French Muslims want Voltaire Play Cancelled

by pat c Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:18

i hope that all french socialists, communists, trotskyists, feminists, gays and liberals will come out in defence of this play. i think we are now starting to see the broader agenda of the islamists: they want to roll back the enlightenment. islam is in the same place that christianity was 400 years ago. islamists believe that they have the absolute right to dictate what you can say, read, write, see or even think about islam.

well, let the defence of voltaire be our stalingrad.

by redjade Thu Mar 09, 2006 15:54

Juan Cole writes...
''Dangerous falsehoods are being promulgated to the American public. The Quran does not preach violence against Christians.

Quran 5:82 says (Arberry): "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness--their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."

In other words, the Quran promises Christians and Jews along with Muslims that if they have faith and works, they need have no fear in the afterlife. It is not saying that non-Muslims go to hell-- quite the opposite.

When speaking of the 7th-century situation in the Muslim city-state of Medina, which was at war with pagan Mecca, the Quran notes that the polytheists and Arabian Jewish tribes were opposed to Islam, but then goes on to say:

5:82. " . . . and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: 'We are Christians.' That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud."

So the Quran not only does not urge Muslims to commit violence against Christians, it calls them "nearest in love" to the Muslims! The reason given is their piety, their ability to produce holy persons dedicated to God, and their lack of overweening pride.''

excellent essay! go read it in its entirety...
http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/bigotry-toward-muslims-....html

by redjade - {no, nothing to do with Salafia!} Thu Mar 09, 2006 21:12

from the International Crisis Group....
France faces a problem with its Muslim population, but it is not the problem it generally assumes. The October-November 2005 riots coupled with the wave of arrests of suspected jihadists moved the question of Islam to the forefront of French concerns and gave new life to concerns about the threat of a Muslim world mobilised by political Islamism. Yet the opposite is true: paradoxically, it is the exhaustion of political Islamism, not its radicalisation, that explains much of the violence, and it is the depoliticisation of young Muslims, rather than their alleged reversion to a radical kind of communalism, that ought to be cause for worry. The key to minimising the risks of rioting and militant jihadism is to curb forms of state violence being exercised against predominantly Muslim, working-class neighbourhoods and to promote political participation by their residents.

To date, efforts to organise this population politically have systematically failed.

[....]

The exhaustion of political Islamism has coincided with the growth of Salafism, a missionary movement which, invoking the “pious ancestors” of Islam, preaches a rigorous adherence to scripture and focuses on morals and individual behaviour, and calls for a break with Western societies. With the weakening of the dissident impact of political Islamism and the exhaustion of the Muslim youth movements, Salafism has expanded into the vacuum, its success reflecting the growth of individualist concerns, the tendency to retreat from French society and the opting out from politics rather than the project of organising the Muslim community as a community or of confronting wider French society.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=4014

by Islam Uber Alles Thu Mar 09, 2006 23:38

"To date, efforts to organise this population politically have systematically failed. "

They are organized politically, for the Caliphate, not for France.

by Dublinfidel Fri Mar 10, 2006 00:30

Redjade, I guess Juan Cole missed these:

For the wrongdoing Jews, Allah has prepared a painful doom. 4:160-1

Allah has cursed the Jews and hardened their hearts. Nearly all of them are treacherous. 5:12-13

Allah has stirred up enmity and hatred among Christians. 5:14

Christians are disbelievers for believing in the divinity of Christ. 5:17

Don\\\'t take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them. 5:51

Jews and Christians are losers. 5:53

Don\\\'t choose Jews, Christians, or disbelievers as guardians. 5:57

Jews and Christians are evil-livers. 5:59

Evil is the handiwork of the rabbis and priests. 5:63

Allah has cast enmity and hatred among the Jews. 5:64

Christians will be burned in the Fire. 5:72

by redjade Fri Mar 10, 2006 01:22

Dublinfidel

show me some links to back up your quotes - credible links and credible source, please.

I'm not supporting islam, anymore than any other religion.

even if true, I doubt your average muslim would believe what you say anymore than your average christian believes in stoning people.

Scripture is often irrelevant to religion and religious - if it were relevant, George W would join the Catholic Worker ;-)

by Arthur Fri Mar 10, 2006 03:38

It depends on what you consider average in the Muslim world.
Some STILL ARE stoning people.

by redjade Fri Mar 10, 2006 22:34

Arthur: 'Some STILL ARE stoning people.'

Yes - stoning people everywhere but in Nigeria, as some that post on Indymedia claim.
———

Can someone cite where in the Koran is says women can't drive Golf Carts?

Saudi driving ban on women extends to golf carts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0,,1722501,00.html

Dublinfidel, I'm still waiting for you to provide some links to the supposed Koran quotes you listed.

Point is, as Voltaire said, 'Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities'

and he wasn't just talking about muslims.

by Seán Ryan Fri Mar 10, 2006 23:32

Hi Redjade.

Another fine piece (as usual).

It appears that Dublinfidel is quoting accurately, from the 5th Surah mostly.

However to look at a portion of the Koran and claim that it represents the whole, is an act of dishonesty.

I seem to remember that Christ at one point told some of the diciples to buy swords. Was he advocating violence too? Not to mention the quip about destroying the temple. And let's not bring up the fact that he begged to disobey the will of God himself with the passing of the cup quote.

I'm an athiest but I'm interested in religion.

Muslims believe in Christ - they believe that he is who he said he was. The point is - and this is in answer to some of Dublinfidel's quotes - Christ at no point asserted his divinity or his Godhood. Hence the Muslim belief that Christianity is misguided. Secondly most of the passages in each surah are meant for the individual. Remember schoolteachers and priests warning us when we were children not to listen to false teachings? Often found in the bible too. In fact in the Old testament god orders the wholesale slaughter of whole races (genocide) men women and children, no quarter to be given. This is in no way a complete answer to Dublininfidel. However it does show that the issue is not a black and white one.

In my opinion, one can use any work whether it be the Bible, the Koran, or the idiot's guide to windows, to reflect one's inner desires. A complex work like the Koran can be made reflect any opinion if used in piecemeal fashion. As a whole this would be much harder to do. I'd argue that the Koran is much more concerned with the spiritual well being of the individual, moreso than it seeks to be a social policy. Afterall if it outlined an earthly utopia there would be little need for an afterlife.

You'll get the gist of Dublinfidel's post from this link. An excellent site for the most part. I love the Biblical section.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/5/int_list.html

by Mo Sat Mar 11, 2006 00:20

"Muslims believe in Christ - they believe that he is who he said he was."

Correction, Moslems believe that Jesus was a Prophet. They do not believe he was (is) the Messiah (The Christ). Muslims also believe that Christianity is idol worship. Mohamed took all of the Hebrew Prophets plus Jesus and Mary, with the intent of converting Christians and Jews to his new religion.
It certainly didn't work re: the Bani Qurayza, he had to first behead all of them, and take the left over women and children to get converts among the Jewish tribes.

Now why would Jesus tell the flock to buy swords? Wild boar hunting? Probably not. His uncle sold swords? Maybe.

by Seán Ryan Sat Mar 11, 2006 01:07

If you do some checking out you'll find that Messiah translates to 'Warrior King' - which Christ most certainly was not. The Jewish faith had firstly defined this term and at the advent of Christ and indeed ever after have denied that Christ was the Messiah. I'm not arguing this either way, I don't really care for one and for another it would tend to dereail the piece.

The crusades were all about converting Muslims to the belief of Christ, in whom they ironically already believed in. This prophet versus Messiah argument is a theological argument and in it the Muslims at least recognise Christ's message, if not his supposed persona. I think that's fine, Christ tended to focus on his message too.

Like I already said, if it is your desire to spread hatred, you'll find the justification in either the Bible or the Koran. If you wish to spread the converse you'll find the justification for that too.

But each person is either a creature of moral agency or an author of moral agency. To use an article of faith as a justification for something that is self evidently amoral is an act of propaganda but also an act of redundancy. Action dictates proof of morality. Faith is but evidence. QED.

In as far as the reason for buying swords: I remember something about the Apostles needing to travel and that swords would make them safer. He might have encouraged them to hock some clothes to purchase the swords too. I could be wrong, but am too unconcerned to look it up.

I remember another bit of the Bible too. At one point, some apostle came up to Jesus and told him that he'd spotted some other people not associated with Christ and his group, going around and casting out devils and the like, and in Christ's name too. Anyway, the apostle got pissed off at this and rebuked these people and forbade them to act in Christ's name. Christ of course was disgusted and admonished the shithead. Nobody has a patent on the interpretation of the bible, it's supposed to be personal. Same with the Koran.

I'll refrain from further input into this piece. Apologies to redjade, I didn't intend a fundy debate.

by Dublinfidel Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:10

Sean, to compare the Bible and Koran; finding equally divisive and provocative passages is easy. However, the Bible is there for interpretation - indeed it is based upon mortals interpreting God\\\'s words and works.

The Koran is not to be interpreted - Muslims believe the Koran fell from Heaven complete and untouchable.
Hence the impossibility of an Islamic enlightenment.

by zero Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:24

"impossibility of a muslim enlightenment". All religions of the books have produced fundamentalists such as Oliver Cromwell , the likes of which some remember more than the mystics such as Jalaludin Rumi the Mevlana, and enlightened thinkers such as Ramon Llull http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=70137&con...14174 http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=70137&con...14292 http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=70137&con...15912 Diruit, aedificat, mutat quadratarotundis- sed disjecta membra.It is too late to call God to arms , Thomas Aquinas, Augustine the saint, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi's , Mohammad Abu'l-Wafa Al-Buzjani ,Rabbi Shlomo ben Adret the Rashba, Rabbi Ben meir ibn Ezra. & they always will.
& if Islam may not intepret its books and has not done so, then a millenial tradition of imams are out of business as well as the ashrams. & if Islam was not capable of enlightenment then you would have no zero. & still be counting on your fingers.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 - doh!!!

by Ray McInerney - Global Country of World Peace Sat Mar 11, 2006 14:01 Limerick

From Vedic Mathematics.

by Tony Sat Mar 11, 2006 14:51

The sad decline of Indymedia continues. The eagerness with which so many have jumped intoanti-Muslim racism is not only disgusting. It shows also the crucial need for a coherent theory instead of the lazy mish-mash that anarchists and quasi-anarchists serve up.
We could just as easily apply the vicious steotypes to Catholics, Protestants, or Jews.

by pat c Sat Mar 11, 2006 15:13

religion is not race.

do you agree that voltaires play should be banned? should the cartoons be banned? should the satanic verses be banned? should anything which offends muslims be banned?

getting back to christians: should the life of brian be banned?

there are no stereotypes here. in the the real world, in islamic countries, women and gays are stoned to death. join with the iraqi and iranian women who oppose this. join with the 12 writers from an islamic background who have called for secularists to fight islam.

by redjade Sat Mar 11, 2006 15:21

'We could just as easily apply the vicious steotypes to Catholics, Protestants, or Jews.'

thanks for getting my point Tony.

———

'You'll get the gist of Dublinfidel's post from this link. An excellent site for the most part. I love the Biblical section.'
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/5/int_list.html

Seán, that link does not provide Dublinfidel's quotes from the Koran - it quotes other people's snide interpretations of citations of the Koran. Big Big difference. Dublinfidel made the mistake of not reading what he was citing - I don't think he was really interested in accuracy anyway.

As far as Dublinfidel's thoughts on 'enlightenment' - it can be argued that 'secularism' itself as a concept was 'brought' to europe by the muslims. 'Brought' is another way of saying there never were muslims in europe in the first place - first place? what that? Islam has always had a place in europe and is as 'european' as that other Middle East import, christianity.

As far as the number zero, i think the better issue is who brought it to europe not who invented it first. Its like saying the Vikings 'discovered' 'america' first - true, but not too relevant in regards to how things worked out in the end. You don't really count in the history books unless you plunder and rape the resources and people of a land - and the victors write the history books, usually.

———

By the way, Mohammed al-Asaadi, editor of the 'Yemen Observer' is in jail for publishing the dreded cartoons - he published them to denounce them. Whoops!

'Asaadi decided to reprint the cartoons—albeit with a large X censoring most of them, and an article denouncing them.'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11414568/site/newsweek/

by Dublinfidel Sat Mar 11, 2006 15:55

Jews and Christians no longer go in for stonings precisely because of the Enlightenment,
of which Voltaire was a leading figure. In this period Christianity was scrutinised and deconstructed and the current faith evolved and still does.

However, Islam believes the Koran to be complete and perfect. The literal words of Allah recited through his conduit Mohammed. It is not open to interpretation and cannot be taken as allegory or parable. So, at the risk of repeating myself, an Islamic Enlightenment is impossible.

by Seán Ryan Sat Mar 11, 2006 16:51

Hi again Redjade.

I think we make the same point, but that I made mine badly. Dublinfidel took excerpts from the Koran, mostly from the fifth Surah. But he took them out of context and indeed cut up individual verses to do so. His quotes are representative of the quotes in my link. Tis a common surah to misquote from when one wishes to misrepresent the Muslim faith. You are probably right - he probably didn't read what he was writing - he missed loads of other points from the fifth surah that can be used and is used to spread misinformation. The difference in the link I provided being that if you click the numbers of the 'quotes' in my link you will be taken to where they were spliced from. When this common set of 'quotes' are actually compared to the text they are spliced from; it is easy to see that propaganda is intended. I cannot veryify the total accuracy of this version of the Koran, but I reckon if it's not totally accurate it's close.

K I'm outta this again.

by Mr. T. Sat Mar 11, 2006 16:54

I concur 100% with pat c. And I'm really completely dismayed and confused about motives of some leftists who support and defend islamists.

I'd like to know what motivates some socialists - secular by our creed - to defend oppressive, misogynistic, culturally backwards islamist fascists?

Is it to form some sort of strategic alliance? Since islamists are in conflict with the Capitalist west, is the strategy to use the conflict to align with an underdog battling a common adversary?

What happens in the unlikely event that islam conquers western liberal capitalist society? - Will socialists & flavour of the month communists (leninists, trotskyites, menshevicks, stalinists, anarchists, sparticists, whatever) expect power-sharing with the mullahs? Fat chance any mullah would share power with an infidel - especially not an athiest. Remember, revolution in islam has a singular objective: to implement sharia law.

A few generations ago capitalists, socialists, and communists fought, killed and died side by side in the war against nazi fascists. However, at the start of the Second Great War, soviet communists made the grave mistake of negotiating with and trusting the nazi's enough to sign treaties of cooperation. I hope the partitioning of poland and subsquent horrors serve as loud alarm bells to thoses who would argue in favour of providing moral or substantive quarter to islamists.

by Seán Ryan Sat Mar 11, 2006 19:33

The point is Mr. T, that I'm not aligning myself with anybody. Tis the point of this article too. To be the author of your own thoughts. I'd not align myself with any fanatic irregardless as to his or her religious beliefs. And I'd not condemn the right to have religious beliefs irregardless as to what they are. I'll deal with action only. You name the action and I'll tell you whether I condemn it or not; don't bother with religious labelling, tis wasting my time and it will not affect my judgement.

For instance - You promote the persecution of Muslims, because of their beliefs, irregardless as to their actions. You suggest that the religion is inherently intolerant, and 'misogynistic, culturally backwards islamist fascists?'

You are very much a hypocrite Mr. T: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74714&comment_limit=0&c...42023

Might give you an inkling as to why I have alignment issues.

by Mr. T. Sat Mar 11, 2006 20:44

If you note the time / date signitures of the posts mine is only a couple minutes after yours. I was typing mine as you were typing yours. My understanding as I was replying was that the thread was "Sean Ryan - free".

About my hypocracy - I plead not guilty. Note the "quoted text" - "gender enlightened" the intension was to highlight sarcasm & irony.

Anyway, seemed to me you cashed out of this thread with a high degree of finality. Who's the hypocrite now, Mr. Ryan?

by redjade Sat Mar 11, 2006 22:41

i'll get to the other points later tonight, thx for the discussion and info

perhaps this is a solution to the over all problem?

''A few weeks ago, Hemant Mehta posted an unusual item for sale on eBay: a chance to save his soul.

The DePaul University graduate student promised the winner that for each $10 of the final bid, he would attend an hour of church services. The 23-year-old Mr. Mehta is an atheist, but he says he suspected he had been missing out on something.

"Perhaps being around a group of people who will show me 'the way' could do what no one else has done before," Mr. Mehta wrote in his eBay sales pitch. "This is possibly the best chance anyone has of changing me."

Evangelists bid, eager to save a sinner. Atheists bid, hoping to keep Mr. Mehta in their fold. When the auction stopped on Feb. 3 after 41 bids, the buyer was Jim Henderson, a former evangelical minister from Seattle, whose $504 bid prevailed.''

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06068/667772.stm

by Arthur Sun Mar 12, 2006 02:15

"If you do some checking out you'll find that Messiah translates to 'Warrior King'"

No it doesn't. It comes from the Hebrew "Moshiach"
Moshiach is a Hebrew word meaning “the anointed one.”

by Arthur Sun Mar 12, 2006 02:20

"
The crusades were all about converting Muslims to the belief of Christ"

While certainly some Crusaders sought to convert the Moselms, the Crusades were about reclaiming the Holy Land which had been invaded by the Moslems. There were Christians there before there woere moslems. The Islamic invasion was brutal.

by Tony Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:59

Some people have claimed that because they're jumping into bed with Blair, Bush and all the other B's it's not racism, because, they claim, muslems are not a race. Just substitute the word Jews (it's a religion don't forget) and try arguing the same disgusting shit.
Unfortunately when you jump into bed, the rest of us get screwed. The demonisation of Islam is all about the war, stupid. Don't be offended, declaring you stupid is the charitable description.
By the way, do you eat shellfish? Naughty. The xtian bible says we should put you to death. I'm moderate - I just want to put you to shame.

by Mr. T. Sun Mar 12, 2006 13:36

Seems to be a large amount of ignorance in this audience with respect to Islamism. Islamism isn't Islam. There's a big difference between Islamists and Muslims. The latter is purely a religion, while the former is a political movement that promotes dictatorial theocracy...

Wikipedia provides a pretty good definition:

Islamism refers to a set of political ideologies derived from various religious views of Muslim fundamentalists, which hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that can govern the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state. Islamist movements seek to re-shape the state by implementing a conservative formulation of Sharia. [1] Islamists regard themselves as Muslims rather than Islamists, while moderate Muslims and liberal movements within Islam reject this notion. For some, Islamism exhibits triumphalism.

Regarding Racism & Islam - there is no muslim specific nationality, ethnicity, skin colour, etc. that identifies one as a muslim. One may also convert to or renounce the religion and become non-muslim. I've always understood the definition of race to refer to characteristics one is born with that one cannot alter. I believe irrational hatred of muslims is better described by the term: Bigotry.

Bigotry or racism - I have absolutely no problem with muslims or their faith as long as they're not islamists. Muslims can go about their business and believe in whatever they care to , practice whatever rituals they enjoy, and dress any way they may care to. On the other hand, Islamists are my mortal enemiy - their mission is to enslave me in their hellish theocracy where all must either submit to their brand of fantasy and ritual or face death and worse.

If we wish to continue living in a free society, Islamism must be defeated.

by Tony Sun Mar 12, 2006 15:27

Mr T - very appropriate alias - the central fact is the war, which once again you refuse to mention. You are colluding with the enemy. In trade union terms, you're a scab. Playing with "ist" is amusing for plonkers, but when you get down to it, there's nothing to beat the old description "race hater, class traitor", and don't give us that quibble tham muslims aren't a race. You failed to even respond to my challenge to substitute the word Jew in your racist rant.
You aren't an ally that one has a polite argument with - you are, as I said, a scab, and the fact that Indymedia gives you space is a condemnation of Indymedia

by Mr. T. Sun Mar 12, 2006 16:31

You call me a Scab, eh, Tony? I won't rise the the bait and refuse to argue by namecalling and insults.

I'll try to do my part in helping educate you in this slightly complicated topic: yes, Judiesm is a religion, but it also has certain characteristics of a race - namely that if your mother is a non-practicing jew, then you are considered a jew for purposes of nationality (in israel) even if you never practice the religion and declare yourself an athiest or convert to another religion. I've included a URL to some information about Judiasm. Judaism does not seek to convert non-Jews, and in fact the conversion process is designed to be extremely difficult and often unsuccessful. Frequently converts to judiasm are ostracised by the traditional jewish community and wind up quitting it - I personally know someone who went through this.

On the other hand, Islam has no relationship to nationality or birth - anyone can convert to Islam regardless of their pedigree. And being a muslim has no immutable characteristics bestowed at birth. And there is no country in the world that provides nationality based on being a practicing muslim. So again, I say islam is not a race. It is not to say that they cannot be oppressed unjustly - they can be and frequently are. I have no bone to pick with muslims and object to you persisting to refer to me as a racist.

Some would argue that there is a jewish equivalent to Islamism known as Zionism. Zionism is a political movement associated with fundamentalist Judaism. Many fellow socialists (I count myself in that group) believe that zionism is a form of fascism.

I hope you've learned something today, Tony. Now please go wash your mouth out with some Fairy liquid and stop the namecalling.

by Dublinfidel Sun Mar 12, 2006 16:31

Tony, do you really not understand the difference between Islam and Islamist?

Let us pretend Jews wanted to conquer the Earth and convert all to Judaism.
Let us pretend they flew planes into buildings in the name of their God to further this aim.
Let us pretend they suicide murdered schoolchildren and various other innocents to further this aim.
Let us pretend the term for these butchers is Jewists.

Now when someone on this board posts a condemnation of these savages would you claim they were anti-Semitic?

by pat c Sun Mar 12, 2006 16:51

think again. i'm not condemning all muslims just those who believe that their religion should be the law of the land. do you think that the life of brian should be banned? if you dont then, given your views on islam, you are a hypocrite.

with the stance that you are taking , you are calling the iraqi and iranian women who supported the publication of the cartoons racist. you are also calling the 12 writers from an islamic background racist.

peoplecan criticise, catholicism, hinduism, presbyterianism even judaism withpout being called racist. why is it not possible to criticise a misogynist, homopobic creed like islam?

by ARTHUR Sun Mar 12, 2006 18:55

"Zionism is a political movement associated with fundamentalist Judaism. Many fellow socialists (I count myself in that group) believe that zionism is a form of fascism."

Incorrect Mr T. Your "liberal progressive" dictionary must have been written by ignorants. Zion is Jerusalem. Religious Zionism is a cleaving towards jerusalem. Politcal Zionism is Jewish self determination. Your fellow "socialists" are garden variety anti-semites.

by Mr. T. Sun Mar 12, 2006 19:38

Noam Chomsky spoke out about people like you who will tar anti-zionists with the same brush as anti-semites:

"With regard to anti-Semitism, the distinguished Israeli statesman Abba Eban pointed out the main task of Israeli propaganda (they would call it exclamation, what's called 'propaganda' when others do it) is to make it clear to the world there's no difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. By anti-Zionism he meant criticisms of the current policies of the State of Israel. So there's no difference between criticism of policies of the State of Israel and anti-Semitism, because if he can establish 'that' then he can undercut all criticism by invoking the Nazis and that will silence people. We should bear it in mind when there's talk in the US about anti-Semitism."

Exerpt from an edited transcript of Dr. Chomsky's live video link-up from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to public meetings called by the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and other groups & organisations, throughout Scotland and the north of England, on Friday 11 October 2002.

by Noel Sun Mar 12, 2006 19:46

\\\"When people criticise Zionists they mean Jews - you are talking anti-Semitism.\\\"

by Mr. T. Sun Mar 12, 2006 20:05

I resent and reject the accusation of anti-semitism. I have never expressed any opinions against jews or judaism.

When I criticise zionism I am criticising the policies of Israel vis-a-vis palestine. Jewish self determinism and biblical claim to a homeland does not excuse israel's murderous fascist policies with respect to palestine and its middle eastern neighbors.

Chomsky was 100% on the mark.

by Arthur Sun Mar 12, 2006 23:32

"When I criticise zionism I am criticising the policies of Israel vis-a-vis palestine. Jewish self determinism and biblical claim to a homeland does not excuse israel's murderous fascist policies"

What separates you from other anti-semites is a very thin veil. To speak of Israeli policies towards "palestinians" without taking into account the actions of the "palestinians"; which include suicide bombings and mass murder, you are exhibiting classic symptoms of anti-semitism. Whatever happens, it's the Jews' fault, regardless of the circumstances. It's as if Israel exists in a vacuum and periodically attacks some peaceful arabs, just for the heck of it.
You accuse Israel of "murderous fascist policies" while not considering that the murderous fascists wear kefiyes and strap bombs around their childrens' chests.
In reality, Israel has been remarkabley restrained in their response to the islamic terrorists. Within the first 5 years of the bloody intifada, there were no fewer than 30,000 attqacks against israel, mostly aimed at civilians.
Only israel is singled out as "fascist" for attempting to protect its citizens. If you know anything about fascism, take a peak at Hamas, and put them on your fascit meter. They're the new bosses.
So Mr T, when you critize "zionism" you really do mean Jews

by Mr. T. Mon Mar 13, 2006 00:16

In many respects Israel is the most progressive and inclusive government in the region, and one of the few that provides the right to vote for arabs (some - not all of them). The palestinians aren't blameless and the Hamas victory is a looming disaster of biblical proportions. Many of Israel's neighbors have publicly expressed their intension to wipe them off the map. These threats to Israel's security are not a license to flagrantly ignore human rights and international law.

But when it comes to its hostile neighbors, especially palestinians, israel is no paragon of human descency or progressive social policy. When it comes to the palestinians, Israel's twists logic and facts to justify its illegal occupation of palestinian and other lands, Israeli army killings, massacres, targeted executions, assassinations, bombings, terrorism, detentions, house demolitions, torture, and the dehumanizing segregation of that obscene Apartheid Wall.

I presume you would also label Amnesty International anti-semitic as well? Here's what they have to has to say about Israel & Occupied Territories:

Israel/Occupied Terr.
Human Rights Concerns

Human Rights Concerns for Israel and the Occupied Territories
-Continued killings on both sides of the conflict
-Political prisoners
-Land conficscation
-Poverty and associated health concerns
-Honor killings, extrajudicial executions, and the death penalty

The human rights situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories continues to deteriorate. Some 3,700 Palestinians – most of them unarmed and including over 600 children – have been killed by the Israeli army and settlers, and almost 1,000 Israelis – most of them civilians and including more than 100 children – have been killed by Palestinians since the start of the current uprising (Intifada) in September 2000. In addition, Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation in The West Bank and Gaza Strip are subject to a wide range of human rights violations.

Over 8000 Palestinians, most of whom are nonviolent prisoners of conscience and few if any of whom have received trials that meet international standards, are being held as political prisoners. Over the past five years, close to 20,000 Palestinians have been made homeless and thousands of others have lost their livelihood as the Israeli army has destroyed over 4,000 homes, vast areas of agricultural land and hundreds of other properties.

The construction of the fence/wall inside the Occupied Territories violates international law, is based on land confiscation and is causing grave human rights violations. In addition, military checkpoints, blockades and a barrage of other restrictions confine Palestinians to their homes or immediate surroundings. As a result, the Palestinian economy has virtually collapsed.

Unemployment has soared to close to 30%, two thirds of the Palestinian population is now living below the poverty line, and malnutrition and other health problems are spreading.

Additional concerns include impunity for “honor” killings of women, extrajudicial executions of suspected collaborators by armed Palestinian groups, and death penalty by the Palestinian Authority.


I'm done here... you can continue to justify the torture, killings, etd until you're blue in the face and call me any names you please. I have nothing more to add.

by Gay Geori Mon Mar 13, 2006 00:43 GayGeori at graffiti dot net

The Blanket had decided to do what others have failed to do and publish the cartoons...

The Blanket

It takes a Chuckee to do what others won't?

by dunk Mon Mar 13, 2006 03:18

http://lark.phoblacht.net/latestnews.html
The Blanket will feature a biography of each of the 12 signatories of Manifesto: Together Facing the New Totalitarianism, along with each of the Danish cartoons their number represents.

by Tony Mon Mar 13, 2006 15:34

To all you Islamophobes who still forgot to mention the war - they say in [insert name] there are no neutrals there. You're either be anti-imperialist or a scab for Tony Blair

by pat c Mon Mar 13, 2006 15:38

i oppose the blair bush war in iraq and will oppose any invasion of iran. that doesnt mean that i have to bow down before mullahs and abandon all democratic, womens and gay rights. if i am an islamophobe then so are those iraqi and iranian women who describe islam as being uncivilised. women have rights regardless of whether or not a war is on.

by Mr. T. Mon Mar 13, 2006 16:46

Tony -

I am completely against the illegal invasion of Iraq. That was entirely about oil - it had nothing to do with fighting islamists. In fact Saddam's regime, although a savage dictatorship, was secular.

I'm probably going to set off a shitstorm with the following comment but my feelings towards Iran are quite different than Iraq. Iran must never be permitted to develop or deploy nuclear weapons. Any actions to contain Iran, however, should be legal and led by the United Nations Security Council. Ultimately, though, I believe that Islamists must be publicly challenged - their agenda of religious, sexual and cultural subjugation and tyranny must be resisted by any means necessary.

I'll leave you with with a link to what you might consider another "islamaphobic" view of islam by a female syrian american psychologist Dr. Wafa Sultan. It's a thought provoking interview broadcast by Al Jazeera. Hopefully it provides you with insight into especially female arabicresistance against islamists.

by Tony Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:52

Mr T - you claim to oppose Bush and Blair's war. Well done. Perhaps it would be an even braver step to stop retailing the bastards' propaganda.
Yyes, the Iraq war is about oil – but part of the propaganda mounted to justify the war was demonisation of muslims. As the invasion has run into more and more trouble, and as the US plans another war to “safeguard” their oil supplies in Iran, the need to step up islamophobia has increased.
As for your statement that “I believe that Islamists must be publicly challenged - their agenda of religious, sexual and cultural subjugation and tyranny must be resisted by any means necessary” it reveals your real agenda.
Exactly the same could be said about Catholicism of Judaism as you say about Islam. Surely the history of Ireland shows you that.
“Sexual and cultural subjugation” huh? And you’re talking about Islam, not about the cultural repression carried out by the US in Abu Graib, or the rapes there.
What about Afghanistan? The simple fact is that the invasion there has not led to liberation of women. Are you truly saying that we should rely on Bush for womens’ liberation?
The truth is that the demonisation of Iran is because it’s not an ally of the US – unlike the far more repressive Saudi Arabia, for example.
As a matter of fact, isn’t Israel a state based on nazi principles. Aren’t many Zionists religious bigots of the most dangerous kind.
Doesn’t Israel have the only nukes in the middle east?
Haven’t all the recent Republican Presidents of the US been religious bigots who prattle on about Armageddon? Isn’t the US the only country to have used nukes?
I think you also claimed oppression of Jews is qualitatively different from oppression of muslims, because to a certain extent Jews are a race. Rubbish. In fact most of the Jews in Israel come from Europe and the US – any Jew, no matter where they or the ancestors were born has the “right” to live in Israel. Palestinians, however, no matter whether they were born in Israel or whether their ancestors had never lived anywhere else, have no such “right”.
The point is that attacks on religion do not take place in a social vacuum. Judaism contains many very reactionary ideas. However to choose the time of the Nazis to turn your attacks on Judaism would be vile.
Again, lets take the situation of Catholicism. It has a vicious history and still has very reactionary elements. But if you were in Derry in 1969, and spent your time concentrating on attacking Catholicism, you would be siding with Paisleyism.
Why is it worse for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons than for the US – look at the record. Hiroshima, Korea, Vietnam and so on. Why worse than for Britain to have nukes? Britain has an unmatched record for butchery. France? Consider the bloody history of French colonialism in Africa. China? Get real.
Finally, another idiot (not you) claimed that the crusaders invaded what he/she called the “Holy Land” because it had been “invaded” by Muslims. First of all, the inhabitants of the HL had actually lived there all along, and included Muslims, Jews and Christians, who were all allowed to follow whatever religion they chose. The gallant crusaders massacred them all when they took Jerusalem – muslims, jews, Xtians. No surprise really, as they had done the same thing everywhere they went on the way, carrying out terrible anti-jewish pogroms, and slaughtering Xtians who didn’t support them as much as they would wish.

by pat c Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:05

you have not dealt with the central issue here: the fact that women and gays are still executed in islamic countries for having an active sexlife. the other problem with this is that support of the sharia (which permits such executions) is regarded as being a legitimate view to hold among mainstream islamic theologians.

you have constantly ignored the fact that many people from an islamic background also attack islam: not because they have nothing better to do but beacause for them its a life or death struggle. why do you never answer the questions about them: are they also islamophobes?

yes, there are many things to criticise in christianity and judaism. but i am not aware of any christian or jewish country where women and gays are stoned to death for "sexualcrimes".

i have spent my entire adult life fighting against the catholic mullahs; i'm not going to roll over now and bow down before islam.

this is not about war: its about rights. its about seperation of church and state. its about freedom of the press. its about womens rights. its about gay rights. its about human rights.

by Mr. T. Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:07

You've clearly not bothered to read any of my posts.

I will waste no more time with trollers.

by Tony Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:04

Game set and match to me, I believe

by pat c Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:19

no. you were blown out. you didnt respond to any of the points that mr t or i made. you kept repeating the same rant as if nothing had been said. i can only presume that you believe in a theocracy in iraq and iran where women and gays face death.

by Tony Tue Mar 14, 2006 14:55

Yes I apologise without reserve - it was childish, wrong, and inept to implicitly compare the debate about islamophobia to a game of tennis. It is not a game. Thousands of muslims have been killed by islamophobes, for the sake of US, British, Australian etc imperialism
Is islam unusually anti-gay, anti-women, anti-whatever in the array of religions? Of course not. It is no worse than the rest - although I could point out that in fact it has been common for Western gays to go TO muslim countries to find partners, and that the "english" word "bint" in fact is an arabic word, which the British occupiers applied to muslim women
Do some countries in which muslims predominate have barbaric laws? Yes, they do. As does, for example, the USA and China
Are these muslim countries in fact the ALLIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CRUSADERS? Yes, they are.

I won't contribute any more. Debate with allies against imperialism is useful, debate with scabs is not.

by Mr. T. Tue Mar 14, 2006 15:35

I just can't resist this...

You said:

" ... it has been common for Western gays to go TO muslim countries to find partners ... "

I've actually pissed myself a little laughing so hard ... please keep these jems of wisdom coming, Tony - you're a comedic savant... you truly are.

by Tony Tue Mar 14, 2006 16:05

Mr T says
I just can't resist this...

You said:

" ... it has been common for Western gays to go TO muslim countries to find partners ... "

I've actually pissed myself a little laughing so hard ... please keep these jems of wisdom coming, Tony - you're a comedic savant... you truly are.
So, Mr T, when you've leaned to control your urine, learn to google - you'll have to put up with some disgusting racism, sexism etc ., but that should be ok for you. To find these references took a couple of seconds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_the_Islamic_lands
http://reactor-core.org/islamic-homosexuality.html

by pat c Tue Mar 14, 2006 16:13

"Is islam unusually anti-gay, anti-women, anti-whatever in the array of religions? Of course not. It is no worse than the rest - "

tony, do you bother to even read what other people write? i am not aware of any christian countries in which gaysor women are stoned to death. israel certainly has no such laws. if you want to hold a gayrights or womens rights demo in tel aviv you will have the protection of the police. try it in an islamic country and the police will shoot you.

yes islamic countries are very much worse than the rest. raped women must prove their innocence or else they will face death or at least flogging . under the sharia law a woman must provide 4 male relatives to p[rove that it was rape and that she didnt consent.

i cannot believe that you are truly so ignorant of the fate of women & gays in islamioc society. you do seem to be capable of googling.

by Tony Tue Mar 14, 2006 16:24

Yes - these sort of punishments are horrendous - have you noticed that they are only in ALLIES of the US?
Which side are you on?

by pat c Tue Mar 14, 2006 16:28

they are not only in allies of the us. in iran since 1979 4,000 gays have been executed due to their sexuality.

i have made it quite clear that i am opposed to imperialism. but i also support womens rights and gay rights: therefore i also oppose the islamists. as do iraqi & iranian women, gays, socialists and secularists.

are you on the side that butchered 4,000 gays in iran?

by Tony Wed Mar 15, 2006 06:05

There is no question of supporting reactionary regimes like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. Note though that the hue and cry is only about Iran, not Bush's pals in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Kazakhstan etc.
But would a US bombing or invasion help the fight for gay or womens' rights? Of course not. And in fact the US itself is the biggest danger to human rights, that is why it would be criminal to support their proposed Iran adventure.
If you want to INCREASE support for the Iranian reactionaries, then the way to do that is to support US imperialism. By standing against Bush et al you increase instead the chance of winning Iranians away from the reactionary regime there.
Compare the situation of women in Iran with that of women in Saudi Arabia - this is not to glorify the Iranian regime, but to expose the propaganda lies of the warmongers see this article by
Dr. Elaheh Rostami Povey, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London

Women Human Rights Defenders in Iran, their achievements and the challenges that they are facing
Cut and paste replaced with link below. Do not cut and paste material that is available online. Just provide a link and summary. Thanks. 1 of IMC Editorial

by pat c Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:23

"But would a US bombing or invasion help the fight for gay or womens' rights? Of course not"

Who has said that it would? Those of us who have argued with you; Mr T and myself, have continuously opposed the war in Iraq and any invasion of Iran. You are setting up a man of straw to knock down. What needs to happen is that the reactionary Islamic elements in Iraq be they supporters or opponents of the Coalition have to be defeated. The Iraqi Women, Socialists and SEcularists deserve our support in this instead of support for some vague concept of a resistance which wants to impose Sharia Law.

In Iran what is required is the overthrow of the Islamic regime; an internal action by Iranian people themselves. If you dont support that then you support the Mullahs and their murderous policies towards Women, Gays and indeed the Working Class as a whole. Trade Unions are banned in Iran apart from State Bodies. That makes you no better than the supporters of BUsh who also wish to destroy the Working Class.

by Tony Wed Mar 15, 2006 13:28

Well, Pat C., you've been caught out in a lie. You say that neither you nor Mr T has supported a war on Iran.
Just look further up the thread -
Mr T says "I'm probably going to set off a shitstorm with the following comment but my feelings towards Iran are quite different than Iraq. Iran must never be permitted to develop or deploy nuclear weapons."
If that's not calling for/supporting a military attack, I don't know what is.
BTW, did you know (or care) that most Iranian opponents of the regime oppose a US attack?
No, you don't care
If you like I can document it

by pat c Wed Mar 15, 2006 13:51

"BTW, did you know (or care) that most Iranian opponents of the regime oppose a US attack?
No, you don't care"

Of course I care. I have also made it clear that I oppose any invasion of Iran. Do you even bother reading what people write? As for Mr T, he can speak for himself but I do not see any support by him for an invasion of Iran. I dont want to see a bunch of Mullahs get control of a nuclear bomb either. That does not mean that I support the US. I want to see the IslamosFascist regime in Iran overthrown by internal Democratic Forces. Those same forces who oppose any US invasion. Why arent you supporting them instead of the IslamoFascists?

You see everything in terms of black and white, just like George Bush: people are either with you or against you. In the Anti War Movement there are many shades of opinion. Some support Islamic Fundamentalists. Some support Iraqi & Iranian Feminists, Gays and Socialists.

by Tony Wed Mar 15, 2006 14:26

Pat C., you say
"Of course I care. I have also made it clear that I oppose any invasion of Iran. Do you even bother reading what people write? As for Mr T, he can speak for himself but I do not see any support by him for an invasion of Iran. I dont want to see a bunch of Mullahs get control of a nuclear bomb either."

Last things first - in fact, in the post I replied to, you did presume to sqeuak for Mr T - why do you want to pretend otherwise now? For those who doubt this, just look at Pat C's post on the matter

Next - you obviously agree with him about military action against Iran - how else do you expect to stop Iran from getting access to nuclear power?(note - this does not automatically involve access to a nuclear weapon)
Your choice of the phrase "bunch of mullahs" really indicates your islamophobia. How about a bunch of Xtians in the US, or Britain? You wouldn't have used a similar phrase for them.
Do I want to see Iran with nukes? No, ubt then I don't want Israel, Britain, USA or Ukraine to have them
Yes, there are divisions in the anti-war movement. In some cases - yours - it involves people who are dubious allies at best.
Your sort of mealy-mouthed nonsense is one of the factors that makes it harder to build alliances with the anti-regime Iranians - you drive them into the arms of the conservatives.
The Iranian opposition to the regime is the force on which I rely.
You, when all bullshit is set aside, rely on Bush, Blair and company
That's one of the reasons why whenever I produce evidence about my claims, you immediately drop that subject - see, for example the document I produced by the Iranian woman (I presume she is female) Elahi [can't remember the other name] Povey
Do I read what you say? Of course, that's why I am able to point out your evasions

by pat c Wed Mar 15, 2006 14:37

Why do you constantly try to twist what people say and put words in their mouth. Nowhere have I seen anything by Mr T which supports Bush or Blair.

I take it from your remarks on Nuclear Weapons that you are happy to see an IslamoFascist Regime like Iran gaining control of Nuclear Weapons. Do you not think they would use those weapons on their internal opponents if they were going to lose power?

There is nothing mealy mouthed about supporting the Socialist, Secular opposition in Iran and calling for the overtyhrow of the Mullahs. I refer you back to the Iranian & Iraqi Womens Organisations (not one woman like Dr Povey) who call Islam uncivilised and plead for help and aid from western Socialists. You have decided to take the side of the Mullahs against them.

by Mr. T. Wed Mar 15, 2006 23:06

seems like there's a pattern of repitition in this thread so what the hell.

This is a reiteration but it seems that there are some (actually just one) who question and contradict what I have previouisly stated. So, once again: I have not ever and will not support Bush & Blair's illegal war Iraq. I'm not sure why I have to keep restating this position. How can I be any clearer.

I am also against any illegal invasions of Iran but I am completely against them achieving nuclear weapons status. I share Pat C.'s opinion in objecting to any additional countries joining the nuke weapons club - I am for global disarmament and would like to see all the nukes go away. But the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran terrifies me more so any any other nation because of their fundamentalist islamist creed and their probably emotionally unstable hardline leader. If the UN decides for sanctions against Iran I would support them. If the UN decides for acts of war against Iran, I would have to review the context but if that was the only way to prevent Iran gaining nuclear weaponisation then I could envision supporting such a decision. However, I am certainly not calling for an invasion of Iran - I think diplomacy and threat of economic isolation will work.

Anyway, I feel I am simply rehashing what I have stated previously. Since I am extremely busy with work (I do have to earn money), and find little benefit or enjoyment in continuing this interaction, I'll cease rehashing my previous statements. Pat C. you have my sympathies... and my admiration for your patience.

by Tony Thu Mar 16, 2006 13:34

Pat C., you say
1)“Why do you constantly try to twist what people say and put words in their mouth. Nowhere have I seen anything by Mr T which supports Bush or Blair.

2)I take it from your remarks on Nuclear Weapons that you are happy to see an IslamoFascist Regime like Iran gaining control of Nuclear Weapons. Do you not think they would use those weapons on their internal opponents if they were going to lose power?

3)There is nothing mealy mouthed about supporting the Socialist, Secular opposition in Iran and calling for the overtyhrow of the Mullahs.
4)I refer you back to the Iranian & Iraqi Womens Organisations (not one woman like Dr Povey) who call Islam uncivilised and plead for help and aid from western Socialists. You have decided to take the side of the Mullahs against them.”
I’ve numbered your paragraphs so I can more easily comment on them
_______________________________________________________________
Para 1) I can answer this quite easily by pasting what I actually said in my previous post
“You, when all bullshit is set aside, rely on Bush, Blair and company”
“Rely on” is not the same as “support”. It means simply that you are willing, yes, as a last resort, to acquiesce in war on Iran – who would carry it out, if not Bush, Blair and Co? It may be under the fig-leaf of the UN, as, for example it was in the Korean War., but that’s a detail.
Para 2) I’ll leave aside the silly phrase Islamo-fascist for some other time. But you go on to say “I take it from your remarks on Nuclear Weapons that you are happy to see an IslamoFascist Regime like Iran gaining control of Nuclear Weapons.”
Well, again I’ll paste what I actually said
“Do I want to see Iran with nukes? No, ubt then I don't want Israel, Britain, USA or Ukraine to have them”
Your other question is remarkably stupid – you say
“Do you not think they would use those weapons on their internal opponents if they were going to lose power?”
Two points – no one, not even the US, claims that Iran will have nuclear weapons in less than about 10 years, which means that there is a chance the regime will be defeated by ordinary Iranians before then – who would probably come under attack by the US if it the new government were even slightly left-wing
Secondly, and I can only point to history on this:
I repeat – the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons
Next, I don’t actually think the Iranian regime would use nukes against internal opponents, for two reasons – First, they have plenty of other weapons, and use of nukes would almost certainly lead to outside military intervention. Second, look at the actual history of the collapse of Stalinism (which, surely even you, could describe as a benign regime) – did any of those collapsing regimes use nuclear weapons against internal revolt. No, they did not. Thinks about why – it will do you good.
Para 3) You say “There is nothing mealy mouthed about supporting the Socialist, Secular opposition in Iran and calling for the overtyhrow of the Mullahs”
Well, that rather depends on who you want to overthrow the regime. You are equivocal about that. This time I will quote from your friend Mr T –
“If the UN decides for sanctions against Iran I would support them. If the UN decides for acts of war against Iran, I would have to review the context but if that was the only way to prevent Iran gaining nuclear weaponisation then I could envision supporting such a decision”
Para 4 – you say
“I refer you back to the Iranian & Iraqi Womens Organisations (not one woman like Dr Povey) who call Islam uncivilised and plead for help and aid from western Socialists. You have decided to take the side of the Mullahs against them.”
First point – you really need to specify WHICH Iranian womens organisations you refer to. Women are not homogenous. There are reactionary as well as progressive womens organisations.
Second point – you are being disingenuous about Dr Povey. She produced plenty of facts in her paper. However, you imply that she is the only Iranian woman with that position. I chose to quote her because of her detailed account. That doe4sn’t mean I could provide you with arguments from other Iranian leftists.
Third point – You say the organisations to which you refer “plead for help and aid from western Socialists”. Precisely – for help from western socialists, not western imperialists.
Fourth point – you say “[I] have decided to take the side of the Mullahs against them”
That’s a blatant lie. I said several things
a) That it is ludicrous to imagine that miltary intervention will liberate Iranian women. Look at what has really happened in Afghanistan and Iraq
b) That the threat of western military action STRENGTHENS the regime against its internal opponents
c) That in fact, Iranian women have won more rights than they had under the Shah – not because of the benevolence of the regime, but because in fact they have fought bloody hard, and have managed to find more room to organise
d) It is people like you who are strengthening the regime against internal challenge, by allowing it to whip up war scares, by appealing to nationalism, by it being able to say “look, these western leftists are really just a front for Bush”
e) I don’t suppose you mean that to happen, but your woeful ignorance about Islam, your willingness to go along with Islamopohobia, and your very slender theoretical grasp of the words you use (“fascist” for example. Pat C., I know about fascism. My dad was a card-carrying fascist. It’s not a word to use in sloppy ignorance against people you don’t like)
Finally your mate Mr T says, pointedly, he has to go out and earn a living, perhaps implying that I am wealthy. The reason I have time to respond to these arguments is that I don’t have the option of going out to work, because I am housebound

by pat c Thu Mar 16, 2006 14:00

"That it is ludicrous to imagine that miltary intervention will liberate Iranian women. Look at what has really happened in Afghanistan and Iraq"

I have made it clear on numerous occasions that I oppose military intervention. I might point out that it is Islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan that are destroying Womens rights.

"b) That the threat of western military action STRENGTHENS the regime against its internal opponents"

I agree and you know that. What point are you making?

"c) That in fact, Iranian women have won more rights than they had under the Shah – not because of the benevolence of the regime, but because in fact they have fought bloody hard, and have managed to find more room to organise"

Nonsense. Under the Shah women could openly dress in western style and were not beaten off the streets by police. the Shah was a dictatorship (similar to Saddams) but women had more rights.

"d) It is people like you who are strengthening the regime against internal challenge, by allowing it to whip up war scares, by appealing to nationalism, by it being able to say “look, these western leftists are really just a front for Bush”"

That is utter nonsense , I am supporting the internal critics of the regime. THey call for the overthrow of the Islamic Theocracy. I am opposing the war.

You seem to have plenty of time to attack those who disagree with you on Islam but you have had nothing to say about the Israel attack on Jerhico. I was the first to post a story on Indymedia about this.

"e) I don’t suppose you mean that to happen, but your woeful ignorance about Islam, your willingness to go along with Islamopohobia, and your very slender theoretical grasp of the words you use"

I have no ignorance of Islam, everything I have stated is true. Are you denying that womaen and gays face deasth in Islamic contries? Are you denying that 4,000 gays have beenmurdered by the Iranian state since 1979? Are you saying that the Iraqi and Iranian women who have called for our help are liars?

"(“fascist” for example. Pat C., I know about fascism. My dad was a card-carryingfascist. It’s not a word to use in sloppy ignorance against people you don’t like)"

I know the meaning of the word fascisst. i think it well applies to the Iranian govt who execute women and gays. i am a member of anti fascist action and i dont need lectures from you. my father was and is a socialist amongst other things he burned down oswald mosleys house when mosley moved to ireland.

"Finally your mate Mr T says, pointedly, he has to go out and earn a living, perhaps implying that I am wealthy. The reason I have time to respond to these arguments is that I don’t have the option of going out to work, because I am housebound"

i think he was suggesting that you have too much time on your hands. but he can clarify that. i am sorry to read that you are housebound, i can only suggest that you do battle with your real enemies rather than with those who only differ with you on details.

from your remark on being housebound i guess theres a chance that you wont be able to attend the march on saturday but i know you will be there in spirit.

by redjade Thu Mar 16, 2006 14:27

Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gul has called upon EU states to extend their anti-defamation laws to ensure respect for Islam, an idea rejected by the Netherlands which also opposes a European Commission initiative for a joint UN resolution with islamic states.
[....]

According to a written text of Mr Gul's address circulated among journalists, he stated "We cannot afford to see that people around the world start believing that respect for faith and religion do not make part of European values, whereas the opposite is true."

Mr Gul added "As a matter of fact, there are legal restraints against such defamation. However, these restraints sometimes only apply to the established religions of the concerned countries."

"I would like to call on you here to start a process of re-examination of your legislations to ensure that these restraints apply to all religions equally."

http://euobserver.com/?aid=21108&rk=1

by redjade Thu Mar 16, 2006 14:31

In Ireland, our general defamation legislation is currently very strict, though this differs somewhat from the concept of defamation against religion. The Irish constitution states that:

'The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.'

My guess, and I stand to be corrected by any of my more learned readers, is that blasphemy could be interpreted as a form of criminal defamation - that is, while defamation against an individual can be treated as a civil or criminal matter, with criminal prosecutions being very rare, blasphemy would be a criminal matter. I seem to recall a case against a national newspaper (which, if memory serves, failed) within the last 5 years, but charges for blasphemy are rare.

Personally I'm very wary of calls for criminalizing of speech, particularly speech relating to religion. Given that religions differ in their basic worldviews - and that atheists and agnostics, among others, differ in turn - a universal ban on blasphemy and defamation of religion seems unworkable, oppressive, and, in short, wrong. Sensitivity to the concerns of others, particularly minority groups, is a laudable social goal, but criminalizing such speech is inappropriate.

More at
http://funferal.org/mt-archive/001152.html

by Tony Thu Mar 16, 2006 14:43

Pat C., you say "Are you denying that 4,000 gays have beenmurdered by the Iranian state since 1979? Are you saying that the Iraqi and Iranian women who have called for our help are liars?
1) I'm not denying it, because I don't know. I would be a small surprise, but as you haven't bothered to cite your source, how can I read it?
2)"Are you saying that the Iraqi and Iranian women who have called for our help are liars?"
Just read what I said - I said I don't know, because you didn't say, what Iranian women you're quoting.
As you know very well if you read my post I pointed out that these women (and you still haven't given me any chance to read what they said or who they are, by not quoting a source) asked for the help of socialists. not Bush
3) As I said, your understanding is sloppy. Trotsky would educate you if you are willing to learn. Try Marxists Internet Archive.
Let's assume that what you say is true about the number of gays murdered by the Iranian regime. It's certainly disgusting How many people have been murdered by the US regime in the same period? Or don't they matter too?
No I can't be at any demos., and even if I weren't housebound it would still be impossible because of where I live. I don't live in Europe at all, and am very far indeed from any city

by pat c Thu Mar 16, 2006 16:03

I will be thinking of you on the Dublin demo on the 18th. I hope you manage to get to an anti war demo some day.

I cant say that i find trotsky much of an education anymore, i used to be a trotskyist. some of his stuff on nationalism and imperialism (for throwing in the face of "trots" who prefer to ignore them) is still useful as are his military writings and certainly his work "literature and revolution" and "art and literature".

heres some links re iraq and iran:

http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english.htm

http://www.wpiraq.net/english/

http://www.ww4report.com/

http://www.ww4report.com/node/1732

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast_pub&c=iran

www.hrw.org/doc/?t=lgbt

hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/iran12072.htm

by Mr. T. Thu Mar 16, 2006 21:04

RE:


"Finally your mate Mr T says, pointedly, he has to go out and earn a living, perhaps implying that I am wealthy. The reason I have time to respond to these arguments is that I don’t have the option of going out to work, because I am housebound"

i think he was suggesting that you have too much time on your hands. but he can clarify that. i am sorry to read that you are housebound, i can only suggest that you do battle with your real enemies rather than with those who only differ with you on details.



I didnt intend to make any point about Tony's wealth or time. My comment about work was to provide a reason for my absence. I am sorry to hear you are housebound, Tony - I hope you situation improves. And thanks for the advise on marxism, but I'm not a marxist - I never was and never intend to be. I'm a centre-leftist democrat with strong libertarian leanings. In my youth I was a bit more left of where I am today. I have a strong mistrust of government and most political organisations probably because find the standards and values to which most public facing people live their lives to be depressing and dissapointing.

by redjade Thu Mar 16, 2006 23:07

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - The camera focuses on two gay men kissing in a park. Later, a topless woman emerges from the sea and walks onto a crowded beach. For would-be immigrants to the Netherlands, this film is a test of their readiness to participate in the liberal Dutch culture.

If they can't stomach it, no need to apply.

Despite whether they find the film offensive, applicants must buy a copy and watch it if they hope to pass the Netherlands' new entrance examination.

The test — the first of its kind in the world — became compulsory Wednesday, and was made available at 138 Dutch embassies.

[....]

A censored version with no homosexual and nude material had been prepared because it is illegal to show such images in Iran and some other countries, filmmaker Walter Goverde said.

"With all the respect I have for all religions, I think people need to understand that Holland has its own liberal side as well," he said.

After viewing the film, which is available in most languages, applicants are then quizzed on important Dutch factoids such as the number of provinces that make up the Netherlands; the role played by William of Orange in the country's history; and Queen Beatrix's monarchial functions.

There are some major exemptions. EU nationals, asylum-seekers and skilled workers who earn more than $54,000 per year will not be required to take the 30-minute computerized exam.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060315/ap_on_re_eu/netherl...rants

by pat c Fri Mar 17, 2006 17:57

two gay men kissing is not porn. neither is a topless woman (i presume that means \a woman not wearing a top).

by Gay Geori Fri Mar 17, 2006 18:24 gaygeori at graffiti dot net

And it's not designed to "scare" anyone away but to test their ability to accept the liberal norms of the country they want to reside in.

I hope the Irish government brings in a similar test - applicants watching Guinness ads and having to handle packs of Galtee rashers...

by redjade Fri Mar 17, 2006 18:25

'two gay men kissing is not porn. neither is a topless woman'

Well, yeah - I agree - but that's kinda my point.

Probably to some muslim immigrants, yes it is.

You or i, no it is not.

Just like Voltaire's play is about the Catholic Church and not Islam. Depends on how you read it.

Context is everything and I think the Dutch Gov't is playing with a double context here - a bit of liberal Dutch Pride mixed with xenophobia. It's a weird a story - might be fun to go to a Dutch embassy to watch the flick!

by pat c Fri Mar 17, 2006 18:28

if muslims find 2 gay men kissing to be offensive then they would probably be happier living in an islamic country. nothing wrong with fighting homophobia.

by redjade Fri Mar 17, 2006 20:58

ever been to nyc?

lotsa gays - lots of muslims - some overlap too

Holland might just get the cool muslims with this little stunt.

none the less its obvious what they are trying to do.

by pat c Sat Mar 18, 2006 19:27

"being muslim doesn't mean you're anti-gay"

i never said it did. but islam as a religion is anti gay. (christianity and judaism have also giot anti gay tenets, but i'm not aware of any christian or jewish countries where gays are stoned to death) wherever the islamists get power they introduce and enforce the sharia. this means death for uppity gays.

if these tests keep homophobes and misogynists out, then its a good test.

by redjade Sat Mar 18, 2006 23:41

'i never said it did.'

i never meant to imply that you said that.

'but islam as a religion is anti gay'

This where we differ.

I could easily say 'but christianity as a religion is anti gay' - and technically I'd be right

but why are so many christians pro-gay rights? Are they not good christians? or is it that they are good christians?

It all depends on the interpretation - not the text!, understand?

interpretation changes over the times and eras and epochs.

so the question is, how do we reach out to muslims in a way that both Gay Athiests and Muslims can stand together? another question is whether muslims are reaching out to us - and would we listen?

Sadly, the only point of unity between the 'sides' is fuckers like Michael McDowell.

But, hey!, that's a start - the question is - respect. Can both sides of the division, respect?

Pat C, this is where your analysis and vision is quite shallow.

by tony Sun Mar 19, 2006 14:21

From ZNet
Sistani on Homosexuality
Source:http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/sistani-on-homosexuality-andrew.html

'In traditional Islam there was no conception of the "homosexual" as a permanent identity or social role. As in ancient Greece, the real distinction in sexuality (as Michel Foucault showed) was between the penetrator and the penetrated. Medieval and early modern Islamdom were like the Greece of Plato. Adult males were the penetrators. In premodern Muslim society, women could be penetrated if they were legally married to the man or if they were his slaves. Likewise, slave-boys (catamites) could be penetrated, although it was typically disapproved of by the Muslim clerics. Exclusive adult male-male sexual relationships are not recorded, and a taste for a slave-boy did not stop a wealthy man from being married or from having liasons with his female slaves, as well. About half the famous love-poems of the medieval Baghdad literary figure, Abu Nuwas, appear to have been addressed to boys.

As slavery was forbidden in the Ottoman Empire in the course of the mid- to late-nineteenth century, obviously the keeping of slave-boys by wealthy men ceased. As society modernized, notions of sexuality moved away from the penetrator/penetrated model similar to that of the ancient Greeks, and toward a modern male-female binary. Many Muslim societies in the course of the twentieth century also moved away from polygamy toward a model of one man, one woman as the family unit.

tony, please post only excerpts and provide source links - otherwise this 'comment' of yours would be hidden. I was going to add this myself, you beat me to it. -redjade {1 of indymedia}

••• Juan Cole's Post's Web address has been updated (he changed and updated it)

by pat c Sun Mar 19, 2006 15:49

i have no interest in listening to muslims who want to make their religion the state religion. anymore than i would listen to ctaholics who wish to do this. i have no respect for islam anymore than i have for christianity.

by pat c Sun Mar 19, 2006 15:56

I am saddened to see that yet again you are trying to smear gays as being pedophiles. this is just what the BNP and the Islamists have in common: they both associate Homosexuality with pedophilia.

No gay adult relationships in Islamic societies? what utter nonsense! You are denying the murder of 4,000 gays by the Iranian IslamoFascist state which have taken place since 1979.

by Tony Sun Mar 19, 2006 16:08

Pat C., I am very angry at your smears. Please read the comment I was posting. And, Redjade, sorry for posting the full doc. by Juan Cole - I did not know the protocl

by pat c Sun Mar 19, 2006 16:12

i have read your comments. they are a viscious smear that has been used against gays for centuries. similar to the smear against jews that they sacrificed christian children. this is not the first time you have used such vicious homophobia in an attempt to link gay sex with pedophilia.

by Tony Mon Mar 20, 2006 06:54

Pat C you are a liar. Nowhere have I made any homophobic remarks., nor posted anyone else's
I defy you to quote anything I have said which is remotely homophobic. Not - I demand you quote me word for word - I have discovered that your paraphrasing is always full of distortions.
Red Jade, in view of the filthy smear against me by Pat C., I ask your permission to post the full article by Juan Cole. Please let me know if I may.
I have also realised that the link I provided to the Juan Cole article does not work. Anyone who wants to see for themselves what Cole said, as opposed to Pat C.'s lies about it being homophobic, please go to
http://www.juancole.com/
Finally, Pat C., you need to acknowledge that some pedophiles are gay, some (the vast majority)are hetero. Saying that this is so, particularly in a piece on gays in Islam which is what Cole was writing, does not smear all gays any more than it smears all straights.

by Mr. T. Mon Mar 20, 2006 15:05

Is Indymedia merely a repository for links to blogs? Since when is one wanker's ruminations on world events a legitimate primary or even secondary source of information? Why don't we all just just go and create our own blogs, post all sorts of crap to them, then reference them as source material for any vomit we post to Indymedia? How can readers be certain that Juan Cole is not posting here under a pseudonym, referencing the screed in his blogs as justification for screed he posts here? Perhaps an earlier post in this thread was dead on - that Indymedia content standards are slipping...

And perhaps more imporantly, who gives a shit what Juan Cole thinks about Islam and homosexuality anyway? Anyone who ignores the avalanche of primary source evidence irrefutably confirming Islamists heinous crimes against gays is an accomplice to their attrocities. It is also morally repugnant to the highest degree to peddle the muslim-pedarist crap as if it's a vindication of their malignant homophobia.

by redjade Mon Mar 20, 2006 16:37

Mr. T...

'Is Indymedia merely a repository for links to blogs?

Nope - links are encouraged as to reinforce facts and ideas within the discussions.

'Since when is one wanker's ruminations on world events a legitimate primary or even secondary source of information?'

Well, he's an expert. Go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Cole - expert's are not above questioning, of course - but he's been studying these issues for a lot longer than you or i, so cut him some slack. Play the ball, not the professor.

Juan Cole, I think, is excellent because he knows his shit, he obsessively blogs the day's events and what they mean - with more context than you will ever get from your usual run of the mill Lefty. Read him day by day and you will get a fuller picture of what's going and what it means than you will get anywhere else on the web. Just my opinion of course.

'Why don't we all just just go and create our own blogs, post all sorts of crap to them'

Good idea! No one is stopping you.

'...irrefutably confirming Islamists heinous crimes against gays...'

Yawn. Why not back up your ideas with some facts and reality before you smear an entire people, eh?

'...peddle the muslim-pedarist crap as if it's a...'

Yawn....

———

Pat C...

Can't do full reposts here - not about my permission, its the editorial guidelines: http://indymedia.ie/editorial

Juan Cole updated that page and changed the address of it. Apparently, Andrew Sullivan attacked him from his Time Magazine blog suggesting he's Saddam lover and a 'pomo-left' apologist for Islam. Sullivan should be smarter than that, but since he's now no longer a neo-con, I'm sure he's just a bit disoriented these days.

Here's the new web address:
http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/sistani-on-homosexuality-andrew.html

web address fixed again! - redjade

by Mr. T. Mon Mar 20, 2006 18:23

Thanks for the links and all your expertise, Red Jade - I went and had a look at Professor Coles blogsite. Let's just say my opinion of Dr. Cole has evolved from blissful ignorance to mild contempt. Cole may know his shit, but he isn't any more insightful than anyone else.

Now, with respect to your comment:

'...irrefutably confirming Islamists heinous crimes against gays...'

Yawn. Why not back up your ideas with some facts and reality before you smear an entire people, eh?

First of all, you clearly didn't really read my post - my problem is with islamists not with muslims in general. Sharia law is an abomonation - a fascistic religious code of law that seeks to impose its depraved, twisted values upon everyone who lives within its jurisdiction - regardless of the religion they practice.

Secondly, there's an abundance of evidence that homosexuals are actively exterminated by Islamists. Even mainstream muslims call for death penalty in most cases of homosexuality. Read this shite about how homosexuals should be punished straight from the keyboards of their own fucking mainstream mullahs:


As to the issue of how the homosexual person is judged in an Islamic State, the Companions of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessing be upon him differed among themselves on this issue, and this led to different views maintained by Muslim Jurists. For example, in the Hanafi school of thought, the homosexual is punished through harsh beating, and if he/she repeats the act, death penalty is to be applied. As for the Shafi`i school of thought, the homosexual receives the same punishment of adultery (if he/she is married) or fornication (if not married). This means, that if the homosexual is married, he/she is stoned to death, while if single, he/she is whipped 100 times. Hence, the Shafi`i compares the punishment applied in the case of homosexuality with that of adultery and fornication, while the Hanafi differentiates between the two acts because in homosexuality, the anus (a place of impurity) may also be involved while in adultery (and fornication), the penis/vagina (which are reproductive parts) are involved. Some scholars hold the opinion that the homosexual should be thrown from a high building as a punishment for his crime, but other scholars maintain that he should be imprisoned until death.

IslamOnline.Net issues fatwas on many cultural and religious topics. It employs many religious and other experts to definitively answer questions for muslims who are unsure of how Sharia law interprets modern life issues.

I could spend the next several days compiling evidence of thousands of specific attrocities, but what's the point? You would reject it anyway, and again provide some lame excuse that I'm tarring an entire religion with its own vile words and deeds...

by Mr. T. Mon Mar 20, 2006 18:33

I neglected to add the URL for the referenced text of my previous post. Apologies - I've included it here.

by pat c Mon Mar 20, 2006 22:18

tony you smeared yourself by posting that nonsense.

"Finally, Pat C., you need to acknowledge that some pedophiles are gay, some (the vast majority)are hetero. Saying that this is so, particularly in a piece on gays in Islam which is what Cole was writing, does not smear all gays any more than it smears all straights."

of course some pedophiles are gay, about the same % in the straight population. you read something different into the cole piece than i do. even if you are correct in your analysis of this piece i dont see how its relevant: how dopes it change the fact that under islam gays are killed due to theior sexual orientation?

by pat c Mon Mar 20, 2006 22:40

heres how compassionate islam is: a man faces death in afghanistan because he converted to christianity. this is the real face of islam, it wasnt just the taliban,wherever islamists hold power they treat women, gays and those of other religions like animals.

full story at the link.

"Afghan Faces Death Penalty for Converting to Christianity

KABUL, Afghanistan, March 20, 2006 — - Despite the overthrow of the fundamentalist Taliban government and the presence of 22,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a man who converted to Christianity is being prosecuted in Kabul, and a judge said Sunday that if convicted, he faces the death penalty.

Abdul Rahman, who is in his 40s, says he converted to Christianity 16 years ago while working as an aid worker helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

Relatives denounced him as a convert during a custody battle over his children, and he was arrested last month. The prosecutor says Rahman was found with a Bible.

Human rights workers have described the case as an unsettling reminder that the country's post-Taliban judiciary remains deeply conservative, and they have called on President Hamid Karzai to intervene. During Taliban times, men were forced to kneel in prayer five times a day, and couples faced the death penalty for sex outside marriage, for example. Reform efforts have been slow, say experts, since there are so few judges and lawyers with experience."

by redjade Mon Sep 25, 2006 23:04

Berlin's Deutsche Oper has removed the provocative staging of a Mozart opera from its schedule for fear of enraging Muslims, the opera house said in a statement.

One of three opera houses in the German capital, it cancelled director Hans Neuenfels's production of "Idomeneo", a 1781 drama set in ancient Crete, because authorities warned it could present an "incalculable security risk".

In the staging, which sparked audience protests during its premiere in December 2003, King Idomeneo presents the lopped-off heads of Poseidon, Jesus, Buddha and the Prophet Mohammed and displays them on four chairs.

German critics saw the show at the time as a radical attack on religion and religious wars.

Musical director Kirsten Harms decided to cancel the new staging of the opera, scheduled for November, to avert "any danger to the audience or staff" that could arise from violent protests.

more at
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/25/060925192943.t....html

by Intolerant B=stards Tue Sep 26, 2006 06:34

"German opera house cancels provocative Mohammed play"

Moslems need to get a grip. It's OK to not like something, and Voice your concerns. Death and destruction and the traditional moslem hissy fit is NOT OK.

by Tony Tue Sep 26, 2006 08:04

Is it true that the Qur'an is unique in its violence?
Read the "Holy" Bible
Note: In the Bible, words having to do with killing significantly outnumber words having to do with love.

GE 3:1-7, 22-24 God allows Adam and Eve to be deceived by the Serpent (the craftiest of all of God's wild creatures). They eat of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil," thereby incurring death for themselves and all of mankind for ever after. God prevents them from regaining eternal life, by placing a guard around the "Tree of Eternal Life." (Note: God could have done the same for the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" in the first place and would thereby have prevented the Fall of man, the necessity for Salvation, the Crucifixion of Jesus, etc.)

GE 4:2-8 God's arbitrary preference of Abel's offering to that of Cain's provokes Cain to commit the first biblically recorded murder and kill his brother Abel.

GE 34:13-29 The Israelites kill Hamor, his son, and all the men of their village, taking as plunder their wealth, cattle, wives and children.

GE 6:11-17, 7:11-24 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to do something about it. He kills every living thing on the face of the earth other than Noah's family and thereby makes himself the greatest mass murderer in history.

GE 19:26 God personally sees to it that Lot's wife is turned to a pillar of salt (for having looked behind her while fleeing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah).

GE 38:9 "... whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked ..., so the Lord put him to death."

EX 2:12 Moses murders an Egyptian.

EX 7:1, 14, 9:14-16, 10:1-2, 11:7 The purpose of the devastation that God brings to the Egyptians is as follows:
to show that he is Lord;
to show that there is none like him in all the earth;
to show his great power;
to cause his name to be declared throughout the earth;
to give the Israelites something to talk about with their children;
to show that he makes a distinction between Israel and Egypt.

EX 9:22-25 A plague of hail from the Lord strikes down everything in the fields of Egypt both man and beast except in Goshen where the Israelites reside.

EX 12:29 The Lord kills all the first-born in the land of Egypt.

EX 17:13 With the Lord's approval, Joshua mows down Amalek and his people.

EX 21:20-21 With the Lord's approval, a slave may be beaten to death with no punishment for the perpetrator as long as the slave doesn't die too quickly.

EX 32:27 "Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.

EX 32:27-29 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites slay 3000 men.

LE 26:7-8 The Lord promises the Israelites that, if they are obedient, their enemies will "fall before your sword."

LE 26:22 "I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children."

LE 26:29, DT 28:53, JE 19:9, EZ 5:8-10 As a punishment, the Lord will cause people to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters and fathers and friends.

LE 27:29 Human sacrifice is condoned. (Note: An example is given in JG 11:30-39)

NU 11:33 The Lord smites the people with a great plague.

NU 12:1-10 God makes Miriam a leper for seven days because she and Aaron had spoken against Moses.

NU 15:32-36 A Sabbath breaker (who had gathered sticks for a fire) is stoned to death at the Lord's command.

NU 16:27-33 The Lord causes the earth to open and swallow up the men and their households (including wives and children) because the men had been rebellious.

NU 16:35 A fire from the Lord consumes 250 men.

NU 16:49 A plague from the Lord kills 14,700 people.

NU 21:3 The Israelites utterly destroy the Canaanites.

NU 21:6 Fiery serpents, sent by the Lord, kill many Israelites.

NU 21:35 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites slay Og "... and his sons and all his people, until there was not one survivor left ...."

NU 25:4 (KJV) "And the Lord said unto Moses, take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun ...."

NU 25:8 "He went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly."

NU 25:9 24,000 people die in a plague from the Lord.

NU 31:9 The Israelites capture Midianite women and children.

NU 31:17-18 Moses, following the Lord's command, orders the Israelites to kill all the Midianite male children and "... every woman who has known man ...." (Note: How would it be determined which women had known men? One can only speculate.)

NU 31:31-40 32,000 virgins are taken by the Israelites as booty. Thirty-two are set aside (to be sacrificed?) as a tribute for the Lord.

DT 2:33-34 The Israelites utterly destroy the men, women, and children of Sihon.

DT 3:6 The Israelites utterly destroy the men, women, and children of Og.

DT 7:2 The Lord commands the Israelites to "utterly destroy" and shown "no mercy" to those whom he gives them for defeat.

DT 20:13-14 "When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."

DT 20:16 "In the cities of the nations the Lord is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."

DT 21:10-13 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to take "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their captive wives. If, after sexual relations, the husband has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go.

DT 28:53 "You will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you."

JS 1:1-9, 18 Joshua receives the Lord's blessing for all the bloody endeavors to follow.

JS 6:21-27 With the Lord's approval, Joshua destroys the city of Jericho men, women, and children with the edge of the sword.

JS 7:19-26 Achan, his children and his cattle are stoned to death because Achan had taken a taboo thing.

JS 8:22-25 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly smites the people of Ai, killing 12,000 men and women, so that there were none who escaped.

JS 10:10-27 With the help of the Lord, Joshua utterly destroys the Gibeonites.

JS 10:28 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Makkedah.

JS 10:30 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Libnahites.

JS 10:32-33 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Lachish.

JS 10:34-35 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Eglonites.

JS 10:36-37 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Hebronites.

JS 10:38-39 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Debirites.

JS 10:40 (A summary statement.) "So Joshua defeated the whole land ...; he left none remaining, but destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded."

JS 11:6 The Lord orders horses to be hamstrung. (Exceedingly cruel.)

JS 11:8-15 "And the lord gave them into the hand of Israel, ...utterly destroying them; there was none left that breathed ...."

JS 11:20 "For it was the Lord's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be utterly destroyed, and should receive no mercy but be exterminated, as the Lord commanded Moses."

JS 11:21-23 Joshua utterly destroys the Anakim.

JG 1:4 With the Lord's support, Judah defeats 10,000 Canaanites at Bezek.

JG 1:6 With the Lord's approval, Judah pursues Adoni-bezek, catches him, and cuts off his thumbs and big toes.

JG 1:8 With the Lord's approval, Judah smites Jerusalem.

JG 1:17 With the Lord's approval, Judah and Simeon utterly destroy the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath.

JG 3:29 The Israelites kill about 10,000 Moabites.

JG 3:31 (A restatement.) Shamgar killed 600 Philistines with an oxgoad.

JG 4:21 Jael takes a tent stake and hammers it through the head of Sisera, fastening it to the ground.

JG 7:19-25 The Gideons defeat the Midianites, slay their princes, cut off their heads, and bring the heads back to Gideon.

JG 8:15-21 The Gideons slaughter the men of Penuel.

JG 9:5 Abimalech murders his brothers.

JG 9:45 Abimalech and his men kill all the people in the city.

JG 9:53-54 "A woman dropped a stone on his head and cracked his skull. Hurriedly he called to his armor-bearer, 'Draw your sword and kill me, so that they can't say a woman killed me.' So his servant ran him through, and he died."

JG 11:29-39 Jepthah sacrifices his beloved daughter, his only child, according to a vow he has made with the Lord.

JG 14:19 The Spirit of the Lord comes upon a man and causes him to slay thirty men.

JG 15:15 Samson slays 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass.

JG 16:21 The Philistines gouge out Samson's eyes.

JG 16:27-30 Samson, with the help of the Lord, pulls down the pillars of the Philistine house and causes his own death and that of 3000 other men and women.

JG 18:27 The Danites slay the quiet and unsuspecting people of Laish.

JG 19:22-29 A group of sexual depraved men beat on the door of an old man's house demanding that he turn over to them a male house guest. Instead, the old man offers his virgin daughter and his guest's concubine (or wife): "Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what seems good to you; but against this man do not do so vile a thing." The man's concubine is ravished and dies. The man then cuts her body into twelve pieces and sends one piece to each of the twelve tribes of Israel.

JG 20:43-48 The Israelites smite 25,000+ "men of valor" from amongst the Benjamites, "men and beasts and all that they found," and set their towns on fire.

JG 21:10-12 "... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." They do so and find four hundred young virgins whom they bring back for their own use.

1SA 4:10 The Philistines slay 30,000 Israelite foot soldiers.

1SA 5:6-9 The Lord afflicts the Philistines with tumors in their "secret parts," presumably for having stolen the Ark.

1SA 6:19 God kills seventy men (or so) for looking into the Ark (at him?). (Note: The early Israelites apparently thought the Ark to be God's abode.)

1SA 7:7-11 Samuel and his men smite the Philistines.

1SA 11:11 With the Lord's blessing, Saul and his men cut down the Ammonites.

1SA 14:31 Jonathan and his men strike down the Philistines.

1SA 14:48 Saul smites the Amalekites.

1SA 15:3, 7-8 "This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass ....' And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."

1SA 15:33 "Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord ...."

1SA 18:7 The women sing as they make merry: "Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands."

1SA 18:27 David murders 200 Philistines, then cuts off their foreskins.

1SA 30:17 David smites the Amalekites.

2SA 2:23 Abner kills Asahel.

2SA 3:30 Joab and Abishai kill Abner.

2SA 4:7-8 Rechan and Baanah kill Ish-bosheth, behead him, and take his head to David.

2SA 4:12 David has Rechan and Baanah killed, their hands and feet cut off, and their bodies hanged by the pool at Hebron.

2SA 5:25 "And David did as the Lord commanded him, and smote the Philistines ...."

2SA 6:2-23 Because she rebuked him for having exposed himself, Michal (David's wife) was barren throughout her life.

2SA 8:1-18 (A listing of some of David's murderous conquests.)

2SA 8:4 David hamstrung all but a few of the horses.

2SA 8:5 David slew 22,000 Syrians.

2SA 8:6, 14 "The Lord gave victory to David wherever he went."

2SA 8:13 David slew 18,000 Edomites in the valley of salt and made the rest slaves.

2SA 10:18 David slew 47,000+ Syrians.

2SA 11:14-27 David has Uriah killed so that he can marry Uriah's wife, Bathsheba.

2SA 12:1, 19 The Lord strikes David's child dead for the sin that David has committed.

2SA 13:1-15 Amnon loves his sister Tamar, rapes her, then hates her.

2SA 13:28-29 Absalom has Amnon murdered.

2SA 18:6 -7 20,000 men are slaughtered at the battle in the forest of Ephraim.

2SA 18:15 Joab's men murder Absalom.

2SA 20:10-12 Joab's men murder Amasa and leave him "... wallowing in his own blood in the highway. And anyone who came by, seeing him, stopped."

2SA 24:15 The Lord sends a pestilence on Israel that kills 70,000 men.

1KI 2:24-25 Solomon has Adonijah murdered.

1KI 2:29-34 Solomon has Joab murdered.

1KI 2:46 Solomon has Shime-i murdered.

1KI 13:15-24 A man is killed by a lion for eating bread and drinking water in a place where the Lord had previously told him not to. This is in spite of the fact that the man had subsequently been lied to by a prophet who told the man that an angel of the Lord said that it would be alright to eat and drink there.

1KI 20:29-30 The Israelites smite 100,000 Syrian soldiers in one day. A wall falls on 27,000 remaining Syrians.

2KI 1:10-12 Fire from heaven comes down and consumes fifty men.

2KI 2:23-24 Forty-two children are mauled and killed, presumably according to the will of God, for having jeered at a man of God.

2KI 5:27 Elisha curses Gehazi and his descendants forever with leprosy.

2KI 6:18-19 The Lord answers Elisha's prayer and strikes the Syrians with blindness. Elisha tricks the blind Syrians and leads them to Samaria.

2KI 6:29 "So we cooked my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, 'Give up your son so we may eat him,' but she had hidden him."

2KI 9:24 Jehu tricks and murders Joram.

2KI 9:27 Jehu has Ahaziah killed.

2KI 9:30-37 Jehu has Jezebel killed. Her body is trampled by horses. Dogs eat her flesh so that only her skull, feet, and the palms of her hands remain.

2KI 10:7 Jehu has Ahab's seventy sons beheaded, then sends the heads to their father.

2KI 10:14 Jehu has forty-two of Ahab's kin killed.

2KI 10:17 "And when he came to Samaria, he slew all that remained to Ahab in Samaria, till he had wiped them out, according to the word of the Lord ...."

2KI 10:19-27 Jehu uses trickery to massacre the Baal worshippers.

2KI 11:1 Athaliah destroys all the royal family.

2KI 14:5, 7 Amaziah kills his servants and then 10,000 Edomites.

2KI 15:3-5 Even though he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, the Lord smites Azariah with leprosy for not having removed the "high places."

2KI 15:16 Menahem ripped open all the women who were pregnant.

2KI 19:35 An angel of the Lord kills 185,000 men.

1CH 20:3 (KJV) "And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes."

2CH 13:17 500,000 Israelites are slaughtered.

2CH 21:4 Jehoram slays all his brothers.

PS 137:9 Happy will be the man who dashes your little ones against the stones.

PS 144:1 God is praised as the one who trains hands for war and fingers for battle.

IS 13:15 "Everyone who is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their ... wives will be ravished."

IS 13:18 "Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children."

IS 14:21-22 "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers."

IS 49:26 The Lord will cause the oppressors of the Israelite's to eat their own flesh and to become drunk on their own blood as with wine.

JE 16:4 "They shall die grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented; neither shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth: and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine; and their carcasses shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth."

LA 4:9-10 "Those slain by the sword are better off than those who die of famine; racked with hunger, they waste away for lack of food. ... pitiful women have cooked their own children, who became their food ..."

EZ 6:12-13 The Lord says: "... they will fall by the sword, famine and plague. He that is far away will die of the plague, and he that is near will fall by the sword, and he that survives and is spared will die of famine. So will I spend my wrath upon them. And they will know I am the Lord, when the people lie slain among their idols around their altars, on every high hill and on all the mountaintops, under every spreading tree and every leafy oak ...."

EZ 9:4-6 The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women ...."

EZ 20:26 In order that he might horrify them, the Lord allowed the Israelites to defile themselves through, amongst other things, the sacrifice of their first-born children.

EZ 21:3-4 The Lord says that he will cut off both the righteous and the wicked that his sword shall go against all flesh.

EZ 23:25, 47 God is going to slay the sons and daughters of those who were whores.

EZ 23:34 "You shall ... pluck out your hair, and tear your breasts."

HO 13:16 "They shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

MI 3:2-3 "... who pluck off their skin ..., and their flesh from off their bones; Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron."

MT 3:12, 8:12, 10:21, 13:30, 42, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30, LK 13:28, JN 5:24 Some will spend eternity burning in Hell. There will be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.

MT 10:21 "... the brother shall deliver up his brother to death, and the father his child, ... children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death."

MT 10:35-36 "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law a man's enemies will be the members of his own family."

MT 11:21-24 Jesus curses [the inhabitants of] three cities who were not sufficiently impressed with his great works.

AC 13:11 Paul purposefully blinds a man (though not permanently).