Trolling the Muslim World with Flame Bait

[SteveGrenard]

The veil contoversy in England expands once again today with Blair weighing in and supporting Straw along with other politicians. Also the Italian Prime Minister has said women should not be hidden behind veils. Woman's rights groups are getting in on the act calling the veil a symbol of women's subjugation and a top moderate Muslim in the UK (Mo Bari) is critical of the fact some Muslim's are changing their names and dropping their distinctive dress which sets them apart. A politician in the UK likened the veil to a self imposed apartheid.

Here is the NY Times wrap up on the latest offenses to the muslim psyche. With the sheer number of incidents called for rage and offense mounting, many are asking if muslims are not too reactionary compared to other groups.
Albert Brooks recently did a movie called Looking for Humor in the Muslim World or something like that. I didn't see it but I heard it was a flop. No wonder.


Go to website below for link to:

Transcript of the Press Conference (number-10.gov.uk)


His remarks reflected a sense that British society is heading toward ever deeper fissures between its Muslim minority and non-Muslim majority, evoking questions about the nation’s readiness to embrace its Muslim minority and the minority’s own willingness to adapt.

The discussion mirrors earlier public disputes in France, Turkey and elsewhere about Muslim headgear — though, in Britain, the debate is largely limited to the use of the full-face veil known as the niqab.

“It is a mark of separation and that is why it makes other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable,” Mr. Blair said when asked at a regular news conference whether he believed women wearing a full-faced veil could make a complete contribution to society.

There were signs, too, today, that the dispute had spread further across Europe. In an interview in Italy, Prime Minister Romano Prodi was quoted as saying women should not be hidden behind veils.

“You can’t cover your face, you must be seen,” Mr. Prodi told Reuters, adding: “This is common sense I think; it is important for our society. It is not how you dress but if you are hidden or not.”

It was the first time Mr. Blair had so explicitly backed Jack Straw, the leader of the House of Commons, who raised Muslim ire earlier this month by saying he did not believe women should wear the full-face veil, a form of headdress, usually black, with only a narrow slit for the eyes. The argument against the niqab, according to critics like Mr. Straw, is that it prevents communication and sets its wearer visibly apart.

“No one wants to say that people don’t have the right to do it,” Mr. Blair said, referring to the use of the full-face veil. “That is to take it too far. But I think we need to confront this issue about how we integrate people properly into our society.”


“We have to deal with the debate,” Mr. Blair said.
The debate is depicted by Muslims as a symbol of stigmatization by the non-Muslim majority.


The leader of the Muslim Council of Britain, Muhammad Bari, said in an open letter that some Muslims had been considering changing their names “in order to avoid anti-Muslim remarks. This is what happens when a community is singled out by those at the helm of affairs.”



Non-Muslims say it shows a reluctance among the 1.6 million Islamic minority — 3 percentof the population — to compromise for the sake of social harmony. David Davis, the Conservative opposition spokesman on home affairs, said last weekend that British Muslims risked creating “voluntary apartheid” by displays of separateness such as the full-face veil.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/world/europe/17cnd-britain.html?hp&ex=1161144000&en=711cb7232d405977&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Oh, and "Quelle surprise."

[CFLarsen]

Why is this "trolling" with "flame bait"?

[Darth Rotor]

Why is this "trolling" with "flame bait"?
Get a room, you two.

DR

[SteveGrenard]

Feature portrait of John Paul II and a famous quotation
Oct. 17, 2006. 01:00 AM
RYAN LUCAS
ASSOCIATED PRESS


WARSAW-Poland's central bank yesterday issued 2 million collectors' banknotes bearing the image of the late Pope John Paul II, marking the 28th anniversary of the late pontiff's election.

John Paul, born Karol Wojtyla in the Polish town of Wadowice, is revered in his homeland, where he helped to inspire the pro-democracy Solidarity movement in the 1980s.

The National Bank of Poland's special notes have a face value of 50 zlotys - the equivalent of about $18 - and sell for 90 zlotys - or about $33.

The front of the bills features John Paul II holding his crucifix-topped staff against a background of the world map.

On the back, John Paul is depicted kissing the hand of a Polish cardinal.




http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1161035409628&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

POPE MONEY

[Beerina]

Women shouldn't be subjugated by being forced to cover their face, legs, or arms.

They should be subjugated the proper, Western way by being jailed for exposing their nipples.

[Luke T.]

From the OP:

“No one wants to say that people don’t have the right to do it,” Mr. Blair said, referring to the use of the full-face veil. “That is to take it too far. But I think we need to confront this issue about how we integrate people properly into our society.”

This one is for free, Mr. Blair. Next time, I will charge a heavy premium. Ready?

Okay. The way we integrate people properly into our society is by being TOLERANT of their religious beliefs, and not make prejudicial comments about their appearance.

Sorry. I realize shouting the word "tolerant" is kind of oxymoronic. But, geezus, give it a break, will ya?

[Luke T.]

Before anyone starts, I also realize tolerance has its limits. No beheadings of princesses, for example. Can't be tolerated.

[Luke T.]

Women shouldn't be subjugated by being forced to cover their face, legs, or arms.

They should be subjugated the proper, Western way by being jailed for exposing their nipples.

Heh. I was thinking along the same lines, only you said it better than what I was thinking.

[Zep]

So Steve... Do you think all those crucifixes they have in all the Christian churches around the world might also send every extant Muslim into a slathering raging blind frenzy?

[SteveGrenard]

With thanks to islamic comics for the above slogan ....


So Steve... Do you think all those crucifixes they have in all the Christian churches around the world might also send every extant Muslim into a slathering raging blind frenzy?

Most muslims would not have a problem with crosses. They just don't want to have to see them anywhere. That's all.

From the complaints made by muslims over the years for having to insult their eyeballs by having to see crosses in public, I would say their sense of outrage, as usual, on this subject is also an extreme and potentially irrational over-reaction. Here are a few links on examples including one going back to 2001 involving the International red Cross, the name of which had to be changed in order to operate in muslim lands. Apparently symbols are okay there so long as they happen to be red crescents except in Israel which also has a problem with the Red Cross so they use the red star of david.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=405758&in_page_id=1811&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5


and this:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/christopherhowse/oct06/muslimscross.htm

and this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/04/britain.redcross/index.html

and this:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009324.php

and this:


Nevertheless, Muslim countries have been allowed to use a red crescent instead of a red cross for years. Israelis, like the Muslims, feel the red cross symbol offends their religious beliefs.

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/17166/edition_id/338/format/html/displaystory.html

[Zep]

So how about these crosses? They OK?

http://homepage.eircom.net/~finnegam/war/images/nazi_party_b.jpg

[jay gw]

One method of driving a point home is to have women walk around Muslim British neighborhoods dressed incredibly tartish, sort of like spastic prostitutes. I doubt anyone would have the nerve.

On a serious note, apparently the EU publics believe they can assimilate Muslim immigrants solely through government actions. Not going to work. It's going to take multicult associations as well. Government policy isn't effective at legislating people's non-threatening behaviors.

In order to get government behind it there would have to be demonstrations of direct cause and effect, or at the least some strong relationship. Simply stating "I don't like it" or "It makes me uncomfortable to see women in that" is not usually strong enough.

France passed the dress code law and subsequently faced consequences. If anyone else tries it the results may be no different.

Here's a rather clever idea (if I don't say so myself): if someone, say a university type, can establish a relationship between Muslim women in bhurkas versus those that aren't and rates of domestic violence, then they'd have something pretty potent. If the clothing can be associated in the publics mind with anti-social behavior, doesn't take much to get the media/government involved.

-

[SteveGrenard]

So how about these crosses? They OK?

http://homepage.eircom.net/~finnegam/war/images/nazi_party_b.jpg


Apparently the Muslims have no problem with these crosses:

[Zep]

Apparently the Muslims have no problem with these crosses:Ah. The cover of a book written in Arabic. Convincing. :nope:

Or are you now trying to make an association of some sort between Muslims of today and early 20th century belligerent European fascism?

[SteveGrenard]

How about the Grand Mufti meeting with Hitler, inspecting Nazi troops?

BTW: That book cover is Mein Kampf in Arabic, widely distributed in the middle-east.

[SteveGrenard]

The Grand Mufti Haj al Amin Husseini made quite an impression in Germany during WW II as he sought an alliance with Hitler, even setting up an Arab Brigade of the German Army.

[SteveGrenard]

Mid-20th Century fascism, still extant. Arafat was a Nazi symnpathizer and even a collaborator up until his death in 2004 ...er, the 21st Century. He distributed Mein Kampf in Palestine, translation and publication of which was arranged by his uncle. Due to their common enemy, Israel and enemies (the rest of the world),there is a link between nazism and the muslims.

BTW do you know what Arafat's real family name was? Husseini. No coincidence, he was the Grand Mufti's nephew.

[jay gw]

for the British here
a small illustration of my point

http://news.agendainc.com/images/burb0904.jpg

[CFLarsen]

How about the Grand Mufti meeting with Hitler, inspecting Nazi troops?

Hitler also met with Eden, Chamberlain, Daladier, Laval, Horthy, Schuschnigg, Mussolini.

Hitler met with a lot of people, Steve. Yet, you single this one out, because he is a Muslim.

BTW: That book cover is Mein Kampf in Arabic, widely distributed in the middle-east.

So? Mein Kampf can be bought freely in the US, too. That's where I got my copy.

The Grand Mufti Haj al Amin Husseini made quite an impression in Germany during WW II as he sought an alliance with Hitler, even setting up an Arab Brigade of the German Army.

As usual, you twist the story so it depicts the subject of your hatred in the worst possible light, leaving out pertinent parts:

The Brandenburger Regiment was a German commando unit during World War II. The unit was originally founded by Wilhelm Canaris of the Abwehr, and until 1944 was an OKW unit rather than a unit of the regular army (Heer, OKH).

The Brandenburger Regiment evolved from the Abwehr's (German military intelligence) K-units and was used as a commando unit during the first years of the war. Initially, the unit consisted mainly of former German expatriates fluent in other languages. Some applicants had reached Germany through the British blockade to enlist.

The original regiment, the Baulehr-Kompanie zbV 800 Deutsche Kompanie, was founded officially on 25 October 1939. Command of a foreign language was a mandatory requirement. On 15 December they became the Bataillon Brandenburg (Brandenburg Battalion). The name was due to the fact that at first the unit was stationed at Stendal in the old Mark of Brandenburg and trained there.

The original battalion consisted of four companies. The 1st company was formed from men from the Baltic countries; the 2nd from men who had lived overseas in Britain, the United States and Africa; the 3rd from Sudetenlanders; and the 4th from ethnic Germans from Poland. Later additions included paratroop and motorcycle platoons. On 12 October 1940, the battalion was enlarged into a regiment. Although the Branderburgers were part of the Abwehr, they fell under Wehrmacht command, which sometimes caused problems.
...
As the battalion expanded further, it created more mixed units. The so-called Arabic Brigade was nominally connected to the Brandenburgers, took its orders from the German oriental mission, and was composed mainly of men from the Caucasus.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburger_Regiment)

Mid-20th Century fascism, still extant. Arafat was a Nazi symnpathizer and even a collaborator up until his death in 2004 ...er, the 21st Century. He distributed Mein Kampf in Palestine, translation and publication of which was arranged by his uncle. Due to their common enemy, Israel and enemies (the rest of the world),there is a link between nazism and the muslims.

BTW do you know what Arafat's real family name was? Husseini. No coincidence, he was the Grand Mufti's nephew.

Wrong Husseini.

Haj_Amin_Al-Husseini, collaborator with Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_Al-Husseini)

Abd_al-Qadir_al-Husayni, Arafat's distant relative. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Qadir_al-Husayni)

You've turned to hate propaganda and conspiracy nuttery, based on misrepresentations and flat-out lies. What's next? The Illuminati? The Bush-Windsor Conspiracy? The Bilderberg Group?

[Darat]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/14535e04baccbe.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2092)

Hey look at the brother of the future Head of the Church of England.... wow that must mean something...

[Mojo]

Most muslims would not have a problem with crosses. Do they make good goalies then?

[brodski]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/14535e04baccbe.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2092)

Hey look at the brother of the future Head of the Church of England.... wow that must mean something...
:D

[Skeptic]

Women shouldn't be subjugated by being forced to cover their face, legs, or arms.

They should be subjugated the proper, Western way by being jailed for exposing their nipples.

OK, a compromise: to stop opression on both sides, let's make it mandatory for women to expose BOTH their face AND their nipples...

[Skeptic]

Hitler also met with Eden, Chamberlain, Daladier, Laval, Horthy, Schuschnigg, Mussolini.

Yes, but Chamberlain, Eden, and Daladier didn't raise divisions for him or begged his crony Himmler to finish killing of the jews as fast as possible.

So? Mein Kampf can be bought freely in the US, too. That's where I got my copy.

The point is not it's mere availability, but its popularity. When CBS makes a series based on the protocols and calls it a "documentary", like Egyptian TV did, you'd have something.

As usual, you twist the story so it depicts the subject of your hatred in the worst possible light, leaving out pertinent parts:

As usual, you leave out pertinent parts yourself--e.g., the parts that clarify that it's hardly merely meeting with Hitler that made the Mufti a war criminal, and it's not merely the availability of "Mein Kampf" in Arabic that makes the Arabic press antisemitic.

Wrong Husseini.

Correct ("Muhammad (al-)Husseini" is more or less the Arab equivalent of "John Smith"). However, Faiysal Husseini, the late Palestinian "minister of Jerusalem", was indeed the Mufti's nephew (or grand-nephew, I forget). I suppose Steve mixed them up.

You've turned to hate propaganda and conspiracy nuttery

"You disagree with me".

[Zep]

Do they make good goalies then?:D

Shall we now do the joke about Pakistanis being awarded corners?

[Zep]

"You disagree with me"....because of the alarmist propaganda tactic of calling my enemy your friend.

There is no doubt that rabid anti-semitism exists still today, and there is no doubt that some Arabs are anti-semitic. There is also no doubt that many Arabs are fanatic Muslims. But you cannot then infer that every Arab is a fanatic Muslim, and that every Arab is anti-semitic, and thus that every Muslim is a fanatical anti-semite.

[CFLarsen]

Yes, but Chamberlain, Eden, and Daladier didn't raise divisions for him or begged his crony Himmler to finish killing of the jews as fast as possible.

The so-called Arabic Brigade was nominally connected to the Brandenburgers, took its orders from the German oriental mission, and was composed mainly of men from the Caucasus.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburger_Regiment)

The point is not it's mere availability, but its popularity. When CBS makes a series based on the protocols and calls it a "documentary", like Egyptian TV did, you'd have something.

The point Steve was making was distribution. You can find a lot of books on Scientology in any used book shop, but that doesn't mean they are very popular.

As usual, you leave out pertinent parts yourself--e.g., the parts that clarify that it's hardly merely meeting with Hitler that made the Mufti a war criminal, and it's not merely the availability of "Mein Kampf" in Arabic that makes the Arabic press antisemitic.

Not at all. I am not glossing anything over. Steve is the one misrepresenting things.

Correct ("Muhammad (al-)Husseini" is more or less the Arab equivalent of "John Smith"). However, Faiysal Husseini, the late Palestinian "minister of Jerusalem", was indeed the Mufti's nephew (or grand-nephew, I forget). I suppose Steve mixed them up.

No, he simply didn't check. He just took the ball and ran with it, because he saw a chance to smear Muslims. Regardless of whether it is true or not.

"You disagree with me".

Oh, come on! Steve is on an anti-Muslim crusade here, where he resorts to the same dishonest ploys we see from the most rabid conspiracy nuts. Ignore that, if you will, but don't try to present this as mere disagreement.

[SteveGrenard]

If it weren't for the fact that Zep thought he would be cute and add the twisted or "viking" Cross to the the symbol list I would not have brought this subject up again. I would be interested in knowing what answer Zep was anticipating with respect to his posting of the Nazi Swastika banner post?

Insofar as this subject is concerned, history is history and it cannot nor should it be swept under the table.The Nazi connection is far too well documented to be spun into something it is not.

Bishara conveniently overlooks the fact that the Mufti was active in the Nazi-fascist domain from November 1941 until the German defeat in May 1945. The Germans put considerable sums at his disposal to maintain himself and his entourage, which included other Palestinian Arabs from leading families, and to set up offices called "Buro der Grossmufti." In return, Husseini made propaganda broadcasts to the Arab world over Radio Berlin ("Kill Jews wherever you find them"), recruited Arab troops (among Allied prisoners of war) for an "Arab Legion," helped organize a Bosnian Muslim SS division (notorious for atrocities in its own right against Serbs, Jews and Gypsies), indoctrinated imams from the Soviet Union, and also broadcast in that direction, exhorting Soviet Muslims to support the Nazis, which some of them did by joining German-sponsored military units, and even the Einsatzgruppen. In his discourse, Husseini explicitly identified Nazism with Islam. All of this surely sounds like an alliance, despite Bishara's apologetics. Significantly, Husseini urged the Germans to extend the Holocaust to Arab lands. Concretely, he intervened several times with German and Italian ministers and Axis satellite governments in Hungary, Bulgaria, and Rumania, to prevent Jews from leaving the Axis domain. He specifically described Jewish children as a danger and urged that they be sent to Poland, where, in his words, they would be under "active supervision." It is likely (if not certain) that he himself visited one or more murder camps, while documents demonstrate that members of his entourage did so, escorted by SS officers. So he was well aware of what happened to Jewish children sent to Poland. After the war, the Mufti was enabled to return to the Middle East where he was again acclaimed the leader of the Palestinian Arabs.6

This information has long been available in English and Hebrew, etc., for many years. Researchers who have written on the subject of Arab-Nazi relations and the Arab-Holocaust nexus include Bernard Lewis, Lukasz Hirszowicz, Elias Cooper, Daniel Carpi, Jenny Lebel, Joseph Schechtman, Bartley Crum, and others. Nevertheless, Bishara claims, "We Arabs have no connection to it" (the Holocaust), also ignoring the presence of other prominent Arab nationalists in Berlin during the war.

I find the the file name of this cite particularly appropriate and I am appalled that persons whose lands and peoples also suffered under Naziism would defend the referenced muslims as not having nazi sympathies and collaborations:

http://www.netanyahu.org/liarsamongus.html

[SteveGrenard]

Yasser Arafat:

Arafat: “We are not Afghanistan…We are the Mighty People. Were they able to replace our hero Hajj Amin al-Husseini? ... There were a number of attempts to get rid of Hajj Amin, whom they considered an ally of the Nazis. But even so, he lived in Cairo, and participated in the 1948 war, and I was one of his troops.”
[Al Sharq al Awsat, a London Arabic daily, reprinted in the Palestinian daily Al Quds, Aug, 2, 2002]

I have only seen the following pro and con spin on the subject of Arafat’s relationship to the Grand Mufti? Whether he was the Mufti’s nephew or not may never be known. What would be known is that he worshipped the Mufti and served him:


Arafat's Husseini-relation Myth:
This myth asserts that Yasser Arafat is the nephew of Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, the late Mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the Palestinian nationalist movement during the first half of the 20th century.
Firstly, some adherents to this claim cite the Al-Husseini name in Mohammed Abd el-Rahman's name as evidence. The position could be reasonable, if, like Western-oriented names, it referred to his biological family. However, as pointed out above, the "Al-Husseini refers to Arafat's familial tribal affiliation, known in the West as an extended family.
Secondly, there existed at the time eleven Al-Husseini clans in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, none of whom were related to the Jerusalem Husseini clan, of which the Mufti was a member.
Arafat's family history is grounded in Egypt and Gaza. There is an "Al-Qudwa Street" in Gaza where Yasser Arafat's ancestors lived. The Al-Husseinis of Gaza are not related to the Hajj Amin Al-Husseini's family. Arafat's family is the Al-Qudwas.
However, Yasser Arafat DOES have a connection to the Mufti, and this connection leads us to another Arafat-orchestrated myth – That he was deputy commander under Abd el-Kader Al-Husseini and fought in the battle for Jerusalem. To present the truth, we must see the Al-Husseini connection and Arafat's actual participation in the 1947-1948 Palestinian-Israeli war.


This comes from a unified Jersalem website and represents the dissenting side of the argument:
http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/PLO_RECORD/plo_record.asp#1

[CFLarsen]

If it weren't for the fact that Zep thought he would be cute and add the twisted or "viking" Cross to the the symbol list I would not have brought this subject up again. I would be interested in knowing what answer Zep was anticipating with respect to his posting of the Nazi Swastika banner post?

It's not a "viking" cross, Steve. The Swastika is an old symbol, predating the vikings at least 2000 years. It is a sacred symbol of many Eastern religions, e.g. Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism. It was also used by the vikings, but it is not a "viking" cross. The use has been spread to Celtic, Greeks, and others.

The important difference is that the Nazi swastika was a political symbol, while the symbol was used elsewhere predominantly as a religious one. The Nazi swastika was also turned 45 degrees, where other uses generally were not.

Yes, I know what you tried to do: Link me with Nazism. No such luck.


Yasser Arafat:

I have only seen the following pro and con spin on the subject of Arafat’s relationship to the Grand Mufti? Whether he was the Mufti’s nephew or not may never be known. What would be known is that he worshipped the Mufti and served him:

This comes from a unified Jersalem website and represents the dissenting side of the argument:
http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/PLO_RECORD/plo_record.asp#1

No, Steve. You can't just let it hang loose like that.

Do you acknowledge that you got the wrong Husseini? That the Husseini you referred to is not the Husseini related to Arafat?

[Beerina]

WARSAW-Poland's central bank yesterday issued 2 million collectors' banknotes bearing the image of the late Pope John Paul II, marking the 28th anniversary of the late pontiff's election.

...

The National Bank of Poland's special notes have a face value of 50 zlotys - the equivalent of about $18 - and sell for 90 zlotys - or about $33.


Ahh, it's good to be the king. Here are some pieces of paper I've printed that are worth $33 because I say so. Collect them and keep them forever. Wait a sec, let me first add 2 million x $18 to my account because now that I've printed it, I can do that, being in the unique position of being the one who can legally print money.

+$36 million. Cha-ching

Ok, now who wants one? Only $33 to buy a piece of paper worth $18! Thank you! Thank you! Please move along. Thank you! Remember to keep it and love it forever -- if you return it, I'll have to subtract $18 from my bottom line. But I'm keepin' the $33.

2 million x $33 = $66 million.

Gross profit: $102 million to produce and sell 2 million pieces of paper. Sweeeeeeeeeeeeet!

Oh, wait, I forgot! I don't have to pay any taxes whatsoever on that, either! Hail to the king, baby! But you probably had to pay about 30% tax on the money as you earned it, before it even got into your hands in the first place. So each $33 you paid me was originally about $43 paid to you, of which you paid $10 to me in taxes. Net yield: $20 million more in my pocket, even though it was already in my pocket.

Oh god, oh god, life is so good. Heee heee heee heeeeeeeeee!

Wait! I had another great idea! Gambling is evil, so I'll only allow me to issue lottery tickets. I'll give you half of the pot, and the other half I keep. Here's your half. Oh, wait. Give me 40% of it back now. So you really only got 30% of the pot and I got 70%

OH MY GOD, how can you not just burst with joy at the wonderfulness of life! It's not even fraud because I define what fraud is! AHAHAHAHAHA!

[Skeptic]

Er... the difference between you and the central bank in this respect is that the central bank in Poland has the authority to print money. And it cannot just "make" money out of thin air, because if it puts more notes in circulation than there are goods in the Poish economy, there will be inflation.

So, yes, it could print a billion trillion-zloty notes tomorrow, and it would be real money, but the sole result of that would be that a trillion zloty tomorrow will only be able to buy what one zloty buys to day.

The notes are not supposed to be worth 50 zlotys because they are "collectors' items": they are worth 50 zloty because they are 50-zloty banknotes, which everybody (in Poland) must accept as payment of debt (that is what makes money money.)

The word "collector" here is a bit misleading, I think; what is meant is that they are issuing a (relatively) small amount of 50-zloty notes that have the pope's picture on them, instead of some other picture on them. Perhaps a "commemorative" note is more appropriate word.

[Darat]

Will Polish Catholic themed banknotes honoring late pope offend Polish muslims?

...snip...

Why ask about Polish money - have you never seen UK banknotes?

[SteveGrenard]

More reports that Arafat was the Mufti's nephew. It is the basis for my assertion. There are also contradictory denials of this.



The mufti died in 1974, but the al-Husseini family continues to play a central role in Palestinian affairs. The mufti's nephew Faisal al-Husseini was a leading PLO spokesmen in the territories until his death on May 31, 2001, and regularly received journalists at Orient House, the de facto (and illegal) seat of Palestinian government in predominantly Arab East Jerusalem. When the Israelis shut down Orient House in March 2002, they seized hundreds of thousands of documents that revealed that al-Husseini had been personally involved in coordinating and financing terrorist attacks against Jews.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35563


In 1946, the Egyptian 17-year-old Mohammed Abder Rauf Arafat Al-Kudwa Al-Husseini, otherwise known as Yasir Arafat, said to be the Mufti's nephew, met the Mufti in Cairo and began to work for him. The Mufti placed Arafat in charge of arms procurement for his fledgling irregular militia known as "The Holy Strugglers."

http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/mohammedism/mohammedism21.html




By the way, Yasser Arafat called Husseini a 'hero' - no surprise there, because Arafat's real name is Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini.

Arafat was the Grand Mufti's nephew and he changed his name to obscure this fact. The torch was passed from Husseini to the Father of Modern Terrorism, whose Fatah party is now considered much more moderate than Hamas! Is it any wonder that books like Mein Kampf (a bestseller in Turkey and Palestine) and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion enjoy brisk sales throughout the Arab and Muslim world?

http://www.willisms.com/archives/2006/06/index.html

[CFLarsen]

More reports that Arafat was the Mufti's nephew. It is the basis for my assertion. There are also contradictory denials of this.

First link:
The mufti's nephew Faisal al-Husseini was a leading PLO spokesmen in the territories until his death on May 31, 2001, and regularly received journalists at Orient House, the de facto (and illegal) seat of Palestinian government in predominantly Arab East Jerusalem.

Faisal al-Husseini is not Arafat. Arafat died in 2004.

Sheesh, do you simply search for "mufti", "arafat" and "nephew" and blindly use that as evidence? :hb:

Second link:
said to be the Mufti's nephew

Rumor.

Third link:

Some blogger you got your first stuff from. :rolleyes:

[SteveGrenard]

Why ask about Polish money - have you never seen UK banknotes?

It all comes under the umbrella of:

Aniconism ( in Islam)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam

[Darat]

It all comes under the umbrella of:

Aniconism ( in Islam)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam

How does that answer my question?

[SteveGrenard]

How does that answer my question?

It's a stupid question because you know I have lived in the UK. I don't answer silly questions but would rather give you the knowledge to intelligently deal with the meaning of the question. So the queen has a cross on her sceptre. It is aniconism

Thank you. Have a nice day.

[Darat]

It's a stupid question because you know I have lived in the UK. I don't answer silly questions but would rather give you the knowledge to intelligently deal with the meaning of the question. So the queen has a cross on her sceptre. It is aniconism

Thank you. Have a nice day.

What on earth are you talking about - "the queen has a cross on her sceptre"?

[Mojo]

So the queen has a cross on her sceptre. Memo to Steve: sceptre not visible on UK banknotes.

[Darth Rotor]

Memo to Steve: sceptre not visible on UK banknotes.
Upon closer inspection, one finds that an oversensitive person can conclude that the microlettering behind the Queen's portrait is printed as a series of connected crosses. This is :rolleyes: obvious :rolleyes: Christian symbolism. Let the Muslim, and for that matter generic anti-Christian, whinging begin. :p

DR

[SteveGrenard]

Sorry cannot print British currency with crosses from this PC. Later tonight..Crosses included on the queen's crown and on the reverse on Britannia's shield.

[Darat]

Sorry cannot print British currency with crosses from this PC. Later tonight..Crosses included on the queen's crown and on the reverse on Britannia's shield.

Er what has this got to do with "the queen has a cross on her sceptre"?

[SteveGrenard]

Upon closer inspection, one finds that an oversensitive person can conclude that the microlettering behind the Queen's portrait is printed as a series of connected crosses. This is :rolleyes: obvious :rolleyes: Christian symbolism. Let the Muslim, and for that matter generic anti-Christian, whining begin. :p

DR

Exactly. This is an example of the behavior previously referenced as aniconism. Muslims are first class aniconiacs and those who deal with them
need to be aware of this. Dealing with an anconisiac people in this day and age is becoming all to commonplace. Pretty soon there will be nothing including history (e.g. see remarks by Pope) that doesn't offend them.

[Darat]

Exactly. This is an example of the behavior previously referenced as aniconism. Muslims are first class aniconiacs ....

... apart from all of those that aren't.

[Mojo]

... apart from all of those that aren't.Didn't you know? They've been cloning them. They're all exactly alike.

[Darth Rotor]

Exactly. This is an example of the behavior previously referenced as aniconism. Muslims are first class aniconiacs and those who deal with them
need to be aware of this. Dealing with an anconisiac people in this day and age is becoming all to commonplace. Pretty soon there will be nothing including history (e.g. see remarks by Pope) that doesn't offend them.
"Aniconiac" sounds like a mountaing range in New York. :p Thanks for my new 64 dollar word. I guess it has different uses than iconoclast.

DR

[Beerina]

Er... the difference between you and the central bank in this respect is that the central bank in Poland has the authority to print money. And it cannot just "make" money out of thin air, because if it puts more notes in circulation than there are goods in the Poish economy, there will be inflation.

So, yes, it could print a billion trillion-zloty notes tomorrow, and it would be real money, but the sole result of that would be that a trillion zloty tomorrow will only be able to buy what one zloty buys to day.

The notes are not supposed to be worth 50 zlotys because they are "collectors' items": they are worth 50 zloty because they are 50-zloty banknotes, which everybody (in Poland) must accept as payment of debt (that is what makes money money.)

The word "collector" here is a bit misleading, I think; what is meant is that they are issuing a (relatively) small amount of 50-zloty notes that have the pope's picture on them, instead of some other picture on them. Perhaps a "commemorative" note is more appropriate word.

My point was that this is similar to the US government making "50 state quarters" -- releasing 50 different quarter designs, one for each of the 50 states, over 10 years or so.

You're supposed to hoard them and keep them, and thus the government will never get them back, worn out, and thus will never melt them down, and thus will never have to go, oops, minus 25 cents, to their budget, to counter the +25 cents they did when they minted the things.

There are currently 450 million Susan B. Anthony dollar coins sitting in a warehouse because the government doesn't wanna go oops, minus $450 million to some year's budget, even though they had no problem going Hey! plus $450 million! just a few years ago.

See also: 1976 Bicentennial quarters, Sacajawea silver dollars, John F. Kennedy Dollars, and, to a lesser extent, Lyndon B. Johnson half-dollars, and novelty $2 bills.

Yes, I'm positive these Polish bills are real, legal tender, and thus the Polish government will write +$18 for each one they print, then another +$33 for each one they sell. Yes, I know they are designed to be collected, which means, from their point of view, never returned to the government, worn, to be destroyed, and thus (re-)deducted from the bottom line.

[Beerina]

Memo to Steve: sceptre not visible on UK banknotes.

Why does the UK government hate Christianity?

[SteveGrenard]

"Aniconiac" sounds like a mountaing range in New York. :p Thanks for my new 64 dollar word. I guess it has different uses than iconoclast.

DR

That's the Adirondacks.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally Posted by Mojo
Memo to Steve: sceptre not visible on UK banknotes.

Why does the UK government hate Christianity?

I don't know, why?


I was thinking of the cross which is offensive to "some" ,muslims and "some" jews. Yes the sceptre doesn't show. The cross does on many examples, including on the crown and on the shield. The cross according to muslims offends them because it reminds them of the crusades. When was the last crusade? Talk about holding a grudge.

[Darth Rotor]

That's the Adirondacks.
No fooling? :eek: I guess I need to annotate sarcasm more completely for you in the future.

*adds Steve's name to "not all that quick on the uptake" list.*

DR

[CFLarsen]

Why does the UK government hate Christianity?

I don't know, why?

They do? What do you base that on?

Yes the sceptre doesn't show.

Then, how on Earth can you bring that up in a discussion about what is on bank notes?? Another case of your faulty memory?

The cross does on many examples, including on the crown and on the shield. The cross according to muslims offends them because it reminds them of the crusades. When was the last crusade? Talk about holding a grudge.

We have Viking motives on our bank notes in Denmark. Does that mean we are advocating Asatru?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Mojo


Why does the UK government hate Christianity?

I don't know, why?


I was thinking of the cross which is offensive to "some" ,muslims and "some" jews. Yes the sceptre doesn't show. The cross does on many examples, including on the crown and on the shield. The cross according to muslims offends them because it reminds them of the crusades. When was the last crusade? Talk about holding a grudge.

Steve what on earth are you going on about?

Perhaps you don't remember but the Queen appears on UK currency...

[SteveGrenard]

Steve what on earth are you going on about?

Perhaps you don't remember but the Queen appears on UK currency...

No kidding. What are you on about? Here is the one pound note issued when I was living in England:

[SteveGrenard]

Notice if you will the multiple crosses on the crown and the cross on Britania's shield.

[Darat]

Notice if you will the multiple crosses on the crown and the cross on Britania's shield.

But where's "the queen has a cross on her sceptre"?

Steve don't you get it? You are looking at all these tiny symbols - which I have never ever heard anyone complain about - but ignoring the bloody big picture of the queen that is on all the currency!

Do you not know who she is?

She is the THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND!

In every CofE church service prayers are said for her.

Her title is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. "

Don't you think if "the" Muslims were going to complain about anything they might be complaining about a picture of the head of one of the biggest Christian Churches in the world being on the currency?

[SteveGrenard]

The muslims are also offended by the pope. Do you know who he is? "Some" have called on whoever it is they call on to kill him.

I said no sceptre, (3 x) the "offending" crosses were on the crown and shield. The shield in particular reminds muslims of the crusades and they are highly offended by it. Threy are offended by their Prison Guards and Ambulance drivers wearing red crosses on their uniforms too. Why do you insist on deflecting and defending these whackos? Why do you refuse to accept their pathological behavior? Their aniconism? as exemplified by the Pakis at Heathrow who complained, no doubt, about the poor British woman wearing a cross smaller than your pinky. And to have the unmitigated nerve to do that while they are allowed to OPENLY wear veils, scarves and bangles no less.
This is not going well my friend unless both sides get real, but especially the muslims since it always seems to begin with them. They remind me of typical street punks looking to pick a fight, a chip on their shoulder, so that they have an excuse to lash out.

I have no problem with the Queen wearing her crosses or Britania sporting hers on her shield. QE-II is the pope of the Anglican Church. It befits her. Muslims should butt out. But to do that they would have to find and use currency that adjusts to their pathology. They also had a problem with the International Red "Cross" when they tried to come in and try to save their sorry asses from this disaster or that. They have said also that the cross on the shield reminds them of the cross on the shields and tunics of the crusaders. They really have to get past this. When was the first crusade again?

I conclude after exchanges here that both you and Larsen tend toward sympathizing with the muslims and to some extent sympathize with their collusion with the Nazis. It is interesting what strange bedfellows this lot makes.

I am still waiting for the axolotl guy to tell me what he was anticipating by way of an answer when he posted the Nazi banners? Did he expect me to say No, the muslims were against these particular (twisted) crosses? Yes or no?

[BillC]

What is sorry about Muslim asses?

[Darat]

The muslims are also offended by the pope. Do you know who he is? "Some" have called on whoever it is they call on to kill him.


"The Muslims" are not offended by the Pope - some Muslims are. Some Muslims I do believe have wished for the death of the Pope.


I said no sceptre, (3 x) the "offending" crosses were on the crown and shield.


Why did you originally mention "the queen has a cross on her sceptre"?

Which offending crosses? Please show some evidence that any Muslims have complained about these crosses on UK currency.


The shield in particular reminds muslims of the crusades and they are highly offended by it.


Any evidence that any Muslims have complained about the shield on UK currency?


Threy are offended by their Prison Guards and Ambulance drivers wearing red crosses on their uniforms too.


Again no "they" just some, and some don't give a damn.


Why do you insist on deflecting and defending these whackos?


Which "whackos" and where have I defended them?


Why do you refuse to accept their pathological behavior?


I presume you are still talking about "these whackos"? If so again I need to know who you are referring to. You often recollect things incorrectly so it may be you have again confused me with someone else.

Their aniconism? as exemplified by the Pakis at Heathrow who complained, no doubt,


(In the UK Paki is a racist term.) Any evidence of any complaints by any "Paki" or is this just another one of your many fabrications?


...snip...
And to have the unmitigated nerve to do that while they are allowed to OPENLY wear veils, scarves and bangles no less.


Again you have not shown any evidence that "they" complained - so far that is just something you have stated. Please provide evidence that "they" complained.


This is not going well my friend unless both sides get real, but especially the muslims since it always seems to begin with them. They remind me of typical street punks looking to pick a fight, a chip on their shoulder, so that they have an excuse to lash out.


Again you make a statement about all Muslims which is patently untrue.


I have no problem with the Queen wearing her crosses or Britania sporting hers on her shield. QE-II is the pope of the Anglican Church. It befits her. Muslims should butt out.


Should "butt out" of what? Remember you haven't showed that "they" have "butted in" to anything to do with UK currency.


But to do that they would have to find and use currency that adjusts to their pathology.


?

They also had a problem with the International Red "Cross" when they tried to come in and try to save their sorry asses from this disaster or that. They have said also that the cross on the shield reminds them of the cross on the shields and tunics of the crusaders. They really have to get past this. When was the first crusade again?


Do you apply your rant to the Israeli calls to also not be symbolised by a cross in the International Red er Cross organisation?


I conclude after exchanges here that both you and Larsen tend toward sympathizing with the muslims


Again let me remind you that there is no homogeneous group "THE Muslims".

And I have asked you every time you have made similar accusations about me to provide some evidence - to date you have never ever supplied evidence to back up your accusations - will you do so this time?


and to some extent sympathize with their collusion with the Nazis.


As in the South Park 9/11 episode... "Really?" I don't suppose that there is the slightest chance you will provide any evidence to support this accusation?

It is interesting what strange bedfellows this lot makes.


Yes it does....


I am still waiting for the axolotl guy to tell me what he was anticipating by way of an answer when he posted the Nazi banners? Did he expect me to say No, the muslims were against these particular (twisted) crosses? Yes or no?

How am I meant to know?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Mojo


Why does the UK government hate Christianity?

I don't know, why?What are you on about? Have I suggested that the UK government hates Christianity? Has anyone?

[SteveGrenard]

Where did I or anyone say you were "suggesting" anything?

What are you on about? You start a question with Why and end it with a question mark. I don't know the answer so thought you might. If it wasn't rhetorical then my apologies. No, then again, maybe somebody else is up to answering. You asked the question, anyone is free to answer.

[Mojo]

"The muslims..." You do realise that you are talking about real people here, and not just the caricature you have in your mind, don't you?

[Mojo]

Where did I or anyone say you were "suggesting" anything?

What are you on about? You start a question with Why and end it with a question mark. I don't know the answer so thought you might. If it wasn't rhetorical then my apologies. No, then again, maybe somebody else is up to answering. You asked the question, anyone is free to answer.Edit: I now realise that it appeared that Steve originally asked "Why does the UK government hate Christianity?" because he didn't manage to format this post ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2013905#post2013905) properly.

[Mojo]

No kidding. What are you on about? Here is the one pound note issued when I was living in England:Which century?

The current ones look like this: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/current/index.htm

[SteveGrenard]

Which century?

The current ones look like this: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/current/index.htm

The 20th Century when I lived in England and therefore were the only banknotes I have seen. If they changed them the Bank of England forgot to notify me as if I care. It was Darat's question. Yes, I have seen them. I posted an example.

[SteveGrenard]

"The Muslims" are not offended by the Pope - some Muslims are. Some Muslims I do believe have wished for the death of the Pope.

A lot of Muslims are. Enough to call for his death.



Why did you originally mention "the queen has a cross on her sceptre"?


Because I have seen one of her sceptres with a cross. On the money it was on her crown and more blatantly on the shield of britania.

Which offending crosses? Please show some evidence that any Muslims have complained about these crosses on UK currency.

According to islam all crosses are offensive as is the religion it denotes.

Any evidence that any Muslims have complained about the shield on UK currency?

All crosses are offensive. The cross included in the Union Jack is offensive. The cross on britania's shield offends them. The ambulance crews in the UK offend them. These crosses reminds muslims of crusader crosses to which they have great antipathy or so they
say. When were the last crusades again?

Again no "they" just some, and some don't give a damn.

Its an historically collective emotion the thing about crosses but sure some people are bothered less than others. It surfaced the other day with the Heathrow incident.


Which "whackos" and where have I defended them?


The muslims at healthrow who have the nerve to demand bangles and scarves and veils must be allowed but teeny crucifixes on old ladies are not allowed. So the woman loses her job to some south Asian wearing a veil and/or bangles.


I presume you are still talking about "these whackos"? If so again I need to know who you are referring to. You often recollect things incorrectly so it may be you have again confused me with someone else.

Whatever you want to think. It doesn't change the truth.


(In the UK Paki is a racist term.) Any evidence of any complaints by any "Paki" or is this just another one of your many fabrications?


Didn't mean to offend the Pakistani's in the UK even though they apparently don't mind being offended and offending everyone else. Apparently the term was invented by the British media and was even used a few years ago by the President of the U.S. which doesn't make it inoffensive to UK Pakistanis I guess but then again what isn't offensive to muslims?


Athar Razvi, a Toronto-area writer who often visits his native Pakistan, said the word lacks impact there.

"Actually, this [word] is a creation of the British media. The British are known for giving names to peoples and nationalities. It started in Britain, the word Paki, and it was here [in Canada] about 25 years ago, and it was taken as a kind of bad name to call a person from the subcontinent. . . . But I don't think the very word Paki, in Pakistan, will be taken as seriously or in as bad a connotation as people may think. If he had said something bad about Islam, that would be something different."

Speaking about the confrontation between India and Pakistan, Mr. Bush said he did not believe their tension has yet been defused. "But I do believe there is a way to do so, and we are working hard to convince both the Indians and the Pakis there's a way to deal with their problems without going to war," Mr. Bush said.

snipped from a small portion from a website by:

© 2002 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc.


Again you have not shown any evidence that "they" complained - so far that is just something you have stated. Please provide evidence that "they" complained.

They complain about all crosses to which their eyes must be exposed.



Again you make a statement about all Muslims which is patently untrue.


If you say so. I am sure there are muslims who don't care.


Should "butt out" of what? Remember you haven't showed that "they" have "butted in" to anything to do with UK currency.

Other peoples right to their religion including display of religious objects on their person. They would prefer to force conversion to islam at gun point if they could get away with it. 100s of 1000s of people in Africa have died in
genocides perpetrated by muslim and muslim/arab militias. They are intolerant of other religions but dream up excuses to be offended in order to make their
people thing they are the ones being offended and must fight back.


Do you apply your rant to the Israeli calls to also not be symbolised by a cross in the International Red er Cross organisation?

Absolutely. I mentioned somewhere above that the Israeli Red Cross was changed to the Star of David. How silly and juvenile all these people are.



Again let me remind you that there is no homogeneous group "THE Muslims".


They have one book which they follow.


And I have asked you every time you have made similar accusations about me to provide some evidence - to date you have never ever supplied evidence to back up your accusations - will you do so this time?

Are you saying the muslims don't all follow one book? One set of dietary laws? One god?


As in the South Park 9/11 episode... "Really?" I don't suppose that there is the slightest chance you will provide any evidence to support this accusation?


This is not a court of law. The evidence is all around you. It appears every day in the press. This is a court of public opinion. Take it or leave it. I could care less what you think since it is obvious to me you are pro-muslim and anti-non-muslim and therefore biased in favor of muslims. I am biased against the practices of muslims, some, many, a few, whatever. They scare me. They worry me and I am sorry you feel so safe, warm and fuzzy around them. I don't. Not all people are criminals. Not all people are killers. Those who are, a significant number of them, are cause for concern. When they are part of a religion they are even more problematic.

[peptoabysmal]

So how about these crosses? They OK?

http://homepage.eircom.net/~finnegam/war/images/nazi_party_b.jpg
They look good on a Harley 74. (cubic inches, not 1974)

OMG! That is a backwards Buddhist cross! It's like an upside-down Christian cross! Sign of the anti-Budda!

:oldroll:

[Mojo]

The 20th Century when I lived in England and therefore were the only banknotes I have seen. If they changed them the Bank of England forgot to notify me as if I care. If you had cared enough to do a little research before you posted your example, you would have found the current ones on the Bank of England's (i.e. the issuing body's) website.

[Mojo]

Again let me remind you that there is no homogeneous group "THE Muslims". They have one book which they follow.

If you can convince the Sunni and Shi'ite factions that all Muslims are a homogeneous group, you could prevent a lot of conflict.

[SteveGrenard]

If you had cared enough to do a little research before you posted your example, you would have found the current ones on the Bank of England's (i.e. the issuing body's) website.

Actually I did what you said and was aware that the currency was recently changed. I underscored my answer to Mister Darat's question that I had seen UK currency when I lived in the UK, had recalled the presence of crosses thereon, was surprised they were removed from the reissued currency and actually went to the trouble of going to collector's sites to find an example from the exact years I lived in the UK.

Again, this was Darat's question. There were muslims in England in 1978 as well as now, although I am sure there are a great many more today than then which serves to add to their sense of enfranchisement no doubt and the level of outrage and offense taking has escalated mightily or so it would seem.

[SteveGrenard]

If you can convince the Sunni and Shi'ite factions that all Muslims are a homogeneous group, you could prevent a lot of conflict.

Yes, at least there would be an end to their tribal warfare. But then if they were not fighting each other the question remains if they would be setting more of their sights on on others or would remain content to remain a peace loving and productive people who wouldn't brandish a sword for every little offense.

[Mojo]

Actually I did what you said and was aware that the currency was recently changed. Recently (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/about/withdrawn_notes.htm)? Denomination:£1 Note series: D Character on back of note:Isaac Newton Date issued:09.02.1978 Date withdrawn:11.03.1988There were muslims in England in 1978 as well as now, although I am sure there are a great many more today than then which serves to add to their sense of enfranchisement no doubt and the level of outrage and offense taking has escalated mightily or so it would seem.While there were certainly Muslims in the UK in 1978 (and 1988, for that matter), militancy and extremism have not really been an issue until more recently. Back then we tended to be more worried about Christian terrorists.

[Mojo]

Her title is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."And it still says "FID DEF" or "F.D." on the coinage.

Mind you, I think we should privatise the job. I'm sure it could be done far more cheaply.

[SteveGrenard]

Recently (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/about/withdrawn_notes.htm)? While there were certainly Muslims in the UK in 1978 (and 1988, for that matter), militancy and extremism have not really been an issue until more recently. Back then we tended to be more worried about Christian terrorists.

The IRA was much busier back then.

[Mojo]

Actually I did what you said and was aware that the currency was recently changed. I underscored my answer to Mister Darat's question that I had seen UK currency when I lived in the UK, had recalled the presence of crosses thereon, was surprised they were removed from the reissued currency and actually went to the trouble of going to collector's sites to find an example from the exact years I lived in the UK. Sorry, can you link back to the post where you said that? I don't seem to be able to find it. I can see this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2014223#post2014223) where you posted the image of the bank note and indicate that it was the one in circulation when you were in the UK, and the following one which says "Notice if you will the multiple crosses on the crown and the cross on Britania's shield." I can't see one where you say you were suprised to see that they had been removed from the reissued currency. In fact, in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2015217#post2015217) you implied that you were not aware of the change because the Bank of England hadn't notified you. The 20th Century when I lived in England and therefore were the only banknotes I have seen. If they changed them the Bank of England forgot to notify me as if I care. It was Darat's question. Yes, I have seen them. I posted an example. The example that you posted was of the pre-1988 version.

It is possible that I have missed the relevant post in skimming back through the thread, of course.

[SteveGrenard]

The example that you posted was of the pre-1988 version.


But it it's also an example that was in circulation in 1978 when I lived in London. Why shouldn't it be? I arrived in the UK in January 1978. I left long before 1988 and that design was as I recall and you indicate still in circulation.

I think as a native you should be more sensitive to the enormous number of different banknotes issued by GB and the time frames involved. As a result of ploughing through banknote collecting sites I am amazed at the
number. Even each of the sub-kingdoms or whatever you call them (Ireland, Scotland, Wales) plus Jersey etc have different notes. I was amazed to find Manx Money as well!

Yes I have seen the chart on this page:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/about/withdrawn_notes.htm

In America I don't think we will ever see a banknote with Charles Darwin on it. Our money is boringly similar with minor design and Series Changes and an occasional change of signatures due to a different Treasury Secretary or whatever. The personages depicted have remained consistently the same for a very very long time --

[Mojo]

But it it's also an example that was in circulation in 1978 when I lived in London. Why shouldn't it be? I arrived in the UK in January 1978. I left long before 1988 and that design was as I recall and you indicate still in circulation. Actually, posting an image of any of the current Bank of England notes would quite possibly be a breach of rule 4. Back in the 1980s an artist called Boggs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSG_Boggs) annoyed the Bank by producing drawings of their notes in coloured pencil. They tried to prosecute him for counterfeiting but the jury threw the case out because it was obvious that the drawings were not intended to decieve anyone into thinking they were genuine. To stop him doing it again the Bank began copyrighting the images of their notes, and they now all bear the legend "© The Governor and Company of the Bank of England".

Any chance of that link back to the post in which you expressed surprise that the crosses had been removed from the reissued currency?

[SteveGrenard]

Sorry but if you browse collector websites for banknotes and coins you will find numerous color photographs of past British banknotes without specimen or other oblitteration thereon. As you indicated the note I posted was in circulation in 1978 and was withdrawn in 1988. After identifying the right time frame from the BOE page, I found the one pound version with cross on crown and shield on numerous British-based banknote dealer websites.

I doubt seriously all these British coin dealers would flout BOE rules to illustrate their wares in this manner. Are there any other nasty insinuations you intend to make today or was this just to get the Moderator to remove the evidence I presented?

[CFLarsen]

Sorry but if you browse collector websites for banknotes and coins you will find numerous color photographs of past British banknotes without specimen or other oblitteration thereon.

Why does that make it legal?

[Mojo]

Are there any other nasty insinuations you intend to make today or was this just to get the Moderator to remove the evidence I presented?I posted that it would probably violate rule 4 if you posted an image of a current banknote. The banknote you have posted is not a current banknote, and predates the copyrighting of the notes. The notes in circulation at that time were not copyright (I assume because it was thought that the laws against counterfeiting provided enough protection); that is why the bank couldn't do anything about Mr. Boggs' reproductions of the old notes such as the one you posted, and why they copyrighted the new ones. I did not in any way imply that you had posted anything that was in violation of the forum rules.

Now, can you stop the diversionary tactics, and post the link to the post in which you expressed surprise that the crosses had been removed from the reissued notes, as you implied you had done in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2015897#post2015897):I underscored my answer to Mister Darat's question that I had seen UK currency when I lived in the UK, had recalled the presence of crosses thereon, was surprised they were removed from the reissued currency and actually went to the trouble of going to collector's sites to find an example from the exact years I lived in the UK. Remember that in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2015217#post2015217), replying to my post in which I had linked to the current banknotes on the Bank of England website, you claimed that you were unaware that the designs had changed because the Bank of England hadn't notified you.

[Darat]

A lot of Muslims are. Enough to call for his death.


It only takes one Muslim to call for the death of anyone.



Because I have seen one of her sceptres with a cross. On the money it was on her crown and more blatantly on the shield of britania.


You mean you have a UK banknote with her holding a sceptre?


According to islam all crosses are offensive as is the religion it denotes.


Not true.


All crosses are offensive.


Not true.


The cross included in the Union Jack is offensive.


Which one? Do you mean the cross of St George the Palestianian patron saint of England?

Any evidence of any Muslims taking offensive at the Union flag?


The cross on britania's shield offends them.


Any evidence of any Muslims taking offensive at the cross on Britannia's shield?

The ambulance crews in the UK offend them.


Any evidence of any Muslims taking offensive at UK ambulance crews?


These crosses reminds muslims of crusader crosses to which they have great antipathy or so they
say. When were the last crusades again?


I can't recall when President Bush made his statement - I think was 2001?


;)


Its an historically collective emotion the thing about crosses but sure some people are bothered less than others.


And some are not bothered at all.


It surfaced the other day with the Heathrow incident.


Any evidence that this incident was casued by the complaint from a "Paki" (as you put it).


The muslims at healthrow who have the nerve to demand .... but teeny crucifixes on old ladies are not allowed.


Found any evidence yet to support your claim?


So the woman loses her job to some south Asian wearing a veil and/or bangles.


Any evidence to support this claim?


Whatever you want to think. It doesn't change the truth.


This does not seem to be answering the part of my post you quoted i.e. "I presume you are still talking about "these whackos"? If so again I need to know who you are referring to. You often recollect things incorrectly so it may be you have again confused me with someone else.".

I'll ask you again - I presume you were still talking about "these whackos"? If so again I need to know who you are referring to.


Didn't mean to offend the Pakistani's in the UK even though they apparently don't mind being offended and offending everyone else.


Any evidence to support this claim?


Apparently the term was invented by the British media and was even used a few years ago by the President of the U.S. which doesn't make it inoffensive to UK Pakistanis I guess but then again what isn't offensive to muslims?

...snip...



Not all Pakistanis are Muslims and certainly not all British citizens descended from people recently immigrated from Pakistan are Muslim.


They complain about all crosses to which their eyes must be exposed.


This does not address what I actually asked you. I asked you to provide evidence that the Heathrow incident was caused by a compliant from "Pakis" as you claimed. Again I'll ask you to provide evidence for your claim.


If you say so. I am sure there are muslims who don't care.


Since you agree why do you constantly refer to "the" Muslims rather then some Muslims?


Other peoples right to their religion including display of religious objects on their person. They would prefer to force conversion to islam at gun point if they could get away with it.
100s of 1000s of people in Africa have died in
genocides perpetrated by muslim and muslim/arab militias. They are intolerant of other religions but dream up excuses to be offended in order to make their
people thing they are the ones being offended and must fight back.
...snip...


There is no "they" as you use it - as you just agreed above.


They have one book which they follow.


No "they" don't - there is no "they" - any more then there is a "they" that encompasses the billion or so Christians on this planet.


Are you saying the muslims don't all follow one book? One set of dietary laws? One god?


Yes.


This is not a court of law. The evidence is all around you. It appears every day in the press.

...snip...


Do you even read my posts or is it just some random process in which you break a post of my up and appear to respond to it?

I ask that because I asked you for evidence for your allegations about me i.e. that "I conclude after exchanges here that ... you ..... tend toward sympathizing with the muslims and to some extent sympathize with their collusion with the Nazis." and you have responded with "...it appears every day in the press....".

[SteveGrenard]

It will now be interesting to see how an employment tribunal decides in the case of the Heathrow worker and her crucifix.

Note: The point on which she won was, what else, an "injury to her feelings." Isn't this another way of saying she was offended? What else is new?




A MUSLIM teaching assistant who refused to remove her veil during lessons today won her employment tribunal case for victimisation against the school which suspended her but lost her claims of discrimination and harassment.

Kirklees Council suspended Aishah Azmi, 24, after she refused to remove her veil while teaching at Headfield Church of England Junior School in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire.

The school said face-to-face communication was essential for Ms Azmi’s job as a bilingual support worker.

The case fuelled an ongoing debate about the use of the veil and the way that the Muslim community integrates into British society.

Ms Azmi was today awarded £1,000 for “injury to feelings” after she succeeded in her claim of victimisation.

But her claims of direct and indirect discrimination, and her claim of harassment, were dismissed.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006480685,00.html

[Mojo]

Note: The point on which she won was, what else, an "injury to her feelings." Isn't this another way of saying she was offended? What else is new? the point on which she won was victimisation, and not discrimination. If she was awarded damages for injury to feelings, this was injury to her feelings as result of how she was treated as an individual, not how she was treated as a "Muslim". The injury to her feelings that the tribunal found that she had suffered was not to do with her religion, otherwise they would have upheld her claim of discrimination.

Now how about addressing the previous couple of posts?

[SteveGrenard]

She's a muslim, she had injury to her feelings. This is an irrefutable constellation of fact.

The tribunal felt her feelings were hurt, aw, she was offended. So be it.

If she wasn't a muslim, didn't have to wear the vail, would we even be talking about this? No.

[Mojo]

She's a muslim, she had injury to her feelings. This is an irrefutable constellation of fact.

The tribunal felt her feelings were hurt, aw, she was offended. So be it.

If she wasn't a muslim, didn't have to wear the vail, would we even be talking about this? No.If the tribunal had found that the injury to her feelings was because of her religion they would have upheld her claim of discrimination. They didn't. A finding of victimisation merely means that she wasn't treated the same way as others (even other Muslims) would have been under the same circumstances; for example because her employer didn't follow their disciplinary procedures properly.

If you're not going to answer the previous posts, why didn't you just start yet another thread for this?

[SteveGrenard]

If the tribunal had found that the injury to her feelings was because of her religion they would have upheld her claim of discrimination. They didn't. A finding of victimisation merely means that she wasn't treated the same way as others (even other Muslims) would have been under the same circumstances; for example because her employer didn't follow their disciplinary procedures properly.

If you're not going to answer the previous posts, why didn't you just start yet another thread for this?

I wish I could say you were 1000% correct. But no, it will not be left at this decision. Religious discrimination will be brought into the picture
if the veiled muslim lady's lawyer gets his way:


LONDON (Reuters) - The lawyer for a Muslim teaching assistant suspended for refusing to remove her veil said on Friday her case had opened an untested "new area of law" in terms of religious discrimination.

Nick Whittingham told BBC radio he and his client, 24-year-old Aishah Azmi, planned to appeal to a "higher court".

They would particularly study whether it should be treated as direct or indirect discrimination.

On Thursday, an employment tribunal rejected Azmi's claim against Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire of direct and indirect discrimination and of harassment.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-10-20T084428Z_01_L19405386_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BRITAIN-VEIL.xml