Peace and Beauty

Peace and Beauty

Postby cassandra » Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:43 pm

Since 9/11 there have been 28,000 recorded Islamic terror attacks. 28,000 attacks over fifteen years translates to 36 attacks per week or, if you prefer, 5 attacks per day but, don't worry – Islam is a religion of peace and beauty and they only have your best interests at heart.
These statistics, however, do not include the monotonously regular terrorist attacks on Israel or the attacks made during several years of war waged by ISIS and their sub groups and affiliates; nor does it include the attacks on the civilian populations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi, Yemen, Nigeria, Indonesia and some other countries by the numerous Islamic groups. Nor do they include the current attacks across Europe by the influx of migrants under the Coudenhove-kalergy Plan.
The real numbers, if these ever could be quantified and included, are almost certainly at the high end of 100,000 which would translate to approximately 16 per day. The number of dead people are, realistically, probably unquantifiable. Again, do not worry about this, they are only trying to free you from the tyranny of self government, the tiresome business of self determination and the truly terrible responsibilities of freedom of choice.
Cassandra.
cassandra
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: Peace and Beauty

Postby Dreadlock » Wed Oct 19, 2016 9:38 pm

An alternative view.

Since 9/11 there have been 28,000 recorded terror attacks. 28,000 attacks over fifteen years translates to 36 attacks per week or, if you prefer, 5 attacks per day but, don't worry – western governments only have your best interests at heart.

These statistics, however, do not include the monotonously regular terrorist attacks on the West Bank and Gaza, or the attacks made during several years of war waged by ISIS and their sub groups and affiliates - such as the Pentagon and CIA; nor does it include the attacks on the civilian populations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and some other countries by the numerous proxy mercenary groups working for the west. Nor do they include the current attacks across Europe by the influx of migrants allowed under the authority of our beloved E.U governments.

The real numbers, if these ever could be quantified and included, are almost certainly at the high end of 100,000 which would translate to approximately 16 per day. The number of dead people are, realistically, probably unquantifiable. Again, do not worry about this, they are only trying to free you from the tyranny of self government, the tiresome business of self determination and the truly terrible responsibilities of freedom of choice.

Dreadlock.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Peace and Beauty

Postby cassandra » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:18 pm

I thought that all that about mercs and proxies was well known, went without saying - a given, if you like. However, as I said before, who brought this about is irrelevant until it's all fixed. After that the likes of Cameron and Merkel will still need to be dealt with. Again, that should go without saying. What you stated was nothing more than the obvious and it gives me pause for thought about why you would do that. But then, as I said in my intro, I chose Cassandra because her curse was to foresee the future, prophesy it truly but never be believed. Thus Troy fell. Perhaps your future address will be something like Mr. D. Lock, Burak gardens, Londinabad, Englistan.
If you wish to concern yourself with who did it rather than deal with what was done I don't see a future for you. I know who set my house on fire and i even know why. Before I go punish him I must deal with the fire. The requirements of the fire fighting are the same whether it was an accident or a deliberate act. Why raise the old hoary knowledge of who and why? Perhaps Squark may have a comment on that.
Cassandra.
cassandra
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: Peace and Beauty

Postby cassandra » Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:40 pm

On reflection, I may as well say goodbye here. Albert Burgess was correct - freemen are selfish. There's nothing and no-one here. But then I was told that before I registered. I should have listened.
Cassandra.
cassandra
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: Peace and Beauty

Postby Dreadlock » Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:02 pm

What you stated was nothing more than the obvious and it gives me pause for thought about why you would do that.

What is obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to everyone.

The requirements of the fire fighting are the same whether it was an accident or a deliberate act.

Not so. To continue your analogy, our governments are continually adding fuel to the fire. You cannot put out the fire while this is happening - new ones will simply start elsewhere. You will be constantly chasing flames while the arsenist laughs.

Where your analogy fails is that fire, analagous for Islamic people, does not consist of men, women and children. Fire is merely a tool. These people are pawns being used in a game - the classic game of divide and conquer. They need to be dealt with, but their humanity must not be ignored. They are not the REAL enemy here.

If you cannot cope with views which differ to your own then yes, you should say "goodbye".
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Peace and Beauty

Postby cassandra » Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:35 am

Quite where you get the idea that I cannot cope with opposing or different views is a mystery and probably an insult to one of us but we'll let that pass with only a couple of minor digs back. I fancy you fancy yourself as an intellectual. An autodidact, certainly, and not one with a formal classical education. Your history on this site demonstrates an ability to analyse simplex matters satisfactorily. Complex subtleties are another matter. I say that confidently because if it were otherwise I would not have to write the following.
No analogy is perfect – if it were it would be the thing itself – so any analogy can quickly be taken to the point of absurdity and be broken down. The false argument then put up is that because the analogy cannot be continued it must be false, inapplicable or worse.
The analogy stands, and as for the rest of what you say it is as if you did not read my post at all.
One point; you say their humanity must not be ignored. Who says? You? What exactly do you mean by “humanity”? Why must it not be ignored? Justify that please. As it stands it reads like bleeding heart liberal PC superficiality in action that gets you lots of brownie points but says bugger all in fact. A meaningless cry. Merely one of the now famous broad platitudes capable of almost any interpretation. Explain please.
Do you assign responsibility to yourself for their plight? Do you assign it to me? To the nation? To say something cannot be ignored is to say that I, you, we, us, have some collective moral responsibility to people who have voluntarily left their own home and lands and put themselves in difficulties. I feel no such obligation to any such people and particularly to those whose world view is so violently opposed to mine and whose religious beliefs demand my destruction.
To say their humanity cannot be ignored is to take a moral stance. Where did you get your morality from? Is it my morality? Is it their morality – a morality that takes almost no notice at all of others' humanity? - or is there some global, mystical morality that we all somehow share? Do you know what morality is, where it comes from? Do you know how many different moralities there are in the world? Do you understand that a great many of them are diametrically opposed? What makes yours right? Do you claim the high ground? Do you understand that morality is a shifting thing? Do you understand that morality is a thing given to you? That it is guided and shifted and shaped for you? Theses things are so obvious and so long known and proven that I have to question that you even brought morality into it. I suspect though that you were unconscious of it. You didn't know.
Do you understand the difference between ethics and morality? Do you understand the sometimes conflict between the two? That upholding one sometimes destroys the other? That we can be morally wrong but ethically correct? Perhaps you meant to say ethical responsibility when you said we cannot ignore their humanity. In that case I would say we can be ethically wrong but morally correct.
An example might be that of a cannibal culture. An individual refuses to eat human flesh. He is morally wrong according to the tribe's established culture. Ethically he is correct because cannibalism is contrary to the survival of the species. Thus, any moral obligation some may just have regarding migrants can be overcome by an ethical need to preserve our people, our culture, our lifestyle etc. I may save a dog from drowning but not at the expense of risking my life. I may save a migrant from his own foolishness but not at the expense of risking my country.
Lastly, you really need to read the Koran and the Hadeeth and for God's sake please don't tell me that you have!
Cassandra.
cassandra
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: Peace and Beauty

Postby Dreadlock » Sat Oct 22, 2016 4:13 pm

Quite where you get the idea that I cannot cope with opposing or different views is a mystery and probably an insult to one of us...

My initial post was merely an alternative view to yours. Yet you clearly took umbrage to it as can be read in your two responses to it. The "idea" you mention in the quote was in no way an insult to either of us, it merely followed from my observation of your responses which were somewhat hostile, unnecessarily so, and included the possibility of you voluntarily withdrawing from the forum:

On reflection, I may as well say goodbye here. Albert Burgess was correct - freemen are selfish. There's nothing and no-one here. But then I was told that before I registered. I should have listened.
Cassandra.

I hope this removes the mystery for you. Moving on:

One point; you say their humanity must not be ignored. Who says? You?

Correct. Well spotted!

What exactly do you mean by “humanity”?

No mystery here. In the context in which I used it I meant those characteristics common to mankind.

Why must it not be ignored? Justify that please. As it stands it reads like bleeding heart liberal PC superficiality in action that gets you lots of brownie points but says bugger all in fact. A meaningless cry. Merely one of the now famous broad platitudes capable of almost any interpretation. Explain please.

This refers back to your unfortunate analogy. Fires are fought by extinguishing them. Do you really wish to extinguish these people? To mow them down in the streets or exterminate them in concentration camps? Hence my reference to humanity and not ignoring it. My statement was not "bleeding heart" liberalism, it was a rebuttal of the unethical and immoral implications of your analogy.

De-humanising the enemy, as you did by referring to them as fire, is a common tactic used to ease the enabling of the prosecution of atrocitites against our fellow man. I would hate to see my countrymen take that road - which is not to say that strong action is not needed.

The rest of your post is merely rhetoric in the form of numerous questions and you even managed to sneak in a strawman. Good job! I won't bother responding to it.

It is interesting that you titled the thread "Peace and Beauty" yet you mention them nowhere else and are certainly not promoting them thus far. If anything you are promoting unthinking hatred. How Orwellian.

Nevertheless thank you for showing your true colours - it didn't take long. You're another one for my ignore list.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Peace and Beauty

Postby cassandra » Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:07 pm

Dreadlock, all you have done is invent offences and attribute them to me. Looking through your old posts I see that this is a standard technique for you. Offer nothing – just rip the other guy. I have reread my posts and I truly cannot see where I have taken umbrage to your original post. This can only be an invention of yours to justify an unjustifiable 'retaliatory attack'.
My stated choice of possibly voluntarily resigning from the site carries no hint of umbrage - another of your silly inventions. Yes, you could say it has frustration in it and a certain contempt for the philosophy you unjustifiably continue to push onto others, but do not practice yourself, when that philosophy has been tested at all levels from the pavement to the courts of appeal by a number of people some of whom I know and have attended court with. You say that you have never been out there and done it but you push others to do it. It sounds very much like the psychology game of “Let's you and him fight!”. All you have is opinion and they, the others, have experience. Go get some experience then we might think you have earned the right to sit at the table and talk. Until then, what use are you? What do you have to say that anyone should listen to you?
As for what you claim to be our common humanity; There are three and only three common characteristics in humanity and Musashi called them in one of WOTI posts. The Three Great Imperatives; survive, eat, procreate. Anything and everything outside of that is invented and made by man – including ideas of morality and humanity and the invisible man in the sky – are subject to political, religious and popular social change and never the same from one race to the next and not always the same from one generation to the next even within a single culture. As the great Elizabethan philosopher and poet, John Donne, wrote “There's nothing really good or bad but thinking makes it so.” You try to tell us that there is an absolute which fits all. Bollocks and bullshit. There are no absolutes. Your claim is another palpable and demonstrable nonsense. You also fail to understand that every society that ever existed or will exist is no more than a social experiment. I refer you to such as Durkheim, Weber, Kant and the many others in the Humanities/social sciences and the Age of Enlightenment. Clearly you have unformed and uninformed fanciful opinions.
It was interesting to see that you pumped your state-derived PC propaganda but retreated from the demanding question of your understanding of morality, calling it rhetoric. Rhetoric? I doubt you know what that is. Perhaps you meant rhetorical questions? In that way you could legitimately avoid difficult questions and still look good. Well, it was neither rhetoric nor rhetorical questions. They still stand even if you have gained a little time to do a quick bit of study. I don't mind that.
As for the immoral and unethical implications of my analogy – what another load of claptrap! You cannot prove by any means that I implied anything approaching unethical or immoral in the analogy. What happened was that you inferred something. That which you infer is nothing more than that – your inference. There were any number of inferences that could have been made – you chose the evil ones that suit your purpose. That says nothing about me but quite a lot about you. I need defend nothing here but rather you need to justify that claim. He who makes the claim bears the onus of proof. Do you have proof that your inference is my implication or that your evil choices are correct? I am under no obligation to prove a negative, an act which philosophers have for millennia said is impossible. I made an analogy. That which I analogised is a violent and dangerous matter. How else should one analogise such a thing? Flowers and beads and fluffy bunnies? If I did that perhaps you would say that the implication is that I am making light of a serious matter. Once again you seek to influence people with false logic, fantasy and your ungrounded inferences and assumptions. You are either very cunning or very foolish. You pull all manner of fantasies out of the magic hat and claim that they necessarily follow from my analogy. Not so, of course, and no reasonable man could think so. Your mind saw them and I did not invent them nor imply them.
Your false accusation that I dehumanised people by using fire as an analogy is just that – a false accusation, unwarranted and either a result of poor intellection or simple viciousness. That you went on to try to use this spurious invention of yours to classify me in others' minds as one who commits atrocities and therefore by default one of the bad guys and should never be heeded is outrageous, unforgivable and a sure sign that it was viciousness on your part.
I analogised a circumstance – not a people, and certainly not a people whom I regard as a greater victim of their religion than me. I read on this site a short post that said we are all born atheists. This is undeniable. What happened to turn healthy babies into religious maniacs who believe God wants them to murder millions and take sex slaves? Psychological conditioning in an Islamic acculturation process, that's what. They are victims, but they are victims who spread the results of their illness to the whole world and have created more misery than all other religions put together. A massive psychiatric problem for victims and bystanders alike and now a Europe-wide threat to life.
The mere fact that you responded to this post the way you did – to make fun of it by parody and burlesque and attempt to undermine me shows that your interest was in shooting me down and not in the problem referred to. Your small aside to the problem was barely worth including and probably a token gesture to reassure people that you actually pay attention. You pretend to an understanding of the problem and the need to deal with it but would set conditions actively to prevent any workable solution. How PC of you! Apparently, while they rape and kill, torture maim and randomly bomb innocents in countries which have taken them in and tried to help them, abiding by no civilised rules or morals and ethics we would understand, you would tie our hands with humanitarian moral nonsense and insist we still deal with them effectively. You are PC and you would convert the rest of us to your cultural homicide and suicide.
Now, if you'd like to tell us all how you propose to put a stop to all this butchery, protect us, our culture, our language and women and children while taking care to protect their humanity I would love to hear it. But of course you don't have one – you only want to attack others. Once again, yours is the platitudinous rhetoric of the politically correct which says nothing of value and offers no practical solutions. You merely want to tie people's hands in the face of attack to satisfy some strange idea you have been given of morality and humanity. If you're going to tell me you came to this conclusion all by yourself . . . well, 'nuff said.
It is interesting that you should attempt to dismiss my series of pertinent questions on morality by falsely and fearfully calling them rhetoric. They were serious questions. I am far more capable of rhetoric than you could imagine but this was not rhetoric. Questions, man. Questions. Of course you could not answer them so you dismiss them as rhetoric. Not so. Why don't you answer them?
Peace and Beauty. Ah, yes, this is what we non PC people call sarcasm. I would have been certain, had I been asked, that you'd met it before. Sarcasm and irony – dangerous things.
To conclude; your attempts at discrediting me, your fanciful and vicious inventions, your obvious nasty inferences disguised as my implications are a spotlight on your nature, character and, I dare to suggest, your function as hired gatekeeper on this site, reveal far more about you than you imagine it shows about me. You were suspiciously quiet on this matter and when you did speak up it was to attack and discredit me. Are you a Muslim using Al Taqqya – stealth, guile, deceit, treachery? You sound like it. Not once in the face of multiple Muslim child rape gangs did you say a word against it. Not once in all the horrors of murder, the taking of sex slaves, the rape of children and the terror spread throughout the whole world have you spoken out. You wait until I come along and use my words to attack me even while you essentially ignore the problems facing humanity. Humanity, Dreadlock, Humanity. That quality you hurled as a weapon against me in your falseness, is the very quality at risk from Islam and its followers. But you say nothing of that. You only use it as a springboard to leap on a chance to attack me, try to discredit me and turn others away from truth and reality. In this you have revealed your true nature. I think you are immoral and unethical.
Now, as for putting me on your ignore list – thank you. It will save me the small bother of ignoring you. I am content that you should make the effort there – it allows me to get on with more important matters. Thank you. It also means I won't have to counter your input, although I doubt very much if you can restrain yourself. You'll be back. Your ego will not permit a full withdrawal and you will of course read what I write. Having read you will not be able to restrain yourself. But that's okay. We won't think any the worse of you for it.
Cassandra.
cassandra
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:54 pm


Return to Empowering thoughts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest