Comments on: I Told You So: The Muslim Doctor Terrorists Are No Surprise; Revealing Muslim Doctors’ Oath

By: Sudhir Lumar

Sudhir Lumar — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:31:06 +0000

Where do Right Wing rednecks find Bimbos like Debbie? They seem to have no shortage of them. To name one more Sara Palin.

By: sara

sara — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:05:22 +0000

id like to say that, Yazeed Essas wife was NOT pregnant, get that straight. I know Yazeed and i knew rosiemarie god rest her soul very very VERY well and if you dunno what your talking about you should shut the fuck up lady. not all muslims are bad. not all muslims have bad intentions. you just love to focus on the bad. Look at allllllllll the christians who do wrong.

By: ciccio

ciccio — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:35:58 +0000

The British Muslim medical association is quite specific in its objectives. To provide health care for Muslims. Period.

By: M L

M L — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:02:15 +0000

Glad to see you bring more light to this subject. Pretty amazing (well maybe not) that the MSM never picked up on this. I wrote a bit on it several months ago:
UK MUSLIM DOCTOR ASSOCIATION EXPOSES THEY CARE ONLY ABOUT MUSLIMS
Below is the beginning section of the constitution of the Muslim Doctors and Dentists Association of the UK -
Please note under section 2 Objects and powers that their main object is to ADVANCE THE ISLAMIC RELIGION IN THE UK and to promote and preserve the good health of MUSLIMS in the UK.
NO WHERE IS IT FOUND THAT THE MUSLIM DOCTORS AND DENTISTS HAVE AS THEIR PRIME OBJECTIVE THE GOOD HEALTH OF THE NON MUSLIM BRITISH PEOPLE- in fact- the British people in general are not even given a mention as only muslims are a worthwhile. It is obvious that this lack of concern, by muslim doctors, for non muslim patients in not exclusive just to the UK but would extend worldwide.
Why might that be?
Why don’t you ask Dr. Mohammed Asha or Dr Bilal Abdullaor EngineerKafeel Ahmed–oops sorry Kafeel died from burns suffered when trying to blow up Glasgow Airport.
Just think if the British Medical Association had a statement that British doctors should prioritize non-muslim British people –one can imagine the throngs of muslims pouring into our streets with angry contorted faces screaming and demanding.
What is even more alarming is that the British Medical Association, by its silence, is condoning the clearly discriminatory behaviours of the muslim doctors – as stated in their M.D.D.A. UK Constitution. It is also disgusting that no government official or new media has even investigated this clear evidence of discrimination.
So please keep the below in mind the next time you go to your muslim doctor or dentist and remember that he does not place YOU or YOUR HEALTH as a priority. Muslim’s come first by their very own “code of (un) ethics”.
Constitution
The Muslim Doctors and Dentisits Association UK (M.D.D.A. UK)
1. Name
The name of the Association is Muslim Doctors and Dentists Association UK (the Association)
2. Objects and powers
2.1 The objects of the association shall be:-
2.1.1. To advance the Islamic religion in the practice of medicine in the United Kingdom
2.1.2. To advance medical education in relation to the doctrines, practices and traditions of the Islamic religion.
2.1.3. To promote research in various aspects of medical science and to disseminate and publish the useful results of such research.
2.1.4. To promote the preservation and protection of the good health of Muslims in the United Kingdom.
http://www.mdda.org.uk/web/constitution.php
http://theopinionator.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/09/uk-muslim-docto.html

By: mechmorph

mechmorph — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 04:30:19 +0000

For ConservativesLovePuns(descent):
> Um, Holocaust ring a bell? Stalin killed millions, and so did Mao, all people whose beliefs differed from the ruling party’s.
> Just because they didn’t shout “In the name of Madelyn Murray O’Hair” when they pulled the trigger doesn’t make them any less atheist. They desired power because their personal beliefs led them to think it was the right thing for them to do. They believed this because they were atheists who didn’t believe that a just God would punish them. Ergo, they killed because they were atheists.
> Really? Here’s a good one to think about then: George Soros. He was a Jew whose father adopted him out to a German family so that he could survive the round ups. Little George spent much of his childhood handing out concentration camp notices to his own people in order to maintain his cover. (Something which, to this day, he admits he’s not sorry for, by the way.) You might also think about all those Tibetan Buddhist monks the Dalai Lama is always going on about.
> Actually, except for the ones started by Islam, I would say all of them. Part of the ground rules for Christians and Jews is the notion that if you don’t behave like one of God’s people, then you aren’t one, even if you say you are. Except in the case of self-defense or protecting others — such as, say WWII or the First Crusade — starting wars is clearly in the ungodly category, making a stronger case for the de facto atheism of the perpetrators. You can yell out God’s name all day long if you like, but if you’re not living the tenets, you are not of God.
> Not so, and part of the reason atheism is so insidious. It’s no more “simply a thought” than is Hinduism. It’s a complete set of assumptions about the way the world works and the resulting attitudes toward life, other people and correct behavior. While it could be possible for an atheist to live by a very modest code of behavior, a la Buddhism (you don’t have to believe in any gods to be Buddhist), “pure atheism” places humanity at the pinnacle of the universe and therefore assumes a sort of laissez faire morality — if it can be rationalized, then it’s OK. Atheism places faith (yes, I said faith) in science, an ordered thinking process, to solve problems — a logical inconsistency since atheistic belief necessitates the notion of randomness as the ultimate cause and ground of the universe. Atheism also has its doomsday scenarios (Global Warming!!!!) and resulting behavior codes to fend off the apocalypse (buy carbon credits, use rubber band power, etc.). Atheism also has its charismatic priesthood (O’Hair, Russell, that Dawkins guy, etc.) who pass along the stories that reveal the truths of the world (evolution, big bang, free love, etc.). This is not to pass judgment on any of the above beliefs, but I merely list examples to illustrate the point.
> I think you misunderstand the essential nature of religion. It’s not about miracle stories, divinities or ancient traditions. The word “religion” comes from a root that means “to bind.” Human beings seem to have a deep-seated need to understand the nature of the universe: Why am I here? What is my purpose? How did life begin? Every human being has the capacity to use reason to find an answer that makes sense. For many people, the most reasonable answer is that the universe was prompted into existence by the influence of something whose own existence is outside the effects of time and space as we experience them. Atheists believe the universe just happened, somehow, under its own power. Whatever the answer an individual accepts, it cannot help but shape that person because the answer becomes the most fundamental fact of his existence, the very reason he lives. It makes no difference if you go about asking yourself, “What would Bertrand do” or “What Would Jesus Do” or if you only go to temple on special occasions. Your answer is at the very core of who you are, your basic nature, and you won’t go against it. That is your religion — personal or widespread. Some people know exactly what they believe, others can spend a lifetime figuring it out. Many, perhaps most, I suspect, don’t really believe what they think they do — which may have some bearing on how people calling themselves one thing can behave otherwise. Perhaps we should talk about “real” believers, if that clarifies anything. From my own observations, then, “real” atheists believe life is random and morality is whatever they feel comfortable with — this evolves naturally into a lack of personal responsibility and thus leads easily to the pursuit of power and pleasure as ends in themselves. “Real” Christians and Jews believe that what they do in this life matters and everything has reason and consequence — this leads to a willingness to sacrifice personal gain or pleasure for the greater good. The atheist tenets, thus, are: There is no God; there is no morality outside personal choice; regard for others is dependent upon personal gain, pleasure or whim; atheism is a superior way of thinking; non-atheists, particularly Christians, should be converted for the betterment of mankind (go on, tell me you don’t believe that); non-atheists should be discouraged from practicing their beliefs in public, through legal or other means; you are encouraged to support atheist causes, financially or otherwise.
> And now you have.

By: ConservativesLovePuns(descent)

ConservativesLovePuns(descent) — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:38:42 +0000

When the hell was the last time you heard of an atheist killing a person of faith because of their beliefs?
Those that you pointed out, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc, may or in Hitler’s case, may not, have been atheists, but none of atrocious things that they committed were in the name of, or because of atheism. It was to gain personal and political power, or, again, in Hitler’s case, probably because of a mental defect. Because of this, your argument is null, as it does not show that atheists do indeed kill based on religion or ideology(Muslims, Hitler). Also, I’ve never heard of someone being forced to disown their faith and “convert” to atheism in order to live.
Also, there has been no shortage of killing the name of religion in the past thousands of years, just take a look at the history books. How many of the memorable religious-based fights were started by atheists?
And finally, atheism, is not, as you outrageously claim a religion. atheism is simply a thought, or an idea. It’s the lack of belief in any Gods or higher powers. That’s it.
PS: You mention something about “atheist tenets” again, this is incorrect. There is no one set of “atheist tenets”. An atheist is simply a person who does not believe in any God, as I mentioned above. To claim that there is a set of “tenets” that all atheists follow, would somewhat validate your claim that atheism is a religion. However, that’s obviously not true. Again, anyone can be an atheist and have any set of beliefs, or live their life in any way they see fit. One atheist can kill babies for food, while the other could be saving lives as police officer, doctor, whatever, it doesn’t matter. There, unlike religions, is no set of rules you must follow to be an atheist, and being an atheist does not dictate your daily actions. People have religions too closely intertwined with morals, that they can’t imagine someone being moral, or thinking rationally without the aid of something else.
Anyways, I’d be interested to see your response.

By: mechmorph

mechmorph — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 13:39:13 +0000

This is for ConservativesLovePuns(descent):
If you were to add up all the victims of religion throughout history, the biggest pile of bodies would belong to atheism. Recall Mao, Stalin, Hitler? That’s just in the last century and doesn’t even begin to count the people who’ve called themselves Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. just for the power it brought them while actually living by atheist tenets (most of the Democratic presidential candidates currently). Atheism is very much a religion, and it’s the only currently active one that’s more dangerous than Islam (the Aztecs’ blood cult having been done away with). While other religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, etc. may teach believers that theirs is the correct system of faith, they are generally content to spread that faith through talking. (Those who call themselves Christian but resort to violence are specifically not behaving in a Christian manner.) Islam and atheism, however, seem to share the same predilection for “sword-point conversions.” When prevented from direct violence, as in America, they’ll resort to legal violence through the courts to suppress their enemies.

By: Diego

Diego — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 13:38:56 +0000

PLEASE EMAIL THIS TO NEAL BOORTZ AND Jim/Newsday
pinkerto@ix.netcom.com

By: Nuggler

Nuggler — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 14:21:19 +0000

“the point is–religion is bunk, and if people would just sit down, and think rationally, we’d resolve a whole lot of problems.”
Kind of like that manmade global warming right?
Ya know, whether or not one professes a faith in divinity is irrelevant. Relativity lays in shared value systems. In my opinion, if everyone on Earth took one day off a week to look inside themselves, and say, “Wow! I worked hard all week, provided for x, y, and z, and helped at least one person in their time of need etc etc,” things would start to get better. {2nd Commandment}. If 3-10 were followed verbatim, well, those who profess a faith in a utopian society (look at that, a belief in something that isn’t tangible…is that a religion?) would have nothing to disagree with. Contrast that with the faith of Submission (Islam for those better enlightened than I). Where’s the “pluralism”? “Diversity”? Darwin would probably agree with Mohammed…the apes and dog crap. If there is a constant that matter can neither be created or destroyed, only changed, where did it come from in the first place? One must have a “faith” in believing one way or the other, right? A belief in the intangible right? Something that cannot ever be “proved” right?
Religion n’est pas?
Would someone let another person, who was never seen doing it, but subscribed to a “faith” that said children are sexual beings and the such, babysit their child? Is that NAMBLiaphobic? If not, why? Mohammed said he was told unless one is Muslim, they are a second class person, and in some cases, not a human at all. This includes of course, a strict dogma of how to ensure the secondary, or tertiary status of unbelievers of Submission. So, if one isn’t Muslim, would they receive the same care as a Muslim? I mean, in the strict adherence to Mohammed and Shiriah of course…I mean, being a “true” Muslim and all…

By: poetcomic1

poetcomic1 — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:59:11 +0000

Hence Israeli doctors have treated suicide bombers who survived with the same high quality care as any of their victims. There are true stories of Palestinians (in one case an elderly woman) who having been treated and cured at Israeli hospitals came back to blow up the Jews who saved them.