[ExI] riots again

[Jeff Davis]

All the comments about Muslim intolerance and Muslim violence are a
load of crap.  And they are a load of crap because you -- John and
Mirco for the most part -- but the rest as well because of their easy
acquiescence to the erasure of context.

And that context is the massive, deliberate, systematic, and
unprovoked violence against Muslims by the West.  Invasion, theft,
murder, abetted by the usual dishonesty that assigns blame to the
victims: before the aggression, based on a phonied up casus belli,
after the aggression, by dishonestly characterizing retaliation as
terrorism arising out of a cultural or racial predisposition to
violence.

Who has friggin attacked whom?  Sure, Osama did the 911 thing, but he
had reasons, and he spelled them out: Islam under attack (a million
dead Iraqis from sanctions), murdered and dispossessed Palestinians
and the theft of Palestine by European Zionists and their Western
accomplices, Western support for Muslim dictators, and infidel
soldiers on sacred Muslim territory.  And there's quite a bit more
than that, but not cited by Osama.  These were Osama's casus belli,
and they weren't phonied up like the Gulf of Tonkin or Iraq's WMDs.

Then you write this:

"...the Geneva Conventions allow the right to strike enemies even if
they are near civilians or use civilians as shields or cover.  If a
anti-aircraft gun is placed over or near a school full of children,
there is no liability if the enemy shell the gun and hit the school
and kill the children. The liability is on the shoulders of the people
placing the anti-aircraft gun there."

This is sick, evil, dishonest, context-deleted hogwash.  The Geneva
Conventions forbid aggressive war, unequivocally declaring it to be
the ultimate crime.  Consequently, if an aggressor, without
provocation or justification, attacks some group, then EVERY SINGLE
DEATH on both sides, civilian and military alike, are criminal
homicides, the culpability for which belongs ***ENTIRELY*** to the
aggressor.

You need to stop blaming Islam for defending itself and fighting back
against Western criminality.  It's willfully dishonest, stupid, and
makes you a tribal accomplice to the criminality.

Stop Western aggression against Islam, and the violent response to
that aggression will stop.  Otherwise, it's perpetual war, and while
it may be emotionally satisfying to puff yourself up and declare
"Bring it on, terrorists will not be appeased", I suspect you won't be
pleased at how that plays out.

Go thee and sin no more,... or continue to screw yourself by
arrogating to yourself the white man's privilege to screw anyone
anywhere who has something whitey wants.

You guys piss me off.

Best, Jeff Davis

 "Men occasionally stumble over the truth,
 but most pick themselves up and hurry off
 as if nothing had happened."
             Winston Churchill







 Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it> wrote:
> Il 28/09/2012 15:29, Omar Rahman ha scritto:
>
>
>> Why should someone be embarrassed by someone else's actions?
>
>
>> Justin Beiber and I both come from Canada do I need to apologize for
>> his songs?
>
>
> Justin Beiber doesn't claim all Canadian love and support and sing his song.
> If he did, you should reassure any interested party that he is bullshitting
> around and you would see him drop dead before singing or listening his
> songs.
>
>
>> Presumption of innocence is a core value that most societies share.
>
>
> Do this is true for Islam?
>
>
>> Guilt by association is currently being used to
>> reclassify civilian casualties of drone strikes as militants unless
>> post facto they prove their innocence. Post facto they are all
>> usually post mortem so they rate of successful defense is rather
>> low.
>
>
> This is what newspapers and MSM write and tell.
> But the Geneva Conventions allow the right to strike enemies even if they
> are near civilians or use civilians as shields or cover.
> If a anti-aircraft gun is placed over or near a school full of children,
> there is no liability if the enemy shell the gun and hit the school and kill
> the children. The liability is on the shoulders of the people placing the
> anti-aircraft gun there.
>
> It is a battlefield, it is a war, not a police action. There is no trial,
> lawyers, etc. in war.
>
>
>> The fact is that we are not applying many of our core principles to
>> these people.
>
>
> The fact is that it is wrong to apply the wrong rules to the wrong case.
> On a battlefield the rules are different from the rules on a peaceful albeit
> crime filled neighborhood.
>
>
>> We are treating them as less than us. In this way we
>> are tearing apart our own social fabric as we have a clear dichotomy
>> between the rights we believe are inalienable and the rights we
>> ascribe to them.
>
>
> The tearing of the social fabric is happening from a long time.
> The simple fact the US (and other western countries) didn't formally
> declared war to al-Qaeda is a tear on the social fabric.
> Then we have a situation more like a civil war, where laws are done and
> undone, respected and disrespected at the whims of the government. And all
> is justified for "necessity".
>
>
>>> Being anti-Muslim does not make one a Nazi, I make no apologies in
>>> condemning Nazi ideology and Communist ideology and Islamic
>>> ideology.
>
>
>> John, do you mean anti-Muslim as against the person who holds the
>> belief, or against the belief itself. The difference is that people
>> have rights and belief systems don't. You confuse the two in your
>> sentence. And, once you become 'anti' to a group of people for a
>> behavior of some or possibly none of them have, it actually does
>> make you some type of fascist.
>
>
> I  must not and will not speak for others, but I want to point out to
> PUNISHMENT AND PROPORTIONALITY: THE ESTOPPEL APPROACH
> N. Stephan Kinsella
> http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf
>
> When you see these photos:
> http://frontpagemag.com/2012/fjordman/muslim-offenses-are-about-power-not-words/
> like many other online from reputable MSM.
>
> When they write and argue for "beheading who insult the prophet" they are
> arguing their right to behead anyone not sharing their opinions.
>
> Now, some could discount their words as empty rants, but some take their
> words at face value and think they are not words.
>
> My understanding of the estoppel is they can not argue against anyone
> beheading/killing them for their opinions.
>
> Any third party could argue about the opportunity to do so or the proper way
> to do so without causing further problems with unrelated groups/individuals.
>
> Hume, in his writings, talk about acting against people planning to
> enslaving or killing you when there is no recourse to higher authority
> (because there is no higher authority or the authority is not helping). He
> make a distinction between harsh words told during the heat of the moment
> and cold, deliberations to do so.
>
> Mirco
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat