Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

DearJohn wrote:

herve wrote:It is not just Dubai Kanelli, I spent 15 years in the ME and i read the quran, hence i am qualified to speak about moslems.

You aren't qualified to speak about your own turd. Two days ago you made an absolute fool of yourself and went undercover. Your post today is testament of your continuing stupidity. You speak on issues as if you are an expert and you don't have a clue. The only reason you should continue posting is to provide us with more comedy rather than insight. You are a total moron. Morons everywhere will now feel insulted to be compared to you.

Hi DearJohn, what's your opinion regarding Ron Paul's statements that al-Qaeda's existence is explained by US foreign policy?

In the OP, the trouble I expressed with Ron Paul's belief was that his formula for the creation of Islamic terrorist groups was not replicable for non-Muslim (Islamic) terror groups.

For instance, I noted there are/were no Buddhist theocratic terror groups that formed during and following the US's time spent in SE Asia, nor have there been any transnational Hindu fundamentalist movements following the occupation of Britain of Nepal and India - two Hindu majority nations.

It seems strange to me to think that Ron Paul's claims are correct if they are not replicable.

But what do you think? Since you support Ron Paul, what is your opinion? Would you at least agree that Ron Paul oversimplifies the reasons for the creation and perpetuation of Muslim fundamentalist terror groups?

Is it unreasonable to think that terrorist groups are more a reflection of the societies the terrorist members are drawn from than the adversaries terrorists/militants are fighting against?

One quick example I can think of is the ruthlessness of al-Qaeda in Iraq that is/was composed of both Ba'athists (strangely enough) and Saudi Wahhabis. This merger quickly wreaked havoc on the local Shi'ite population of Iraq - where Ba'athists built the bombs for the Saudi suicide bombers to blow up local Shi'ite markets and Mosques.

There is no dispute, for instance, that al-Qaeda cites the Koran and hadith not only as justification for their cause, but to recruit Muslims around the world and motivation/explanation for their actions. It's also true that al-Qaeda has ideological forebears, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and that the end goal of both al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are the same.

With that said, it seems al-Qaeda largely exists because of the teachings of Sunni Islam (there isn't a Shi'ite or Christian al-Qaeda) that are still the mainstream accepted views in the Sunni Muslim community.

To use an analogy, you build cars from metal, not mud. The starting components (metal) existed for al-Qaeda (the car) to be created in the Muslim world where this hasn't been possible to create replicate Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Shi'ite al-Qaedas because their starting materials/components are entirely different - mud, sand or rock.

herve wrote:The devil spends the night in the interior of your nose; so clean your nose after sleep…(Sahih Muslim, 2.0462, 0468)

Not only I was told, but I read it too.
For someone who claims not to be a moslem, you get pretty offended when the qurn vodoo is exposed.
Beside, you can insult me all day, you will never reach me.

I can insult you all day? Excellent.
Anyway I am glad you have returned - I have been waiting for you to post a follow up to your investigation. You promised Clouseau/BM that you would get results and asked her to be "alert and observe". She has been waiting patiently, so Herve give us an update?

-- Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:48 am --

event horizon wrote:

DearJohn wrote:

herve wrote:It is not just Dubai Kanelli, I spent 15 years in the ME and i read the quran, hence i am qualified to speak about moslems.

You aren't qualified to speak about your own turd. Two days ago you made an absolute fool of yourself and went undercover. Your post today is testament of your continuing stupidity. You speak on issues as if you are an expert and you don't have a clue. The only reason you should continue posting is to provide us with more comedy rather than insight. You are a total moron. Morons everywhere will now feel insulted to be compared to you.

Hi DearJohn, what's your opinion regarding Ron Paul's statements that al-Qaeda's existence is explained by US foreign policy?

In the OP, the trouble I expressed with Ron Paul's belief was that his formula for the creation of Islamic terrorist groups was not replicable for non-Muslim (Islamic) terror groups.

For instance, I noted there are/were no Buddhist theocratic terror groups that formed during and following the US's time spent in SE Asia, nor have there been any transnational Hindu fundamentalist movements following the occupation of Britain of Nepal and India - two Hindu majority nations.

It seems strange to me to think that Ron Paul's claims are correct if they are not replicable.

But what do you think? Since you support Ron Paul, what is your opinion? Would you at least agree that Ron Paul oversimplifies the reasons for the creation and perpetuation of Muslim fundamentalist terror groups?

Is it unreasonable to think that terrorist groups are more a reflection of the societies the terrorist members are drawn from than the adversaries terrorists/militants are fighting against?

One quick example I can think of is the ruthlessness of al-Qaeda in Iraq that is/was composed of both Ba'athists (strangely enough) and Saudi Wahhabis. This merger quickly wreaked havoc on the local Shi'ite population of Iraq - where Ba'athists built the bombs for the Saudi suicide bombers to blow up local Shi'ite markets and Mosques.

There is no dispute, for instance, that al-Qaeda cites the Koran and hadith not only as justification for their cause, but to recruit Muslims around the world and motivation/explanation for their actions. It's also true that al-Qaeda has ideological forebears, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and that the end goal of both al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are the same.

With that said, it seems al-Qaeda largely exists because of the teachings of Sunni Islam (there isn't a Shi'ite or Christian al-Qaeda) that are still the mainstream accepted views in the Sunni Muslim community.

To use an analogy, you build cars from metal, not mud. The starting components (metal) existed for al-Qaeda (the car) to be created in the Muslim world where this hasn't been possible to create replicate Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Shi'ite al-Qaedas because their starting materials/components are entirely different - mud, sand or rock.

In fairness I don't have a view on most of what you have written on al-Qaeda. Maybe you should ask Shaf - he will probably show you the light.

On Ron Paul generally however I think there is strong argument that terrorists don't attack the US just because they are jealous of their free speech, great country, etc (which most americans think) but rather because of US foreign policy and the turmoil/loss of life its caused in so many places for so long. So I like his idea that the US has to stop its meddling abroad.

I also like Ron Paul as I think the Fed Reserve is a joke. Unlike any other central bank its privately owned and is completely opaque. Ron Paul recently got support for a bill to get more transparency and I think you need that. I also like him as he is anti-establishment and the media hates him.

Give me time, it is not that easy to get your IP address
in the mean time, i will show that you write like al shafique, quote the same sources, and quote haretz like al shafique, and most importantly you are as biased as al shafique, and worst :defending islam while claiming you are not moslem.
However, i dont remember seeing al shafique insulting anybody on DF, like you do. which shows your lack of arguments. you resort to insults because you have nothing esle and you are nothing.

On Ron Paul generally however I think there is strong argument that terrorists don't attack the US just because they are jealous of their free speech

Hmmm, I thought the attacks against Denmark in the Muslim world was entirely over freedom of speech. But please correct me if I have any misconception that Muslims were suicide bombing Danish embassies for other reasons.

We also see the recent Muslim terrorist plots in Europe and the United States are over the publication of the Muhammad cartoons - at least, according to the terrorists themselves.

I'm also curious why you didn't put any thought into why there aren't 'Buddhist al-Qaedas', etc. Why hasn't a transnational Buddhist terrorist group emerged in the past 45 years? According to Ron Paul, there should be several.

Is it unfair to say you don't want to put much thought into something that could undermine your previous convictions? That's the feeling I get from people with your arguments, coupled with a little bit of projection considering your remark that 'that's what most Americans want to believe'.....

I'm disappointed in your response because I don't think you need to be an expert to question what politicians say. Perhaps the 'sheeple' are the Ron Paul supporters?

Just some food for thought, but do the classical religious rulings al-Qaeda cites as motivation for their actions pre-date the United States in your opinion?

I hope you give this some serious thought because that could perhaps change your mind that al-Qaeda only exists due to US foreign policy.

event horizon wrote:For instance, I noted there are/were no Buddhist theocratic terror groups that formed during and following the US's time spent in SE Asia, nor have there been any transnational Hindu fundamentalist movements following the occupation of Britain of Nepal and India - two Hindu majority nations.

Do you have knowledge of the internal and external politics of that time in those countries? If so, how does it compare to the the Israel/Palestine conflict and the US foreign policy in the Middle East? Please educate us on how the conditions were the same but yet people of other religions did not choose to form transnational terrorist organizations. Please do not leave out any important geo-political or historical details or you will be graded lower. Essay format, double spaced.

Herve's assignment is to do some push-ups and some target practice. No academics for him.

no academics? Have you read the quran Kanelli?

Good grief! Flew over his head.

event horizon wrote:Your attempt to make Breivik into something he's not - a Christian fundamentalist - is getting more desperate by the post.

I've never disputed Breivik is a Christian. I disagreed with your claim that he was a Christian fundamentalist.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere - you object to the word fundamentalist, because that describes what you are, presumably. I guess you are saying that Brievik DOESN'T believe in talking donkeys like you do.

So, given that Brievik says he is '100% Christian' and a 'Crusader' - and there's no dispute that he shares your extreme Islamophobia (and choice in Gurus), I guess we have our defininitive definition:

Brievik is a Christian, self-styled Crusader, Islamphobic extremist Terrorist, who shares eh's political views.

Anything in this definitive definition that is not true eh?

Now we've got that out the way - let's move on the the Kahanist Jewish Religious trans-national organisations, such as the Jewish Defence League. How are they different from your caricature of Al Qaeda?

kanelli - you're not trying to use logic with herve are you? Good grief woman, he preaches about Islam and refuses to condemn Jewish terrorists - and he admits to lying about people's posts. Now he's making a fool of himself with the DearJohn is Shafique conspiracy theory - it's eating him up, that's what is so funny.

Cheers,
Shafique

kanelli wrote:

event horizon wrote:For instance, I noted there are/were no Buddhist theocratic terror groups that formed during and following the US's time spent in SE Asia, nor have there been any transnational Hindu fundamentalist movements following the occupation of Britain of Nepal and India - two Hindu majority nations.

Do you have knowledge of the internal and external politics of that time in those countries? If so, how does it compare to the the Israel/Palestine conflict and the US foreign policy in the Middle East? Please educate us on how the conditions were the same but yet people of other religions did not choose to form transnational terrorist organizations. Please do not leave out any important geo-political or historical details or you will be graded lower. Essay format, double spaced.

Herve's assignment is to do some push-ups and some target practice. No academics for him.

Don't worry Kanelli, we don't have to talk about the non-existence of transnational Buddhist terrorist groups to discuss Ron Paul's Krazy beliefs.

There are plenty of religious groups within the Muslim world (not the Middle East since religious terrorism/extremism/militancy is a feature in all Muslim societies, not just the Arab ones - and even in Muslim communities in the West, such as Britain) that obviously have experienced the same 'internal and external politics' as the Sunni Muslim members of al-Qaeda yet have not created their own transnational Coptic/Assyrian/Bahai religious terrorist groups as their Muslim neighbors (I would also argue religious minorities are more oppressed than the Sunni majorities in the Muslim world, making one all the more wonder about the absence of these Coptic/Assyrian/Bahai al-Qaedas that should be in existence).

And while we're on the subject of politics, please explain to me why the Muslim-Christian conflict in Southern Sudan that resulted in the deaths of some two million Christians has not managed to inflame the 'Christian' world where apparently Muslims in Indonesia are suicide bombing churches in attacks stemming from religious extremism that seems largely disconnected from the events thousands of miles away in the Arab world.

Points will be deducted for incomprehensible and unconvincing arguments.

eh - waiting for your comment.

So, given that Brievik says he is '100% Christian' and a 'Crusader' - and there's no dispute that he shares your extreme Islamophobia (and choice in Gurus), I guess we have our defininitive definition:

Brievik is a Christian, self-styled Crusader, Islamphobic extremist Terrorist, who shares eh's political views.

Anything in this definitive definition that is not true eh?

Now we've got that out the way - let's move on the the Kahanist Jewish Religious trans-national organisations, such as the Jewish Defence League. How are they different from your caricature of Al Qaeda?

Cheers,
Shafique

Breivik is also a liberal, pluralist, humanist, anti-racist, supporter of Gay rights and indigenous cultures, anti-fascist/Nazi, opponent of misogyny and religious intolerance, and activist against tyrannical ideologies.

Yes we understand you want to avoid the fact he says he is 100% Christian and a crusader. We understand you wish to label him differently. But this is about him, not you.

It would have been easier for you to say 'there is nothing I can dispute in the definitive definition'

Now we've got that out the way - let's move on the the Kahanist Jewish Religious trans-national organisations, such as the Jewish Defence League. How are they different from your caricature of Al Qaeda?

Cheers,
Shafique

And Kanelli, while we're at it, please explain to me how the internal and external politics of Nigeria, Somalia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Great Britain, and Saudi Arabia (and so on) are so similar (but very, very different from Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, (Hindu) India and Nepal) that they are all hotbeds for Islamic extremism and al-Qaeda recruitment?

(Points will be deducted for incomprehensible and unconvincing arguments)

You asked where the trans-national terrorist groups were. Let's discuss this:


let's move on the the Kahanist Jewish Religious trans-national organisations, such as the Jewish Defence League. How are they different from your caricature of Al Qaeda?

I'm sure kanelli will also be interested in your reply. Kanelli?


We can then move on to Christian terrorists:
philosophy-dubai/christian-terrorists-t37925.html

One group that eh insists are Christian (I initially argued they were converts to a cult, but eh insisted they were Christian) is the Lord's Resistance Army. They are terrorists - as listed by the US gov - and have killed thousands and have up to 2 million victims of their terrorism. They also operate across borders in Africa - that would make them trans-national, but have thus far remained a regional Christian terrorist threat (like the Hutaree in the US and the Indian Christian terrorists).

We can examine in what way the LRA too is different from the caricature of Al Qaeda eh believes in.

(BTW - is it ok if we shorten the following:
Brievik is a Christian, self-styled Crusader, Islamphobic extremist Terrorist, who shares eh's political views.

.. to just Christian Crusader Terrorist? )

Cheers,
Shafique

So EH, you not answering and instead deflecting the questions to me. How unexpected!

It is laughable that you are essentially saying that Coptics and Bahais have been persecuted enough that they would have the same reasons as Muslims to form transnational terror organizations that strike international targets.

Let's get to the nitty gritty. I don't think you look deeply at all, you will simply demonize Muslims no matter what.

Seriously, it is absolutely pointless dealing with hate-mongers like EH, Herve and the rest of the anti-Muslim gang. They are best ignored because there is no hope of changing their viewpoints - they've firmly made up their minds.

event horizon wrote:Hmmm, I thought the attacks against Denmark in the Muslim world was entirely over freedom of speech. But please correct me if I have any misconception that Muslims were suicide bombing Danish embassies for other reasons.

We also see the recent Muslim terrorist plots in Europe and the United States are over the publication of the Muhammad cartoons - at least, according to the terrorists themselves.[/quote]

Do you feel this is representative of of all islamic extremism? Aren't they others where terroists have pointed to US foreign policy. For example the guy that tried to set off a car bomb in NY and directly related his actions due to drone attacks in Pakistan.

event horizon wrote:I'm also curious why you didn't put any thought into why there aren't 'Buddhist al-Qaedas', etc. Why hasn't a transnational Buddhist terrorist group emerged in the past 45 years? According to Ron Paul, there should be several.

Well I think you need to ask yourself whether US foreign policy has impacted buddhists and to what extent if any. Do you agree that unlike the rest of the world US policy has allowed Israel to continue its occupation of Palestine? What other country has stated that it would veto a decision that passes the SC? Those sorts of foregin policy actions do lead to hatred against the US.

event horizon wrote: Is it unfair to say you don't want to put much thought into something that could undermine your previous convictions?

Isn't it fair to say that you should put more thought into this fairly sketchy insinuation that it all about free speech?

event horizon wrote:I'm disappointed in your response because I don't think you need to be an expert to question what politicians say. Perhaps the 'sheeple' are the Ron Paul supporters?

I'm disappointed that you continually remark on things you clearly have limited knowledge on. In the political forum you often make posts and when someone challenges them you just ignore the question. I think thats why Sym feels that people don't take you seriously. I think Kanelli just made the same point as well.

It is not just the politics forum where he ignores questions - there are far more questions in the religion forum that he is currently avoiding.

(But just as an aside - the Bahais and Babis were very militant in Persia/Iran and are an offshoot of Shia Islam. The Bayan written by the Bab is very violent and militaristic, calling for all non-Babi books to be burnt and actively encouraging fighting against the state. Bab's followers were militants and Bab himself was caught, tried and executed for his insurgency. Bahais are an offshoot - Baha-ullah being a disciple of Bab, and a large part of the state opposition to them has been their involvement in sedition - some of it in concert with Russian and other foreign powers. But, let's not let facts get in the way of eh's argument, shall we).

Can we NOW discuss the reasons behind the Kahanist Jewish Religious terrorist groups - and how they are different from eh's caricature of Al Qaeda? (We can discuss the Christian terrorists such as the LRA and Hutaree at a later point..)

Cheers,
Shafique

It appears that the one thing that Shaf and Dear John share is a brain, making separation impossible.

I can't stand anti-Jew and anti-Muslim propaganda and hateful attitudes. I'm done trying to convince any one belonging to either camp because they'll just stick to their hateful views anyway.

^Wise move kanelli.

Now, let's see if we can get eh back on the topic (especially as it is his topic).

So eh,

let's move on the the Kahanist Jewish Religious trans-national organisations, such as the Jewish Defence League. How are they different from your caricature of Al Qaeda?

Cheers,
Shafique

herve wrote:Give me time, it is not that easy to get your IP address

OK how much time do you need?

herve wrote: in the mean time, i will show that you write like al shafique

Please I am intrigued give me some examples

herve wrote: quote the same sources, and quote haretz like al shafique,

Haretz? Is only one poster allowed to use this source?

herve wrote: you are as biased as al shafique, and worst :defending islam while claiming you are not moslem.

So only muslims can defend attacks on foreign countries and occupation of Palestine?
That makes someone biased? Do you have any idea how many civil libery groups & humanitarian agencies organisations are totally against the occupation? Are they all muslims.

herve wrote: However, i dont remember seeing al shafique insulting anybody on DF, like you do. which shows your lack of arguments. you resort to insults because you have nothing esle and you are nothing.

Shaf is a better person than me
Insulting you is like shooting fish in a barrel - its too easy.

-- Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:46 am --

Bora Bora wrote:It appears that the one thing that Shaf and Dear John share is a brain, making separation impossible.

Shame on your for bringing Siamese twins into it.
I suppose if there was a similar picture of you and BM, your head would be attached to her backside.

DearJohn wrote:Shame on your for bringing Siamese twins into it.
I suppose if there was a similar picture of you and BM, your head would be attached to her backside.

Me and BM?? Now, for someone so new to the forum, why would you think that BM and I are that close?? I haven't gotten into the mix that is going on, so where would you get the idea we are that close? Oh, wait, "old posts".

Well if you and Shaf were actually two separate individuals, a photo of someone with their head up another person's backside would be a clear picture of how you two would come across.

DearJohn wrote:I suppose if there was a similar picture of you and BM, your head would be attached to her backside.

Will you guys just start a new thread for Pete's sake. Strewth. (But that was funny.. and we're all on tenterhooks in anticipation of herve's investigation!!)

Some of us are trying to get eh's topic back on track.


Now, let's see if we can get eh back on the topic (especially as it is his topic).

So eh,

let's move on the the Kahanist Jewish Religious trans-national organisations, such as the Jewish Defence League. How are they different from your caricature of Al Qaeda?

Cheers,
Shafique

Hey if you want to be up BM's backside its a free world and you can do it but lets not claim you are "getting into the mix". You should come up for air now and then however.

DearJohn wrote:Hey if you want to be up BM's backside its a free world and you can do it but lets not claim you are "getting into the mix". You should come up for air now and then however.

And you have a problem with me because.................?

You need to try to keep your personalities in touch with what is going on - I have not gotten myself involved in all the ugliness that you and the others have raised throughout threads?? Interesting how someone "new" to the forum jumped in with both feet and claims to "know" about other people because he took so much time reading old posts. What would you call that: background checks???

Dog fights definitely lack the wit and humor that the cat fights have provided in the past. You guys have some serious work to do to level up those lame attacks. I'm assuming you are trying to put some humor in your attacks, but the fact is, you're not funny. "Pea"??? What's up with the fasination with Drew's "size"? Is that something men really take an interest in - another man's "size"? I'm sure little boys talk like that, but grown men????

I have nothing against you. What do you have against Siamese twins? I think your impartiality exists only in your mind.

As for knowing people, I have not claimed to. BM grabbed on to the fact that I thought she was Jewish as testament to me being Shaf. Herve's logic was similar but he is still in the process of investigating. Yours is that I "know" too much. Really?

As for the pea, there is nothing funny about it whatsoever - its part of Drew's name.

Oh yes and about the ugliness that I have caused. It was pretty ugly when I got here....or does your impartial side not feel that is the case?

Maybe BB hasn't noticed the join date under your name. May, June, July, Aug, Sept... that is plenty of time to see who is up to what with whom on this forum.

DearJohn wrote:I have nothing against you. What do you have against Siamese twins? I think your impartiality exists only in your mind.

As for knowing people, I have not claimed to. BM grabbed on to the fact that I thought she was Jewish as testament to me being Shaf. Herve's logic was similar but he is still in the process of investigating. Yours is that I "know" too much. Really?

As for the pea, there is nothing funny about it whatsoever - its part of Drew's name.

Oh yes and about the ugliness that I have caused. It was pretty ugly when I got here....or does your impartial side not feel that is the case?

Posting a photo of conjoined twins and making a light joke is far removed from your response, in which you insinuated that I have a "strong connection" to BM.

What's wrong with being impartial or staying neutral??? It's worked for me. Would you like to tell me why I should not remain neutral - or more to the point - stay out of that mess????

The ugliness has been going on for months, during which I have withheld making a comment, and I willl continue to do so. Where did I say you caused it? You got involved in it!!! It went to another level because of a comment made towards another members daughter, as you well know.

Kanelli - there are people who joined 2 years ago and don't know what's going on. You were AWOL for several months and admitted, upon your return that you were not aware of certain exchanges and had to go back to "confirm" what some people were claiming, which would require you to go through old posts. So, a join date doesn't mean very much. Besides which, he stated that he looked at old posts.

Ahem.. (probably a lost cause now)...

Now, let's see if we can get eh back on the topic (especially as it is his topic).

So eh,

let's move on the the Kahanist Jewish Religious trans-national organisations, such as the Jewish Defence League. How are they different from your caricature of Al Qaeda?

Cheers,
Shafique

I see you have taken my advice.