Free Republic

Correction, "5 Muslims that happen to live in Britain". Have heard the same news. Also unbelievably that they are probably coming "home"? to Britain.

The MP for Crawley must be pretty pleased. Having spoke previously of "such a tragic waste of life" re the one that come from Crawley.

Latest report on Sky News is that these 5 British Muslims named have turned up in Pakistan.

Correction, "5 Muslims that happen to live in Britain". Have heard the same news. Also unbelievably that they are probably coming "home"? to Britain.

Like I said "From what I know of boxing Lewis is a good fighter".

He's always looked classy to me, as though there is plenty there in reserve. Probably the best we've had. Just wish that he was more "British".

Lennox Lewis is a classic cry-baby. Rahman all the way.

From what I know of boxing Lewis is a good fighter. But the British thing, to me that's a marriage of convenience.

Brit? Didn't he box for Canada in the Olympics?

Just goes to show what we Irish can accomplish when working together. Wonder how far they might've gone working under the crown? LOL.

Win the finals. Reach the semi-finals more than once?

8 down. ? to go.

They would be eating meat from an animal slaughtered illegally under normal circumstances. So in some respects they would party to an illegal act. What religion? Conscience I suppose.

later you wrote to BenF: It is illegal for mainstream slaughter to do so without stunning. I think it has been since 1919. But there are exemptions from this due to religious reasons.

the only thing I can understand here is that you want gentile Brits to be able to eat the meat off of the living animal (note: according to most Rabbis, the prohibitions AGAINST this type of eating in the Torah/Old Testament are part of the basis of later developed kosher regulations)

or you don't like stunning, AND you don't want kosher (less painful) slaughtering because you LIKE causing pain to animals, and you want everyone to know if the meat they get is slaughtered under better circumstances. Or maybe you just don't want them to eat meat and think if they are forced to understand how painful lit is WITHOUT kosher slaughtering, then like a good fascist you will have eventually moved them to your pov - Are you Hillary Clinton's British alter ego? - if that 's the case, you are disingenuous, and deserve no response to any topic.

You can't prove 100% that ritual slaughter doesn't cause more pain and I can't prove 100% the opposite, all the rest is talk, so why don't you just give it a break, it's getting pretty boring. As for using words like gentile, I've got news for you, were living in the 21st century now. Or maybe your one of those people that still calls blacks negroes or even another word beginning with "n".

As for (b) you certainly have a wild imagination.

History of Britain and the Jews - let Jews in and encourage them to become entrepreneurs and bankers- grab their funds and refuse to pay of loans they made to the Crown when it's convenient - whip up hatred with blood libels - expel Jews - repeat when drunken-sodomizing-pederastic-rulers need more money to expand empire. Read your own history.

When was all this then? Would I be right in guessing it was before blacks had civil rights in your country; before the communist witchhunts that forced many US citizens (many of them Jewish for your information seeing as your so hung up on that word - you even inflicted Larry Adler on us - there could be no crime greater than that) to move to the UK & Europe in order to earn a living; before the abolition of slavery in your country?

That's hardly "traditional animus" Or does a decade count as traditional to you. More a matter of greed I would have thought.

does 5 decades of stealing from us count? The war ended over 50 years ago. how about over 6 centuries of Swiss participation in Euro trashing of Jews

Eurotrash, that's one of my favourite TV Programmmes. I didn't realise it had been going on for so long. Antoine de Caunes looks so young.

"We have not been convinced by arguments that direct cutting of the throat when carried out speedily and efficiently causes the animal no more suffering than if had been effectively stunned......(there are shortcomings in stunning and these should be rectified), but the fact remains that in our view humane slaughter can best be achieved by effective stunning".

well the fact that they aren't convinced and don't have scientific evidence to back it up means that their view is completely subjective, and remains, USELESS. Kosher slaughtering is scientifically understood by everyone except you and these puftahs to be more IMMEDIATE than any other method - if you want to ban all meat eating, say so.

The UK government has not acted on this recommendation. However, as religious slaughter methods are illegal in mainstream (non-religious) slaughter, obviously, the UK government believe that religious slaughter involves more cruelty.

this is the best example of Orwellian newspeak coming from England I have heard at least in a week. No wonder you lost your empire. We should all actually thank you for posting this remarkable view of modern day England. It won't be long now. You will all be gay and speaking Urdu soon.

What's with all the "gay", "sodomizing", and "puftahs" business. Do I detect a hint of homophobia here. You should know that people obsessed with these kind of matters are usually so because their fearful of their own latent homosexuality.

The above statement does NOT mean that obviously the UK Govt believes anything - it only means that they don't TRUST untrained and unsupervised people to butcher an animal by any other means than stunning - in other words, most of you are too STUPID and/or CARELESS to do the job properly - as you don't have the training, or supervision OR RELIGIOUS MOTIVATION, your Govt assumes that you people will not have the animal's interests at heart and will just willy-nilly hack away. Such faith your Govt has your people.

http://www.viva.org.uk/Viva!%20Campaigns/Slaughter/goingforthekill2.htm#Loss of consciousness after thr

you have provided this, and it is a vegetarian site; it has little documentary evidence for their claims beyond anecdotal evidence. - they would disallow the eating of all animals no matter how they were slaughtered - even if they were put down by injection, this group objects to meat eating - your use of them as a source for DIFFERENCES in slaughtering is ridiculous.

What's wrong with anecdotal evidence. I saw a programme about the making of the film "The Longest Day" a little while ago. It was based on a book filled with anecdotal evidence. So people who are against capital punishment aren't qualified to comment on the different methods used then?

in reply to my statement that your post came from a fascist anti-Jew anti-Israel site, "then maybe YOU shouldn't post lies on JUDAISM from their site either," you replied:

It was an opinion, same as you post your opinions here. Some of those are quite offensive, but that doesn't disqualify you from posting other opinions. I'm certainly not going to take any abuse. I may have up to now in order to further my case and let other people reading this thread draw their own conclusions (know where your coming from), but that's enough now.

you mean trying to further your case of falsehoods sway them with lies and innuendo? And which of my posts and sources which you have examined do you find objectionable?

The business about Brits and Muslim boys for starters (there's that fixation again). I suppose I could have replied with the old one about you guys shagging your mothers, that's why there's so few of you, but I don't want to descend to your level, so I won't . Oops!

Talking in terms of "bailing out" is pretty offensive as well considering the bravery, suffering and lives lost standing alone in Europe against Hitler for 2 years. What do you think would have happened to Britains 350,000 odd Jews if we hadn't done so. They would have gone to the death camps. Talking of which, I lost one of my relatives at Auschwitz, you know. My uncle Eric fell out of one of the watch towers! Boom boom! Bernard Manning, your a genius. What the hell, I'm not going to stay around here long, being as there are so many pompous right wing bible thumping, gun toting , homophobic, women and animal hating bigots (with a few notable exceptions who for understandable reasons have to voice their objections in private).

Your right about the Muslim slaughtering. That is my main concern. I really have a problem with their attitude towards animals. The article in question was mainly about that, (thanks for the tip about Arabia.com - I will post a thread there.) but your paranoia has turned the attention away . I could have posted the article and cut out the references to Kosher etc to make life easier, but that would have been dishonest.

no, what you could have done is gone out and gathered some sources on how (if) Muslims have taken advantage of rights that Jews have, in practicing the most humane method of slaughter on the planet, and how Muslims have abused it with backyard butchery that is cruel to the animal, etc... Instead, you pulled from a malicious site, and used a broad brush to slander Jews.

earlier you wrote : All I want to criminalize is any practice, religious or otherwise, that involves cruelty or suffering.

if you had only studied Judaism and the laws of Kashrut and maybe moved to Israel, then you would find the EARLIEST CRIMINALIZATION OF ALL CONDUCT THAT IS CRUEL TO ANIMALS. Maybe if you read your Bible, you would find that we Jews are COMPELLED to shoo the mother bird from the nest if/when we are harvesting eggs. That is only one ((Deuteronomy 22:6) )of dozens of rules on preventing cruelty to animals in Jewish Law that Orthodox Jews are required to take literally.

Why do you assume that if I had a religion that the bible would be the basis for that religion. Getting serious now, there's that schizophrenia again. I've got half a mind to go and see a doctor.

I don't think any practise should be looked on more favourably just because it is a religious one. We pay far too much respect to people's religious belief's as far as I'm concerned. well, bully for you for coming out and saying it - since you don't feel you have to respect the religious beliefs of people who are the source of most of western civilization, forgive me if I don't have to respect you either - go back to painting yourself blue, and go back to humping trees and rocks and, see if next time you call, we will bail you out, financially or militarily… typically ungrateful...

I haven't said that religious beliefs shouldn't be respected. I don't think any belief should be looked on "more favourably" just because it is a religious one. Perhaps if I spelt it "favorably" you would have understood it. Even if I except your comment about "the people who are the source of most of western civilization", that's no reason alone to respect their religious beliefs. What if their religious beliefs included killing the first born? As for your, "see if we bail you out", so you speak for your country do you. Talk about pomposity, delusions of grandeur and self-importance. Having visited relatives in the US many times over the years , thankfully, it's clear to me that you don't.

Other people have belief's that are just as deeply held and heartfelt. We should give them equal respect. Hardly an Islamic way of thinking.

except when the basis for these beliefs slip through your poorly-read mind set...or where they disagree with you... very islamo-fascist...

So far, apparently, the atrocities have been minimal by Afghan standards. That could certainly change at any moment. BTW, the term "atrocity," at least as applied to the killing of surrendered or captured enemies, is a classic example of cultural imperialism. Who are we to say that our values are better than theirs? Killing your enemies is probably the oldest and most valued Afghan tradition. We should learn to value this diversity.

Who is to say that our values are better than those of Apartheid South Africa.

Surely it must be because it's all a pack of lies, and the women would just as well have the Talibs back, because being "shamed" is no better than being slaughtered. Surely.

No it's not lies. Women are slightly better off. But if were going to have some sort of influence there (ie investing money and the like) we should insist they become a lot better off. For starters there should be women in the new government.

Khepera is part of the reason why I am glad we still have the 2nd Amendment.

You'll have to enlighten me on that one. Ie 2nd Amendment.

I've been waiting for this. According to an NPR journalist on the scene, reporting by satphone on the day Kabul was liberated, it was the townspeople who committed those atrocities and the NA moved in to restore order and stop the slaughter and looting. Which is why they moved in at all, despite promising they wouldn't.

Assuming you are a Brit writing from Britain, you should know that NPR is our public radio and about the leftiest of the lefty, knee-jerk anti-war media outlets. I'm sure somebody got hold of the reporter later and gave him the appropriate liberal spin, but I was listening to his story at the same time I was reading a Guardian article blaming all the gore on the NA.

The NA are not nice guys - they were bad enough that Afghanis invited the Taliban to push them out. But, then, the Guardian aren't nice guys, either.

Looks like were agreed on the NA and the Guardian then.

You are so right. The Taliban did such a wonderful job of "protecting" women. Is there a better way to keep them out of trouble other than death? </ sarcasm> Look, we all know in your sick little fantasy world, you'd have American women wearing burquas, being beaten for not obeying every last little word of their husbands or fathers.

Thank god for some sanity around here. Was starting to think I was going mad.

Who are "some"?

I find measurements of the relative size of the Mercies in question to be more reliable when coming from the people directly affected themselves - namely, Afghanis and Afghan women in particular - than when they come from dispassionate skeptical Western observers trying their darnedest to rain on a parade.

But, maybe that's just me.

The "some" are those in the media that treated the Northern Alliance advancing into Kabul as though they were akin to the Allies liberating Paris during WW2.

Yes, it would be nice to hear from Afghan women on their liberation, but haven't seen too much of that on my TV screen for some reason

I think the liberals are out to bash any idea that keeps women from being whores, prostitutes, and Abortion provider raw material suppliers openly and proudly. Some people have different ideas and they just hate that. Heck they tell me I'm just like the Talaban because I am a Christian and follow the tenants of Christianity. These folks are following the tenants of their religion. If you want to bash someone do it for a real reason like because they killed a bunch of innocent people in the WTC attack.

So you've got to be liberal to hate the subjugation of women, then? Couldn't find a better reason to bash someone than for the tenants of their religion, especially when those tenants cause so much suffering.

We did rather well writing Japan's constitution after WWII, but women there are still "second class citizens". I guess we shouldn't have bothered then? It's culture, not government. Or does "multiculturalism" only mean what YOU want it to?

No one's saying we shouldn't have bothered. We just shouldn't collude with this "culture" too much.

The writer is just trying to dampen the hysteria over the defeat of the Taliban in Kabul. It hardly compares with the defeat of Communism in some of the former Soviet States or the collapse of the Berlin Wall, as some would have us believe.

We should be thankful for small mercy's, sure, but that is all it is. I don't know whether you got footage there of the atrocities carried out by the Northern Alliance in Kabul. If this lot has any major part in the new government................

I was told by someone that in Florida it has been made legal to kill animals if it is part of a religious ceremony. So, the Black Magic people of the Carribbean got that through the legislature in Florida. We used to all agree that it is uncivilized to do these things and we easily outlawed it, now those laws are being changed to accommodate a different view. We should not change our laws though, we should cling to our ideas as to what it means to be civilized, we should not accommodate these others.

Couldn't agree with you more. My concern is that this type of thing will come here

Ah well, music can be now be played again, children can fly kites and men can shave off their beards.

I fear now for the Irish team in Iran.

Especially if they win.