Serious Jammu and Kashmir: Muslims waging jihad “in the name of Islam” taking sex slaves from among non-Muslim women

[JohnTan]

I also disagree with Zionism.

I agree with Zionism. The hard truth is that the Jews need a safe place for their communities because in the modern world, there are enough moslems and rednecks who want to exterminate them. Israel has always been their ancestral homeland. And the Jews got it back not on a silver platter, but by fighting and defending their turf in 1948 against several moslem armies. Moslem claims to Palestine and Jerusalem were based entirely on victorious Arab moslem armies who captured Palestine by force. So why is it okay for moslems to conquerl other people's lands, but others can't take their lands back from moslem imperialists?

Most orthodox jews agree with Zionism. They only disagree with military conscription because they want to skive or focus on their religious studies. Some orthodox jews who disagree with Zionism are the Haredi Sect, a minor sect of the Orthodox Jews. The islamist here distorted the truth and made a minor sect representative of all orthodox jews simply because he agrees with their anti-zionism stand.

Most of the Haredi Sect, ironically, was wiped out by Hitler during the Holocaust.

While most Haredi Jews were opposed to the establishment of the State of Israel, and Haredi Jews mostly still do not celebrate its national Independence Day or other state-instituted holidays, there were many who threw their considerable weight in support of the nascent state.[120][121]

The vast majority of Hasidic and Litvak communities were destroyed during the Holocaust.[48][49]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_Judaism#Post-Holocaust

 

[syed putra]

You do realize that this Syed guy contradicted himself.

"Never attacked other caravans" is not the same as robbing them back because they first robbed me.

You yourself said before that historical accounts of muhammad are few and sketchy. So, it is easy to learn more about muhammad from past moslems' behavior. Moslems have shown that they love to mimic their "prophet", from memorizing the quran to growing long beards, wearing arabic clothes, and of course, by his actions.

Historical moslems have raided and robbed for profit and slaves. I recently shared about the moslem ghazis, aka holy robbers. They are promised paradise by mainstream imams for robbing and getting killed while robbing. Other well known moslem robbers were the saracen pirates, the Barbary pirates, Boko Haram, Haqqani, Taliban, and Mahmud of Ghazni, who raided and robbed Indian territory 8 to 10 times.

Of course followers of other religions had robbers too. But they never quite got the same amount of religious zeal while robbing unlike the moslems, simply because the moslems were mimicking their "prophet" when the early moslems were raiding caravans for food and for profit, or in retaliation to getting robbed.

Just look at it 5his way.
They were in a state of war. Between medina and mecca. They have to sabotage the logistics and supply chain.

 

[JohnTan]

if Uighurs and Tibetans are China's victims Kashmiris are India's victims

The uighurs are the moslems' victims. They were originally buddhists who were forcibly converted to islam centuries ago. The commies are just helping the uighurs revert back to their original faith or getting them to be responsible citizens who don't go around attacking people with knives and bombs in the name of their prophet.

Tibet was conquered by the Qing about 200 years ago. Why is that conquest considered illegitimate? Keling's borders today are based on Brit's conquests just as modern chinkland's borders are based on the Qing empire.

Kashmir problems today are the legacy of the mughals and the delhi sultanate messing around with the original religion of the kelings.

 

[JohnTan]

Just look at it 5his way.
They were in a state of war. Between medina and mecca. They have to sabotage the logistics and supply chain.

I did.

I just simply pointed out that there is a difference between "never robbed a caravan" as compared to robbing people back or having other good reasons for carrying out robbery.

 

[syed putra]

The uighurs are the moslems' victims. They were originally buddhists who were forcibly converted to islam centuries ago. The commies are just helping the uighurs revert back to their original faith or getting them to be responsible citizens who don't go around attacking people with knives and bombs in the name of their prophet.

The uighyrs live in a communist state where freedom of faith is guaranteed. They can, if they wish, convert to any other faith including Buddhism.

 

[nightsafari]

I agree with Zionism. The hard truth is that the Jews need a safe place for their communities because in the modern world, there are enough moslems and rednecks who want to exterminate them. Israel has always been their ancestral homeland. And the Jews got it back not on a silver platter, but by fighting and defending their turf in 1948 against several moslem armies. Moslem claims to Palestine and Jerusalem were based entirely on victorious Arab moslem armies who captured Palestine by force. So why is it okay for moslems to conquerl other people's lands, but others can't take their lands back from moslem imperialists?

don't agree with Muslims conquering other people's lands either. As an example, I don't agree with the Arab conquest of Persian and the forcible replacement of Zoroastrianism with Islam. You bundled 2 things together. the 1948 war and why the Jews should have that stretch of turf. Leaving aside the war for the moment, how in the world does "my book and my religion says it's mine therefore it is and all of you who have been living here as long as you can remember get out now" work for anyone? Might as well give the entire South China Sea to China right now.

Most orthodox jews agree with Zionism. They only disagree with military conscription because they want to skive or focus on their religious studies. Some orthodox jews who disagree with Zionism are the Haredi Sect, a minor sect of the Orthodox Jews. The islamist here distorted the truth and made a minor sect representative of all orthodox jews simply because he agrees with their anti-zionism stand.

Most of the Haredi Sect, ironically, was wiped out by Hitler during the Holocaust.

There are verifiably orthodox jews who don't. I never asked them which sect they belong to, but I have seen them demonstrating in NYC. What the islamists wish to say is not my department because I am not one. For what it's worth, I don't see much if any difference between a Zionist and an Islamist.

 

[nightsafari]

You do realize that this Syed guy contradicted himself.

"Never attacked other caravans" is not the same as robbing them back because they first robbed me.

You yourself said before that historical accounts of muhammad are few and sketchy. So, it is easy to learn more about muhammad from past moslems' behavior. Moslems have shown that they love to mimic their "prophet", from memorizing the quran to growing long beards, wearing arabic clothes, and of course, by his actions.

Historical moslems have raided and robbed for profit and slaves. I recently shared about the moslem ghazis, aka holy robbers. They are promised paradise by mainstream imams for robbing and getting killed while robbing. Other well known moslem robbers were the saracen pirates, the Barbary pirates, Boko Haram, Haqqani, Taliban, and Mahmud of Ghazni, who raided and robbed Indian territory 8 to 10 times.

Of course followers of other religions had robbers too. But they never quite got the same amount of religious zeal while robbing unlike the moslems, simply because the moslems were mimicking their "prophet" when the early moslems were raiding caravans for food and for profit, or in retaliation to getting robbed.

you bring up a good point about historical Muslim aggresive actions. It seems there is considerable evidence of a militant bias that Islam inspires. Now, instead of complaining about it? Why not figure the source of it and lay it out for the rest of us?

 

[JohnTan]

You bundled 2 things together. the 1948 war and why the Jews should have that stretch of turf. Leaving aside the war for the moment, how in the world does "my book and my religion says it's mine therefore it is and all of you who have been living here as long as you can remember get out now" work for anyone? Might as well give the entire South China Sea to China right now.

The Jews should have that land. Having said that, "should" doesn't mean the land will be given to them on a silver platter. Modern Israel's legitimacy was based on their repeated victories over the arab armies. If they had lost just once, modern Israel would be over.

South China Sea belongs to whoever has the military might to claim it and hold onto it. Whoever should have it needs to have the muscle to hang onto it. "Should" is not a legal entitlement. John has always been consistent stand in diplomacy, just like the PAP.

There are verifiably orthodox jews who don't. I never asked them which sect they belong to, but I have seen them demonstrating in NYC. What the islamists wish to say is not my department because I am not one. For what it's worth, I don't see much if any difference between a Zionist and an Islamist.

There are orthodox jews who support zionism, and there are those who don't. I merely pointed out that orthodox jews who do not support zionism do not represent all the orthodox jews nor Judaism. The islamists that I talk to all insist that the anti-zionist orthodox jews represent the correct Judaism view simply because they both share anti-zionism views.

The zionist just wants to form Israel and be left alone after that. The islamists wants to take over the entire world.

 

[nightsafari]

The Jews should have that land. Having said that, "should" doesn't mean the land will be given to them on a silver platter. Modern Israel's legitimacy was based on their repeated victories over the arab armies. If they had lost just once, modern Israel would be over.

South China Sea belongs to whoever has the military might to claim it and hold onto it. Whoever should have it needs to have the muscle to hang onto it. "Should" is not a legal entitlement.

Just me, but I'm not a fan of the above way of conquest in 2020 because the world would be an even more unpleasant place than it is if everyone subscribed to the above methodology. But it's just my opinion. Doesn't stop it from happening.

And you bring up legal entitlement. In the South China Sea, legal entitlement is generally against China being there. And now that you bring up how Israel was formed, it was largely the British giving up because of Zionist transgressive tendencies including violent and terrorist actions against the British. Doesn't help your case. Maybe you should have chosen entitlement by force because I see no legitimate legal entitlement in either case. Same thing happened with Pakistan except that they won Pakistan without violence. That happened after. So do you believe in randomly carving out territories in the name of religion or the use of force? Not a good idea. Really, if you support the creation of Israel by those means, you should support the creation of Pakistan as well.

There are orthodox jews who support zionism, and there are those who don't. I merely pointed out that orthodox jews who do not support zionism do not represent all the orthodox jews. The islamists that I talk to all insist that the anti-zionist orthodox jews represent the correct Judaism view simply because they both share anti-zionism views.

The zionist just wants to form Israel and be left alone after that. The islamists wants to take over the entire world.

No disagreement with you here, except in all fairness, I will point out that there are more than a few Muslims who don't wish to take over the world.

 

[ilovechinesegal]

 

[syed putra]

The Jews should have that land. Having said that, "should" doesn't mean the land will be given to them on a silver platter. Modern Israel's legitimacy was based on their repeated victories over the arab armies. If they had lost just once, modern Israel would be over.

When arabs first started their conquest outside of saudi peninsula, jews were their allies.

South China Sea belongs to whoever has the military might to claim it and hold onto it. Whoever should have it needs to have the muscle to hang onto it. "Should" is not a legal entitlement.

There is already a set of laws governing the seas under UNCLOS (The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea). China is a signatory. Building artificial islands and claiming it is illegal under the law.

 

[ilovechinesegal]

Tat is rubbish! China is the strongest and richest in asia alone! They have the ability to built military base in south china sea! Plus, all asia countries depend on china economy and money! Not mentioning, china is the world biggest economy in ppp calculation!

 

[syed putra]

china's economy is built on fake wealth.

 

[nightsafari]

china's economy is built on fake wealth.

not really. It's built on foreign cash and slave labour. It's real alright, but just not the way it should be.

 

[ilovechinesegal]

china's economy is built on fake wealth.

China is the biggest net exporter of goods in the world! Nobody can escape made in china products! U dumbass!

 

[syed putra]

China is the biggest net exporter of goods in the world! Nobody can escape made in china products! U dumbass!

The said the same thing about japan too several decades ago.

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

We don't really know what Mo did, but we do know he brokered a peace deal in medina between the various factions of jews and arabs. That deal survived and is the only evidence that mohamad exist as he was a witness to it.

muslims are savages babarians........hantus

 

[JohnTan]

And you bring up legal entitlement. In the South China Sea, legal entitlement is generally against China being there. And now that you bring up how Israel was formed, it was largely the British giving up because of Zionist transgressive tendencies including violent and terrorist actions against the British. Doesn't help your case. Maybe you should have chosen entitlement by force because I see no legitimate legal entitlement in either case.

During Ottoman rule in the late 19th century, Jerusalem and Israel, aka Palestine, had been sparsely populated. Jewish settlers started to move into Palestine after WW1, when it was under British Mandate. Large tracts of wasteland were bought back at high prices from moslem arab and turkish landowners. Subsequently, those lands were developed, attracting arab migrants from neighbouring Syria and Jordan, as well as Jews from Europe.

Definitely, there was violence against the Brits by agitators from the Stern gang and other radicals. Either way, the Brits were going to leave Palestine after WW2. The days of the British Empire was over. The land was split between the Jews and the Arabs, just like India was partitioned between the Hindus and the moslems. The hard truth was, the arabs wanted all of palestine while the Jews were agreeable to sharing the land. The arab moslems resulted to all out war because they were certain of their victory. They had the numbers and firepower on their side. They didn't expect to lose.

Israel had no entitlement of force. It won against the bad odds in 1948, and their odds improved from there. Nothing was offered to the Jews on a silver platter, not even from the Brits. Violence is an unpleasant but necessary solution because there are always assholes around wanting to invade. The moslems believe that their religion gives them the moral right to raid and invade non-moslems at will, proven consistently throughout history. Of course, every religion has their fair share of assholes. Even within the same society, we have assholes who start fights in public. So force of arms is necessary to send them packing.

I don't see jewish settlers razing arab villages, enslaving arab women and converting arab kids to judaism. Arab moslems would do all of that to the jewish and other non-moslem civilians if they ever won.

 

[nightsafari]

During Ottoman rule in the late 19th century, Jerusalem and Israel, aka Palestine, had been sparsely populated. Jewish settlers started to move into Palestine after WW1, when it was under British Mandate. Large tracts of wasteland were bought back at high prices from moslem arab and turkish landowners. Subsequently, those lands were developed, attracting arab migrants from neighbouring Syria and Jordan, as well as Jews from Europe.

Definitely, there was violence against the Brits by agitators from the Stern gang and other radicals. Either way, the Brits were going to leave Palestine after WW2. The days of the British Empire was over. The land was split between the Jews and the Arabs, just like India was partitioned between the Hindus and the moslems. The hard truth was, the arabs wanted all of palestine while the Jews were agreeable to sharing the land. The arab moslems resulted to all out war because they were certain of their victory. They had the numbers and firepower on their side. They didn't expect to lose.

Israel had no entitlement of force. It won against the bad odds in 1948, and their odds improved from there. Nothing was offered to the Jews on a silver platter, not even from the Brits. Violence is an unpleasant but necessary solution because there are always assholes around wanting to invade. The moslems believe that their religion gives them the moral right to raid and invade non-moslems at will, proven consistently throughout history. Of course, every religion has their fair share of assholes. Even within the same society, we have assholes who start fights in public. So force of arms is necessary to send them packing.

I don't see jewish settlers razing arab villages, enslaving arab women and converting arab kids to judaism. Arab moslems would do all of that to the jewish and other non-moslem civilians if they ever won.

as you may have run into, the situation is highly nuanced. Much like Singapore and HK, the Brits had a big part to play in making the place one worth living in and fighting over. Really it is an arid dustbowl that without aggressive agriculture is incapable of sustaining large populations. And truth be told, they fought well in 1948 and deserved their victory at that point and I don't agree with what the Arabs did then.

But are you aware from the start, that there was a kind of Nazism running around the minds of the Jews? Ashkenazis in particular seemed to have been deeply infected by Hitler. Like it or not, they effectively operated as prodigies of Hitler. Lebensraum was being enacted in terms of land grabs one way or another. Racial divides also sprung up. There is a small but noticeable strata of Ashkenazi upper class vs Sephardi lower class. And of course at the very bottom are the Arabs. Rightfully or wrongfully, Arabs were treated with contempt right from the beginning. Gaza has become a Palestinian WW2 ghetto. Except instead of the SS you have the IDF. The only thing missing is the german factory final solution. You only need to see how hawkish some of the Israeli PM's are to understand. Better still, go to Israel and let them tell you all about it. They have a supremacist ideology that validates their treatment of others, then you'll feel it as opposed to just knowing it. I know I was taken aback when I first heard it. If you will, it's a more intellectual approach than what the Muslims do.

So in answer to your final paragraph, they don't do as the Muslims do. They do as the Nazi's did. They don't believe in mingling with an inferior race. But in many ways, I sometimes feel that they deserve each other. In the very earliest of days, they could've made the place more integrated. I think prevailing wisdom at the time was to separate and divide to keep them from becoming a force capable of contention. Instead, the high handed and forceful approach they applied to the Palestinians because they "deserved" Israel from their worldview and they were only dealing with untermensch may have polarized the Muslims and turned them into willing martyrs.

I've also heard from other Israelis mostly Sephardis that in the very early days, the Arabs there were a bunch of non-aggressive layabouts. That the violence within that region in particular was sparked mostly because of ill treatment from high handed Jews. I feel they brought their European violence and aggression back to a relatively sleepy backwater. It's a case of creating your own worst enemy. Of course I am referring to those living within the borders. For Egypt and the other countries involved in 1948, I have nothing good to say about that.

Takes 2 hands to clap.

 

[Leongsam]

Why can't everyone let bygones be bygones, shake hands and start over on a clean slate?