501. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236131 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 9:34 am

I am an immigration attorney in the United States and your proposed solutions to the "jihad" problem worry me on several levels

I must commend you on how you promptly declare that fact as if it is automatically going to give creedance to what you are about to say. However, moving on.

While you are doing your research, you may also want to brush up on the US Constitution (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-654.pdf ) and the laws which protect our civil liberties and the history of the application of these laws. You may find reading about the McCarthy era illuminating. You should also brush up on criminal law and on immigration law, two subjects which you are pontificating on at great length, but of which you clearly have very little knowledge.

Ahem, thanks for the legal advice. However it is quite obvious I was talking in the "what i wish would happen in my perfect world" sense, and in no way was claiming to be an expert in such fields. What I think should happen.

On another note, I really am quite sick and tired of persons consistently falling back on a three hundred year old document as an end all be all of "rights". Inserting the constitution in to a type of discussion that we are having now, is really pointless. Especially when I was talking in a bigger broader sense.

Well, maybe you value yours, but you surely do not value the rights and freedoms of Americans who are Muslim.

Well if they are of the Islamic faith, sadly no I don't, not here in America. What is your point?

I am running out of energy here and my thinking is getting murky, but I would say that treating all people with respect, even when they don't deserve it is a starting place

.........

[face palm]

You know what just from skimming throught the rest of your post I can tell that instead of giving me a lecture on all the legalites of the issue you should be doing research about islam on your own.

TWP and Fanusi, I most vehemently protest the advocacy of deportation of first, second, or any generation of immigrants.

Ok well get back to me on that if they ever decide to I don't know, try to enforce sharia into our government system.

Honestly I think you should go back to the beginning of the discussion and read ALL of what we have said.

I really am overwhelmed by your response and prob didn't answer it to the best of my abilites or made points I thought needed be, for that I apologise.

502. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236117 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 9:03 am

I retract my last statement, I'll stick around for the rest of the weekend. Jeebus this place is like a black hole.

That's an excellent point, twp; wish I'd said it. That's another way we could screen for genuine refugees.

See look at us tossing around ideas and coming up with more and more answers to our own questions. Adding something else to the list however, one that is prob the most obvious, and I can't recall if you did mention this earlier but when we isolate this islamic nation, weapon control would seem a most obvious answer. Nations would have to all agree not to sell weapons or anything that could possibly be made into a weapon to their government.

Al,

Those are some mighty mighty big fish sir. Nu-uh couldn't be me, I'm getting queasy.

That's a great orange hat did you color it with a highlighter?

503. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236106 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 8:36 am

Al,

Dude you have the worst timing.

I was just about to shut it down and put the laptop away for the remainder of my vacation.

On top of that you interrupt this very important discussion for that?

504. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236101 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 8:24 am

Mike,

Noted. Perhaps I should have said people who openly profess Islam as their religion. Any way I see your point about progressive thinking but the same kind of progressive thinking can be made without those who are islamic in their faith.

505. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236093 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 7:56 am

CFL,

I'm not really back, I'm still in Denver (cheating) but thank you.

but I'm still struggling to agree with him. I agree with Steve Zara that Fanusi is excellent at pointing out the problems and real dangers of Islam in action, but his solutions do not seem so well thought out.

As correct as this maybe, perhaps if you would take into account this particular thread and the interaction that has taken place between Fanusi and I, it would seem quite clear that we have been bouncing ideas back and forth amongst ourselves. Obviously not all of the ideas that either one of us has brought to the table has been completley thought out and ready to present to the powers at be but they are a starting point on opening up possibilites for the best possible way to deal with the certain issues that we have brought up. Perhaps instead of people coming along and highlighting certain comments claiming irrationality and getting so flustered, they could be involved in the decision with soultions of their own. And I don't mean vague answers as a counter argument. Obviously Fanusi and I are discussing specifics. It's called a discussion and I've already pointed out areas in which I don't feel that Fanusi's idea would work in my point of view, but if you notice it was done in such a way as not to be insulting and countered with an argument of my own, and another suggestion.

Keeping Muslim preachers out of jails won't neccessarly work because any Muslim can take on the role of preacher and seek converts.

Correct. I believe the thought was to set up seperate jails and prisons for those found guilty of islamic terrorist attacks. Keeping them away from other prisoners.

I personally wouldn't ban religion, but it has no place in Government, it has no rights to impose itself on society in general, and prisoners should not have religious rights - they should only be allowed to practice their faith in private.

I agree. Although I believe at the beginning of this thread I did mention that I don't believe that we should allow anyone in the place of politics that is a muslim. I know this is a bit of pot and kettle action but given the beliefs of muslims it goes beyond religion. I feel that the objection of muslims in politics is justified.

506. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236083 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 7:02 am

Fanusi,

Hold that thought I'm going to run outta my hotel and grab some coffee do not stray away for so long.

As regards these accusations that I'm exagerrating or distorting, well, I submit myself to your rational judgement. I've provided you with my source material, and you can see for yourself whether or not I am rationally correct.

As far as this thread goes, I haven't witnessed any exagerrationg or distorting, I have in fact been reading from the sources of information that you have provided me, and in the cases of links visited those as well as sublinks found on certain websites. So far I feel that in any event you haven't been pushy enough. Perhaps a visit to some of these links would help to enlighten some of the lurkers and posters who feel that what you claim does not take place in their part of the world or is indeed as serious as you proclaim.

I'd add a few other things, amongst them a fund to support dissidents and Muslim apostates.

Yes I actually did list that down on a piece of paper, although I was sure that their were already funds set in place and planned on googling that as well. Greater publicity of the Ayaan Hirsi Ali defence charity would also help in this direction. It would be nice for every nation in the world to distribute funds towards a certain charity, perhaps an international charity fund just for that purpose.

the slave trade by buying and freeing the slaves being traded, and offering them a trip to any country of their choice, including any Western nation if they renounce Islam

I do believe that is a wonderful step. Offering similar aid to women and their children of Islam, who want to get out. If we had the more popular wordly feminist group taking a stand against this that would also be of great help, as I believe I have stated before. I know that there are feminist groups set up specifically for the aid of women trapped in Islam, but for more prominient feminist groups to publicly stand out against this issue wish make a difference. Maybe international laws set up specifically with Islam in mind.

I'd also point out that while twp and I have been fruitfully trading ideas, all steve does is whine about what's proposed and offer nothing himself

Spot on. I specifically asked Steve what he thought should be done and his answer?

We need a political campaign to ensure that incitement to violence is not protected by religious or cultural sensitivity.

.......

It took everything in me not to reply with "d'oh!"

507. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236050 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 5:05 am

I am afraid that for me the expulsion of natives is pretty extreme.

Steve, lets say you live in a private community. Now lets say someone is in your neighboorhood and threatening to rob the residences. Perhaps there have even been a few robberies, would you not want that person removed from the community?

508. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236047 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 4:54 am

Nairb continues to do an excellent job of showing how Fanusi exaggerates things.

That's great for Nairb and since I am now starting to really study this topic in depth, hopefully I will be able to lend an extra hand in whatever exaggerations that fly out of any ones mouth. However, even if Fanusi exaggerates some things, there are a few key and main facts that are evident that you can not deny. Islam hates everyone that is not Islamic. They want to destroy infidels and take over the world.

Fact.

I suppose for some, that is not a big deal. And I am in no way directing that towards you.

My view is that if his tactics are used, we would have already lost the supposedly civilized society we are attempting to defend.

Maybe some, maybe he has a good foundation for his ideas they just need to be reformed. I don't really see anything he has said so far on this thread as being extreme or a degradation of civilised society. I mean quite honestly if we had a magic wand and got all of the muslims on a space ship and sent them out to space, I believe the world would indeed improve quite a bit. I don't see it getting any worse.

509. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236038 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 4:31 am

Exposure, as in these documentaries is a very good start.

If there is incitement to violence, that is a criminal offence. It has to be dealt with through the appropriate legal systems.

Right, we all understand that however there seems to be a disagreement with how to deal with them appropriately. Perhaps you could explain that a little more?

You obviously don't agree with some of Fanusis tactics.

I don't even know if you agree with mine, because honestly is doesn't sound like you were really reading what I was saying, but that could be my fault.

So why not slap up some suggestions of your own?

510. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236037 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 4:27 am

No, it is because this has been part of a longer, on-going discussion.

I have tried to be polite to you. I would have hoped you could have returned the favour.

Steve, quite honestly everything you have been saying in response to Fanusi only makes sense if you weren't paying attention to what fanusi said.

For example:

I was assuming some sort of pressure being applied to those governments to accept those who were being expelled.

Had you really been reading and paying attention to what was being said we could have avoided such objections that had arised from your misunderstanding. It was pretty clear what Fanusi and I were talking about. And it wasn't about governements to accept those who were being expelled. We were trying to come up with ways to in fact help apostates. Of course there is more detail in why we were discussing the need to help apostates in the first place but that would require an entire reading of our posts.

I was simply asking that maybe you misunderstood all of this because instead of really reading what fanusi was saying you just presumed is was going to be extreme and to your dissatisfaction? Almost as though you skimmed through and picked the most objectionable statement you could find and combat it?

I was not being impolite, I assure you.

No, it is because this has been part of a longer, on-going discussion.

Well Fanusi and I weren't carrying on from a longer, on-going discussion. I don't know why you were either. Perhaps that also lead to your misunderstanding.

511. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236035 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 4:14 am

Bugger! Just wrote a long, detailed response to your question, wp, and got timed out. Hate that.

Ahh geez I hate that. I've made it a habit to copy and paste repeatedly while writing a comment. Of course what really gets me cross is when I accidently hit submit before I have a chance to do so, and I just know I've passed the timed out stage. I start to sound eerily identical to you during your "crook back" stage of life.

512. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236031 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 4:06 am

utelme

Atheist for Jesus-

That's all I'm saying, man.

513. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236029 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 4:01 am

Oh, twp, I am more than happy to send second and third generation trouble makers to SA,

[sigh] Oh Fanusi, so am I. I was pointing out that my consideration of Steve's objection of the deportation of natives was no longer really being considered.

Even the Putin regime in Russia understands the threat of Islam, so there's a case to be made for arguing for an en-masse embargo of Middle Eastern oil by all non-Muslim states. We could get China on board too, with any luck.

This is starting to sound a bit more promising. Without the carrot of oil for the muslim ran middle east to dangle, what grasp will they really have left?

Or we could require every mosque to have a clean bill of social health,

Bingo.

All you know is that someone was caught what what someone else reported was a bomb.

Yes that is all I know. You're playing on semantics and that's pretty lousy.

Chances are however I won't be uncertain of the fact that if someone is caught with a bomb by someone in the above scenario that they are indeed guilty.

We can play on words all night. Although I will start to get grouchy. There is not always uncertainty. Perhaps to you. By applying that same logic and therefore putting you in the scenario, I am left to conclude that means if you are sitting at the back of the bus and someone yells at you to release the emergency exit latch because there is a terrorist in the front with bombs strapped to his chest you would rather see for yourself?

I was assuming some sort of pressure being applied to those governments to accept those who were being expelled.

No, if you had carefully read over what was being discussed you would have found that we were discussing the Islamic governement that would not allow apostates to leave.

What troubles me is a conversation in which ideas like seizing oil fields are thrown out casually.

This could be because instead of paying attention to the entire message you are instead giving more attention to the messenger?

514. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236018 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 3:26 am

Let's start again. Caught by who?

All of this, in the end, comes down to "I knew someone who said that they caught that person in the act".

If you are caught with a ticking time bomb set for two minutes on a five minute one way bus ride by the bus driver, the people on the bus, the law enforcement-where is the doubt that you were about to blow up the bus and commit a terroist attack?

There is obviously no doubt that you are guilty. I thought I was making myself clear on that issue.

No doubt that you are guilty, however you have a right to be judged by your peers. It could be very clear that the individual is guilty but you do need to present the evidence and the findings in the appropriate matter, to be judged accordingly.( By the community, by the rest of civilisation, by law enforcement of a higher authority)

If we (as has been suggested) seize oil fields

In all fairness Steve, Fanusi was tossing out ideas in response to an issue I had raised. I'm not quite sure if he even really knew how effective that would be, we were brain storming. He wasn't "suggesting" it in the way you are implying. It's not right that you hang on every single thing that is thrown out in jest.

Putting that aside, you aren't answering my question. There were more suggestions that were thrown out there. We were trying to find one that would appropriatly fit the bill. You dear are just reacting to one casual suggestion. What about the idea as a whole? Why do you feel that pushing back on the islamic government as a way to save apostates is not (is less) ethical?

515. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236016 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 3:15 am

the West will be seen by Islam as acting in bad faith.

Laurie, anyone that is not a follower of Islam is in "bad faith". They are going to hate us regardless. "Kuffarr". Certainly appeasing them is not going to help.

but about concerted efforts to actually do something about the situation, and not just win short-term right-wing populist votes to maintain lazy, incompetent and corrupt administrations in the West.

I thought that is what we were discussing? A way to take care of this for the long term. What do you think is the best way?

516. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236012 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 3:08 am

If there is a need for a trial (and there always is), then there is uncertainty

Whoa, hold on their cowboy. I think there is a need for a trial, not because there is necessarily doubt, but because every human has a right to be judged by your peers. The only issue that arises automatically is the presentation of evidence. You can't just throw a guy in a life-serving sentence as soon as Officer Barbrady catches you. You have to show the evidence to the public, to the rest of humanity. But I wouldn't really file it under doubt. If you get caught standing over a dead body and you are dripped in blood and the knife is in your hand, where is the doubt? (Don't even think about eluding to a certain Monty Python sketch at this moment). If you are caught with a ticking time bomb set for two minutes on a five minute one way bus ride-where is the doubt?

Death penalty I've already stated I don't agree with.

In my opinion that makes the approach even less ethical. If you push back at such governments, they will have little hesitation in passing on the burden of whatever sanctions you apply to their citizens.

How?

517. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #236009 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 2:59 am

Welcome back, TWP. Hope it was a good road trip. :) See anything cool?

Not really back. See Dawkins is Right thread.

Thanks though!

518. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236004 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 2:51 am

By sending supporters of the regime to that country we are adding to their oppression.

[nods] Yes, I understand that, and it does raise an issue, especially considering the people in those countries that have a great desire to leave and are afraid. However, I'm not so willing to bounce off of the deporting bandwagon. The way I envision it, in short is this: Taking a stand and making it very clear that this is the policy that we (All nations) plan on following. At the same time raising awareness and making it very clear that all nations are supportive of helping, aiding and offering citizenships to apostates. And as Fanusi and I were discussing, finding an effective way to push back at the Islamic governments if they decide to get in the way.

Exactly. But we don't assume immediate guilt because someone was caught by law enforcement. We still expect a trial, where the process by which the person was caught, and the associated evidence is examined. There is always an element of doubt

Of course I wouldn't deny a human the right to a trial. However, I do want to remind you that while waiting on that trial and conviction you should not be allowed in a public prison. Let's face it, if you are caught in the act of jihad terrorism, you are more than likely going to be found guilty and in the mean time should not be allowed around possible converts.

519. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236001 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 2:40 am

Just wanted to point out that recent statistics in the UK show that the more radical muslims are from second and third generations and not recent immigrants.

Well indeed that sheds a whole new light on the "native" issue. But also foreshadows what may very well happen with all of the recent immigrants.

Prevention, prevention, prevention.

520. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235996 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 2:33 am

Alright Utelme,

Most of the message that was taught by Jesus wasn't so bad. If we were to cut down the bullshit mythology and go straight to the message.

There's plenty of evidence of the evil done in his name, however.

Yes, like I eluded to in the rest of my post.

If he's such a good guy, may I, with respect, suggest he get of his royal arse and do something about it

Because Jesus the "god" isn't real. Trick question?

521. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235995 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 2:27 am

Do you consider Islamic government compatible with human rights?

No. But obviously people of the muslim faith don't mind.

Do you think a democratic nation would want to take people we consider to be dangerous?

Of course not, I don't understand where you are getting that conclusion from. Perhaps I'm missing a step.

But, if we aren't sending them to democracies, we are dumping such people into countries with no knowledge of the will of the citizens there. I think that is certainly morally dodgy.

We are sending them to their "home" land if you will. If you are an islamic leader/beliver/follower than go to an established islamic government system/country.

Once again I profess, I don't understand how that is morally dodgy.

Caught by who?

Well, law enforcement to begin with.

[puzzled look]

edit

Where did Fanusi run off to?

522. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235993 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 2:21 am

Oystein,

I do believe that sounds what my mom could have been referring to. I'd have to call her back and pay attention. When she said TBN (trinity broadcasting network) Israelli, and physics I stopped listening. In one ear and out the other. Just enough to tell her never to call me with idiotic bullshit like that again.

Decius,

Thanks, but not quite back yet. I'm breaking a rule. Brought the laptop but it's been safely tucked away. Then when listening to my VM's I was told I needed to check my email and here I am. Couldn't resist. Should be fully back by next week.

523. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235991 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 2:12 am

Apart from the issue of expelling native citizens, I think it is morally dodgy to use other countries as dumping grounds for our problems. The countries may be ruled by unpleasant regimes, but we aren't respecting the rights of the citizens if we use their society as a form of waste disposal.

I believe I have heard this same argument a few weeks ago. Almost word for word. However, at the time you entered that comment and up until I am replying to this the subject has not turned to native citizens. I think I made a brief comment earlierhow I wish we could expell all of the muslims. Although I don't believe I was referring to muslims that were born on our land. (Or yours) I did have in mind muslims that have recently immigrated. Most of the conversation has been in relation to prevention. But to touch on your point of native muslims, I do believe that if you are holding fast to the opinions professed by the preacher in the Undercover Mosque documentary, you should be booted out. Plain and simple. If you believe that any nation that is not governed by Islam is a kuffar and not worthy than your ass needs to go somewhere that is. Of course I realise that you can't go around with a clipboard and pen demanding every citizens personal belief, you can deport the citizens that are being quite verbal about it. This would lead back to prevention. (Of Islamic jihad terrorist attacks)

To use other countries as dumping grounds? You mean the countries that are a-ok with Islamic Government systems? I don't exactly see how deporting an Islamic leader to an Islamic ran country is a "dumping ground". And if that's what it is, I certainly don't see the problem or how that is morally dodgy.

I guess I am just sceptical of the idea that any evidence can be 100% reliable. For example, what does "caught in the act" mean? Who "caught" the individual? I think that irreversible punishments are to be avoided anyway, but particularly when there is always uncertainty.

Caught in the act? Ummm well if you are on a bus and you have a ticking bomb, and you get caught...What other conclusion can you come up with other than that individual was about to blow the bus and all of the inhabitants to pieces? Or if you are caught with plans of attacks in your back pocket, that could be further proof. Or post-attack you happen to be identified and caught before you have the chance to escape. Like I said before we aren't talkng about a murder done quietly in the middle of the night with five possible suspects.

524. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235987 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 1:51 am

Of course I'd never support the death penalty for anything less than damning evidence.

Taking into consideration the brutality, intolerant nature of islam and jihad terrorism, I can understand how you would feel the death penalty is justified. I just don't agree with the death penalty period. A part of me would like to subsribe to a punishment of a lifetime of torture, however the greater humanity loving part of me does not see the death penalty as reasonable. I would much rather throw them in a dungeon with no human contact and nothing to survive on but bread and water the rest of their lives.

These guys pull the stunts they do because they are convinced that the West has no teeth.

Agreed. Growing some real balls and shunning the Islam world would be a very huge step. It would undoubtedly prove to be an appropriate action on our part. And then:

We can inform them that their number-swiss bank accounts will shortly be empty, or that all that prime property they've bought up in Europe or America can suddenly vanish out of their posession, or hat if they need medical or other services, these have just recieved a five-hundred fold markup. Then there's denial of foreign aid and so on and so on.

I like these ideas. I'm going to note these down. I think we should expand on those ideas. Correct me if I'm wrong but the major hold they have on the rest of the world is oil. It appears everything else they would greatly need the aid of the rest of the world.

525. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235976 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 1:29 am

I think you need to research how frequently people have been wrongly accused of terrorism here in the UK.

I could. If I was talking about general terrorism.

But I believe I made it crystal clear I was on the subject of jihadterrorism. Of course for future references, in a conversation where you are involved, perhaps maujahid or mujahideen attacks would be better suited?

526. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235969 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 1:18 am

Come come, wp - you're being disingenuous. You know what Steve meant. ;)

Quite right I know. I just wanted to point out how silly it was.

It's a bit hard to wrongly accuse a person of jihad terrorism.

We aren't talking a murder that happened in the middle of the night with no witnesses and five possible suspects.

[edit]

If a "supposed" terrorist was executed

True Laurie. However, maybe I read Fanusi wrong but I am sure he wasn't referring to a suspected terrorist. The way I read it was an action that already occured or being caught in the act.

Fanusi said:

Option 3, which I do reserve for incitement to jihad terrorism or being complicit in such acts

527. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235964 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 1:14 am

I believe you mean 'wary'. But let's leave that aside for the moment.

Touche. But since you brought it up, wary or weary would describe my feelings toward the death penalty in association with extreme jihad terrorists.

There are ways - real ways - to lean on these governments. We could make it very clear, just to take one example, that we are willing to embargo a country that doesn't knock that off - or seize it's oil fields, or whatever

Leaning on an Islamic government already pissed off they are pratically banned from inheriting other countries. An automatic issue raised in my mind is they aren't dumbasses. If you really want to boil it down to the best government system (when it comes to control) they have it in the bag. Masters of manipulation and control. They believe Allah is on their side, how can we lean on them in a way that won't ignite a serious war? When push comes to shove I wonder if they can really be pressured to knock anything off that occurs on their side of the fence.

I'm not sure if I made myself very clear. I might have to touch back on that.

528. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235953 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 12:59 am

What a brilliant idea. It will be bad enough putting to death people who want to be martyrs for a cause, but just imagine what you will stir up if a less-than-perfect legal system wrongly puts to death an innocent.

Steve, exactly how to you put to death an innocent person caught commiting acts of jihad terrorism?

Especially if their aim is to be a martyr? If one such muslim would survive an act of suicide during a jihad terrorist strike, what are the chances of them denying it?

529. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235950 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 12:53 am

Hey utelme, Jesus wasn't so bad. Lighten up on the guy.

His followers and so called "christians" on the other hand....

530. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235946 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 12:48 am

Well, when Britain was dealing with the Northern Ireland troubles, there was the Long Kesh for IRA goons, so that's option 1. Option 2 is to expel this lot. Option 3, which I do reserve for incitement to jihad terrorism or being complicit in such acts, is death.

Option One would work, of course that would be costly and be another tax issue (among other issues) here in the states. Perhaps it would work in the UK. I think option two gets my vote. Option three I am very weary about because I am against any form of death penalty.


Now on to the apostate issue, to sum up I do agree. But after my last post it did dawn on me, that if Islamists were not allowed citizenship into other countries that were not Islam already in nature, they would indeed have border patrol of their own. I'm sure that if they realised an individual was trying to obtain citizenship in another country they would be trying to leave the muslim faith, ergo be put to death.

If that were the case, I'm sure we would be running more "underground railroads" for apostates, rather than sitting at the border questioning them. I'm sure it would be a balancing act. I could be wrong.

Any way is everything that you have stated on this thread so far, the opinion that you had a few weeks ago? I mean in regards to all of the bad press you were getting?

EDIT for clarity

531. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235937 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 12:27 am

Don,

Yes, yes that is right. Thanks. Brain lapse.

The argument runs that if Jesus was who the gospel writers believed he was, then John should have been baptised by Jesus

That point is already covered. John the Baptist raised the same point. It was then that the sky opened up and god commanded John to baptise Jesus. Don't recall the specific phrasing. Something like "Behold me son who wishes to be baptised to please me.."

532. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235934 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 12:22 am

Again, you're pushing at an open door with me. I'd say that the priority at the moment though is keeping Muslim preachers out of jails

Yes, I have agreed with you in the past on that thought. But where do they go? If they break the law at this point there is nowhere for them to go but jail. What to do? Ask what religion they are, if they say muslim, send them to a "terrorist camp"?

Well, we have six million apostates every year in Africa. Consider what they risk, I'd say they're more than welcome to come over.

Right. Let's pretend for a moment that muslims are not granted permission to enter a country that is "non-islamic". How would you then distinguish between a real apostate and a wolf in sheeps clothing?

Although I am sure if we ever reached that point the Islamic territories would have their own border patrol.

533. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235928 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 12:00 am

Fanusi,

No. I really mean it. If there was a way to prevent any more muslims from entering into the United States, I would be all for it.

The only problem being, what if the "muslims" coming in, didn't really subscribe to Islam and were trying to escape it? Although I'm sure that is a minority.

At this point I do believe that people of the muslim faith should be prevented from holding any sort of political office or power of any kind.

534. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235926 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 11:56 pm

See ya in a bit Laurie.


Don I agree.

Since the dawn of civilization (or at least the invention of writing), human beings have been notorious for keeping copious written records of any event or person that is important to us :)

I do believe that outside of the bible and the gnostic texts the only other mentions given of Jesus were from Josephus and uhh..one other person, can't really remember, I believe it starts with a "T". Even those brief mentions have been argued against.

535. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235923 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 11:45 pm

"We hate the kuffarr, we hate the kuffarr, not a single person here who is of Islam loves the kuffarr whether they are from the UK or the US"

Enough said. Sorry this is where "respect of religion" really needs to draw the line.

"Muslims shouldn't be satisfied living in other than the total Islamic state"

Ship them all off to Saudi Arabia then. Really.

536. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235915 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Fanusi,

I agree. It needs to stop. And I have to listen to it constantly because of my family. It's very tiring. I don't know what to say to it all. I usually shoot them astounded "what you just said is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard" snarls and then pull out my laptop to show them what they just said is complete garbage. Of course by that point they are on to something else. I get a lot of "Whatever Heather. You are just as evangelical as the christians you complain about"

Laurie,

Yes I think they have discovered Noah's Ark at least a dozen times already. BTW I just thought about your band and recording. How is that going?

537. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235910 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 11:00 pm

Laurie, Don

I was told that some historian/archeologist did a DNA test on a tomb that was supposed to be Jesus and found that his DNA was half human half unknown.

This apparently raised a big issue in the christian world for a while. Of course at the time when I heard this ridiculous piece of evidence I was astounded as to why this piece of information was never made public, but I can't recall what the excuse was.

538. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235907 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Speaking of Bill Maher, did anyone see him on Larry King Live?

And for other ridiculous religious meanderings, there was a "physicists" on TBN one morning (so goes the story from my mother) who was explaining something of the following:

Keep in mind I have to look it up to see exactly what he was talking about. (I wasn't really paying attention to what my mother was saying on the phone and she doesn't really know what she is talking about)

- Sound barriors/waves, the left over existence of what cosmology explains as the big bang, something about proof of how EVERYTHING in the universe is spoken into existence.

If anyone knows what that guy was talking about, I'd be interested to know, but I'm sure I need to go look it up to understand what she was trying to tell me.

edit

Mordy,

Yes sir.

539. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235904 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 10:29 pm

terrorists?

Speaking of, fanusi directed me the way of islamic learning and I have homework. Have to go to the bookstore tomorrow.

Soon I will be preaching the End Islam gospel.

edit

You didn't happen to see the dallas games last night did you? Heard the won...Playing against the Texans I would expect no less, I'd give up on them if they had lost.

AND looks like I really will be moving to your neck of the woods.

540. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235901 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 10:18 pm

kkelly,

Well I did.

8,

Yes, I don't want to get yelled at either..So um back on topic...

541. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235899 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 10:13 pm

Mordy,

Yeah, it makes more sense now that I went back a few pages. All of those posts were almost as funny as Laurie's stories.

J Mac raised interesting points about how ridiculous it was to argue over an imaginary weapon.

It's amazing how many posts that argument took up, goodness me.

542. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235891 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 10:03 pm

419. Comment #232149 by mordacious1 on August 17, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Good, twp is on vacation.

You know what I don't like about her...
(haughtily sniffs)

lol???

Whats that?

543. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235890 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 9:56 pm

cliquey? Odd word..

Oh well the cricket bat joke, you just had to be there. When I left it was Bonzai bitching. But he bitches about EVERYTHING I say. I could say "the sky is blue" and he'd bitch.

edit

geez coretemprising hates me..
This is interesting.

So how was everyone's week any way?

544. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235885 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 9:51 pm

just that some thought that we were taking it too far and had developed a clique

What are we in grade school? Are they serious? Oh well. We do have our inside jokes....

What thread was this on? I'm intrested.

I think Kkelly was making a joke about the pictures Al posted, from what I can tell. Didn't really pay that close attention. And I didn't look at the pictures so who knows? Maybe Al did it. Although I thought they were just pictures of his trip..

meh

edit

Laurie,

Already read all of them. It's a good thing I don't fancy [a lot of] make-up because it would have been streaming down my face, I laughed so hard.

545. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235880 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 9:42 pm

Laurie,

Oh well I see they couldn't say it to my face. :)

[sigh] So the ol' "Club Pearl" thing again? And just who were these people? I can understand- to a point. Usually our discussions are on threads that are already dead. Cry me a river.

Mordy,

Tough loss for the raiders huh?

Edit

Womens Basketball? psssh. dumb

I have to admit though, I did watch a bit of Olympics...The mens diving, I flipped to the channel and there was this guy with amazing legs..I was hooked.

546. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235873 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 9:25 pm

[yells] WHO ARE THE ON-TOPIC NAZIS????

:)
geez what does a sheila have to do to get an answer around here?

547. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235868 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Sorry Laurie,comment 384 is off topic, the topic nazis have been alerted and its off to the gulag for you.8-)

Topic nazis? Who??

kkelly, could you send me that link please? how the hell did they get headshots of me? Who was this? Any one?

548. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235864 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 9:16 pm

twp and Al both get back from vacation on the same day. Coincidence?

Not back...Took my laptop just in case..Couldn't resist grabbing it from my trunk. I'm an internet junkie, what can I say?

379, you might want to check out the "a flea we missed?" thread. Then again you might not...

Uh-oh. Why or why not? You have my attention..Do explain.

Laurie,

ullo mate!! I do, I do..The story is still in progress...DNC is all I have to say right now.

549. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235854 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 8:55 pm

Bravo NSSN.

Hmm I wonder what made this thread so popular today? 8 pages already, I suppose I missed some exchanging of words. Darn.

550. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #235852 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 8:51 pm

some with poundage and power exceeding that of an adult man

some?

Any way, I thought this was an old battle? Apes shouldn't be alloted "human" rights (eeek don't wag your finger at me kelly) but rights of their own.

What was that article that was posted here a while back about this same thing.....

hmm