Thread: School's Plan to Islamicize Christmas Upsets Parents

Originally Posted by Bluesman

ANYhoo, I do NOT wish to attack anybody, nor kill anybody but those that would violate my rights.

To paraphrase Sir Pease "I might travel all around the World looking for someone to violate my rights but not find one until I get home".

As for being against Islam, I'm not. I'm against an AGRESSIVE Islam, RADICAL Islam. I'm actually all for freeing Muslims from the sewers they've made for themselves that allow for thye radicalism to take root.

The radical, Pan Islamic ideology that you are rightfully suspicious of developed and propagated itself on the principles of anti Colonialism/Imperialism.

The Liberation afforded by Conquest might not particularly appeal to a people that are being plied with copious quantities of propaganda telling them they will be conquered by by a foreign, Infidel menace with Imperialist designs any day now.

So far, the U.S. and its allies have conquered and occuppied two Muslim countries and the problem with the very instability upon which Pan Islamism and actors such as al Qaeda thrive appears to be worse as a consequence.

A military solution to the Pan Islamic threat did not look particularly well thought out when it was suggested by people railing about Justice to cheering masses and it seems to be living up to the advanced billing of its critics.

This war appears to shaping up like many others: "much too important to leave to the Generals" as was once said in another dire crisis.

We need options for it would appear that security will not be forthcoming from the barrel of a gun.

When I ask for your help in the fight that you won't acknowledge exists, I mean stuff like the OP.

I understand the problem from a perspective that does not include a "Clash of Civilizations"

Hunington's thesis was flawed and I cannot endorse bad public policy and overseas military adventurism that could eventually cost millions their lives all in the name of a flawed thesis.

Not gonna do it.

IT IS VITAL for this culture to show some cultural confidence, to impart the values that are worth defending, or we all come out like YOU: unwilling to stir ourselves against mortal threat that says what they're about right to your face...and you flinch.

The mortality of our culture might be best defined by ourselves rather than letting the enemy define it viz his threat.

Forget it. We'll try to hold the walls long enough for you to reach your dotage, and forget all about what comes after you. You sit snug by the fire; we've got it.

For now.

The judgement of history is that Barbarians never remain beyond the gates.

Another solution needs to be articulated or we will fall just the same.

Think...think BIG.

So much of ruckus over the style of killing an animal for food!

Irrespective of the religious reasons for the above, the main characteristics of halal over (now what is the word for jhatka) one blow is that in halal, the animal dies slowly and its muscles are relaxed, hence the meat is soft an can be cooked quickly. While in the "one blow" method, the quick decapitation makes the animal tense its muscles, and the meat tends to be hard.

In the deserts were there was a paucity of fire wood, the arabs could not afford to waste any of it and had to cook their food quickly. The halal style ensued softer meat that was cooked faster.

The style of killing an animal was to reduce the emotional guilt of taking a life to feed oneself, nothing else. In the end we kill to eat.

Kosher is too complicated for me to understand, and they waste the best part - the hind legs and call it non-kosher.

Originally Posted by lemontree

So much of ruckus over the style of killing an animal for food!

Irrespective of the religious reasons for the above, the main characteristics of halal over (now what is the word for jhatka) one blow is that in halal, the animal dies slowly and its muscles are relaxed, hence the meat is soft an can be cooked quickly. While in the "one blow" method, the quick decapitation makes the animal tense its muscles, and the meat tends to be hard.

In the deserts were there was a paucity of fire wood, the arabs could not afford to waste any of it and had to cook their food quickly. The halal style ensued softer meat that was cooked faster.

The style of killing an animal was to reduce the emotional guilt of taking a life to feed oneself, nothing else. In the end we kill to eat.

Kosher is too complicated for me to understand, and they waste the best part - the hind legs and call it non-kosher.

I didn't know that. Also shows why there are vegetarians.