BBC: Libya's Gaddafi urges 'holy war' against Switzerland (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8537925.stm)
QuoteLibya's Muammar Gaddafi has called for a jihad, or holy war, against Switzerland, as an ongoing diplomatic row between the two nations heats up.
He criticised a recent Swiss vote against the building of minarets and said Muslims must boycott the country.
There have been tensions between the nations since 2008, when one of Mr Gaddafi's sons was arrested in Geneva, accused of assaulting two servants.
A Swiss foreign ministry spokesman declined to comment on the jihad call.
The Libyan leader made his comments while speaking at a meeting to mark the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad.
"Let us wage jihad against Switzerland, Zionism and foreign aggression," he said.
"Any Muslim in any part of the world who works with Switzerland is an apostate, is against Muhammad, God and the Koran."
In a referendum last November, 57.5% of Swiss voters approved a constitutional ban on the building of minarets. An appeal against the ban has been submitted to the European Court of Human Rights.
Charges dropped
Earlier this month, Libya stopped issuing visas to citizens from many European nations, prompting condemnation from the European Commission.
Hannibal Gaddafi (2005)
Hannibal Gaddafi's arrest in 2008 sparked the diplomatic spat
Libya's move came after Switzerland allegedly blacklisted 188 high-ranking Libyans, denying them entry permits. The Swiss ban is said to include Mr Gaddafi and his family.
The row began after the arrest of Mr Gaddafi's son Hannibal and his wife, Aline Skaf, in Geneva in July 2008.
They were accused of assaulting two servants while staying at a luxury hotel in the Swiss city, though the charges were later dropped.
Libya retaliated by cancelling oil supplies, withdrawing billions of dollars from Swiss banks, refusing visas to Swiss citizens and recalling some of its diplomats.
In the same month that the Gaddafis were arrested, Libyan authorities detained two Swiss businessmen, in what analysts believe was a retaliatory move.
One was finally allowed to leave the country earlier this week but the second was transferred to jail, where he faces a four-month term on immigration offences.
Wow. I bet the Swiss are glad that they caved on that embassy thing. Sucks to be neutral when you're not in the stealing money from helpless Jews business anymore.
LOL Gaddafi, He Whose Name is Spelled The Thousand Ways.
What was Hannibal doing in the Alps anyway :hmm: ?
I think it's precious that he also included Zionism in his Jihad call.
Though, I guess, you could argue that Switzerland is a country sitting on a pile of Jewish gold...
Quote
He criticised a recent Swiss vote against the building of minarets and said Muslims must boycott the country.
Can muslims please boycott the United States too?
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on February 26, 2010, 03:14:10 AM
Quote
He criticised a recent Swiss vote against the building of minarets and said Muslims must boycott the country.
Can muslims please boycott the United States too?
FUCK YOU. I have enough problems trying to find good Falafel as it is.
I once worked at a bar frequented by one of Gaddafi's nephews, he used to tip very well. One night he got into a fight with a Bristol Rovers football player. I was going to get a bouncer but someone ran quicker so I just watched. An orange woman screamed 'GADDAFI NOOOOO!' (Where have you been for the last forty years, I thought). Then someone threw a glass at the orange woman and she shut up. Gaddafi's shirt was ripped open and his multi-diamond watch broken off his wrist. The bouncer kicked him out and I gave him his watch back when he next came in. After the fight he never tipped again.
The article forgets that in Gaddafi's UNGA tour-de-force performance he also announced a Libyan sponsored resolution calling for the abolition of Switzerland.
I love that Switzerland is first on the list of things to Jihad beating out traditional favourites Zionism and 'foreign aggression' :lol:
I've been calling for jihad against Switzerland ever since Hamilcar said victims of tornados, "had it coming."
Pffttt...as if Lybia could possibly defeat the Swiss and their revolutionary new tanks.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smidigt.se%2Fu%2Fswiss-army-tank.gif&hash=a82ca2f49a38dba43897029d25c8b25daccf7f67)
not funny :(
Quote from: Queequeg on February 26, 2010, 04:13:04 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on February 26, 2010, 03:14:10 AM
Quote
He criticised a recent Swiss vote against the building of minarets and said Muslims must boycott the country.
Can muslims please boycott the United States too?
FUCK YOU. I have enough problems trying to find good Falafel as it is.
That's because there's no such thing as good falafel.
Quote from: citizen k on February 26, 2010, 09:47:06 PM
I've been calling for jihad against Switzerland ever since Hamilcar said victims of tornados, "had it coming."
Well, he was right. People who choose to live in natural-disaster-prone areas, especially when they do not buy an insurance policy, do not deserve to be helped with money from the taxes of people who either do not take the risk or hedged that risk by buying a policy. That kind of system, where benefits of risk taking are consumed by a risk taker - e.g. in the form of cheaper property in hurricane-infested area - but costs of risk taking are being socialized and shared by all players (like aid to people who did not buy a policy and now are homeless) is both immoral and provides wrong incentives. It is no different than bailout of risk-taking banks by the tax payer - only people get more teary eyed about idiots who build their house in a hurricane country and then get it blown to pieces, than Wall Street fat cats.
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 03:51:41 AM
Quote from: citizen k on February 26, 2010, 09:47:06 PM
I've been calling for jihad against Switzerland ever since Hamilcar said victims of tornados, "had it coming."
Well, he was right. People who choose to live in natural-disaster-prone areas, especially when they do not buy an insurance policy, do not deserve to be helped with money from the taxes of people who either do not take the risk or hedged that risk by buying a policy. That kind of system, where benefits of risk taking are consumed by a risk taker - e.g. in the form of cheaper property in hurricane-infested area - but costs of risk taking are being socialized and shared by all players (like aid to people who did not buy a policy and now are homeless) is both immoral and provides wrong incentives. It is no different than bailout of risk-taking banks by the tax payer - only people get more teary eyed about idiots who build their house in a hurricane country and then get it blown to pieces, than Wall Street fat cats.
And for the people with homeowner's insurance? Which is just about all homeowners.
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 03:51:41 AM
Quote from: citizen k on February 26, 2010, 09:47:06 PM
I've been calling for jihad against Switzerland ever since Hamilcar said victims of tornados, "had it coming."
Well, he was right. People who choose to live in natural-disaster-prone areas,
That's going to really cut down on the amount of habitable land.
Who died and made him caliph?
Quote from: citizen k on February 27, 2010, 07:47:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 03:51:41 AM
Quote from: citizen k on February 26, 2010, 09:47:06 PM
I've been calling for jihad against Switzerland ever since Hamilcar said victims of tornados, "had it coming."
Well, he was right. People who choose to live in natural-disaster-prone areas,
That's going to really cut down on the amount of habitable land.
Yeah. In the US, I think Hawaii does not suffer from tornadoes, but that it pretty much it.
Doesn't Poland have tornadoes?
What about Germans? Are they "natural disasters?" If so, did the Poles who died in WW2 "deserve it" for living in Poland, subject to German invasion?
Faggots who live in gay-unfriendly areas really shouldn't complain when they get Sheparded.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 11:03:33 AM
What about Germans? Are they "natural disasters?" If so, did the Poles who died in WW2 "deserve it" for living in Poland, subject to German invasion?
I was going to go for a "people living between Russia & Germany" angle, but your post is close enough to where I wanted to go...
Quote from: C.C.R. on February 27, 2010, 03:45:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 11:03:33 AM
What about Germans? Are they "natural disasters?" If so, did the Poles who died in WW2 "deserve it" for living in Poland, subject to German invasion?
I was going to go for a "people living between Russia & Germany" angle, but your post is close enough to where I wanted to go...
The argument against allowing people to build in, say, routine flood plains is strong enough, but "tornado prone" areas are simply too vast (and the chances of actually suffereing damage too small) to generalize from the specific. I live in central Virginia and have suffered damage from tornadoes! Did I "deserve it?" I don't think so.
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 03:51:41 AMWell, he was right. People who choose to live in natural-disaster-prone areas, especially when they do not buy an insurance policy, do not deserve to be helped with money from the taxes of people who either do not take the risk or hedged that risk by buying a policy. That kind of system, where benefits of risk taking are consumed by a risk taker - e.g. in the form of cheaper property in hurricane-infested area - but costs of risk taking are being socialized and shared by all players (like aid to people who did not buy a policy and now are homeless) is both immoral and provides wrong incentives. It is no different than bailout of risk-taking banks by the tax payer - only people get more teary eyed about idiots who build their house in a hurricane country and then get it blown to pieces, than Wall Street fat cats.
Similarly you could reason that if one choses to live next to Germans or Russians it's pretty much your own fault when they invade you and kill your people.
... you know, because know one's said that in this thread yet :lol:
I wonder what percentage of the world's population lives on the Ring of Fire. I wonder how many are insured.
Quote from: citizen k on February 27, 2010, 08:50:43 PM
I wonder what percentage of the world's population lives on the Ring of Fire. I wonder how many are insured.
If you buy insurance, do you suddenly "not deserve it?" What if you have determined that you will for sure buy insurance tomorrow, but the tornado hits today? Do you deserve it then? What if the tornado hits while you are on the way to the insurance broker to buy insurance? What if you are in the office and about to sign the paper when the tornado rips it out of your hand?
Bring in Unfrozen Caveman Talmudic Scholar!
Hannibal's point, which I agreed with, is that the risk of natural disasters should be privately born and not socialized. He never said anyone "deserved" to be hit by a tornado.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2010, 08:57:50 PM
Hannibal's point, which I agreed with, is that the risk of natural disasters should be privately born and not socialized. He never said anyone "deserved" to be hit by a tornado.
Maybe, but Hamilcar expressed a different view, as I recall it, and Marti is agreeing with the view as I (and others) recall it.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 09:24:18 PM
Maybe, but Hamilcar expressed a different view,
:face:
Quoteas I recall it, and Marti is agreeing with the view as I (and others) recall it.
What view do you recall that he expressed?
Wow we're talking about a post made 4 years ago by a poster whose name we don't remember
Maybe Languish really is DYEING
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2010, 09:45:43 PM
What view do you recall that he expressed?
That people zapped by tornadoes deserved it for living where people could be zapped by tornadoes.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 08:55:31 PM
Quote from: citizen k on February 27, 2010, 08:50:43 PM
I wonder what percentage of the world's population lives on the Ring of Fire. I wonder how many are insured.
If you buy insurance, do you suddenly "not deserve it?" What if you have determined that you will for sure buy insurance tomorrow, but the tornado hits today? Do you deserve it then? What if the tornado hits while you are on the way to the insurance broker to buy insurance? What if you are in the office and about to sign the paper when the tornado rips it out of your hand?
Bring in Unfrozen Caveman Talmudic Scholar!
:lol: Nice
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2010, 04:44:56 PM
The argument against allowing people to build in, say, routine flood plains is strong enough, but "tornado prone" areas are simply too vast (and the chances of actually suffereing damage too small) to generalize from the specific. I live in central Virginia and have suffered damage from tornadoes! Did I "deserve it?" I don't think so.
Well, sure, if you actually want to debate the topic. I know that at the time Hamilcar's post pissed me off immensely for the very reasons that you just posted. In retrospect, though, I look back fondly at that post being one of the top ten trolls of the decade. Fuck, we're *STILL* talking about it now...
:lol:
Hamilcars name is Kevin.
It was a troll, as was 99% of his extreme anti-smoking stance. Hamilcar was pretty good at the trolling IMO, because he so rarely gave the game away by going OTT.
Quote from: chipwich on February 27, 2010, 10:10:19 PM
Maybe Languish really is DYEING
its purple and Mart has a Bedazzler.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2010, 08:15:15 AM
Quote from: chipwich on February 27, 2010, 10:10:19 PM
Maybe Languish really is DYEING
its purple and Mart has a Bedazzler.
If Martinus saw someone carrying one of these, would he tackle them, or flit around them trying to show off how his choker and MacBook bring out his eyes?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgizmodo.com%2Fassets%2Fresources%2F2007%2F12%2FKittyRifle.jpg&hash=cd10cca107d744c13882d1f282f454849fbb17e9)
Quote from: C.C.R. on February 28, 2010, 12:51:48 AM
Well, sure, if you actually want to debate the topic. I know that at the time Hamilcar's post pissed me off immensely for the very reasons that you just posted. In retrospect, though, I look back fondly at that post being one of the top ten trolls of the decade. Fuck, we're *STILL* talking about it now...
Agree that it was a magnificent post, and I miss Hami. I didn't see his post at the time as a troll, because he
was an elitist (or, at least, playing one on the internet) and the whole "people who live in trailer parks deserve to die" approach fit right in with everything else.
Who's martinus and whom did he tackled?
There's nothing wrong with being an elitist.