NationStates Jolt Archive

Ah. So the majority of the 15 million or so who served in the Wehrmacht were Nazi's or supporters?
Most likely, yes.

Hitler never really wanted to kill the jews, he just wanted them out. Nazism was self-destructive, meaning "If we can't win, we're taking everyone down with us." Nazi Germany's original stance with the Jews was "Get out of germany with your life, leave ur business and assets behind." then, as the allies began winning, they decided that the Jews had to be completely gone from German soil and thus began the "Final Solution."

I'd put the year that the Allies turned the tide of the Second World War at 1943, which I believe is well into the start of the extermination program. Before that, Japan still held the upper hand in the Pacific and the Russian, North African and Italian fronts were still up for grabs. It was also the year that American ground forces began to arrive in Europe and North Africa in large numbers.

He totally wanted to exteriminate the Jewish people and other undesirables such as Slavs, Gypsies, intellectuals, and homosexuals.

You read the link, right?
What link? Must have missed it.


"Left"? Left as in allowing elections?
Left as in:
Wacht auf, verdammte dieser Erde, die stets man noch zum Hungern zwingt! Das Recht wie Glut im Kraterherde nun mit Macht zum Durchbruch dringt. Reinen Tisch macht mit dem Bedränger! Heer der Sklaven, wache auf!
Ein Nichts zu sein, tragt es nicht länger, alles zu werden, störmt zuhauf.

Völker, hört die Signale! Auf, zum letzten Gefecht! Die Internationale erkämpft das Menschenrecht! Völker, hört die Signale! Auf, zum letzten Gefecht! Die Internationale erkämpft das Menschenrecht.


I mean the kind of liberal that puts the individual first, that is all about "live and let live".
One of my prime believes.

That considers the mind of every one of us to be above all governments, nations, peoples, borders.
The kind that would respect a person's right to have any religion. The right of anyone who wishes to live anywhere to do so, as long as he or she doesn't violate anyone else by doing so.
To an extend. If you have an abusive, freeloading houseguest you will kick him out of your house.
And theres nothing wrong with a bit of patriotism and loyality to your country or people.


Flexibility in politics is also known as hipocrisy, you know. :p
Only if you previously took an unshakebal stance for one thing or the other.
But thats just my take on that.

Most likely, yes.
Since you come from such a terrible herritage I'm suprised you haven't offed yourself by now.

I'd put the year that the Allies turned the tide of the Second World War at 1943, which I believe is well into the start of the extermination program. Before that, Japan still held the upper hand in the Pacific and the Russian, North African and Italian fronts were still up for grabs. It was also the year that American ground forces began to arrive in Europe and North Africa in large numbers.

He totally wanted to exteriminate the Jewish people and other undesirables such as Slavs, Gypsies, intellectuals, and homosexuals.

No... the tide began turning in 1942. the germans lost the initiative (offensive) in russia (Stalingrad and other places) and were retreating from 42 on. that's when final solution was initiated. they let the jews leave with their lives before that. it was just weird that the US didn't let more jews get visas. the US could have saved so many people...

No... the tide began turning in 1942. the germans lost the initiative (offensive) in russia (Stalingrad and other places) and were retreating from 42 on. that's when final solution was initiated. they let the jews leave with their lives before that. it was just weird that the US didn't let more jews get visas. the US could have saved so many people...

Roosevelt=Big Racist.

Think Japanese Internment Camps.

No... the tide began turning in 1942. the germans lost the initiative (offensive) in russia (Stalingrad and other places) and were retreating from 42 on. that's when final solution was initiated. they let the jews leave with their lives before that. it was just weird that the US didn't let more jews get visas. the US could have saved so many people...
Holocaust or no holocaust. Nobody liked Jews back then. ;)

yea... the japanese got screwed in america, as did the jews. it's ironic how a nazi tried to save the chinese in nanking and the japanese government refused to let the germans get the jews that seeked asylum in japan.

wilson was even more racist. isn't it funny how both WW presidents were racist?

Shinto has/had no more to do with the Japanese being vicious to people than Islam has to do with terrorism or Christianity has/had to do with gay bashing or witch hunts. And the Chinese are not models of pacifism and compassion either. Which of their religions would you blame for the cruelties in their history?

When are we going to get away from all these prejudicial labels/excuses and just hold individuals responsible for their own actions?

EDIT: Looking at your post without the quote in between, your statements contradict each other. If no religion condones violence, how can you label Shinto a violent, non-peaceful religion?

It's quite simple.

Things are more complicated than they appear.

The Emperor of Japan, the highest Shinto priest in all the land, with aid from his ministers, used Shinto as a destructive weapon of racial superiority and nationalism. If the Emperor of Japan changes something in Shintoism, per-war, it was a change to the whole religion.

Of course, it was also used and abused, much as Islam, Christianity, and polytheism have been. And Shintoism has been peaceful ever since and was for a little over a millenia before, as well. I guess it would be more appropriate to refer to Shintoism as having been a violent religion, rather than being a violent religion.

Silly old white men, I guess.

I'm a fan of the Jews, I've got to say.

Rich, smart, motivated people with a cool looking star on their flag?

What's there not to like? :p

Roosevelt=Big Racist.

Think Japanese Internment Camps.

As I recall, he once said words similar to the following to one of his Jewish cabinet members: "Remember, it's our [the Protestants'] country. Not yours [the Jews']."

And Shintoism has been peaceful ever since and was for a little over a millenia before, as well.
Japan peacefull before WW2?

People fail to see that someone commiting a violent act in the name of a peaceful religion is not apart of that religion.

For instance, if a Protestent extremist bombs an abortion clinic or shoots up a gay bar called "Flamers", he or she is no longer a Christian, but a muderer.

Japan peacefull before WW2?

I think not. Naking happened before WWII, as did the invasions of Korea and China.

Japan peacefull before WW2?

Shintoism did not condone the violence intrinsic to the Sengoku Jidai, the Onin War, the various wars over the throne that occured in the 1200s (forgot the name), nor the Russo-Japanese War.

I think not. Naking happened before WWII, as did the invasions of Korea and China.

Nanking happened during WWII. WWII started, and ended, in Asia. To say that WWII started when Germany invaded Poland is more than a little Euro-centric.

EDIT: what he said ^

Shinto celebrates birth in the Japanese culture, Buddhism is used to celebrate death. fyi

Shintoism did not condone the violence intrinsic to the Sengoku Jidai, the Onin War, the various wars over the throne that occured in the 1200s (forgot the name), nor the Russo-Japanese War.
But they were still Shintoists. And they did whipe out the Christians in Japan. Under the banner of Shintoism if I'm not mistaking. And the same thing in the Koga and Iga provinces against the somewhat buddhist-like Ninja clans.

back to the original discusion i would like to point out the diffrences between Islam and the rest of the religons
1st- the koran has many passages that exclusivlly target christans, Jews, and athiest.
2nd- why is i that as soon one negative article about Islam is madeon how they treat non-belivers they quickly forgive and 'make peace' but as soon as a cartoon depicts mohammad negitivly they all rally up but they constntly have political cartoons that make fun of all other religons and its ok??
3rd- During the course of hisory Mohammad went from a peaceful loving guy to a despotic maniac ruler?/(check the history books )
why does the koran condtradict its self over and over again??(read the koran0
The jews follow thier torah- christains follow the new testament yet the muslims are sooo peaceful eventhough there foundation book contains no mercy for anyone not Muslim??
How come when i worked with muslims they countinuasly mocked my religon and the jews yet i have treated them with utter respect because i cannot judge a man and my parents taught me to respect your colleges and boss (which they ran a dunkin donuts and i worked for them)
it seems that the muslims are putting on a mask like the nazis to cover up their true intentions. those who say they are athiest and dont have to worry think again because muslims think of you lower than dirt. its true just read the koran which i would expect you would take that as a validating source i have yet to see any specific writings in th new teastament or torah were it says to kill non belivers. the onething we are forgetting is that it seems that the muslims are the real nazis because they want to extermanate not just the jews but athiest and christans as well.
to call me a nazi is funny because i do not hate them nor do i want to kill them to solve my problem i want to show people that with proper evidence the true intentions of thier religon how come they do not follow it??
is it because it was writen hundreds of years ago?? the new testament and torah are aslo just as old even older yet they still follow it to the word.
how can we say it is not a problem since they are defintly not a minority and also the fastest growing religon.. are you just going to convert to their beliefs?? to ignor the past history and the foundation of Islam is a grave mistake

Nanking happened during WWII. WWII started, and ended, in Asia. To say that WWII started when Germany invaded Poland is more than a little Euro-centric.

World War II more accuratly started when the Germans and Japs allied, bridging the gap between the European/African theatre and that of the Pacific one, thus creating a truly global conflict.

But they were still Shintoists. And they did whipe out the Christians in Japan. Under the banner of Shintoism if I'm not mistaking. And the same thing in the Koga and Iga provinces against the somewhat buddhist-like Ninja clans.

That's cuz they were ninjas. samurai despise ninja. they were buddhist/shintoists. they have two religions. they wiped the christians out due to xenophobia.

What link? Must have missed it.
Mussolini's definition of Fascism.
http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/mussolini-fascism.html

Left as in...
To me, the test for whether or not someone is democratic is if they allow the people to decide via free, open and fair elections. AFAIK, that was not on the cards for them.

One of my prime believes.
To an extend. If you have an abusive, freeloading houseguest you will kick him out of your house.
And theres nothing wrong with a bit of patriotism and loyality to your country or people.
And this is where I think the hipocrisy is.
Supremacy of the individual and patriotism/loyalty to one's country are mutually exclusive. One is the way to liberalism, the other is the way to fascism.

By saying that the country should be more important than one's own interests, you are condemning the individual's judgement to irrelevance.

By saying that all Muslims are the same as one abusive and freeloading houseguest, you are throwing aside the supremacy of the individual, which would have meant that you have to judge every Muslim individually.

those who say they are athiest and dont have to worry think again because muslims think of you lower than dirt.
And here is all the truth there is to be gained, in one sentence:
Let Them Think.

And here is all the truth there is to be gained, in one sentence:
Let Them Think.
until they will start to act then you have a problem:sniper:

i think that each religion should have the right to say, "We don't back these lunatics"

But they were still Shintoists. And they did whipe out the Christians in Japan. Under the banner of Shintoism if I'm not mistaking. And the same thing in the Koga and Iga provinces against the somewhat buddhist-like Ninja clans.

Actually, Christianity was effectively wiped out by Buddhism. When the Shogun forces everyone to go and register at a Buddhist temple, thereby becoming Buddhist, it's rather hard to be anything but.... Of course, given that the daimyo only allowed Christianity into Japan to allow them to more effectively unify Japan (and, in particular, wipe out sects of Buddhist warrior-monks).

Later on, there was a Christian-led rebelion which was brutally crushed. After this, Christianity was out-lawed (IIRC). As far as I know, there were no active witch hunts from Christians, and they did survive. There was a book published sometime ago that explained the beliefs of these 'Hidden Christians' (as they were known). As is obvious from this book, they knew incredibly little about what Westerners would consider Christianity. They were passively persecuted, no one was allowed to be an avowed Christian (except for Europeans living in the Dutch Quarter of Nagasaki).

The brutal irony of the atomic bomb dropped over Nagasaki: It came down almost right on top of the largest Catholic Cathedral outside of the Americas or Europe. Obviously, Christians weren't persecuted so much that they didn't manage to build the largest Cathedral in East Asia in less than a Century after the Meiji Restoration.

They do and use it.

until they will start to act then you have a problem:sniper:

when they act, we will defend ourselves. or, we will live in the mountains with the tibeten monks.

World War II more accuratly started when the Germans and Japs allied, bridging the gap between the European/African theatre and that of the Pacific one, thus creating a truly global conflict.

That would be the Anti-Comintern Pact. Which was, I believe, signed in 1936. I might be off....

when they act, we will defend ourselves. or, we will live in the mountains with the tibeten monks.

That crazy Llama and his lackies, no doubt.

That would be the Anti-Comintern Pact. Which was, I believe, signed in 1936. I might be off....

I concede. :-)

That crazy Llama and his lackies, no doubt.

those guys are weird... they find children that are the reincarnates of their llama? how duz that happen? how do they find the right kid?

i think that each religion should have the right to say, "We don't back these lunatics"
most do but the thing is that even muslims who left their country because of fanatics, have to worry because there is also a 'jihad' on them because of them joining the 'west'

With a patented Llama detector, no doubt.

That's cuz they were ninjas. samurai despise ninja. they were buddhist/shintoists. they have two religions. they wiped the christians out due to xenophobia.

There is extremely little evidence to support the existence of 'ninja' in Japan. I believe that there is all of one document to support their historical existence. And, IIRC, that document basically stated that the 'ninja' worked for the Shogun.

That's cuz they were ninjas. samurai despise ninja. they were buddhist/shintoists. they have two religions. they wiped the christians out due to xenophobia.

It's the same reason they persecute pirates to this very day!

It's quite simple.

Things are more complicated than they appear.

The Emperor of Japan, the highest Shinto priest in all the land, with aid from his ministers, used Shinto as a destructive weapon of racial superiority and nationalism. If the Emperor of Japan changes something in Shintoism, per-war, it was a change to the whole religion.

Of course, it was also used and abused, much as Islam, Christianity, and polytheism have been. And Shintoism has been peaceful ever since and was for a little over a millenia before, as well. I guess it would be more appropriate to refer to Shintoism as having been a violent religion, rather than being a violent religion.
I'll ask it again -- of everyone, not just you:
Originally posted by me
When are we going to get away from all these prejudicial labels/excuses and just hold individuals responsible for their own actions?
The Emperor of Japan changes the rules of Shinto (maybe) for a few years out of an entire history and in direct contradiction of the religion's other and previous teachings, and everybody just has to follow along like monkeys? And everybody else has to say, oh, well, it was their religion, wasn't it?

No, I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. If anybody has to change or reinterpret the teachings of an established religion it is because they are looking for justification for violating the teachings of that religion. And the justification would be an after-the-fact justification, i.e. utter crap. Crimes committed during wars, or by terrorists or fanatics today, or by simple criminals, are all done by the choice of the people who do them. Period. Those who say "my religion told me to do it" and those who say "such-and-such people are bad because of their religion" are both just looking for excuses -- the first for their crimes and the second for their bigotry.

That's my take on the matter.

most do but the thing is that even muslims who left their country because of fanatics, have to worry because there is also a 'jihad' on them because of them joining the 'west'
mostly this religon confuses the hell out of me because it contradicts so

World War II more accuratly started when the Germans and Japs allied, bridging the gap between the European/African theatre and that of the Pacific one, thus creating a truly global conflict.

extremely disrespectful, right there. next time, watch ur abbreviations.

mostly this religon confuses the hell out of me because it contradicts so

did you just quote urself?

I'll ask it again -- of everyone, not just you:

The Emperor of Japan changes the rules of Shinto (maybe) for a few years out of an entire history and in direct contradiction of the religion's other and previous teachings, and everybody just has to follow along like monkeys? And everybody else has to say, oh, well, it was their religion, wasn't it?

No, I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. If anybody has to change or reinterpret the teachings of an established religion it is because they are looking for justification for violating the teachings of that religion. And the justification would be an after-the-fact justification, i.e. utter crap. Crimes committed during wars, or by terrorists or fanatics today, or by simple criminals, are all done by the choice of the people who do them. Period. Those who say "my religion told me to do it" and those who say "such-and-such people are bad because of their religion" are both just looking for excuses -- the first for their crimes and the second for their bigotry.

That's my take on the matter.
read the koran it has that but alot of changes

did you just quote urself?
ya:headbang:

LOL never saw that before..

read the koran it has that but alot of changes
How would you know the changes if you read the current version? :rolleyes:

LOL never saw that before..
im still new at this i normally talk face to face

How would you know the changes if you read the current version? :rolleyes:
the origonal books are there and it would say that a jew is your friend then a couple ogf books down it tells of kill jews, mohammad wrote the book spanning his entire life he changed alot of it and was to lazy to delete the old stuff:)

The Emperor of Japan changes the rules of Shinto (maybe) for a few years out of an entire history and in direct contradiction of the religion's other and previous teachings, and everybody just has to follow along like monkeys? And everybody else has to say, oh, well, it was their religion, wasn't it?

Actually, using the ignorance of most people toward the meaning of shinto and a well-timed and well-executed propaganda campaign (that began waaaaay back to before the Russo-Japanese War), combined with the general apathy of the Japanese people (at the time), and the complete lack of a concept of 'loyal opposition', well... yeah....

Imagine, for instance, that any party in the US cannot stand up to the present government and tell them that they're wrong (or whereever you live), and you'll have the recipe for an authoritarian government. Some people did openly question it, and they went to jail (usually, they were communists), while everyone else was too apathetic to care. So what if we're invading China? I still have my comfortable lifestyle, and besides, the Emperor told us to go there. I may not like it, but the Emperor and Tojo Hideki probably know their business better than I do.

those guys are weird... they find children that are the reincarnates of their llama? how duz that happen? how do they find the right kid?
Lama. Llama is a South American relative of the camel. Nobody goes hunting for reincarnated llamas.

They have a list of signs to look for, and the kids have to exhibit knowledge of the dead lama's life -- recognize his belongings and friends, remember conversations, etc.

its funny how we would follow people to do stupid things only to regret it years later
the human race is full of wonders:p

exactly. americans too. iraq war. sure there were those who opposed it, but in the beginning, most americans didn't care. cindy sheehan opposed it and got sent to jail, as did many others.

...it tells of kill jews...
No, it doesn't.
Give me the relevant sections.

Lama. Llama is a South American relative of the camel. Nobody goes hunting for reincarnated llamas.

They have a list of signs to look for, and the kids have to exhibit knowledge of the dead lama's life -- recognize his belongings and friends, remember conversations, etc.
i think im the next lama

Lama. Llama is a South American relative of the camel. Nobody goes hunting for reincarnated llamas.

They have a list of signs to look for, and the kids have to exhibit knowledge of the dead lama's life -- recognize his belongings and friends, remember conversations, etc.

if you wanted to, you could search for a reincarnated llama...

but it takes years for them to find the child! think about how many children there are in the world!!!

Slander of Jews
· Jews "Slew the Prophets":

"Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon them, and they were visited with wrath from Allah. This was because they disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression." Sura 2:61 3

Don’t Take Jews and Christians as Friends:

“O you who believe! Take not the Jew and the Christians as friends. They are friends to one another. Whoever of you befriends them is one of them. Allah does not guide the people who do evil.” Sura: 5:56 2

i think im the next lama

Then answer these questions. But be careful! One wrong answer could spell enternal damnation. Or a night locked up with Anne Coulter, your choice.

1.) What is your favorite color?

2.) What is your quest?

3.) What was the capital of Uzbekistan in 1794?

[/cultural insensitivity]

remeber The Koran discriminates against Christians and Jews but defames the Jews, as fearsome opponents, without any hesitation.

Death or conversion to Islam is, of course, the only choice for non-believers. The non-believer is often anyone other than “Ahl al Kitab,” the people of the Book, or Jew & Christian; & Zoroastrians.

"Sir Robin, Search for the holy grail, bl- Wha??? i don't know that!"

[QUOTE=Jerusalas]Then answer these questions. But be careful! One wrong answer could spell enternal damnation. Or a night locked up with Anne Coulter, your choice.

1.) What is your favorite color?
blue
2.) What is your quest?
in search for the holy grail
3.) What was the capital of Uzbekistan in 1794?
wich one the big one or the rubble one??

it's from monty python and the holy grail

it's from monty python and the holy grail
they ask about the sparrow

Then answer these questions. But be careful! One wrong answer could spell enternal damnation. Or a night locked up with Anne Coulter, your choice.

1.) What is your favorite color?

2.) What is your quest?

3.) What was the capital of Uzbekistan in 1794?

[/cultural insensitivity]

Green, to find the Holy Grail, Shiraz (Uzbekistan was part of the Persian Empire).

Green, to find the Holy Grail, Shiraz (Uzbekistan was part of the Persian Empire).
whooooooooo!!! he:eek: a smart one

"Wretchedness and baseness were stamped upon them, and they were visited with wrath from Allah. This was because they disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression." Sura 2:61 3
ZOMFG!
[2:60] Recall that Moses sought water for his people. We said, "Strike the rock with your staff." Whereupon, twelve springs gushed out therefrom. The members of each tribe knew their own water. Eat and drink from GOD's provisions, and do not roam the earth corruptingly.

[2:61] Recall that you said, "O Moses, we can no longer tolerate one kind of food. Call upon your Lord to produce for us such earthly crops as beans, cucumbers, garlic, lentils, and onions." He said, "Do you wish to substitute that which is inferior for that which is good? Go down to Egypt, where you can find what you asked for." They have incurred condemnation, humiliation, and disgrace, and brought upon themselves wrath from GOD. This is because they rejected GOD's revelations, and killed the prophets unjustly. This is because they disobeyed and transgressed.

Now, I know nothing of Islam. But simply entering "Sura 2:61" into google gave me the full text.

Don’t Take Jews and Christians as Friends:

“O you who believe! Take not the Jew and the Christians as friends. They are friends to one another. Whoever of you befriends them is one of them. Allah does not guide the people who do evil.” Sura: 5:56 2
I couldn't even find that one.
[5:51] O you who believe, do not take certain Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. GOD does not guide the transgressors.

[5:52] You will see those who harbor doubt in their hearts hasten to join them, saying, "We fear lest we may be defeated." May GOD bring victory, or a command from Him, that causes them to regret their secret thoughts.

[5:53] The believers will then say, "Are these the same people who swore by GOD solemnly that they were with you?" Their works have been nullified; they are the losers.

[5:54] O you who believe, if you revert from your religion, then GOD will substitute in your place people whom He loves and who love Him. They will be kind with the believers, stern with the disbelievers, and will strive in the cause of GOD without fear of any blame. Such is GOD's blessing; He bestows it upon whomever He wills. GOD is Bounteous, Omniscient.

[5:55] Your real allies are GOD and His messenger, and the believers who observe the Contact Prayers (Salat), and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and they bow down.

[5:56] Those who ally themselves with GOD and His messenger, and those who believed, belong in the party of GOD; absolutely, they are the victors.

[5:57] O you who believe, do not befriend those among the recipients of previous scripture who mock and ridicule your religion, nor shall you befriend the disbelievers. You shall reverence GOD, if you are really believers.

back to the original discusion i would like to point out the diffrences between Islam and the rest of the religons
1st- the koran has many passages that exclusivlly target christans, Jews, and athiest.
2nd- why is i that as soon one negative article about Islam is madeon how they treat non-belivers they quickly forgive and 'make peace' but as soon as a cartoon depicts mohammad negitivly they all rally up but they constntly have political cartoons that make fun of all other religons and its ok??
3rd- During the course of hisory Mohammad went from a peaceful loving guy to a despotic maniac ruler?/(check the history books )
why does the koran condtradict its self over and over again??(read the koran0
The jews follow thier torah- christains follow the new testament yet the muslims are sooo peaceful eventhough there foundation book contains no mercy for anyone not Muslim??
How come when i worked with muslims they countinuasly mocked my religon and the jews yet i have treated them with utter respect because i cannot judge a man and my parents taught me to respect your colleges and boss (which they ran a dunkin donuts and i worked for them)
it seems that the muslims are putting on a mask like the nazis to cover up their true intentions. those who say they are athiest and dont have to worry think again because muslims think of you lower than dirt. its true just read the koran which i would expect you would take that as a validating source i have yet to see any specific writings in th new teastament or torah were it says to kill non belivers. the onething we are forgetting is that it seems that the muslims are the real nazis because they want to extermanate not just the jews but athiest and christans as well.
to call me a nazi is funny because i do not hate them nor do i want to kill them to solve my problem i want to show people that with proper evidence the true intentions of thier religon how come they do not follow it??
is it because it was writen hundreds of years ago?? the new testament and torah are aslo just as old even older yet they still follow it to the word.
how can we say it is not a problem since they are defintly not a minority and also the fastest growing religon.. are you just going to convert to their beliefs?? to ignor the past history and the foundation of Islam is a grave mistake

{2nd- why is i that as soon one negative article about Islam is madeon how they treat non-belivers they quickly forgive and 'make peace' but as soon as a cartoon depicts mohammad negitivly they all rally up but they constntly have political cartoons that make fun of all other religons and its ok??}
to that comment.

Actually, it is only a few rebellious muslims who decided to take it personally. The cartoons had been printed a long time ago. But someone decided to bring it back up I don't remember who but someone, took the cartoons that had been printed a while back, and made it public to a majority of people. Then a few rebellious muslims, took it full-fledged. A majority of muslims could care less what you believe in. It is the minority that are coming out and bombing people, giving the rest of their people a bad name. That same minority is having children, and teaching their children to believe exactly what they believe.

If six woman/man(a gang) beat you up in the middle of a dark alley, and left you for dead, it does not mean that the entire population of woman/man had done something harmful. It is what that one paticualar gang did.

As far as the muslims are concerned, a gang of muslims, just like you would say a gang or group of boys from wherever, are the ones causing the problems, not the muslims as a whole.

they ask about the sparrow

swallow*

"What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?"

{2nd- why is i that as soon one negative article about Islam is madeon how they treat non-belivers they quickly forgive and 'make peace' but as soon as a cartoon depicts mohammad negitivly they all rally up but they constntly have political cartoons that make fun of all other religons and its ok??}
to that comment.

Actually, it is only a few rebellious muslims who decided to take it personally. The cartoons had been printed a long time ago. But someone decided to bring it back up I don't remember who but someone, took the cartoons that had been printed a while back, and made it public to a majority of people. Then a few rebellious muslims, took it full-fledged. A majority of muslims could care less what you believe in. It is the minority that are coming out and bombing people, giving the rest of their people a bad name. That same minority is having children, and teaching their children to believe exactly what they believe.

If six woman/man(a gang) beat you up in the middle of a dark alley, and left you for dead, it does not mean that the entire population of woman/man had done something harmful. It is what that one paticualar gang did.

As far as the muslims are concerned, a gang of muslims, just like you would say a gang or group of boys from wherever, are the ones causing the problems, not the muslims as a whole.

thats true but they still hold some considerable power over there

swallow*

"What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?"
african or european??

african or european??

What? I don't kn-AAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!

:p

"where did you get the coconuts?"

"where did you get the coconuts?"
found them

A better test, rather than asking them some questions, would be to have them bring...

ANOTHER SHRUBBERY! And place it next to the first, only a little higher, so you get a two-level effect with a little path running down the middle. Then, after they have found the shrubbery, they must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest...with...A HERRING!

Green, to find the Holy Grail, Shiraz (Uzbekistan was part of the Persian Empire).

My research is turning up Samarkand, though....

Actually, using the ignorance of most people toward the meaning of shinto and a well-timed and well-executed propaganda campaign (that began waaaaay back to before the Russo-Japanese War), combined with the general apathy of the Japanese people (at the time), and the complete lack of a concept of 'loyal opposition', well... yeah....

Imagine, for instance, that any party in the US cannot stand up to the present government and tell them that they're wrong (or whereever you live), and you'll have the recipe for an authoritarian government. Some people did openly question it, and they went to jail (usually, they were communists), while everyone else was too apathetic to care. So what if we're invading China? I still have my comfortable lifestyle, and besides, the Emperor told us to go there. I may not like it, but the Emperor and Tojo Hideki probably know their business better than I do.
Right, but what has that to do with the content of Shinto? The Japanese government at that time didn't have to change anything about Shinto at all. They had total power to what they wanted regardless, and they only slapped the "Ancestor/Amaterasu Approved" sticker on it for form's sake. If their population was that apathetic and complacent, who would ever notice or care? But today, we have people saying Shinto was a violent religion, not Japan had violent bastards in charge of its government. They say Shinto was a violent religion, not that extreme nationalist and imperialist movements often claim religious approval whether they actually have it or not, and Japan was no exception.

And let's look at the flip side, too -- who cares what a religion says, or what some imperialist or nationalist or sexist or terroristic asshat says it says? None of that is an excuse for committing crimes. The war criminals of Japan were no different from the terrorists who claim to be fighting some kind of Islamic jihad now. Their crimes are their crimes, and whatever excuse they try to use is nothing but that -- an excuse.

Another good quote from someone whose name I can't remember: "A man must have a pretty poor moral sense if he needs religion to make a gentleman of him."

In other words, we shouldn't need even religion to tell us right from wrong. And since I won't accept the religion excuse from the criminals, I won't accept it from others either. Those who say rapists rape because they are Muslims are just as bad, imo.

Right, but what has that to do with the content of Shinto? The Japanese government at that time didn't have to change anything about Shinto at all. They had total power to what they wanted regardless, and they only slapped the "Ancestor/Amaterasu Approved" sticker on it for form's sake. If their population was that apathetic and complacent, who would ever notice or care? But today, we have people saying Shinto was a violent religion, not Japan had violent bastards in charge of its government. They say Shinto was a violent religion, not that extreme nationalist and imperialist movements often claim religious approval whether they actually have it or not, and Japan was no exception.

And let's look at the flip side, too -- who cares what a religion says, or what some imperialist or nationalist or sexist or terroristic asshat says it says? None of that is an excuse for committing crimes. The war criminals of Japan were no different from the terrorists who claim to be fighting some kind of Islamic jihad now. Their crimes are their crimes, and whatever excuse they try to use is nothing but that -- an excuse.

Another good quote from someone whose name I can't remember: "A man must have a pretty poor moral sense if he needs religion to make a gentleman of him."

In other words, we shouldn't need even religion to tell us right from wrong. And since I won't accept the religion excuse from the criminals, I won't accept it from others either. Those who say rapists rape because they are Muslims are just as bad, imo.
except religon has been and will be around forever even athiesm is a religon because you follow a guideline on how to live what to belive in and what not to religon is a glue that we use to label our selves because we cannot stand alone and always want to be part of a group and makes us seperate from animals

thats true but they still hold some considerable power over there

ja, I know that is the sad part, and it is that paticular muslim gang that needs to get their views checked. It pissed me off that they can talk about other people, but no one can talk about them. (not the muslims as a whole, just the muslim gang)

Right, but what has that to do with the content of Shinto?

I believe that the appropriate answer to that question would be, "Mu."

Shinto has no content. It is meaningless if it is taken out of context. It is not a religion that can be taught, unlike Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

Also, bear in mind the fact that men are products of their culture. We do have a responsibility to each other, but to choose to ignore how their culture effected their decisions is little different than cultural supremicism. (Note that I do not disagree with you on the large picture... it's the details that worry me.)

ja, I know that is the sad part, and it is that paticular muslim gang that needs to get their views checked. It pissed me off that they can talk about other people, but no one can talk about them. (not the muslims as a whole, just the muslim gang)
this is the basis for my argument because we are letting it happen and they can/mabey will be the next nazis:mad:

if you wanted to, you could search for a reincarnated llama...

but it takes years for them to find the child! think about how many children there are in the world!!!
Well, yeah, but ... it's important to them.

Well, yeah, but ... it's important to them.
Thats why we have religons to help you use your time for something like that instead of bettering society

this is the basis for my argument because we are letting it happen and they can/mabey will be the next nazis:mad:

ja, I definately agree with you on this one. It is horribly sad that some peope can not overcome their differences :( . maybe oneday if we can stop killing each other long enough to evolve.

except religon has been and will be around forever even athiesm is a religon because you follow a guideline on how to live what to belive in and what not to religon is a glue that we use to label our selves because we cannot stand alone and always want to be part of a group and makes us seperate from animals
I disagree.

1) None of that is what separates us from animals. Animals move in groups. Animals follow strict rules and leaders in their groups. There is nothing admirable or even particularly human about conforming.

2) So are you saying that religion is an excuse to commit rape, or war crimes, or torture? Are you saying that if a person has a religious excuse for their crimes, they shouldn't be punished because religion is so important and powerful in our lives? Of course not. A rapist is a rapist -- why he did it is not important. To put the focus on his religion just muddies the issue.

3) Atheism is not a religion.

this is the basis for my argument because we are letting it happen and they can/mabey will be the next nazis:mad:
Just as long as you realise that the links you took your information about Islam from so far are blatant lies.
The Koran simply does not encourage violence, unless in very specific circumstances, which are not given at the moment. That fact is recognised by most Muslims in the world, and they say so when they can.

Atheism is not a religion.

I would tend to say that it takes just as much, if not more, faith to believe that there isn't a god as it does to believe there is a god.

Thats why we have religons to help you use your time for something like that instead of bettering society
They think it betters their society. Who are we to judge? Why should we care if they want to give high ranking religious and political jobs to little kids? How much skin does it shave off our noses?

I would tend to say that it takes just as much, if not more, faith to believe that there isn't a god as it does to believe there is a god.
It doesn't take me a lot of faith at all.

I disagree.

1) None of that is what separates us from animals. Animals move in groups. Animals follow strict rules and leaders in their groups. There is nothing admirable or even particularly human about conforming.

2) So are you saying that religion is an excuse to commit rape, or war crimes, or torture? Are you saying that if a person has a religious excuse for their crimes, they shouldn't be punished because religion is so important and powerful in our lives? Of course not. A rapist is a rapist -- why he did it is not important. To put the focus on his religion just muddies the issue.

3) Atheism is not a religion.


1) None of that is what separates us from animals. Animals move in groups. Animals follow strict rules and leaders in their groups. There is nothing admirable or even particularly human about conforming.

I agree with number one. I study a lot of other species of animals, including the species homosapien. And I have noticed that a lot of animals from all of the kingdoms have specific, order, group, guideline, erm..law, and some even have religions so we think like the elephant. We just can not speak the same languages as each other to ask them the question.
alas. this is not the animal topic place I know 'sighs'. Anyway...

I believe that the appropriate answer to that question would be, "Mu."

Shinto has no content. It is meaningless if it is taken out of context. It is not a religion that can be taught, unlike Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

Also, bear in mind the fact that men are products of their culture. We do have a responsibility to each other, but to choose to ignore how their culture effected their decisions is little different than cultural supremicism. (Note that I do not disagree with you on the large picture... it's the details that worry me.)
I think this supports my argument that to blame Japanese war crimes on Shinto is nonsensical. If it has no content that can be taught -- because it has no prescribed forms -- then how can its content be used to justify actions that are in contradiction of its teachings (to preserve harmony, to enjoy life, not to destroy the natural world)?

If we want to put culture into the mix, we need to look at a broader matrix. I already mentioned that the Chinese, originally mentioned as victims of Japanese aggression, were themselves no models of pacifism or gentleness. Extreme violence and cruelty in war was a feature in many Asian cultures, not just Japan's, and all those cultures had thousands of years of cross-cultural interaction. Are we to assume that Japan's violence in WW2 was some sui generis effect of being Japanese? Or to put it another way, can we assume the Japanese would have been less violent if they'd had any other religion or lifestyle? Or that there would have been less violence of the Asian imperialist power had been China instead of Japan? I do not think so.

Yet nowadays, we still have people blaming Shinto for Japanese war crimes. Their motivations are always suspect, having more to do with religious prejudice even than historical animosities. For an example, see my ongoing argument on this very matter with a poster called Bruarong in the Pagan Influences on Christianity thread (continuing sporadically from post 124), in which, among other things, Bruarong cites Shinto in WW2 as part of his ongoing attempt to claim that all animist religions oppress and abuse people.

Turning to the topic of this thread, I say that those who blame rapes on Islam are exploiting a crime situation to feed their own pre-existing prejudices in exactly the same way as those who blame Shinto for war crimes. Religion is not the cause of either crime, and it cannot legitimately be used for either excuses or blame.

EDIT: I'm aware of how uncompromising this stance is, but there are some things I don't compromise on, and personal responsibility is one of them. We are, each of us, ultimately and solely responsible for the things we choose to do.

I would tend to say that it takes just as much, if not more, faith to believe that there isn't a god as it does to believe there is a god.

That may make for a nice bumper sticker, but it is utter nonsense.

I would tend to say that it takes just as much, if not more, faith to believe that there isn't a god as it does to believe there is a god.
You are obviously unacquainted with the wonders of spiritual apathy.

You are obviously unacquainted with the wonders of spiritual apathy.

I speak from a purely logical standpoint. To propose that the world, and indeed the universe, got to its current state through a series of random chances, and without any influence from a higher being, is absurd. To accept an absurd proposition requires either lack of knowledge, or willful denial. In either case, faith is required, whether conscious or not.

I speak from a purely logical standpoint. To propose that the world, and indeed the universe, got to its current state through a series of random chances, and without any influence from a higher being, is absurd. To accept an absurd proposition requires either lack of knowledge, or willful denial. In either case, faith is required, whether conscious or not.

You should start a different thread on this. The only thing that is absurd are your assumptions.

You should start a different thread on this. The only thing that is absurd are your assumptions.

Which "assumptions"? I see none.

To whoever it is that said that he couldn't find any violent verses in the quran, he obvisously didn't read my first post a while ago...I'll quote myself again.



I am an ex-muslim and I can tell you that the vast majority of muslims are good people. Islam however is a religion that is pure evil to the core (which is why I left it), I've read the quran and the Hadith and I can confidently say that the prophet Muhammad was not a good man.

The verses that terrorists use to justify their actions are not taken out of context at all. Take a look at these verses.


Quote:
9:14, Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,

9:23, O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

9:28, O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque.

9:29, Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Jiza is a tax to be imposed on non-muslims once they have been conquered)

9:39, Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least.

9:73, O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.


The majority of muslims are not aware of thses verses, since they read the quran in arabic without understanding the meaning of it, and even if they decide to read the english translations, they subconsciously come up with all sorts of reasons to justify these violent verses, hence the out of context, or relevance of time arguement...both of which do not really hold any water because those verses are perfectly clear and because according to islam muhammad was sent as a guidance to all mankind from that period of time onwards (which is why he's the final prophet and all).

As for rape, the prophet allowed it to be commited on female prisoners of war, here is one verse from the quran that supports this :


Quote:
33:50
O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.


Or perhaps I've taken this verse "out of context" as well ...This is further supported by the Hadith ( The hadith is a biography of the prophet which muslims look upon as there second most holy text, next to the quran), one instance that I can recall is Bani Quraiza, this was a jewish town that the prophet decided to anhialate, once he captured it he had his followers bring the chief to him, and asked him to convert to islam, when he refused Muhammad cut off his head, that same night he forced the chiefs daughter to have sex with him. Here is part of that Hadith :


Quote:
Here the Prophet married Safiyah. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account".


The prophet also married a 6 year old child named ayesha and consumated the marriage when she was 9 he was in his 50's at that time so to me that constitutes as rape. Here is one source of proof:


Quote:
Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915, also Number 4915 and Number 4915
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.


As a muslim you are supposed to emulate whatever the prophet did, so don't be surprised by what some of the muslim fundementalists do, they are simply following the teachings of their disgusting faith.

Just so you know, I am not some mindless muslim hater, as I stated before, I am an ex-muslim who grew disgusted by his faith and left it, my problem is with islam, not with muslims.

P.S pardon me if my english was not up to standards, it is a second language to me.

Islam is a violent religion, it is a fact, accept it.

I don't want to burn them at the stake. I simply want them to leave my country. My continent if possible. In their native countries they can live as Islamic as they like.

Inconvenient to you that not all Muslims are foreigners.

I mean, I know its your country by accident of birth, but guess what? Others born in Germany are followers of Islam. :eek:

Which "assumptions"? I see none.
The assumption that random chance cannot produce complex organized results and therefore to believe that it can happen is absurd, is absurd. We see it happen every day. It is such a commonplace that there is even comedy about it.

Islam is a violent religion, it is a fact, accept it.

I think that what people need to realize is that, in non-Muslim countries, Islam is severely watered down from what the "true" Muslims practice.

Read the Qua'ran. Visit cities as Paris or Berlin-Neukoeln or Duisburg-Marxlo. Try to flirt with a Turkish or Arab girl. I hope for you, you can run fast.

I dated a Palestinian. No one blew me up.

but christans follow the new testament

The OT is still scripture.

There are not so nice passages in the NT as well.

http://www.evilbible.com/

The assumption that random chance cannot produce complex organized results and therefore to believe that it can happen is absurd, is absurd. We see it happen every day. It is such a commonplace that there is even comedy about it.

<sigh> Again, we see people taking an observation at a micro level, and applying it to a macro level. I am not saying that random chance can not produce complex organized results. I am saying that the ideas that "nothing" can spontaneously become energy, that energy can spontaneously form matter, and that non-life can spontaneously become life are preposterous. Not to mention that such a theory relies on the equally absurd idea of species evolution.

To whoever it is that said that he couldn't find any violent verses in the quran, he obvisously didn't read my first post a while ago...I'll quote myself again.





Islam is a violent religion, it is a fact, accept it.
I don't know if this is addressed to me, but I did read your post.
Originally Posted by Mupsa
<snip> ...my problem is with islam, not with muslims. <snip>
My problem is with criminals, not with religions.

I'm not going to gainsay your experience. At the same time that I am arguing against blaming Islam for crimes, I also believe that Islam is horribly corrupted, but I still will not put the blame for the deliberate actions of people on the religion they claim to follow. Yes, there are violent verses in the quran. There are violent verses in the Bible, too. There are violent verses, stories, and episodes in pretty much every religion in the world, in the history of the world. Does this absolve anyone of their own duty not to be bastards towards others? Do you really think that these people don't know they are doing wrong? If they thought it was right and good, they wouldn't work so hard to justify it. Non-violent religious people are perfectly able to interpret violent verses as poetry or metaphor or the relics of another culture. I believe that those who commit violence or advocate violence and claim those verses as justification are only using these parts of their religion to justify crimes they would have committed anyway, even without the religion.

its a decent movie were a jewish boy who battles himself because he is a skinhead and belives the nazi propoganda based on a true story

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0247199/

What has that got to do with anything?

<sigh> Again, we see people taking an observation at a micro level, and applying it to a macro level. I am not saying that random chance can not produce complex organized results. I am saying that the ideas that "nothing" can spontaneously become energy, that energy can spontaneously form matter, and that non-life can spontaneously become life are preposterous. Not to mention that such a theory relies on the equally absurd idea of species evolution.

AGain, this belongs in a different thread.

But those are neither necesssary assumptions nor perposterous.

And species evolution is a fact. Even most Christian denominations accept it.

<sigh> Again, we see people taking an observation at a micro level, and applying it to a macro level. I am not saying that random chance can not produce complex organized results. I am saying that the ideas that "nothing" can spontaneously become energy, that energy can spontaneously form matter, and that non-life can spontaneously become life are preposterous. Not to mention that such a theory relies on the equally absurd idea of species evolution.
Cat Tribes is right -- this is a different thread topic. "Atheists Against the Big Bang" or something like that. I'll just say that, just because we don't know how it happened, doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

Here's a toy for you:
http://pages.zoom.co.uk/cosmicelk/cosmicelk.htm

It's a small press for books about astronomy and timekeeping. Scroll down and click on the part about galaxies that are too old. That article should keep you happy for a while. I enjoyed it. ;)

EDIT: Actually, there are two articles. Go to this one (it's longer):
http://www.cosmicelk.co.uk/gamma.htm

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.security.terrorism/browse_thread/thread/6ae15f95d7c3fb29/74b89231e7e464be%2374b89231e7e464be

You need to be more discerning about the reliability of sources.

The things you say may be true, but the sources you get them from are without credibility.

Thus, what you say -- true or not -- will not be believed.

there is a lot of information on the internet, but not all of it is reliable.

And species evolution is a fact. Even most Christian denominations accept it.

If I accepted that having a majority of people believe something made it a fact, I would not be Christian. Logically, and scientifically, evolution doesn't make sense.

To whoever it is that said that he couldn't find any violent verses in the quran, he obvisously didn't read my first post a while ago...I'll quote myself again.

Islam is a violent religion, it is a fact, accept it.

Sorry, but the OT and NT also contain "violent" verses.

Does that make Judaism and Christianity violent religions?

If I accepted that having a majority of people believe something made it a fact, I would not be Christian. Logically, and scientifically, evolution doesn't make sense.

One last time. START A DIFFERENT THREAD. We'll gladly explain your errors there.

To be one that does not believe in evolution is not to be a Christian. It is to be an extremist minority.

And evolution is a fact.

Sorry, but the OT and NT also contain "violent" verses.

Does that make Judaism and Christianity violent religions?

Yeah, but we don't pay attention to them anymore. Christianity and Judaism also don't have a position of power in any government

If I accepted that having a majority of people believe something made it a fact, I would not be Christian. Logically, and scientifically, evolution doesn't make sense.
Wait a minute. You've been giving the impression that you are arguing from the atheist point of view, but you're really a Christian? Bah. Don't waste people's time like that.

Something wrong with that?

Does our leader lack credibility?

Yep.

2) What? I'm saying all muslims should leave europe...

Why? I mean, if you don't consider barbaric to chase danish citizens (second and third generations) of their own country, why do you think the innocent muslims sholud leave the country?

And, don't you think that the social reality of this population is, at least, so important as the religion they have?

Inconvenient to you that not all Muslims are foreigners.
No inconvinience at all. Dump 'em all.

I mean, I know its your country by accident of birth, but guess what? Others born in Germany are followers of Islam. :eek:
So? That doesn't change anything. And your oh so clever accident of birth sneer doesn't either. They don't feel any kinship with the country which misguidedly let them or their (grand)parents in. They show it on a daily basis. Better to send them home.

The US also has 91.49 times more per-capita rapes than Saudi Arabia. I don't know if it's relevant either, but it sure is interesting.

I hate to dispute what seems like a good point, but rape is rarely reported in Saudi Arabia. That doesn't mean there is no rape.

Yeah, but we don't pay attention to them anymore. Christianity and Judaism also don't have a position of power in any government


WHAT? And Israel goverment? And USA gov?

Not sure if this has been brought up in the last 40+ pages, but...

For a crime to be classified as rape it has to be judged so in trial. I'd be willing to wager that the probability of being convicted for a rape is higher for someone of ethnic minority, which further distorts the statistics.

Just a thought.

No inconvinience at all. Dump 'em all.

So you not only against immigration, but against freedom of religion?

How nice.


So? That doesn't change anything. And your oh so clever accident of birth sneer doesn't either. They don't feel any kinship with the country which misguidedly let them or their (grand)parents in. They show it on a daily basis. Better to send them home.

Home to .... Germany.

Nope. If you admire German greatness in any kind which isn't conform to PC policies you get the Neu Leonsteins Nazi-tag.

You applied the Nazi-tag to yourself before anyone else could.

You appear to think it is a badge of honor.

This may be a tad bit off topic but I though I'd post it anyway

I am an ex-muslim and I can tell you that the vast majority of muslims are good people. Islam however is a religion that is pure evil to the core (which is why I left it), I've read the quran and the Hadith and I can confidently say that the prophet Muhammad was not a good man.

The verses that terrorists use to justify their actions are not taken out of context at all. Take a look at these verses.



The majority of muslims are not aware of thses verses, since they read the quran in arabic without understanding the meaning of it, and even if they decide to read the english translations, they subconsciously come up with all sorts of reasons to justify these violent verses, hence the out of context, or relevance of time arguement...both of which do not really hold any water because those verses are perfectly clear and because according to islam muhammad was sent as a guidance to all mankind from that period of time onwards (which is why he's the final prophet and all).

As for rape, the prophet allowed it to be commited on female prisoners of war, here is one verse from the quran that supports this :



Or perhaps I've taken this verse "out of context" as well:rolleyes: ...This is further supported by the Hadith ( The hadith is a biography of the prophet which muslims look upon as there second most holy text, next to the quran), one instance that I can recall is Bani Quraiza, this was a jewish town that the prophet decided to anhialate, once he captured it he had his followers bring the chief to him, and asked him to convert to islam, when he refused Muhammad cut off his head, that same night he forced the chiefs daughter to have sex with him. Here is part of that Hadith :



The prophet also married a 6 year old child named ayesha and consumated the marriage when she was 9 he was in his 50's at that time so to me that constitutes as rape. Here is one source of proof:



As a muslim you are supposed to emulate whatever the prophet did, so don't be surprised by what some of the muslim fundementalists do, they are simply following the teachings of their disgusting faith.

Just so you know, I am not some mindless muslim hater, as I stated before, I am an ex-muslim who grew disgusted by his faith and left it, my problem is with islam, not with muslims.

P.S pardon me if my english was not up to standards, it is a second language to me.

See the evilbible link provided earlier.

Nasty passages are found in all 3 holy books.

Posted by the Cat-tribe:

See the evilbible link provided earlier.

Nasty passages are found in all 3 holy books.

What's your point? your'e saying that one evil justifies the existence of another? That's absurd. Aside from that, Islam has a founder who was completely devoid of any sense of morality.

So you not only against immigration, but against freedom of religion?

How nice.
I said I was against muslims. Wer lesen kann ist im vorteil. :rolleyes:



Home to .... Germany.
Home to Turkey, Algeria, Marroco etc.....

You applied the Nazi-tag to yourself before anyone else could.

You appear to think it is a badge of honor.
You appear to think you can read. I'm not gonna repeat everything two or three times just so you can keep up.

Wer lesen kann ist im vorteil. :rolleyes:"Vorteil" wird aber groß geschrieben...

"Vorteil" wird aber groß geschrieben...
Ich schreibe nie konform der regeln. Zu anstrengend.

You appear to think you can read. I'm not gonna repeat everything two or three times just so you can keep up.

Hey, no insults here.

Ich schreibe nie konform der regeln. Zu anstrengend.Is' aber genau so vorteilhaft wie's Lesen...

Is' aber genau so vorteilhaft wie's Lesen...
Willst du jetzt behaupten das du nicht lesen kannst was ich type nur weil ich mich nicht an die schreibregeln halte? Oder was soll diese kinderei?

Willst du jetzt behaupten das du nicht lesen kannst was ich type nur weil ich mich nicht an die schreibregeln halte? Oder was soll diese kinderei?Also, man könnte so etwas jetzt sogar sagen, da "type" nun wirklich unorthodox ist. Aber ich fand's vorher nur lustig, dass den Satz, in dem du über die Lesefähigkeit eines anderen meckerst, Rechtschreibfehler hast. ;)

Also, man könnte so etwas jetzt sogar sagen, da "type" nun wirklich unorthodox ist. Aber ich fand's vorher nur lustig, dass den Satz, in dem du über die Lesefähigkeit eines anderen meckerst, Rechtschreibfehler hast. ;)
Ah ja. Und? Was hat das mit der lesbarkeit zu tun? Noch dazu auf Englisch. Rein gar nichts. Also nichts weiter als ein billiger versuch mich zu diskreditieren.

Ah ja. Und? Was hat das mit der lesbarkeit zu tun? Noch dazu auf Englisch. Rein gar nichts. Also nichts weiter als ein billiger versuch mich zu diskreditieren.Nö, nicht wirklich. Eine angemessene Bemerkung. Du hast dich über die Lesefähigkeit eines anderen lustig gemacht, und ich hab halt den Rechtschreibfehler angeprangert.

EDIT: Ach, und hätt' ich dich wirklich diskreditieren wollen, hätt' ich's auf englisch gemacht...

No inconvinience at all. Dump 'em all.


So? That doesn't change anything. And your oh so clever accident of birth sneer doesn't either. They don't feel any kinship with the country which misguidedly let them or their (grand)parents in. They show it on a daily basis. Better to send them home.

Do ethnic Germans who convert to Islam get kicked out too?

Do ethnic Germans who convert to Islam get kicked out too?
Yes.

Nö, nicht wirklich. Eine angemessene Bemerkung. Du hast dich über die Lesefähigkeit eines anderen lustig gemacht, und ich hab halt den Rechtschreibfehler angeprangert.
Eine kinderei. Die mit nichts in diesem thema irgendwas zu tun hat.

I would be more prepared to understand social class as being a major contributory factor towards economic crime such as theft, burgalary, ect. But I don't see how rape could be caused by a low social class, even if there is a correlation. I would put it down more to things like religion and culture. Immigrants from other religious backgrounds (Hindus and Sikhs mainly) in Britain come from the same region and suffer from often equal discimination and economic disadvantages. But they dont have the same attitude as muslims when it comes to issues like rape. And they aren't intent on completely taking our countries over like the muslims are.

Ummm...no. Low socioeconomic class is associated with a rise in all kinds of crime not just ones that let you weasel out of facing the truth.

Well whoop-de-doo Mr Genius, have a gold star. Get off your ivory tower, sometimes reality can be a little different from the theories you people make in your cloistered world of academia.

Of course how silly of me, an uninformed nazi moron is certainly a better judge of sociological questions than someone who's actually been trained in the field. What was I thinking? By the by, if you're ever in the American embassy in Teheran, be sure to look me up, my office is on the second-floor. You think you know Muslim culture? Why don't you actually do a little research that doesn't involve surfing the web for crazy right-wing sites that agree with you.

Are some Muslim's extremists? HELL YES! (I'm not real fond of the people I have to deal with on an everyday basis) But to blame all Muslims for the actions of a few is like blaming all Christians when a pycho firebombs an abortion clinic. There are real fundemental social issues that need to be dealt with. Resorting to facsist tactics is certainly immoral and totally unneccessary.

But I repeat. Whatta I know?:upyours:

Yes.

Why? They're just as German as you are.

As he thinks he is.

But surely they're blood must somehow be messed up. For they are duskier than this fair-haired blue-eyed Nazi poster child.

They're facsists man, they don't think they have to make sense. It's like when a Christian, or any religious person really, gets in an argument. Instead of looking for evidence to support a conclusion they argue backwards from some dumbass conclusion and ignore all evidence to contrary. I vote we give everyone who does this Siberia and let 'em live there in happy bigoted peace.

Yes.

Sieg Heil!

Why don't you build concentration camps for them and invade Poland again, too?

I mean, since you clearly believe Muslims to be the untermenschen....

Ummm...no. Low socioeconomic class is associated with a rise in all kinds of crime not just ones that let you weasel out of facing the truth.
As I said, there's no proof that rape is directly caused by socio-economic factors, all you have is a correlation. And as I said before, in my experience Hindus and Sikhs have a far better attitude than muslims, despite often suffering the same discimination. They don't have the same attitude of seeking to conquer the societies they live in. Unlike muslims who commonly use rape as a weapon against the non-muslim majority.

Why? They're just as German as you are.
It's slightly more understandable for a person to be a muslim if they've been brainwashed that way from birth. But for an average, rational non-muslim westerner to convert to islam is one of the most vile acts of treachery they could commit. They may seemingly be as German, British, Norwegian, ect. as everybody else, but by making a conscious decision to stab their people in the back like that, they no longer deserve to be treated like the rest of society.

It's slightly more understandable for a person to be a muslim if they've been brainwashed that way from birth. But for an average, rational non-muslim westerner to convert to islam is one of the most vile acts of treachery they could commit. They may seemingly be as German, British, Norwegian, ect as everybody else, but by making a conscious decision to stab their people in the back like that, they no longer deserve to be treated like the rest of society.Haha! A new Dolchstoßlegende! :D

all the german parts


nani??? dooshite doitsugo o hanasu??? boku wa wakaranai!!!

Wht's with all the german!!! i don't understand!!!

I hate to dispute what seems like a good point, but rape is rarely reported in Saudi Arabia. That doesn't mean there is no rape.

And it may also be over-reported in the US.

I didn't however claim that there is NO rape in Saudi Arabia. Just that statistically, the US has a much higher rate of it. I would guess that while the specific numbers vary due to reporting, the basic case is the same: Americans rape people more often than Saudis do.

And this makes sense to me, since Saudi Arabia is mostly desert and who likes to go through all that exertion in that heat?

And it may also be over-reported in the US.

I didn't however claim that there is NO rape in Saudi Arabia. Just that statistically, the US has a much higher rate of it. I would guess that while the specific numbers vary due to reporting, the basic case is the same: Americans rape people more often than Saudis do.

And this makes sense to me, since Saudi Arabia is mostly desert and who likes to go through all that exertion in that heat?
How can you make that claim if there exist no accurate statistics for Saudi Arabian rapes? I don't know their rate of rapes annually. All I've ever seen are anecdotal reports of rapes from there. If you've got reliable, not official, statistics pleae share.

It's slightly more understandable for a person to be a muslim if they've been brainwashed that way from birth. But for an average, rational non-muslim westerner to convert to islam is one of the most vile acts of treachery they could commit. They may seemingly be as German, British, Norwegian, ect. as everybody else, but by making a conscious decision to stab their people in the back like that, they no longer deserve to be treated like the rest of society.

Poor Muhammed Ali, nobody likes him anymore... Cat Stevens I can understand, but Ali? No respect :(

And you don't like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Ingrid Mattson, Dave Chappelle, Nicolas Anelka, and John Coltrane? You actually think they've commited "one of the most vile acts of treachery" they could commit?

And Omar Sharif! :mad: How can you hate him as well? Has he done anything to you?

Of the people mentioned in this post, the only one I don't like even if I haven't met them, is you.

How can you make that claim if there exist no accurate statistics for Saudi Arabian rapes? I don't know their rate of rapes annually. All I've ever seen are anecdotal reports of rapes from there. If you've got reliable, not official, statistics pleae share.

Well, the statistic originally came from the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention).

I guess that makes it official.

Barring official statistics, I'm not sure what would qualify to you as reliable. The only kinds of statistics that aren't "official" in some way would be the kind you find in a math course.

Crap, I left this thread about 32 pages ago. How dare any of you post when I'm not on!

Crap, I left this thread about 32 pages ago. How dare any of you post when I'm not on!

Sorry. :p

You should change your jolt forum settings so that there's the maximum posts per page. I see only 17 pages, makes it much easier.

As I said, there's no proof that rape is directly caused by socio-economic factors, all you have is a correlation. And as I said before, in my experience Hindus and Sikhs have a far better attitude than muslims, despite often suffering the same discimination. They don't have the same attitude of seeking to conquer the societies they live in. Unlike muslims who commonly use rape as a weapon against the non-muslim majority.


It's slightly more understandable for a person to be a muslim if they've been brainwashed that way from birth. But for an average, rational non-muslim westerner to convert to islam is one of the most vile acts of treachery they could commit. They may seemingly be as German, British, Norwegian, ect. as everybody else, but by making a conscious decision to stab their people in the back like that, they no longer deserve to be treated like the rest of society.

Your second paragraph makes you just as bad as muslims who say those who leave islam should be killed, because it's supposedly the worst sin they can commit. In my opinion. You talk bollocks. Fact, not opinion.

Not sure if this has been brought up in the last 40+ pages, but...

For a crime to be classified as rape it has to be judged so in trial. I'd be willing to wager that the probability of being convicted for a rape is higher for someone of ethnic minority, which further distorts the statistics.

Just a thought.

Um no it doesn't. A crime is still a crime, in law, regardless of whether anyone committed that crime or not, or was convicted of it or not. Police charge people with rape. Duh.

Poor Muhammed Ali, nobody likes him anymore... Cat Stevens I can understand, but Ali? No respect :(
Wow, some arrogant mouthpiece of a boxer is really gonna change my mind.

And you don't like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Ingrid Mattson, Dave Chappelle, Nicolas Anelka, and John Coltrane? You actually think they've commited "one of the most vile acts of treachery" they could commit?
Never heard of any of them, except Anelka from football though I don't even know which club he plays for.

And Omar Sharif! :mad: How can you hate him as well? Has he done anything to you?
Haven't really seen many of his films so I don't care about him either. You can name drop all you like, I don't care who's ever converted to islam. My views will never change on the subject.

Well I can't find my post because the search never works on any page except the main forum page (any mods reading this, any chance of fixing it?) but I wanna say this:

I read the evilbible link (http://www.evilbible.com) and looked up some Exodus passages on biblegateway (http://www.biblegateway.com): Exodus 21:2-6 (type Exodus 21:2 into biblegateway.com and read to and including the 6th passage) and Exodus 21:7 and all I can say is... what the?!

Here was me writing a blog that mentioned the koran is sickening, then I find that! Disgusting.

I agree that religion isn't what makes people do bad things. I also agree religion is used as an excuse. But... if someone picked up a book like the bible or the koran and started reading the evil passages, there's no way that person, if they were sane, would abide by such a book. But people get brainwashed. That's why some join cults that are actually harmful to THEMSELVES. Then when they question their religion, it's turned around on them by others questioning that person's faith. And as was shown on a UK TV programme (Derren Brown - The Heist), it's not actually difficult to get someone to do something just because an authority figure tells them to. And if that authority figure makes it seem like it's God's will, then that becomes a whole lot easier.

But religion is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, there are evil passages that are used to get a person to commit evil acts after they have been brainwashed. But on the other hand, if it wasn't for religion, I would probably have been a lot less likely to get the help I received when I went on a long journey, as there would be no churches, and ordinary non-religious people would very likely be unlikely to think to themselves "I must help this person, I am supposed to serving God" or anything similar. And I wouldn't have been able to, had it been necessary, point out to people that they were supposed to serving God.

So I think we need to do what Christians have been doing for ages - keep re-translating the bible, and other religious books, until it gets nicer and nicer and no longer has evil passages. Though of course that day may be a long way off for all religions - Christianity still has evil passages in it. See above.

Denmark has 2% muslim population. Yet they commit 68% of rapes...I think all muslims should return to their own countries....

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/62605.html
Shut up. What everyone needs to do is respect local law and stop being sexist.

Never heard of any of them, except Anelka from football though I don't even know which club he plays for.
Yet these are the people you despise, and you do not know who they are.

Haven't really seen many of his films so I don't care about him either. You can name drop all you like, I don't care who's ever converted to islam. My views will never change on the subject.
I'm just illustrating the people you think don't deserve to be treated like "the rest of society" - people who have converted. People you hate or dislike for no coherent reason, people you hate or dislike even if you've never heard of them and don't know who they are. These are people - granted, famous enough that many people have heard of them - that might be the kindest, gentlest, best people who've ever walked the earth, but all you care about is that they've converted and as such are second-class (or third-class?) citizens.

I harbour no illusions that I can change your mind - I just wanted to point out that you are a narrow-minded, small, pathetic little bigot of a person. I'm sorry, I try to avoid posting statements like that, but you are indeed if this truly is the way you feel.

If so, I pity you. :(

Islam is a violent religion, it is a fact, accept it.
I indeed didn't answer your post, although I did see it. The reason was that I can't hope to match you, if you were indeed a Muslim and would have learned about it.

There are however people on this forum that could, and I hoped that they would turn up. They didn't, and so there is little I can do but try to address your points - and ask you why you are making them.

As for 9:14...perhaps it would make sense to also look at the verses around it, ie
[9:9] They traded away GOD's revelations for a cheap price. Consequently, they repulsed the people from His path. Miserable indeed is what they did!

[9:10] They never observe any rights of kinship towards any believer, nor do they uphold their covenants; these are the real transgressors.

[9:11] If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), then they are your brethren in religion. We thus explain the revelations for people who know.

[9:12] If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism - you are no longer bound by your covenant with them - that they may refrain.

[9:13] Would you not fight people who violated their treaties, tried to banish the messenger, and they are the ones who started the war in the first place? Are you afraid of them? GOD is the One you are supposed to fear, if you are believers.

[9:14] You shall fight them, for GOD will punish them at your hands, humiliate them, grant you victory over them, and cool the chests of the believers.

[9:15] He will also remove the rage from the believers' hearts. GOD redeems whomever He wills. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.

9:23 speaks about whether to choose your parents and friends or god, and obviously the Koran would say that god is the better choice.

9:28 - so people who don't believe are not supposed to enter Mosques? Well, apart from that not being followed particularly closely in many places, I don't think that is a particularly violent line. And as was said before, many other religions have similar rules.

9:29 - The Jizya Tax is true. It's one of the tennants in Islam that I don't agree with. Suffice to say that I would never pay it.

9:39 hints at the point that you do have. Islam was a religion born in a violent time, in a violent place. It does contain much talk about fighting for that religion. The problem with this is however only if it is interpreted with that sort of mindset. Some do, but it doesn't have to be this way - liberal Islam interprets this differently. And unless you have an irrational problem with Islam itself, you shouldn't have a problem with, nor criticise those Muslims who turn away from those things you disagree with.

[9:73] O you prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern in dealing with them. Their destiny is Hell; what a miserable abode!

[9:74] They swear by GOD that they never said it, although they have uttered the word of disbelief; they have disbelieved after becoming submitters. In fact, they gave up what they never had. They have rebelled even though GOD and His messenger have showered them with His grace and provisions. If they repent, it would be best for them. But if they turn away, GOD will commit them to painful retribution in this life and in the Hereafter. They will find no one on earth to be their lord and master.

[9:75] Some of them even pledged: "If GOD showered us with His grace, we would be charitable, and would lead a righteous life."

[9:76] But when He did shower them with His provisions, they became stingy, and turned away in aversion.

[9:77] Consequently, He plagued them with hypocrisy in their hearts, till the day they meet Him. This is because they broke their promises to GOD, and because of their lying.

[9:78] Do they not realize that GOD knows their secrets, and their conspiracies, and that GOD is the Knower of all secrets?

[9:79] Those who criticize the generous believers for giving too much, and ridicule the poor believers for giving too little, GOD despises them. They have incurred a painful retribution.
9:73 should again be considered in context. In my translation (http://www.submission.org/suras/sura9.htm) at least, the talk seems to be about god punishing the disbelievers, not the people on earth. It even says so pretty explicitly in 9:74.

As for 33:50, about prisoners of war...this page (submission.org) doesn't have that line in there at all. We'll need a third arbiter here.

As for the other parts, I've heard of that before. As I said, I don't know much about Islam and I don't think I can mount an argument here either way. It might help though if you could give me links towards those sources.

So now to ask you for your motive. I see myself as trying to protect those who are innocent from persecution based on their religion. What do you want to do? Why do you care what Muslims believe in, when you no longer do? What is your goal in all of this?

Um no it doesn't. A crime is still a crime, in law, regardless of whether anyone committed that crime or not, or was convicted of it or not. Police charge people with rape. Duh.

Depends on how that statistics you are looking at counted.

We don't know if we are looking at reports, arrests, charges, or convictions -- because the OP doesn't have any actual statistics.

And the vast majority of rape goes unreported anyway. Stranger rape tends to be more highly reported. So rape by a foreigner may be more highly reported.

Your country. It's that attitude that has caused endless wars. Without any respect or understanding, your worst off than them.

Yes it is his country. Just like the home you were borned is your home unless your parents sell it.
In our case we dont want to sell our countries.

Like I said, your worst off than them. Continue with your holier than thou attitude and things won't ever get better for you. And you'll just pass it off to your kids. World peace will never be achieved it seems.

In order to achive world peace, do we have to get over run by immigrants?
USA is an immigration society, obsessively PC, but it still makes lots of wars...

What's wrong with Muslims?

What's wrong with not letting them come to Europe?

Yes it is his country. Just like the home you were borned is your home unless your parents sell it.
In our case we dont want to sell our countries.
Your country =/= your home.

It's slightly more understandable for a person to be a muslim if they've been brainwashed that way from birth. But for an average, rational non-muslim westerner to convert to islam is one of the most vile acts of treachery they could commit. They may seemingly be as German, British, Norwegian, ect. as everybody else, but by making a conscious decision to stab their people in the back like that, they no longer deserve to be treated like the rest of society.

Justify that, please. Justify why an otherwise law-abiding natural-born citizen of your nation suddenly become a vile traitor when they choose Islam. How is converting to Islam betraying your secular nation?

I don't know if this is relevant or not but the US per capita number of rapes is 3.29 times higher than Denmarks per capita rate.

Denmark will catch up if they dont stop huge immigration...

The US also has 91.49 times more per-capita rapes than Saudi Arabia. I don't know if it's relevant either, but it sure is interesting.

Because once a man rapes a woman there, woman has to marry him and the 'incident' is considered sex between husband and wife?

Um no it doesn't. A crime is still a crime, in law, regardless of whether anyone committed that crime or not, or was convicted of it or not. Police charge people with rape. Duh.

Depends on how that statistics you are looking at counted.

We don't know if we are looking at reports, arrests, charges, or convictions -- because the OP doesn't have any actual statistics.

And the vast majority of rape goes unreported anyway. Stranger rape tends to be more highly reported. So rape by a foreigner may be more highly reported.

Thanks, Cat-Tribe, that's what I was getting at. And Multiland, ever heard of a little thing called "innocent until proven guilty?" If a person is found innocent of rape in a trial, then it's usually deemed as not a rape and as such not a crime. Ethnic minorities tend to be "easier" to convict in such cases.

:D
Well...so the Federal Republic as it exists is okay then, I take it?

So it's either nazi or current system. Your black and white thinking is very smart and intellectual (sarcasm)...

So it's either nazi or current system. Your black and white thinking is very smart and intellectual (sarcasm)...
Well, in the context of that discussion, it was democracy and freedom or dictatorship and subordination to the "nation".

But then, taking things out of context is an important tool in the fight against Islam, hey?

Well, in the context of that discussion, it was democracy and freedom or dictatorship and subordination to the "nation".

But then, taking things out of context is an important tool in the fight against Islam, hey?

Maybe I didnt read it, I read posts quickly to catch up...
Was he supporting dictatorship?

Maybe I didnt read it, I read posts quickly to catch up...
Was he supporting dictatorship?
He was supporting all sorts of things that I would associate with a dictatorship, the Nazi dictatorship in particular. His name "Von Witzleben" is the name of a Wehrmacht general who took part in a coup on Hitler's life, to end Nazism and replace it with Militarist Fascism...presumably the ideal state of those who wish for all the strength of Nazi Germany without the rather unpopular Nazi-part.

He was supporting all sorts of things that I would associate with a dictatorship, the Nazi dictatorship in particular. His name "Von Witzleben" is the name of a Wehrmacht general who took part in a coup on Hitler's life, to end Nazism and replace it with Militarist Fascism...presumably the ideal state of those who wish for all the strength of Nazi Germany without the rather unpopular Nazi-part.

I heard that if you put a german flag(the current one) in your home, or your backyard or something, you are considered nazi. Is this true?

I heard that if you put a german flag(the current one) in your home, or your backyard or something, you are considered nazi. Is this true?
It's an unusual thing to do.
No, people probably won't call you a Nazi because they know the difference between the current flag and its heritage, and the Nazi flag.

Nonetheless, it's an unsavoury thing to do, and you'll get funny looks. Patriots are not common, and often not harmless in Germany.

Unless a football game is on, then it's cool. :D

It's an unusual thing to do.
No, people probably won't call you a Nazi because they know the difference between the current flag and its heritage, and the Nazi flag.

Nonetheless, it's an unsavoury thing to do, and you'll get funny looks. Patriots are not common, and often not harmless in Germany.

Unless a football game is on, then it's cool. :D

Germany has a terrible history in 20th century. But so does french and british and many others. I mean british didnt do the concentration camp thing, but they also did lots of disastorous stuff in their colonies. Yet they always wave their flag...

Germany has a terrible history in 20th century. But so does french and british and many others. I mean british didnt do the concentration camp thing, but they also did lots of disastorous stuff in their colonies. Yet they always wave their flag...
It's a long story. A bit of it comes from denazification, a bit from the 69'er generation, and a bit from the fact that German nationalism very early took a racial aspect, simply because that seemed to be the only thing "Germans" had in common.

As such, German nationalism is different from British or French nationalism, which was always focussed on a nation or a government, rather than a race or people.

For more, see this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474934).

It's a long story. A bit of it comes from denazification, a bit from the 69'er generation, and a bit from the fact that German nationalism very early took a racial aspect, simply because that seemed to be the only thing "Germans" had in common.

As such, German nationalism is different from British or French nationalism, which was always focussed on a nation or a government, rather than a race or people.

For more, see this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474934).

The brit nationalism were racist too in early 20th century. Surely they didnt view indians as 'british'...
Soviets killed 2 million germans too while they were being 'transported' and raped millions when they occupied but they always celebrate their victory...

The brit nationalism were racist too in early 20th century. Surely they didnt view indians as 'british'...
No, but they also never talked about a British, or English race. It was the white man, and as far as white men were concerned, that included French, Germans and even Russians.
When it came to those differences, it was the government, not the race that mattered.

Soviets killed 2 million germans too while they were being 'transported' and raped millions when they occupied but they always celebrate their victory...
And? Am I supposed to celebrate things I don't want to celebrate simply to prove a point? Does their doing it make it any better?
Just because the Turks deny the Armenian genocide, should I therefore deny the Holocaust?

No, but they also never talked about a British, or English race. It was the white man, and as far as white men were concerned, that included French, Germans and even Russians.
When it came to those differences, it was the government, not the race that mattered.


And? Am I supposed to celebrate things I don't want to celebrate simply to prove a point? Does their doing it make it any better?
Just because the Turks deny the Armenian genocide, should I therefore deny the Holocaust?

So you agree their nationalism was racist?

You arent supposed to do anything. I'm just wondering why germans are so obsessed about being non-patriotic...

Yeah, well - but all of those didn't lose the war. As I always jokingly say: "Our patriotism was bombed out of us during WWII, hence no more flag waving".

Not entirely true, of course, but it is indeed very uncommon. Only on national holidays do our "official" buildings fly a flag.
Then again you have the "allotment garden mentality" where you're looked at funny when you don't have a flag pole.

Guess we are an interesting people after all :D

So you agree their nationalism was racist?
No.
I agree that the British Imperials were both nationalists and racists. But not that therefore their nationalism has a racial aspect, because it doesn't.

To be British, one must accept the King or Queen. One must fight for Britain. One must be born in Britain.

In the German territories, this was not so. One was German by blood. There was a "German race". One had to actively ignore your various kings, queens or dukes. Your fellow citizen from Stettin was not like you, even if he adhered to the same government - simply because he was Polish, not German.
But the citizen from Munich, of a different government, one that might even be an enemy of yours - that citizen is like you, because he is also a member of that mythic race.

That is the difference, and that is why traditional ("völkisch") German nationalism can never be fully divorced from the ultimate consequences it had under the Nazis.

No.
I agree that the British Imperials were both nationalists and racists. But not that therefore their nationalism has a racial aspect, because it doesn't.

To be British, one must accept the King or Queen. One must fight for Britain. One must be born in Britain.

In the German territories, this was not so. One was German by blood. There was a "German race". One had to actively ignore your various kings, queens or dukes. Your fellow citizen from Stettin was not like you, even if he adhered to the same government - simply because he was Polish, not German.
But the citizen from Munich, of a different government, one that might even be an enemy of yours - that citizen is like you, because he is also a member of that mythic race.

That is the difference, and that is why traditional ("völkisch") German nationalism can never be fully divorced from the ultimate consequences it had under the Nazis.

In early 20th centurry, a non-white wouldnt be considered British. Even if he accepted the King or Queen and fought for Britain. So theirs was a racist nationalism too....

In early 20th centurry, a non-white wouldnt be considered British. Even if he accepted the King or Queen and fought for Britain. So theirs was a racist nationalism too....
Which part of my argument don't you get?

a) Indians were considered citizens of the crown.
b) A Frenchman who went to London could be British. A Frenchman who went to Berlin could never be German.
c) Where is your reference to a British race, or even an English race?
d) Why do I have to repeat the arguments, when I already posted the link to the thread in which this topic was discussed in depth?

So you agree their nationalism was racist?

You arent supposed to do anything. I'm just wondering why germans are so obsessed about being non-patriotic...

Hmmm german nationalism is a tough one. but i would like to direct everyone to this enlightening snippet i got passed on to me

and before you ask they are germans and it also serves as a timely reminder that anything from the continent calling itself pop is invariably shite

:::Blitzkrieg Slop

'Anti Deutsch' left World Cup song

Here is a World Cup football video, made by the anti-Deutsch movement in Germany. They're basically a far left anti-fascist group whose slogan is "Deutschland mu§ sterben". They think that the greatest disaster since the war was the reunification of Germany, and that both German nationalism and anti-imperialism are retarding the coming of the socialist revolution.

What this means in practice is that they turn up on demonstrations, burn the German flag, and wave US and Israeli flags.

It nicely illustrates AJP Taylor's line that German history "is a history of extremes. It contains everything except moderation". Or something.

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2006/04/05/remember_munich_2001.php

I'm just wondering why germans are so obsessed about being non-patriotic...
Because we get a bad conscience drummed into us from early childhood on. :(

That's one aspect.

The other is - you can't fucking go anywhere and tell people you're from Germany without some asshole starting shit about nazis, WWII and Hitler.
English-speaking countries are especially bad about that. Pisses me off to no end. :mad:

"Is Hitler still around?"
"Why don't you wear a uniform?"
"Do you hate Jews?"

"Hello? STFU!"

That's only some randomn things I had to put up with in the US. My answers to that usually are:
"Yeah, we keep him deep-frozen. He's gonna return soon and nuke the US."
"It's at the cleaner's"/"I'm a spy. Spies don't wear uniforms while undercover!"
"No, but I hate you - unless, of course, you are Jewish."

Hope that helps you get an impression (of me).

Which part of my argument don't you get?

a) Indians were considered citizens of the crown.
b) A Frenchman who went to London could be British. A Frenchman who went to Berlin could never be German.
c) Where is your reference to a British race, or even an English race?
d) Why do I have to repeat the arguments, when I already posted the link to the thread in which this topic was discussed in depth?

Indians were never considered 'british'. Which part you dont get??

Because we get a bad conscience drummed into us from early childhood on. :(

That's one aspect.

The other is - you can't fucking go anywhere and tell people you're from Germany without some asshole starting shit about nazis, WWII and Hitler.
English-speaking countries are especially bad about that. Pisses me off to no end. :mad:

"Is Hitler still around?"
"Why don't you wear a uniform?"
"Do you hate Jews?"

"Hello? STFU!"

That's only some randomn things I had to put up with in the US. My answers to that usually are:
"Yeah, we keep him deep-frozen. He's gonna return soon and nuke the US."
"It's at the cleaner's"/"I'm a spy. Spies don't wear uniforms while undercover!"
"No, but I hate you - unless, of course, you are Jewish."

Hope that helps you get an impression (of me).

Funny...no one reminds a russian how many millions of women red army raped...

Indians were never considered 'british'. Which part you dont get??
They were Imperial citizens, simply by virtue of Victoria being Empress of India.
Although there was racism, that racism was not directly connected with nationalism. Britain never had a substantial volkish nationalist movement.

They were Imperial citizens, simply by virtue of Victoria being Empress of India.
Although there was racism, that racism was not directly connected with nationalism. Britain never had a substantial volkish nationalist movement.

They were imperial citizens because their country was being exploited for the good of Britain.
And at least you admitted it's indirectly connected. Glad you understood finally...

Indians were never considered 'british'. Which part you dont get??

well as a matter of fact they were, which is why when we left and gave it back to them, the indians that wnated to come here were given british passports (don't quote me on that tho, if i'm wrong i do concede) hence we have a 3rd generation that is also proud to be british.

Trouble is history lies with the people that write it and at the moment tony blair and the other twats that kiss his arse and most of the media want to make out that all of britain was racist but aren't now.

This is currently blurring the lines of patriotism and racism and leading to producing racism. Thus creating a race problem to be dealt with. The media like to portray anyone with the slightest bit of pride in the nation as a fully paid up member of the BNP and make out that racism doesn't go both ways and does very well. The only downside is that it forgets about the 3rd gen asians and west indians who are proud to british.

All i'm trying to say is that there is a major difference in patriotism and racism

Funny...no one reminds a russian how many millions of women red army raped...That's because they won.

But apart from that, German soldiers accompanying the fleeing refugees would often say "Pray that they only do a tenth of what we did to them to you."
The Russians weren't friendly, but they did have the occasional officer that wouldn't put up with rape and torture, something that was prevented by the high command on the German side of the front.

I think its also quite funny that a German and a Norwegian are disecting the intricasies of British history

That's because they won.

But apart from that, German soldiers accompanying the fleeing refugees would often say "Pray that they only do a tenth of what we did to them to you."
The Russians weren't friendly, but they did have the occasional officer that wouldn't put up with rape and torture, something that was prevented by the high command on the German side of the front.

So german were so evil that it was ok to rape their women and kill them while 'transporting them'
And those officers werent successful at all, since millions of german women were raped...

I think its also quite funny that a German and a Norwegian are disecting the intricasies of British history

Duh! British had one of the biggest empires world have ever seen. And they got one of the most bloodiest history of any nation. Anyone can debate their history...

That's because they won.

But apart from that, German soldiers accompanying the fleeing refugees would often say "Pray that they only do a tenth of what we did to them to you."
The Russians weren't friendly, but they did have the occasional officer that wouldn't put up with rape and torture, something that was prevented by the high command on the German side of the front.

As is well quoted...

"History is written by the victor"

Just think of this (yes i hve read 1984 countless times) how would history read if Germany had won WWII. Would i have learned how Britain "won" WWI at school? Would i have learned how Britain defeated Napoleon? Course not, it would have been deleted from history and i would have been taught about Germany's greatest victories and history

Duh! British had one of the biggest empires world have ever seen. And they got one of the most bloodiest history of any nation. Anyone can debate their history...

True enough, it was called comedy tho. I was just trying to lighten the mood a little.

So german were so evil that it was ok to rape their women and kill them while 'transporting them'
And those officers werent successful at all, since millions of german women were raped...:rolleyes:
You know, if you actually read my post properly, you might have understood what I said, but instead you took your private definition and applied it in a place it didn't fit.

Well I can't find my post because the search never works on any page except the main forum page (any mods reading this, any chance of fixing it?) but I wanna say this:

I read the evilbible link (http://www.evilbible.com) and looked up some Exodus passages on biblegateway (http://www.biblegateway.com): Exodus 21:2-6 (type Exodus 21:2 into biblegateway.com and read to and including the 6th passage) and Exodus 21:7 and all I can say is... what the?!

Here was me writing a blog that mentioned the koran is sickening, then I find that! Disgusting.

I agree that religion isn't what makes people do bad things. I also agree religion is used as an excuse. But... if someone picked up a book like the bible or the koran and started reading the evil passages, there's no way that person, if they were sane, would abide by such a book. But people get brainwashed. That's why some join cults that are actually harmful to THEMSELVES. Then when they question their religion, it's turned around on them by others questioning that person's faith. And as was shown on a UK TV programme (Derren Brown - The Heist), it's not actually difficult to get someone to do something just because an authority figure tells them to. And if that authority figure makes it seem like it's God's will, then that becomes a whole lot easier.

But religion is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, there are evil passages that are used to get a person to commit evil acts after they have been brainwashed. But on the other hand, if it wasn't for religion, I would probably have been a lot less likely to get the help I received when I went on a long journey, as there would be no churches, and ordinary non-religious people would very likely be unlikely to think to themselves "I must help this person, I am supposed to serving God" or anything similar. And I wouldn't have been able to, had it been necessary, point out to people that they were supposed to serving God.

So I think we need to do what Christians have been doing for ages - keep re-translating the bible, and other religious books, until it gets nicer and nicer and no longer has evil passages. Though of course that day may be a long way off for all religions - Christianity still has evil passages in it. See above.
Good post. (Except that I think non-religious people can be kind, too.)

And while religious people do what they have to do to make their texts reflect their god, rather than ancient social prejudices, secular society can continue to treat crime as crime, and apply the same law to everyone, and not give weight to irrelevant excuses of the criminals and irrelevant prejudices of the communities.

Bottom line: A Muslim/Arab rapist is not worse than a Christian/Danish rapist. The law should focus on the crime, not the religion/race of the perpetrator.

Good post. (Except that I think non-religious people can be kind, too.)

And while religious people do what they have to do to make their texts reflect their god, rather than ancient social prejudices, secular society can continue to treat crime as crime, and apply the same law to everyone, and not give weight to irrelevant excuses of the criminals and irrelevant prejudices of the communities.

Bottom line: A Muslim/Arab rapist is not worse than a Christian/Danish rapist. The law should focus on the crime, not the religion/race of the perpetrator.

I wasn't trying to imply that non-religious people can be kind, but for certain religions, people are more likely to help if they belong to a reglion, because they believe they a servant of God, and you can remind them of that - something you can't do with a non-religious person. This fact also makes it easier to ask for help in the person. If I had gone to an ordinary person asking if there was any way they could help me get towards where I was going, I'm sure most would have said no. This makes me worry about asking. But if I see a church with a big cross on it, a place that probably talks about being kind to others in almost every sermon, then I feel better about asking, and am more likely to get help (if I ask the vicar/priest/reverend anyway).

But remember, apparently there was once a man who needed food. He knocked on his neighbour's door and asked for food. The neighbour refused. But remembering the word of the bible, "seek and ye shall receive", the man tried again. The neighbour refused again. He tried. Refused. Tried. Refused. Tried. Refused. Eventually the neighbour got so fed up of the man asking, he offered him some food if he would go away, and gave him some then told him to piss off. The man left with his food. Seek and ye shall receive.

Oh also I think ordinarily the focus should be on the crime, not religion or race of criminal. But if there's a lot of people from one religion race committing a certain type of crime, especially one as serious and traumatic as rape, then I think people need to find out why that race/religion are acting like that, and re-educate them.

Thanks, Cat-Tribe, that's what I was getting at. And Multiland, ever heard of a little thing called "innocent until proven guilty?" If a person is found innocent of rape in a trial, then it's usually deemed as not a rape and as such not a crime. Ethnic minorities tend to be "easier" to convict in such cases.

Yes I have. But that doesn't mean that crime doesn't exist. Something is still illegal, regardless of whether or not anyone commits that illegal act. If the Prim Minister suddenly makes a law that says I can't have sex with an apple, something that most people probably won't do anyway, and nobody commits it, it doesn't mean that there is no such crime as having sex with an apple - it just means it hasn't been committed yet. The crime still exists.

So you are wrong. It's still deemed a crime to rape someone. It dosn't stop being a crime just because someone was found not guilty of committing it. The crime still exists. It just apparently* wasn't committed by that person.

*Rape trials are weighed against the victims, in favour of criminals

<snip>
Oh also I think ordinarily the focus should be on the crime, not religion or race of criminal. But if there's a lot of people from one religion race committing a certain type of crime, especially one as serious and traumatic as rape, then I think people need to find out why that race/religion are acting like that, and re-educate them.
I do not think it is the job of the law to do that. Let the law punish the crimes that are committed and the religions and ethnic groups worry about preventing crime among their people.

I do not think it is the job of the law to do that. Let the law punish the crimes that are committed and the religions and ethnic groups worry about preventing crime among their people.

I think that's a really bad idea. Laws that are constantly broken need to be, as shown in the past, combined with education. And if a particular group is committing most of the crimes, then it's stupid to let them try to sort it out amongst themselves, because obviously they are not doing so, or/and do not want to do so, otherwise they wouldn't be committing so many of that type o crime in the first place.

Because once a man rapes a woman there, woman has to marry him and the 'incident' is considered sex between husband and wife?

Oh, is that the case? You must be an expert on Saudi law. Let's see your sources about how many rape victims get married to their assaulters in Saudi Arabia, then.

I think that's a really bad idea. Laws that are constantly broken need to be, as shown in the past, combined with education. And if a particular group is committing most of the crimes, then it's stupid to let them try to sort it out amongst themselves, because obviously they are not doing so, or/and do not want to do so, otherwise they wouldn't be committing so many of that type o crime in the first place.
First of all, let's be clear that the OP has not proven his statistical claims. Several people are still arguing this with him.

That said, I disagree with your point, above. Even within one's own social group, one cannot legislate morality. One certainly cannot legislate compassion or even consideration for others, let along a positive or tolerant attitude. There is no law that will make people have respect for each other. Criminal law especially cannot do that because it is about crime, which already supposes that people have acted badly. Criminal law exists to fix things when they go wrong -- after they go wrong.

The law exists to punish and, hopefully, deter rape with the threat of punishment. How do you propose to make it do that specifically among a certain ethnic group -- let's say Martians. Are you going to add extra penalties for raping while Martian? Or do you want preventative laws? Like what? If being a Martian makes a man more likely to rape, are you going to outlaw being Martian? Are you going to suppress Martian culture? Martian language? Martian religion? For all Martians or just the males? No, I guess you'd have to apply it to the females too, since they raise their sons. So you would have to apply these restrictions to all Martians because you are doing it before a rape is committed. In effect, you have to act as if all Martians are likely to rape, i.e. treat all Martians like criminals just because they are Martians. How do you expect Martians ever to assimilate -- i.e. become like the other citizens of your country -- when there are all these laws that single them out and punish them for who they are whether they have ever committed a crime or not? Especially if no such restrictions are applied to other groups -- let alone native citizens -- how can you expect Martians ever to develop the idea they are not surrounded by people who hate them?

This doesn't even touch upon the idea that "re-education" is problematical because it assumes that the government that is doing the re-educating is any better than the people they're re-educating. Should we encourage a government program of re-education that is run by racists and/or xenophobes like the OP and others in this thread? It might end up looking a lot like the assimilation programs that the US government used to destroy the cultures and languages of Native Americans. Those programs were all based on anti-native propaganda and manipulated statistics and, under those programs, Native American children were taken away from their families and sent to boarding schools where their languages were forbidden, their religions were forbidden, and they were not allowed to wear traditional clothing or even carry mementoes of their families. First, that is not the right way to treat people, and second, it didn't work. It did not lead to cultural assimilation, but it did help prolong the conflicts and ill-will of the Indian Wars to this very day.

First of all, let's be clear that the OP has not proven his statistical claims. Several people are still arguing this with him.

That said, I disagree with your point, above. Even within one's own social group, one cannot legislate morality. One certainly cannot legislate compassion or even consideration for others, let along a positive or tolerant attitude. There is no law that will make people have respect for each other. Criminal law especially cannot do that because it is about crime, which already supposes that people have acted badly. Criminal law exists to fix things when they go wrong -- after they go wrong.

The law exists to punish and, hopefully, deter rape with the threat of punishment. How do you propose to make it do that specifically among a certain ethnic group -- let's say Martians. Are you going to add extra penalties for raping while Martian? Or do you want preventative laws? Like what? If being a Martian makes a man more likely to rape, are you going to outlaw being Martian? Are you going to suppress Martian culture? Martian language? Martian religion? For all Martians or just the males? No, I guess you'd have to apply it to the females too, since they raise their sons. So you would have to apply these restrictions to all Martians because you are doing it before a rape is committed. In effect, you have to act as if all Martians are likely to rape, i.e. treat all Martians like criminals just because they are Martians. How do you expect Martians ever to assimilate -- i.e. become like the other citizens of your country -- when there are all these laws that single them out and punish them for who they are whether they have ever committed a crime or not? Especially if no such restrictions are applied to other groups -- let alone native citizens -- how can you expect Martians ever to develop the idea they are not surrounded by people who hate them?

This doesn't even touch upon the idea that "re-education" is problematical because it assumes that the government that is doing the re-educating is any better than the people they're re-educating. Should we encourage a government program of re-education that is run by racists and/or xenophobes like the OP and others in this thread? It might end up looking a lot like the assimilation programs that the US government used to destroy the cultures and languages of Native Americans. Those programs were all based on anti-native propaganda and manipulated statistics and, under those programs, Native American children were taken away from their families and sent to boarding schools where their languages were forbidden, their religions were forbidden, and they were not allowed to wear traditional clothing or even carry mementoes of their families. First, that is not the right way to treat people, and second, it didn't work. It did not lead to cultural assimilation, but it did help prolong the conflicts and ill-will of the Indian Wars to this very day.

One can perhaps not legislate morality, but one can change peoples perceptions of it. It used be considered perfeclt acceptable to treat black people like crap. Now it's considered immoral by many (hopefully most) people.

And you are wrong about criminal law - it's also meant as a deterrent. Say someone's about to beat someone to a pulp. Then they realise that, in that country, they could spend years in prison for it. Less likely to do it. I have no issues about stealing a tiny amount of food from large supermarket chains - but I wouldn't normally do it, because I know that if I get caught, I could end up in prison, not something I want to happen. And you agree with this opinion by contradicting your second paragraph in your third paragraph.

And I never said anything about outlawing the particular group who committ most of a particular crime - I said they need to be re-educated.

And I never said who should do the re-educating. I would prefer rape crisis organisations too, but it seems that the media and the government never wants them too. Basically, I think people who know what they are talking about and genuinely want change should do the re-educating. It's STUPID just to let people carry on thinking that rape is acceptable, just like it was stupid to let white people carry on thinking that beating people up for being black was acceptable.

One can perhaps not legislate morality, but one can change peoples perceptions of it. It used be considered perfeclt acceptable to treat black people like crap. Now it's considered immoral by many (hopefully most) people.
Yes, but it's not illegal -- in the US, that is. And there's no lack of racism in the US, either. The attitude that racism is uncool, which makes racists keep their mouths shut in public, came about by actual education -- in the schools and media -- not by "re-education" which implies compulsion. Nothing made it illegal to be a racist, it just made it uncool to be one so that racists are ostracized by their peers. What the law did was outlaw the things that institutionalized racism, such as segregation and housing discrimination. This gives people the tools to punish racists who are not deterred by social pressures. So the law is still remedial, not preventative.

And you are wrong about criminal law - it's also meant as a deterrent. Say someone's about to beat someone to a pulp. Then they realise that, in that country, they could spend years in prison for it. Less likely to do it. I have no issues about stealing a tiny amount of food from large supermarket chains - but I wouldn't normally do it, because I know that if I get caught, I could end up in prison, not something I want to happen. And you agree with this opinion by contradicting your second paragraph in your third paragraph.
I did say it is a deterrent. It deters by punishing those who commit the crime. But no deterrent is absolute. Many states in the US have the death penalty for murder, but those states do not have significantly fewer murders than non-death penalty states. In fact, some have more murders. Apparently, the deterrent effect is spotty.

And where did I contradict myself? I don't see it.

And I never said anything about outlawing the particular group who committ most of a particular crime - I said they need to be re-educated.
Historically, that has been an effect of re-education that is controlled by governments and law. Legal systems don't really operate any other way.

And I never said who should do the re-educating. I would prefer rape crisis organisations too, but it seems that the media and the government never wants them too. Basically, I think people who know what they are talking about and genuinely want change should do the re-educating. It's STUPID just to let people carry on thinking that rape is acceptable, just like it was stupid to let white people carry on thinking that beating people up for being black was acceptable.
You don't need special laws aimed at immigrants to do that. You can do that in regular education of immigrant children and by using the media to promote the benefits of your own countries way of doing things. This is how you change people's minds -- by making them want to change their own minds. You back it up with strong laws that control behavior rather than thought. Reward + punishment = eventual assimilation.

But only if both the rewards and the punishments are the same for immigrants as for native citizens.

That's my view, at any rate.

Oh, is that the case? You must be an expert on Saudi law. Let's see your sources about how many rape victims get married to their assaulters in Saudi Arabia, then.

In traditional societies, there IS pressure on the victim to get married with the rapist (when possible, of course)...it is related to the concept of honor for women and "regaining" that honor by marrying the rapist who has "dishonored" the woman....

I know of coupla instances of that in my village too....and they were hindus...so it is not limited to religion...it is rather a societal thing..

Plus by shariat laws, if the intercourse is not islamically sanctioned, then it is considered "zina" (adultery) which is punishable by the time honored methods like stoning etc...so I would guess that there is lot of pressure to make the intercourse islamically legal by making it a marriage...

Then there is this case of Imrana, a woman who was raped by her father-in-law and the local mullahs decreed that she is no longer the wife of the son but is now the her husband's mother..

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1153846.cms
Imrana cannot stay with husband: Shariyat court

Sorry, I don't have statistics, but only anecdotal and empirical arguments...

While we're on the subject of rape and culture.... http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/Forced_Affection.html

While we're on the subject of rape and culture.... http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/Forced_Affection.html
Great. So I guess Muslims can relax because they're not being singled out. Apparently, there are few groups that some people won't accuse of Just Lovin' to Rape!

You're aware that the Heian period was in the middle ages, right?

Japan today has a pretty crappy record on women's rights and safety, but attitudes like what I'm seeing in this thread do not encourage positive change.

Great. So I guess Muslims can relax because they're not being singled out. Apparently, there are few groups that some people won't accuse of Just Lovin' to Rape!

You're aware that the Heian period was in the middle ages, right?

Japan today has a pretty crappy record on women's rights and safety, but attitudes like what I'm seeing in this thread do not encourage positive change.

I know. Japanese history is somewhat of a hobby of mine. So relax.

I know. Japanese history is somewhat of a hobby of mine. So relax.
So what are you doing? Just tossing biscuits into the xenophobic dog pit and yelling, "Fight, dogs, fight for the crumbs!"? If so, cool. ;)

So what are you doing? Just tossing biscuits into the xenophobic dog pit and yelling, "Fight, dogs, fight for the crumbs!"? If so, cool. ;)

Something like that, yeah.

He knows too much. Take him down.

Something like that, yeah.

He knows too much. Take him down.
And here I was, thinking there was no way to have fun in this thread.

Yes I have. But that doesn't mean that crime doesn't exist. Something is still illegal, regardless of whether or not anyone commits that illegal act. If the Prim Minister suddenly makes a law that says I can't have sex with an apple, something that most people probably won't do anyway, and nobody commits it, it doesn't mean that there is no such crime as having sex with an apple - it just means it hasn't been committed yet. The crime still exists.

So you are wrong. It's still deemed a crime to rape someone. It dosn't stop being a crime just because someone was found not guilty of committing it. The crime still exists. It just apparently* wasn't committed by that person.

*Rape trials are weighed against the victims, in favour of criminals

Nice strawman you've created there. We're not talking about the abstract definition of rape as a crime. We're talking about the number of people convicted of rape as a statistic. No one convicted of rape = No rapes reported in the statistics; it does NOT mean there is no such crime as rape. They're two entirely different things, and I don't understand what your example above has to do with anything in this topic.

Nice strawman you've created there. We're not talking about the abstract definition of rape as a crime. We're talking about the number of people convicted of rape as a statistic. No one convicted of rape = No rapes reported in the statistics; it does NOT mean there is no such crime as rape. They're two entirely different things, and I don't understand what your example above has to do with anything in this topic.

Someone (can't remember who now) claimed that for something to be a crime, someone had to have committed that crime. I refuted it, arguing that the crime of rape still exists in law, regardless of whether anyone actually breaks the law against rape or not.

Yes, but it's not illegal -- in the US, that is. And there's no lack of racism in the US, either. The attitude that racism is uncool, which makes racists keep their mouths shut in public, came about by actual education -- in the schools and media -- not by "re-education" which implies compulsion. Nothing made it illegal to be a racist, it just made it uncool to be one so that racists are ostracized by their peers. What the law did was outlaw the things that institutionalized racism, such as segregation and housing discrimination. This gives people the tools to punish racists who are not deterred by social pressures. So the law is still remedial, not preventative.

As far as I'm aware, it IS illegal, including in the USA, to treat black people like crap, when that's based on their race. And I don't know about the USA, but I know that in the UK it's illegal to make racist remarks. You seem to have a warped view of re-education - it doesn't mean compulsion, it means changing the mines of people who have been brought up to believe that rape is acceptable.


Historically, that has been an effect of re-education that is controlled by governments and law. Legal systems don't really operate any other way.

And I suggested getting a rape crisis organisation to do the re-educating, not the government. And I don't know where you get the idea that legal systems don't operate in any other way except to outlaw particular groups based on religion or race - it's just a completely innacurate assumption.


You don't need special laws aimed at immigrants to do that. You can do that in regular education of immigrant children and by using the media to promote the benefits of your own countries way of doing things. This is how you change people's minds -- by making them want to change their own minds. You back it up with strong laws that control behavior rather than thought. Reward + punishment = eventual assimilation.

You're wrong here. Maybe not about the laws, but about the rest. You can promote your country's way of doing things all you want, but unless you re-educate people, ensuring they know why rape is such a bad thing, and why what their religion says in relation to it is stupid (without actually using the word "stupid"), then it won't make a blind bit of difference. The way that countries do things have been promoted all over the internet. I don't see any reports of a country adopting everything from a supposedly better country yet.

This one from Sweden...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20552

This article is recent and clearly shows the attitude of Muslims. All immigration of muslims must be stopped and muslims who are convicted of crimes (particularly against women) must be thrown out of the Christian countries.... BEFORE IT IS TOOOO LATE !!!

This article is recent and clearly shows the attitude of Muslims. All immigration of muslims must be stopped and muslims who are convicted of crimes (particularly against women) must be thrown out of the Christian countries.... BEFORE IT IS TOOOO LATE !!!

My sarcasmometer is broken. Could you please tell me if that is or is not, in fact, sarcasm?

This article is recent and clearly shows the attitude of Muslims. All immigration of muslims must be stopped and muslims who are convicted of crimes (particularly against women) must be thrown out of the Christian countries.... BEFORE IT IS TOOOO LATE !!!The article is from a highly biased site...

The article is from a highly biased site...

I did not know that but still it cannot be totally false.... in any case i am convinced that some action from the governments of the Western Nations are required.

My sarcasmometer is broken. Could you please tell me if that is or is not, in fact, sarcasm?

It is not sarcasm, Jerusalas.... 2% population to 68% rape ratio is not funny in any context !!!

I did not know thatI pity you. If you can't recognize bias when it's that obvious, you will have a hard time in life. but still it cannot be totally false.... in any case i am convinced that some action from the governments of the Western Nations are required.It can be false enough. It takes some statistics and turns them into a case against immigrants. Most of the "sources" it has come from a blog. That's not very credible.

The article is from a highly biased site...
...and is written by a highly biased person who misrepresents facts and statistics to prove a point - and this is not the only article in which he has done so. I simply do not take any rant by Fjordman at face value.

It is not sarcasm, Jerusalas.... 2% population to 68% rape ratio is not funny in any context !!!

When the context is a blatent lie, it's pretty funny.

As far as I'm aware, it IS illegal, including in the USA, to treat black people like crap, when that's based on their race. And I don't know about the USA, but I know that in the UK it's illegal to make racist remarks. You seem to have a warped view of re-education - it doesn't mean compulsion, it means changing the mines of people who have been brought up to believe that rape is acceptable.

In the USA you can make racist remarks and generally treat people like crap due to their race. There are KKK and neo-Nazi rallies that are huge, people promote all sorts of insane racist stuff, etc. In any case, there are laws against racial discrimination. So like Muravyets said, it was really just institutionalized racism that was made illegal. You can't have a "no blacks" policy in a resturant for example, but if you want to be a discriminatory racist bastard and treat black people like crap whever you see them, you can. People do it all the time, its really sad.

First of all, let's be clear that the OP has not proven his statistical claims. Several people are still arguing this with him.

That said, I disagree with your point, above. Even within one's own social group, one cannot legislate morality. One certainly cannot legislate compassion or even consideration for others, let along a positive or tolerant attitude. There is no law that will make people have respect for each other. Criminal law especially cannot do that because it is about crime, which already supposes that people have acted badly. Criminal law exists to fix things when they go wrong -- after they go wrong.

The law exists to punish and, hopefully, deter rape with the threat of punishment. How do you propose to make it do that specifically among a certain ethnic group -- let's say Martians. Are you going to add extra penalties for raping while Martian? Or do you want preventative laws? Like what? If being a Martian makes a man more likely to rape, are you going to outlaw being Martian? Are you going to suppress Martian culture? Martian language? Martian religion? For all Martians or just the males? No, I guess you'd have to apply it to the females too, since they raise their sons. So you would have to apply these restrictions to all Martians because you are doing it before a rape is committed. In effect, you have to act as if all Martians are likely to rape, i.e. treat all Martians like criminals just because they are Martians. How do you expect Martians ever to assimilate -- i.e. become like the other citizens of your country -- when there are all these laws that single them out and punish them for who they are whether they have ever committed a crime or not? Especially if no such restrictions are applied to other groups -- let alone native citizens -- how can you expect Martians ever to develop the idea they are not surrounded by people who hate them?

This doesn't even touch upon the idea that "re-education" is problematical because it assumes that the government that is doing the re-educating is any better than the people they're re-educating. Should we encourage a government program of re-education that is run by racists and/or xenophobes like the OP and others in this thread? It might end up looking a lot like the assimilation programs that the US government used to destroy the cultures and languages of Native Americans. Those programs were all based on anti-native propaganda and manipulated statistics and, under those programs, Native American children were taken away from their families and sent to boarding schools where their languages were forbidden, their religions were forbidden, and they were not allowed to wear traditional clothing or even carry mementoes of their families. First, that is not the right way to treat people, and second, it didn't work. It did not lead to cultural assimilation, but it did help prolong the conflicts and ill-will of the Indian Wars to this very day.

I've given a link to a respectable newspaper, in my first post. What more do u expect?
I dont support re-education, I support deportation...

The article is from a highly biased site...

It's hard to find percentage of crimes commited by a certain religion group because of the 'PC people'...Apparently, they think statistics are racist too...

I dont support re-education, I support deportation...
Even deportation of people who have comitted no crimes... :rolleyes:

It's hard to find percentage of crimes commited by a certain religion group because of the 'PC people'...Apparently, they think statistics are racist too...
Your opening comment in this thread was taken out of context:

Alarmed at last week's police statistics, which revealed that in 68% of all rapes committed this year the perpetrator was from an ethnic minority, leading Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls.

It does not say, as you would have us believe, that 68% of rapes are committed by Muslims.

And if you can't find the "percentage of crimes commited by a certain religion group", then this whole thread has been based on a lie?

Edit: As a matter of fact, it doesn't say ANY of the rapes are committed by Muslims?

Your opening comment in this thread was taken out of context:

Alarmed at last week's police statistics, which revealed that in 68% of all rapes committed this year the perpetrator was from an ethnic minority, leading Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls.

It does not say, as you would have us believe, that 68% of rapes are committed by Muslims.

And if you can't find the "percentage of crimes commited by a certain religion group", then this whole thread has been based on a lie?

Edit: As a matter of fact, it doesn't say ANY of the rapes are committed by Muslims?

I answered questions smilar to yours which you didnt bother to read, I guess.
If all/most/some of the rapes hadnt been commited by muslims, why does the article continue like this?

leading Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls

Even if you want to deny this clear link, as I said before, non-ethnic danish fall for less than 10% of population, yet they commit 68% of rapes.

I answered questions smilar to yours which you didnt bother to read, I guess.
If all/most/some of the rapes hadnt been commited by muslims, why does the article continue like this?

leading Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls

Even if you want to deny this clear link, as I said before, non-ethnic danish fall for less than 10% of population, yet they commit 68% of rapes.
You do know what commas mean in a sentence? assuming that you do, lets re-examine the quotation, taking out the pause:

Alarmed at last week's police statistics, leading Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls.

Does that suggest that Muslims are the rapists?

Lets use the same format as above but substitute Danish for Muslim:

Alarmed at last week's police statistics, leading Danish organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls.

Would that suggest that Danes were involved in the rapes?

Now lets examing the removed portion:

"which revealed that in 68% of all rapes committed this year the perpetrator was from an ethnic minority."

You obviously have more than one ethnic minority in Denmark.

It clearly states that 68% of all rapes are committed by an ethnic minority. It does not single out that Muslims are responsible for one, some or all of the rapes. Until you can determine just how many rapes were commited by Muslims, if any, then your opening post is bogus and misleading.

Edit: Even if Muslims are involved in one or more of the rapes, you failed to recognize the positive aspect of the story? The fact that they are concerned enough to make an "alliance" to "fight the ever-growing problem", is commendable?

You do know what commas mean in a sentence? assuming that you do, lets re-examine the quotation, taking out the pause:

Alarmed at last week's police statistics, leading Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls.

Does that suggest that Muslims are the rapists?

Lets use the same format as above but substitute Danish for Muslim:

Alarmed at last week's police statistics, leading Danish organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls.

Would that suggest that Danes were involved in the rapes?

Now lets examing the removed portion:

"which revealed that in 68% of all rapes committed this year the perpetrator was from an ethnic minority."

You obviously have more than one ethnic minority in Denmark.

It clearly states that 68% of all rapes are committed by an ethnic minority. It does not single out that Muslims are responsible for one, some or all of the rapes. Until you can determine just how many rapes were commited by Muslims, if any, then your opening post is bogus and misleading.

Edit: Even if Muslims are involved in one or more of the rapes, you failed to recognize the positive aspect of the story? The fact that they are concerned enough to make an "alliance" to "fight the ever-growing problem", is commendable?


Right, muslim organization are trying to educate jewish immigrants. If you want to deny common sense, feel free...
Yeah, moderate muslims fighting. They'd be reaaaly busy, wouldnt they?
And you havent commented about ethnic minority (less than 10% of population) having such a high rate (68%) of rapes

Right, muslim organization are trying to educate jewish immigrants. If you want to deny common sense, feel free...
Yeah, moderate muslims fighting. They'd be reaaaly busy, wouldnt they?
And you havent commented about ethnic minority (less than 10% of population) having such a high rate (68%) of rapes
That is a high rate but is it accurate, and from a reliable source? Even you stated:

It's hard to find percentage of crimes commited by a certain religion group because of the 'PC people'...Apparently, they think statistics are racist too...
So what is the truth? If you can't find the percentage, where did the article get the percentage and what are the "rape" numbers for each ethnic group?

I am afraid that your thread title is bogus and until you know the actual percentages for each ethnic group, then your whole argument goes out the window.

I answered questions smilar to yours which you didnt bother to read, I guess.
If all/most/some of the rapes hadnt been commited by muslims, why does the article continue like this?

leading Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls
Because the news in the article you're quoting isn't the statistics, but the fact that Muslim organisations have formed an alliance to fight/reduce the involvement of immigrants in rape cases. They are doing something to combat a problem, no matter how big that problem actually is.

Read the article properly, and no normal interpretation of the text would imply that all or even most of the rapes were committed by people of the islamic faith.
Even if you want to deny this clear link, as I said before, non-ethnic danish fall for less than 10% of population, yet they commit 68% of rapes.
And that is (was? After all, the article is 5 years old and no new statistics have been presented...) a problem. But it is a problem the Muslim organisations in Denmark are doing something to combat, at least. Even if the statistics say absolutely nothing about the religion of the perpetrators.

Because the news in the article you're quoting isn't the statistics, but the fact that Muslim organisations have formed an alliance to fight/reduce the involvement of immigrants in rape cases. They are doing something to combat a problem, no matter how big that problem actually is.

Read the article properly, and no normal interpretation of the text would imply that all or even most of the rapes were committed by people of the islamic faith.

And that is (was? After all, the article is 5 years old and no new statistics have been presented...) a problem. But it is a problem the Muslim organisations in Denmark are doing something to combat, at least. Even if the statistics say absolutely nothing about the religion of the perpetrators.
Exactly!! BTW, nice catch on the date of the article (September 2001). Even more reason to declare this whole thread as bogus and I'll toss in sensational just to round it off.

Methinks that the OP has a bone to pick with Muslims, and has used a very wide brush to paint his point.

Edit: Original post that is totally misleading:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10793572&postcount=1

Someone (can't remember who now) claimed that for something to be a crime, someone had to have committed that crime. I refuted it, arguing that the crime of rape still exists in law, regardless of whether anyone actually breaks the law against rape or not.

I said this:


For a crime to be classified as rape it has to be judged so in trial. I'd be willing to wager that the probability of being convicted for a rape is higher for someone of ethnic minority, which further distorts the statistics.


The Cat-Tribe (who is a lawyer, by the way) agreed with me on this possibility.

The only argument you refuted was one that I never even made. Try to understand: The definition of rape as a crime is not the same thing as the occurence and conviction of a rape as a crime. I'm referring to individual cases and statistics, not abstract concepts. Why would I argue there is no law against rape, when there obviously is?

You can promote your country's way of doing things all you want, but unless you re-educate people, ensuring they know why rape is such a bad thing, and why what their religion says in relation to it is stupid (without actually using the word "stupid"), then it won't make a blind bit of difference.
You really are living in a dreamworld if you think that's possible. Rape is an important cultural weapon to these people, no amount of 'education' (Or grovelling as the case would really be) will ever get them to change the way they are. The only language they will understand is fear. Execute the rapists and I'm sure a lot of them would be more reluctant to commit these rapes. Though the west could skip these problems by simply deporting them all.

It's not only "those people" who needs education, I see... :rolleyes:

<snip>
You're wrong here. Maybe not about the laws, but about the rest. You can promote your country's way of doing things all you want, but unless you re-educate people, ensuring they know why rape is such a bad thing, and why what their religion says in relation to it is stupid (without actually using the word "stupid"), then it won't make a blind bit of difference. The way that countries do things have been promoted all over the internet. I don't see any reports of a country adopting everything from a supposedly better country yet.
And are you under the impression that people are stupid? Do you really think that, as long as you don't actually use the word "stupid," they won't know you're putting down their religion and ecouraging them to abandon it because you think it makes criminals of them because it's stupid? Do you think that, if you have a set of laws/rules/programs/whatever that single them out as a danger to your society that must be "re-educated" to make them acceptable, they won't come away with the impression that you don't like them, don't trust them, don't think they are smart enough to improve themselves, and don't want them around -- in other words, that you are biased against them? And what part of that would make your culture more attractive to them? The part that instills in them the idea, "Hey, they're right, it is shameful and stupid and bad to be us. We should give it up and become them, instead, and never look back at our bad, stupid, shameful past of being us."

Yeah, that approach is going to get you a lot of cooperation.

Do you understand that my objection to your idea is in the approach it takes? The idea of attaching Muslim-ness to criminality is what dooms it.

I've given a link to a respectable newspaper, in my first post. What more do u expect?
I dont support re-education, I support deportation...
I wasn't arguing with you. I don't have that much time to waste.

Look out behind you -- a swarthy person!!

<snip>
Edit: Even if Muslims are involved in one or more of the rapes, you failed to recognize the positive aspect of the story? The fact that they are concerned enough to make an "alliance" to "fight the ever-growing problem", is commendable?
Exactly. The fact that Muslim organizations are taking steps to combat this problem (or even just the appearance of a problem) is proof positive that their culture/religion does not condone rape and that the Muslim immigrant community is indeed trying to assimilate properly into Danish society.

So the OP's complaint against them is not supported by his own "evidence."

Exactly. The fact that Muslim organizations are taking steps to combat this problem (or even just the appearance of a problem) is proof positive that their culture/religion does not condone rape and that the Muslim immigrant community is indeed trying to assimilate properly into Danish society.

So the OP's complaint against them is not supported by his own "evidence."
Not only is the OP's original statement erroneous, when pressed to find facts to back his claim, he had this to say:

It's hard to find percentage of crimes commited by a certain religion group because of the 'PC people'...Apparently, they think statistics are racist too...
Also, one should keep in mind that the original article that Ny Nordland quoted was from September 2001.

Not only is the OP's original statement erroneous, when pressed to find facts to back his claim, he had this to say:

"It's hard to find percentage of crimes commited by a certain religion group because of the 'PC people'...Apparently, they think statistics are racist too..."

Nord is right, Fass once said the exact same thing, although obviously worded differently.

Fass once said that in Sweden they dont really have too many statistics for crime based on race or religion...he said something about how they are above such bigoted ways...:rolleyes:

Rape isnt even the issue here. It boils down to the fear of a foriegn group asseting themselves as dominant, and stealing the local women. Rape laws exist in the guise of a human rights issue, but the REAL issue is that men fear that some one will take their woman from them. Dont agree? tell me why then a rapist (or any criminal for that matter) will be sent to jail for raping a human being( or anything else), but no one gives a damn if his anus is ripped up harder then a piece of swiss cheese when hes behind bars. Im not saying I advocate rape, Im just saying look how this innacurate statistic inflames so many people. Its like how in the movies in america, A white man (domminant group in US) can be seen with a black woman, but how often do you see a black man with a white woman? (the idea threatens white men)

I answered questions smilar to yours which you didnt bother to read, I guess.
If all/most/some of the rapes hadnt been commited by muslims, why does the article continue like this?

leading Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls

Even if you want to deny this clear link, as I said before, non-ethnic danish fall for less than 10% of population, yet they commit 68% of rapes.

now im an american and i dont know anything about the citizenship laws of denmark

but

in the US we call "2nd and 3rd generation immigrants" AMERICANS. *I* would fall under that definition since 3 of my grandparents were from other countries.

where do you deport native born citizens TO?

"It's hard to find percentage of crimes commited by a certain religion group because of the 'PC people'...Apparently, they think statistics are racist too..."

Nord is right, Fass once said the exact same thing, although obviously worded differently.

Fass once said that in Sweden they dont really have too many statistics for crime based on race or religion...he said something about how they are above such bigoted ways...:rolleyes:

You fail to apply basic logic.

If such statistics do not exist, how did the OP claim to be citing such a police statistics?

The OP couldn't answer that question.

Rape isnt even the issue here. It boils down to the fear of a foriegn group asseting themselves as dominant, and stealing the local women. Rape laws exist in the guise of a human rights issue, but the REAL issue is that men fear that some one will take their woman from them. Dont agree? tell me why then a rapist (or any criminal for that matter) will be sent to jail for raping a human being( or anything else), but no one gives a damn if his anus is ripped up harder then a piece of swiss cheese when hes behind bars. Im not saying I advocate rape, Im just saying look how this innacurate statistic inflames so many people. Its like how in the movies in america, A white man (domminant group in US) can be seen with a black woman, but how often do you see a black man with a white woman? (the idea threatens white men)
You're half right and half wrong here. You're right in that men don't like the idea of outsiders coming in and taking "their" women, but you're wrong in the reason why nobody cares if a rapist gets raped in prison but people do care if a person is raped outside prison. That's got to do with the feeling that the prisoner deserves to be raped as punishment for his crime. That's why nobody cares if a white serial rapist or a black/muslim/whatever serial rapist is violated.

You fail to apply basic logic.

If such statistics do not exist, how did the OP claim to be citing such a police statistics?

The OP couldn't answer that question.

I did. But I guess you didnt get it or didnt bother to read it.
There are some statistics based on ethnicity but none on religion...

You fail to apply basic logic.

If such statistics do not exist, how did the OP claim to be citing such a police statistics?

The OP couldn't answer that question.

Got it. I totally missed that whole part of it.

Incorrect.

It does not say anything about religion, nor anything about these ethnic minorities being from muslim countries.

It does say, however, that muslim organisations are alarmed and wishes to do something about this problem.



Quite right, religion is not the subjebt here

I did. But I guess you didnt get it or didnt bother to read it.
There are some statistics based on ethnicity but none on religion...

1. But you haven't given us those actual statistics

2. You somehow manage to infer religion from ethnicity. Must be your magic ball.

Admit you went off on a rant against Muslims without a basis for doing so.

You really are living in a dreamworld if you think that's possible. Rape is an important cultural weapon to these people, no amount of 'education' (Or grovelling as the case would really be) will ever get them to change the way they are. The only language they will understand is fear. Execute the rapists and I'm sure a lot of them would be more reluctant to commit these rapes. Though the west could skip these problems by simply deporting them all.

A lot of research has been done with regards to rape. A lot of the time, rapists had not considered the impact their crime would have on their victims. When the details of the impact were suggested to a lot of rapists in prison, they showed taht they were sorry for what they had done.

There is an organisation called StopItNow! who's specific purpose is to prevent rape and re-educate those who commit rape. It is not a government organisation, so it is not just trying to "big up" prison statistics for the amount of reformed criminals.

I personally don't think execution is acceotable - I don't believe any human has a right to take another person's life, though I don't think they should be condenmed if it was necessary for self-defence. And from what I've read, it's the constant waiting on death row, and the being locked in a cage, that is horrible, and many would rather just be killed straight away. Also, I share the view of some people that by killing a rapist, they escape without a proper punishment - they are not suffering in prison, they are simply dead.

And how you get re-education=grovelling is incomprehensible. grovelling is pleading. re-education is showing people WHY what they are doing is so bad. and it worked for Martin Luther King for black people. There's no reason to think it wouldn't work again.

A lot of research has been done with regards to rape. A lot of the time, rapists had not considered the impact their crime would have on their victims. When the details of the impact were suggested to a lot of rapists in prison, they showed taht they were sorry for what they had done.
That doesn't bother me. They still did it and no amount of apologies will change it. They should be executed regardless.

There is an organisation called StopItNow! who's specific purpose is to prevent rape and re-educate those who commit rape. It is not a government organisation, so it is not just trying to "big up" prison statistics for the amount of reformed criminals.
First off, I don't think muslim rape can be prevented except by deporting muslims. It's such a central part of their culture that asking them to give up rape would be like asking them to masturbate over the koran. And even if it's possible to re-educate rapists, don't bother because they don't deserve it. Just kill them.

I personally don't think execution is acceotable - I don't believe any human has a right to take another person's life, though I don't think they should be condenmed if it was necessary for self-defence. And from what I've read, it's the constant waiting on death row, and the being locked in a cage, that is horrible, and many would rather just be killed straight away. Also, I share the view of some people that by killing a rapist, they escape without a proper punishment - they are not suffering in prison, they are simply dead.
Very well. If it's suffering we're after, give them back-breaking labour for every waking moment for the rest of their lives.

And how you get re-education=grovelling is incomprehensible. grovelling is pleading. re-education is showing people WHY what they are doing is so bad. and it worked for Martin Luther King for black people. There's no reason to think it wouldn't work again.
As I've said before, I don't care if they feel bad after they've done the crime. Just kill them and dump them in a landfill. They've surrendered the priviledge to be treated as humans. And as long as they're rotting in the ground I don't really care about how they felt.

First off, I don't think muslim rape can be prevented except by deporting muslims. It's such a central part of their culture that asking them to give up rape would be like asking them to masturbate over the koran.

Do you have any basis for these statements whatsoever (other than xenophobia)?

BTW, being bloodthirsty doesn't make you tough on crime -- just bloodthirsty.

1. But you haven't given us those actual statistics

2. You somehow manage to infer religion from ethnicity. Must be your magic ball.

Admit you went off on a rant against Muslims without a basis for doing so.
All I can add is:

http://www.geocities.com/swaptonz/YellingBingo.JPG

First off, I don't think muslim rape can be prevented except by deporting muslims. It's such a central part of their culture that asking them to give up rape would be like asking them to masturbate over the koran. And even if it's possible to re-educate rapists, don't bother because they don't deserve it. Just kill them.
And so you're still advocating the deportation of people based solely on their religion, regardless of whether or not they have committed, or will ever commit, any crimes. Nice...
As I've said before, I don't care if they feel bad after they've done the crime. Just kill them and dump them in a landfill. They've surrendered the priviledge to be treated as humans. And as long as they're rotting in the ground I don't really care about how they felt.
And you are still only applying these thoughts to muslims, or..?