Want Peace? Do not Fear War

The battle of Lepanto was fought on October 7th 1571.

Here we is now again at the anniversary of that battle and it behooves us'uns ter think on what it were all about--since we got Jihad tearin' at the West--again.

Islamic men and boats outnumbered the European (Christian) fleet.

Ya'll ever heered of "Don Juan?" This is the battle that made that dashing raconteur famous-- Don Juan of Austria.

Jonathan Last wrote up somethin' last year in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

"It's the West vs. the Islamic world, a clash that has never abated. … It predates America itself. It is a clash between Western civilization and the Islamic world."

Now, folks, Uncle done read Pirate Coast whar' he learnt that them Islamic pirates was terrorizin' folks way back in the 1800s, wif' ole Tom Jefferson...so Islamic war on the rest of the world ain't on account of GWB or the oil industry or nuthin' like that--nope, chickens, it is intrinsic to the teachin' of Islam to make war on any who will not convert to Islam.

Last quotes from Samuel Huntington of Harvard, author Clash of Civilizations, who wrote,

"Conflict along the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations has been going on for 1,300 years."

See folks? It ain't nuthin' new.

"Islam advanced under the sword conquering North Africa, Sicily, Spain, Portugal and parts of France. Twice the forces of Islam laid siege to Vienna. For 1,000 years, Islam advanced and Christendom retreated," said Mr. Last of the Philly paper.

Here's the long and short of the Battle of Lepanto

The Ottoman Turks done whupped up on and captured European cities and strongholds throughout the Mediterranean. Them bandits figgered out they wanted ter control the sea, the trade routes, and smash European navies. In 1529 them brigands attacked Vienna. Then, by 1570 Cyprus was under siege. The Turks skinned the commander of Isle of Cyprus while the man were still alive. More than 12,000 Christians and Jews were enslaved on Muslim galleys ships an' chained to the oars .

Rumor was that the Muslims was "invincible." So, with terror as they weapon, fear spread along the coasts of Italy and Greece.

The Turkish fleet put that famous ole' Ali Pasha in command and sent him and the fleet ter Lepanto (Gulf of Corinth). They hawg tied some lawless Corsairs , too , under the command that repugnant pirate, Uluch Ali.

Don Juan got him some hep from his friendly rival, Andrea Dorian. THem boys faced 330 Islamic ships. Sea buffs say that the Battle of Lepanto was the last of the great sea battles usin' oared ships, an' it were also the largest battle since the Battle of Actium in 30 B.C.

When the smoke was cleared away, 8,000 European fellas was dead. But the Muslims done far worse, chickens. Yep the boys from the West got it together and dealt a dern good blow ter the jihadi crews-- more than 25,000 of 'em was killed. Don Juan rescued the 12,000 Christian and Jewish galley slaves.

A 'course, in a few years them Moslems rebuilt and the Islamic assaults rage on against Europe. This how come historians woan say Battle of Lepanto was any too decisive. But they do think it a fine psychological victory t: Oct. 7, 1571, is the day them Europeans jes' refused to retreat any more a'fore the "invincible" green crescent. Thas' the spirit we needs today too.


Ya'll, this here is somethin' ter think on:

Pope Benedict XVI explains in his book 'Without Roots,' the very idea of 'Europe' emerged as a reaction to the surge of Islam. It warn't until victory against the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683 that the Islamic hordes left Europe alone fer a few centuries-- in those 300 years Western civilization grew stronger, politically astute and the Islamic world , well, it stagnated under oppressive regimes and sharia law.

What happened next?

Why, ya' knows--- the West grew complacent and Islam grew under its nose. Time fer complacency is over. It is time fer war--or, at least not ter be afraid of war iffin' ya' ever wanna have peace.

Iffin' we let "terror" paralyze us, then ya' might as well git on over the the mall and look fer a burkha in yore size. Put down the Bar Be Que sir, ya ain't allowed no pork, and ya' daughter can be mutilated fer ya' "honor" 's sake.

Ain't never been one time in history when Islam was contained wif' "dialog." We gonna have ter fight 'em.

Next Post: What Is Islam? Inside Islamic teachin' and history.

(Fair Warnin': If youse squeamish, doan click in over here,
it ain't gonna be "light." Natcher'ly, the FRONT Porch remains
lighthearted fare.)


iamnot said...

History doesn't lie...and neither do you.

Ardlair said...

1.And of course the Christians were just innocent victims in that conflict - just like they are now Aunty Belle? Bullshit!

2. And what about the agressive pillage of large parts of the world under the "Christian" banner?

The rape of the Incas, Aztecs and Mayans?

The near annihiliation of the North American Indians by visiting European "Christians".

The enslavement and oppression of black Africans - that continues to this day- by first, second, third generation Christian Americans?

The British Empire?

So.................weak start, AB.

If you try and use agression and warmongering as evidence that Islam is per se evil, then you have already lost that argument.

Some men are evil, some men aren't.
They fly all sorts of flags.

ArtfulSub said...

Nice slogan-chanting, Ardlair. You forgot to insert the inevitable reference to the "Crusades" and the Inquisition.

Here's an challenge for AB's readers. Ask 5 "educated" young people if they've HEARD of the Crusades. Or of European mistreatment of the tribes already living in the Western Hemisphere.

Then ask them if they've heard of ANY of the battles fought in the long long attempt to enslave Europe by force by "islamic" forces.

My guess is they, like Ardlair, have been taught to chant slogans about the former since Middle School. Their understanding of those events, like Ardlair's, will be largely factually incorrect and totally without context. But they'll have HEARD of them.

My guess is that NONE of the young people you ask will have even HEARD OF the events Aunty writes about.

Events of FAR greater historical signicance and a ZILLION times more relevance to today's situation than the European-Aided implosion of the Aztec Empire.

An Empire that did more than it's share of extremely brutal genocidal attacks against other tribes, by the way.

Food for thought.

Aunty Belle said...

Iamnot, delighted ter see ya! Have enjoyed yore car foibles, the in and outlaws...tee hee. Please doan be a stranger.

Ardlair, ya' knows the rules on these porches, I have mentioned it a few times --ole' lady ears and eyes is delicate, so use grown-up language, no foul language.

Youse welcome to use sarcasm, irony, strong intelligent words, but them foul potty mouth words an' blasphemy will cause an automatic deletion of yore comment in its entirety. Ain't got time ter edit fer decency.

Iffin' ya wanna yak on this topic, better send me yore address so I can git a history book or two over to ya', so ya' can comment wif'out embarrassin' yoreself so badly.

Artfulsub, howdy, Sugar. Ya' got on orange and blue terday?

Youse right on them Aztecs, honey--and youse also right that folks doan know of the horror of life under Aztec rule. The practiced heinous human sacrifice, warred against their neighbors and wiped out other Indian tribes.
Course, ya' cain't teach THAT in school these days.

As fer the Crusades Artful, stand by ter chime in on the coming posts: Three posts on Islam to show it is SYSTEMICALLY evil according to its own teachin's and practices.

(But this ain't ter say that ALL muslims is evil--they ain't--only that the religious-political system of Islam is intrinsically evil. THis disticntion is difficult fer some ter grasp, so I keeps repeatin' it so folks woan come accusin' Aunty Belle of

she said...

the current oppression and genocide in black africa is by the hand of islam and its easily verifiable...they are killing as many non muslims as they can...including animists for rotties sake. and converting once free states into muslim totalitarian states. even total dolts can research and discover that Islamic states are some of the worst human rights abusing states in the world.

as to artfulsubs comment on the implosion of the ancient american cultures; he's right. its a real drag when bad guys come over and horn in on your slavery and sacrifice monopoly.

i admire your fortitude aunty!

Infinitesimal said...

Hey, you are back!!

thanks for doing this, It's important to some people to be able to understand your thought process and divine truth from it.

I like this alot:
"(But this ain't ter say that ALL muslims is evil--they ain't--only that the religious-political system of Islam is intrinsically evil. THis disticntion is difficult fer some ter grasp, so I keeps repeatin' it so folks woan come accusin' Aunty Belle of

Yeah, I think that's where some of the agitation comes from. You see, a lot of people have Islamic practicing friends, who are kind and generous and tender to them.

A lot like Christians aspire to be, in fact, some Islamic friends tend to be more like Christians than Christians themselves...

but anyway, the point She made was also correct, the horrible horrible genocide in Africa is a direct terror, and it is Islamic (INSURGENT) inspired.

So making distinctions is good good good, because even though an individual's EXPOSURE can be to kind, gentle, giving Muslims in their own microcosm, there are also some dag-nasty hard as nails men out there who also pray to Allah, and there ain't nobody who can dispute that because it is a proven fact.

So keep on telling about the political aspect and the actual teachings as you interpret and know them to be, and I will continue to sit in my desk and learn.

Thanks for doing this, I appreciate it.

Will comment on actual content when I return from the library.

Infinitesimal said...

On content:

Can you write about the actual ORIGIN of Islam, as with Mohammed and Kadija
as a way to rally more troops to the cause of pillaging? Mohammed being a roving soldier and leader at arms.

Can you do a history lesson from the beginning?

Where did the concept of Allah come in?

See, most people think that there is a Spiritual Base, and there is a spiritual creed, but that creed is more of a prescription for keeping soldiers in line.

Over time it has turned to a religion.

But can you dig deep to the origin?
I think that would be most helpful for understanding.


Ardlair said...


Usual patronising, blinkered stuff for anyone who dares disagree with the Southern Chrissty- Crossties.

But at least I have achieved something.....Aunty Belle now publishes a disclaimer acknowledging that not all Muslims are evil!

Spread the word honey, spread the word!

ArtfulSub said...


Oh darn. I was hoping we'd stay off the "Crusades" and focus more on the New World. Because there is a LOT more factual material to prove our point.

Which is that various deeds that are labelled as "bad" today are being WRONGLY said to have been primarily motivated by Christianity.

Case In Point:

My ancestor, William Clark, a dreaded "White Christian", probably did more to effect the lives of American Indians than any man in history.

Most know he led the Clark and Lewis Expedition, of course. But PRIOR to that he fought many battles against tribes as a Militia Leader.

And, After That, he was Superintendant of Indian Affairs and Governor of the Missouri Territory. The biggest political issue of that Territory WAS white settler/indian relations.

His "White Christian" life was ALL about interaction with Indians. It should be noted that MOST tribes liked him as a Man and some tribes (at the time) liked his decisions. And that he lost Missouri's first Gubernatorial Election because he was seen as TOO NICE to Indians.

Nevertheless, it certainly could be said that most Indians ultimately got screwed by processes that Clark was instrumental in designing and enforcing.

So, what effect did Clark being a White Christian have on his decisions? Unlike with the Crusades, we can PROVE his religion wasn't much of a factor. Nor for Jefferson, Monroe, Polk etc...

Scriptural References from William Clark that he cited to explain his decisions? ZERO. NONE. NADA.

Strong impetus to force Indians to accept Christianity? NOPE. Not apparent from ANY of his writings or any of his contempories. He had no problem with his adopted son actually PRACTICING traditional Indian rituals.

His attitude towards the TINY number of Americans who did have something of a religion-based reason for their actions? Missions and such?

He didn't care if they were Catholic, Baptist, Mormon or Methodist. If they supported his SECULAR/POLITICAL/MILITARY/ECONOMIC agenda, they had some goodies tossed their way. If they didn't, there was hell to pay.

And that is the reality of misdeeds done by Christians in most historical circumstances. The motivations were Secular/Political/Nationalist/Military/Economic.

It's just easier to prove in more recent times, because more writings survive.

The basis of "muslim" misdeeds, by contrast, always were and are PRIMARILY inspired DIRECTLY by the teachings of the Warlord Mohammed.

Anonymous said...

SHE is correct:
"A Muslim rampage last week in this town in the northern state of Kano resulted in the killing of 10 Christians and the destruction of nine churches, according to eyewitnesses. Another 61 people were injured and more than 500 displaced in the September 28 disturbance, touched off when Muslim students of Government College-Tudun Wada Dankadai, a public high school, claimed that a Christian student had drawn a cartoon of Islam’s prophet, Muhammad, on the wall of the school’s mosque. Rabiu Danbawa, pastor of an area Evangelical Church of West Africa congregation, said he stood about 500 meters from his church and parish home as it burned. “There was nothing I could do,” he said. “I did not know the fate of my wife and my children.” Danbawa said he went to the police station, only to find the police dispersing the many Christians who had run there to escape the attack. “We were told to leave, as our safety could not be guaranteed,” he said, in tears. “Women and children all scampered to the bush, only to be attacked by the Muslims who had already hid themselves in the bush awaiting their Christian prey.”

No cartoons were found.

she said...


another bigoted comment on southerners and chrissty crossys. way to show us how tolerance behaves. yet again, ardliar.

Anonymous said...

Off topic but important:

Some Americans think that the war in Iraq is a "conservative" war by your President Bush.

But it was Clinton who formed the "Iraq Liberation Act" If Clinton had thrown out Saddam, no doubt liberals would call it a humanitarian victory.

Americans wakeup! Do not be divided into left-right camps.

Check this:

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))

Bill Summary & Status for the 105th Congress

Public Law: 105-338 (10/31/98)
SPONSOR: Rep Gilman (introduced 09/29/98)



Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

A bill to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.


Infinitesimal said...

hey Ardlair,

I am pretty sure that Belle has always stated that it "weren't ALL Muslims", just the jihad type o' terrorist sort.

I think her point is that the dogma of the religion itself is based on conquering.

Your counterpoint citing the Christian massacres of other cultures is flawed as a counterpoint because of one thing:

Christianity does not prescribe submission, it requests it of an individuals own free will.

That men took it upon themselves to push it down the throats of native people is not a comment on the basic principles of Christian philosophy and the teachings of Jesus.

It is purely a comment on man's inhumanity to man.
Those crusades were Satanic, and you are way too bright not to see that in your heart. They are Satanic because they breed confusion and distain for Christianity in the good hearts of thinking men. Do not confuse the actions of men with the teachings of Christ, OK?

By contrast, the teachings of the prophet Mohammed are based on submission, and not by free will, as I understand it. And I don't understand it, and so have asked Auntie to write her mind down for me. She is an ELDER, and we should respect her wisdom. We should let her organize her thoughts and submit them for logical debate or discussion.

I think there are good points that you could make regarding the positive aspects of Muslim lifestyles. I know you could. So why aren't you? Why not participate instead of tease? This is a place where people of both minds could learn something if both factions held onto the basic human rights of respect and encouragement to grow.

Man's inhumanity to man takes many forms, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists....even the Buddhists!

A spiritual man is a good man. Men devoid of any spiritual essence can be the cruel perpetrators of terror.

Well, that's my two cents.

Keep an open mind


as the kids say:

"Free your mind, and you ass will follow."

*sorry Aunt*

the rest of the quote is:

"...be color blind, don't be so shallow"
but that last bit is only known to us grown folks... the kids don't remember it.

Crissity Crossitys Ardlair?
that's pretty clever, even if it is a bit of a barb.

I hope you got the gist of this long and rambling comment.

I would really appreciate your input here, but so far you are just
wiggling fingers, thumbs in ears, and sticking out your tongue.

It's a cute face, but you are much more distinguished than all that.


Ardlair said...

Ah She.



Yet again, with but a few words, I lure you into my trap.

I've never, ever, ever, suggested that my religion is the right way.
Because I have none.

Or that I am free from all sin.
For I am not.

Or that I am without prejudice.
For that would be a rare man.

Trouble is...................some folks...................well they jest go on pretendin' that they are.
Free from fault.

Usually stuff impregnated into their itty-bitty brains when they are youngsters.

I acknowledge my weaknesses, she-he-grr-he-ha-ha person.

All I seek is that others do likewise.

And, y'know?
I slowly, oh so slowly, win!

Ardlair said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Aunty Belle said...

She, youse better'n a junk yard dawg, fer shure!!

Infini, I will git to the backstory...settin' up a sources link first. Thanks for clarifyin' my clarifyin'.

Anon, thanky fer that info--heh-heh--yep, had Clinton smacked Hussein the libs would all rave over it.

Speakin' of the war in Iraq, Roamin' the blogs I found two real hard reasons to remember why Lepanto means somethin' to us all

1) This here is one of them eyewitness accounts tha' never makes the media

From Navy Cross-winning Marine Marco Martinez,

I was honored to have been given the opportunity to fight in Iraq on our country’s behalf. And it was that experience—and five things I saw firsthand—that illustrate the foolishness of those who would equate American military power to that used by thugs and tyrants.

Mass Graves

I was part of a group that was tasked with guarding Saddam’s mass graves. And let me tell you something: anyone who could look straight down into those huge holes at the skeletons and remains and see what that monster did to 300,000 of his own people would have no doubt that we did the right thing in removing him from power. Saddam’s henchmen would tie two people together, some with babies in their arms, stand them at the crater’s edge, and then shoot one of the people in the head, relying on the weight of the dead body to drag them both into the hole. This would save on rounds and also ensure that both people died, one from a gunshot, the other by being buried alive.

* * *

This Marine's story takes us'uns back to the topic of this post--Battle of Lepanto. We must not fear to engage- there is a time for fighting back.

Still not convinced?
2) Second report from another blog:

Sunday Mirror (UK) on the Beslan masscre of li'l chillens:

THE full horror of the Russian school atrocity began to emerge yesterday as traumatised children told horrific tales of stabbed babies and brutal rapes. It has also emerged that scores of the 323 who died - including many children - had been shot in the back.

While despairing soldiers and rescue workers moved among the growing pile of body bags, it was revealed that an 18-month-old baby had been repeatedly stabbed by a black-clad terrorist who had run out of ammunition. Other survivors told how screaming teenage girls were dragged into rooms adjoining the gymnasium where they were being held and raped by their Chechen captors who chillingly made a video film of their appalling exploits.

Infinitesimal said...

yeah, i made mention of that Russian debacle in a prior comment here. It was unreported, the rapes and knifings of babies.

But again, it was man's inhumanity to man, and not the spiritual essence... you know?

Go look at my Vanille Bitch blog for the "Planting Tomatoes" post.
It is about terrorists (cut and paste of course)

Dag Aunt, cain't you leave the juicy comments up fer jest a piece?

Sheesh, I wanna know what's going on!

Anonymous said...

i got deleted!

for disagreein' with da bosses!

it was jest a message to fini!

Aunty Belle said...

Hey Infini, I'll be by ter see yore tomatoes...

The Russian thang is evidence of somethin' real important -the prevalence of Islamic justified terror against the dhimmi. They do not see non-muslims as worthy of life, Fini.

I mean, is ya seen any mullah tell them Beslan animals that allah ain't happy wif their little project? Has the fatwa against Rushdie or Aayan Hirsi been recalled?

As fer juicy comments--ya know what baby doll, I shoulda left it up jes' so the other blogger folks could see the silly display of oral incontinence, as the blogger describe its own comment.

I'se hopin we can have a high octane exchange, and opposin' views is welcome. Ever'body is welcome who can make their case wif' language that woan offend mah mama if she looks in.....

Sure doan wanna use comment moderation... so let's see iffin' all will use history, data, facts, etc. so we have an adult discussion.

she said...

dear ardliar

i am so pleased for you!
i like to see you happy.....*tsk* pity that it requires you to have a sense of trapping and winning over a dumb southern bronze to get there.


nice comment vaniiillle. and what in the heck? school on saturday??

what are you deleting aunty???

Aunty Belle said...

She, Aunty only deleted oral incontinence.

ArtfulSub said...


I'm really heartened to see people on here who actually KNOW some of the facts about "islam". And desire to learn more FACTUAL information.

As for "Allah", I'll answer in case AB doesn't get to it.

"Allah" was a moon good often but not always at the top of the pantheon of the Warlord Mohammed's ancestors. The pagan Ishmaelites.

Primarily through conquest, by the time of Mohammed most other pagan polytheists in the region had "Allah" somewhere in their pantheon.

The war-chant "Allah es Ahkbar" or "God is Great" originally was intended to mean "We own the Night!". Or "Allah owns the Night". Because of the Ishmaelite's successful use of night terror tactics.

And the Star and Crescent Moon symbol now used to symbolize the "religion" of "islam" was originally an intimidation tactic. Often used somewhat in the same way that street gangs use Graffitti.

A warning to unconquered villages and something that we now call Psych-Ops. The message being "Night is Coming". Don't get comfortable. We can send spies in to scrawl the Star and Crescent on your gates and homes. Even with a Full Moon. We'll do worse as the moon wanes and the nights get darker.

Surrender! Submit! Surrender! Submit!

Eventually, of course, "Allah" morphed into something resembling a monotheist singular "God". But the message of surrender, submit, or die stayed intact.

Aunty Belle said...

Artful, thanky for takin' up some of my slack--sorry to be long gettin' ter the meat--

still settin' up a resource page for ya'll so when I does the first (of three) commentaries on Islam, youse gonna have backup in case ya wanna have a deeper look-see on ya' own.

Also, Aunty knows some of ya'll finds mah speech to be a bit if an impediment, so I'se arrangin' fer a
egg head to translate my cracker yak into plain English fer ya'.

It'll be a another 2-3 days or so, but until then, think on this:

It is easier to pretend
than to defend.

If we PRETEND that Islam is a religion of peace then we can git back to our personal pursuits.

If we PRETEND that "only a few" Muslims are violent then we can git back to our pleasures.

If we PRETEND that "its our fault" then we can pressure politicians who are far more responsive to our voices than the Mullahs.

If we PRETEND that Islam is about peace and "alms" for the poor then we doan have to ask why the wealthy Saudis use the Palestinians as a PR ploy to foment dissension in the West when a few less Parisian apartments and Swiss back accounts for the 1000 Saudi "princes" would pull the Palestinians (their brothers) out of poverty.

If we PRETEND that Islam is peaceful we doan have to wonder why they are in conflict with the WHOLE rest of the world. We cn jes' turn our rich backs on Africa and Southeast Asia. ( Jemaah Islamiah is part of al-Qaeda , they were the thugs what bombed Bali)

If we PRETEND that Islam peaceful and humane we doan have to ask about the treatment of girls and women.

If we PRETEND that Islam is peaceful we doan have to ask why not ONE official Iman or Mullah or organization has categorically denounced the use of violence and terror against innocent people like the WTC and London & Madrid trains & Beslan Russia.

They will say "it is tragic" or "We regret" but what you will not hear is, "We (I) utterly denounce the use of violence and terror against innocent persons. We condemn Hezbollah, we condemn Hamas, al-Qaeda..." You have not heard nor will you hear it. What they mean is "We think it is tragic that all you dhimmis did not convert and avoid your deserved massacre".

But we PRETEND that this is not significant.

in order to PRETEND and preserve a few more months or years of personal pursuits we play the part of Chamberlain to Hitler. We think appeasement will deflect the threat. It never does. NEVER. Appeasement increases the bully's appetite.

Churchill was right. If we refuse to trouble ourselves to tend to the threat while we are strong, then we will have to fight a rear guard engagement when we are weak and have scant chance to survive (as a culture, as a people accustomed to freedom).

Pretend is easier than defend : "Don't bother me wif' no facts, I'se busy havin' fun while I can."

Gotta git back to them resources--see ya!

Infinitesimal said...

Whoah Artful Sub,


I will have to play Mute Monday with you tomorrow for that one!

AS you know, I am in the business of understanding.
My academic training is focused on hearing the voice of whomever is speaking with me.

So, I agree with that comment in it's entirety. I do.

However, I have to add this,
there are....
MANY good hearted people who WANT to be spiritual beings.
Think of it as driving a car.
People want to drive, to be in control of their own destination... so they procure a vehicle.
But as we know, different countries have different vehicles to offer.
Those cars that look funny to us from Eastern Europe, just are not available to drive here, so they are foreign.
We drive what we know, and even though a Ford is a piece of crap, it still gets us to work on time.
It still drives.
Well, so then, apply this metaphor to spiritual pursuits.
I really believe, deep down, that there are many many many good hearted people who practice Islam. They do it because that is their vehicle to spirituality. They do it because that was the car that their parents taught them to drive with.

Do you agree?

We may say:
Look, a Pugeot or a Mercedes or a Volvo are superior vehicles by which to drive oneself. However, if those cars are not available, you cannot say that everyone who rides on a camel is a mean-hearted driver.

My point being that a spiritually advanced person will find a way to shine, and I believe that is why many people are in defense of Islam. Because there are people, good kind people, who practice it, and shine.

They may not be aware of all the things that Artful Sub had to contribute to this discussion, but they have goodness in their hearts, and a desire to be spiritual.

And some people who would disagree with you readily may think that those people need a voice in this discussion as well.

What do you think?

Infinitesimal said...


what I meant to say with:

you cannot say that everyone who rides on a camel is a mean-hearted driver.


ONE cannot say that everyone who rides on a camel is a mean-hearted driver.

because I know your beef is with philosophy and leaders, not the everyman.

So that sentence was intended not to be a personal, but rather a general, remark.

Aunty Belle said...

Oooops! Meant to give ya'll a preview of life to come from this week's news in Germany:

"At the Munich court the atmosphere was stunned silence, when the 35-year old Iraqi recalled the stabbing and setting to fire of his wife in the street. He regrets nothing. His act was because of culture. Because of religion and German political laws.

“No”, the small built man told the Munich court, “I am not sorry, no regrets I killed my wife.”

She earned it. And more than all, the politics of the Federal Republic of Germany is guilty of her death. “Because the women here have too many rights, they are immodest”. (His Wife was stabbed to
death with gasoline poured over her. )

...With calm composure Kazim Mahmud Raschid, 35, told the court that Bajez Abdullah, 24, his wife, was stabbed and gasoline fire because “culture and religion” gave him the obligation “to do what I needed to do”. Also the father-in-law desired the wife, Sazan, who had brought dishonor onto his family, to die: “If you do not kill her, then I will be killing you”, The dishonor the young lady brought was she wanted to get a divorce.

...He had beaten her over and over such that police had obtained a holding order against him. ... Dozens of people in the Maier Leibnitz street saw the murder....

“I desired to kill her”

“I do this so I am a man”.

.... clip....

If Foamy is out there readin' the Porch blog, mebbe she can check the original against the translation above. Original is here:

Aunty Belle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aunty Belle said...

Yes, Infini, what ya' wrote: "MANY good hearted people who WANT to be spiritual beings." This is true.

An' that my puddin', is the heart wrenchin' tragedy of it.

Sugar Pie, because they are victims and despite their individual intent, their leadership (religious and political) has declared war on us AND them unless they submit (the meaning of Islam is "Submit").

This is the pathos of the whole

the.red.mantissa said...

to all that have posted here *SIGH* ... more mudslinging? can we grow up and stop flinging sand into each other's eyes? i mean everyone in general, and no one in particular.

i will just state at the outset ~ i am here to defend no one, and attack no one. i'm just here to give my perspective, which is quite different from any of yours, as one would expect.

nonetheless, i appreciate the diversion this provides at this time. and also the time you're taking to do this. and i love history. it provides me with a greater understanding of the human condition.

that said, i really urge everyone here not to drink of the cup of bitterness, as our good friend and hero MLK urged his followers years ago.

okay ... about the content of this post and its comments:

1. it is intrinsic to the teachin' of Islam to make war on any who will not convert to Islam.

please, i have asked b4 and not received a satisfactory answer ~ where in the koran does it say this. please, provide a primary reference which i can consult.

2. so what are we talking about here? the aztecs? the incas? the north american aborigines? the christian crusades? islam and its history? because ... until i've done several hits of acid, or mainlined some really strong meth, i really cannot see how ALL of these stories are connected to the topic at hand.

pick one, and tell us about it. well, i think you're trying to, but the conversation keeps straying.

3. what's the purpose here? to find evidence to support your position? or to elucidate us about some knowledge you have, that we may fail to fully grasp? i, so far, have learned nothing ... but i will patiently wait to see if there's more.

and i will ignore all the intolerance here ... and yes, there is more here than just ardlair's intolerance/disagreement ~ if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

4. as for artful sub's claim, wrt to "native NA indians," and the white Christians. what a touching story ~ perhaps you'd like to hear about the residential schools here in Canada ... and the terrible abuses that Christian missionaries (mostly clergy and religious) committed against an entire race of 'barbarians' all across this country. esssentially, the Christians succeeded in near committing cultural genocide by splitting apart families, forcibly removing the children from their loving parents for no reason, and taking them the boarding school, where they were abused and abused some more.

what's this got to do with anything? and what's my point?

my point is this: ALL MEN AND WOMEN POSSESS THE CAPABILITY FOR HEINOUS EVIL ~ Christians have certainly committed their share of evil atrocities, just as Jews and Muslims and Atheists have. no one group has more or less of a propensity for evil and abuse and violence.

5. something that's missing from this lesson ~ the things infini says. Also ... context. all the events of history, anyone can regurgitate ... what's helpful, tho, is the context, the backdrop against which the events took place ...

6. with respect to the incas ~ disease spread played a factor ~ as in Europeans spreading the small pox disease to an area previously unaffected; this devastated the population, which never recovered. also, the fact that the incas had no access to iron, and the europeans did, had something to do with it. but that's off topic.

i mention this about the incas, to demonstrate what i mean by context ~ its easy to be an armchair historian, by just obtusely analysing past events with today's mindset. anyone can do that ... and that's not helpful. what's helpful is circumstance, context.

6. perhaps a more relevant lesson would be a thorough, objective study of WW1, since anyone who knows anything about military history knows that its called the great war for a reason ~ a hundred years later and we are still dealing with its fallout.

7. if anyone here is into podcasts, check out dan carlin's hardcore history series. of course, y'all know about the 12 byzantine rulers.

Infinitesimal said...

Well Red, Hidy!
I actually got a minor in American Indian Studies as an undergrad.

And everything you said is on point,

except that everything Artful Sub said on that topic is on point too.

And in addition, I must add, that even though I hated the class taught by the Indian who taught us that history was wrong, that Indians liked the boarding schools (some actually did)

That the Iroquois nation did not, in fact contribute to our development of democracy. (Me and the Prof went around and around on that one in a biiiig ole dogfight)
But that it was rather a Roman influence...

...and that the smallpox epidemic was overreported and blown out of proportion.

It is her culture that she speaks of, and I have to consider her opinion.

Actually, it was a bit refreshing to hear that viewpoint coming from someone who was the exact opposite of who I expected to hear it from.

I studied some Athabascan/Algonquean language patterns, and the Indians over in Canada. Well, they are the absolute original first Americans. Did you know that many words used today stem from their language? Actually recently, court cases were won over Indian removal because they were able to linguistically PROVE they were there first!


nothing to do with the post, but just a way to chit chat with ya.

Hope school is going well.

Nobody even came over to my site to help me with my homework!

Aunty Belle said...

SIGH...sigh....Hey Red--happy to see ya! Gracious--some of yore points we has covered, but lemme note again that yore comment below is correct:

"ALL MEN AND WOMEN POSSESS THE CAPABILITY FOR HEINOUS EVIL ~ Christians have certainly committed their share of evil atrocities, just as Jews and Muslims and Atheists have. no one group has more or less of a propensity for evil and abuse and violence."

Youse RIGHT.

Lemme go on record fully four square and say thas' all true.

BUT, it is not the point.

What yore statement is, is a backdrop against which we can:
1) lament the universal human condition,

2)point to WHY utopian hopes for perfectin' mankind will never work,

3)even use it as evidence to support Orignal Sin (Ardy, doan tear out yore hair!)

The point is *not* the hideous transgressions of weak and sick members of an ideology or religion. A traitorous Canadian does not invalidate the Canadian Constitution. It simply proves that some Canadians are weak and vicious. IF that Canadian had lived up to the Canadian laws, he would be OKAY. He did not, which makes *him * bad, but does not make Canada bad.

That any member of a group cannot personally live up to the standards of the organization(clan, nation, religion, ideology, etc) ain't no warrant to dismiss the standards.
The person, not the standard is at fault.

My point is that Islam as a religious AND political system (structure)is at fault. Here I'se saying the *standard* is the fault. Those who live by this standard are more likely to kill, pillage, rape, burn wives, wage war, seek conquest, crush freedom of speech, freedom of religion...the standard is evil.

Systemically evil. EVERY political entity run/ruled by Muslims is de facto flawed since it is based on sharia law, that is, based on the Qur'an.

It would be analagous to the Canadian Constitution teaching war and pillage and wife burnin' as a fair standard of behavior for Canadians.

The point is about systems-- not individuals, good or bad.

SO, yes, throughout history, across all borders, ethnicity, language, creeds, ideologies, theys been plenty of bad eggs...but the difference is they was bad eggs in a good basket. I'se sayin' ISLAM is a bad basket. May have a good egg or two in it, but the container, the reference point, is intrinsically bad and infects many of the eggs it contains.

As to primary sources--I did say I was workin' on it, and I'se sorry it is takin' a bit of time, tryin' ter make it reader friendly and easy to use. Hang in here wif' me, darlin'

ON Indians and all else ya' mentioned--this post was three thangs:

1) about one specific battle in history that we recall on Oct 7th

2) not about the Aztecs or any Indians at all --that were Ardlair's addition.

3) This post was not meant as one of the planned three thas' a'commin' on Islam.

On tolerance/ intolerance:

Disagreement with a point made is not evidence of intolerance.

I doan take no offense when folks disagree wif' anything I writes. (I does t ake offense at foul language) I hope they doan take offense when I doan agree wif them. That is why we have exchanges--to dig around and uncover truth.

I cain't be tolerant of foul language because I'se allergic to it, my Mama could look in here and have a stroke, I have chillens who could look in here and find I'se lettin' other's break decency rules I doan let them break.

MErcy...looky folks, ya'll carry on iffin' ya want. Aunty's got to git to writin' these three essays on Islam.

Aunty Belle said...

Oh! Sorry Fini, didn't see ya at first---interestin' stuff on Indians.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...


Aunty Belle said...

A word to posters: no foul language please--- even whar' what ya's sayin' is historically true, phrase it so it is PG-21. Ya' can find an intelligent descriptive word for Saddam and Osama.

So here is an idea fer an enterprisin' wordsmith:
The Foul Mouth's Thesaurus
it would sell out.

ArtfulSub said...

Red Mantissa,

I try to stick with what I know and avoid "claims" that can't be substantiated. And I KNOW that Clark's motivations were Nationalistic, Economic, Political, and Secular. And had very very little or nothing to do with the fact that he was once Baptized. His "boss", President Jefferson, was even less religious than he was.

I'd be willing to BET that if you look DEEPER into this situation you describe in Canada, you will find:

People with motives that were primarily Political, Economic, Secular, Nationalistic etc. Who fully supported whatever it is you say some Missionairies did. And reaped far more tangible benefits than they did.

booklady said...

Thanks Auntie for this wonderful history lesson. I'm a bit late and haven't read everyone's comments yet--just your original post. (Must do that soon!) First, I went and read G.K.Chesterton's poem "Lepanto"--something I've always wanted to do! Also, I've been meaning to read "Don Juan" by Lord Byron, but don't know if it's any good. Have you read it? Thanks! Happy reading! booklady

the.red.mantissa said...

well i have poked around and done my own research on the battle of lepanto. things i learned:

1. the feast of the holy rosary is actually a day the catholic church instituted to honour this carnage. how perverse ~ to use our lady to honour so much carnage and death. seems almost heretical to use such a blessed creature to honour something so ugly.

2. i wonder why the holy league felt it necessary to display ali pasha's head from the pike of the spanish flagship.

3. the holy league's disunity prevented their recovery of constantinople/istanbul.

4. the strengths of the respective forces: the holy league ~ 212 vs the ottomans ~ 286

5. naval innovation and the fact that the turks did not move fast enough to implement the innovations which the atlantic states did played a role in the battle. apparently the ottoman fleet seemed weighted for speed and tactical mobility, not so much combat power.

6. the battle ended the invincibility of the turks, but not their supremacy over the land ... not right away.


tactics of lepanto

Lepanto 1571: The Greatest Naval Battle of the Renaissance

he Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II

there is a lot of info on this battle ... its underpinnings go well beyond the brainless religious fanaticism ... its rooted in socioeconomic factors that impinged upon the resources for battle of each side.

starting a lesson on islam with this battle, seems like starting a lesson in the middle. but, nonetheless, now that i have researched this ... i have learned something. thanx for this.

the.red.mantissa said...

... that Indians liked the boarding schools (some actually did)

i have not heard any living resident of such a school say they liked being forcibly removed from their homes, and being sent to some loveless place where people who had nothing but contempt for them abused and beat them, under the guise of 'teaching'. no doubt the history you heard was different than the one of which i speak.

I'd be willing to BET that if you look DEEPER into this situation you describe in Canada, you will find:

People with motives that were primarily Political, Economic, Secular, Nationalistic etc. Who fully supported whatever it is you say some Missionairies did. And reaped far more tangible benefits than they did.

what benefits do cultural genocide have? please ... tell me. it was purely a dominance thing ... an extermination thing ~ a mini-holocaust. plain and simple. and i have, my friends, heard many primary accounts of the sheer brutality of the governing individuals and the clergy/religious of the time. no doubt about it ... it was ego and conceit and bigotry. and the government is paying dearly for it ~ huge payouts have been made in recompensation to the living victims. that is all the evidence one needs ~ seems to me an admission of guilt.

have you read the black robe? it portrays both the jesuit missionaries and the natives in a human, flawed light. and the barbarism of brutality of life in that era.

anyway ~ this is stealing the thunder of a very interesting post on an interesting naval battle. sorry for the digression ... just wanted to address that comment.

many here seem to be seeking fact and history to bolster their religious beliefs. i, however, really do not find that interesting.

besides, no one will ever really convince anyone here to believe anything differently than they currently do. elucidation of the facts surrounding any historical situation seems ~ to me ~ quite different from picking history that fits with what we think.

i am not here to debate theology, religious philosophy or dogma. i am here to discuss a war battle ... how about we strip away the religious and political rhetoric and look at this from the historical perspective?

My point is that Islam as a religious AND political system (structure)is at fault.

apply the same logic and you will find that Catholicism, as conjured by that anti-semetic, megalomaniac brute constantine and his henchmen ... is equally at fault. i want to make the distinction between the distorted politically carved catholicism of current day and that intended by its founders. they are not one and the same. the current regime in the vatican is equally (tho more covertly) repugnant as the islam to which you refer.

one thing i read just lately that seems to fit here ~ the blood of martyrs is the seed of the church. indeed ... that, i find quite revolting.

i venture a guess that your opposition to islam is rooted in your religious belief, not any logic that would appeal to the masses. prove me wrong.

Those who live by this standard are more likely to kill, pillage, rape, burn wives, wage war, seek conquest, crush freedom of speech, freedom of religion...the standard is evil.

that's how the romans/catholics lived, aunty ... that's the history ... sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, if ya ask me.

the.red.mantissa said...

about war ~ those who bow to war fever become, not its master, but they enslaved by it. churchill's words.

Infinitesimal said...


me and the Indians in the class were just looking at one another, because she stated that Indians liked the boarding schools more than once.

I called her on it, and she admitted that SOME schools were a drag.... but others, were places that indians were glad that they went to.

Man Mantissa, I am not saying that is MY understanding of history, but it certainly is what's being taught in HER classroom!

did you email me yet?

Aunty Belle said...

Oh, Red, Red, Red.....
first, AGAIN, this post is *not* the beginning of the three to come on Islam. It is *not* a lesson started in the middle--since it is not a lesson.

AN fer that matter, pumpkin, the essays ter follow will not be "lessons" as Aunty ain't conductin' no course --cause ya'll doan wanna be doin' the homework (Hee hee)!

Red, with all due love and respect, youse in rejection mode, at the moment, ya know? Yore whole stance is not one of open inquiry, but adamant rejection.

That response on Lepanto is a good example--first, the point of the post is not about theology.

Notice how Aunty didn't add in the stuff about Our Lady of Victory, or the Pope askin' the rosary prayed...did ya note that?

See, Aunty ain't makin' the story about religion but about *politics* and history of it. (17 Western ships and 7,500 men lost,while the Muslims loss of 200 warships and 20,000 seamen. The psychological boost of the victory was enormous, and the psychological blow to the Islamic warriors was significant--a turning point...

although, natcherly, them Moslems came again, and again...until the King of Poland saved Vienna from Islam as they laid siege to it for the second time...an NOT coincidently, that were on 9/11 1683 as Osama and Christopher Hitchens reminded the us. Osama named 9/11/01 as "unfinished bidness" wif the West.

As for the Holy League being DIS united--oh yeah--they dern shure was--did ya read the Chesterton poem? An why was that? Same as NOW, darlin'---look over at Europe and see whas' up....the PERSONAL of some leaders is more important that than doin' good.)

It's Red that wants to make it into a theology rant.

Also, it is a post--not a course in European polly-ticks of 1500s.

Aunty's posts is already too long says SHE-Pup, so natcherly, a whole lot is left out.

Yore rehash of Lepanto is so balled up in presumptions and predjudices and a desire to equalize all religions, all idiotologies that youse lost any sense of scope.
.............Red Lady, let Aunty invite ya to a thought experiment:

If all religious, political systems and groups of people is as gnarly as the next, if all cultures and traditions is as heinous as the next, why is ya' so upset over stuff? Why not content yoreself wif the bidness of the day, enjoy the sunny mornin', have another cup of java and read up on yore genealogy--all of thas is good stuff, and worth yore time.

Given yore stance, ain't no need ter git in a swivet if it all the same, an' it's all evil and all worthless and all lyin', then whas' the point in studying history or polly-ticks or cultures?

Why not jes' git on yore Che shirt an' shoot up the whole world and put it out of its misery?

An then ya' says cultural genocide doan have no benefits? !!

Then tell us Sugar, why is ya' complicit wif' the cultural genocide of yore own culture?

Churchill said we wither fight them while we's strong or risk losing all because we we dithered around being "understandin'"

When ya quoted Churchill ya didn't grasp his context---the nazi's shoulda been left along in your vision of thangs, Red? THink we'uns oughta let them Nazi's keep their culture? youse throwin' out ideas as if they's free-floatin' slogans, honey. SOME cultures is not worth keepin'---an' SOMEbody will have ter fight them.

An' the SOMEbody who does git up the gumption ter deal wif' reality will not be perfect, not be wif'out
personal sins of greed or powerlust or revenge...like a Constantine.

Now Red, looky, Aunty gots an affection fer ya (even iffin' ya wanna slap it away) or I wouldn't take so much time on this---think fer a minute on this:

Youse got medical background...what use is a nice person who loves folks and wants ter help them and goes off ter study medicine and surgery. But she is blood and bone squeamish. She cain't stand the gore of it all---even when she knows it would save the patient.

War is bloody. Heads git put on spikes (that were the ISlamic way, BTW, so the spikin' of the Ali were the West's way of saying back to Islam "ya reap what ya sow"). It is a form of military surgery, an' the purpose is to save the body (of the nation/culture youse defendin').Ya' ain't gonna git no clean wars--I hate war, like ever'body thas' sane. I doan live in no vacuum. I got boys, doan wanna git 'em back in body bags.

But peace is NOT the absence of war. Peace is the freedom to live without terror. When an idiotology threatens to turn its ideas into bombs and plague and go-rilla terror on the streets of Paris, London Madrid, New York it is TIME to take it out.

I'se recommendin' Niccolo Cappoin's book to ya--he is a military historian.

the.red.mantissa said...

some information ... NOTE: by posting this link i am NOT saying i buy any of the info posted there ... i am in the process of going thru the koran verse by verse to check each citation out for myself. i just thought others might like to have the references to which islam-haters seem to be appealing. for the record, i have gone thru approx 25 % of these ... none of them convince me, when considered in the context of the work itself. actually, its not any less fire and brimstone than the OT.

anyhoo ~ here's the link

also ... enemy of the republic, a fellow blogger and also a scholar, has recommended the film "Inside Islam" ... fyi. i am in the process of procuring said film.

the.red.mantissa said...

war = terror. you will not convince me otherwise. i like to think of that scene, in the garden of gethsemane, when peter (was it peter?) cut of the ear of of guard that had come to take jesus away. hmmmmm ~ what was jesus' reaction?

just a question for thought.

the.red.mantissa said...

zionism and extreme christianity have been causing terror to many people for years now. your gov't is funding it. so, perhaps the usa, 'champion of freedom' (hahahahahaha, i say that tongue in cheek) should take out itself first, then?

war begets war ... just ask anyone who has lived in northern ireland.

Preacher101 said...

Aunty Belle, you are one smart lady. And I like your manner.

Red, without the U.S., you wouldn't be living the life you live now. War is always going to be necessary, because people are basically evil. Don't equate war with terror: war has rules, terror doesn't. That's why fighting terrorists is the hardest thing to do militarily (I'm a former U.S. Marine, for a point of reference). That's why we have Geneva conventions. That's why we haven't leveled the Middle East.

Aunty Belle said...

Hey Red, I'se real glad youse readin' the Qur'an. Ya's gettin' a jump on thangs--real happy about that. Lemme know what ya think of the movie Inside Islam.

Red, the thang wif' Jesus and Peter (yep it was Peter) was personal. Jesus knew that the soldiers who arrested Him were were serving heaven's purposes.

Red, jes' sayin', that some thangs is gettin' jumbled up in this discussion...each idea is not applicable in all situations.

Example: We all think equality and fair treatment should be followed--but not in the operating room. If a sity needs 50 surgeons, and surgeons make a lotta $$, we don't line up folks and give med licenses to every 50th person, until we have the 50 surgeons we need? just to keep it fair. Why is this?

Why are short boys not allowed on the Lakers team--it isn't fair, it is is discrimination against short men....

We doan apply every idea of what is "right" or "fair" to every human interaction--iffin' we did NUTHIN' would get done or be done well.

Jesus had a very define purpose and time frame. We are His followers and there could be a time for us to die a martyr's death rather than to do a wrong.

But war is not inherently immoral.
I posed the question earlier--would you have left Hitler alone? Diplomacy had failed, even bribery had failed--Hitler (like Saddam ) was insane. "rational" means would not work with either of them.

We may disagree on Iraq, but for the purpose of your blanket statement on war, please tell me how Hitler should have been handled. What of the genocide in Rwanda, Red? The world is permitting that to happen---whar' is yore heart for the Rwandan people?

The problem darlin', is that there is evil in the world and iffin' we allow it to go unchecked it takes over. Korea, Rwanda, Sudan, Iran.
What would you have done about Hitler?

Howdy Preacher 101...thanky fer yore comments.

I think ya' has a real good point: We have not leveled the Middle East. We coulda, but din't. We show restraint. Why? Because, as ya say, war has rules.

And because we do *not* hate them, we see many many good muslims who are bein' disgustingly oppressed. I know an Iranian professor at U Cal who described such horror that it is amzing that he can function.

Even tonight there is Shia on Shia violence in Iraq.

Welcome to the BACK Porch!

Infinitesimal said...

i explained about the grapes over at my post.

the.red.mantissa said...

Red, without the U.S., you wouldn't be living the life you live now.


quite true ... life would be better, than this BS police state-war-against drugs the US has constantly tried to shove down our throats. yeah, without the us my life would be different, but not in the way you think! and life would be better here, without the diversion of our waterways, that threaten our native sweetwater species ... don't kid yourself, y'all are not out there, on your conquests for world domination out of some altrusitic notion ... y'all wanna dominate ... canada is just some plethora of natural resources that y'all just wanna plunder.

so ... don't get me started with that arrogant attitude. like i said, i see things differently, coz i'm the only one here who's not of the empire of the USA.

perhaps if you'd make an effort to learn about the world ... as opposed to trying to change everything.

as for war. war = killing. killing is wrong. no matter the circumstances. its wrong. the end.

ab i don't follow your logic about the surgeons. its a non-sequitor.

for those who really want to learn about the real muhammad, read karen armstrong's book.

you do not see AB how everything you write is motivated by your religious POV. i am responding to your deepseated need to want to pick and poke thru history to support your beliefs. that's all. you made the post, not me.

its quite impossible to discuss the history of the crusade-type wars without discussing the context, which happens to be religious!

you have always been in rejection mode of anything that does not fit in your very small box. but, alas, you don't see it ... coz you can't see outside of the box.

sianara ... for real this time i have had enough of this ... i WILL NOT return. there's no point, you just want to preach to the convereted. that's is not me.

but, one good thing is you have spurred me into action. i now have this thirst to learn of islam on my own ... i will make some posts soon and they will be scholarly and balanced.

the koran is highly mystical, and open to much interpretation, just like the NT ... and any other holy book for that matter.


Aunty Belle said...


Red....now Red....C'mon, Armstrong was invited by Pakistan to help give a speech in honor of Mohamed's birthday!! That yore idea of reliable perspective on Islam?

Baby doll, Aunty knows ya' ain't read Armstrong--mebbe read a review--but Aunty has her books on the desk--an' I'll be quotin' her fer---ah--"balance"...but doan kid yore self--she done lost her credibility when muslims write glowingly of her--and how is this gem (written BTW by a Muslim):

"She said that her attitude is formed by Marshal Hodgson, ex-teacher of Nurcholish Madjid and Amien Rais from the Chicago University, who introduced her to the science of compassion. With it, she said, we will *feel* the others’ feeling, so we will have space within to accept them.

(oh- thas' scientific--hoo-eee. I'm chokin here...another dern emoter, not a scholar, but an emoter...)

"Wilfred C. Smith, who established Islamic Studies Institute in McGill University in the end of 50s, also impressed her. In order to understand Islam, this Indian Islamic expert required that the institute in McGill be occupied by at least 50% of Muslim students. She also has principle: what I talk about Islam will be valid as long as the Muslim say “amin” to her.

With such mental attitude, Armstrong wrote her books. Her biography about Muhammad becomes the Muslim’s favorite. Akbar Ahmed –a prominent Muslim from Pakistan in the US- said to her, “Your book is a love story. If only you met the Prophet, you will definitely want to be his 15th wife!” due to that book Armstrong was invited to deliver speech in the celebration of the Prophet’s birthday! "


Red, Sugar, hope ya can hold on to some of yore firey temper--youse gonna need it when they try to shut you up in a burkha. (Aunty will hack 'em ter pieces and save ya'.)

Infinitesimal said...


"Hack them to pieces?"

Whoah Nellie.... whoah.

Aunty Belle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aunty Belle said...


What would you do Infini when they try stone arrest Red for driving a car? Stone her for immodesty (no veil)? Ya' gonna engage in "rational dialog"?

Anonymous said...

Roxanne, answer the Hitler question please.

Infinitesimal said...

Who are "they"?
I get your point...
women are possessions, lower than dogs in many cases.

I just feel that "hack them to pieces" is a bit harsh for a southern fried belle.

just because "they" already do the hacking, well, this is a slippery slope.

I see your points here, I do. However, the slope gets steep when terms like "they" and "Islamics" are used. Tempers flare.

I have a migraine and am medicated for it, so i will stop here.

There, are, 44,000 who will go into battle.
I always thought it was a spiritual battle against solid evil.

You will like the info I am sending to you.

Let's not forget the raping of children with swords.
that is some pretty effing awful hacking.

"They" are not angels.

But I kinda think burkas are neat.
(optional burkas, not imposed ones)

Ah, I think I just got it.

"THEY" are men. Did I get it right?

Men with dark hearts.

I think I see, ok well, naptime for me, or I will just ramble along.

We need a new post over here.

ArtfulSub said...

When Canucks spew hatred at the USA it always reminds me of a snottly little brat trying to get a rise out of a WAY too indulgent Daddy.