has finally been arrested, can we at last draw a line under the nonsense that this threat denies the massacre at Srebrenica? A massacre that coincidentally is only denied by Orthodox Christian Serb nationalists and its Orthodox Christian allies (and ill-informed bigots who assume any group called "Muslim" are jihadists seeking to destroy Western civilisation).

Srebrenica happened - it happened because fascist Orthodox Christian Serbs wanted to expand their neo-fascist state to include most of Bosnia, and in the process deported, murdered and raped their way through Muslim Bosniaks and Catholic Croats (mostly the former, as the Croats were trying to carve their own bit out as well). The Muslim Bosniaks were predominantly the victims in this conflict and were left defenceless because the Serbs had the arms of the communist era Yugoslav National Army.

It was a repulsive part of recent history, exacerbated by the then Croatian celebration of its past, including Ante Pavelic's neo-Nazi massacres of Jews, Muslims and Orthodox Serbs, with complicity of the Catholic Church.

Let's hope Karadzic is tried, convicted and sentenced to prison and dies in short order, and more importantly his co-thug Mladic joins him!

Mark, you stubbornly ...

The one thing you've got right about me so far Sandi.

Ahem, bumping. Important issues below concerning the linked sins of genocide support and holocaust denial need addressing, and answering ...

You're right Richard, guilty as charged - a moment of weakness on my behalf, though I plead a technicality. I made my last post in haste, and then went and watched Grumpy Old Men on UKTV, realising only during the ad break, how could I let Sandi away with this new transgression.

So, Sandi said: You stubbornly refuse to recognise the fact that I refute that this massacre occurred.

That is a preposterous position Sandi. Richard rightly points out this is akin to holocaust denial, and with that, obscene. Of course this was a massacre: 8,000 mean and boys murdered because of another groups bigoted, racist, collectivist notion of their identity. Surely, please, and without quoting the entire Internet back to me, you cannot hold this position? It is untenable. It is callous. It is monstrous.

And, of course, back to the 'now' related issue: Sandi - was the murder of 8000 men and boys in this massacre justified by the fact they may (or may not) have been Muslim? Is genocide justified as a 'Final Solution' to the 'Muslim problem'? Yes or no?

Wearily and warily off to bed. Back over breakfast.

Your lack of reference to this entire issue, highlights the lack of reason you have applied to the entire thread.

I consider your opinions to be an affront to the very subject matter you mock.

You stubbornly refuse to recognise the fact that I refute that this massacre occurred.

Mark, you stand accused of holocaust denial denial. How do you plead?

Unless this is some cruel oasis Sandi has delivered me to, do I see an end in sight to my vigil?

You stubbornly refuse to recognise the fact that I refute that this massacre occurred.

Oh. I'm not going to argue that point, because I don't remember where you did, but for sake of argument, let me be magnanimous and just say, oookay then hypothetically:

Sandi - is the hypothetical murder of 8000 men and boys in this hypothetical massacre hypothetically justified by the fact they may (or may not) have been hypothetically Muslim? Is genocide justified as a 'Final Solution' to the 'Muslim problem'? Yes or no?

You stubbornly refuse to recognise the fact that I refute that this massacre occurred.

However, in response to your question;

I work, strive and remain vigilant to uphold, maintain and secure my freedom, equality and integrity.

I would sacrifice my integrity in order to defend my freedom, because without freedom I would never have equality.

“The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life …

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist.”
- Galt's Speech

Lance

“You knocked Mark for quoting from Wikipedia. The notion that Wikipedia is an unreliable source is a common misconception and utterly false. Wikipedia is quite accurate; errors, claims without a source citation or proof of original research, and agenda driven editing are swiftly corrected or removed, the same cannot be said for your average conspiracy theorist blogger.”

That is a rather condescending statement, considering that you have not linked one reference to any of your claims.

I'm just pointing out that it isn't only collectivists who kill.

Right then, yes, killing, which brings us back to the task at hand; hounding Sandi about righteous killings, or not.

Sandi - was the murder of 8000 men and boys in this massacre justified by the fact they may (or may not) have been Muslim? Is genocide justified as a 'Final Solution' to the 'Muslim problem'? Yes or no?

Wouldn't it be great to put this thread to bed. In the Qur'an, and Hadith ... such as the UCK ... and mourn the ummah ... . It's getting to be like Lord of the Bloody Rings in here.

So we're wanting to what, Richard? Create degrees of massacre or something?

I'm just pointing out that it isn't only collectivists who kill.

 As to your question, I've already said that I think the Hiroshima massacre wasn't an act of collectivist thinking. As for other examples, no, I can't think of any, which is not to say that there isn't any,  nor is to say that it's beyond the capacity of individualists. It certainly isn't, but it would be motivated by different reasons, towards different ends.

I've been thinking and no, I can't think of one massacre that was not the result of collectivist thinking. Out of interest, can you?

Sandi, the question ...

So we're wanting to what, Richard? Create degrees of massacre or something?

A massacre is a massacre: and when done for collectivist reasons as 99.99999% of them will be, whether out of racism, ideology, or whatever, it will always be heinous.

Yes?

But thank you for getting this back on track to what is important:

Sandi - was the murder of 8000 men and boys in this massacre justified by the fact they may (or may not) have been Muslim? Is genocide justified as a 'Final Solution' to the 'Muslim problem'? Yes or no?

...not all massacres are based on collectivist thinking.

Are all massacres based on collectivist thinking?

In most cases that would be a logical conclusion: the tyrant/psychotic partaking in mass murder is normally trying to solve what in their demented view is a mass problem. The communists put a particularly ironic twist on it by mass murdering the group they were apparently about saving.

That massacre is always the end point of this mode of thinking: a refusal to think of people first as individuals,

Are all massacres based on collectivist thinking?

"those slain in the way of Allah" does not have to mean anything more than "the Muslims who were killed".

 In the Qur'an, and Hadith, "those slain in the way of Allah" are Jihadists. That's a fact. Are you suggesting that the muslims who wrote it don't know that? Or that Bosnian Muslims as a whole, don't know that? And that as a whole, the Muslims of Bosnia take it to mean "those muslims who were killed" as if detached and divorced from its meaning in the Qur'an? Perhaps they don't know that, and perhaps they are detached from the Qur'an, and from the tenets and doctrines of their own religion. but that really means little to me. There are those who aren't detached from their religion, and who do take it very seriously, such as the UCK,  (you can see a member below wrapped in the Stars and Stripes) an Islamic terrorist organisation that's in league with Al Qaeda. They have terrorised and murdered thousands of people in the cause of turning Kosovo into an Islamic state, and who see it as a launching pad to further the Jihad into Europe. They know the Qur'anic meaning of that inscription, even if others don't. So, what was the intent of the writers? I don't know, because I don't know enough about it, but ultimately I don't see that it really matters. It's a victory for the terrorists regardless. That Bill Clinton is bowing before it is one of the reasons the guy below is wearing the American Flag. Not because America saved little children, but because they paved the way for their Jihad.

As for the Arabic inscription, note it is not the one "displayed" (i.e. it's not where anyone but the photographer is looking), it's on the other side.

"Why is the monument to the Srebrenica victims inscribed entirely in Arabic?"

It isn't. Some muppet has just looked at that Clinton photo and failed to do any research (or has outright lied).

You knocked Mark for quoting from Wikipedia. The notion that Wikipedia is an unreliable source is a common misconception and utterly false. Wikipedia is quite accurate; errors, claims without a source citation or proof of original research, and agenda driven editing are swiftly corrected or removed, the same cannot be said for your average conspiracy theorist blogger.

Sandi has stated: I refuted the validity of it in my "well researched post" or did you not read it?

You mean where you said, So here is my research and yes Mark, I maintain that it is thoroughly OBSCENE of Clinton to bow to a memorial dedicated to the mujahadeen/Islamic fighters, regardless of how many.[?]

'Regardless of how many', and regardless of all those in the mass grave, including every teenage boy, who were not Mujaheddin? I read your post, Sandi, and thank you for engaging, but nowhere did I see you say a straight out, non coy, unambiguous 'no' to my question, indeed, the above is leading sadly toward putting you in the affirmative. So I ask it again - definitely needing clarification now:

Sandi - was the murder of 8000 men and boys in this massacre justified by the fact they may (or may not) have been Muslim? Is genocide justified as a 'Final Solution' to the 'Muslim problem'? Yes or no?

Incidentally, once you're done eating that cake, can I recommend Lance's sane, rational and wise post below, which contains some object lessons for us all in the finer points of interpretation of current affairs, with always an an eye to the individual rather than the group.

I refuted the validity of it in my "well researched post" or did you not read it?

Obviously you did not. Here are more articles that I did not include because of the lack of space.

"The "official" story about Srebrenica, sold to the world by Bosnian Muslims, was that the Serbs out of the clear blue sky attacked the "UN safe haven city" of Srebrenica and massacred 8000 men and boys." Only, the actual body count was about 2500. A reported 3000 of the 8000 massacred Bosnian Muslims have since voted in Bosnian elections.

I've been researching and writing about this for 10 years. It seems that the "unarmed" men in Srebrenica had actually been plundering, raiding and killing Serbs in nearby villages for years prior to the supposed "Srebrenica massacre" of 1995. In fact, by 1995, more than 100 Serb villages were destroyed and about 2000 Serbian civilians were killed.

Since Americans were getting nearly all of this story at the time from CNN, and their reporter in Bosnia was Christiane Amanpour, a Muslim, they never heard that part of the story. Before I knew she was a Muslim, I got curious as to why CNN never ONCE interviewed a Serb during the Bosnia war that I started researching. In 1996 I wrote an article titled "Ethnic Cleansing under NATO's Watchful Eye in Bosnia — Where are the missing 150,000 Serbs?"

+++++

"Upon entering the town, the Bosniaq women and children were unharmed, and were later bused by the Serbs to Muslim territory. If the Serbs really wanted to perform an act of genocide, they would have murdered the women and children. Instead, they provided buses and a safe route for them to get to the Muslim-held Tuzla area.

One year on, from the initial list of "massacred" Bosniaqs, which holds up to 8,000 names, some 3,000 people had turned up to vote in the Bosnian elections.

The list was first named "list of the missing Bosniaqs from Srebrenica", and was later named "list of the massacred Bosniaq civilians". One could say - those that survived came back and voted. Okay.But, why were those 3,000 names of survivors NOT removed from the list?

It is also noteworthy to mention that war in Bosnia and Hercegovina, including Srebrenica, raged from 1992 to 1995, not just in 1995. Before the Serbs had entered Srebrenica, the notorious Muslim forces led by Naser Oric had murdered most Serbs in the area of Srebrenica. In Skelani, Bratunac, Kravice. Some 300 Serb civilians had been massacred in Skelani, and on Orthodox Christmas, 70 Serb civillians were massacred by the Muslims in Kravice. In all, about 3,000 Serbian civilians from Srebrenica and the surrounding villages were massacred by the Muslims, from 1992 to 1995, BEFORE the Serbian forces took the town. Apart from Naser Oric's Bosniaq forces, also present were the mujahedins from Arab countries, such as the "El Mujahedin" unit that was notorious for its crimes and beheaded Serbs.

Although the West has seen a video of Serbs executing the Bosniaqs - the video certainly does not show the executions in their thousands, and although what happened in those videos is, of course, terrible, the world has refused to see the videos of Serbs being massacred. Are the tears of Serbian mothers less important than the tears of Muslim mothers? Are Serbian boys less important than Muslim boys? The Western media have demonized the Serbs so much, that rarely, very rarely, are the Serbian victims shown. Always the victims belong to the Bosniaq, Croat or Albanian side. Rarely, or never do the Western media show Serbian victims. And Serbs, believe it or not, are the largest victims of the war in the former Yugoslavia, the largest ethnically displaced group with the highest number of refugees, and there are videos of crimes committed against the Serbs. Those videos the Western media are continually refusing to show. Bear in mind that the Serbs, those same "monsters", were US allies in BOTH world wars, which cannot be said for the Croats, Muslims, Albanians...

So far, the 8,000 Srebrenica bodies have not been found, even though the utmost technology was put in place. There are in total 2,000 bodies found so far. Bear in mind that most of those could have died in fighting and that, yes, some could have been shot from close range. Where are the remaining 6,000 bodies? Surely the American spy satellites are able to detect any suspsicious motion on the ground (digging, moving the remains to other locations etc).

++++

The indictment also alleges that a group of 8,000 Albanians were mistreated by the Yugoslav Army while they seeking shelter on an unidentified mountain near the village of Nogavac.

Col. Vukovic was surprised by the indictment’s assertion because there is no mountain near Nogavac.

The indictment claims that Serbian forces massacred 105 Albanians in the village of Mala Krusa on March 25, 1999. Col. Vukovic denied that there had been a massacre; he explained that an anti-terrorist operation had been carried out and that the Albanians who got killed had died in combat.

Indeed, when one looks at the indictment one immediately notices that the people listed as victims of this so-called “massacre”

are exclusively men of fighting age."

”So far, the 8,000 Srebrenica bodies have not been found, even though the utmost technology was put in place. There are in total 2,000 bodies found so far. Bear in mind that most of those could have died in fighting and that, yes, some could have been shot from close range. Where are the remaining 6,000 bodies? Surely the American spy satellites are able to detect any suspsicious motion on the ground (digging, moving the remains to other locations etc).

Why did the Bosniaq men not stay and fight the Serbs? They left their families - women and small children at the hands of the Serbs. Was it because they knew no harm would come to their families? What kind of a man leaves his family unprotected, to save his own skin? Did they run because they knew what crimes they had committed against the Serbs?

Why is the monument to the Srebrenica victims inscribed entirely in Arabic? Nobody in Bosnia and Hercegovina speaks and understands Arabic, except some islamic clergy. Was that a sign of gratitude to the mujahedins from Arab countries, whom are known to be connected to Al Qaeda, the same terrorist group that the US is now fighting?"

++++

“Spanish forensic investigator Emilio Perez Pujol headed a large team of pathologists and police specialists. The search for mass graves, he explained to the [London] Sunday Times, was ‘a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines, because we did not find one—not one—mass grave…’ Pujol told the El Pais newspaper, ‘We had been working with two parallel problems. One was the propaganda war. This allowed them to lie, to fake photographs for the press, to publish pictures of mass graves, or whatever they had to influence world opinion…"

NOTE: And in 2008, we see the same thing day after day. You haven't begun to notice the same stain marks from the "well oiled machine" by now?

++++

,There never was a genocide in Kosovo ’ he concluded. ‘It was dishonest and wrong for western leaders to adopt the term in the beginning to give moral authority to the operation.’”

"I can and I will, and I shall have as much cake as I desire."

You are now definitely turning my mind to the conclusion you know only the tyrant's freedom. That Sandi's freedom can be predicated on the bodies of others, just like Stalin, just like Hitler; so long as Sandi can do what she wants with no acknowledgment at all of the non-initiation of force. You are are up to your unshaved, blue stocking (they were collectivists also) armpits in blood, just like the Jihadists.

Again. Sandi - was the murder of 8000 men and boys in this massacre justified by the fact they may (or may not) have been Muslim? Is genocide justified as a 'Final Solution' to the 'Muslim problem'? Yes or no?

"I'll tell you what's totally obscene. The misguided attempts of yourself and others to defend Sandi and her vile bigotry against Mark's laudable and entirely warranted censure
You can't eat your cake and have it, too.

"I can and I will, and I shall have as much cake as I desire."

"She thinks that all Muslims are jihadists.

"There can never exist; a moderate muslim, unless there is a moderate Islam"

- Ashworth.

"those slain in the way of Allah"

What basis do you have for this being definitive of a tribute to mujahideen? Yes it could be taken as such, semantically however "slain in the way of Allah" could just as easily be a monument to Muslims who were killed for being Muslim.

If we take the massacre as given - which of course is disputed - then a Muslim retaining his faith in the face of those events could just as legitimately be called a jihadist, a "struggler", or "slain in the way of Allah" as the more Hezbollah/terrorist style Muslim you say it implies. I'm not convinced otherwise. I take no issue with someone retaining their ideology - in this case a mostly secular, pro-western Islam - in the face of those who would murder them for it.

Something that I think needs to be pointed out also - and something that does not sit well with me about that monument - is that the slain did not necessarily identify as Muslim. This is actually quite murky, and something that Sandi may not have realised, the slain were defined ethnically as Muslim. Stupid? Yes, and something that many non-Muslim "Bosnian Muslims" aka Bosniaks object to. But the term Bosniak and Bosnian Muslim are used interchangeably.

So the monument may have been someone's sneaky way of including a tribute to imported mujahideen fighters from extremist Islam, but its intent and its explanation is that it is a monument to "Bosnian Muslims" who were massacred just for being what they were. Nowhere have I seen the claim that this monument is anything else argued with any substance.

The Srebrenica massacre was primarily about ethnicity, and in this case the ethnic group has a traditional adherence to Islam, so much so they are called "Bosnian Muslims" regardless of faith. In that case, an Islamic inscription on the monument is no more surprising or appalling than a biblical quote appearing on US monuments, a country whose people are traditionally adherents to Christianity.

"those slain in the way of Allah" does not have to mean anything more than "the Muslims who were killed". Not for blowing people up or mutilating young girls or beating their wives or slaying infidels, but for saying "there is only one God and Mohammed is his profit." Sometimes that is all a Muslim is.

All I'm asking for is a fact-based debate. It seems to me this whole tempest could have been resolved just by calmly proving to Sandi, if it is true, that the monument is not actually dedicated to Al Qaeda fighters and the website she pointed to is wrong.

Context, again. View every one, almost, of Sandi's threads, and you will see another Jihad going on, the underlying basis of which, (a collectivist mindset), I was finding more and more discomforting. To the point I now want to know if this mindset itself seeks to justify genocide. In context, even of this thread, but my opening post had its context in other threads, it's a fair question I have asked. You found it easy to say no, why not Sandi?

... since it could just as well be an error of identification.

Yes! And the massacre of 8,000 men and boys in the event Clinton was here empathising with was the result of deliberate, racist, 'errors of identification'. That massacre is always the end point of this mode of thinking: a refusal to think of people first as individuals, instead pinning on them attributes of a group to ground a prejudice and then justify an extinction (of individual lives, based on group identification.) Every communist state, every Islamic theocracy, has proven this point. It's not surprising when I see the same mode of thinking turning up in threads on an Objectivist site, that at some stage I will question it, and attempt to investigate its nature and extent.

Again, Richard W's comment: But what is actually happening here? Calls to genocide? Get real! Sandi jumped her guns on the hijacking thread. So what?

Again, to drive my point home again and again and again. - So what if Sandi's guns were loaded with real bullets? She just shot a brain damaged person, not for being a threat to the individuals on the plane, but for being a Jihadist. What if she now meets another black woman = Muslim = Jihadist in the supermarket who is simply, as an individual not on a Jihad, shopping? And then what if the black woman had actually been an Objectivist (not a Muslim = Jihadist at all?)

So again: Sandi - was the murder of 8000 men and boys in this massacre justified by the fact they may (or may not) have been Muslim? Is genocide justified as a 'Final Solution' to the 'Muslim problem'? Yes or no?

This thread could have stopped posts ago. How much further do I have to keep banging on?

Sandi wrongly implies that a monument to the 1995 Srebrenica massacre is a "monument dedicated to fallen al Qaeda Mujahedeen fighters"

If it says what Lance says it says, then it is definitely a monument to martyred Mujahideen. A monument to great Aunt Bethel is a monument to Great Aunt Bethel. A monument to "those slain in the way of Allah" is a monument to Jihadists.

Calm down Richard. All I'm asking for is a fact-based debate. It seems to me this whole tempest could have been resolved just by calmly proving to Sandi, if it is true, that the monument is not actually dedicated to Al Qaeda fighters and the website she pointed to is wrong. Debate finished.

Also, it is clearly wrong in my view to say "all Muslims are jihadists". However, I wouldn't automatically assume a moral error on the part of someone who did say it, since it could just as well be an error of identification.

Barack Hussein Obama: Plagiarism, Cocaine and a Blowjob from Larry

"Muslims have found the perfect candidate, but cannot vocally support him"

You can't eat your cake and have it, too.

Sandi has been on the receiving end of some incredibly harsh accusations, starting from the first post, even though from what I have seen no one has actually disproved the facts of her initial argument.

Sandi wrongly implies that a monument to the 1995 Srebrenica massacre is a "monument dedicated to fallen al Qaeda Mujahedeen fighters".

She ventures her opinion that a photograph of Bill Clinton paying tribute to the 8,000 victims of the massacre is "totally OBSCENE!" Then she tells us, "I never posted any opinion."

She thinks that all Muslims are jihadists.

I'll tell you what's totally obscene. The misguided attempts of yourself and others to defend Sandi and her vile bigotry against Mark's laudable and entirely warranted censure.

Sandi

The quality of Sandi's posts is that she primarily sticks to arguments about facts. From what I can tell, the strength of her feeling proceeds from her understanding of those facts.

A benevolent approach, if one disagrees with her, would be to say, "Sandi, your facts X, Y and Z are wrong". If, in the light of facts X, Y and Z being proven wrong, she persisted with the same conclusions and same feelings, only then might one start to question her premises.

However, in this thread, Sandi has been on the receiving end of some incredibly harsh accusations, starting from the first post, even though from what I have seen no one has actually disproved the facts of her initial argument. The accusations against her therefore have no basis in fact, and are simply arbitrary.

Sandi's refusal to address arbitrary accusations doesn't constitute proof of anything other than her admirable fortitude.

A Muslim, defined by his ideology, IS part of a collective.

 Why would you define anyone by someone else's evil ideology?

When you define anything, you define it by it's essence. A snake is a snake. A donut is a donut, and on and on.A muslim is a muslim because of his ideology. Not because of your ideology, or Lindsay Perigo's ideology, George bloody Bush's ideology, but because of the Muslims ideology.

Given that Islam is at war with us, all it's practitioners and followers become suspect, regardless of any individuality they might possess.

In the West, we don't execute suspects. We give them freedom or a fair trial.

Who the is talking about executing suspects? The only ones doing that around here are Mark, and now you. I'm off to bed. I'm sick of this idiocy.

Objectivism or no objectivism, moral support is not due those who condone genocide as a solution to Islam.

Of course not, but no one here condones that, nor has anyone put it forward as a solution. 

Yes, the woman is muslim ergo she is a jihadist.

Evidently, reason is not one of Sandi's absolutes,

Well, you don't know what Sandi's reasoning is behind that statement. Shouldn't you actually ask her, or do you prefer prejudice? And if she is wrong in her comment, how does that mean that reason is not one of her absolutes? Reason is a means of determining reality. It doesn't mean omniscience or infallibility.

A Muslim, defined by his ideology, IS part of a collective.

Why would you define anyone by someone else's evil ideology?

Given that Islam is at war with us, all it's practitioners and followers become suspect, regardless of any individuality they might possess.

In the West, we don't execute suspects. We give them freedom or a fair trial.

Nope. I'm not in agreement with that.

Good.

It's also an insulting question.

And horrific when not answered. Read through the thread: Sandi defined the question that had to ultimately be asked.

Again, it's a simple question Sandi: was the murder of 8000 men and boys in this massacre justified by the fact they may (or may not) have been Muslim? Is genocide justified as a 'Final Solution' to the 'Muslim problem'? Yes or no?

But what is actually happening here? Calls to genocide? Get real! Sandi jumped her guns on the hijacking thread. So what?

So what if the guns were loaded with real bullets? She just shot a brain damaged person, not for being a threat to the individuals on the plane, but for being a Jihadist. What if she now meets another black woman = Muslim = Jihadist in the supermarket who is simply, as an individual not on a Jihad, shopping? And then what if the black woman had actually been an Objectivist (not a Muslim = Jihadist at all?)

Umm, shouldn't I really be asking you that question? It seems that 'cheerleading' isn't on your list of Objectivist do's. Perhaps you should write up a haram and halal list for Objectivists.

Too clever by half. I have no idea what this means?

Since when has Objectivism been about not giving moral support where moral support is due... ?

Objectivism or no objectivism, moral support is not due those who condone genocide as a solution to Islam.

Yes, the woman is muslim ergo she is a jihadist.

Evidently, reason is not one of Sandi's absolutes, let alone her only absolute.

Good work, Mark. Keep it up.

It's about the complete engagement of life as individuals Richard: so why won't you allow people their individuality?

Umm, shouldn't I really be asking you that question? It seems that 'cheerleading' isn't on your list of Objectivist do's. Perhaps you should write up a haram and halal list for Objectivists.

Yes, the woman is muslim ergo she is a jihadist

So, are we both in agreement with this statement then?

Nope. I'm not in agreement with that.

Sandi, the question please. It's a simple question Sandi:

It's also an insulting question. 

You see, this issue, a refusal to treat people as individuals first, not as part of a collective,

Here's the rub. A Muslim, defined by his ideology, IS part of a collective. Islam is one of the most collectivist ideologies ever devised. Islam means submission to Allah, and Muslim means slave to Allah, so there is no such thing as the individual in Islam. Given that Islam is at war with us, all it's practitioners and followers become suspect, regardless of any individuality they might possess. Unless you want to leave yourself wide open to be sideswiped, that's the reality. It's important to guard against hysteria, and overreaction, but it's also important not to drop your guard.

 happening in, of all places, an Objectivist site.

But what is actually happening here? Calls to genocide? Get real! Sandi jumped her guns on the hijacking thread. So what? How does that equate to wanting or supporting genocide? Get your perspective. And even though Sandi jumped the gun a bit, it's still entirely possible that she's right. That crazy nutty woman might be a jihadist.

Since when has Objectivism been about divorcing oneself from life, Mark?

It's about the complete engagement of life as individuals Richard: so why won't you allow people their individuality?

Sandi said: Yes, the woman is muslim ergo she is a jihadist . Do you agree with this statement?

... for the right reasons.

Ah, the right reasons. Sandi, the below question please:

It's a simple question Sandi: was the murder of 8000 men and boys in this massacre justified by the fact they may (or may not) have been Muslim? Is genocide justified as a 'Final Solution' to the 'Muslim problem'? Yes or no?

Since when has Objectivism been about not giving moral support where moral support is due, Mark? Since when has Objectivism been about divorcing oneself from life, Mark? And why does everything have to be 'Objectivism' anyway? Objectivism is a system of ideas. Cheering on your favourite team is cheering on your favourite team. Hopefully, given enough Objectivism, and enough scrupulous thought, it means cheering on the right team for the right reasons.

... and since when has Objectivism been about cheer-leading teams, Tim, Richard? Worse, your skirts are too short and your willies are showing: for example, in Sandi's post, which again does not give a simple clarification to my question, she does at least own up to:

Yes, the woman is muslim ergo she is a jihadist

So, are we both in agreement with this statement then?

Sandi, the question please.

It's a simple question Sandi: was the murder of 8000 men and boys in this massacre justified by the fact they may (or may not) have been Muslim? Is genocide justified as a 'Final Solution' to the 'Muslim problem'? Yes or no?

Richard has actually given a negative on this earlier, but what of you Tim?

You see, this issue, a refusal to treat people as individuals first, not as part of a collective, is now more than starting to annoy me.  I'm asking myself, how can this be happening in, of all places, an Objectivist site. Well, how please? Do you not understand that this is precisely the position of our, no, of my, at least, philosophical enemies and, indeed, amongst all the other mystical bullshit, it is partly what defines Islam?

Well?

It's a simple question Sandi: was the murder of 8000 men and boys in this massacre justified by the fact they may (or may not) have been Muslim? Is genocide justified as a 'Final Solution' to the 'Muslim problem'?

Yes or no?

Hint: I believe rational, freedom loving human beings can say no to this question without having to think about it due to it being axiomatic. I can't imagine what sort of monster has to be dragged through hill and dale like this just to utter a single, self evident word.

Excellent post, Sandi.

It's a simple question Sandi: was the murder of 8000 men and boys in this massacre justified by the fact they may (or may not) have been Muslim? Is genocide justified as a 'Final Solution' to the 'Muslim problem'?

Yes or no?

Hint: I believe rational, freedom loving human beings can say no to this question without having to think about it due to it being axiomatic. I can't imagine what sort of monster has to be dragged through hill and dale like this just to utter a single, self evident word.

Good post Sandi. Keep it up.

(I think we can even forgive Clinton for showing a bit of empathy with the mothers of the slain on this one!)

Who are (we)? Maybe your collective mindset is having foreplay with your sub-conscious?

(I will continue to attack Sandi, and Richard, wherever they make such simplistic equations as: Black = Somali = Moslem = Jihadist.)

(Black) - Yes, seen the photo. (Somali) Yes -confirmed (Moslem) -Yes confirmed - (Jihadist). – Yes, the woman is muslim ergo she is a jihadist.

(It's pointless quoting the Koran at me). Okay Mark, I won’t bother to list the 164 passages concerning jihad in the quran.

(8,000 Muslim men and boys slaughtered by utter, utter heinous thugs)

Are you referring to Kosovo's Serbian Christians? Perhaps the same Serbian thugs to whom Israel presented honours for saving Jews during WWII?

(Try looking up Srebrenica massacre and actually reading the damned facts before you mouth off and make us all look like bleeding racists who have no ability at all to use our reason, or go about our lives treating people as individuals, not as depersonalised 'objects' deriving their meaning from a supposed group you attach them to. 8,000 Muslim men and boys slaughtered by utter, utter heinous thugs. What you're doing is called racism.)

Mark, here are my (damned facts) brief as they may be. My references are from scholars and not Wikipedia.

Caroline Glick claims that it was “Kosovo's Serbian Christians, NOT its Albanian Muslims, who are targeted for ethnic cleansing. Since 1999, two-thirds of Kosovo's Serbs - some 250,000 people - have fled the area.”

According to Carl Savage “To create an ethnically pure Albanian Kosovo, which the Albanians called ìKosovaî,theÝ, Albanians (Shqiptari) launched a widescale campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Ethnic Serbs in the Kosovo-Metohija regions were massacred, and their homes were burned, and the survivors were brutally driven out and expelled in a policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

The Albanian Committee of Kosovo organised massive campaigns of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Orthodox Serbian inhabitants of Kosovo-Metohija.A contemporary report described the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Serbs…..it may be estimated that at least between 30,000 and 50,000 perished.”

Bat Ye’or, in Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide writes:
“In 1943 the Nazis formed the 21st SS "Skanderbeg" division of Moslem Albanian volunteers to perform an “ethnic cleansing” (of Jews and Serbs) in Yugoslavia. Tens of thousands of Serbs were sent to a Croatian death camp and as noted by Raul Hilberg in The Destruction of the European Jews (1961) Skanderbeg played a major role in the Holocaust, rounding up Jews who were subsequently sent to Bergen-Belsen and various death camps. A Kosovar Moslem, Bedri Pejani, was appointed by the Nazis to rule occupied Kosovo. He promptly announced a plan to create a Great Islamic State in the region with the blessings of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el Husseini. The Grand Mufti, who had led a jihad in Palestine, escaped capture by fleeing to German-occupied Europe where, from Sarajevo he urged the Nazis not to flag in their destruction of the Jews. Needless to say the Serbian Christian population dwindled under this onslaught and the proportion of Albanian Moslems surged. By the end of World War II, Yugoslav deaths totalled more than a million, roughly half of them Serbs.

Moslems who as early as 1960 demanded independence for Kosovo. There were intermittent riots which escalated and an emergent Kosovo Liberation Army gave as its stated goal “an ethnic greater Albania” to include portions of Macedonia and Montenegro, parts of southern Serbia and an “ethnically pure” (read Moslem-only) Kosovo.

To sum up: the demand for Kosovo's independence led to KLA terrorism which led to repression and expulsion of Albanians by Serbian military and police, which led to the assault by the United States and NATO. While the brutality of the Milosevic regime was indeed a complicating factor, he is long gone, but the KLA continues its assault on Serbs, on their churches, priests, homes, even on civilians sitting in cafes, this under the nose of the U.S. and UN troops which have now occupied Kosovo for eight years. Never mind that the State Department in 1998 listed the KLA as a terrorist organisation, indicating (as Interpol’s assistant director for Criminal Intelligence Ralph Mutschke reminded Congress in December 2000) “that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Osama bin Laden.

“Media and politicians alike, vastly indignant over Milosevic’s behavior, turn a blind eye. Speaking of Kosovo’s major city Pristina, where 40,000 Serbs lived before the UN took over (and where only 100 live now) Senator Joseph Biden, presidential aspirant and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declared proudly that Kosovo was a “victory for Moslem democracy” and “Pristina is one of the rare Moslem cities in the world where the U.S. is not only respected but adored.” (Indeed there is a street named for Madeleine Albright, who played an especially scurvy role in ramping up pressure against the Serbs).”

Ilana Freedman Editor and CEO, Gerard Group International, highlights the current situation in Kosovo. “This event threatens to touch off a new conflict in the Balkans. Riots have already broken out in Belgrade. According to our source in Belgrade, "Serbia is about to go up in flames" as thousands of ethnic Albanians, Muslims who represent 90% of Kosovo's two million people, have stated their claim on the new state. According to our source, a systematic ethnic cleansing of Kosovo's remaining Christian inhabitants has been going on for several years and will now likely escalate.

Since we have been supporting 'democracy' in Kosovo, and have ignored the strong Albanian Islamic influence in political affairs there, we have opened the gates to a new Islamic state, complete with terrorist training camps on the ground and a global network through which to funnel their graduates.”

Let us get a muslim perspective about Kosovo’s demand for independence.

“Albanians, although Muslim in their majority, are fanatics only about their appreciation for America.

Albanian Islam is moderate, and constitutes a bulwark against radicalisation of European Muslims. I don't think there's any other Muslim country in the world where there's so much Christian missionary activity that goes on undisturbed," Schwartz added.

There has been speculation that Kosovo, which has always enjoyed staunch backing from Washington, might give the U.S. a rare Muslim friend and some leverage in its effort to contain Islamic extremism. But intense U.S. engagement in Bosnia did little to endear America to the wider Arab world.

"America is not necessarily going to get a lot out of the Muslim world with this,"

"I'm proud that our democratic and recognised country (Kosovo) is first and foremost a very tolerant and secular state," said Fikret Morina, a 31-year-old Muslim tradesman.

"The world has no reason to be afraid of us."

muslimmatters.org “Congratulations to our Muslim brothers and sisters in Kosova, which has just declared its independence from Serbia on Sunday (2/17/2008). As might be expected, this is not without international controversy, as Kosova’s independence has been opposed by Serbia, Russia, and other neighboring states. However, with recognition from the US and much of the EU, Kosova, despite the displeasure of its enemies, is here to stay, inshaAllah.

We here at MM welcome Kosova to the international community. May Allah grant this new government the wisdom and ability to rule by the most just of legal systems, the Shari’ah, and allow it to, in doing so, become a shining example for our Ummah to follow. Ameen.”

Mark, if you are convinced that 8,000 muslims were indeed massacred, then that is your call and if you are saddened by this, then go find a shoulder to cry on.

I consider the conflict to been escalated by a cunning media war alongside a massive dose of taqiyya and the superiority of muslims in spewing out reams of dis-information. The western media embraced this propaganda. They even refused to name muslims what they were, instead referring to them as ethnic Albanians. Obviously the Clinton administration swallowed every drop like Monica Lewinsky on her knees. Clinton and his useless bunch of morons never saw through what we now see through everyday of the week.

“Initially, a conspiracy took place in our country from the early 1990's to demonise the Serbian people who, as is known, were STAUNCH ALLIES of the United States in both the First World War and in the Second World War. It is ironic that German bombs destroyed Yugoslavia in the 1940's, and fifty years later American and English bombs repeated the disaster. To add insult to injury, it was Germany which first, unilaterally, recognised its former Nazi ally, Croatia, as an independent nation during the warfare of the early 1990's.

In all of this, no one showed concern for the Serbian people because the public relations firms and the American media had successfully convinced the American people that the Serbians deserved the destruction rained upon them.

All the members of the Clinton administration, especially Albright, Cohen, Clark, Rubin, Burns, and others, including the Englishmen Tony Blair and Jamie Shea, were bent on the continuation of the intense bombing campaign, even though, as Wesley Clark put it, there was "collateral damage," meaning the death of innocent civilians.

Compounding the intensity of our policy, which even Congress could not decide upon -- it was an even split whether our country should go on the offensive when no one had declared war on us -- the president, along with his Secretary of State, looked the other way when several hundred Mujahadeen from Afghanistan and other Arab countries entered into the Balkans, along with more than enough weapons and ammunition for their use, most of which are still hidden in parts of Kosovo today.

In the 1990's the Mujahadeen had set up training camps in Bosnia and in Kosovo. Today the Mujahadeen are still there and active in the drug and prostitution trades, amassing millions of dollars in order to finance their future terrorist activities. Osama bin Laden himself visited the Balkans several times in the 1990's, even as late as April 2000. The Wall Street Journal, in its November 1, 2001 edition, reported that Osama bin Laden held a Bosnian passport, and that it was he who directed Al Qaeda commanders to incorporate the Balkans as another sphere of control and influence.

Where were the American news media in the plight of those thousands of victims? Obviously, the news media had another agenda; they were busy convincing the public that to do away with the Serbs was not really a bad thing. The media went on further to state, without reliable evidence, that thousands of rapes were going on, as well as genocide, first of the Bosnians and then of the Kosovars.

The American media can be proud of influencing public opinion in the 1990's… They can now mollify their collective guilt by being kind to America's enemies.”

(The racist killing of 8000 men and boys. Clinton, as any 'human' would, can empathise with that, and the atrocity it was; it's actually something to admire in him - it's nothing to do with bleeding Jihad.)

“He who rises against Islam will reap nothing but hate and resistance.”
Alija Izetbegovic, led Bosnia from 1990 to 2000, died in 2003, hailed worldwide as
a moderate Muslim leader. “the incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems. There can be no peace or coexistence between the ‘Islamic faith’ and non- Islamic societies and political institutions. . . . Islam clearly excludes the right and possibility of activity of any strange ideology on its own turf. Therefore, there is no question of any laicistic principles, and the state should be an expression and should support the moral concepts of the religion. . . . Islamic renewal cannot be successfully continued and concluded without a political revolution.”

In accordance with Islamic law, Izetbegovic notes that “Islamic order may be implemented only in countries where Muslims represent the majority of the population. . . . The Islamic movement should and must start taking over the power as soon as it is morally and numerically strong enough to not only overthrow the existing non-Islamic, but also to build up a new Islamic authority.”

Paul Williams writes
“By 1997, President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and Secretary of Defense William Cohen came to view the KLA as “freedom fighters.” Millions in U.S. aid began to flow to the Muslim rebels. America, unbeknown to its citizens, was now in league with the terrorists who were intent upon the destruction of western civilization. “

Of the two hundred thousand Serbs who lived in Kosovo before the conflict, only four hundred remained after Kosovo became a NATO protectorate. The vast majority of the Christians had gathered their belongings and fled for their lives. The 400 Serbs who remained in Kosovo were sequestered in three gloomy apartment buildings, where the international police stood guard day and night.

In the aftermath of the war, hundreds of Wahhabi mosques and schools, thanks to the contributions of wealthy Saudis, now appeared in every town and hamlet throughout the country. The back-door to Europe had been pried open by bin Laden and the mujahadeen for the drug trade and the movement of weapons of mass destruction”…..(there is more to read, use the link)

What about this story back in 2004 ?
“We Bombed the Wrong Side, Kosovo's Terrorists Continue to Wage War”

Could it be because the international community made a grave mistake and has now found itself in a quagmire with no solution in sight? Is it possible that some of the very people NATO was trying to "protect" have turned out, in fact, to be terrorists? Yes!”

I once asked a NATO commanding general why ethnic Albanian extremists were not unmasked for what they truly are - bloodthirsty, war-waging terrorists. He looked at me, paused, and replied, "How do you begin to go against the very group you supposedly came to help? We obviously did not know who we were dealing with. We bombed the wrong side."
Gavrilovic served as a civilian subcontractor with the U.S. Army in the capacity of assistant project manager, cross-cultural specialist and linguist in Kosovo.

So here is my research and yes Mark, I maintain that it is thoroughly OBSCENE of Clinton to bow to a memorial dedicated to the mujahadeen/Islamic fighters, regardless of how many.

(I can say categorically that Sandi has the coldest, cruellest mind of anyone in my life today) Oh wow!

Thanks Ayn Rand for your cold, cruel, loveless darkness.”

An emotion argument will never hold against solid sounding reason. However
reason is cold and can be cruel.”

“She was difficult to get along with and had always thought her somewhat harsh and cold, but she was not at all cruel.”

“Roark and Dominique presented as hero and heroine, the ideal people, but they're stubborn, cold people who can be exceptionally cruel at times”

Just call me Dominique and let me be taken by that magnificent architect.
Sigh, a girl must have her dreams.

The bottom line is that Kosovo is by far a muslim nation, and nothing but trouble for the USA will come of it. At best, they will mimic Turkey's uneasy relationship with the USA. The Serbs got screwed.-funny thing is Putin knows it, but GW hasn't got a clue.

You give me no choice, Sandi, other than to take your constant evasions as damning.

It's pointless quoting the Koran at me, I know as well as you Allah is a murdering psychotic swine: I wanted to know what was in your mind, and whether you were just the mirror image, which seems to have come to pass. This thread was never about the Koran, or Muslims, per se. Nor, incidentally, to my knowledge was this Balkan war about religion (at all): it was about that particularly European tribal evil, nationalism. And it still is if you watch the news this morning: the ones causing all the violence and burning down the buildings on CNN, they're the (supposed) Christians, who want hegemony over Kosovo, and most probably all of Europe and the world ... just like all cavemen.

'Hegemony' - a huge word in European politics. 

Ultimately this thread was about 'you': and I judge you as no lover of freedom, you can't be as you don't understand what it means, or rather, you have the tyrants view of it. On this thread, and the abortion one, Sandi's freedom is built upon a pile of bodies, a big pile apparently.

The philosophy is not called Objectionable, it's Objectivism.

I agree, and I wasn't the only one who thought you argued this. Sometimes your posts are poorly written

Sometimes, I'll admit. due to either rushing things, assuming when I shouldn't assume (such as the post you refer to below), tiredness, or my poor education in grammar, but overall, I think I articulate myself fairly well. Back at the time we're refering to, there were plenty of people who understood, and supported, my position. They had no trouble understanding me. You were an exception. It wasn't because of poorly written posts on my part, and had much more to do with philosophical differences. 

and the most obvious interpretation is something you did not intend. A very good example is the post I have referred to here.

An example of my making an assumption I shouldn't have. The "don't say all muslims are terrorists" crowd, should be understandable to you, particularly seeing as you were one of them. But I didn't think. Mark hasn't been here that long. 

I only used the description "some" to offer the most conservative understanding I had of your position. I appreciate your clarification.

You're welcome.

"Yes, but you didn't understand that at the start."

I agree, and I wasn't the only one who thought you argued this. Sometimes your posts are poorly written and the most obvious interpretation is something you did not intend. A very good example is the post I have referred to here.

I only used the description "some" to offer the most conservative understanding I had of your position. I appreciate your clarification.

Sandi's position is impossible to define, because instead of entering into a discussion and providing short, clear clarifications; she posts long quotes, often irrelevant to the specific issue. My guess is she is so insecure about her abilities that she refuses to engage.

Only a psycho wouldn't recognise the atrocities in the Bosnian conflict (including those against muslims) as deeply disturbing, deeply saddening, and examples of the most evil that humnankind can do. As people seem to have interacted with her in social sense and she hasn't foamed at the mouth; I'm sticking to the insecurity suspicicon.

"What will happen now in Kosovo? It would be up to the KLA and their supporters to decide whether to kick off a new cycle of violence by attacking Serbs who refuse to submit to their "authority."

With a stoke of his pen, President Bush, by heeding the State Department's bad advice to recognize a supposedly independent Kosovo, has triggered the perfect international storm: shattering the principle of the territorial integrity of sovereign nations, encouraging violent separatists worldwide, provoking a needless confrontation with Russia and other countries, boosting the jihad terrorist and organized crime threat to Europe and America, and creating conditions for a human rights and religious freedom nightmare. In terms of far-reaching consequences, it may the worst blunder of his presidency. Which is saying a lot."

Read it all - World Net Daily

"her refusal, thus, to treat people as individuals of themselves, for themselves."

"Islam has a societal focus that is not secular ; by ordering society along the ethical lines prescribed in revelation, human beings enter into a more proper relation with God.

The ummah is formed from the consensus of minds in that all the members of the society share the same view of reality.

The Quran states clearly that the islamic ummah is the best of all human communities given to humanity by God."

The Quran demands that muslims submit to Allah.

The quran commands muslims to subdue infidels (non believers) into total submission to Islamic domination.

Rand states "A rational mind does not work under compulsion"

The quran demands total submission. No thought, no reason, just blind obedience.

Perigo states "Liberty is secure only where reason is sacred”

Your reason is not sacred Mark, you apologise for it, you appease it, you sympathise with it and you goad, scorn and mock me to do the same.

I will always see something through that I start, that's the way I'm built. Albeit, I would like to stop this thread, because given where it's got to thus far, I hate to imagine where it can go to from here. Yet I'll keep seeing it through all its miserable turns.

But here's the really interesting thing. One person can stop this thread dead, sorry, very easily by simply clarifying her position on my accusations with the utmost clarity. Why hasn't she (I've actually already stated why, but you figure it out Richard.)

To be clear, I have accused Sandi of racism, and of defending and promoting genocide based on ethnicity (or any criteria if I think about it) as a solution to the Muslim problem. (I have also given the reasons for why this is repugnant, not having the luxury anymore of being able to assume this was obvious, and my reasoning for how it has occurred, being Sandi's collectivist mindset, bent to the shape of her unthinking prejudices, and her refusal, thus, to treat people as individuals of themselves, for themselves.)

Now, all Sandi has to do is be equally clear in return on her position: it's down to neither of us Richard.

No, read it again Richard. Look at the way she has worded it, the ordering of the words, then put it in context with her other posts to this thread, and in the context of my words where she extracted the quotation from. I'll repeat my words:

... she would have all the freedom of a Hitler or a Stalin, but the rest of us would be living in fear of the midnight raids and the mass graves.

'Bizarre' doesn't even begin to sum this up.

(I can get you a spade for $6.99: shall I make the purchase? Just the one spade, or do you want one also?)

No Mark, it is you who do not get it. Sandi is refering to the 'freedom' part of your statement, and not the qualifier (not sure why she left the qualifier in, but she did). She qualified her love for freedom with everything that followed, all of which was anti-Hitler. Yet you focus on the Hitler part and pass her off as a genocidal Hitler lover. Why? I find it bizarre.

In fact, tell you what you two, would you like me to pop down to the hardware store and buy you both a spade each? You could use them to deepen the hole you're digging for yourselves, and then for all the bodies that are piling up through this thread.

Context, Richard, you rarely do 'get it'.

By the way, just above your post, Sandi says she is complimented by being compared to Hitler, and the freedom he fought for. Of course, to take the inference to its logical conclusion, you'll remember that Hitler's chief aim was to achieve freedom from the Jews, and you'll then remember how he set about achieving it, in just the same manner, in fact, that Sandi is advocating for the Muslims, including children, of Kosovo.

Tell me, seriously, sickened yet.

What must rational people who are in love with life think when they look at the hate and genocide dripping from this thread?

"she would have all the freedom of a Hitler or a Stalin"

I take your words as the most splendid compliment. My very existence relies upon my freedom. I refuse to live without freedom and I will fight to DEFEND and PROTECT it with every breath in my body.

It would appear that I value my freedom more highly than you Mark.

"Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man's survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don't. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment.

Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man's mind.

A rational mind does not work under compulsion; it does not subordinate its grasp of reality to anyone's orders, directives, or controls; it does not sacrifice its knowledge, its view of the truth, to anyone's opinions, threats, wishes, plans, or "welfare." Such a mind may be hampered by others, it may be silenced, proscribed, imprisoned, or destroyed; it cannot be forced; a gun is not an argument. (An example and symbol of this attitude is Galileo.)

It is from the work and the inviolate integrity of such minds—from the intransigent innovators—that all of mankind's knowledge and achievements have come. (See The Fountainhead.) It is to such minds that mankind owes its survival. (See Atlas Shrugged.)

Ayn Rand

Of course she is Richard. I asked does this sanction the [racist] murder of children and her reply was that 'well the Koran sanctioned it', with a very clear inference thereon, and no attempt to pull back from such an inference.

Putting the complexities of the Serbian situation aside, Sandi is correct in saying the Koran sanctioned it. The Koran sanctions perpetual war between believers and non-believers, with the inevitable consequences of that being destroyed lives, not just of children, but perhaps most tragically of children. So Sandi is stating nothing other than a simple fact, so there's no evidence of a sanctioning of genocide in that. In fact, just the opposite, since Sandi opposes the Jihad ideology of the Koran.

 Her last remark, or question to you "how can you preach individuality on the one hand, yet mourn the ummah on the other?" doesn't mean that she sanctions genocide as far as I can see. Seriously, how can derive that from her question? I think it shows puzzlement at your position more than anything else. If you really want to find someone who sanctions genocide, go check out a neo-nazi forum. You'll find the people there to be as far removed from Sandi as you can get.

Of course she is Richard. I asked does this sanction the [racist] murder of children and her reply was that 'well the Koran sanctioned it', worse, 'why would I mourn the ummah', and so with a very clear inference thereon, and no attempt to pull back from such an inference. But of course, Sandi never does admit that her prejudices have led her to an intolerable position, her rampant, utterly misbegotten feminism won't allow that possibility.

From this thread and the abortion thread I can say categorically that Sandi has the coldest, cruelest mind of