RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Aylee -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 10:04:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Whats the penalty for a woman showing a little too much flesh, or for wearing perfume, or being out without a male relative in public in Iran or any of a dozen other Islamocentric places these days. Prison? Lashings? Stoning? 

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/iran-death-stoning-grotesque-and-unacceptable-penalty-20080115

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex_browse.details?p_lang=en&p_country=IRN&p_classification=01.04&p_origin=COUNTRY&p_sortby=SORTBY_COUNTRY

Hudud penalties are applied to persons committing crimes against the State, such as adultery, drinking alcohol, highway robbery, theft from a secured place, rebellion against the Islamic Authorities, and apostacy. Penalties include death by stoning or by sword, amputation, and flogging. Victims of crimes of essentially a private nature, such as murder, may exercise a right to retribution ("Qisas") or decide to accept blood-money ("Diyah").





Sanity -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 10:10:55 AM)


The penalty for two sisters accused of adultery in Iran - 99 lashes followed by stoning.

Convicted with no real evidence, no less.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPqNCr8KKdU







Aneirin -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 10:25:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin
I see the thought police have turned up am just wondering when the dog arrives, probably sniffing shit somewhere else.

How nice Anerin. That is probably a reference to me since you agree with Tweakabelle virtually all the time. The "thought police" is probably a reference to myself reminding him on occasion about how ugly his views regarding Jews are.

quote:


I just wonder if this thread is also going to degenerate into another Israeli /Palestine whos'e right and whos'e wrong sitiuation.

I actually said that this thread was not the right place for such discussion. I then responded to Tweakabelle who wrote a long post with numerous contentions which in turn took me some time to refute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin
But on the subject of religion, is it that Islam is the new communist, the new bogeyman under the bed to fear, is that why Islam is to be feared so much ?

Islam I believe was first formed as an offshoot of Christianity, which at the time was degenerating into the same old, same old religious club that even Jesus was against, the Christians had defied their son of god and created what he did not want, the priests and pharasees in the temple and all the shit that comes with it. Islam that off shoot demanded a cleaner way, devotion that Christianity had lost. It is interesting that many in Islam still live their way of god, where with Christianity, god only seems to appear when it is politically or comercially expedient. Maybe that is the truth of the battle, true believer against those that only think they believe.

This post explains a lot about you. You regard Muslims as "true believers". You are quite clearly an apologist for Islam for we see how much esteem you regard Islam, which you regard as being better than Christianity as a faith in itself.

You accused me of being Islamophobic, whilst blathering on in a mantra about how any accusation of anti-Semitism is illegitimate, and "accusing" Luckydawg of being a Jew. You lambasted Catholicism on the last Israeli thread, attacked Judiasm repeatedly and you said you hated all religion. You stated "I was a Roman Catholic until I parted company with organised religion, as I see it as the root of all evil, but until the organised religions can learn to reign in those that commit physical or verbal violence against others in their name," which is absurd - the only faith engaging in violence throughout the world today is Islam - the major conflict zones in the world today regard Islam interacting with other faiths.



Yes, I believe all organised religion is shit, not necessarily the believers, but the organisation of believers, as why do believers need to be organised, if they believe in something. Oh, I know, that age old human frailty, the need to be above someone else, hierachy, for organised religion has it's hierachy, clerics and such who hold places of high esteem. Why, are they closer to their deity, well, that depends on how lowly you believe you are, or how lowly you have been taught to believe you are, but when there is hierachy, that is when religious clubs can be organised into the perversion of belief, the misuse of scripture for political aims, the Imam said it was so, so it must be, the priest said it was so, he is closer to god, so it must be so etc etc etc.

Oh yes, perhaps the Mooslims are using their belief in the present troubles, no doubt whipped up by an Imam with a political bent, I wonder how many of those in religious authority are firing on all cylinders, I wonder how many harbour mental illnesses that in other parts of society one can get labelled mentaly ill, or just plain criminal, does no one ever question the religious leaders as to their sanity. No, they won't, as hearing the words of god is not the same as one who becomes to be labelled mentaly ill because they also admit to hearing voices. So it is either they could be considered mentally ill because they talk to god, or they are just downright liars who know full well saying god told them personally, they can motivate a bunch of eager believers into things they would otherwise not do.

But the Muslims are the only ones in this present time that are combining their belief with their political aims, hmm, I wonder has that been done before, are they the only ones doing it at this present time I wonder.Who else is clinging to ancient hearsay to justify their position and action. But yeah, the Muslims are combining politics with religion, but they ain't the only ones to do it, for I believe the Catholic church did a fair old bit in the middle ages.

But my distaste for organised religion sremmed from the Northern Ireland troubles, as from a very early age coming in from school and catching the news, it was always news of what was happening in Northern Ireland, such words as Catholic and protestant and Reverend Ian Paisley became burned into my memory, there was a religious war going on, and at that time, I was reasonably devout, but everything I knew about my belief was not what was happening in Northern Ireland, I was starting to have my doubts about my religion. I was also a student of history, history interested me greatly and there I came upon my church in the past, the atrocities and perversions committed by them and I learned early that religion was a power game, not a belief. But what made me finally decide to quit catholicism, was the words said to me by an Irish Catholic priest, drunk on my absent father's whiskey when I questioned him on aspects of belief.

My absolute distate for organised religion only came about in recent years, after spending a lifetime trying to belong, I finally found the need not to belong, I do not need other people's interpretations of what I believe, mine fit perfectly fine and I don't need an intermediary to speak to my deity for me, for I can do that myself, not that I bother it much for I prefer to work out my own pathway through life, for that, I understand, is my challenge and my goal, the future,not the past.

The sooner people worldwide  realise their life, their path is entirely up to them, then, maybe we might just crawl forward instead of relighting ancient fires with people that in reality are blameless for their ancestor's actions.




Lockit -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 10:29:43 AM)

I don't often come into politics, but the stoning of women is a subject that I feel strongly about. I found a movie called 'The Stoning of Soraya M.' and for five dollars at itunes, I got a movie and true story that made this so graphic, so inspiring in acting on what you have seen, that this will be something I show to every age appropriate woman I can.

Here is a bit I found on youtube about this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_HcQGYCDkY&feature=related

I recommend the movie to anyone that wants to see what is actually happening and how it can come about. Be warned... they don't hide a thing and it is a clear view of what a stoning is like and the social conditioning that brings it about.




Politesub53 -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 11:42:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

It was societally sanctioned. Nobody tried a jail break. Nobody tried to rush the guy with the flogger. Nobody called the police. It was accepted. The only reason that there was any outcry was because she died.

I think someone mentioned that the rapist's first victim had to marry him.

We call these things honor crimes. They call these things a way of life.


Woooosh, as the whole point goes straight over your head. Fatwas are illegal in Bangladesh. The incident took place in a remote area. The four clerics who sanctioned this are in police custody. The cousin she was alleged to have been having an affair with was also due to be flogged but went on the run. Your comment that it was accepted doesnt tally with comments made by her father. The police must have been called, hence the fact the clerics are in custody. 

Your comment that I remarked on was that all Muslim countries should be nuked. If you find that acceptable, then good for you, but it is absurd to suggest all Muslims act the same way. Just as it would be absurd to say all white men act like the guys who dragged a blackman behind a pickup, to his death, in the US a few years ago.




Sanity -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 11:49:26 AM)


The majority of Muslims are moderate, wonderful people but its not the moderates we have to be concerned with. In the battle between moderates and fanatics its an unfortunate fat that the fanatics have the upper hand, and it doesnt help that they have the teachings of the Quran backing them up.

Another term for moderate Muslim is apostate, which according to their holy teachings apostasy is a crime punishable by death, isnt it.




Politesub53 -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 12:01:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The types who flog said underage rape victims to death are the ones who are in power in Iran, were in power in Afghanistan, and are currently seeking power over the entire planet. Highly sexually repressed Muslim teenaged boys are taught that if they die trying to bring about a planet wide caliphate their reward will be mansions filled with sex slaves, which explains how they could so easily blow themselves up along with as many innocent women and children as possible.



Your talking nonsense again. Iran banned death by stoning back in 2002. It is still carried out in a few remote areas, but only a handful of cases in five years. Still a handful too many but not as exaggerated as you are claiming it to be.




Aylee -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 12:55:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Your talking nonsense again. Iran banned death by stoning back in 2002. It is still carried out in a few remote areas, but only a handful of cases in five years. Still a handful too many but not as exaggerated as you are claiming it to be.


Nope. In fact I have already posted a link to an Amnesty International article about it.




tweakabelle -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 1:11:31 PM)

quote:


Anaxagoras
Now you expect me to post up proof. Those posts are old and there are many. I'm not going to waste my entire day doing it but here are a few samples from an old thread I saved a link to with regard to another issue.


Yes Anaxagoras if you are going to accuse me "defending Hamas" you are going to be asked for proof of it.

quote:

Anaxagoras
However, t should be enough to prove (1) that you legitimised terrorists as resistance fighters and (2) that you really do demonise Israel.


No that's not good enough. You need to produce specific evidence showing that I "defend Hamas", not that I criticise a third party.

Of course you can't produce the evidence. So we have to suffer another turgid mass of verbiage, dissembling, innuendo and twisted logic. Almost anything but proof. Why? Becuase there's no proof.

quote:

Anaxagoras
Tweakabelle didn't express any explicit support for Hamas in this one post but she demonises Israel to such an extent that support for Hamas' position can be nothing but that.


Now you seem to be agreeing that there's no evidence that I "defend Hamas".

Yet still no retraction, no apology. Just more vile dissembling, desperate attempts to sew a case together through twisting the things I do say.

Anaxagoras you are a liar and hypocrite. Obviously you haven't a shred of integrity. Anyone with integrity would have withdrawn and apologised by now.




Politesub53 -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 1:19:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Nope. In fact I have already posted a link to an Amnesty International article about it.


Iran brought in a moratorium in 2002, suspending the practice. ( Incidentally stoning was uncommon in Iran until 1983 ) Thats even mentioned in your link. I did say in my post a few cases have been carried out since, but maybe I should have said suspended and not banned.  




Anaxagoras -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 1:50:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
Yep: Obama is taking the Palestinian side and picking on the poor oppressed Israelis something rotten.

Moonhead you are misrepresenting my views yet again. It looks increasingly as if it is impossible to have an honest exchange of views with you. I did not say that Obama had turned on Israel but that "Obama and Israel [were] becoming more distanced" - to quote my last post.

Obama and Israel are becoming more distanced because the Israelis are convinced that the current leader of the one western nation that always supported them uncritically whatever they did has turned on them.
I just thought I'd remind you that he's hardly taking the Palestinians' side either. Still, if you think it's impossible to have an honest exchange of views, I can only suggest that you stop talking to me.

Moonhead you misrepresented my views not only here but on the other thread, which is why I raised the issue of how you respond to my opinions. By saying "Yep: Obama is taking the Palestinian side and picking on the poor oppressed Israelis something rotten." in response to my view that they are becoming increasingly estranged is a distortion of my opinions.

The Israeli's are not only seeing it as thus. Commentators around the world see the same. Israel and the US have disagreed profoundly before as I am sure you well know but it fits the easy pro-Palestinian narrative, you evidently subscribe to, to say they are uncritical allies. However, Obama has clearly turned it up a notch especially by dissing them.

I don't particularly choose to communicate with you on these threads above anybody else but if I see an obviously incorrect point that I feel strongly about I will respond as I would with any other member. I think that's fair enough.




Moonhead -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 1:59:17 PM)

How is pointing out that you're not complaining about rather more overt act of diplomatic hostility towards Palestine than anything the Kenyan has done towards Israel a distortion?
I'm also curious as to how I'm adopting a pro-Palestinean narrative. It isn't like I'm (say) launching rocket attacks over the border or sending out suicide bombers. The obvious corrolary to that point is that you're unwilling to countenance any criticism of Israel whatsoever, which looking over a lot of your posting history to date, might not be an unreasonable assumption. In the light of that, your complaining about anybody else having a partisan agenda is a bit lacking in moral weight, as you appear to have an ideological axe of your own to grind.




Anaxagoras -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 2:09:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin
I see the thought police have turned up am just wondering when the dog arrives, probably sniffing shit somewhere else.

How nice Anerin. That is probably a reference to me since you agree with Tweakabelle virtually all the time. The "thought police" is probably a reference to myself reminding him on occasion about how ugly his views regarding Jews are.

quote:


I just wonder if this thread is also going to degenerate into another Israeli /Palestine whos'e right and whos'e wrong sitiuation.

I actually said that this thread was not the right place for such discussion. I then responded to Tweakabelle who wrote a long post with numerous contentions which in turn took me some time to refute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin
But on the subject of religion, is it that Islam is the new communist, the new bogeyman under the bed to fear, is that why Islam is to be feared so much ?

Islam I believe was first formed as an offshoot of Christianity, which at the time was degenerating into the same old, same old religious club that even Jesus was against, the Christians had defied their son of god and created what he did not want, the priests and pharasees in the temple and all the shit that comes with it. Islam that off shoot demanded a cleaner way, devotion that Christianity had lost. It is interesting that many in Islam still live their way of god, where with Christianity, god only seems to appear when it is politically or comercially expedient. Maybe that is the truth of the battle, true believer against those that only think they believe.

This post explains a lot about you. You regard Muslims as "true believers". You are quite clearly an apologist for Islam for we see how much esteem you regard Islam, which you regard as being better than Christianity as a faith in itself.

You accused me of being Islamophobic, whilst blathering on in a mantra about how any accusation of anti-Semitism is illegitimate, and "accusing" Luckydawg of being a Jew. You lambasted Catholicism on the last Israeli thread, attacked Judiasm repeatedly and you said you hated all religion. You stated "I was a Roman Catholic until I parted company with organised religion, as I see it as the root of all evil, but until the organised religions can learn to reign in those that commit physical or verbal violence against others in their name," which is absurd - the only faith engaging in violence throughout the world today is Islam - the major conflict zones in the world today regard Islam interacting with other faiths.



Yes, I believe all organised religion is shit, not necessarily the believers, but the organisation of believers, as why do believers need to be organised, if they believe in something.

You are contradicting yourself again as you evidently praise Islam

quote:


Oh yes, perhaps the Mooslims are using their belief in the present troubles, no doubt whipped up by an Imam with a political bent, I wonder how many of those in religious authority are firing on all cylinders, I wonder how many harbour mental illnesses that in other parts of society one can get labelled mentaly ill, or just plain criminal, does no one ever question the religious leaders as to their sanity. No, they won't, as hearing the words of god is not the same as one who becomes to be labelled mentaly ill because they also admit to hearing voices. So it is either they could be considered mentally ill because they talk to god, or they are just downright liars who know full well saying god told them personally, they can motivate a bunch of eager believers into things they would otherwise not do.

It isn't just voices, it is the teaching of a faith handed down by generations. Virtually all faiths have an US and THEM mentality, and even endorse hostility toward other faiths but it does seen as if a certain militarism is a feature of Islam more so than other faiths. Firstly there is the emphasis of obedience above all else and secondly the notion of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb which I have mentioned a few times. This is a primary concept in Islam and explains so much about it.

quote:


But the Muslims are the only ones in this present time that are combining their belief with their political aims, hmm, I wonder has that been done before, are they the only ones doing it at this present time I wonder.Who else is clinging to ancient hearsay to justify their position and action. But yeah, the Muslims are combining politics with religion, but they ain't the only ones to do it, for I believe the Catholic church did a fair old bit in the middle ages.

Yes religion and politics is often cobined. It has been done before with Catholics and Protestants. The point is Anerin that that was in the Middle Ages. A long time ago. Christianity continued to be politically significant until the early 20th Century but not to the extent that it was responsible for prompting wars although different countries of various backgrounds could engage in a bit of sectarianism but that was generally mixed with Nationalism which was the principal force.

quote:


But my distaste for organised religion sremmed from the Northern Ireland troubles, as from a very early age coming in from school and catching the news, it was always news of what was happening in Northern Ireland, such words as Catholic and protestant and Reverend Ian Paisley became burned into my memory, there was a religious war going on, and at that time, I was reasonably devout, but everything I knew about my belief was not what was happening in Northern Ireland, I was starting to have my doubts about my religion. I was also a student of history, history interested me greatly and there I came upon my church in the past, the atrocities and perversions committed by them and I learned early that religion was a power game, not a belief. But what made me finally decide to quit catholicism, was the words said to me by an Irish Catholic priest, drunk on my absent father's whiskey when I questioned him on aspects of belief.

Religion was a feature in Northern Ireland but by the time of "The Troubles" it was more as a convenient identification between two different peoples rather than competing ideologies they were espousing which was causing conflict. The IRA was a secular organisation with vaguely leftist values which were fashionable at the time. The church found it abhorrent and most priests distanced themselves from the group. The Vatigan condemned the violence and when the Pope came to Ireland in 1979 he did the same several times. If the Troubles was a reason for you leaving the church then I suggest you re-evaluate. Besides there are many Catholics today that reject many of the trappings of faith without rejecting it 100%.




Anaxagoras -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 2:22:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
How is pointing out that you're not complaining about rather more overt act of diplomatic hostility towards Palestine than anything the Kenyan has done towards Israel a distortion?

Just because the US rejected the UN resolution, which would have probably been illegal anyway since the UN cannot circumvent the League of Nations rulings according to Article 80, did not necessarily mean it was an act of diplomatic hostility toward the Palestinians. Yes Obama put pressure on them but that is a normal part of the process of diplomacy. Bush did the same with Sharon, pushing him quite hard for restraint during the start of the Second Intifada. What Obama did with Netanyahu showed a mark of genuine contempt. It was very significant and that is why people reacted to it.

quote:


I'm also curious as to how I'm adopting a pro-Palestinean narrative. It isn't like I'm (say) launching rocket attacks over the border or sending out suicide bombers. The obvious corrolary to that point is that you're unwilling to countenance any criticism of Israel whatsoever, which looking over a lot of your posting history to date, might not be an unreasonable assumption. In the light of that, your complaining about anybody else having a partisan agenda is a bit lacking in moral weight, as you appear to have an ideological axe of your own to grind.

I did not say you were an extreme pro-Palestinian. You do howeverregard the events in Gaza as a rampage when in fact less civilians than combatants died in that war even though combat was typically in densely populated areas. That is why I think you adopt a pro-Palestinian perspective. I do indeed consider criticism of Israel. They were wrong for example to use cluster bombs in Lebanon in 2006 because they were improperly used, and I acknowledged that a few times before.

Moonhead, I have said repeatedly that I am pro-Israeli. I have no problem with that at all. I got into arguments with Tweakabelle and Winged Mercury because they were saying they were balanced or even handed in their approach.




Moonhead -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 2:30:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
What Obama did with Netanyahu showed a mark of genuine contempt. It was very significant and that is why people reacted to it.

So were you complaining when the Kenyan treated Broon with genuine contempt? Or is this purely because it's an Israeli leader who you feel has been dissed?




Anaxagoras -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 2:43:21 PM)

Tweakabelle misunderstands deliberately what I was saying in the post below so I'll keep it simple and brief.
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:


Anaxagoras
Now you expect me to post up proof. Those posts are old and there are many. I'm not going to waste my entire day doing it but here are a few samples from an old thread I saved a link to with regard to another issue.


Yes Anaxagoras if you are going to accuse me "defending Hamas" you are going to be asked for proof of it.

Sorry I'm not willing to waste my day proving a point that I err... already proved, much as I like you.
quote:


quote:

Anaxagoras
However, t should be enough to prove (1) that you legitimised terrorists as resistance fighters and (2) that you really do demonise Israel.


No that's not good enough. You need to produce specific evidence showing that I "defend Hamas", not that I criticise a third party.

Of course you can't produce the evidence. So we have to suffer another turgid mass of verbiage, dissembling, innuendo and twisted logic. Almost anything but proof. Why? Becuase there's no proof.


Did you or did you not post this message up: Post 87 where you label Israel an intensely evil state while labelling Palestinian terrorist activity "rsistance".
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Further, the IDF ruthlessly suppresses any local opposition to this colonisation process. Thousands of Palestinians have been murdered by the IDF since the Occupation began in 1967. As these killings occur in defence of an illegal occupation, they too are arguably war crimes. Resistance by the local indigenous population to the occupation and theft of its land is met with accusations of 'terrorism' and dealt with through almost daily killings of Palestinians by the IDF and collective punishments (yet another war crime) ...Is it any wonder that virtually the entire world (bar the USA Australia and one or two others) regards Israel as a rogue terrorist State?

The principal topic of discussion was the Gaza war on this thread so it can be taken as relating to them but the post supports all Palestinian terror groups as well. In my response to your post on th same page I said: "I suppose by what you call “thousands of Palestinians” “resistance" to the “occupation” of land that was previously in a state of “occupation” before would be Hamas, Hizbullah and the PLO" to which you merely sent an insulting response rather than a denial.

Thus not only do you characterise Hamas (and perhaps the PLO) as "local opposition to this colonisation process", you also say Israel has no right to suppress them "As these killings occur in defence of an illegal occupation, they too are arguably war crimes". This is support for Palestinian terrorists who typically target Israeli civilians! You never concede any points no matter how reasonable so I don't expect you to acknowledge this point as being fair but I am posting this message up for other readers on here to judge.

quote:


quote:

Anaxagoras
Tweakabelle didn't express any explicit support for Hamas in this one post but she demonises Israel to such an extent that support for Hamas' position can be nothing but that.

Now you seem to be agreeing that there's no evidence that I "defend Hamas".

I said there was no explicit support for Hamas in the final post I quoted but there was in the post quoted above here which I also quoted there.

quote:


Yet still no retraction, no apology. Just more vile dissembling, desperate attempts to sew a case together through twisting the things I do say.

Anaxagoras you are a liar and hypocrite. Obviously you haven't a shred of integrity. Anyone with integrity would have withdrawn and apologised by now.

If I was to say I'm wrong to accuse you of supporting Hamas then I would be a person lacking "a shred of integrity". I'm sorry if I upset you but I think I provided enough evidence.




Anaxagoras -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 2:46:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
What Obama did with Netanyahu showed a mark of genuine contempt. It was very significant and that is why people reacted to it.

So were you complaining when the Kenyan treated Broon with genuine contempt? Or is this purely because it's an Israeli leader who you feel has been dissed?

To adapt the Smokey song: "Broon, who the fuck is Broon?" - maybe its Gordon Brown but I'm not aware of any great diss to him having taken place.




Moonhead -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 3:18:45 PM)

Region 1 DVD box set (in return, if memory serves, for a rather nice vintage conway stewart fountain pen).
To my mind, that's a bit more of an insult than blowing out a dinner date or keeping somebody waiting for a few hours.




tweakabelle -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 4:01:49 PM)

quote:

Anaxagoras
If I was to say I'm wrong to accuse you of supporting Hamas then I would be a person lacking "a shred of integrity". I'm sorry if I upset you but I think I provided enough evidence.
'


You made the claim that I "defended Hamas". Criticism of Israeli actions does not equal defending Hamas. If that is the case then you too are defending Hamas by criticising the use of cluster bombs in 2006 by the Israelis.

You cannot produce an iota of evidence to support your claim, no matter how much you distort the things I have said.

Anaxagoras, you remain a liar and a hypocrite - a person bereft of integrity.




Aneirin -> RE: What is the Muslim Brotherhood (2/20/2011 4:32:35 PM)

Fast Reply to no one in particular, but if it interests you ;

The second Coming

A very interesting and thought provoking two part British  tv serial, I saw back in the early new century.

All of it is on youtube, if you are interested




Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125