Who occupied Palestine? The Zionists. Who has put up borders in Occupied Palestine? The Zionists. Who has corralled the Palestinians into the West Bank? The Zionists.Originally Posted by ScreeOrTalus
Whose opinion that Islam and Judaism are the problem and not greedy, power hungry men, borders on the insane? Yours do.
Well for starters it isn't a competition and secondly, you didn't term 'radical islam' (sic) as savages in your previous post. You said 'most of the anti-israeli arabs are'. Therefore you are now both a moron and a illiterate liar.
IMO, Geller et al are exploiting the problem of Islamism. They are trying to use the emerging realisation that Islam poses a threat to how we live in the west to gain sympathy for the Zionist cause. A kind of "Now you can see what we've had to put up with" kind of message.
Absolutely correct. In her use of the word 'savage' to denigrate Israel's enemies Geller proves that the cancer of bigotry and hatred are as much at home in her own psyche as they are in those she condemns.
Israel's cause has been plagued with her brand of extremism for decades. It's simply the alter-ego of radical Islam.
Last edited by Hewson; 26th September 2012 at 09:25 AM.
Oooopss!
Let's not pretend that the First Amendment will always guarantee freedom of speech in the United States of America:
The vile anti-Muslim video and the First Amendment: Does the U.S. overvalue free speech? - Slate Magazine
Freedom of speech is aspect fundamental to our democracy.It is just as important as the air we breathe It cannot be taken away because some people deem something offensive.
Yep. IMO Geller is a trolling whackjob, provocateur, and demagogue in search of fame and fortune from fools. For example, she's a notorious and persistent Birther. However, she has a right to be so and have the public be the judge of it.
"Sticks and stones will break my bone but words will never hurt me" - didn't we all learn that as kids? Pity Mohammad neglected to add it to the Koran.
The shrieking rage with which many muslims react to criticism of their religion is, I believe, fundamentally (if perhaps subconciously) linked to the "sheer feebleness" of the claims of Islam to be the "only" religion and the Koran to be the literal word of god. Even if you are to allow that a god exists, the claim that the Koran is his/her/its word is absurd and dismissible on the most cursory of investigations. As a result, Muslims have become comically sensitive to criticism, no doubt as a result of the fear that the entire edifice would come crashing down were the believers to look at, never mind question its claims to divinity.
Here's the unimprovable Hitch on the matter:
The written Arabic language has two features that make it difficult for an outsider to learn: it uses dots to distinguish consonants like “b” and “t”, and in its original form it had no sign or symbol for short vowels, which could be rendered by various dashes or comma-type marks. Vastly different readings even of Uthman’s version were enabled by these variations. Arabic script itself was not standardized until the later part of the ninth century, and in the meantime the undotted and oddly voweled Koran was generating wildly different explanations of itself, as it still does. This might not matter in the case of the Iliad, but remember that we are supposed to be talking about the unalterable (and final) word of god. There is obviously a connection between the sheer feebleness of this claim and the absolutely fanatical certainty with which it is advanced. To take one instance that can hardly be called negligible, the Arabic words written on the outside of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem are different from any versions that appears in the Koran.”
89Likes