Bob Dylan and 9/11 Paul Losch's Community Blog, posted by Paul Losch, a resident of Palo Alto, on Sep 11, 2011 at 8:00 am Paul Losch is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
This is a tough day. 10 years.
I am trying to get some perspective, thinking about where I was when the Space Shuttle exploded, Reagan was shot, Nixon resigned, Kennedy was assasinated.
I am too young to remember the death of FDR or the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Those events seem to little me not big events, but they were for many, including my parents, from earlier generations.
There is a solemnity in art, expressed in various ways, that transcends any single tragedy.
Listening to reports of the crystal clear blue skies on the day the Twin Towers went down, the explosion of dust and debris that covered NYC for days thereafer, I was reminded that it was not until that Friday, 3 days later, that New York was blessed with some rain.
That rain, at long last, helped the City get past the initial traumas on many levels.
Bob Dylan, a dweebie guy from an obscure Minnesota town, wrote and performed a song 35 years earlier: "A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall." He is a great icon of an era slowly winding down, but that song is so poignant for what we experienced in 2001.
Plenty of ways to access the song on line, along with other gems from a great songwriter. Listen to it.
Some of the 9/11 stuff going on tends toward the maudlin, it was an event that deserves better. Listen to Dylan.
Posted by Karen, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 12, 2011 at 1:44 pm
"Snuff" films are usually untrue, largely urban myths. I provided a link to those workers in the WTC who were forced to jump (or blown out of the towers). That is called the truth.
You sound like one of the holocaust deniers. Those films from the concentration camps showed the truth. Ike forced some of those films to be made, so that the truth could not be denied.
I feel very healthy about not forgiving. It helps me to stay stable and recognize the truth. Since this attack was the product of an evil ideology, which has been around for about 13 centuries, 10 years is hardly enough to forgive or forget.
Embrace the truth, don't deny it! Above all, don't turn the other cheek, and pretend that evil doesn't need to be attacked! By denying evil, you are supporting it.
Posted by AMRW, a resident of another community, on Sep 12, 2011 at 1:54 pm
I denied nothing. The holocaust happened and September 11th happened. What I wrote is that it's bad for you to hold on to anger for 10 years. I don't watch videos of people dying, that doesn't mean I deny that September 11th was a terrible day.
You write, "Embrace the truth, don't deny it! Above all, don't turn the other cheek, and pretend that evil doesn't need to be attacked! By denying evil, you are supporting it."
The perpetraters of September 11th felt that America and American culture was evil, so they attacked. Their sentiment was exactly the same as yours.
How about devoting the day as a day of service, rather than a day of anger?
Posted by Karen, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 12, 2011 at 2:10 pm
"The perpetraters of September 11th felt that America and American culture was evil, so they attacked. Their sentiment was exactly the same as yours."
What nonsense! The perpetraters of 9-11 were belivers in their relgion, as written in their holy book. They acted on the directions of their holy book. Islam has never really reformed from its early roots, as has Christianity and Judaism and Hinduism, etc.
The problem is Islam, until it is reformed from within. It reminds me of nazism, if Hitler would would have prevailed. Mein Kampf would have been the new holy book.
I am an agnostic, so don't expect me to defend religion. I raised my three children as agnostics, too. I hope they are not attacked by Muslims.
American culture is a mish-mash of various things. Christians and Jews, for example, object to some of it, but they are not hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. Islam does that, though.
We need to confront Islam, and demand that it be reformed. There are some efforts to do this, but how often do we hear about it?
Posted by Karen, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Sura 9:5 "When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful."
Thh word "slay" means kill. The phrase "render the alms" means dhimmitude (second class citizenship, close to slavery).
The Quran is a 'last-in-last-out' document. This means that any contractions are obviated by later chapters (suras). Sura 9:5 is a late chapter, thus is overrides any earlier chapters that might disagree with it.
The scum that attacked us on 9-11 were simple believers in the Quran, as written.
The problem is Islam. It truly needs to reform itself.
Posted by Never Forget, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 12, 2011 at 8:00 pm
> Christians just blow up federal buildings in Oklahoma City
> or fly planes into IRS buildings
The fact that one "Christian" was involved in a bad decision to blow up a Federal building was an act that can not be proscribed in any, but a fully insane, interpretation of the Bible. As for the fellow who flew into the IRS building, he may have been a "Christian", but his beef was with the IRS. If one looks at the history of Islam, there could easily have been between 125M and 150M people killed, over the centuries, and perhaps numbers in the high tens of millions have been enslaved by Muslims.
One could argue that "Christianity" did not stop the two individuals cited in the open gambit of this nonsensical post. And of course, the same argument would be immediately applied to the Muslim killers also.
The numbers of "crazy Christians" killing people just doesn't compare to all of the "holy warriors" of Islam.
Even if one were to include the massacres of the 30-Years War (1618-1648), Christianity has burned out that intolerance over the years. Islam is still burning at all of its edges, trying to establish a world-wide Caliphate, based on Sharia Law. It is going to take a long time for this fire to go out.
Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2011 at 6:18 am
"The fact that one "Christian" was involved in a bad decision to blow up a Federal building was an act that can not be proscribed in any, but a fully insane, interpretation of the Bible."
And the fact that a number of Muslims were involved in 9/11 should not condemn the whole religion.
"As for the fellow who flew into the IRS building, he may have been a "Christian", but his beef was with the IRS. "
It was still an act of terror (love how people say when a muslim doe sit it is an act of terror, but when a christ worshiper does the same thing, he is just "angry".)
" If one looks at the history of Islam, there could easily have been between 125M and 150M people killed, over the centuries, and perhaps numbers in the high tens of millions have been enslaved by Muslims."
Shall we see how many people were murdered by christians over the years? The crusades, the Holocaust etc.
"Christianity has burned out that intolerance over the years"
Yes, that is why they hate gays. Are against women's rights. The list goes on and on.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2011 at 8:48 am
Terrorism occurs in the name of religion now, and in the past. Consider Northern Ireland and the IRA. The IRA were funded by misled Americans for the most part who terrorised Northern Ireland and all Britain and were Catholic. The Unionists who were Protestant were just as bad. Their religion was just an excuse for the cause they believed in. This is terrorism even though it was never called that.
When anyone terrorises the public in the name of anything, they are terrorists regardless of their religion or whether they are doing it in the name of their religion or not. The recent attack in Norway was by one Christian who believed it was his Christian duty. He was not backed by any Christian organization.
AK is an organized Muslim religion. It actively recruits young, easily influenced young men from within Muslim communities and tells them they are doing the right thing for their religion.
You can't compare AK with a lone Christian terrorist, although they are both terrorists.
Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2011 at 9:10 am
"You can't compare AK with a lone Christian terrorist, although they are both terrorists."
Once again people cannot bring themselves to call christ worshipers who carry out terrorist acts terrorists. And they have no problem condemning one religion, that is not christian, while excusing another religion because it worships christ.
You want organizations?? The OKC bombing was carried out by christian men. There are christian organizations that try to murder abortion providers and protect those that do. As resident pointed out above--the whole Northern Ireland issue was carried out by christ worshipers. Yet christ worshipers get a pass-their religion is never questioned or condemned. Plus the whole basis for their belief is flawed, but that is another topic.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2011 at 9:16 am
I don't understand your point. I called all terrorists, regardless of their claimed religion.
I would point out that many people call themselves Christian but not think of themselves as "Christ worshippers". Christianity has many, many people who are just Christian in name only, not because they do anything to worship Christ. A true Christ worshipper and a nominal Christian are not the same.
I agree, there are many Christians who do not support abortion, but it does not mean that they are going to harm medical personnel who perform abortions. Once again, you can't lump all within a religion together, just like you can't lump all Muslims together.
Posted by Never Forget, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2011 at 9:20 am
> Shall we see how many people were murdered by christians over
> the years?
Sure .. but the numbers are always going to be very small compared to those killed by Muslims.
> The crusades,
Before we answer this question, any thoughts on why the "Christians" felt a need to go to the Holy Lands and fight Muslims?
> the Holocaust etc.
Plzzz .. Hitler was insane. Sadly, all of his (mostly Lutheran) countrymen ended up with the same malady. But Hitler never held up a Bible and quoted scriptures that exhorted his countrymen to "kill for Christ/God".
It is astounding how little people in this town know about history in general, or the history of the various religions.
The mayhem of the first half of the 20th Century had virtually nothing to do with "religion". It was a quest for power driven (too often) by elites of one stripe, or another.
Posted by amger kills, a resident of another community, on Sep 13, 2011 at 9:20 am
Karen: It took two times and I had to bait you to answer the question.
"Now that is a very ignorant response! The Quran was written during the time of Mohmammed, which was in the 7th-8th century, AD. "
You take as your evidence a book written over a thousand years ago. Do Muslims take the versions of the bible to declare that Christianity is an evil religion bent on taking over the world? Do they take the history of Christianity a evidence of same? Missionary work? The Crusades?
Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2011 at 9:29 am
"Once again, you can't lump all within a religion together, just like you can't lump all Muslims together."
Sorry,, Resident, I misunderstood your initial post. I agree we cannot lump all Muslims together.
As for Karen--do not expect any facts from her.
BTW, karen, the Holocaust was pulled off with the aid and blessing of the catholic church (remember they kept anti-semitism alive for centuries). You should also find out why the Jews were targeted in the Holocaust--does not speak very well for christ worshipers.
it’s not hard to believe that these same students also know virtually nothing about world history when they become adults. So, it probably comes as a shock when people are forced to face a few “inconvenient” facts about things that they have taken for granted most of their lives. Probably spending a lot of time studying the world’s wars, and the consequential details about the dead, the economic catastrophes that engaged the societies at war, and the tragedies that followed when the next government comes along, and makes a few “changes” in how things are run is not a place that most people want to spend much of their time. But there are a few people who do this sort of work.
One of the few credible sources of this sort of information has been compiled by a fellow at the Univ. of Hawaii (Rudy Rummell):
This compilation only deals with the 20th Century, but does provide a point-of-reference for the difficulty of compiling this sort of information.
As to compiling information about the deaths attributed to Islam, and Christianity, we are left with having to glean estimates from sources that have studied the details of various periods of history, and political/geographical locations.
The following is a small presentation of such estimates--
MUSLIMS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF MORE THAN 270 MILLION NON-MUSLIMS WORLDWIDE
120 MILLION AFRICANS
Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] estimates that 11 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and 14 million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. For every slave captured many others died. Estimates of this collateral damage vary. The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march.[Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] Those who were left behind were the very young, the weak, the sick and the old. These soon died since the main providers had been killed or enslaved. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa.
60 MILLION CHRISTIANS
The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson,World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10] . A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another 50 million died in wars by jihad. So counting the million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have:
80 MILLION HINDUS
Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst, Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.] The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad. The mountains near India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.”
10 MILLION BUDDHISTS
Buddhists do not keep up with the history of war. Keep in mind that in jihad only Christians and Jews were allowed to survive as dhimmis (servants to Islam); everyone else had to convert or die. Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India. The total is roughly 10 million. [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-1.]
Deaths (on both sides) that occurred during the crusades seem to come also from diaries, and other commentaries of the time. The following link provides some of these “numbers”:
Note, however, that the numbers of people killed/massacred by the “Christians” are small, compared to those killed/massacred when the tables were turned, and the Muslims were in control.
Unfortunately, there are no “nice and tidy” sources that document these events in a non-controversial way. Many of the numbers are based on dairies, etc. of people who witnessed these events, and then extrapolated over hundreds of years of Islamic occupation of the countries that fell during the Islamic expansion and were occupied by Islamic rulers for hundreds of years.
Posted by amger kills, a resident of another community, on Sep 13, 2011 at 12:34 pm
others can paste as well as you -
There are five ways to critique this:
1. Showing that such areas couldn't sustain such a high population in the first place
2. Going through historical documentation to show that there were inconsistencies in testimonies of large scale slaughters
3. Showing that there were other plausible events that took place that accounted for the deaths such as plague or famine
4. The presence of large non-Muslim populations in the midst of the Muslim world such as copts in Egypt and Hindus in India
5. The fact that their are still large scale conversions to Islam in the modern era such as in Rwanda and also in the West.
In addition to that, I don't think the historical record supports any proof that there were any large scale massacres. One of the most detailed Muslim conquests was the conquest of Constantinople. I wrote on this topic in response to Robert Spencer's allegation that the Ottomans came into the city and slaughtered everyone in sight:
"Arguing that the Ottomans slaughtered everyone in sight upon breaching the city’s walls isn’t accurate. For one thing, the elderly, women, and children that Spencer laments about being slaughtered also participated in resisting the invaders by throwing bricks, stones, and fire upon them. While it is deplorable that loss of life occurred, distinctions between combatants and non-combatants wasn’t always easily identifiable. (p 218 of “The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley) The Byzantine chroniclers undoubtedly portrayed the conquest of their society with the greatest of horror, but they also had a tendency to exaggerate things. After all, it is estimated that only 4,000 had been killed in the day’s fighting, which is certainly not anywhere near the slaughtering of the entire city. (p 233 of “The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley). By comparison, the total number of Palestinians who died during the Second Intifada alone was 3,386. (p 100 of “The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt) Moreover, we know for certain that there were parts of the city that were completely left untouched such as the villages of Studion and Petrion which had surrendered voluntarily and were protected by the Ottoman military police from plundering altogether. This resulted in a number of churches and monasteries being preserved as a result. (p 221 of “The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley) As was mentioned above, half the population was still Christian in the 1500s is hardly proof that the Ottomans came in, killed everyone or forced them to convert. Although it is true that Christians from other parts of the Ottoman Empire had migrated into the city, contributing to the restoration of its Christian flavor, this only further undermines Spencer’s claim that everyone was forcibly converted or killed. After all, if there were still enough Christians from other regions of the empire to populate the decimated city, this is proof that Christianity had survived the Ottoman Empire. Spencer’s strongest argument against the conquest of Constantinople was the fact that the inhabitants were taken into slavery – estimated at 30,000. (p 237 of “1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West” by Roger Crowley) However, it should be pointed that some slaves were later ransomed and contributed to the repopulation of the city. Also, it shouldn’t be overlooked that the Byzantines themselves had engaged in slave-raiding themselves, even on the eve of the Ottoman siege. Western European slave-raiding had already been sanctified by the Catholic Church in 1452. There’s a difference between condemning the Ottomans for engaging in slavery because slavery is a reprehensible act and condemning them alone for engaging it when virtually every other society engaged in similar practices."
So if this is with regards to Constantinople, which was a jihad in the legal sense of the term since the Ottomans only engaged in it to please Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) and the overwhelming majority of the population wasn't slaughtered (rather forced into slavery) than what can be said about other conquests that weren't always religiously motivated?
Moreover, lets not forget that Muslim states often fought one another just as often as they fought non-Muslim states.
The Barbary states had declared war on America, aside from Jizyah, what invasion and mass slaughters did they incur upon the young nation?
The argument is absurd if you have a little criticism and look at their historical "sources."
Posted by Karen, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm
This talk of moral equivalence is absurd. 9-11 was an attack that was completely consistent with the Quran, in fact demanded by the Quran. UBL was a righteous Muslim, and he is a hero over much of the Islamic world. If we refuse to see this basic truth, we will fail to understand 9-11, as well as future attacks by true-believing Muslims. The problem is, indeed, Islam, not just some individuals within the religion.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2011 at 1:15 pm Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
It is convenient to refer to Islam's war on the West because the perps are overwhelmingly Islamic. Outside the US, Muhammadans seem to have openly enjoyed bad things happening to the US. Whether Islam is the reason or the excuse for these belligerent acts, we can be forgiven for general statements against that Islamicness of Jihad, even though we find everything from glowing admiration to blind hatred of the US within Islam. This is what happens when a non nation declares war.
Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2011 at 1:18 pm
"even though we find everything from glowing admiration to blind hatred of the US within Islam."
You will find that among all peoples of the world--not just muslims. Look closer to home--we have blind hatred of the US by the Tea Party.
Since 9/11 we have had two attempted airplane incidents--seems that Al Qeida might have blown their wad on 9/11, We do have plenty of anti-muslim hysteria. When in reality christ worshipers present a greater threat to this country than Islam.
Posted by daniel, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2011 at 4:59 pm
The United States killed between 2 and 3 million Vietnamese civilians in indiscriminate carpet bombing during the Vietnam war, an action that is both a war crime and an act of terror. It killed an estimated 1 million Iraqi civilians during the Iraq war, and this is only a partial list. My point? 9/11 was an act of terror, but when our own government commits acts of terror and war crimes, we shouldn't be tribal and chauvinistic, but hold it accountable as well. It's a total disgrace that Bush, Cheney and others haven't been extradited to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes. The reason non-Americans have a different reaction to 9/11 is that they are aware of the many years of US sanctioned acts of direct and indirect terror (like arming and training Latin American death squads which have committed unspeakable acts of terror and genocide over the years). Terror is terror regardless of who is engaged in it. A disgusting outcome of 9/11 is that we turned it into a tacky Disneyland in which anti-Muslim and xenophobic hysteria are practiced. We are only helping the jihadists by doing it and we are helping cultivate and empower some extremely dangerous theocratic, and democratic and anti-government elements in our society, elements that are far more dangerous to our country than Islamic terrorism..
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Well said , daniel. People like karen are preaching hatred, intolerance and xenophobia. Not what our country stands for. Just like the 9/11 terrorists do not represent islam, karen does not represent real americans.
Posted by Paul Losch, a resident of Palo Alto, on Sep 14, 2011 at 8:36 am Paul Losch is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
It always fascinates me when I tee up a topic, and then folks weigh in.
I picked up from some comments that 9/11 media production values compared to other tragic events were over the top. America does this sort of stuff way too well, and the dignity of millions of obscure people murdered by tyrants around the world was not on display at the ceremonies this past weekend.
There is emotion around 9/11. Not any or enough in this country around so many other horrible things that people in power, some recent, some remembered, some the part of Shakespeare and before, have done across other oceans.
I am not clear in my own mind just what morality means, and I suspect that my version would not be the same that others have from their vanatage point.
When it comes to men and women, "Vive la diference" appeals. Would that it were so easy or difficult in matters global.
Posted by Mark Weiss, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2011 at 9:01 am
Wow I am amazed at how active this thread is, Paul!
I was just going to say that Bob Dylan to me is a man who makes his living or puts his life force into going town to town channeling the muse and interpreting for us, mainly through performance at this point rather than composition, what the world is all about, in reverant though probably secular or at least ecumenical terms, in his case more Judeo-Christian (and not Muslim or Sufi, like the comparable Cat Stevens fka pka that is, for example). I am saying little Robbie from shul is a living breathing growing thing and not actually a mediated version or info put down in 1965 or whatever, the performance, what you say you heard.
I am suggesting that if citizens like yourself, leaders, thinkers, provacateurs, in a good way, get behind the proposal to re-light, re-kindle if you will, the historic and beloved Varsity Theatre, we could probably get Bob Dylan to come here and play. And what amount of healing or inspiration might that proffer? I saw Bob at the Regency theatre in Sf and then approached Greg Perloff, the man who produced the show, and asked him how serious he was, according to his former assistant, to bring The Cubberley Theater into their purview, of Another Planet Entertainment. More realistically, but still fairly metaphysically mystical even, missed your call, he said, or a calling, Perloff was contacted by City Staff about The Varsity.
The answer my friend is blowing in the wind but lets not let Council or staff or the landlord blow it by putting in office space. Let's do something.
Posted by Karen, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:44 am
" People like karen are preaching hatred, intolerance and xenophobia"
What a croc!!
I am intolerant of intolerance, as expressed in the Quran, and as practiced by so many Muslims around the world.
We don't need to sing protest/pop songs from the 60's. We need to wake up to who and what our enemies are. 9-11 came directly out of the Quran. There are a few Muslims who are trying to rectify the situation, but they are in an extreme minority.
Posted by Karen, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2011 at 12:32 pm
"Source of your numbers?"
The Quran. It is a fundmental tenet of the Quran that latter surahs abrogate earlier chapters, if there is a contradiction. The sword chapters came after the so-called peace chapters. UBL was a faithful and consistent follower of the Quran, as are most of the other Muslim mass killers, who claim to be protecting Islam.
If one calls oneself a Muslim then he/she either has not read the Quran, or he/she ignores it or he/she believes it. The majority of Muslims, when asked, say that they believe the Quran, as written.
I will grant that many Muslims, like many Christians and Jews don't read their own holy book, but Islam leaves absolutely no doubt that it wants to dominate even more of the world, using the sword, if necessary.
We were attacked by true-believing Muslims on 9-11, not just some psychotic extremists.
Islam needs to reform from within, and non-Muslims must insist that it does. It will be a very dangerous job for those reformers inside Islam, because they will be under threat of death, as prescribed by the Quran.
Please, no more Bob Dylan pablum! We are facing serious issues here.
Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Oh Karen,people ask you for numbers to back up your claims and regurgitate the same crap you have been posting for days. As someone else posted you preaching hatred, intolerance and xenophobia.
In actuality it is the christ worshippers that will be death of this country--check out the republicans/tea party, how they kowtow to right-wing religious fanatics that spew hatred for gays, women, minorities in the name of a fictional character
Posted by Karen, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2011 at 1:17 pm
The issue of raw numbers is an interesting one. If the majority of Muslims believe the Quran, as written, then over 500 million Muslims believe that Islam allows the slaughter and subjugation of non-believers.
If any of you, who refuse to open your eyes to the truth of 9-11 (and much, much more), can claim a more accurate number, please provide your source.
Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2011 at 1:32 pm
"The issue of raw numbers is an interesting one. If the majority of Muslims believe the Quran, as written, then over 500 million Muslims believe that Islam allows the slaughter and subjugation of non-believers."
Oh, please, Karen, what a bunch of hooey. I think we all know that the vast majority of Muslims are not crazed terrorists. You are xenophobic and preaching hatred and intolerance.
"If any of you, who refuse to open your eyes to the truth of 9-11 (and much, much more), can claim a more accurate number, please provide your source."
oh, stop playing your stupid games, Karen. You are the one talking about numbers all the time. Provide some facts, instead of your ridiculous claims.
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of Atherton, on Sep 14, 2011 at 1:32 pm
"# Round haircuts. See you in Hell, Beatles... and/or kids with bowl cuts, surfer cuts or (my favorite) butt cuts. Leviticus 19:27 reads "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."
# Football. At least, the pure version of football, where you play with a pigskin. The modern synthetic footballs are ugly and slippery anyways. Leviticus 11:8, which is discussing pigs, reads "You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."
And you're doubly breaking that if you wake up, eat some sausage then go throw around the football. Or go to the county fair and enter a greased pig catching contest.
# Fortune telling. Before you call a 900 number (do people still call 900 numbers, by the way?), read your horoscope or crack open a fortune cookie, realize you're in huge trouble if you do.
Leviticus 19:31 reads "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God." The penalty for that? Check Leviticus 20:6: "As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the harlot after them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people."
Seems like a lifetime of exile is a pretty harsh penalty for talking to Zoltar.
# Pulling out. The Bible doesn't get too much into birth control... it's clearly pro-populating but, back when it was written, no one really anticipated the condom or the sponge, so those don't get specific bans.
But... pulling out does. One of the most famous sexual-oriented Bible verses... the one that's used as anti-masturbation rhetoric... is actually anti-pulling out.
It's Genesis 38:9-10: "Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also."
Yep -- pull out and get smote. That's harsh.
Tattoos. No tattoos. Leviticus 19:28 reads, "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."
Not even a little butterfly on your ankle. Or Thug Life across your abdomen. Or even, fittingly enough, a cross.
# Polyester, or any other fabric blends. The Bible doesn't want you to wear polyester. Not just because it looks cheap. It's sinfully unnatural.
Leviticus 19:19 reads, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."
Check the tag on your shirt right now. Didn't realize you were mid-sin at this exact second, did you? (Unless you checked the tag by rolling off your neighbor's wife while you two were having anal sex in the middle of robbing a blind guy. Then your Lycra-spandex blend is really the least of your problems.)
# Divorce. The Bible is very clear on this one: No divorcing. You can't do it. Because when you marry someone, according to Mark 10:8, you "are no longer two, but one flesh." And, Mark 10:9 reads, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
Mark gets even more hardcore about it a few verses later, in Mark 10:11-12, "And He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.'"
# Letting people without testicles into church. Whether you've been castrated or lost one or two balls to cancer isn't important. The Bible doesn't get that specific. It just says you can't pray.
Deuteronomy 23:1 reads (this is the God's Word translation, which spells it out better), "A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord."
Oh, and the next verse says that if you're a bastard, the child of a bastard... or even have a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchild of a bastard, you can't come to church or synagogue either. Deuteronomy 23:2 reads, "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord."
# Wearing gold. 1 Timothy 2:9 doesn't like your gold necklace at all. Or your pearl necklace. Or any clothes you're wearing that you didn't get from Forever 21, Old Navy or H&M.
"Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments."
Lobster, shrimp and clam chowder: All banned.
Shellfish. Leviticus 11:10 reads, "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you." And shellfish is right in that wheelhouse.
Leviticus 11 bans a TON of animals from being eaten (it's THE basis for Kosher law); beyond shellfish and pig, it also says you can't eat camel, rock badger, rabbit, eagle, vulture, buzzard, falcon, raven, crow, ostrich, owl, seagull, hawk, pelican, stork, heron, bat, winged insects that walk on four legs unless they have joints to jump with like grasshoppers (?), bear, mole, mouse, lizard, gecko, crocodile, chameleon and snail.
Sorry if that totally ruins your plans to go to a rock badger eat-off this weekend.
# Your wife defending your life in a fight by grabbing your attacker's genitals. No joke. Deuteronomy actually devotes two verses to this exact scenario: Deuteronomy 25:11-12.
"If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."
That's impossible to misinterpret. Ladies, if your husband is getting mugged, make sure to kick the mugger in the pills. Do not do the grip and squeeze (no matter what "Miss Congeniality" might advise). Or your hand needs to be cut off."
Posted by Karen, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2011 at 2:15 pm
" You are the one talking about numbers all the time"
No, not at all. I speak of majorities and minorities. Others speak of numbers...then I refer to majorities. If a majority of Muslims believe in their Quran, then they support the efforts of UBL on 9-11. As a raw number, that means over 500 millions Muslims. If others want to provide precise numbers, and sources, that is up to them.
What is it about Palo Alto softies that they refuse to look the truth in the face? We were attacked by men who were promoting the Quran on 9-11. The leader of these men was UBL. UBL is a hero throughout much of the Muslim world. The response of the majority of Muslims around the world, including the USA, was subdued at best. Propaganda units, like CAIR, put Ibrahim Cooper out front in America, becasue he was a white guy and he was soft selling the role of Muslims in the 9-11 attack. Until he was revealed as supporting Sharia law as the law of the land, he was everywhere on our TV sets. Once he got revelaed, he disappeared from CAIR propaganda efforts.
It is time to wake up to the truth about Islam. We should be strong supporters of those brave souls, within Islam, who are trying to make fundamental changes. If we don't recognize the evil, then there is no chance that it can be overcome. We need to reject the hatred that is a central part of the Quran. If this is accomplished, there will be no more UBL's. And no more 9-11's.
Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2011 at 2:25 pm
"No, not at all. I speak of majorities and minorities. Others speak of numbers...then I refer to majorities. If a majority of Muslims believe in their Quran, then they support the efforts of UBL on 9-11. As a raw number, that means over 500 millions Muslims. If others want to provide precise numbers, and sources, that is up to them."
Boy, talk about faulty reasoning and over-extrapolation. Where to begin to show Karen the error of her ways? Nah, no point--she is not interested in the facts--just on spreading hatred and intolerance.
BTW, Karen, my sister Susan and my cousin, the prison guard, both agree that Muslims are a peaceful people.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2011 at 6:51 pm Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Only a vanishingly small minority of Christians support the McVeys, the Klan and the Westboro Baptist Church. If their supporters were to parade in the streets I would worry.
The United States is without equal in conventional warfare, and so we should not be surprised that our enemies chose other ways of fighting us. Our insistence in maintaining normal relations with nations where the population is unfriendly can work to our detriment. Our insistence on treating terrorists as criminals rather than as enemy soldiers also works to our detriment. My comment on 9/12 was something to the effect that I no longer cared whether other nations loved us; neither that they respected us, but I definitely wanted them to fear us. Apparently my view was and is in the minority. I still believe it is the correct one.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Please sort out the the recent attempt to hijack my handle by the previously so called "real sharon" who is now trying to high jack "Sharon midtown --they did it before-- please go through your records--thanks
Posted by AMRW, a resident of another community, on Sep 15, 2011 at 7:46 am
Walter writes "My comment on 9/12 was something to the effect that I no longer cared whether other nations loved us; neither that they respected us, but I definitely wanted them to fear us. Apparently my view was and is in the minority. I still believe it is the correct one."
I really do hope that is a minority sentiment. Anybody who feels that ruling by fear is the best way to rule needs to only look at the effect of children raised in a fearful household to know that fear is not the way to have authority.