web analytics

WHY YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE….

By ATWadmin On April 3rd, 2008

The United Nations typifies the leftist view that jaw-jaw is always better than war-war. The UN believes that dialogue represents the best way forward and is part of the siren chorus to want to talk to terrorists such as the Taliban and Al Queda. So, guess what Al Queda  thinks..

"The United Nations is an enemy of Islam and Muslims," says Al Queda Deouty Leader Ayman Zawahiri in the 90-minute message. He also called for attacks on Jews both inside and outside Israel. "We promise our Muslim brothers that we will do our utmost to strike Jewish people in Israel and abroad with help and guidance from God," he said.

You can really tell he is a guy that you could negotiate with, that you could engage with. My idea of engaging with him is via a daisy-cutter dropped on his head.

Look folks, these people are beyond all reason and we need to put them beyond this mortal coil. They want to KILL us, and YES that includes even the UN. What we need to do is unite in our determination to wipe them off the map, to coin a phrase. Being a dhimmi gets you nowhere and all the platitudes in the world from the UN will not assuage the feverish killing fantasies of the Religion of Peace and Love.

34 Responses to “WHY YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE….”

  1. This is sailing very close to the wind as regards incitement to hatred.

  2. An Al Queda suicide bomber destroyed the UN headquarters in Baghdad a few months after the invasion in 2005, killing many of its staff, including the head of the UN team sent there by Kofi Annan to help the reconstruction.

    You’d think that the UN would get the message from that.

  3. Peter,

    They did. They surrendered.

  4. The United Nations typifies the leftist view that jaw-jaw is always better than war-war.

    An opionion first expressed by Winston Churchill.

  5. David,

    Next time you yourself (and your family) are caught up in a war, come back and remind us that jaw-jaw is not the preferable option.

  6. Cait,

    I look forward to Al Queda trying to sue me.

    Dawkins,

    Next time you yourself (and your family) reflect on your freedoms, remember they were won by pfrevious generations who FOUGHT to preserve them. Freedom isn’t free.

  7. David,

    I confess I shall never understand Christian belligerence.

  8. To whom would you confess? Don’t worry, I forgive you and shall convert you yet!!

  9. David,

    Convert me to warmongering? I doubt it.

    You do profess to being a Christian don’t you?

  10. Dawkins,

    Aren’t you the fella who professes to owe allegiance to nothing and no-one, to believe in nothing, but yourself – and to be free to wander the globe at your whim, in other words the total self-centred narrow minded egotist, who thinks that all that you see before you is there just for your benefit.

    That others have worked and died to make it so, seems to be beyond your thought or comprehension.

    Yet you seem to feel no responsibility, or duty to contribute to anything beyond your small circle of self-interest, you decry those who would defend you, as it is patently obvious that you would be disinclined to defend yourself, let alone the community in which you live.

    In your childlike way you feel that it is almost your right to freely dispense or dispose of much of the largess that others have provided for you, by way of community, security, and ‘way of life’ – as though you had earned some proprietary right to donate it to the world at large. Paying taxes doesn’t buy that ‘right’, it has to be earned.

    Like our politicians, you find it so easy to be generous with that which for which you have never had to work, strive or die for.

    Being a Christian – that creed that you so despise, does not mean being a ‘soft touch’, or rolling over when threatened. Small wonder that you deny Christianity, – you are an atheist aren’t you? – if that is your idea of what being a Christian is all about.

    While you may well have the right to your opinion, you also have a duty of discretion in expressing that opinion. Besides which, I am sure you really are not such a Mayfly, or is it a Gadfly? as you would have us believe.

  11. Cait,

    I look forward to Al Queda trying to sue me.

    lol I heard you were loaded anyway.

  12. While you may well have the right to your opinion, you also have a duty of discretion in expressing that opinion.

    Whence comes this duty, Ernest, and why quibble over another’s right to his opinion?

    [Note: The above is meant to be taken seriously.]

  13. Well of course it is always better to (at least at first, try to) jaw-jaw instead of go to war. But it’s a question of how much each side is willing to compromise and come to terms. I daresay now and again, compromise can be reached between opposing sides. But in the case of Al-Q, there seems to be little chance of compromise, as their goals are so absolutely incompatible with our freedoms.

    Re Christianity, I think the reason why so many non-Christians misinterpret Christianity as equating to hippy-pacifism, is that they think of Jesus as some ‘kewl’ hippy dude in sandals whose message was merely "hey guys, just chill out and be nice to each other and all that, hear me?" That was an aspect of his message certainly, but a more important aspect of it was "you can never be nice to each other in and of yourselves, because your nature is all wrong – you can only be "good" when I am at the centre of your life, and even then, your goodness will be an extension of mine, and not your own". (That’s not a quote, it’s just me paraphrasing).

  14. Alan,

    Don’t we all have a duty of discretion as a part of living in a civilised society.

    A couple of examples:-

    Here on ATW we have a normal mix of ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’, yet the norm seems to be for the atheists to refer to any reference of belief in a God to be referred to in usually very derogatory terms, such ‘Sky-God’, or ‘fairy tales’ etc, etc.

    All quite permissable as ‘free speech’, but given that we are pretty much a bunch of ‘regulars’ here, and know how others think on the matter of religion, is it really necessary to be so gratuitously rude whenever the opportunity arises? We rarely see atheists referred to in such a derogatory way.

    They have made their point, do they need to keep on repeatedly displaying their lack of manners, perhaps it gives them a sense of reassurance, that they are really as superior as they imagine themselves to be.

    The same could well apply to the ‘peaceniks’, preaching their gospel of submission. Dawkins and others know full well there are many here who have been in the Forces or who have lost loved ones in defence of King and country.

    Once having made the point on their anti-war feelings, do they have to persist in repeatedly showing how little they value the efforts and the sacrifices that others have made in achieving the comfort and security that enables them to enjoy the freedom of speech which we all enjoy.

    To expect appreciation may be asking too much, but a nod of recognition of what has been achieved could well be in order in place of the seemingly universal idea that all conflict is wrong, – it isn’t! Even Buddhists defend themselves and fight back on occasion.

    There are few that go to war with any sense of joy, it is a duty that sometimes has to be undertaken, and no civilised person would engage in war for any other reason.

    Surely there is a duty of discretion involved when in ‘mixed company’, or is it a rule that debates and discussions have to be won in as rude a manner as possible to be considered a valid ‘victory’?

  15. Ernest,

    Politeness, then, as my mother called it. Yes, I am in favor of that. The danger comes when, as in the case of the Danish cartoons, we self censor to avoid giving the kind of offense you so well outlined above.

    So, hopefully we can agree that it is best to speak politely, but it is not advisable to refrain from speaking lest we offend the faint hearted.

  16. Ernest,

    "Aren’t you the fella who professes to owe allegiance to nothing and no-one, to believe in nothing, but yourself – and to be free to wander the globe at your whim, in other words the total self-centred narrow minded egotist, who thinks that all that you see before you is there just for your benefit."

    No. You’re confusing me with another. But that’s OK.

    "That others have worked and died to make it so, seems to be beyond your thought or comprehension."

    So you infer.

    "Yet you seem to feel no responsibility, or duty to contribute to anything beyond your small circle of self-interest,"

    Good that you use the word "seem". Progress of a kind!

    "you decry those who would defend you, as it is patently obvious that you would be disinclined to defend yourself, let alone the community in which you live."

    Ah. I note that you omitted the "seem". Tut.

    "In your childlike way you feel that it is almost your right to freely dispense or dispose of much of the largess that others have provided for you, by way of community, security, and ‘way of life’ – as though you had earned some proprietary right to donate it to the world at large."

    Ernest, you have psychic powers! You know what I feel, me, an unknown chap behind a keyboard. Quick, tell James Randi and you’ll win a cool million $$$.

    "Paying taxes doesn’t buy that ‘right’, it has to be earned."

    Your opinion again.

    "Like our politicians, you find it so easy to be generous with that which for which you have never had to work, strive or die for."

    Yep, Randi will hand over that $1m toot sweet. Heck, you can even tell that I’m still alive! Astonishing.

    "Being a Christian – that creed that you so despise,"

    I do? Jeeze you even know my mind better than I do! You could make a fortune on the stage. Darren Brown, look to your laurels.

    "does not mean being a ‘soft touch’, or rolling over when threatened."

    I know. In Christ’s own words to his disciples: "Go ye therefore and bomb all nations, yea wiping them off the very map: men, women and children, for thy heavenly father hath commandeth it."

    "Small wonder that you deny Christianity, – you are an atheist aren’t you? – if that is your idea of what being a Christian is all about."

    Excuse my ignorance of your belief, Ernest. Clearly I’ve read the Pollyanna version of the New Testament. Nothing in there about killing being good. Your version sounds much more exciting; a bit like the Koran. In fact, by the sound of it, very much like the Koran.

    "While you may well have the right to your opinion,"

    Thanks. Big of you.

    " you also have a duty of discretion in expressing that opinion."

    Like, I mustn’t egg chaps on to slaughter other chaps and their families?

    "Besides which, I am sure you really are not such a Mayfly, or is it a Gadfly? as you would have us believe."

    Your certainty is admirable. I wish I were that certain of stuff. Alas.

  17. Ernest

    You make some very good points above but i think you display a political bias there which is understandeabe as we all do so. Believers and war supporters can and have been just as rude and superior at times here on ATW , I particularly refer to suggestions made by more than one believer here that those who don’t believe in a deity will be devoid of a moral belief system or reason to be charitable to other humans, which is just as wrong as suggesting believers are ‘conned’ by ancient superstitions. And while I agree with you that anti-war views should not lead into attacks on the members of the armed forces , it is certainly the case that some regulars here who fail to tow the correct pro-militarist line on the ‘war on terror’ in it’s various guises can and have found themselves subject to a fair amount of abuse .
    It isn’t just the godless and the gunless who have the monopoly on ‘below the belt’ punch throwing.

  18. Ernest,

    "Here on ATW we have a normal mix of ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’, yet the norm seems to be for the atheists to refer to any reference of belief in a God to be referred to in usually very derogatory terms, such ‘Sky-God’, or ‘fairy tales’ etc, etc."

    How else should they state their view if that is their view?

    "We rarely see atheists referred to in such a derogatory way."

    Really? I don’t see believers pulling any punches when they proclaim that (for example) atheists cannot tell right from wrong, believe only in themselves, aren’t trustworthy, or believe that they are god. All views that have been stated here.

  19. >>the norm seems to be for the atheists to refer to any reference of belief in a God to be referred to in usually very derogatory terms, such ‘Sky-God’,<<

    Although they haven’t yet sunk to referring to Jesus as a murdering, criminal, child-molesting wanker, which are the epithets those who are offended by the "sky-god" name generally prefer to use when talking about another religious figurehead.

  20. Dawkins,

    Spoken like a true child ‘of the age’, – a spolit child I might add.

    When will you ever think up a reply of your own instead of repeating the bleatings – and style of others?

    If I have formed an opinion of you that is drastically different from reality, well you can only blame yourself for that, I have only your own words to go by, – no mindreading, just the impression you give. Perhaps it might behove you to be a bit more careful with the words and phrase you use.

    "Like, I mustn’t egg chaps on to slaughter other chaps and their families?"

    You didn’t say that, and I didn’t accuse you of it.

    Otherwise, thank you for making my point in my reply to Alan…

    p.s. Any time you fancy a game of poker – give me a call!

    I did say that I doubted that you were as you would have us believe.

  21. Colm,

    Hence my remark:-

    "Don’t we all have a duty of discretion as a part of living in a civilised society."

    and Alan’s:-

    "So, hopefully we can agree that it is best to speak politely, but it is not advisable to refrain from speaking lest we offend the faint hearted."

    You make the assumption that I am ‘pro-war’, I most certainly am not,, and I have yet to meet a vet of any conflict who is, it is seen in the correct context of a necessary, and sometimes odious duty.

    Nothing more and nothing less!

  22. Noel,

    "Although they haven’t yet sunk to referring to Jesus as a murdering, criminal, child-molesting wanker,"

    Well you surely don’t expect atheists to tell such fibs, – do you?…:-)

  23. Frank,

    "How else should they state their view if that is their view?’

    Perhaps with a little discretion, after all, that is what we are talking about.

    Are you suggesting that people here are not smart enough to exercise discretion when the occasion arises?

    If for no other reason than repetition of the same style, phrases and insults do get very boring.

  24. Ernest,

    There really isn’t a polite way to tell someone that you see their cherished belief on the same level as a fairytale or a cargo cult, or that something they believe has the same amount of evidence as something absurd.

    While I agree it’s not always appropriate to say so and there’s often no need to mention it, if it’s relevant to the debate then that’s what you say. The difficulty for the atheist is that religion (pretty much any religion) has an inbuilt defence mechanism which is to take offence at any disagreement stronger than agnosticism.

    Similarly the believer’s view of the atheist, which is often akin to their view of a communist or a child molestor, may be pretty offensive but if that’s what they believe then that is what they must say.

  25. Well, Colm you could certainly seem to be referring to me, there. But as I see it, it’s not so much that I "proclaim" things about atheists, but rather, as I see it, I put forward some propositions and I ask them to explain their views (as I did on some recent thread, when I asked "why should I be nice to people, if this life is all there is"). It was merely a hypothetical proposition, I wasn’t automatically accusing anyone of anything. Just interested to see the replies, that’s all.

    At least I state my opinions squarely, one-sided though some of them may well be. Sometimes you intensely irritate me, because you very rarely come "off the fence" about anything, you just sit there as if you’re some sort of neutral arbiter, and you criticize anyone’s opinion that isn’t right in the centre and seeing both sides. Are you passionately anti- or pro- anything? With (eg) Frank, Dawkins and Noel, I at least feel that I know where they stand on a variety of issues, and that therefore I know that I’m going to have a steep argument with them. Sometimes with you, I’m made to feel like I’m nothing more than a naughty kid who is being chastised for saying rude words in front of my mother.
    Sorry, Colm, I think you’re basically a nice chap, but I just had to get that off my chest. It just irritates me about you. (OK, my limited perception of you is probably wrong, as after all this is all just words typed on the internet between pewople who don’t know each other, so don’t take too much offence…but still, that’s how I feel).

  26. Frank,

    Well to coin a phrase – ‘boring is as boring does!’ – but then that is always going to be a problem when the same subjects come up for repeated debate…

  27. For Colm, an argument is like a woman. The best place to plant yourself is right in the middle! 😉

  28. Charles,

    How did the doctor’s visit go? Are you on the mend?

    BTW, is it your recollection that a gaggle of Yanks came here after Hurricane Katrina (or did I dream that)?

  29. Alan old friend, the Dr says I’m on the mend, and that my lungs weren’t scarred from the pneumenia. Very good news! I may return to work in 2 weeks. Not so good news.

    I think we invaded the place well before Katrina, but I couldn’t say when.

  30. Ernest,

    You insulted me, my character, my beliefs, my intellect, my Weltanschauung, and quite a bit more in the course of several paragraphs. And you talk to Frank about discretion!

    I do feel in the circumstances that I was very lenient with you and refrained from returning your insults in kind. Yet still you persist. I wonder why.

    The fact is, I criticized David for voicing unChristian thoughts. I do not hold with mindless slaughter. I doubt if Christ did either.

    As I remarked some time ago: Judas betrayed Jesus once; Christians on the other hand have been betraying Jesus every day for the last 2000 years.

  31. Freedom isn’t free.

    david the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. that means within as well as without. and if history tells us anything, it is that our sights should be more often aimed within. tyranny always comes with pleas for security from an external threat that was never there. why should we be immune from the same simple trick?

    That others have worked and died to make it so, seems to be beyond your thought or comprehension.

    funny how you (and david et al) always assume that those who fought and/or died would automatically side with your worldview. never mind that you also assume that their motives were monolithic.

  32. God save us from the rightous

  33. Tom

    Why should opinions always be completely on one side or the other in order to be honest and square. Why shouldn’t a moderate centralist position be equally firm and solid as one firmly from the left or right ?. I don’t accept, in fact you are wrong to say I just sit on the fence and take no sides on anything. I just express myself differently about what I believe and I can be just as passionate in my dismissal of silly stereotyped views which is the thing that irritates me about those who hold myopic one side good one side bad opinions. Do you recall some arguments I had with you and one or 2 others about the Stockwell shooting ?. I didn’t sit on the fence then. Perhaps you prefer people to be simplistic and adopt either a militant pacifist atheist leftist tree hugging position, or Right wing militarist ‘Capitalist hang me and flog em view, but just becasue I don’t buy into either stereotype doesn’t make me just a fence sitter. If I have made you feel like a naughty child it’s because I have picked you up on a silly and false sweeping generalisation or unfair accusation you have made. Hardly me being a fence sitter is it ?

    There is a lot of silly bigotry and hypocricy expressed here on ATW by many regulars who are too narrowly fixated by the belief that you have to be on one side or the other but I have no objection to anything anyone says. Neither do I mind irritating anyone, in fact I prefer we irritate and annoy each other than be a mutual back slapping society. But Just because I don’t sit immoveably in the Right or Left lane doesn’t mean I don’t have opinions as strongly felt or you or anyone else, even though I also have a reputation for being silly and ‘schoolboy’ in my humorous approach to many topics.

  34. I’m keeping this alive Tom, coz I’m off the fence and spoiling for a fight!