Please enlighten me: Is the OP claiming that Churchill was a prophet?
OP, if you want you can find quite a few bigotted comments said to be from Churchill and quite a lot said to be coming from other politicians as well, and this from teh beginning of documented history upto this very day.
Were/are they all prophets for you and in addition: infallible? Which then in my opinion is gives them divinity or when speaking in Roman Christian terminology: making them equal with the Pope.
By the way: M.E parking lot? What does that suppose to mean?
Salaam. A
(Having more then one ME parking lot and hence a bit worried now.)
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
There are (very roughly) 1 billion Muslims in the world and 14 million Jews - a ratio of about 70 to 1. I’m sure there are more Muslim nuts than Jews for that reason alone.
While you can surely find more major Islamic terrorist groups than anybody else, blaming it on Islam is problematic for me. To use a related example, people often point to things like stonings for adultery and female genital mutilation as an example of how barbaric Islam is. But they’re actually local customs. The fact that they happen in a place where Islam is practiced doesn’t mean they’re Islamic customs.
Likewise, I think Christianity could be just as good a terrorist fuel as Islam. But the situation today is that a lot of areas that are now Muslim are breeding grounds for terrorists because of the course of history. They’re countries that have been exploited (sorry to use such a tired word) and many are ruled by despots. You’re more likely to get terrorism in conditions like that, I think.
Those who said that must be more dyslexic then I am. (I can’t bring this in the open but if anything shall ever be able to devour me it would be a Giant Slut.)
Well, when you have a leader who predicted the rise of two dangerous and brutal Ideologies, you kinda tend to think that this guy knows a threat when he sees one. Churchill might have not been the ‘all rounded nice guy’ who wasn’t politically correct, as most politicians weren’t around that time, but you can’t write off what he says just on that basis.
I’m not sure if this is what Alde is driving at, but prophecy has a specific definition, and Churchill’s quote doesn’t meet it. He doesn’t predict anything. You might call it a warning, or you might call it a commentary, or you might call it a racist rant by a man who was valiant throughout World War II, but also had an alcohol problem (and nobody’s perfect). Whatever floats your boat.
Anyway, Alde, when most people use the term prophecy there aren’t saying those things, it just means a prediction.
It’s a euphemism for nuking, meaning “hit with nuclear weapons until it is as flat as a parking lot.” Cute, eh?
I’m not quite sure why Ryan_Liam said ‘next,’ because no place has ever been destroyed in that manner: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which incidentally was bombed 59 years ago today, are still standing. Nuclear carpet-bombing is one thing we haven’t seen yet.
Kind of like Major General Smedley Butler, USMC?
WAR is a racket. It always has been
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in “International Conciliation,” the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:
“And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace… War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it.”
Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter’s dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.
Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.
Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn’t they? It pays high dividends.
But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?
What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?
He made quite a few other bigotted racist comments and especially about Arabs/Muslims. Which means nothing else then that he was an outstanding example of someone who is a product of his time.
I was there slightly sarcastic. (Maybe there should be a “smilie” for that ).
Aha… Thank you.
Yes, I’m flattered.
It explains the OP’s mindset completely and to me especially it explains also his adoration for Churchill and the propaganda he makes for his “prophetic” insight in the mindset of The Muslim and The Islam.
So brought it to Reality World: Whenever the OP makes it to the White House it is time to buy a nuke-proof umbrella. (Now that I think of it: This can be a whole new market to explore.Thank you OP for the great idea.)
About the nuke-carpet-bombing: DU comes rather close to it, be it that the genocidal results are spread over a few years upto a few generations.
Yes, but how many Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.?
Mmmmmm. I might agree that it is Islam combined with cultural and societal settings that have not progressed, potentially because of the retardation Islam causes on such settings. Again, much in the same way that it took Europeans a decent chunk of time to claw their way above the constant calls for crusades (jihads in another name, I think) to wipe out all traces of the nonbelievers (infidels or apostates, I suppose) from the holy lands and other areas.
Again, I see a lot of similarities between Islam’s current state and the state of Christianity hundreds of years ago. Difference being that when Christians went nuts hundreds of years ago, they had swords and catapults, not high grade explosives and nuclear weapons.
I truly do wonder whether, if the technological advantage were reversed, if countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia had weapons superiority over the rest of the world like the U.S. and Europe currently has over them, the middle eastern countries would attack other nation states to forcibly spread Islam.
I don’t know about the exploitation part; clearly they have been exploited, but that is not the only answer. Rather, much like the dark ages of Christianity, I think part of the problem is that there is such a monopolization of information that the average middle eastern really does not know what is going on in the world or how other people think outside of the ranting of religious leaders. The indoctrination is particularly severe on children, and by the the time they grow up and have the chance to have other experiences, it is too late for many.
This is - what a surprize - developping in one of these amusing threads where Absolut Ignorance about Islam and Islamic nations and whatever related is sold a The Absolute Truth.
In addition we see the Great Myth about Islam Spread By the Sword Slaughtering Everyone etc…
(I always feel as if I read some rewritten early “Orientalists” when I see such threads).
Slyfrog, maybe as a starter you could do some reading about for example the House of Saud and its un-Islamic (monarchy is not Islamic) regime and its un- Islamic Wahhabism.
You can then discover by whom exactly this regime was helped to gain influence, and by whom it is supported upto this very day. Which is in fact the very reason why they can poison teh whole world with their luntical sectarial beliefs (and Islam not in the least.)
Salaam. A
Backwards M.Eastern, not allowed to study anything because Muslim.
This is - what a surprize - developping in one of these amusing threads where Absolut Ignorance about Islam and Islamic nations and whatever related is sold as The Absolute Truth.
In addition we see the Great Myth about Islam Spread By the Sword Slaughtering Everyone etc…
(I always feel as if I read some rewritten early “Orientalists” when I see such threads).
Slyfrog, maybe as a starter you could do some reading about for example the House of Saud and its un-Islamic (monarchy is not Islamic) regime and its un- Islamic Wahhabism.
You can then discover by whom exactly this regime was helped to gain influence, and by whom it is supported upto this very day. Which is in fact the very reason why they can poison teh whole world with their luntical sectarial beliefs (and Islam not in the least.)
Salaam. A
Backwards M.Eastern, not allowed to study anything because Muslim.
Well, admitting you don’t know is the first step. You’re theory is nonsense. If Christianity is 600 years ahead of Islam or whatever, then how do you explain the IRA or the KKK? Why stop there? You seem to be categorizing political conflicts as religious ones solely because of the religions of the participants. I can do that to: Basque separatists, Weather Underground, Black Panthers, FARC, the list just goes on and on.
And this idea about a monopolization of information is only true in some countries (maybe rural Pakistan, etc). Most people in the ME have access to the BBC and Al-Jazeera. How exactly is their information monopolized?
Yeah I do admire Churchill, and since he was the inspiration that helped my country win the second world war. Well for the other thing you said, why not reassure me then?
The White House eh? Think more Downing Street. And again jeez, the parking lot was a generalised joke, you don’t have to analyse everything I say to try and take seriously are you? Or do I have to have on my OP ‘Warning do not take literally, Warning do not take literally’
Anyway, the way everything is going on in the Middle East, I think everyone’s going to remember how ‘it was the catalyst which started the biggest conflict in world history’
Can you give me that reassurance Alderbaran? That this cannot end in more bloodshed for everyone?
Name one of those organisations which has actively destroyed 3000 people in one single stroke. I’m not condoning them but think about comparing them to Middle Eastern terrorists there is a lot of difference
And perhaps as a starter you can stop using convenient stereotypical arguments about how anyone who posts something about Islam you disagree with just doesn’t understand Islam, because they are stupid hicks who have not studied what they are discussing. Follow that up with stopping the “See, I’m a good Muslim, I don’t kill people, I can use technology and wear blue jeans, therefore there is no problem with Islam” line of argumentation.
Your stock response may work against the PC rubes who buy into the pat response of “Everything you’ve studied and know is just a stereotype, it’s just a stereotype.” I find it insulting.
SlyFrog
Has taken several university courses with Rashid Khalidi among others, read Orientalism and other works, and doesn’t appreciate the stock “you are a dumb American hick who has not studied Islam or the origins of the modern Middle East” response
I think when it comes to lack of acces to information coming from outside your nation because you only speak one language, you can take the US also as a good example.
How many % of the whole US population has access to non English languaged media (= how many % of the US population can read or understand it)?
How many % of the US population reads or listens or watches even any other Enlgish languaged media? How many have access/wants acces to other news then local news? This especially when it comes to the written media?
How many % reads publications of all kinds published in other languages then English?
Don’t you think this limits the information a person can gather or do you think that everything that is ever said or written on this globe comes to you in a nice English translation?
In my opinion a lot more % of Muslims on this globe are bilingual upto multilingual then there are US citizens who are.
So when it comes to this: Who risks more to be indoctrinated/half informed/misinformed because of having only one single source of information abvailable, namely the one-languaged English Western source ?
Salaam. A
The big differences being competence and the changing nature of terrorism. Terrorist organizations who’ve killed fewer people did so mostly because they couldn’t have pulled off something so huge, and secondarily because they didn’t feel they needed to.
I had a long reply get eaten, so I’ll suggest this as a point to remember: correlation doesn’t prove causation. The fact that there are crazy Islamic terrorists out there doesn’t mean Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity is.
Full quote