lord of flies

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100301/roy But... but the holocaust... the Jews were forced out of that land approximately 1.5 millenia ago.

"Intent" doesn't matter. If I "intended" to create a glorious socialist workers' paradise, but I actually created a brutal state capitalist system of social and political oppression, would that make it okay? There is a dead body. It was used for a purpose, in addition to or outright defying the natural purpose (to be eaten by worms). There is no difference.

Stuffing a dead body full of special chemicals to preserve it for a while until it explodes years later inside its coffin: okay. Burning a dead body until all that's left is a handful of ash: also okay. Cutting open a dead body and removing organs to help others: perfectly fine. Removing the skull from a body and using it to build a monument: not okay, somehow?

They were already dead. I mean, I personally might have some trouble removing a corpses' skull and putting in a wall, but that doesn't make it "wrong." Just gross. It's not like anybody was using those bodies for anything important.

Yeah, like two thousand years ago. They came in, invaded, and took the Palestinians land. "We used to live there, a long time ago" makes as much sense as a justification for Jews taking over Palestine as for Europeans taking over East Africa. Whereas, the Israeli invasion took place within living memory and they are currently engaging in a campaign of occupation and unlawful settlement against civilian natives.

So, some serbian islamophobe apparently browses a forum I go to, and he pointed out the "Skull Tower" as an example of the "evils" of Islam. But here's the thing: the people in the "Skull Tower" weren't civilians, they were armed rebels who were killed in open conflict. In fact, many of the people were killed in a friendly fire incident where Stevan Sinđelić blew up his own men in order to keep them from surrendering. I don't see what's so terrible about messing around with people's dead bodies, I guess. They made an example of rebellious people who were already dead. It's not like they killed civilians or unarmed prisoners, unlike a certain ethnic group which committed many war crimes during the Yugoslav Wars, and much more recently. Perhaps the Ottomans did something bad to the Serbs, I don't know, I'm not an expert on that sort of thing, but the Skull Tower was not it. e: Here's what I'm talking about.

I am perfectly content to direct forum readers to make their own minds up on this point with reference to any reputable historian of their choice. Okay, which part of my statement do you disagree with? You'd have to be pretty silly to disagree with any, since every one is true (unless, I guess, you think that Stalin purposely orchestrated the death of huge numbers of Soviet nationals in its breadbaskets for no reason before he'd even done the Great Purge).

I guess that you'll never know. My private life is private, I don't go waving it around the internet. I'm not going to appeal to my past or my works to support my arguments, because I'm not a child who hasn't learned what an "ad hominem" is yet. lol not even. If you don't understand things, why do you talk about them?

I want the option to play as Bukharin.

This woman (and, I imagine, most Muslim women in France) chooses to wear the hijab of her own free will. It takes only a moment's thought to reach that conclusion; if a male relative was forcing her to wear one, I highly doubt he'd allow her to join the New Anti-Capitalist Party and become a candidate for election.

Hahaha. Owned by Volourn. How often does that happen?! What a surprise, Too Elite For You openly approves of the objectification of women.

Yes, but it actually isn't a "violent blood crazed religion that treats women as property and wants to take over governments by making them into theocracies," at least, no more than Christianity, so this is irrelevant posturing on your part.

"Stopping Islam" is a childish mantra of people who don't understand how things like "social class," "political regressivism" and "religion" intersect. French Catholics whining about French Muslims is even more idiotic than atheists who attack literally every Christian. The woman is a member of a radical anti-capitalist party, she just happens to be a Muslim. Why is it so necessary to "stop" the second largest religion in the world?

You're why women wear the hijab. By the way, Ilham Moussaid, the woman in the article, wears a white hijab.

In just a few years, France has suddenly stopped being racist, despite not doing anything special. In 2002, seventeen percent of the population voted for an openly racist candidate. Than means that for every twenty people you pass on the street, three of them are unabashed racists.

Did you even look at my post? Israel is a brutal apartheid state which engages in regular terror attacks on civilian targets.

The land is rightly Palestinian, and Israel is a brutal, racist apartheid regime which engages in regular attempts at depopulation of Palestine. My opposition to Israel has nothing to do with the ethnicity of its population; if the situations were reversed, I'd be opposed to Palestine. Attempting to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is an obvious attempt to deflect any criticism of the indefensible Israeli state.

French politicians a bunch of whiny islamophobic babies.

It's called MAD. Perhaps you've heard of it? Contrary to popular belief, the leaders of Iran still have their brains screwed on straight. lol yeah, Israel never threatens everyone. Oh wait, they threaten lots of people, such as Iran, Syria, and Palestine. Israel's military doesn't exist for fun; it's a silent threat to all its neighbors. I want to wipe Israel off the map. Does that mean if you gave me a nuclear bomb, I'd blow up Jerusalem (or any other Israeli city)? No. There is a huge difference between wanting a country or state gone, and being willing to use nuclear force. For example, the United States wants the Democratic People's Republic of Korea gone, yet is unwilling to use nuclear force (of course, this is partly MAD, since the largest mass of artillery in the world is aimed at Seoul). Despite being the only nation which has shown a willingness to use nuclear weapons in offensive strikes, the United States has invaded countries across the world without ever using the Bomb, many of whom could not defend themselves from it.

Hint: this situation will never happen. Firstly, because Israel has the bomb. I don't really need to give other reasons because that one's plenty. Israel whinges about every third country in the middle east because they don't automatically submit to the Israelis. Does that mean Israel is going to nuke Palestine or Syria? A question for the ages. That's called diplomacy. It's very different from pledging material support to opposition groups. That's because you are an idiot. "I can see the Soviet Union giving a nuclear weapon to the CPUSA if they intended to use it on a government target." "I can see the United States giving a nuclear weapon to the mujahideen if they intended to use it on the People's Republic of Afghanistan." Aiding resistance groups in other countries is a cheap way of forcing your opponent to waste more resources than you; for every gun you hand Hezbollah, Israel needs to spend money to pay for warm bodies, firearms, transport, food, etc. On the other hand, a nuclear weapon is really, really expensive and an equivalent response to it can only be aimed at other states (e.g. yours).

This will never happen. It is a ludicrous fantasy, countries don't waste huge parts of their budgets developing nuclear weapons to try to do some terrorism. First of all, it's very, very likely to come back to bite them, and secondly, the size of nuclear weaponry means it's very, very difficult to smuggle them anywhere. Edit: Iran is not a serious threat to Israel, just look at a map to see why. Hint: they'd have to go through several other countries to get there, other countries which are US regional allies.

The Taliban is not Al-Qaeda. The Taliban is (was?) a somewhat functional, if extremist, government. Al-Qaeda is a tiny, and far more extremist, terrorist organization. It is not inconceivable to imagine that the Taliban could have been convinced to hand over Al-Qaeda leadership, though whether or not they would succeed is an entirely different question. Nonexistent, much like the situation you describe. Does Iran give money to the Republicans? To the Democrats? Just saying "we kind of like this candidate more" is a lot different than giving massive amounts of funds to political parties. Okay, why don't you offer up some intelligence agency's analysis of Iranian nuclear capabilities and attempts to produce their weapons? Until then, you're just as dumb as everyone who thought that Iraq actually had nuclear weapons (actually dumber, since the United States had some of its high-ranking military officials lie about that).

Uh, no, they didn't. There were some "revenge war crimes," but the Soviet Union never engaged in organized campaigns of genocide in occupied territories. Sorry.K

Uh, no, they didn't. There were some "revenge war crimes," but the Soviet Union never engaged in organized campaigns of genocide in occupied territories. Sorry.

Would he? Do you know that? Can you give me evidence that would prove that? Sounds totally different from the new regime. Hezbollah is a resistance movement, not a terrorist organization. Nations are not one person. Are all Palestinians alive today (even most) responsible for getting into a war with Israel? The answer is no. Also, Israel's attacks on Palestinians are wildly disproportionate.