Przechodze na islam

[muszla7]

jak to napisac po angielsku?

[kylie1]

I am converting to Islam.

I think...
:)

[ampolion]

I'm becoming a Moslem.

[jan.kulczyk]

I got all my semtex packed up and just booked a ticket to London.

[easystreet]

Co, szukasz zatrudnienia u Benka Lejdena?

[jan.kulczyk]

Nosireee... but muszla definitely is.

[ms.jones]

No siree, too busy tarring all Muslims with the same brush!

ps it's the 10th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre, considered the worst
massacre in Europe since World War II

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/675945.stm

[easystreet]

"tarring all Mooners with the same brush"....oh, what a pity Miss Jones; still
the bleeeeding heart, aren't you? Oh, my, love them all you want, Miss
Compassionate, , many people are fed up, positively and and absolutely, with
everything crescent- like in Europe and elsewhere, Leave them in the
Mid-hmmm....Elegantville and leave them out of EEE-urope, your home, I presume,
and mine. All the problems with those whom you so eagerly shield with your
motherly bosom started with the BRITISH ANYWAY, Miss Jones, gottttt it? Those
British...nerver had enough, had they? Alasssss

[jan.kulczyk]

Like somebody said, let them complain, let them f...g riot, I don't care.
As long as they don't demonstrate and unimanimously condemn those acts of terror by joint action, showing that they're true citizens, as opposed to religious fanatics and radicals, as long as they persist in secretly helping or hiding their conniving brothers in faith, giving the public the same old same old about tolerance and how not every Muslim is actually bad, I will not believe a word they say. Mistrust will (and so it must) prevail.

Besides, people have been killed, you know. I think we are all entitled to at least a little joke or two at the perps' expense.

[muszla7]

Im muslem

[chris-joe]

In this mini-debate I'm positively on Ms.Jones' side.

Call me "bleeding heart lefty", "PC" or whatever you like. Have a ball:)

[kicior99]

reprehensible - that's the very word I have found to describe this discussion...

[jan.kulczyk]

I thought it would be 'despicable'. You're too kind.

[chickenshorts]

It's meither'reprehensible' nor 'despicable', it's pathetic. As for his ill
timed 'joviality' - here, for Kulczyk, a thought provoking (IMO) article by
Gary Younge:

www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1525706,00.html

[jan.kulczyk]

Whatever you post or paste here, I'm not going to change my mind about the current situation in Europe. It is a thought-out and consistent frame of mind, I can assure you, because I hate jumping to conclusions. And besides, you should really stop pushing your misconceived righteousness in my face - after all, all I did was paste a little joke here - its humor aside - unlike some other people a couple of days ago in the UK. It's just a reflection of my feelings - not a call for genocie of Arab populations throughout the world. That is all. EOT.

[chickenshorts]

jan.kulczyk napisała:
> Whatever you post or paste here, I'm not going to change my mind about the
current situation in Europe. <

I wasn't aware you had one (my fualt, I wasn't around here lately). All I was
trying to express was my dislike for this kind of humour in the circumstances.
But since:
>It is a thought-out and consistent frame of mind, I can assure you, because I
hate jumping to conclusions.<

I'd be fascinated to know what it is, I can assure you.

>And besides, you should really stop pushing your misconceived righteousness in
my face...

??? Am I reading you right? So, where exactly was your face, when I was pushing
(forward, I suppose) my "misconceived righteousness"?


- after all, all I
> did was paste a little joke here - its humor aside - unlike some other people
> a couple of days ago in the UK. It's just a reflection of my feelings - not a
c
> all for genocie of Arab populations throughout the world. That is all. EOT.

C'mon, you should know better than that.

[easystreet]

Here you are arguing and "Muszla" has confirmed her beliefs. Let the great Allah
Guide you, Muszla, to greater awareness and inner peace, for you and your
pugnacious brethren! and for the rest of us non-and never to be converted: to
the religion of cover yourself and hope to die a martyr: ....let's have a beer!
No. let's all have TWO beers. Muszla can only watch and choose her colour of
br'qa! You wanted it baby. Hey, maybe you're the next suicidal maniac in training?!

[chickenshorts]

Take it easy, easy - 'mushla' isn't a threat to national security; it's the
people who force 'mushla' to blow herself up are! The list is long and, of
course, includes the Brits but it neither begins there nor stopts, so you
barking at ms. Jones was a typical (if not proverbial) 'barking at a wrong
tree'.

[jan.kulczyk]

> I wasn't aware you had one (my fualt, I wasn't around here lately).

I wasn't exactly advertising it on this board. Wrong time, wrong place.

> I'd be fascinated to know what it is, I can assure you.

I bet you would.

> ??? Am I reading you right? So, where exactly was your face, when I was pushing
>
> (forward, I suppose) my "misconceived righteousness"?

I was talking to you collectively, but if you must know, it was right where it is now - looking in awe, wondering if it is naivity or maybe hypocrisy that took the better of some posters here.

> C'mon, you should know better than that.

Know what exactly?

[chickenshorts]

jan.kulczyk napisała:

> > I wasn't aware you had one (my fualt, I wasn't around here lately).
>
> I wasn't exactly advertising it on this board. Wrong time, wrong place.

If that isn't a show of an easy 'jumping to conclusion' (the wrong one! I
should add) what is? By your 'mind' I thought you meant an opinion and so did
I. An opinion on 'the situation in Europe', that is.

>
> > I'd be fascinated to know what it is, I can assure you.
>
> I bet you would.

And what sort of an answer is that? (In any case, don't bet too much.)

> > ??? Am I reading you right? So, where exactly was your face, when I was p
> ushing
> >
> > (forward, I suppose) my "misconceived righteousness"?
>
> I was talking to you collectively, but if you must know, it was right where
it
> is now - looking in awe, wondering if it is naivity or maybe hypocrisy that
too
> k the better of some posters here.

Can't really make out much of this, so, in the spirit of better understanding -
what exactly are your views/opinions on the invasion of I., the war on terror
and the rest of it? Ah, and particularly, the involvment of Poland in it?
> > C'mon, you should know better than that.

> Know what exactly?

What you are talking about...

[easystreet]

and on that note, we agree to disagree, live and let live, and hope the same for
others. May Allah guide the bombers to detonate on barren ground far away from
any living being. Let them blow up a sandstorm in the Saudi desert! May they end
up in the eternal bosom of Grandpa Abraham, far away from you and me and the
rest of humanity. Allah Akhbar and Shalom!

[sandraa2]

Salam!
Im happy.
Im muslim
Im killer
Belive me?
hahahahah

[jan.kulczyk]

> If that isn't a show of an easy 'jumping to conclusion' (the wrong one! I
> should add) what is? By your 'mind' I thought you meant an opinion and so did
> I. An opinion on 'the situation in Europe', that is.

I don't get you. You asked my opinion, wondering if I'd ever voiced it here. I said no - wrong time, and perhaps - wrong place - this board doesn't seem fit for serious debates. Who's jumping where?

> Can't really make out much of this, so, in the spirit of better understanding -
>
> what exactly are your views/opinions on the invasion of I., the war on terror
> and the rest of it? Ah, and particularly, the involvment of Poland in it?

Plain and simple: I don't want anyone blowing up my home or my family. It so happens that the greatest potential threat of being blown-up comes from one particular religion. Hence, I don't want anything to do with people who follow that particular religion and am distrustful of them, until they, as a community, prove me wrong.
The Iraqi war doesn't have anything to do with it - it is merely an excuse, and a worn-out one at that. Show me how the Dutch are involved with the conflict. Ever heard of Pim Fortuyn or Theo van Gogh? Please tell me that was how Muslims avenged the Srebrenica massacre...
Show me how the French were ever involved with the recent wars. Do the St. Michel subway bombings ring a bell?
I don't feel comfortable around people who don't respect my right to feel safe in my own home. My view is they should prove us wrong or perhaps consider relocating. I've already explained what I would expect from the Muslim communities throughout Europe two posts before.

> What you are talking about...

Yeah.. ok.. EOT.

[minimus]

>Plain and simple: I don't want anyone blowing up my home or my family. It so
>happens that the greatest potential threat of being blown-up comes from one
>particular religion. Hence, I don't want anything to do with people who follow
>that particular religion and am distrustful of them, until they, as a
>community, prove me wrong.

I think you fell into a trap (together with many others) blaming religion where
it is something else at fault. IMHO religion is just an excuse, or perhaps
another mean of identifying sides of the conflict. In reality the divisions are
along national, or perhaps I dare say in this case, racial lines. There are
muslims indigenous to Europe. I can't see them blowing themselves up just to
take as many infidels as possible (prędzej brygada mocherowych beretów!).

I don't think there is any (serious) religion that advocates killing. Its
people with twisted minds that twist their particular religion to use it as an
excuse for what they do.

Look at the conflict in Ireland. Do you think it was/is religous?

[jan.kulczyk]

> I think you fell into a trap (together with many others) blaming religion where
>
> it is something else at fault. IMHO religion is just an excuse, or perhaps
> another mean of identifying sides of the conflict. In reality the divisions are
>
> along national, or perhaps I dare say in this case, racial lines. There are
> muslims indigenous to Europe. I can't see them blowing themselves up just to
> take as many infidels as possible (prędzej brygada mocherowych beretów!).

That's partially true. I've read articles and articles about how poverty and racial/national tensions rather than religious beliefs are actually behind Jihad. But then it's always politics - ever since the crusades, religion was just a front, a pretext. Consider this: Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world - it's gaining supporters by the hour. Some of those supporters are murderous maniacs. Some others secretly help them indulge in their sick suicidal ambitions, but overtly deny it, knowing they would be condemned. Which presents us with a problem - how to identify the potential assassin. Now I know perfectly well that not all Muslims would like to blow me up. But I also believe that if a bomb is planted in Warsaw, Barcelona, Leeds, Hamburg or Marseilles, it will, in all likelihood have been planted by a Muslim hand. Hence my call for a clear-cut - either you declare support for European values and stand up against terrorism, if only as a token of gratitude for European hospitality, or you may just as well pack your bags right now. That's my opinion.

[chickenshorts]

jan.kulczyk napisała:

> Who's jumping where?

OK. I apologise for being smug there. On the other hand - weren't you a bit
smart-arsey to simply 'demand respect' for an opinion you never voiced here?
All I wanted to know was 'the opinion'.

> Plain and simple: I don't want anyone blowing up my home or my family. It so
ha
> ppens that the greatest potential threat of being blown-up comes from one
parti
> cular religion. Hence, I don't want anything to do with people who follow
that
> particular religion and am distrustful of them, until they, as a community,
pro
> ve me wrong.

Where do we begin? As you say, this isn't a place (disagree about time, though;
in fact, quite the opposite!)) nor a thread to be serious on this issue
but 'plain and clear and simple': for every effect there is a cause!

> The Iraqi war doesn't have anything to do with it - it is merely an excuse,
and
> a worn-out one at that.

Now, that's plain stupid! What planet are you on?

>Show me how the Dutch are involved with the conflict.
> Ever heard of Pim Fortuyn or Theo van Gogh? Please tell me that was how
Muslims
> avenged the Srebrenica massacre...
> Show me how the French were ever involved with the recent wars. Do the St.
Mich
> el subway bombings ring a bell?
> I don't feel comfortable around people who don't respect my right to feel
safe
> in my own home. My view is they should prove us wrong or perhaps consider
reloc
> ating. I've already explained what I would expect from the Muslim communities
t
> hroughout Europe two posts before.

As for Theo van Gogh - what can I say?...
but paste:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1527150,00.html
and add: all religion is shite; in fact, the Muslims are only catching up with
Christianity. If I said to a Christian today: 'save your religious nonsense
(coming from a joiner's apprentice, definitely mad and dead 2 thousand years
ago', he wouldn't, in all likelihood, come and slit my throat, true, mr
Kulczyk, but it wouldn't be due to his 'better religion' - it would be because
of 'progress' in the West, a sort of progress that sees religion as
superstition and has laws to protect unbelievers (and believers). But if I
said the same a couple of hundred years ago - guess what? They, the Muslims,
are a bit like 'onegdajsi' Christians.

Today, well, it's politics. It's always been and always will as far as
established religion is concerned (especially, the Abrahamic one; dangerous
concept - monogod).
And what part of the article I linked you to yesterday isn't 'accurate' in your
view?

[chickenshorts]

yesterday's one is even better, if you like 'details':

www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1526396,00.html

[chickenshorts]

Minimus:
"I think you fell into a trap (together with many others) blaming religion
where it is something else at fault."

Oh, no, he didn't and neither did the others!


"IMHO religion is just an excuse, or perhaps
another mean of identifying sides of the conflict. In reality the divisions are
along national, or perhaps I dare say in this case, racial lines."

Then read the bible again! Of course, we still act like baboons when it comes
to 'us' versus 'them' but if a monotheistic religion ever helped us to get away
from that hard-wired part of our brains - I'd be the first to kneel on its
altar!

>There are muslims indigenous to Europe. I can't see them blowing themselves up
just to take as many infidels as possible (prędzej brygada mocherowych
beretów!).

As usual, majority of people are 'normal', whether believers or not; however,
some unstable characters are being 'helped' (if not created) by rabbis,
immams... instead of psychiatsts...

I don't think there is any (serious) religion that advocates killing. Its
people with twisted minds that twist their particular religion to use it as an
excuse for what they do.

Read your bible again! Seriously...

Look at the conflict in Ireland. Do you think it was/is religous?

Of course, it is! Where exactly do you draw a line? Listen to rev. I Paisley...

[jan.kulczyk]

> OK. I apologise for being smug there. On the other hand - weren't you a bit
> smart-arsey to simply 'demand respect' for an opinion you never voiced here?
> All I wanted to know was 'the opinion'.

Point taken.

> Now, that's plain stupid! What planet are you on?

It is an excuse, as I said - which the killers use - not you or the papers, don't get me wrong. What did the US do to deserve 9/11? Do you mean to tell me that the first gulf war was the actual cause? Cause that would be really rich.

> As for Theo van Gogh - what can I say?...
> but paste:
> www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1527150,00.html
> and add: all religion is shite; in fact, the Muslims are only catching up with
> Christianity. If I said to a Christian today: 'save your religious nonsense
> (coming from a joiner's apprentice, definitely mad and dead 2 thousand years
> ago', he wouldn't, in all likelihood, come and slit my throat, true, mr
> Kulczyk, but it wouldn't be due to his 'better religion' - it would be because
> of 'progress' in the West, a sort of progress that sees religion as
> superstition and has laws to protect unbelievers (and believers). But if I
> said the same a couple of hundred years ago - guess what? They, the Muslims,
> are a bit like 'onegdajsi' Christians.

I wholeheartedly agree with all you say. And I am not a man of faith. However, remember that the mayhem we're witnessing is happening right here and now. I can't wait for the Muslim world to become more civilized or considerate because in the meantime I may be blown to tiny pieces for the greater glory of Allah (or whoever inspires the assassin).

> And what part of the article I linked you to yesterday isn't 'accurate' in your
>
> view?

I don't remember saying it wasn't accurate. But my view is that instead of considering the possible causes of the conflict, which we have absolutely no control over, and wondering miserably what we did wrong and how to repent, we should first deal with the current situation, and swiftly too, because people are dying. I realize Europe must have done something to upset our younger brothers in faith, but I just can't figure out what it is (again, look at France and Holland). And no, I don't believe that withdrawing troops from Iraq is an answer. Because who could guarantee there would be no more demands once the British/Polish/US/whatever military presence was over? You can't deal with terrorism by showing the terrorist he has achieved his results but I think that's perfectly clear to you.

[chickenshorts]

jan.kulczyk napisała:

> It is an excuse, as I said - which the killers use - not you or the papers,
don
> 't get me wrong. What did the US do to deserve 9/11?

Nothing! A lot! Whichever is your point of view... If you were an analyst of
modern American foreign policy - the latter would be an answer


>Do you mean to tell me tha
> t the first gulf war was the actual cause? Cause that would be really rich.

That would, wouldn't it? So, no... In my view it has more to do with the power
struggle inside Saudi Arabia and Washington's way of dealing with it than
anything even remotely linked to Iraq.

But, hey, since when there is on 'actual' cause for anything? This 'actual'
cause is normally the straw..., you know, a camel...


> remember that the mayhem we're witnessing is happening right here and now.

Yes, but after the invasion of Iraq, Abu Grahib, Guantanamo, Falluja... the
list is long.

I cannot help here but remind you (collective) of that first report of Polish
presence in Iraq - a celebration of the 'holy mass' under the scorching sun and
a young soldiers addressing us, back home, saying something of liberation,
Christian values and his certainty of local grattitude... I wonder, what
happend to him?


I c
> an't wait for the Muslim world to become more civilized or considerate
because
> in the meantime I may be blown to tiny pieces for the greater glory of Allah
(o
> r whoever inspires the assassin).

More likely now than ever before! Guess why?


> I don't remember saying it wasn't accurate. But my view is that instead of
cons
> idering the possible causes of the conflict, which we have absolutely no
contro
> l over, and wondering miserably what we did wrong and how to repent, we
should
> first deal with the current situation, and swiftly too, because people are
dyin
> g.

But that's precisely what the bid Two are doing since 2001, 'dealing' - look at
the results!

>I realize Europe must have done something to upset our younger brothers in f
> aith, but I just can't figure out what it is (again, look at France and
Holland
> ).

Decide!


> And no, I don't believe that withdrawing troops from Iraq is an answer. Beca
> use who could guarantee there would be no more demands once the
British/Polish/
> US/whatever military presence was over?

Of course not. Withdrawing troops isn't an option now (although some in
Washington are considering it) and, frankly, I can't see any easy answer but I
definitely have no any confidence in future if the present show is still run by
Bush & al




You can't deal with terrorism by showin
> g the terrorist he has achieved his results but I think that's perfectly
clear
> to you.

[minimus]

> Nothing! A lot! Whichever is your point of view... If you were an analyst of
> modern American foreign policy - the latter would be an answer

You should stop pretending that you can think. The effects are misarable.

[chickenshorts]

> You should stop pretending that you can think. The effects are misarable.

Is that from an expert on the American foreign policy or a good Christian?

[minimus]

chickenshorts napisał:

> > You should stop pretending that you can think. The effects are misarable.
>
> Is that from an expert on the American foreign policy or a good Christian?

Neither. Why would you think (oops sorry) so?

[chickenshorts]

minimus napisał:
> > Is that from an expert on the American foreign policy or a good Christian
> ?
> Neither. Why would you think (oops sorry) so?

Why, then, not show a flaw in my argument, instead of getting silllily ad
hominem?

[kicior99]

although educated natives fairly often use that word and I don't think they're
wrong. Perhaps it's just en vogue in Somerset, where I live. BTW pathetic - it
refers perfectly to that discussion...

[minimus]

www.donttouchmyride.com/CG.wmv
niewątpliwie są wierzący!

[chickenshorts]

niewatpliwie!

czyz to nie smutne?

[jan.kulczyk]

Here, Chicken, is the interview with Oliver Roy, who explains thoroughly and with details what I really couldn't (especially concerning the causes of London bombings and the old-as-the-hills "reason or excuse" dilemma:

serwisy.gazeta.pl/wyborcza/1,34474,2823504.html

[chickenshorts]

'Wkracza nowe pokolenie terrorystów, już wychowanych w Europie. Nie walczą o
Irak, Afganistan czy Palestynę. Nie znają ich i odrzucają wszelki nacjonalizm.
Chcą zburzyć stary porządek Zachodu i stworzyć globalną wspólnotę wiernych'

Took you nearly full 2 days to comme with this crap?

Are you trying to tell me - there are results and no causes? That's
Shredinger's Cat, innit? Too deep for me and not on the planet I inhabit. Wake
up, Kulczyk'

[jan.kulczyk]

> Took you nearly full 2 days to comme with this crap?

Well slap me in the face and call me a skank, if that is not a convincing argument.

> Are you trying to tell me - there are results and no causes? That's
> Shredinger's Cat, innit?

Sure there are causes, it's just those are not the ones you or the mujaheddin claim.

> Wake
> up, Kulczyk'

Judging by the spelling, it's a quote. Should I know the source?

[jan.kulczyk]

> Ok, let's - the article is rubbish

Is not!!!!

> The ball is in your court now!

[chickenshorts]

after the pub, OK?

(promise to be back, I do)

[chickenshorts]

Yes, I did ask my publican an opinion and you know what? – the first thing he
asked about you, the debater, was if you had a ‘stopka’, to which I replied in
the affirmative, then he asked what it said, then I told him…...

“Never trust a man with that kind of stopka”, are his exact words!

„+- Nie przekonywała mnie nigdy teoria, że zamachowcy z Madrytu chcieli wymusić
zmianę polityki hiszpańskiego rządu. Według mnie do zmiany polityki
doprowadziły nie ich bomby, ale polityczny kretynizm premiera Aznara, który
ratując w swoim przekonaniu władzę, zaczął kręcić, mataczyć, zwalać winę za
zamachy na baskijskich separatystów. Kto wie, jakim wynikiem zakończyłyby się
wybory, gdyby Aznar mówił prawdę. Skąd terroryści mieli wiedzieć, że hiszpański
premier okaże się takim idiotą?

So far so good! But since you presumably hide behind this argument, can I ask
you a question – how far from his residency did they live? Did they read his
mind , too? Or, weren’t they the desperate ’ religiously indoctrinated ‘ dumbos
from the poor area of Madrid? How many PHds does it take to realize the obvious?

The ‘interview’ is not even worth reading….
But I have read it! It’s crap!

[jan.kulczyk]

> “Never trust a man with that kind of stopka”, are his exact words!

Is this ridiculous or what?

> So far so good! But since you presumably hide behind this argument

I used the whole text as a case in point. If you just claim it's rubbish/crap/stupid then what's the use?

> you a question – how far from his residency did they live?

Did who live?

Anyway, it's been nice chatting with you.

By the way, did you ever have the pleasure of looking directly at the fruits of labor of your tawny, suicidal friends? Not reading about them in the paper or seeing them on TV but actually looking at them?

[ms.jones]

This article throws some light on how mosques in Britain can be failing the
likes of the 'lads from Leeds' - don't know if you'll find it
interesting. 'Mosques should be saving lost souls' by Tariq Panja

observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1530268,00.html

[chickenshorts]

“Friends say he had always been deeply religious and went on pilgrimage to
Mecca twice. At 18 that is remarkable.”
Got that?
Religion, no matter which one, is dangerous. And now think again about
that 'smart' interview of yours...

[erwas]

> Got that?
> Religion, (...) is dangerous.

still preachin', eh?
after all those years.

[chickenshorts]

erwas napisał:

> still preachin', eh?
> after all those years

You can bloody call it "elicitng" (or something like that), and a quite
successful one,,too!

If you could see the smile on my drunk face, erwas
...if you only could?

So, whose was the'rising' from the dead act most successful then?

And do you remember that post of yours about 'the great American melting pot',
eh...

But, please, don't go into oblivion, again. If there is a place for you, it's
here & now...

Lovely to see you, serious this time!

[chickenshorts]

I need a 'green card', of course...
Could you arrange that (old times' sake, please)

[erwas]

> If you could see the smile on my drunk face

I can.

> So, whose was the'rising' from the dead act most successful then?

that's a tricky area. lot of good competition there.

> And do you remember that post of yours about 'the great American melting
pot',
> eh...

no.

> But, please, don't go into oblivion, again. If there is a place for you, it's
> here & now...

unless Mr.retro-mono God commands me otherwise (eg.: be here and there now and
then). oblivion awaits me, though. and no, there is no place for me.
hlip.

green card? no problem.

[chickenshorts]

erwas napisał:

> > If you could see the smile on my drunk face
>
> I can.

Run out of paint, again?

> > And do you remember that post of yours about 'the great American melting
> pot',
> > eh...
>
> no.

So, I'm younger than you, than? Or, at least, have better memory?...
Liar!...

> unless Mr.retro-mono God commands me otherwise (eg.: be here and there now
and
> then). oblivion awaits me, though. and no, there is no place for me.

how many have you had this morning?...

How retro, to come back to the topic?

> green card? no problem.

Cheers, erwas, I knew I could count to three...