Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

650,000 Iraqi's killed since the Invasion.

The Minutemen are working on it.

That being said, I'll take mexicans over muslim scum any day. At least mexicans don't slice people's heads off if they don't grovel with their faces in the dirt to some greasy arab pedophile who pretended to be a "prophet".

In Gaghy,s pussy cuntry I could get thrown in jail for a "hate crime" for writing what I just did above.
 
Atlas_Collins, here is a woman who can no longer be charged with exactly that crime. Read why, she stood up to the Islamo-fascists:

Oriana Fallaci
Sep 21st 2006
From The Economist print edition
Oriana Fallaci, journalist and fighter, died on September 15th, aged 77

(AP) Faint Hearts may prefer not to say that the West is at war with terror. But Oriana Fallaci, Italy's fiercest and most famous journalist, had no doubt at all. She felt it “at nine o'clock on the dot” on the morning of September 11th 2001, in her brownstone house in the middle of Manhattan, before she had heard or seen anything she could put a finger on: “the sensation one feels in war, as a matter of fact in combat, when with every pore of your skin you feel the incoming bullet or rocket, and your ears perk up and you scream to those next to you: ‘Down! Get down!’”

Years of experience had primed her for this moment. Her teenage work as a resistance fighter in and around Nazi-occupied Florence, codename “Emilia”, carrying messages and explosives. Reporting from war zones in South America, the Middle East and Vietnam, where a note on her rucksack instructed that her body should be sent to the Italian ambassador “if KIA”. Near-death in the Mexico City massacre of 1968, shot and left lying among heaps of dead beside an “execution wall”. Her waif-like body, with perfect cheekbones and hair sometimes plaited like a schoolgirl's, suggested that she lacked the strength for this sort of life. But she was a tiger.

Anyone who doubted that had only to be interviewed by her. From the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s she sought out the powerful, collecting such a string of famous pelts that in the end they jostled to be asked. At first she played feminine and demure; then, pouncing and insulting, she would rip out the innards of her victims. She made Henry Kissinger admit that he saw himself as a lone cowboy leading the herd, and drew from Pakistan's Zulfiqar Bhutto such words about India that peace between the two countries was held up for a time. Meeting Ayatollah Khomeini, she appeared barefoot and in a chador; but before long that “medieval rag” was flung boldly off, sending him scuttling away.

Men of this sort, “abusers of power”, both fascinated and repelled her. She dwelled on Yasser Arafat's swollen belly and his red, fleshy lips; she thought Khomeini the most handsome old man she had ever seen. As she talked to Werner von Braun, a former Nazi who was then directing America's space programme, she realised that his sweet-sour smell was the same lemon disinfectant soap used by the Nazis in Florence.

She could always sniff out tyranny, and after that September morning in Manhattan, she knew definitively where it lay. Suddenly she was in the front line again, solid with her adored America against the Muslim enemy. “Duty to her culture” required her to write for hours at a stretch in furious isolation, living on cigarillos and on her nerves, to produce books called “The Rage and the Pride” and “The Force of Reason”, her “weapons of truth”.

The real enemy
It was a strange sort of truth. On every page, legitimate fears for democracy and liberty were laced with nonsense and bile. Moderate Islam, she wrote, did not exist. Islam was “a pool that never purifies”. All Muslims were bent on invading Europe and turning it into a “Eurabia” of veiled women and sharia law. Assimilation was a delusion; they did not want it. Already Miss Fallaci had heard the wailing of imams in the hills of Tuscany, and had seen Somali urine staining the Baptistery in Florence. Soon, she supposed, Muslim men would “shit in the Sistine Chapel”.

Anti-racism groups flew to indict her; defenders of free speech somewhat cautiously embraced her. Right-wing mayors of Italian towns gave her gold medals. Her books sold in the millions, and when she died she was delightedly facing trial for defaming a religion. Although she was an atheist, she had found a “soul-mate” in Pope Benedict XVI, and would have revelled in his unwise words about Islam.

For her, the enemy was always essentially the same: “fascism”, whether in the shape of Mussolini's black-shirts or Islamist suicide-bombers. But tyranny also appeared in another guise. Her real obsession, she admitted, was death.

They had tussled for a long time. Her great love, Alex Panagoulis, a leader of Greek resistance to the colonels, died in 1976 in a car crash possibly rigged by his enemies. She had lost his child in pregnancy. At 16 she chose a writer's life because typed words did not die, like talk, but stayed on the paper. She reported wars to express her hatred for man's mortality.

Her fight against “the Other One”, as she called her cancer, was a war like no other. She forbade her doctors to mention death; they were to talk to her about life. Reduced to taking only fluids, she would drink champagne. Nothing was allowed to diminish her energy for writing, cooking and leaping from her chair with a scream of “Mamma Mia!” at the folly of the world.

Yet her own death was not her chief concern. She mourned the slow death of Western civilisation, its lack of pride and self-esteem, its cowardice before the Muslim “hordes”. If terrorists were prepared to die for Islam, she would have the passion to oppose them. Her words carried the ring of deliberate provocation, challenging the Islamists to put a fatwa on her and raise a sword to behead her. In which case, before the bastards dared, she would toss back her hair, fix them with a glare and declare, in her best Italian snarl, “Fuck you.”
http://www.economist.com/obituary/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7939667
 
from the article:

It was a strange sort of truth. On every page, legitimate fears for democracy and liberty were laced with nonsense and bile. Moderate Islam, she wrote, did not exist. Islam was “a pool that never purifies”. All Muslims were bent on invading Europe and turning it into a “Eurabia” of veiled women and sharia law. Assimilation was a delusion; they did not want it. Already Miss Fallaci had heard the wailing of imams in the hills of Tuscany, and had seen Somali urine staining the Baptistery in Florence. Soon, she supposed, Muslim men would “shit in the Sistine Chapel”.

This would be funny if it was all in the theoretical abstract. Sadly, it's not. The muslims rioting in France have not assimilated, neither have the ones threatening Danish cartoonists or the ones in Britain demanding the "right" to Sharia law, that being the right to murder their wives and daughters if they are found to be becoming too 'western'.

Christianity was like this for hundreds of years, and now it's the muslims' turn. I can understand the historical sweep in all this, but I don't have to like it or go along with it. Most muslims aren't on a modern crusade, but they can have a small percentage of agitators who work up the majority in the same way. That's what is scary about worldwide Islam, it's that the passive majority is apparently listening to the radicals in their midst. They blame all murders conducted in the name of Allah on Jews and westerners, there is no condemnation of fellow muslims. And that's worrisome.

-Ogami
 
Ogami said:
or the ones in Britain demanding the "right" to Sharia law

I live here and am fairly well versed in the Muslims in the UK. Good god, we hear about them all the bloody time in the papers and TV. Even the Daily Mail hasn't been reporting this. What is your UK media choice?

I seem to remember Abu Hamsa asking for it - but jeez, even the Islamofascist nutters thought he was a fruitcake.
Abu_Hamza.jpg


Sharia Law is not wanted by the vast majority of Muslims - Look at Pakistan for an example.
 
headvoid said:
I live here and am fairly well versed in the Muslims in the UK. Good god, we hear about them all the bloody time in the papers and TV. Even the Daily Mail hasn't been reporting this. What is your UK media choice?

I seem to remember Abu Hamsa asking for it - but jeez, even the Islamofascist nutters thought he was a fruitcake.
Abu_Hamza.jpg


Sharia Law is not wanted by the vast majority of Muslims - Look at Pakistan for an example.

Let's see ... Civil Servants in the UK can't have piggy banks or stuffed piglet dolls or calendars that portray pigs or visible crucifixes or St. George pins, etc , etc, becuase it "might offend the religious sensitivities of muslim (scum)".

.... But according to this stupid dumbass fucking brainwashed cunt, Headvoids, the muslim scum in the UK are just sweet nice people who just want to get along.

Some people won't wake up until the rusty halal knife slices through their jugulars.
 
Bah. Again I say, get them all, Muslim and Jew alike, back from out of the world and into that shitty little sandbox, then drop enough nukes on it to turn it into a sea of black glass from one edge to the other.
 
What's ignorant about that? The muslims hate the Jews and chase them into our backyard. The Jews get into our government and influence it to continue provoking the muslims. It's a circle of violence that feeds itself, and it seems like only the innocent bystanders end up on the casualty list.

Get both groups out of the woodwork and onto the woodpile. Then light it.
 
starguard said:
Someone please remind me.. why are we in Iraq again?

Because they dared have a nuclear reactor at Osirak, and after the Israelis bombed it to keep themselves the only modern power in the region, Hussein got up the balls to stand up to them, whereupon they threatened to nuke the entire region.

Then Desert Storm rolls around and we're involved for whatever reason. Then, later, Iraq has WMDs, regardless of whether they actually have them or not.

We're there to maintain Israeli hegemony in the region.
 
Atlas_Collins said:
.... But according to this stupid dumbass fucking brainwashed cunt, Headvoids, the muslim scum in the UK are just sweet nice people who just want to get along.

Where did I say that exactly? You are the one that is brainwashed, you are even delusional seeing words in front of your eyes. Wierdo

Show me a source of a mainstream muslim in the UK asking for Sharia Law. Please not Abu Hamsa, try and use a little intelligence.
 
40% of Uk muslims want Sharia Law as long as it does not contravene British Law I too the effort to find a poll of 500 people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml

So that means 60% of UK Muslims don't want Sharia Law and no-one seems to be clamouring for honour killings and stoning their wives.

But the deafening silence of the UK Muslims about the bombings, the lack of voice condemning islamic extremism - I actually agree with you on that. The Mute attitude has got to stop - and thankfully we seem to be applying pressure on that at last (if a little clumsily with Jack Straws Veil comments)

UK Muslims are silent and complicit - but to condemn them as wife stoners is innacurate.
 
For which crimes does the Quran mandate specific punishments?
Five crimes known as the Hadd offenses, Lombardi says. Because these offenses are mentioned in the Quran, committing them is considered an affront to God. They are:

Wine-drinking and, by extension, alcohol-drinking, punishable by flogging

Unlawful sexual intercourse, punishable by flogging for unmarried offenders and stoning to death for adulterers

False accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, punishable by flogging

Theft, punishable by the amputation of a hand

Highway robbery, punishable by amputation, or execution if the crime results in a homicide.

Where are these laws applied?
Adopting hadd punishments is considered a symbol of a country’s Islamic identity, even if they are rarely carried out, Powers says. Saudi Arabia and Iran have hadd crimes on the books, as do some federal states in Nigeria. However, the most severe punishments--stoning and amputation--are inflicted sparingly, experts say, in part because the Quran insists on strict evidentiary standards. "They aren't applied in cases of doubt," Powers says. States often go beyond the Quranic safeguards to add new ones. Pakistan has hadd punishments on the books, but it has set up a series of procedural roadblocks to insure they can be enforced by the state only rarely, if ever, Lombardi says. Still, vigilante applications of hadd punishments occur in Pakistan and other parts of the Islamic world.

What happens in the case of apostasy?
The traditional punishment for Islamic apostasy--leaving Islam for another religion or otherwise abandoning the Islamic faith--is death. The best-known modern case involved author Salman Rushdie, whose 1988 novel, "The Satanic Verses," offended many devout Muslims. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, declared Rushdie an apostate and condemned him to death. In 1993, an Egyptian court ruled that the writings of Nasr Abu Zayd, a professor, were evidence of apostasy. The court ordered that Zayd be divorced from his Muslim wife (Zayd now lives with his wife in the Netherlands). The vast majority of Muslim nations no longer prescribe death for apostates. On the other hand, says Powers, "Many modern Islamic nations say they guarantee freedom of religion. But this does not necessarily include the right to speak openly against Islam and act on those ideas." Conversions from Islam to other religions are generally not permitted in Muslim countries.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/
 
From your own source Ogami

Is there only one interpretation of sharia?
No. Five major schools of sharia developed after the death of the Prophet Mohammed and during the Middle Ages--four in the Sunni tradition and one in the Shiite tradition.

Again - from your own source:
The vast majority of Islamic nations no longer apply the traditional corporal punishments for violations of specific Quranic criminal laws. These punishments include flogging, amputation, and stoning.

You don't seem to be answering my question about UK muslims wanting stoning. They are struck dumb and I find them fuckin annoying - but they don't stone people.

It's like saying that all Christians bomb abortion clinics. Not only is it wrong, it shows a lack of intelligence - something I am sure is not the case here.
 
No, I provided you a link to http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Where you can read as many articles you want on the desire of UK muslims to stone their daughters. Of course, if you're looking for an actual quote from a UK muslim on what they want Sharia law for, that would just be naive of you.

-Ogami
 
point me Ogami - I've looked through that deeply prejudice site - but I can't see any facts there about the UK problem.

Weirdly I've given you your most compelling stats myself.
 
The Question said:
We're there to maintain Israeli hegemony in the region.

What a fucking Dunce!

Questard here thinks a tiny country, surrounded on all sides by enemies who daily proclaim their undying hatred and desire to slaughter all the inhabitants of said tiny country and occasionally lob missiles into it and/or plant bombs on its buses and in its pizza parlors full of innocent teenagers - Questard thinks this tiny country surrounded by subhuman mouth-frothing enemies holds "hegemony" over these countries full of subhuman muslim filth.

I don't think Questard knows what "hegemony" means. He just must have thought it was a cool word to use after he read it in a Noam Chomsky tract.
 
Top