NIEMAND verwacht de Ottomaanse Inquisitie!!!

http://www.doorbraak.eu/turkse-nationalisten-nederland-roepen-op-om-opposanten-verklikken-aan-turkse-staat/

De Turkse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu heeft recentelijk aangekondigd dat Turkse staatsburgers die in het buitenland “actieve steun” verlenen aan “terreurorganisaties” gedenaturaliseerd zullen worden. Met andere woorden: de Turkse AKP-regering gaat de Turkse nationaliteit afnemen van mensen die haar in politiek opzicht niet bevallen. Opposanten zijn al snel “terroristen” in de ogen van de Turkse staat. Op Facebook wordt deze maatregel vurig verwelkomd door in Nederland levende nationalistische en conservatieve Turken. Maar daar blijft het niet bij: zij willen de Turkse staat maar al te graag helpen bij de uitvoering ervan. De steun voor Çavuşoğlu gaat gepaard met oproepen om “verraders” aan te geven bij Turkse staatsinstanties.

Een openbare groep op Facebook waar dergelijke berichten zijn te vinden, heet “Hollanda’da yaşayan Türkler” (In Nederland levende Turken), met bijna achtduizend leden. Hoogstwaarschijnlijk worden dergelijke berichten waarin klikgedrag wordt geprezen als een nationale deugd in meer (openbare en besloten) groepen gedeeld. In de berichten geplaatst in “Hollanda’da yaşayan Türkler” moet vooral Sadet Karabulut (Tweede Kamerlid voor de SP) het ontgelden en wordt opgeroepen om bij de eerstvolgende verkiezingen op DENK te stemmen. Hieronder volgt een uit het Turks vertaalde weergave van de gevoerde en zo nu en dan agressieve dialogen binnen deze openbare groep.

Ene Ünal Ceylan uit Rhenen plaatste op 14 december 2016 het nieuws over de door Çavuşoğlu aangekondigde denaturalisatiemaatregel. De eerste reactie kwam van hem zelf.

Ünal Ceylan: “We zullen eens zien of ze vanaf nu én verraad kunnen plegen én Turkije kunnen binnenkomen via de grensovergang bij Kapıkule… Die mensen die jullie kennen… Verklik hen op de websites van het consulaat, zodat hun staatsburgerschap wordt ingetrokken.”

Daarna volgt een levendige dialoog.

Eşref Aydın (Ede): “Als God het wil.”

Leman Yavuzer (Enschede): “Een heel goed besluit, maar deze verraders gebruiken over het algemeen schuilnamen.”

Ünal Ceylan: “De staat zal ze vinden. Via de functionarissen die zullen worden aangesteld door het consulaat. Ze zullen worden opgespoord in Europese landen.”

Leman Yavuzer: “Als God het wil.”

Ünal Ceylan: “Als God het wil.”

Yağız Yücel (Schilderswijk, Den Haag): “Zodra het besluit in de Staatscourant is gepubliceerd, ga ik deze bastaards meteen aangeven.”

Ünal Ceylan: “Dit nieuws is al gepubliceerd door Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu… Buitenlandse Zaken… Het meldnummer en de website zullen binnenkort bekend worden gemaakt aan het publiek.”

Ünal Ceylan: “Dus wat we als volk moeten begrijpen na de laatste gevallen martelaren… De president en de minister van Binnenlandse Zaken Süleyman Soylu zijn vastbesloten om de terreurorganisaties te vernietigen.”

Ünal Ceylan: “Al ligt er nu een meter sneeuw. Het leger is actief op de bergen Cudi en Gabar en in de rest van het zuidoosten. Ze zoeken ze [PKK-strijders] op in hun holen.”

Yağız Yücel: “Laat God hen beschermen. We zijn de lucht die wij inademen aan hen verschuldigd.”

Emin Tamer (Amsterdam): “Deze wet zou moeten worden aangenomen in Turkije tegen alle verraders.”

Hüseyin Arslan (Bursa, Turkije): “Als God het wil.”

Şenol Kılınç (Harderwijk): “Als dit nieuws klopt, is dit geweldig. Hopelijk wordt het ook toegepast.”

Ünal Ceylan: “Zoals het ernaar uitziet, doet de staat zijn uiterste best om de terreur te stoppen. Als God het wil, gebeurt dit ook. Zowel hun armen in de politiek als in de bergen zullen worden gebroken.”

Şenol Kılınç: “Als God het wil.”

Mehmet Keleş (woonplaats onbekend): “Als God het wil.”

Ali Altıntaş (Eindhoven): “Als God het wil.”

Alperen Yiğit (Rotterdam): “Zo moet je ons tevreden stellen, dit is wat wij willen.”

Ayten Canlı (Amsterdam): “In het buitenland leven zoveel hypocriete smeerlappen die de PKK helpen. De Turken hier moeten helpen. Deze mensen moeten worden verklikt aan onze staat.”

Ünal Ceylan: “Sadet Karabulut van de SP is een PKK-er. Niemand moet op 15 maart op haar stemmen. Sadet is een Armeniër uit Tunceli. Op 15 maart moet iedereen naar de stembus gaan en op DENK stemmen. Er is niemand meer die ons verdedigt.”

Ünal Ceylan: “Zij trekt al jaren Turkse stemmen, maar is een PKK-er die het Westen dient.”

Turco Barcelona (woonplaats onbekend): “Als God het wil. Ik ken er veel. Ik ga hun namen allemaal doorgeven, met foto.”

Konyalı Talip (Den Haag): “Als God het wil. Zet ze uit het staatsburgerschap.”

Littlebigman Van Utrecht (woonplaats onbekend): “Wees niet bang, als jullie een eerloze verrader kennen, verklik hem dan!!”

Cengiz Kibaroğlu (woonplaats onbekend): “Een te laat genomen besluit. Gooi ze uit het staatsburgerschap.”

Alieren Katan (Amsterdam): “Het is te laat. Dit had al lang moeten worden besloten, zodat de verraders konden worden gedenaturaliseerd.”

Adnan Özdemir (Eindhoven): “Het moet deze mensen verboden worden om Turkije te betreden!!!”

Necati Koçak (Rotterdam): “Geachte minister, laten we de binnenlandse verraders niet vergeten. Je moet de armen van deze schoften vanaf de schouders breken zodat ze zich nergens meer aan vast kunnen houden. Laten we binnen onze gemeenschap beginnen.”

Hayri Sayın (Fethiye, Turkije): “Als God het wil.”

Hamdi Akkoç (woonplaats onbekend): “Het is niet genoeg om hen te denaturaliseren. Onteigen deze eerlozen.”

Turco Barcelona: “Ja, Hamdi Akkoç, helemaal mee eens. Verdeel hun bezit onder het Turkse leger en de nabestaanden van martelaren en laat ze nooit meer het land betreden.”

Turco Barcelona: “[Als antwoord op iemand die geen staatsburger meer wil zijn van een land als Turkije]. Heel simpel. Schrijf op je Facebook-profiel dat je de terreur steunt, dat er meer soldaten en politieagenten moeten sneuvelen, dan geef ik jouw naam door. Geen probleem dus. Je kan natuurlijk ook gewoon naar het consulaat gaan en melden dat je je Turkse nationaliteit opgeeft, en word je Nederlands staatsburger.”

Hamdi Akkoç: “Als je niet trots bent op je identiteitsbewijs, moet je dit niet gebruiken. Het is niet moeilijk om je te laten denaturaliseren. Niemand dwingt je. Gelukkig moge diegene zich prijzen die zich Turk noemt.”

Ayhan Tepeli (woonplaats onbekend): “Het internet is niet van deze idioten. Zij moeten leren leven als mensen. Geef hun namen door aan de staat. Het is niet moeilijk, kleine moeite. siber@egm.gov.tr, arastirma@egm.gov.tr [mailadressen van het Turkse Directoraat-Generaal voor Veiligheid].”

Karel J. Molenaar

Commentaar: Het bewijs dat dubbele paspoorten privilege opleveren. Hoelang nog voordat bij stoute moslimmeiden de hoofddoek ingetrokken wordt als straf?

Maar goed. Wie zegt dat Doorbraak dit allemaal goed vertaald heeft, en niet misbruik maakt van het feit dat de meeste mensen in Nederland geen Turks kennen?

Georgetown Professor Condones Rape And Slavery

http://m.clarionproject.org/analysis/georgetown-professor-condones-rape-and-slavery-under-sharia

Sun, February 12, 2017

Jonathan A.C. Brown (Photo: Video screenshot)

Jonathan A.C. Brown (Photo: Video screenshot)

A Georgetown professor of Islamic studies sent shockwaves through the academic and secular world for a lecture he gave essentially condoning Islamic slavery and nonconsensual sex (that’s academic for “rape”).

That would have been the opening sentence to comment on such a lecture if we lived in normal times – which we don’t. The lecture in question actually created very little stir – neither at the university where he is employed nor elsewhere save for some very astute blogs (see here and here) deconstructing the professor’s astonishing breadth of obfuscation.

In a lecture (see below) at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (a Muslim-Brotherhood-linked group) and in subsequent questions and answers following his talk, Georgetown Islamic Studies professor Jonathan Brown, a convert to Islam, declares:

“It’s not immoral for one human to own another human.”  

He waxes poetic about the great life a slave has under sharia law (versus slavery under white men in the South) without actually defining that life. Perhaps, as Clarion Project has done, he should get his information from a Yazidi girl from Iraq.

Brown says slavery itself is not problematic, since the “the Prophet of God [Mohammed] had slaves … There’s no denying that. Was he—are you more morally mature than the Prophet of God? No you’re not.”

Rather, “The moral evil is extreme forms of deprivation of rights and extreme forms of control and extreme forms of exploitation. I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody because we own lots of people all around us, and we’re owned by people.”

Brown mentions examples such as an employer and an employee, taking out a mortgage and even his own marriage, since his wife held certain rights over him. Somehow, the fact that one engages in these activities from his or her own free will and has the ability to terminate such relationships went over the professor’s head, or he chose to ignore them.

Brown tells his audience Islamic slavery was fundamentally better than slavery that was practiced in the U.S., since it was not racially motivated. How that makes it better is beyond my moral compass, but one can simply look at the well documented history of the Arab slave trade of Africans to dispute this.

Although many whites were enslaved by Arab Muslims as well, an estimated 10-20 million black Africans were enslaved between 650 and 1900 by Arab slave traders. Many of these slaves were forcibly castrated to serve as eunuchs that guarded the vast harems of female slaves belonging to the rulers. Black Muslim slaves still exist today, for example, in Mauritania and Sudan. Black people suffer discrimination in Saudi Arabia, where slavery was only abolished in 1962.

The racial slur abeed, meaning slaves in Arabic, is still widely used to describe black people.

The professor then trots out academic moral relativism in two twisted points of erudition, saying:

“There is no such thing as slavery, as a category, as a conceptual category that exists throughout space and time trans-historically.”

“Slavery cannot just be treated as a moral evil in and of itself because slavery doesn’t mean anything.”

As for the permissibility of sex with a slave, Brown says, “Consent isn’t necessary for lawful sex” and goes on to dig at the overrated concept of autonomy over one’s own body, saying our society is “obsessed with the idea of autonomy and consent.”

When asked if having nonconsensual sex with an enslaved woman – or any woman—is wrong, Brown asks if there is really any difference between a girl sold in a slave market in Istanbul and a poor baker’s daughter who marries a poor baker’s son out of lack of other options:

“[The girl’s owner in Istanbul] by the way, might treat her badly, might treat her incredibly well … that baker’s son might treat her well. He might treat her horribly. The difference between these two people is not that big. We see it as enormous because we’re obsessed with the idea of autonomy and consent, would be my first response. It’s not a solution to the problem. I think it does help frame it.”

“Frame it” or not, there is a world of difference between the two situations and a simple answer that consent is not a relativistic concept when we are talking about a raping of women would have sufficed.

The fact that a college professor can get away with such apologetic views on such serious moral issues surrounding Islamic thought – issues that entire populations who have been taken over by Islamic State are facing with horrific consequences — is truly staggering.

One can only imagine the response by the university if a professor of Christian thought had expounded such views about Christianity.

Comment: Interesting is that this man doesn’t say: “Because Allah(swt) says so!”, or: “Non-Muslim whores deserve it good and hard!”. This makes his ideas useful to others interested in such things.

Vaccines

http://vanshardware.com/2010/02/bill-gates-we-can-lower-the-worlds-population-with-vaccines/

At a time when anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is becoming broadly recognized as a politically driven, pseudo-scientific power-grab, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates recently “unvielded his vision” of global catastrophe unless net man-made carbon emissions are reduced to zero. The video of his peculiar, ill-timed, February TED2010 talk is here.

Gates also delivered a very odd comment at around the 4:30 mark of the linked video where he maintains “if we do a really great job on vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [his initial 2050 global population projection of 9-billion] by perhaps about 10 to 15 percent.”

Bill Gates recently pledged $10-billion towards a global vaccine program targeting the “world’s needy children.”

Gates’s comment is inconvenient at best because Third World vaccination programs have a well supported linkage with sterilization. In a widely cited and rigorously documented Philippines case, that country’s Supreme Court halted a WHO tetanus vaccination program after it had been shown that the inoculations, given only to young women of child-bearing age, were tainted with a hormone that renders “a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy.” A Natural News article states:

In the 1990`s the UN`s World Health Organization launched a campaign to vaccinate millions of women in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines between the ages of 15 and 45. The stated purpose was to protect against Tetanus or Lockjaw, a painful sometimes lethal infectious reaction to external wounds or cuts. However, the vaccine was not given to men or boys, who are more prone to wounds from cuts and rusty nails than the ladies.

Noticing this anomaly, Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization became suspicious and had the vaccine samples tested. The tests revealed that the WHO Tetanus vaccine used to inoculate women of child bearing age contained human Chorionic Gonadotrophin or hCG, a natural hormone that is secreted in the initial stages of pregnancy, but when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier stimulated antibodies rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy. None of the women vaccinated were told.

In 1995, the Catholic Women`s League of the Philippines won a court order halting a UNICEF anti-tetanus program because the vaccine had been laced with B-hCG. The Supreme Court of the Philippines found the surreptitious sterilization program had already vaccinated three million women, aged 12 to 45. B-hCG-laced vaccine was also found in at least four other developing countries.

Apparently, this method of sterilization has been patented. An excerpt from that patent for a “birth control vaccine” follows:

Population is growing at a rapid pace in many economically developing countries and there is a continuing need of an alternate method for regulation of fertility. We proposed several years back a birth control vaccine which induces the formation of antibodies against the human pregnancy hormone, the human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). These inventions are described in patents issued in India, U.S.A. and several other countries. (Ref. EP 204566, JP 62286928, CA 1239346, U.S. Pat. No. 4,780,312, CN 8603854). We describe now another invention which generates antibody response of a long duration against hCG after a single or a limited number of injections.

Similar claims were made in 2004 during a UNICEF sponsored Nigerian polio vaccine program.

 

WHY hell is better than nukes…

http://www.thisblogisdangerous.com/meditating-on-death/

 

Everything that lives must eventually die and become again a part of the earth. The soul leaves the body and what remains will rot away and become food and sustenance for new life. The earth will reclaim its rightful property.

Our bodies are not truly ours, and never were, but instruments loaned to us, and that debt must eventually be repaid. Life and death are one, and it will go on forever until the end of the world and death itself is conquered. Fearing death is as irrational as fearing the sun coming up tomorrow. Violence and war are nothing to be feared, not even a nuclear war. Everything on Earth is trapped in a never-ending cycle of annihilation and rebirth, for it has been ordained so.

Comment: As I always say, hell is eternal, hell is eternal, hell is eternal…

A post to reply to a comment

https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/just-because-its-not-forbidden/

New commenter oogenhand (a convert to the cult of the Easter Bunny), recently stopped by to offer his opinions on issues raised by our recent post concerning prostitutes and lesbians.  His comment raises a number of points.  The first being that oogenhand seems to be unsure as to the identity of the Apostle Paul, confusing him with the noted pervert and church infiltrator Augustine of Hippo.  Augustine was the gnostic Manichean who infiltrated the Church and polluted it with his mad scribblings about sexual pleasure being a sin.  It was the Easter Bunny and his followers, practitioners of the Nicolaitan sin, who promoted and revered the foolishness of Augustine and his partner in crime, the pervert Jerome.

Girl-on-girl is not allowed because although the women are married to YOU, they are not married to EACH OTHER.

Commenter oogenhant’s opinion about “girl on girl” is amusing, because he is claiming two women are not allowed to have sexual contact because they are not married.

Sexual contact is not the same as sexual intercourse. Two women cannot have sexual intercourse because sexual intercourse requires a penis and women don’t have a penis. Sexual intercourse is the act of marriage, the peculiar “ceremony” if you will that begins a marriage. Thus, it is physically impossible for two women to be married to each other because two women cannot have sexual intercourse with each other and marriage begins with the act of sexual intercourse.

That fact, however, does not prevent two women from having sexual contact.

The confusion over the difference between sexual contact and sexual intercourse is amusing.  Masturbation is sexual contact with ones’ self, it is not sexual intercourse because there is no partner. Masturbation is not forbidden in any way- it’s not even mentioned or implied. “Girl on girl” is not forbidden, except within the constraints of a polygynous marriage, where female-female incest is prohibited. The prohibition presumes sexual contact between wives in a polygynous marriage, married to the same husband and most likely sharing the same bed with their husband.

All this would be one massive and somewhat amusing non sequitur except for one point- there are a number of forms of sexual contact that are forbidden. Incest, for example, is any form of sexual contact between people with forbidden relationships. Any sexual contact between men is forbidden. The point, is that sexual contact between women (except for the aforementioned prohibition on incest) is not forbidden.

It is said that there are two types of people.  Your humble Toad is of the first group, those who believe that which is not specifically forbidden is permitted and we are to use wisdom in determining if that which is permitted is good for us.

There is another group who take a different position: that which is not specifically permitted is to be viewed with great suspicion, if not outright hostility.  It is this group who have traditionally judged, shamed and manipulated their fellow Christians.  You see, at the end of the day, they are claiming their opinion on the relative morality of something is what counts.

Commenter oogenhand is, as a zealous convert to the cult of the Easter Bunny, rather opinionated.  He made further assertions. Note that all additions to oogenhand’s comment are in brackets.

Maybe polygyny is allowed and polyandry isn’t because the Bible commands MGC (circumcision), but doesn’t command FGC (clitoridectomy e.a.). Paul [Augustine of Hippo] was a gnostic manichean, who puts the spiritual and the physical at opposite ends.  [Gnostics believe] the spiritual is good and physical is bad. This is wrong. The spiritual and the physical complement each other. This means that, Biblically speaking, spiritual circumcision without physical circumcision is just as worthless as the inverse.  Paul burns in hell. Hell is eternal.

Physical circumcision is only commanded of the physical descendants of Abraham (Genesis 17:1-14)  “between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.  If one is not a physical descendant of Abraham or a slave who belongs to a physical descendant of Abraham, then the command of physical circumcision is not applicable. But, oogenhand complicates the issue by talking about spiritual circumcision.  What is this spiritual cirumcision?  We find the first reference in Deuteronomy 30:6

Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

Spiritual circumcision is something the Lord does, it’s spiritual.  We find clarification in Romans 2:28-29

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.  But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Commenter oogenhand is somewhat confused by all this, saying “Biblically speaking, spiritual circumcision without physical circumcision is just as worthless as the inverse.”   He then goes on to say the Apostle Paul is going to hell.  Like many followers of the Easter Bunny, he believes his opinion is more important than what the Bible says.  Which is why they place their traditions above the Bible.

  • Circumcision of a descendant of Abraham is the act that signifies their entry into the covenant and is a sign of the covenant.
  • Sexual intercourse is the act by which a man and woman are married and a sign that the man and woman are married.

These are physical acts, significant in and of themselves, a sign of the covenant.  Yet, along with the physical act, there is also the spiritual.

  • Circumcision of the heart is a spiritual circumcision by Spirit, performed by the Lord.
  • The spiritual joining of “becoming one flesh” is the act of the Lord that joins the two in marriage as one flesh.

Mere sexual contact is not the same as sexual intercourse and sexual contact does not signify anything other than a desire for sexual gratification.  It may be generally forbidden based on the relationship (incest, males with males, etc.),  or it may be permitted because there is no prohibition at all.  Masturbation is an example of this and “girl on girl” sexual contact falls into this category.

Female genital mutilation is not the same thing as circumcision and female genital mutilation does not signify anything other than the attitudes and beliefs of the people who do such things.  And when one considers that it’s the older women who do that sort of thing, not the men, it might give a thinking person something to ponder.

Polygyny and polyamory cannot be compared because polygyny is a marriage with more than one wife.  Polyamory is an attack on marriage and in fact, a denial of marriage because a woman can only be bound to one man.

Danish Medical Association says it’s ethically wrong to circumcise children

http://antisemitism-europe.blogspot.nl/2016/12/danish-medical-association-says-its.html

Chief Rabbi of Denmark Yair Melchior on Wednesday night clarified that legislation to ban brit mila (Jewish ritual circumcision) was not on the table, following media reports that the Danish Medical Association was pushing for legislation against the practice on anyone under the age of 18.

The chief rabbi released a statement emphasizing that while the Medical Association had issued a statement claiming that it was ethically wrong to circumcise a person without his consent as an adult, it also made clear that it would not pursue legislation on the matter.

The association said last week that circumcision should be “an informed, personal choice” that young men should make for themselves.

“It is most consistent with the individual’s right to self-determination that parents not be allowed to make this decision but that it is left up to the individual when he has come of age,” said Lise Moller, chairwoman of the doctors’ association’s ethics board, adding that male circumcision carries a risk of complications and should only be performed on children when there is a documented medical need.

However, the association also noted a ban could have serious implications, “both for the involved boys, who could for example face bullying or unauthorized procedures with complications, and for the cultural and religious groups they belong to.”

Melchior said that just as the Jewish community spoke out strongly against the statement, Gorm Greisen, chairman of Denmark’s Ethical Council, had also said on national television that there was no ethical issue involved in the matter or with parents making the decision for their child.