Best view 1152 x 864 ( +F11 )
Bookmark and 
 Share web counter

Alex News

ALWAYS ON TOP ( Scroll down for recent postings )

PAM ! Pam-para,pam-pam ! PAM ! PAM !

Nov 30, 2009

Happy Birthday Dear Mother, ( Safta )

Jonatan - 'Safta' - Amnon    28/11/2009

Happy Birthday Dear Mother, ( Safta )

Bookmark and Share

Nov 29, 2009


Banned Speech of Hillel Neuer, Executive director of UN Watch

On behalf of the U.N Watch:  Alternative with Hebrew subtitles

Dear Friends!    Would like to help us? Please SHARE!

Bookmark and Share

More to come!...

Switzerland to hold referendum to ban minarets

November 29, 2009 -- Updated 1204 GMT (2004 HKT)
(CNN) -- Switzerland was due to hold a referendum Sunday on whether to ban the construction of minarets that some in the far-right see as a sign of encroaching Islamism.
Some polls taken ahead of the referendum showed that as much as 51 percent of the population was against any kind of ban. But support for a ban has been growing, the polls found.
Minarets are tall spires extending from mosques or built next to them. They help identify a mosque and also serve as a spot where a religious leader can call the faithful to daily prayers.
Switzerland has only four minarets. If the referendum passes, they will remain.
The move to amend the constitution to ban new construction is part of a campaign by the nationalist Swiss People's Party (SVP).
The party says the minarets are political symbols and therefore go against the country's constitution.
It designed fliers that feature a veiled woman against a background of a Swiss flag pierced by several minarets resembling missiles.
The Federal Commission against Racism denounced the posters, saying they "defame Switzerland's peaceful Muslim population, feed prejudice and portray the Muslim community as wanting to dominate Switzerland, oppress women and trample on fundamental rights."
The SVP has courted controversy with its campaigns in the past. In 2007, it faced international criticism for leading an anti-immigration campaign during the federal election that featured a poster with a white sheep kicking a black sheep off a Swiss flag.
Under party leader Christoph Blocher, it went on to win the biggest share of the vote in the 200-member parliament, taking 55 seats.

Earlier this year, the party issued a poster depicting crows pecking at a map of Switzerland, as the country prepared to vote on whether to support an extension of a free movement of labor deal with the European Union that would include new members, Bulgaria and Romania.

Bookmark and Share

Amnon, Is that you ?

KINGD1991 has replied to your comment on merkava taking hits:
you right,, just look at the vid ppl , the missiles didnt penetreted the tank.
You can reply back by visiting the comments page.

MunchAlex (1 week ago) 
Marked as spam

The tank in this vid took 7 hits without the crew being scratched, in 2006 a MK4 took 23 hits before penetreted.

KINGD1991 (1 hour ago) 
Marked as spam

you right,, just look at the vid ppl , the missiles didnt penetreted the tank.

Bookmark and Share

Nov 27, 2009

It is a shame he cannot be sued for libel !

November 20, 2009 7:30 AM
by Ted Belman

Goldstone and the Rule of Law

The International Court came into being by virtue of the Rome Treaty in 2002.. To date, 110 states have signed on and a further 38 states have signed but not ratified it. The U.S. and Israel are among those who have yet to ratify the treaty.

The same year, Richard Goldstone delivered a speech at a Toronto synagogue arguing that it was in the interests of Israel and the U.S. that they sign on. It was asked if Israel should sign on as she would never get a fair hearing. Goldstone vehemently disagreed.

Fast forward: In the days before to Operation Cast Lead, during a period when the Gazans were committing war crimes daily by firing rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilians, Dr. Abraham Bell in his article on International Law and Gaza set out the basic principles and subtitled his article The Assault on Israel’s Right of Self Defense.

But what do these principles and rules he set out mean in practice? Did Israel have no choice but to invade or could it just have used artillery and bombs, even unintelligent inexpensive bombs?

Bruce Tucker Smith, JD, LL.M. (International Law), Lt Col USAFR (ret). who is currently a US military Judge, summarized his opinion as follows:

“In short…Israel’s defense forces are entitled to use whatever means is at her disposal to search out and destroy terrorist operatives. Nothing in international law precludes a vigorous, intense and effective military campaign to destroy terrorist operations. That means, Israel may use air and ground-artillery resources -as she will-against those Hamas operatives (I hesitate to us the word “military” - since Hamas is NOT a recognized military force.) which are used to inflict casualties upon Israel.

“That means Israel may use her army in large or small measure to attack any place or person that attacks Israel. That means Israel can bombard Hamas targets as militarily necessary to render it impotent against a subsequent wave of Israeli soldiers. Although politically preferable, nothing in international law absolutely requires Israel to use “smart” munitions in its operations against Hamas.

“If Hamas attempts to shield its operations with truly innocent civilians or children—it is Hamas and not Israel, who has committed an atrocity -an actionable war crime-of the most heinous proportion!”

In sum: Israel is free to employ ALL munitions, tactics, equipment and personnel in her arsenal to defend herself against the outlaw Hamas terrorist organization. Short of the intentional targeting and murder of truly uninvolved and innocent civilians, Israel can (and should) operate as freely as she desires to protect her territorial sovereignty and the lives of her citizens.

Earlier this year, the Human Rights Council of the United Nations established a fact finding mission on the Gaza conflict, headed by Richard Goldstone, with the mandate “to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza…”.

Recently the commission released its “Goldstone Report,” to a torrent of criticism. Apparently going beyond its mandate as a “fact-finding mission,” it stated that Israel was guilty of war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity and targeted killings.

No criticism, however, was more damning than his own remarks after its release. In an interview with the Forward on October 2, Goldstone himself acknowledged the tentative nature of his findings:
“Ours wasn’t an investigation, it was a fact-finding mission,” he said, “We made that clear.”

“We had to do the best we could with the material we had. If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.”
The Forward reports that:

“Goldstone emphasized that his conclusion that war crimes had been committed was always intended as conditional. He still hopes that independent investigations carried out by Israel and the Palestinians will use the allegations as, he said, “a useful road map.”

“He recalled his work as chief prosecutor for the international war crimes tribunal in Yugoslavia in 1994. When he began working, Goldstone was presented with a report commissioned by the U.N. Security Council based on what he said was a fact-finding mission similar to his own in Gaza.

“We couldn’t use that report as evidence at all,” Goldstone said. “But it was a useful roadmap for our investigators, for me as chief prosecutor, to decide where we should investigate. And that’s the purpose of this sort of report. If there were an independent investigation in Israel, then I think the facts and allegations referred to in our report would be a useful road map.”

“Nevertheless, the report itself is replete with bold and declarative legal conclusions seemingly at odds with the cautious and conditional explanations of its author’

Reading Goldstone carefully leads to the conclusion that he wanted to force the issue to make Israel carry on an investigation to avoid the ICC, so the inquiry would be not so much a fact finding mission as a prod to force Israel to hold its own investigation, failing which it would fall to the ICC to prosecute it.

Was this why the Report concluded Israel was guilty? Because if it had it only said Israel might be guilty, according to the available evidence, then the pressure on Israel to hold its own hearings would have been greatly reduced?

But this is what NGOs, like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have been doing for years: They do not say Israel may have committed war crimes but that Israel did commit war crimes. The reports are all about demonizing and delegitimizing Israel before the court of public opinion.

The ICC itself says that all accused are to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt -- a basic human right. Too bad that the HRW and the others could not care less.

After the release of the Report, the New York Times published an Op-Ed by Richard Goldstone in which he wrote. “I believe deeply in the rule of law and the laws of war, and the principle that in armed conflict civilians should to the greatest extent possible be protected from harm.”

While any country at war focuses on winning the war, Goldstone focuses protecting civilians. But if any civilians are killed as a consequence of Hamas fighting from among them, it is Hamas who committed the war crime, not Israel.

Not only does Military Judge Bruce Smith, quoted above, have a different opinion on what is and is not permissible, so does Colonel Richard Kemp (the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan), a modern leading military expert, “From my knowledge of the IDF and from the extent to which I have been following the current operation, I do not think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when an army has made more efforts to reduce civil casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza.”

The Goldstone Report, therefore, has taken the best example of how wars should be fought and characterized it as the worse.

If Goldstone really cared about the rule of law, he would not have proceeded with or published this report. As his Report accuses Israel of war crimes, which, by his admission, he had insufficient evidence to prove, it is a shame he cannot be sued for libel.

Bookmark and Share

Nov 26, 2009

Launching a "third intifada." ?!...

November 24, 2009 11:02 AM
by Khaled Abu Toameh

Now it's official: the honeymoon between the Palestinians and the administration of President Barack Obama is over. It was a honeymoon that lasted for nearly one year.

Many Palestinians were convinced that because of his color and background, Obama "was on our side." They believed that in the White House there was finally a president who was more sympathetic to their causes and who would abandon Washington's "bias" in favor of Israel.

Over the past year, mainstream Palestinian and Arab media outlets had been heaping praise on Obama, especially what they perceived to be his hostile attitude toward settlement construction. Reports about a crisis in relations bewteen the US and Israel were welcomed by many. It is hard to remember when the last time a US president had received positive coverage in the Arab media.

The Palestinians and Arabs liked Obama especially because he was not George W. Bush. They liked him because he said he would close Guatanamo Prison. They liked him because he traveled all the way to Cairo to address Arabs and Muslims and offer them an olive branch. They adored him because he seemed to be exerting heavy pressure on Israel.

Now, however, they feel betrayed by the Obama Administration. They have discovered that Obama is actually "continuing the Bush doctrine" with regards to the Middle East conflict. As far as they are concerned, Obama has "succumbed to pressure from the Jewish lobby in the US."

The Palestinians discovered that Obama was "unfaithful" the day Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for an unconditional resumption of peace talks and praised the Israeli government for offering to slow down construction in some settlements. They viewed Clinton's remarks as a departure from past US calls for a complete freeze on settlement construction.

The anti-US tone is once again a major theme in statements of leaders, politicians and columnists throughout the Arab world. Arab cartoonists and political commentators are now depicting Obama as a puppet in the hands of Israel and American Jews.

"The higher the expectations, the bigger the disappointment", noted former Palestinian Authority minister Ziad Abu Zayyad. "The Palestinian Authority thought that Obama had become more Palestinian than the Palestinians, that he would stop settlements, remove them and establish a Palestinian state."

The Palestinian leadership was caught by surprise by the Obama Administration's apparent change of policy toward the settlements. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who was convinced that Obama had fully endorsed the Palestinian position, has been threatening not to run in a new election.

But his threat is not being taken seriously, not even by his inner circle. Some of Abbas's top aides in Ramallah have openly admitted that his threat not to seek re-election was mainly intended to send a message to Obama that he must abandon Washington's "bias" in favor of Israel.

Abbas's threat was anyway not a serious one: He knew that he would never be able to hold elections without the consent of Hamas, which announced that it would not allow the vote to take place in the Gaza Strip. So Abbas was threatening to boycott an election which he knew he wouldn't be able to hold in the first place.

Abbas is now waiting to see whether Obama will compensate him for his unfaithfulness. It has been several weeks since Abbas issued his threat and he still hasn't heard from the White House. Every day that passes without a phone call from the White House brings with it an escalation in the rhetoric coming out of Ramallah.

One day, we are told, Abbas is considering resigning. The next day, we are told, he is considering dissolving the Palestinian Authority. Then there is the threat of unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state or scrapping the Oslo Accords. And, finally there is the most recent threat of resorting to violence by launching a "third intifada."

Now that the honeymoon between Obama and the Arab and Muslims has ended, the battle is about to begin. For now, the battle has taken the form of a rhetorical onslaught on Obama and his staff. But the frustration and disappointment could also be translated into violence against the US and Israel.

Bookmark and Share

Nov 25, 2009

For my eyes only !...

Now, the Bow is perfect!

A full circle !

He managed to reach his ass with his head !...



One correction :-

=== " hanging by his head, Mussolini-style, (as seen in the above shot) " ===

should be :- " hanging by his feet ! Mussolini-style ... "

If you are not an ASTEROID, see this :-

Do not 'crack' on me now !...


"72 Virginians"!!! LOL! Holy Sh*t, you really made Jokerman crack up!

Wouldn't it be HILARIOUS if when these guys die they're met by 72 Virginians in the afterlife!

Thank you Alexander Munch.

Bookmark and Share

Instant Jesus ... ( Special for asthmatics ! )

Here what we know:
- Jesus is in a can
- Jesus is bleeding
- There's now 20% more Jesus.

Here's what we don't know:
- How Jesus got in the can.
- Whether or not Jesus appears when you spray this.
- Who handles Jesus's PR. This seems like a horrible misstep in what seemed to be an otherwise promising career.

Whatever this is, it's hilarious. A google translation of "Aerosol de Poder Atraccion" yields "Attraction Power Spray." So there's a chance that Jesus is changing the body-spray game. Hey Axe! Jesus is here, and the ladies can't resist a man walking on water and smelling good.

Check and mate.

(via Lizz Winstead)

Bookmark and Share

The Enemy Of My Enemy = Is My Friend !!

Premier League - Zaki snubs Pompey over Israel

Eurosport - Mon, 23 Nov 13:08:00 2009
Egyptian striker Amr Zaki has controversially ruled out a move to Portsmouth because the club counts two Israelis and an Algerian among its staff.

Amr Zaki, Egypt PA PHOTOS - 0

Zaki, back at Zamalek in his home country after an eye-catching season on loan at Wigan last term, was a target for Premier League strugglers Pompey.
But the 26-year-old revealed he refused an offer to play at Fratton Park because Israeli defender Tal Ben Haim and director of football Avram Grant are employees at the club.
Although Egypt was the first Arab nation to officially recognise Israel as a state in 1979 following the Camp David Peace Accords of the previous year, there are many in the Muslim community who still disapprove of its existence.
The striker has also taken issue with the presence of Belhadj, who was part of the Algeria side that beat Egypt in their highly-charged World Cup play-off last week.
Zaki said on the Arabic version of his official website: "I refused their offer before, but now joining Portsmouth is no longer an option for me.
"After Portsmouth signed an Israeli player and also hired an Israeli football director a possible move was ruled out.
"On top of that, no way could I play at Portsmouth with an Algerian within in their ranks."
Zaki, who scored nine goals in his first 13 matches for Wigan before loss of form and disciplinary problems curtailed his performances, had been earmarked by Pompey director Sulaiman Al-Fahim as the man to fire the club to Premier League safety.
Al-Fahim said: "He loves Portsmouth. He calls me almost every week and he wants to be part of the Portsmouth team."



Bookmark and Share

Some are lucky, some are not !...

Travesty of justice: Navy SEALs face assault charges for capturing most-wanted jihad terrorist !!! ( JW )

If this Photo does not rip your heart out, you are an ASTEROID !

If this Video does not rip your heart out, you are an ASTEROID !

Bookmark and Share

Nov 24, 2009

Another Turkish trick ! ISRAEL YOK !...

Malignant Turks refuse to play Israeli national anthem for Israeli chess tournament winner, who stands defiant

Marcel.jpg Defiant and victorious (JW)

The following letter was sent to FIDE, President Kirsan Ilumzhinov and Vice President Israel Gelfer.

Dear Mr. President,

I write to you with great concern following what seems as a serious incident that occurred .Today during the closing ceremony of the world junior championships held in Turkey. Happily our girl junior player, Marcel Efroymsky, has won the world title and the gold medal. As customed in such events, the delegations prepared to stand and salute the national anthem of the winner's country. Astonishingly and without any warning, the organizers decided to cancel the playing of the winners anthem. The Turkish organization has offered a ridiculous explanation that they do not have the time to spend on such event.

This excuse is absurd in light of the same venue hosting this event two years ago where all winner anthems were played! In there actions, the organizers demonstrated disrespect to the junior winners, their federation and their countries. As chairman of the Israeli Chess Federation, I herby urge you to investigate this incident. I must say that this kind of boycott (if such occurred) strikes as a another example of how politics interferes with chess. I call you as president of the FIDE, for which the tournament carried your flag, to investigate this issue and if the information appeared to be accurate, then to denounce this disrespectful conduct if the information.

My feeling is, that such events hurt chess in general and send the wrong message the children who dream to become chess champions taking pride in representing their countries.

Yours truly,

Aviv Bushinsky
Chairman of the Israeli Chess Federation

Bookmark and Share

Nov 23, 2009

AOW, is this photo real?...

I just opened the " Jordan Cabernet Sauvignon 1989 " !

Bookmark and Share

Nov 22, 2009

Atheists ruining Britain? home

Where are all these militant atheists ruining Britain?

In a desperate attempt to secure its electoral base, the government is shamefully wooing religious extremists

As every middlebrow with a newspaper column or Radio 4 slot to fill agrees, a vulgar "new atheism" is sweeping Britain. The readers of Richard Dawkins, Philip Pullman and Christopher Hitchens are, they tell us, crass because they do not appreciate the mystery of religion, the consolations of ritual and all the rest of it, and also dangerous because they are as fundamentalist in their criticisms of religion as the religious fanatics they criticise.

I could waste your time by pointing out that "new atheists" are not so different from old atheists – we still don't believe in God, for instance – and add that the charge of moral equivalence would be easier to substantiate if atheists planted bombs on the underground. But space is short and the depressing truth about "new atheists" no one dwells on is that if they exist outside the imaginations of religious writers, they are never there when you need them. For if we had a vibrant atheist or secularist movement in Britain, it would now be tearing into this government for once again trying to ride the Islamist tiger.

Last Sunday, John Denham, the communities secretary, announced: "Anyone wanting to build a more progressive society would ignore the powerful role of faith at their peril. We should continually seek ways of encouraging and enhancing the contribution faith communities make on the central issues of our time."

As the week wore on, it became clear what type of "faith communities" Labour wanted to put at the centre of its "progressive society". Denham is forcing out of his department Azhar Ali, an adviser from the heart of the Labour movement (he was once the Labour leader of Pendle council). Ali's crime was that he opposed Islamism while advising Tony Blair, Ruth Kelly and Hazel Blears.

After Daud Abdullah, the deputy general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, signed a declaration advocating attacks on the Royal Navy if Gordon Brown sent ships to impose an arms blockade on Gaza, Ali told his comrades to cut all links. He might have said that a centre-left party should never have had links with the MCB in the first place. It contains supporters of the Arab Muslim Brotherhood and the south Asian Jamaat-e-Islami. Arab liberals know the Brotherhood to be the enemy of every enlightened value they hold, while their Bangladeshi equivalents regard Jamaat in the same way Observer readers regard the BNP, only worse because Jamaat murderers collaborated in the Pakistani army's crimes during the Bangladeshi war of independence.

That brief moment of principled politics is over. There's talk of the government giving the MCB's Sir Iqbal "death perhaps is a bit too easy for Salman Rushdie" Sacranie a peerage. Meanwhile, ministers are about to cut financial support for Sufi Muslims who, like the majority of Britain's Muslims, Sunni or Shia, are not represented by the MCB.

The fix is in and Islamists are all over Whitehall again. Denham is entertaining Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB, who gave a taste of the "progressive" policies Labour is encouraging when he wrote an article defending Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and a preacher who recommends wife-beating, genital mutilation of girls and the murder of apostates and homosexuals. Earlier this year, the sheikh said of Adolf Hitler's massacre's of the Jews: "This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers."

Astute outsiders look at people who were on the 20th-century left and notice that they have gone from calling themselves "socialists" to "social democrats" to "third wayers" to "progressives" in rapid succession. They might have wondered what the new "progressive" label means. Now they know.

Over at the Department for Children, Schools and Families, Ed Balls is as keen on appeasing the churches as Denham is on appeasing radical Islam. Last week, the National Secular Society (of which I am a patron) described how Labour allowed faith schools to reject applications from non-religious teachers solely on the grounds that they doubted the presence of supernatural beings or worshipped the wrong supernatural being. The rebuttal Balls's department issued was so vituperative and inaccurate that civil servants had to take the virtually unheard-of step of withdrawing it and thus tacitly acknowledge the truth of the secularists' claim that the only people New Labour allowed employers to discriminate against were atheists and sceptics.

You don't need to be a political tactician to understand Labour's dog-whistle politics. Balls is playing both sides by alleging that the Tories would bring creationism to the classroom while doing nothing to restrict religious control of schools. At the Department for Communities, I am told that real power does not rest with the ineffective John Denham, but Shahid Malik, his deputy, who perhaps hopes that appeasing Jamaat and the Brotherhood will help him keep the core vote in his Dewsbury seat and enable a few other desperate Labour MPs to survive a potential Tory landslide as well.

No minister, though, imagines that they will pay a political price as hundreds of thousands of "new atheists" walk away in disgust. Which is not to say that a price will not be paid, just that it will come in a coinage no Observer reader should want to accept. Communalist politics do not always generate a liberal backlash; more often, communalism merely produces heightened communal tension.

Sufis are now promising to tell Dewsbury Muslims not to vote for Malik, which is no more than he deserves. More seriously, a revival of the left's affair with Islamism can only help the BNP by convincing the white working class that their rulers hypocritically denounce racial conspiracy theories, misogyny and homophobia when they come from the followers of Nick Griffin, but not when they come from the friends of Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

It is a dismal way to imagine Britain's longest period of left-wing rule ending, but perhaps it will take the BNP winning a parliamentary contest or so splitting the Labour vote that the Tories come through the middle in "safe" seats for the party to realise you cannot be a fairweather anti-fascist or part-time leftist without your "progressive society" turning to dust.

Bookmark and Share


CAIRO — Hundreds of Muslim protesters on Saturday burnt Christian-owned shops in southern Egypt and attacked a police station where they believed a Christian accused of raping a Muslim girl was being held, a police official said.

Police repelled the demonstrators in the town of Farshut using tear gas and also arrested 60 people during the clashes in which seven Coptic Christian-owned shops were destroyed, the official said.

The protesters hurled stones at the police station after they heard that a Coptic Christian man accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 12-year-old Muslim was being held there, he said.

Roughly ten percent of Egypt's 80-million-strong population are Coptic Christians, who complain of discrimination and are sometimes the target of sectarian attacks.

My comment on JW.

=== " Egypt:- Muslims burn Christian shops " ===

Why ?

Because no Jewish shops could be found around !


Bookmark and Share

Nov 21, 2009

ONE ISRAELI SOLDIER = U$ 1,400,000 !... ( I'm rich! )

Hamas :- 1.4 million U$ for IDF soldier

by Infidelesto on November 18, 2009

Putting international aid to good use! And the left whines about “living conditions” in Gaza…

Gilad Shalit was captured by Palestinian militants in June 2006
Gilad Shalit was captured by Palestinian militants in June 2006

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — A Gaza charity headed by the interior minister of the militant Hamas group on Wednesday offered $1.4 million to any Arab citizen of Israel who abducts a soldier.

Palestinians have frequently called on Israeli Arabs to abduct Israeli soldiers, but this is the first time that money has been offered.

The Waad group from Gaza offered the bounty for Israeli soldiers in an e-mail sent to Palestinian media. The organization, which supports Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, is headed by Hamas’ Interior Minister Fathi Hamad. The minister did not return messages seeking comment.

The charity could presumably raise the cash through its connections with Hamas. The militant group is thought to have millions of dollars at its disposal, both through its tight control of Gaza and support from Iran and other allies.

Waad’s director, Usama Kahlout, said the bounty was in response to an Israeli group’s offer to pay Gaza residents for information on the whereabouts of Sgt. Gilad Schalit, an Israeli soldier captured more than three years ago by Hamas-allied militants.

Bookmark and Share

My new Twetter folower !...

These are intended as guidelines for intelligent people rather than as comprehensive programming for industrial robots.
Conduct on this forum should be approached in the same manner as conduct in any other social situation.
Use your common sense and make allowances for your fellow human beings.

This forum is run by humans for humans. What this means is that in practice things will never be perfect.
Somebody has to run the place and this responsibility falls on the staff. Their decisions are to be regarded as binding.

This does not mean that no questioning will ever be allowed, but it should be done via the "Questions, Problems & Suggestions" sub-forum rather than being taken all over the forum in general. The staff will consider any reasonably presented request for reconsideration of a decision, but once the decision has been reconsidered and a ruling given no further discussion will be entered into. Continuing to spam a topic after the staff have given a considered ruling will be taken as being trolling and therefore subject to official warnings.

As none of the staff have balls made of crystal we reserve the right to alter these rules or add to them as necessary.

1/ Discussion of Islamic beliefs.

This is allowed, and indeed encouraged, subject to certain restrictions.

If you are going to state that something is Islamic you must be prepared to back your statements by quoting authorities and/or texts.
If you cannot back your statements with a reputable source and your statements are deemed inflammatory you may be given a "smite".

In other words, make sure you know what you are talking about and how to phrase it in the most reasonable fashion.

2/ Personal attacks (including insults).

These are frowned upon, and the use of them may result in a warning from the staff.
We realise that some of the issues discussed here are emotive for some people and
we don't expect everyone to be perfect angels all the time, but we do expect you to make an effort.
If the warning is ignored and more personal attacks follow, the person making them will be given a "smite".
It is fine to attack a person's ideas but not the person themselves.
Using people's life experiences as a weapon to beat them up is particularly frowned on.
We cordially suggest that you refrain from trying this little trick.

If you get involved in a flame war with another member or members the staff will not be interested in "who started it".
If you want the staff to be sympathetic to your position please try to refrain from responding to abuse with more abuse.
Another thing to note is that this forum has an "Ignore" feature. If you don't like someone's posts there is no need for you to read them.
There is also no need for you to make a point of telling everyone who you are ignoring. They can see for themselves.

3/ Calls for genocide, or for the deaths of innocents.

Once again, not acceptable. No warnings will be given for this offense. A smite will be issued immediately.
This includes, but is not limited to, death threats to other members and promoting things like "honour killings".

4/ Rape victims.

Under no circumstances will suggesting that rape victims are responsible for the actions of a rapist be tolerated.
Once again, it is grounds for an instant smite. No advance warnings will be given.

5/ Trolling and other inflammatory behaviour.

This can be hard to strictly define in words, but most people claim to be able to recognise it.
If a staff member asks you to stop trolling, goading or whatever then please take their advice.
It is ultimately up to the staff to decide what is and is not acceptable behaviour on this forum.
If in doubt err on the side of reasonableness and politeness. It won't cause the end of the world.
Also note that opening multiple accounts is considered trolling. No appeals will be entertained.

6/ Disclosure of personal information.

We recommend that you carefully consider what you will and will not disclose about yourself on this or any other public forum.
Bear in mind that you will basically be broadcasting it to the entire world.
Respect other posters' privacy. Do not post personal information of other posters or speculation about such information on this forum unless they have already volunteered such information on this forum and have not retracted it since. Such information may include their real name, address, private and business email and employer.
This list is not definitive. Posting other personal information could also be considered a violation of someone's privacy.

7/ Signatures and avatars.

Generally we're pretty tolerant but occasionally we may remove a sig or avatar, either because it is unnecessarily offensive or because it links to a site we do not want advertised on this forum. We will also remove any large images in sigs. Anything up to 468x60 is acceptable, depending on the content. This is a standard internet banner size. If you post a sig image larger than this it will be removed. Also note that only static images are allowed as some people find repeating animations annoying.
The person affected will be notified by PM.
Such actions by the staff are not subject to appeal and a smite will be issued if the offending content is re-posted.

8/ Smites and banning.

If you receive three smites you will be rewarded with a ban. Generally members will be given warnings before being given smites, but there may be times when the behaviour is regarded as so extreme that a smite will be issued without warning. This also applies to banning.

Bans may be temporary or permanent. These decisions will be made at the discretion of the staff.

9/ PM's and Privacy.

Private Messages are not to be posted on the open forum without the permission of the sender, this includes PM's from mods and admins. Posting a PM will result in at least a warning. The mods and admins can not read your PM's

10/ Edit/Deletes.

Mass editing/deleting of posts is not allowed. If you choose to leave the forum your posts will stay behind. Exceptions can be made for personal blog threads.

The forum administrators can be contacted by emailing

We recommend that you do not use a hotmail account for your reply address as they seem to have a habit of losing our emails.
One of the other free email providers would be a better option. We suspect the lost emails are due to the configuration of hotmail's spam filters.
It is likely that they are set to block unsolicited email from web sites.
If you do wish to use a hotmail account please ensure that this site is listed as one you wish to receive email from.

Bookmark and Share