I'm surprised to hear you blame Ted Heath. Sure he was gay, but I'd never heard he was a Jew before. Nothing on his Wikipedia page indicates he was a Jew (not that that's definitive), so I'm inclined to take your assertion as evidence that you're capable of blaming a non-Jew for something. As I said, it's surprising. Or maybe there's some underground stormtrooper conspiracy theory that Ted Heath was a secret Jew.

Well, according to the poll, Muslims did it. I guess we cleared that up. Thanks everyone!

Since you said "in part," I'll agree. Hitler has a reputation as a dynamic speaker.

I've read English translations of parts of Hitler's speeches though, and a lot of what he said wouldn't be considered controversial even today.

Some of it was standard cheerleading of a comeback from economic problems. This is normal for politicians. "Things were bad before; now they're better. Long live Our Party!"

Some of it was bragging about the German welfare state (dating back to Bismarck). This isn't so different from how Europeans brag about their welfare states today, especially to contrast themselves with those "backward" Americans.

Some of it was complaining about liberals/capitalists. This isn't so different from things left-wing politicians still say.

Some of it was complaining about Marxists/communists. This isn't so different from things right-wing politicians still say.

Some of it was about the devious eternal Jew and conspiracies involving international financiers. This is the kind of thing you find, well, in this subforum of bitcointalk, as well as other parts of the internet where racism and conspiracy theories are able to be espoused.

Obviously I'm not saying this to support Hitler. I find the fact that his ideas are still popular to be more of an indictment of the species.

Wait. You really think a website named "stopthewall" is unbiased?


The Palestinians sided with Nazi Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini

Even today "moderate" Palestinian politicians can help themselves get more votes by using the nickname "Hitler."

Hamas is explicitly genocidal towards the Jews.

Look, I understand you side with them too. Lots of people in this part of bitcointalk are essentially Nazis who want to exterminate the Jews. It's natural that you'd want to fit in and be a Nazi too. Go ahead. Enjoy yourself.

And I hope you die in a fire like all Nazis should.

I'd consider 68 years a long time. Maybe you're older than me. Even so, both of our links acknowledge the issue is over a century old. Just going back a century, it would be hard to argue that WW1 and the Balfour Declaration weren't vital to the history. WW1 was how Britain gained control over Transjordan after the Turkish/Ottoman empire collapsed. The Balfour Declaration already made it clear that Britain intended part of that to be a Jewish homeland.

I've looked at ifamericansknew before, and it's clearly a propaganda site rather than a site trying to inform about the history.

You might want to consider that you've been brainwashed. Maybe you should start listening to see if the same people who give you your information also talk about how the world is secretly controlled by a cabal of International Jewish Bankers and/or Lizard People.

Islam means submission. Most people submit rather than oppose dangerous religious or political authorities. They have a very effective system for suppressing opposition.

Oh, you're right. I suppose there are many people on the forum who will be upset that they can't vote for Jews did it! What an oversight on my part.

Good. Now, let's switch to Islamic law. For the same reason, both (1) and (2) here cannot be both true:

(1) Islamic law supports freedom of expression.
(2) Islamic law does not support freedom of expression.

Do you believe (1) or (2) is true?

Well sure, on the one hand we know who the four suicide bombers were, we know about their background, and in two cases have videotaped evidence of them saying why they did it.

On the other hand, this seems completely out of the character of the peaceful religion of Islam, so there must be some other explanation than the obvious one. I know from the :Who did 9/11?" thread we have many experts on the topic of other-explanations-than-the-obvious-one. I am hoping we can be enlightened.

Let me try a simpler example. I'm Canadian. Suppose I told you two things:

(1) Canadian law supports freedom of expression.
(2) Canadian law does not support freedom of expression.

Would you agree that both of these things cannot be true? Either (1) is true, or (2) is true, but not both.

First of all, I (PBUM) fixed the "quote" tags so that it doesn't look like I (PBUM) wrote what you wrote (the last line). I (PBUM) think maybe there's a problem with your browser. You should look at using another one.

Second, I (PBUM) just want to point out that you simultaneously said: (1) In Islam insulting Muhammed is equal to killing. (2) Muhammed was the first person to describe and introduce the concept of freedom of expression.

This supports my assertion that Muslims are simply incapable of understanding the idea of freedom of expression. Unless you're saying Muhammed described freedom of expression in order to reject it, you're saying contradictory things. Is that what you meant? Muhammed described freedom of expression and then said it is forbidden? From context, it seems like you're saying Muhammed was in favor of freedom of expression. But to be fair, I'll make an explict variant (2') of your second statement:

(2') Islam supports freedom of expression.

(1) and (2') contradict each other.

Let me spell this contradiction out logically for you. I can spell out the steps in more detail if something isn't clear.

Here are three assertions I claim to be self-evident:

(A) Freedom of expression implies the right to say something without risking legal punishment.
(B) Insulting Muhammed is an example of saying something.
(C) Killing someone risks legal punishment.

If you think (A), (B) or (C) is false, let me know.

OK. Now, you asserted

(1) In Islam insulting Muhammed is equal to killing.

If one accepts (1) and (C), we conclude:

(D) Islam does not support the right to insult Muhammed without risk of legal punishment.

Here is my variant of your second statement:

(2') Islam supports freedom of expression.

By (2') and (A), we can conclude:

(E) Islam supports the right to say something without risking legal punishment.

By (E) and (B) we can conclude:

(F) Islam supports the right to insult Muhammed without risking legal punishment.

Now if we combine (D) and (F) we see that Islam both supports the mentioned right and does not support the mentioned right. This means Islam is contradictory.

Is there any step of this argument that isn't clear?

Today is the 10th anniversary of the attacks on London. Three men detonated bombs on the London Underground and one man detonated a bomb on a bus. 52 people were killed and hundreds were injured.  The four suicide bombers were:

    Mohammad Sidique Khan
    Shehzad Tanweer
    Germaine Lindsay
    Hasib Hussain

Two of them left videotaped statements explaining their actions. Here's part of what Mohammad Sidique Khan said in his video:


Here's part of what Shehzad Tanweer said in his video:


Given this evidence, of course, we have no idea who did it or why. Some people say it was committed by Muslims in the name of their religion, but since Islam is a religion of peace that preaches against violence, this accusation must be wrong. Sadly, after ten years, it appears we'll never know who committed this terrible attack or have any idea why.

Do you mean my interpretation of J. S. Mill's On Liberty? I didn't think my interpretation of it was hateful, but maybe that's my insanity deluding me from seeing it.

If Bryant Coleman's beliefs are the result of an Israeli propaganda campaign, then the Israelis must have a very bizarre propaganda strategy.

As I've mentioned many times before, the Arab-Israeli is complicated and with a long history.

http://palestinefacts.org/

It didn't start with "hamas rockets." The fact that the rockets are usually ineffective actually supports Israeli strategy. Many Israelis used to die in suicide bombings on a regular basis. Israeli policy in the past 20 years has made suicide bombings much more difficult to carry out. Hamas is open about the fact that they're genocidal.

I suspect you use the word "war" very differently than I do. There's a huge difference between someone killing a Muslim and someone mocking Muhammed.

I defend the right of people to say things I disagree with. I get the impression this is difficult for Muslims to understand. Of course, obviously, I might argue with people I disagree with, but I wouldn't kill them.

I don't mind if murderers get killed. You could say that the Muslims who murdered the Charlie Hebdo artists committed an "act of war" against something I believe in (freedom of expression). And I'm glad they were eventually killed. I watched the video of French police repeatedly shooting Amedy Coulibaly and enjoyed it. I wish all Nazi murderers like him were violently killed on camera. In a variety of ways, of course. Otherwise it would get boring.

Freedom of thought and freedom of expression are ideas that became very important in the West during the past centuries. If you'd like a good summation for how and why they are important, I recommend reading Chapter 2 of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. He even discusses the specific example of allowing people to speak out against religious doctrines. There are a lot of interesting passages. Here's one:


I'm not aware of any time or place in the history of Islam in which there was even the idea that people should be free to express unpopular ideas (e.g., atheism). I suspect the idea still sounds so foreign to Muslims that they simply can't understand it. They can't get past the idea that of course people who insult Muhammed should be put to death. Anything else sounds crazy.

Not that the West is perfect. I think the West is going through a scary period in which expressing certain "politically incorrect" ideas can get people punished by law. I'm thinking specifically of people who vocally oppose gay marriage. I don't care about gay marriage, but I care about people's right to freely express their ideas. (The term "gaystapo" used to sound funny to me; now it sounds accurate.) The rush to blame the youtube video "The Innocence of Muslims" after Benghazi in 2012 also makes it clear that people are not legally free in the West to speak out against Islam. In some parts of the West mentioning bad things about Muhammed is considered Islamophobia and is actually illegal.

This thread has largely been about denying that Jihadis committed the September 11 attacks. It's obvious to me (and many others) that Jihadis committed the September 11 attacks. But I don't think people who think differently should be silenced. They should be argued with. People should present evidence and other people should poke holes in their evidence. That's one way knowledge is obtained, precisely through this kind of debate.

To be honest, though, I think Muslims should fear freedom of expression. Most of their beliefs are ridiculous, and that becomes clear when people are free to talk openly about those beliefs. If there weren't this politically correct taboo against criticizing Islam, Islam would probably be seen as like Scientology. Except where Scientology was created by a science fiction writer, Islam was created by a 7th century illiterate.

Dick Trump is obviously trolling and has been since he joined the forum. Most of the other people on the thread are just posting to show off their signature ads.

Hillary's long time "aid" Huma Abedin was asked how Hillary's pussy tastes.

Her Answer?

Depends.

Come on. It's been pointed out over and over that there are passages advocating violence and murder. It's completely possible for the Qur'an to both say "A" and say "not A". If a text asserts both A and not A, it means the text is inconsistent (and hence false). This is basic logic. And, not to offend anyone, but only fucking idiots very uninformed naive people believe these old religious texts are a reliable source of truth. They all were written by humans and all contain inconsistencies.

Let's give an example.

(A) It is wrong to murder.

I could take your quotes to support (A). Here is a quote from the Qur'an which clearly advocates "not A", that it is not wrong to murder.

Qur'an 5:33. "The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter."

(There are a lot of violent passages in the Qur'an and Hadiths. I picked the first one I found that explicitly mentioned killing.)

Ah, now I'm familiar enough with apologists to know what you're thinking: killing those who are against "Allah and his messenger" and "do mischief in the land" isn't murder. That's justifiable killing -- a kind of death penalty.

And that's one big step towards justifying what Jihadis do around the world on a regular basis: killing innocent people because of various imagined transgressions against "Allah and his messenger."

That's how the Jihadis who did 9/11 justified their actions, and it's how the Muslims around the world who were happy about 9/11 justify them -- on those occasions when they admit Muslims are responsible instead of trying to blame the Jews.

PS: Learn how to use quote tags please. Otherwise, I'll start quoting you and changing the quotes into things that make it look like you don't like Muhammed. You wouldn't want to get your head cut off, right? Here's an example of how that might look:

Here's an article titled Was Muhammad Insane?

http://itsallaboutmuhammad.com/2015/03/was-muhammad-insane/

I thought it might be of interest to some of those following this thread.

Based on the last couple of posts, I'd conclude Islam is the religion of inability-to-use-quote-tags-properly.