Print Page | Close Window

20 Theses (duct-taped to the IC wall)

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Politics
Forum Name: World Politics
Forum Discription: World Politics
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3292
Printed Date: 02 September 2014 at 10:15am


Topic: 20 Theses (duct-taped to the IC wall)
Posted By: Servetus
Subject: 20 Theses (duct-taped to the IC wall)
Date Posted: 18 December 2005 at 1:11pm

#1

A permanent Islamic member (state or commonwealth) should be included on the UN Security Council and said member should be granted full veto power.

Servetus




Replies:
Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 19 December 2005 at 9:24am

#2

Now that America has gone Fascist, I am hoping to emigrate ... to New Hampshire.

Servetus



Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 19 December 2005 at 4:19pm

#3

He (or she) who is willing to contribute the most to the corruption of Athenian (American) youth should not be forced to drink hemlock.  Rather, he should enjoy celebrity status and be hired to host a nationally-syndicated radio or television program.

Servetus



Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 20 December 2005 at 8:41am

..



Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 20 December 2005 at 10:06am
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

99 Theses (nailed to IC wall)

slight irony in having to re nail it to the right wall


-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 20 December 2005 at 4:21pm

Finally, someone responded and gave me some attention.  But I thought my nailing my 10 Theses (and very important propositions, observations and aphorisms) to the IC wall was a "Current Event" -at any rate, it is an event and I am doing it currently.  But no matter, my revolutionary act must continue (with a note of thanks to the funny and ironic moderator, Mr. Rami, for ensuring that I am in the proper forum for such things).

#4

Thus far in my inquiry, that which I find most annoying about Islam is its persistent and stubborn refusal to submit to my nafs!

Servetus 



Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 20 December 2005 at 4:32pm
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

just some advice, can you clarify in plain english what you are doing for those among us who do not have a high mastery of the english language as your self, espetialy when you mention islam as what you said above can easily be misunderstood.

in a less general sence than your initial post.




-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 20 December 2005 at 4:59pm

Originally posted by rami

Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

just some advice, can you clarify in plain english what you are doing for those among us who do not have a high mastery of the english language as your self, espetialy when you mention islam as hat you said above can easily be misunderstood.

Happily and thank you for the advice (but please allow me to say that I don't have a high mastery of the English language).

Thus far in my inquiry, that which I find most annoying about Islam is its persistent and stubborn refusal to submit to my nafs!

The point of the above statement, otherwise stated, is this:  As I understand, Islam insists upon the nafs, or perhaps "ego," being brought into full submission.  The nafs, at least my nafs (as a non-Muslim), prefers instead to dominate and have its own way.  My nafs is therefore frustrated by Islam's stubborn refusal to submit to it.  It is an inoffensive statement, I should think, and says more about me than it does about Islam.  In a similar vein, I once read (I think it was) Abdal Hakim-Murad saying something to the effect that, in the era of the anti-Christ, the nafs would be annointed King.  Again, thank you for asking.

Servetus  



Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 20 December 2005 at 5:13pm
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

thanks,

anti christ = anti spirituality = materialsm and all that satisfies the nafs such as lusts desires etc.

one reason why secular society is seen as a great evil, it places no limits on and actively promotes lusts.


-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 20 December 2005 at 5:22pm

Capisce.  I finished reading Muhammad Asad's The Road to Mecca and find his ideas concerning Dajjal rather insightful, if arguable.  

Serv  



Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 20 December 2005 at 7:37pm
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

care to sumerise his views, i am not familiar with them.


-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 21 December 2005 at 1:11pm

Originally posted by rami

care to sumerise [Muhammad Asad's] views, i am not familiar with them.

Very briefly, and operating here from an at times faulty memory, the noteworthy idea is Muhammad Asad's (otherwise known as Leopold Weiss's) recognition of the metaphorical aspect of Dajjal's one, or single eye.  In the book, he tells his Sheikh, and his Sheikh approves the observation, that the single eye of Dajjal might be understood as the West's fully open eye of Materialism and material accomplishment, yet increasingly closed -or perhaps, more accurately, atrophied- Spiritual eye.  Asad was writing in the earlier part of the last century.

Near the same time, and again only as I recall, this same observation was made by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, the founder of the Ahmadiyya sect.  If I have the correct person here, it was, in fact, in part because he was said to be able to both recognize and identify Dajjal (the term relates, in this case, not only to Western secularism but also to British Imperialism, wherein it becomes entangled in complicated conspiracy) that his followers acknowledged him as the promised Mahdi, of sorts, and hence the sect's name, I presume.  Again, though, that is in a nut-shell, and, these days, the idea that the one eye of Dajjal is the open Materialistic eye of the West seems quite current in Islam as a sort of accomplished fact, as, for example, even Abdal Hakim-Murad reiterates the theme in one of his articles.

Thank you for asking and I hope that I was clear.

Servetus       



Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 21 December 2005 at 4:57pm

#5

The definition of 'anti-Semite,' at least the American-English version, should be broad enough to cover anyone who disagrees with Norman Podhoretz, including his wife.

Servetus  



Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 21 December 2005 at 10:56pm

Originally posted by rami


anti christ = anti spirituality = materialsm and all that satisfies the nafs such as lusts desires etc.

I disagree



-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~


Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 21 December 2005 at 10:58pm

Hello Servetus

come by the pond more often and say hi



-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 22 December 2005 at 10:36am

(Thanks, Angel.)

#6

Halliburton: the White Man's Burton.

Servetus



Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 22 December 2005 at 10:45am

#7

The good lawyer writes laws and agreements; the better lawyer devises ways to legally circumvent them; the best lawyer does both and takes his or her seat in the US Congress.

Servetus



Posted By: Muslim Friend
Date Posted: 22 December 2005 at 2:32pm
Hahahaha

-------------
O Allah! Bless Muhammad and let his be the place close to you on the day of Resurrection.


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 23 December 2005 at 10:55am
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

As i understand many scholars do not think the one eye of the dajjal is a literal description of him but an indication of him being spiritualy blind thus he only promotes materialism. Which is different from Muhammad asad's view as well as his teacher rashid rida (a freemason, something most scholars are aware of) who is by no means a sheikh or scholar. They did not consider the Dajjal to be a person while on the otherhand what i mentioned earlier is not in contradiction to the neumorous ahadith which state that he is.

If you take not the most famous ahadith about the dajjal ( which is an account of a man who met him, although we do not know if the account was a dream or an actual event but which our prophit confirmed the account to be true) which has a detailed description of his apearance mentions nothing about his being physicly blind in one eye while the ahadith which do are from the sayings of rasul allah himself about which many have said they should not taken literaly.

Are you familair with the works of Shaikh Imran Hussein he explains this spiritual aspect of the ahadith very well.


-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 27 December 2005 at 8:37am

Rami (you are quoted below in blue):

"As i understand many scholars do not think the one eye of the dajjal is a literal description of him but an indication of him being spiritualy blind thus he only promotes materialism."

Thank you.

"Which is different from Muhammad asad's view as well as his teacher rashid rida (a freemason, something most scholars are aware of) who is by no means a sheikh or scholar."

The plot thickens.  I don’t remember the man's name, rank and serial number [insert smile].  I only recall that the learned convert to Islam, translator of the Quran, and apparent master of early Arabic, Leopold Weiss-cum-Muhammad Asad considered him worthy of the title (if we are even referring to the same person, in this case).

"They did not consider the Dajjal to be a person while on the otherhand what i mentioned earlier is not in contradiction to the neumorous ahadith which state that he is."

It has been some time now since I read Asad’s book -I left it in the book shop and was not so impressed that I wanted a copy of my own- but it seems to me that his interpretation was rather deep, allowing, in the end, and at least by implication, both a literal and metaphorical interpretation, simultaneously.

"If you take not the most famous ahadith about the dajjal ( which is an account of a man who met him, although we do not know if the account was a dream or an actual event but which our prophit confirmed the account to be true) which has a detailed description of his apearance mentions nothing about his being physicly blind in one eye while the ahadith which do are from the sayings of rasul allah himself about which many have said they should not taken literaly."

I can’t say I fully understood this.  Could you please elaborate? 

"Are you familair with the works of Shaikh Imran Hussein he explains this spiritual aspect of the ahadith very well."

Not at all.  Could you please provide a link, assuming that his works are available online and in English?  I remain somewhat interested in this subject.    Thank you.

Serv



Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 27 December 2005 at 8:42am

#8

The staunchest defenders of the facial veil are famous Hollywood celebrities: immediately after their plastic surgery and before their bruises have healed.

Servetus

 



Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 29 December 2005 at 4:51pm

#9

There is an éminence grise but it is not the American Vice President.

Servetus



Posted By: kenski70
Date Posted: 05 January 2006 at 11:21am

#1

A permanent Islamic member (state or commonwealth) should be included on the UN Security Council and said member should be granted full veto power.

Do you know why the 5 permanent members sit on the security council? Because they are the ones who stood up and fought and defeated the AXIS in WWII. All of those nations earned the right to be there. Paid for in the blood of their people.Those positions were not handed out like candy.For example Russia lost 12 million people china lost 22 million. England and the US won many,many decisive battles.France was occupied and suffered terribly also.All these nations earned their spots. What did Iran do? Or any Muslim country for that matter.What Muslim army defeated any axis army?No Muslims at Guadalcanal,Kirsk,or Normandy.



-------------
Sorry about that turn signal,I must have fallen asleep.


Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 05 January 2006 at 11:49am

Don't say that Kenski.  The Soviet Union was atheist only in propaganda.  Muslims were all over Russia, I'm sure there were muslims in the Russian army, even if they were forbidden to practice.  I'm also quite sure that Muslims were part of the people who fought the Desert Fox and Italy's invasion of Northern Africa.  Most of their countries were as yet unestablished as we know them now.  They did not have the massive armies of the Allies of WWII.  But, the gesture would do well to show the 2 billion Muslims that the world considers them important. 

And on a side note?  Who gave the French their seat?  They surrendered...twice! 



-------------


Posted By: kenski70
Date Posted: 05 January 2006 at 2:12pm

Don't say that Kenski.  The Soviet Union was atheist only in propaganda.  Muslims were all over Russia, I'm sure there were muslims in the Russian army, even if they were forbidden to practice.  I'm also quite sure that Muslims were part of the people who fought the Desert Fox and Italy's invasion of Northern Africa.  Most of their countries were as yet unestablished as we know them now.  They did not have the massive armies of the Allies of WWII.  But, the gesture would do well to show the 2 billion Muslims that the world considers them important. 

And on a side note?  Who gave the French their seat?  They surrendered...twice! 


Outstanding points Angela. And the fact of the matter is that the muslims are indeed part of this world, and do need to be heard. The UN was meant to replace the League of Nations,and at times proven to be just as ineffective.  I'm not sure who France conned.China won no major battles either. I'm sure the cold war had alot to do with this.

-------------
Sorry about that turn signal,I must have fallen asleep.


Posted By: earth_as_one
Date Posted: 05 January 2006 at 3:01pm
Sorry Kenski, but if defeating Axis powers was a requirement, Canada would have a permanent seat.

...At the end of World War II, Canada possessed the third-largest navy and fourth-largest air force in the world, as well as the largest volunteer army ever fielded... http://www.answers.com/topic/canadian-armed-forces - link


Never loosing a war also isn't a requirement. If so Canada would have a permanent seat. And yes Canada did kick America's @$$ back in 1812. We even burned down the Whitehouse too! Sorry about that. Therefore I offer you a truly Canadain apology

A Truly Canadian Apology to the U.S.

On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry.

I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron.

He is a moron but it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all it's not like you actually elected him.

I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own.

I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defense I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours.

I'm sorry we burnt down your white house during the war of 1812. I notice you've rebuilt it! It's Very Nice.

I'm sorry about your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer but, we Feel your Pain.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.

And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way, which is really a thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this. We've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.

Thank you,
Rick Mercer
This Hour Has 22 Minutes
CBC Television



I hate to disappoint you, but at the time the UN was handing out permanent seats on the UNSC, a country needed the ability to annihilate the planet to qualify. Both France and China possess that capability.

But Canada never got a permanent seat on the UNSC because we chose not to develop nuclear weapons, even though we are guilty of helping the US and India develop their nuclear weapons.

Canada's past and present contribution to nuclear weapons isn't that well known even by Canadians

http://www.ccnr.org/myth_1.html - Canada's Nuclear Industry and
the Myth of the Peaceful Atom

Instead Canada choose to neglect its miltary and divert military funds required for the defense of our country toward bureaucratic nonsense such as translation of documentation from English to French and back again.

Since the inception of Canada?s Official Languages Act in 1968, official bilingualism is estimated to have cost Canadians approximately $60 billion. Today, the cost of translating federal government documents and operating various programs, such as French language training for federal public servants, is estimated to be some $4 billion annually. And these figures do not take into account the cost of publishing bilingual documents and providing bilingual services at the provincial and municipal levels, or similar costs incurred by private enterprises...
http://www.writersblock.ca/spring2002/busword.htm - Link


If Canada wanted we could have built nuclear weapons, but we are far too busy translating government documentation. I have no regrets for this foolishness, not even for burning down the Whitehouse.

-------------
But I might be wrong


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 15 February 2006 at 4:49pm

#10

In the future, everyone will access the same discussion group, but all they will say is "hi."

Servetus



Posted By: Ketchup
Date Posted: 15 February 2006 at 10:45pm
Should you be using duct tape?  Its an invention of the evil west.


Posted By: -ArabianKnight-
Date Posted: 16 February 2006 at 1:07am
This is the only wall worth nailing anything to....




thats right.. I make no sense..


-------------
THere Is no god, BUT GOD
and Adam was his First Messenger
_____________________________


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 16 February 2006 at 8:21am

"Should you be using duct tape?  Its an invention of the evil west."

Please, Ketchup, in your own words (or mine), demonstrate conclusively that the at times seemingly mythical "West" is invariably evil.  Once done, I shall of course reconsider my use of duct tape.  (Thanks for reminding me of how to properly spell it, 'duct,' that is.)   

Cheers.

Serv



Posted By: Ketchup
Date Posted: 16 February 2006 at 8:48am
Originally posted by Servetus

"Should you be using duct tape?  Its an invention of the evil west."

Please, Ketchup, in your own words (or mine), demonstrate conclusively that the at times seemingly mythical "West" is invariably evil.  Once done, I shall of course reconsider my use of duct tape.  (Thanks for reminding me of how to properly spell it, 'duct,' that is.)   

Cheers.

Serv

Personally I don't think we are evil though the actions of our governments do make us cringe and hang ourheads in shame.

But as you asked here is my list of why we are evil.

  1. Democracy
  2. Microsoft
  3. Government policy
  4. Mcdonalds
  5. Elmo
  6. Solicitors
  7. Moral values
  8. Tolerance of religion
  9. Open door policies
  10. Capitalism

 



-------------
"The days followed one another patiently. Right back at the beginning of the multiverse they had tried all passing at the same time, and it hadn't worked."


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 16 February 2006 at 9:09am

(Ketchup:)  "Personally I don't think we are evil though the actions of our governments do make us cringe and hang ourheads in shame."

I do admire (and envy) your brevity!  So then, if I have correctly understood, we here in the West are not evil but are shameful (assuming that our parliamentary forms of government are truly representative of the collective political will).   

”But as you asked here is my list of why we are evil …

Um, *gulp*, with some possible exceptions, that was a rather good list!  I am, for the moment, gobsmacked and am reconsidering my use of duct tape! 

Serv

P.S.  Please (you and others) do consider adding some aphorisms, propositions and theses of your own to this thread.  As you may have noticed by the title, I have already extended it from 10 to 15 theses, but it could go on indefinitely.   

 



Posted By: Ketchup
Date Posted: 16 February 2006 at 9:22am

#11 It was so much easier to blame it on Them.  It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.



-------------
"The days followed one another patiently. Right back at the beginning of the multiverse they had tried all passing at the same time, and it hadn't worked."


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 16 February 2006 at 9:52am

That (#11) was a good one and was a tongue-twister as well.

 

”An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.”

 

Put the by now apparently disbanded Dead Can Dance into the queue:  “In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed(*) are kings.”

 

Serv

 

(*)  As I no doubt imperfectly understand and as some of the above posts indicate, in Islamic tradition, dajjal, or 'anti-Christ,' appears with one eye.



Posted By: Ketchup
Date Posted: 16 February 2006 at 9:53am
Now that I didn't know, I assumed it was about revenge.. repercussions for our bad actions.. Now I look at it again I can see how the anti-christ can play a part as he can lead the flock from the right path if that makes sense.

-------------
"The days followed one another patiently. Right back at the beginning of the multiverse they had tried all passing at the same time, and it hadn't worked."


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 16 February 2006 at 4:29pm

To me, it makes perfect sense, Ketchup.

________________________________________________________

#12

The kali-yuga is not now, and will not be, a dinner party.

Servetus

Inspired, for lack of a better word, by Mao Tse-tung 



Posted By: Ketchup
Date Posted: 16 February 2006 at 4:58pm

mm mao... its a rough ride?

#13

"God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of his own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a dealer who won't tell you the rules.."

'Good Omens' yet still valid words..



-------------
"The days followed one another patiently. Right back at the beginning of the multiverse they had tried all passing at the same time, and it hadn't worked."


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 16 February 2006 at 5:06pm

Dear Ketchup, I think that I recognize #13 and, if it is not your own, and if you don't mind my pointing this out, you are to place the statement within quotation marks.  Consider editing and doing just that.  (Incidentally, my #12 was a close call but sufficiently different to another by the disreputable Mao Tse-tung that I did not place it within quotation marks but did acknowledge the debt.)

Cheers and, again, thanks for all the fish,

Servie



Posted By: Ketchup
Date Posted: 16 February 2006 at 5:13pm
Originally posted by Servetus

Dear Ketchup, I think that I recognize #13 and, if it is not your own, and if you don't mind my pointing this out, you are to place the statement within quotation marks.  Consider editing and doing just that.  (Incidentally, my #12 was a close call but sufficiently different to another by the disreputable Mao Tse-tung that I did not place it within quotation marks but did acknowledge the debt.)

Cheers and, again, thanks for all the fish,

Servie

oh, I didn't realise this had to be our own works.

Many appologies from the restaurant at the end of the universe.



-------------
"The days followed one another patiently. Right back at the beginning of the multiverse they had tried all passing at the same time, and it hadn't worked."


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 16 February 2006 at 5:25pm

(Ketchup:)  "oh, I didn't realise this had to be our own works."

It does not have to be.  I am one of the most flexible characters, or wonks, on the block.  (We just have to pay close attention to the rules and guidelines above and try to stay within them.)  

"Many appologies from the restaurant at the end of the universe."

There is no need.  By the way, would that be from the take-away fish and chips place near Tower Records in Piccadilly Circus?

Serv



Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 16 February 2006 at 5:33pm

Elmo ???



-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~


Posted By: Ketchup
Date Posted: 16 February 2006 at 5:36pm
Originally posted by Servetus

"Many appologies from the restaurant at the end of the universe."

There is no need.  By the way, would that be from the take-away fish and chips place near Tower Records in Piccadilly Circus?

Serv

 

#14 "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

"The restaurant at the end of the universe" - Douglas Adams



-------------
"The days followed one another patiently. Right back at the beginning of the multiverse they had tried all passing at the same time, and it hadn't worked."


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 17 February 2006 at 9:32am

#15

My tolerance of revolutionary politics has a very narrow margin:  it begins with the American Declaration of Independence and ends with the  Constitutional Convention.

Servetus  



Posted By: Rezz
Date Posted: 20 February 2006 at 5:50am
I once saw this written on a university wall.

Q. How many Muslims does it take to change a light bulb?

A. None, they'd rather sit in the dark and blame the Jews!


Brilliant!



-------------


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 8:05am

Even though, on some level, and to some, it might be considered not only funny but also brilliant political commentary, I thought that joke was, like, totally lame, Rezz.  But it reminded me of this, my new aphorism: 

_______________________________________________

#16

Free speech should be permitted only when it is agreeable.

Servetus



Posted By: fehmi
Date Posted: 21 February 2006 at 9:54am

Originally posted by Rezz

I once saw this written on a university wall.

Q. How many Muslims does it take to change a light bulb?

A. None, they'd rather sit in the dark and blame the Jews!


Brilliant!

Point 1: It is a little annoying that you make fun of Muslims.

Point 2: The statement is not correct, either. Personally, I would blame the secular State of Turkey instead of the Jews. :P

 



Posted By: Rezz
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 2:40am
Originally posted by fehmi

Originally posted by Rezz

I once saw this written on a university wall.

Q. How many Muslims does it take to change a light bulb?

A. None, they'd rather sit in the dark and blame the Jews!


Brilliant!

Point 1: It is a little annoying that you make fun of Muslims.

Point 2: The statement is not correct, either. Personally, I would blame the secular State of Turkey instead of the Jews. :P

 



You have to admit, that however 'annoying' the joke was, it does ring true. Totally true!*

Isn't about time you took the chip off your shoulders and learned to laugh at some of the more ridiculous aspects of your community?

The British do it. The Jews do it brilliantly!

Isn't it time to lose the 'victim mentality'? Who knows, where it may lead...

*Now try the joke inserting the "secular state of Turkey" instead of "Jews". See? Not funny. Because it doesn't "ring true". Geddit?




-------------


Posted By: Rezz
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 2:45am
Originally posted by Servetus

Even though, on some level, and to some, it might be considered not only funny but also brilliant political commentary, I thought that joke was, like, totally lame, Rezz.  But it reminded me of this, my new aphorism: 

_______________________________________________

#16

Free speech should be permitted only when it is agreeable.

Servetus



Humour (or lack of it) is a personal thing.

I've repeated the joke to many Muslims who have laughed because it was "brilliant political commentary".

It is said that the ability of a community to laugh at itself is an indication of its confidence.

Wouldn't you agree?

And isn't the whole point of "free speech" having the freedom not to be "agreeable"?




-------------


Posted By: Colin
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 2:58am

 

Here's one for your collection lord  serv of etus.

#17

Speech should be free at the point of delivery, but be careful what you say or you might have to pay for it later.



Posted By: fehmi
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 2:59am

A great percentage of businessmen who lead the world economy and influence such big governments as America are Jews. For instance, the so-called Islamist Turkish government, as well as the former ones, obviously fear Israel. In Turkey, we have seen them make strong statements about Israeli atrocities and then retract them in obvious fear of the Jewish lobby in the U.S. as well as Israel itself.

And you say Muslims should stop thinking that Jews are capable of doing harm to Muslims.

Besides, you should have some more confidence yourself and do not try hard to change the way Muslims think.

I have encountered many people on the net and elsewhere who think such ridiculous negative things about Turks and Muslims in general. I do not feel so strongly about their ridiculous thoughts. Allah does control the world despite all seeming signs to the contrary, and I have confidence about His control.



Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 23 February 2006 at 7:57am

(Rezz:)  “Humour (or lack of it) is a personal thing.”

I do quite agree. 

 

“I've repeated the joke to many Muslims who have laughed because it was "brilliant political commentary".

How fortunate for you. 


"It is said that the ability of a community to laugh at itself is an indication of its confidence.”

This seems plausible.  Perhaps, then, you should consider becoming part of the community.

 

"Wouldn't you agree?"

 

As usual, I agree up to a point.  And then it’s full stop.

"And isn't the whole point of "free speech" having the freedom not to be "agreeable"?"

 

Yes.  That is why I posted the statement (#16).  Was the irony, which I fully intended, not obvious?   Most of the time I am an Anglophile and rank your George Orwell, among others, at the top of my list of favorites, or should I say favourites?

 

Finally, at least I perceive that thou, Lord Colin, didst not miss the irony of my statement (#16) and saw fit to elaborate upon the theme (#17).  Good show. 

 

____________________________________________________________ ___

The following is inspired, for lack of a better word, by the notorious and often ill-understood statement by Karl Marx concerning religion being the opiate of the people.

 

#18

 

Irreligion blocks the serotonin re-uptake of the intelligentsia.

 

Servetus 



Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 03 March 2006 at 2:17pm

This one does not actually deserve a number of its own, but I have often wondered, when walking the streets of London:

Who is Bill Stickers and when will he finally be arrested?

Servetus



Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 03 March 2006 at 2:41pm
Originally posted by Servetus

This one does not actually deserve a number of its own, but I have often wondered, when walking the streets of London:

Who is Bill Stickers and when will he finally be arrested?

Servetus

Bill Stickers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Stickers#column-one - navigation , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Stickers#searchInput - search

Bill Stickers was a brand of clothing in the UK in the 1980s with slogans such as "Bill Stickers is innocent", derived from a commonly seen notice in English cities saying "BILL STICKERS WILL BE PROSECUTED", as a warning to stickers of bills, otherwise known as fly posting.



-------------


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 06 March 2006 at 8:53am

Thanks, Angela.  I didn't check Wikipedia and thought that maybe I was the only one to wonder about Bill Stickers.  

__________________________________________________

#19

Democratize this (the US economy)!  All decisions presently taken, or made, by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank should henceforth be presented as proposals and be submitted to the American plebiscite (i.e., masses) for a full vote .

Servetus 



Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 06 March 2006 at 9:34am
You're welcomed Serv, I do my best to stay informed of those "important" social issues.

-------------


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 20 June 2006 at 12:49pm

# 20

 

Anyone who does not accept the Pax Americana (peace according to terms specified and enforced by the Washington/Tel-Aviv Axis) is a hatemonger and potential evildoer.

 

Serv

 




Print Page | Close Window