Original Title: Unadulterated idiocyYou can’t make this stuff up:
[quote]BRITISH Muslims are to boycott this week
Doesn’t suprise me in the least. After all the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem supported the Nazis in WW2. And we all know how many ex-Nazis live in upscale sections of Damascus.
[quote=“porcelainprincess”]You can’t make this stuff up:
[quote]British Muslims are to boycott this week
Not another one! Juba are you and MT brothers by any chance?
They sure don’t learn, do they? 
The offensive comments about muslims made above are out of line (but no longer surprising). Yes, porcelainprincess, the issue discussed in your article is absurd. But as far as one can tell from your article, the boycott is just the decision of one man – the secretary general of the muslim organization and in no way does he deny the tragedy of the Jewish holocaust. He simply believes other holocaust victims should also be remembered at the same time.
timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 97,00.html
Undoubtedly, many muslims would disagree with his position, as noted by one such person in your article:
[quote]the boycott by the leaders of Britain
When I saw that the UN is going to “remember” the holocaust (ha ha) this morning in the newspaper, I wondered who was going to remember all the millions Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao killed since WW2. And then it hit me: no one, of course. Who gives a shit about a bunch of dead Commies anyway?
I wish the UN would disappear up its own arse with a bang.
Our own resident John Walker Lindh wrote:
Porcelain Princess pointed out that some Muslims want to boycott the Holocause remembrance. What is offensive about that? What would the poor downtrodden oppressed of the world do without our own MT?
Don’t confuse me with reactionary right-wingers like “Comrade Stalin” and their ilk. My accusation of idiocy does not apply to all Muslims…just the ones making the pathologically deranged comments in the article about the non-inclusiveness of the ceremony.
I am deeply disturbed…and offended by this insensitive and discriminatory thread.
I demand reparations for being offended.
Why? Because I say so, thats why.
Disclaimer…this is not serious. This is a satirical response to other posts appearing on this thread. If my post in any way offends you, it is your choice to be offended. And I don’t believe you anyway. Expiration date is 26 feb 2005. Refrigerate after opening. May contain sulfites. Do not use in the shower. 80% less fat than butter. Do not freeze.
[Personal attack removed by moderator]
Read the fucking posts and it’s obvious why they are offensive. First, the news article misleads readers into believing the boycott decision of a single muslim leader or small group of leaders was due to denial of the Jewish holocaust or lack of compassion for them, when in fact the leader expressly denied that and stated that his reason was solely to make the occassion more inclusive of other victims. Second, Chewycorns and CS took the decision of that single muslim leader or small group of leaders and used it to suggest that all muslims are evil. That’s offensive, [removed by moderator] so please knock it off with the unprovoked personal attacks.
Why not stop trying to be a John Walker Lindh all the time?
Some Muslims are boycotting the Holocaust because Palestinians are not included? Why should they? Are they being exterminated by anyone? If so, it is mostly due to thug violence in their own governments not because of the Israelis.
Why do other victims need to be included? To point out the fact that the UN has failed to save those in Rwanda, Congo and other places as well?
Did they say evil or did they just point out that Muslims have had some unsavory ties with Naziism (which I imagine that you would like to condemn wouldn’t you?) and that this may account for some of the anti-Semitism that exists (again the Jewish kind and Yes I know Arabs are Semites too) in the Middle East specifically among Arabs and Muslims?
Because you deem it to be? Who appointed you resident defender of the Muslims and Arabs on this forum? Is what Porcelain Princess posted not a fact? Is it not a fact that the single most intolerant group in the world today is Arab Muslims? And you are angry because you think that we should be more tolerant of this intolerance? I am not quite sure what you are trying to say and as to the personal insults, I at least don’t degenerate into saying things like
[made up quote removed by moderator]
and like I said you will never catch me sinking to such depths… 
I agree the boycott is ridiculous Fred and I already said that.
But it’s offensive for CS and Chewycorns to suggest that all muslims are evil (which is basically what they did) based on a stupid decision made by one or a small group of religious leaders.
It’s also offensive for you to continuously resort to personal attacks based on your preconceived notions of who I am, rather than reading what I actually said and countering my point if you disagree with it. And it’s offensive for you to make up quotes that I never said and try to attribute them to me as you did above. Please delete that lame attempt at humor/defamation.
[Removed by moderator]
How is that different from the point of this thread. Say you find it ridiculous and stop making personal attacks on others.
Find me the quote where Comrade Stalin and Chewycorns said ALL Muslims are Evil. Find All. Find Evil. Simple task.
I have read your statements repeatedly and I think you have issues with America. That is why I call you our own resident John Walker Lindh. Do you find that offensive? Then, er, um, what about it do you find offensive? And why do you think that I tag you with that label?
I never said you made those. I put it in quotes because I AM making those statement while pretending to be like you swearing at me all the time. Then, I say “you would never catch me sinking to such depths” and then I put a wink behind it to show I am joking. You may wish to consult a humor professional about your serious lack of irony.
So, as I said stop being a John Walker Lindh all the time. Back to you.
Not that I know what’s been said, but this comment suggests that to challenge the government’s actions is treasonous. Somewhat Hamiltonian of a comment. What would Jefferson say? :s
MT, if you can’t post without the personal attacks your posts (or entire thread if necessary) goes to the flame forum, so please practice some restraint. And no jokes that violate the rules please, fred.
I have edited out the parts in question.
Thanks,
Rascal
Moderator IP Forum
Sorry Rascal:
Let me know if my comments get out of line as well (I am sure that I am skating closely to this as well).
World Domination R Us Smith -
We are obviously held to a higher standard. And to this higher standard we must aspire.
I am doubtful that sbmoor was aware of this site being in Portugese.
In reviewing this Portugese connection I remembered the presence of Cubano soldatos in Angola. Angola being a former Portugese colony.
The connection becomes more clear…
[quote=“Comecom agreement”]
- excert-As part of the Comecon agreement, Soviet support for Angolan educational and training programs was increased. In 1987 approximately 1,800 Angolan students attended institutions of higher education in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union also provided about 100 lecturers to Agostinho Neto University in Luanda, and a variety of Soviet-sponsored training programs operated in Angola, most with Cuban instructors. Approximately 4,000 Angolans studied at the international school on Cuba’s renowned Isle of Youth. More Angolan students were scheduled to attend the Union of Young Communists’ School in Havana in 1989. Czechoslovakia granted scholarships to forty-four Angolan students in 1987, and during that year Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) also provided training for about 150 Angolan industrial workers.
Cuba’s presence in Angola was more complex than it appeared to outsiders who viewed the Soviet Union’s Third World clients as little more than surrogates for their powerful patron. The initiative in placing Cuban troops in Angola in the mid-1970s was taken by President Fidel Castro as part of his avowed mission of “Cuban internationalism.” Facing widespread unemployment at home, young Cuban men were urged to serve in the military overseas as their patriotic duty, and veterans enjoyed great prestige on their return. Castro also raised the possibility of a Cuban resettlement scheme in southern Angola, and several hundred Cubans received Angolan citizenship during the 1980s. Cuban immigration increased sharply in 1988. In addition to military support, Cuba provided Angola with several thousand teachers, physicians, and civilian laborers for construction, agriculture, and industry. Angolan dependence on Cuban medical personnel was so complete that during the 1980s Spanish became known as the language of medicine.[/quote]
Here we have Cubano mercenaries deployed to overthrow the Angola government.
countrystudies.us/angola/111.htm
And then there is this…[quote=“SECRET CUBAN DOCUMENTS ON HISTORY OF AFRICA INVOLVEMENT”]onflicting Missions provides the first comprehensive history of the Cuba’s role in Africa and settles a longstanding controversy over why and when Fidel Castro decided to intervene in Angola in 1975. The book definitively resolves two central questions regarding Cuba’s policy motivations and its relationship to the Soviet Union when Castro astounded and outraged Washington by sending thousands of soldiers into the Angolan civil conflict. Based on Cuban, U.S. and South African documents and interviews, the book concludes that:
Castro decided to send troops to Angola on November 4, 1975, in response to the South African invasion of that country, rather than vice versa as the Ford administration persistently claimed;
The United States knew about South Africa’s covert invasion plans, and collaborated militarily with its troops, contrary to what Secretary of State Henry Kissinger testified before Congress and wrote in his memoirs.
Cuba made the decision to send troops without informing the Soviet Union and deployed them, contrary to what has been widely alleged, without any Soviet assistance for the first two months.
Professor Gleijeses is the first scholar to gain access to closed Cuban archives
Fascinating TC. Here’s something equally relevant:
[quote]Dioxines worden gevormd door verhitting onder zuurstofarme condities van chloorhoudende verbindingen. De meeste dioxines worden gevormd bij de verbranding van organisch materiaal in aanwezigheid van chloor (oa uit keukenzout), als er niet genoeg zuurstof aanwezig is. Dit heeft een aantal jaren geleden geleid tot het dioxineschandaal in melk van koeien die graasden naast verbrandingsovens. Bij voldoende zuurstof en/of een hoge verbrandingstemperatuur ontstaan geen dioxines.
Dioxines kunnen ook in de natuur gevormd worden door zogenaamde witrot-schimmels. Dit zijn schimmels die op dood hout groeien en witte kolonies vormen. Uit lignine (houtstof) kunnen door de schimmel dioxines gemaakt worden. Ook via verbranding van hout kunnen dioxines ontstaan, bijvoorbeeld in niet goed geventileerde open haarden en bij bosbranden, waar ook een zuurstoftekort ontstaat.
Dioxines komen dus op diverse manieren in het milieu terecht. Ze worden (langzaam) door zonlicht afgebroken, en verder, eveneens langzaam, door schimmels in de bodem. Dioxines blijven dus lang in het milieu aanwezig.
Dioxines zijn niet oplosbaar in water, maar wel goed in vet. Via roetdeeltjes komt het, bijvoorbeeld, terecht op het gras. De koe eet het op en neemt het op in het vetweefsel. Via de melk kan de koe weer van de dioxine af komen. Hetzelfde geldt voor de mens. Dioxines worden opgenomen via het voedsel (vet) en opgeslagen in ons eigen vetweefsel. Daar blijft het zeer lang aanwezig. Net als bij de koe is de moedermelk de belangrijkste manier om dioxines kwijt te raken. Moedermelk bevat dan ook (kleine hoeveelheden) dioxines.
Vrijwel al het dierlijk vet bevat dus zeer kleine hoeveelheden dioxine. Plantaardig vet bevat in principe geen dioxine. Normaal gesproken blijven deze hoeveelheden dioxine ver onder de maximaal toegestane blootstelling[/quote]