it.
I did nothing of the sort. That is you twisting my words into something
you'd like it to be. You know perfectly well how I feel about the
Mufti's involvement in the Holocaust. And it seems to be you who
constantly tries to diminish the high level of his evil deeds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
11 Nov 2005 01:30:30 PM |
|
|
Jane wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131729855.720309.242630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
By the way, in 1980, it seems President Carter
decided the priority was to help his Middle East allies prevent the
Ayatollah's Islamic Revolution from spreading to their nations.
LOL! Carter!
Is Carter funny? He was President of the United States in 1980.
You'd think they would have liked Carter! While a great man in his private
life, he was weak and ineffectual as President. Thought that was what
everyone wants for the US!
Very true. It seems the rest of the world loves the US when it is weak
and ineffectual.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
11 Nov 2005 11:18:45 PM |
|
|
Jane wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131729855.720309.242630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
By the way, in 1980, it seems President Carter
decided the priority was to help his Middle East allies prevent the
Ayatollah's Islamic Revolution from spreading to their nations.
LOL! Carter!
Is Carter funny? He was President of the United States in 1980.
You'd think they would have liked Carter! While a great man in his private
life, he was weak and ineffectual as President. Thought that was what
everyone wants for the US!
Jane
The Ayatolla liked Reagan/Bush. That's why he waited until Reagan was
sworn in to hand the hostages back over - it was to give Reagan a boost
for a second term.
Woods
November 11, 1996
Iran's State of Terror
A Berlin murder trial provides details of how top-ranking Iranian
leaders administer a bloody international terror network
Yet Iraq is obviously a far, far greater evil - I mean the US has invaded
Iraq twice and never touched Iran (except for a BADLY bungled "rescue"
mission)
It's just not consistent is it? So the Iranians can set off a few car
bombs
if they want... Saddam, according to you was raping babies everyday,
feeding
peopel into shredding machines, developing chemical agents, nukes, bio
weapons blah blah blah yet you STILL want to claim the Ayatollah was teh
greater evil!
<snip short list of Iranian sponsored terror - comparabel to Iraq's but
without the baby-raping/shredding rooms, WMD and all the opther stuff
attributed to Saddam>
http://www.time.com/time/europe/timetrails/iran/ir961111.html
That's what happened, and you can rant until the day you die for all I
care. But I'm done arguing these points with you. It's beyond tedious
having to repeat the same arguments every few months. Move on.
LOL! In other words you admit you can't support your ridiculous assertion
that the Ayatollah was a greater evil (speaking from an objective moral
standpoint) than Saddam.
No, in other words, I'm tired of making the same argument over and over
again. Doc is tired of me making the same argument over and over again
(though he reserves his criticism for me alone, and apparently gives
you a pass for your 50% responsibility in this
arguing). And I wonder why WH doesn't call you a parrot for making the
same tired argument over and over again? He reserves his criticism in
that regard for me, though it certainly applies to you since you repeat
the same things over and over and over again.
The ayatollah was merelty a greater threat to US
interests circa 1979, which is why the US supported the baby-mincing
genocidal Hitler-esque Saddam. Exactly as it was in the Mufti's
self-interest to support Hitler. What a terrible excuse, shame on you for
justifiying it.
I did nothing of the sort. That is you twisting my words into something
you'd like it to be. You know perfectly well how I feel about the
Mufti's involvement in the Holocaust. And it seems to be you who
constantly tries to diminish the high level of his evil deeds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
12 Nov 2005 11:50:02 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
The Ayatolla liked Reagan/Bush. That's why he waited until Reagan was
sworn in to hand the hostages back over - it was to give Reagan a boost
for a second term.
Eh? My understanding was that Reagan made no bones about the fact that
once it was his watch, the hostages would be recovered. Over the
smoking remnants of Iran if necessary. They wisely decided to avoid
that possibility.
--
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Muslims issue fatwah against rioters.. |
14 Nov 2005 03:09:24 AM |
|
|
"The CO" <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4376d428$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
Woodswun wrote:
The Ayatolla liked Reagan/Bush. That's why he waited until Reagan was
sworn in to hand the hostages back over - it was to give Reagan a boost
for a second term.
Eh? My understanding was that Reagan made no bones about the fact that
once it was his watch, the hostages would be recovered.
Well, je SAID that in public, because the deal had basicaly already been
done in private. As Woods said, the Iranians had beef with CArter not teh US
per se.
Over the smoking remnants of Iran if necessary. They wisely decided to
avoid
that possibility.
Hmm.. they were so scared by Regagan that they agreed to negotiate with
Hamas to get US hostages out of Beirut a cyear or so later - in return for
hefty arms deliveries. Reagan's posse did a wonderful PR job on this bit of
history but the reality is a lot more shabby and prosaic I believe.
--
The CO
.
|
|
< | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
