The Truth About Islam

[rationalist]

The twin towers were brought down by the US Government to whip up anti-Islamic hysteria in the stupid right wing electorate so that they would think it fine and dandy to bomb hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims to death.

Now what kind of buffoon could fall for such a transparent stunt????

 

[KingClovis]

The following are myths: Palestinians, occupied territories, Israeli aggression. The Palestinians were and remain ordinary Arabs, who only sought to distinguish themselves in 1948, when Israel became a nation. They never existed prior to that as a separate and distinct people. The occupied lands, according to the Balfour Declaration, were part of the Jewish Homeland all along. Israel has merely fought for what was and remains rightfully its own, since its birth as a nation.

www.horstveckner.com

 

[Gipper]

The following are myths: Palestinians, occupied territories, Israeli aggression. The Palestinians were and remain ordinary Arabs, who only sought to distinguish themselves in 1948, when Israel became a nation. They never existed prior to that as a separate and distinct people. The occupied lands, according to the Balfour Declaration, were part of the Jewish Homeland all along. Israel has merely fought for what was and remains rightfully its own, since its birth as a nation.

www.horstveckner.com

So true Your Majesty, but the truth means nothing to the America/Israeli haters.

The so called Palestinians should be expelled from Israel in a orderly fashion and accepted by other Muslim nations in the region. This is a sane solution, but will never be implemented due to Muslim fanaticism and Antisemitism.

 

[rationalist]

I would love to see your reaction to an invasion and settlement by foreign nationals.

Oh that's how you founded the US.

No wonder you don't mind Israel displacing these poor people.

 

[KingClovis]

So true Your Majesty, but the truth means nothing to the America/Israeli haters.

The so called Palestinians should be expelled from Israel in a orderly fashion and accepted by other Muslim nations in the region. This is a sane solution, but will never be implemented due to Muslim fanaticism and Antisemitism.

This is why we must keep fighting. This war is eternal, quite tragically.

 

[KingClovis]

THE SIN OF THE WEST
By allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, the West is committing a great sin against God and Man. The net result of this sin is nothing less than the imperilment of the entire world. Iran is a psychotic state, run by apocalyptic, messianic, Muslim cultists, who feel called by the mythical 'Hidden Imam' to destroy Planet Earth. This makes the West's tolerance of their nuclear ambitions even more egregious than its appeasement of Adolf Hitler in 1938. At least Hitler, despite his lust for genocide, slavery, and ruthless imperialism, did not intend to incinerate the world.

The mullahs of Iran do want to set the world on fire. They've publicly stated as much for decades, and have behaved in such a way as to prepare the Middle East for their first strike, once nuclear ballistic missiles fall into their hands. When that riotous corner of the world goes up in flames, World War III will commence. Like it or not, the West will have to engage, to save itself, if nothing else, and the fight will reconfigure the international community of nations, after billions die. Only then will the West realize it betrayed Mankind, again, by opting for appeasement, instead of moral fortitude.

www.horstveckner.com

 

[rationalist]

The fight is eternal????

Who are you?

Harry Potter?

 

[Gipper]

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

Paul E. Marek is a second-generation Canadian, whose grandparents fled Czechoslovakia just prior to the Nazi takeover. He wrote the following article in February of 2006.

'We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the 'peaceful majority', the 'silent majority', is cowed and extraneous.

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

http://www.inrepair.net/2008/01/20/why-the-peaceful-majority-is-irrelevant/

We can learn from history and stop repeating the same mistakes. Or, we can fail to learn from history and keep repeating the same deadly mistakes.

And, sadly we know many liberals stand with the enemies of America.

 

[Free Palestine]

The following are myths: Palestinians, occupied territories, Israeli aggression. The Palestinians were and remain ordinary Arabs, who only sought to distinguish themselves in 1948, when Israel became a nation. They never existed prior to that as a separate and distinct people. The occupied lands, according to the Balfour Declaration, were part of the Jewish Homeland all along. Israel has merely fought for what was and remains rightfully its own, since its birth as a nation.

www.horstveckner.com

Arabs and Palestininas has been in Palestine thousands of years even before Judiasm appeared . Your speech has absolutely no historical evidences since you're talking as a hater not a truth searcher ! .

Israel never had the right in Palestine and will never have , keep this in mind !.

 

[numinus]

Arabs and Palestininas has been in Palestine thousands of years even before Judiasm appeared . Your speech has absolutely no historical evidences since you're talking as a hater not a truth searcher ! .

Israel never had the right in Palestine and will never have , keep this in mind !.

What nonsense!

ISRAEL OWNS THE LAND BY THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE -- he who is SOVEREIGN over the land OWNS IT.

The palestinian arabs refused the un partition plan. The palestinian arabs refused citizenship in the fledgling nation. The palestinian arabs, together with their arab brethrens, LOST the war with israel. Therefore, it is the arabs, who in fact, have NO RIGHT to it.

Keep that in mind.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

What nonsense!

ISRAEL OWNS THE LAND BY THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE -- he who is SOVEREIGN over the land OWNS IT.

The palestinian arabs refused the un partition plan. The palestinian arabs refused citizenship in the fledgling nation. The palestinian arabs, together with their arab brethrens, LOST the war with israel. Therefore, it is the arabs, who in fact, have NO RIGHT to it.

Keep that in mind.

so might makes right...so Iraq took over Kuwait...it won that war ...so the US should not have backed Kuwait because Iraq won the war there for had legal rights to the land...

 

[numinus]

so might makes right...so Iraq took over Kuwait...it won that war ...so the US should not have backed Kuwait because Iraq won the war there for had legal rights to the land...

That is correct.

Whatever legal claim the kuwaitis had prior to the invasion became moot in the face of the iraqi occupation.

 

[dahermit]

That is correct.

Whatever legal claim the kuwaitis had prior to the invasion became moot in the face of the iraqi occupation.

I could be wrong, but I think I remember part of the UN charter stating that a country cannot annex land occupied as a result of war.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-annexation.htm

After the Second World War, the United Nations passed a resolution condemning annexing, and stating that future annexations of territory would not be recognized by the international community, thereby invalidating them. This was done in part as a reaction to the annexations utilized by Germany to gain control over continental Europe during the war. A handful of annexations have occurred since this period, usually in a legal gray area which makes it difficult to categorically determine that they should be classified as annexations.

Well, it was not in the charter...it was a resolution.

 

[numinus]

I could be wrong, but I think I remember part of the UN charter stating that a country cannot annex land occupied as a result of war.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-annexation.htm



Well, it was not in the charter...it was a resolution.

Well, its right there in your article -- what is the point of lending or withholding recognition in the face of de facto sovereignty? Wouldn't a kuwaiti legal claim be moot in this case? Unless the the international community, through the un security council (which is the same as its most powerful member, the us) deems it proper to evict the iraqi invaders, as what indeed happened, legal claims are pointless, no?

As for palestine, the legal claims of the palestinian arabs is based on the political realities of the ottoman empire. The jews' claim goes as far back as the establishment of the jewish monarchy.

All these claims are irrelevant to de facto ownership -- the state of israel owns the land it exercises sovereign power over. That goes for the occupied territories as well. The argument can be made that the continued occupation of the golan heights, gaza and the west bank are necessary for israel's defense.

What do you suppose is the weight of some legal point made in an international court against the very survival of israel itself, hmmm?

 

[dahermit]

Well, its right there in your article -- what is the point of lending or withholding recognition in the face of de facto sovereignty? Wouldn't a kuwaiti legal claim be moot in this case? Unless the the international community, through the un security council (which is the same as its most powerful member, the us) deems it proper to evict the iraqi invaders, as what indeed happened, legal claims are pointless, no?

As for palestine, the legal claims of the palestinian arabs is based on the political realities of the ottoman empire. The jews' claim goes as far back as the establishment of the jewish monarchy.

All these claims are irrelevant to de facto ownership -- the state of israel owns the land it exercises sovereign power over. That goes for the occupied territories as well. The argument can be made that the continued occupation of the golan heights, gaza and the west bank are necessary for israel's defense.

What do you suppose is the weight of some legal point made in an international court against the very survival of israel itself, hmmm?

I agree it is pointless. The problems in that area have existed since the establishment of Israel after the end of WWII despite the best intentions of those who would mediate a solution. There will be no solution until one entity (Israel or the Arabs), prevails in a war of major destruction of the other. There is no other solution. Compromises, treaties, and talks have shown to be ineffective and have led to continued conflict and quasi-war.