Arafat's Fool

[ibrodsky]

Arafat’s Fool

by ibrodsky

From gingerly suggesting the Palestinians’ leader might be “compromised by terror” to putting his credibility on the line for a warmed over version of the failed Oslo Peace Process, George W. Bush has earned the title “Arafat’s Fool.”

Mind you, I am one of a growing minority of American Jews who aren’t programmed to vote straight Democrat. I consider Ronald Reagan the greatest President of the 20th century. I listen to and admire Rush Limbaugh. Though my parents’ generation practically conferred sainthood on Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to me he was just a socialist demagogue with enough good sense to fight evil rather than endeavor to “understand” it the way many of his political descendants try today.

When I first heard President Bush, who I voted for, refer to Arafat as “compromised by terror” I knew it was politics—the politics of our erstwhile European allies to be exact—that kept him from calling a spade a spade. Yaser Arafat is not “compromised by terror,” he is the Father of Modern Terrorism. Still, I saw President Bush’s policy of isolating and shunning Arafat as an important step in the right direction.

But then George W. ruined it.

Last year, he wisely embraced demands that the Palestinians choose new leaders committed to rule of law and democratic reforms. I was even willing to give the “road map” a chance—despite the fact that Europe and Russia, two powers with a distinguished record persecuting and exterminating Jews, had a hand in its design. After all, what matters most—particularly when dealing with the Palestinians’ treacherous leaders—is not the exact wording but how it is interpreted and enforced.

The first sign that things were going seriously wrong came when Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a., “Abu Mazen”), a Holocaust denier and founder of the Fatah terrorist group, emerged as the proposed leader of Palestinian reform. Abbas portrays himself as willing to make peace with Israel—provided “Israel” no longer includes its capital Jerusalem and agrees to be flooded with refugees intent on mass murdering Jews.

Still, I was willing to give the “road map” a try because it requires the Palestinians’ leaders fight the terrorist gangs. I believed George W. Bush had a well thought out plan to either force or bribe the new “Prime Minister” to do this. Perhaps a message was conveyed to Mahmoud Abbas informing him that continued support for terrorism, no matter how cleverly concealed, would not be tolerated and reminding him that the U.S. deposed Saddam Hussein’s iron-fisted dictatorship in a mere three weeks.

Then the next warning sign appeared. There was a brief power struggle between Arafat and Abbas. It ended with Abbas agreeing to a cabinet dominated by Arafat’s hand-picked men. Again, I was disturbed that the White House did not raise the red flag. However, I continued to believe George W. Bush knew exactly what was going on. Perhaps his strategy was to instigate a civil war between the various terrorist gangs that dominate Palestinian society.

I was rudely awakened when President Bush scolded Israel for attempting to kill Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, the Hamas racist who openly calls on Palestinians to kill any and every Jew they can get their hands on. How could George W. Bush, a man who drove the Taliban from power, destroyed Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan, and brought down Saddam Hussein condemn Israel for attempting to liquidate a man who is practically a moral replica of Osama bin Laden?

The hypocrisy is stunning. In Yemen, the U.S. used almost the exact same method—firing missiles from a helicopter at a car—to kill senior Al Qaeda members. The U.S. is also no stranger to causing unintended civilian casualties. In Iraq, U.S. forces did not hesitate to machine gun a van filled with women and children when the driver refused to stop at a checkpoint. The President understood then that Islamist terrorists purposely draw fire on Muslim civilians to reap the PR rewards of creating more “martyrs.”

Don’t get me wrong. I have not completely given up on President Bush. He was apparently so anxious to secure his “legacy” he was willing to sacrifice his principles. Hopefully, he learned that his principles are the only legacy that really matters. He is still better than most alternatives, and I will probably vote for him again.

But just because President Bush is afraid to say we are at war with Islamism (militant Islam), reluctant to call Arafat a terrorist, and willing to put an illusory “peace process” above fighting known terrorists, that doesn’t mean I have to go along. Arafat has made fools out of many politicians. He isn’t going to make a fool out of me.

[L@mplighterM]

During the campaign that led to Bush becoming president one of his promises were that he would not allow the US to become the policeman of the world. 9/11 brought a change in US foreign policy and we saw Bush deliver an ultimatum to Omar the supreme leader of the Taliban, it was rejected and Afghanistan was invaded by coalition forces.

Hussein also ignored a similar ultimatum and was removed from power along with the rest of the Iraqi leadership.

To some degrees the cancer was removed from those countries but it’s still festering in many countries.

Islamic Fundamentalism is driven by religious madmen that want to implement their interpretation of the Koran in the world. These evil individuals will not rest until each and every Jew is driven from the ME nor will they rest until each and every Jew is dead. They will not rest until the words of Allah as delivered to Mohammed are spoken in the four corners of the world.

We are at the threshold of a crisis that is treathening the civilization that we in the west know and treasure. Bush is not the world leader that will save us from Islam and perhaps it will be our destiny to crumble before its feet. The enemy is within and all around us there is no safe haven anymore nor will we ever breathe the sweet air of liberty again, those days are gone vanished into the memory of history.

What the world needs is a leader that will unite the Jews, Christians, Hindus and other religions and prepare them for the battle of all battles riding the world of Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists. Wherever they raise their evil heads they must be destroyed and unfortunately it isn’t happening now.

There is a right and wrong in this world and in the case of Israel targeting terrorist leaders is the right decision. In the case of Bush condemning such attacks he was wrong and now the Israelis will pay the price. They will pay the price because it shows support for evil when he issued that statement

[NewsGuy]

I agree with this article from ibrodsky.

President Bush is still a better presidential candidate choice than most Democrats, but when it comes to Israel and the war against terrorism, he has a spotty record at best.

The bright spot of the Bush policy has been to allow Israel a few days here and there to operate against the Islamic terror organizations. That's about it.

For the rest of the time, Bush's grandiose Texas-style anti-terrorism speeches have always conveyed his policy that terrorism is only a problem when it affects his presidency. Otherwise, Israel's fight for survival has been little more than a nuisance to Bush when forced to kowtow to America's European adversaries. Europe doesn't want to hear that terrorism needs to stop against Israelis. They want to ensure that they get big contracts with the Muslim world as a result of their being able to pressure the U.S. into paralyzing Israel's response to terrorism.

Bush's usual language of overlooking terrorism is often heard when a Palestinian suicide bomber murders and maims scores of Israelis. Bush goes on for his photo-op to declare that he will not be deterred by acts of terrorism. Well, of course he will not be deterred, because really, what does he care about a few hundred dead Israelis?

Until Bush overcomes the State Department's hypocrisy about terrorism, not only will America continue to lose the war overseas, but Islamic terror organizations, encouraged by Bush's tolerance of Palestinian terrorism, continue to plot their attacks right here in the U.S.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
They want to ensure that they get big contracts with the Muslim world as a result of their being able to pressure the U.S. into paralyzing Israel's response to terrorism.



So when all is said and done humans are an easily replaced commodity and don’t really matter much in the larger scope of things. A dozen victims of terrorism here and there don’t really matter all that much when all is said and done.

And by the way you described Bush to a T and I couldn’t have done better myself if I had tried.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by NewsGuy

Bush's usual language of overlooking terrorism is often heard when a Palestinian suicide bomber murders and maims scores of Israelis. Bush goes on for his photo-op to declare that he will not be deterred by acts of terrorism. Well, of course he will not be deterred, because really, what does he care about a few hundred dead Israelis?


A very good insight. I'm sure that President Bush is sincere when he condemns "in the strongest possible terms" mass murder attacks against Israelis. However...

He is always quick to add that he won't, and we shouldn't, let these attacks derail the "peace process."

He seems to understand quite clearly that our response to mass murder attacks by Al Qaeda must not be to condemn the attacks and immediately get back to some sort of "peace process." He understands we must capture or kill Al Qaeda members.

But when it comes to Israel, he acts like mass murder attacks are merely an annoyance--an attempt to disrupt his political agenda. Somehow, he doesn't seem to understand or care that Israelis are killed and maimed in these attacks, and that they too realize they must defeat terrorists.

This also reveals that President Bush has completely fallen for the Palestinian ruse of having leaders condemn terrorism attacks in English while encouraging them in Arabic. From their perspective, they can continue terrorist attacks against Israelis forever by simply claiming the attacks are the work of extreme and uncontrollable radicals who feed off the "occupation."

The good news is that Ariel Sharon has vowed to continue going after Hamas. However, he must be under extreme pressure to let Hamas agree to a "truce" which, he must know, would freeze Israel's ability to go after Hamas leaders and members. For Hamas, this is an opportunity to regroup. Further down the "peace process," they will no doubt come back with a vengeance, perhaps waiting until Israel lets its guard down.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
A dozen victims of terrorism here and there don’t really matter all that much when all is said and done.
Right, certainly not to grandstanding politicians from other countries.

Good to see you, Lamp.

[yoyo]

There may not be "an alternative" to Bush but I don't trust him. He is acting like a "wind vane" regarding terrorism. Saddam must go but Arafat must reform, Alquaeda is a terrorist organization not to deal with but the PLO have people "not compromised with terror": the likes of terrorist underchief Holocaust denier and financer of terror Abu Mazen.

My trust is not in Bush, it is probably with his voters, the Christian right would told him how to behave when he critisize Sharon for the Rantisi targetted killing.

He is also the FIRST president to commit personally to "an independant palestinian state" and "ending the occupation"publicly. Even Albright (which is not a very fan of Israel) told the UN that "we do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War as occupied Palestinian territory"

Really I have very little faith in him and his disgraceful father administration has been.

[L@mplighterM]

I’ve always been critical of Bush’s schizophrenic stance regarding Israel and its targeting of terrorists. Like ibrodsky and NewsGuy said earlier in this thread he’s not consistent with his statements. In some ways he reminds me of a frustrated father or mother trying to stop what they see as sibling rivalry.

Unfortunately the situation in the ME is more serious than parents attempting to establish order because whatever Bush says or doesn’t say are construed as a green light for terrorists to commit their dastardly deeds. I think that Israel has also removed their shackles based on Bush’s actions and made incursions into the WB and/or GS only to be told to disengage a few days later.

I’m not privy to what goes on behind the scenes in the State Department but perhaps there’s differing opinions how the situation should be handled and Bush becomes the puppet of whoever’s opinion he listened to that day. To some extent it appears as if Bush is trying to remain neutral to the situation but of course this is impossible and would have to be based on the premise that both parties are equally to blame. This is of course not the situation and if the problem is tackled from this angle it cannot be resolved.

Lets assume that a decision was reached by the major world powers to return the Palestinians to Jordan and Egypt immediately. What would happen then?
How much would world politics change if at all? It seems to me that would be the right decision considering all the circumstances of the matter. I think that would be the right situation because it’s impossible to determine who is and who isn’t a terrorist or a supporter. By the way Sharon must feel that he can sex the Palestinians because he was willing to open the borders to let Palestinians in there to work.

Of course there would be land issues that would have to be dealt with because I don’t think it would be fair to relocate without paying compensation. Bear in mind that there’s going to be claims in Iraq for land lost by Jews and of course the same holds true in other Arab states.

In any event if the road mad or anything that comes after that to resolve the situation ever becomes reality there’s going to be winners and losers.

[ibrodsky]

Except When You're Targeting Jews

by Jeffrey Dunetz

When I was in grade school, spelling traumatized me. I couldn't get the knack -- all those exceptions. "I" before "e" except after "c," except for weigh and weird. The rules have so many exceptions, that even the exceptions have exceptions. I still get heart palpations just thinking about it. That's probably why I studied international politics in college -- it's so much easier than spelling.

On the world political stage, there is only one exception and it's the same for each rule. It's called, "Except when you're targeting Jews." Let me explain how it works.

Take for example targeted assassinations, like the first lightning strike in the recent war against Saddam Hussein, which was followed up with more targeted strikes against Saddam, his sons, and others such as "Chemical Ali." These hits were hailed as masterstroke by the media. U.S. leaders said that they were instrumental in shortening the war.

On the other hand, when Israel pursues terrorist leaders with targeted strikes, they are criticized by the world community as excessive and provocative. That is because Exception #1 of World Politics states: Targeted killings of terrorists are okay, except when the terrorist is killing Jews.

Civilian casualties? This week, the Associated Press reported there were over 3,200 civilian deaths in the recent Iraq war. The United States government says as much as they have tried, civilian deaths are unavoidable because the Iraqi military is breaking the rules of Geneva Convention by deploying in civilian areas.

It was just a year ago that an Israeli Air Force jet dropped a bomb on a Gaza apartment building housing Salah Shehadeh, the commander of Hamas who had ordered scores of terrorist acts. In the bombing, 15 civilians perished. Israel was severely rebuked.

Obviously the IDF never read Exception #2 of World Politics: Civilian deaths are to be avoided, but cannot be criticized when the enemy is using civilians as human shields... except when you are targeting someone who is killing Jews.

There is another rule which relates to terrorism. Everyone knows that September 11 was terrorism, that the Bali nightclub was terror, that the airline shoe bomber was a terrorist. Terrorism is defined as "intentionally targeting civilians to advance a political cause." Simple, right?

But open up you local paper and see how perpetrators of the following attacks are described: bus bombing in Jerusalem, Seder massacre in Netanya, Bat Mitzvah shooting in Hadera, shopping mall bombing in Haifa. Instead of "terror," the media uses terms like "militant" and "activist."

Which brings us to Exception #3 of World Politics: Do not hesitate to call terrorists "terrorists" -- except when they're targeting Jews.

And then there's the whole issue of eliminating terror from our global landscape. After September 11, President Bush declared war on terrorists and "all who harbor them." The issue is black and white. There is no negotiating with terrorists. After the recent terror attacks in Saudi Arabia, Vice President Cheney declared, "The only way to deal with this threat ultimately is to destroy it. There's no treaty that can solve this problem. There's no peace agreement, no policy of containment or deterrence that works to deal with this threat. We have to go find the terrorists."

Throughout the 1990s, Yasser Arafat enjoyed full immunity, despite not arresting terrorists, stopping funding or confiscating weapons. Under his watchful eye (and often with his signature), Palestinian terror groups organized, trained, armed -- and killed hundreds. And now as the road map begins, Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas has declared that he will not forcibly disarm Hamas, preferring instead to work with them so that they agree to go along (temporarily) with the diplomatic route.

This week, faced with 53 separate terror alerts, Israel finally decided to take out Hamas co-founder and terror chief Abdel Aziz Rantisi. After the missile strike (which Rantisi narrowly escaped), world condemnation of the IDF was resounding; President Bush called Israel's action "troubling."

It highlighted Exception #4 of World Politics: Weed out and fight terrorism wherever you may find it... except if the terrorists are targeting Jews.

Without knowing these basic exceptions to the rules of world politics, how can anyone make sense of the Mideast situation? If only spelling were so easy...

Source:

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Except_When_Youre_Targeting_Jews.asp

[Mediocrates]

by Arutz-7 Editorial
June 18, 2003

Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio "http://www.IsraelNationalNews.com"

Dear President Bush,
Your chief political strategist, Mr. Karl Rove, will lead you to failure. His advice to you regarding your campaign for re-election in 2004 is bad advice, insofar as it involves selling out Israel in the international arena for political gain in the domestic Muslim community.

Karl Rove apparently believes that it was American Muslims who were responsible for your election to the presidency, and his strategy for 2004 seems to be to keep that constituency happy. Thanks to Rove and advisors like him, Mr. President, you have hosted in the White House Muslim leaders who support terrorist groups such as Hamas and who have called for a Jihad against America. And make no mistake: the moral cost of heeding Rove's campaign advice will ultimately translate into a political cost as well.

Center for Security Policy head Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., in an article for JewishWorldReview.com today, writes that Rove has no problem with allowing access to the White House for groups supportive of Hamas and Islamic Jihad - even though some of them have publicly expressed support for those engaged in "armed struggle" against Israel and the U.S. "No evidence of undesirable influence," said Rove about these groups.

Quoting Middle East Newsline, Gaffney says that Rove has been granted major input in U.S. foreign policy as part of an effort to prepare your reelection campaign in 2004 - and that Road Map issues were submitted for Rove's consideration. But the votes Rove seeks to gain in the Muslim community will never be won by kowtowing to immoral demands, and the Jewish vote, which began swinging towards your party thanks to your moral leadership, will remain where it was prior to September 11.

Furthermore, a policy of pressuring Israel to acquiesce to the demands of the Arab-Muslim world and to "share the Holy Land," as you put it, will drive away one of your key constituencies - evangelical Christians. The Center for Security Policy has released a new national poll indicating that a strong majority of Americans (72.7% to 18.0%) support the precondition on dismantling terror you laid out last June - and that among Christian conservatives, the result is even more dramatic (78.6% to 13.6%). To paraphrase one well-known Christian leader regarding evangelical support for Republican leadership: We have more faith in G-o-d than in G.O.P.

Your Road Map plan essentially abandons Israel to the terrorist leaders of the PLO, in their new incarnation as the Palestinian Authority, and requires the eviction of half-a-million Jews (250,000 in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and 240,000 in greater Jerusalem) from their homes in Israel. This, of course, is contrary to straightforward morality, to your own declaration of war on terror, and to the Biblical injunctions that motivate many of your traditional supporters.

Allow us, Mr. President, to tell you a story. In an allegory recorded in our Talmud, a man marries two wives - one young and one old. The young wife wants a young-looking husband, and so she plucks the man's graying hairs from his head. His other wife wants to have a more distinguished-looking husband, and consequently plucks out all of his still-black hairs. The unfortunate fellow, of course, ends up totally bald, having lost his hairs from both directions.

That is the type of political situation into which Karl Rove is leading you, Mr. President. You will lose support in the Christian and Jewish communities, while all of your pandering to Muslim interest groups by sacrificing Israel will avail you nothing. And thus, like your father before you when he followed the directions laid out by James Baker, you will not return to the White House.

Gaffney again makes it quite clear: "Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, the effort to curry favor with Islamists may not only be bad for the national security. It may jeopardize his political base without producing offsetting gains among Muslim voters and/or donors… American Muslim Council communications director Faiz Rehman [says]: 'There's no chance Muslims are going to vote for Mr. Bush [in 2004]."

For your own sake, for the sake of morality, and for the sake of your declared war on terrorism's masterminds, dismiss Karl Rove. You have no shortage of men and women of character in your administration. Seek out Vice-President Dick Cheney; consult with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. And most importantly, hear your inner voice, without letting it be muffled by misguided political advisors like Karl Rove.

We don't want to see you go bald, Mr. President, come 2004.


[If you agree with the content of this missive, please let the US Administration know:
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Fax: (202) 456-2461
email: president@whitehouse.gov

Also at the White House, Vice-President Richard Cheney
email: vice.president@whitehouse.gov

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000]

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
This also reveals that President Bush has completely fallen for the Palestinian ruse of having leaders condemn terrorism attacks in English while encouraging them in Arabic. From their perspective, they can continue terrorist attacks against Israelis forever by simply claiming the attacks are the work of extreme and uncontrollable radicals who feed off the "occupation."

One of the most noteworthy Palestinian ruses swallowed hook line and sinker by Bush (with the encouragement of the Arabist State Department) is the acceptance of Abu Mazen, even though he has repeatedly stated that Arafat is in control.

Before every meeting with the U.S. and foreign diplomats, Abu Mazen declares that he works for Arafat and speaks for Arafat, even though the U.S. has stated that it would not deal with... Arafat.

[yoyo]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Before every meeting with the U.S. and foreign diplomats, Abu Mazen declares that he works for Arafat and speaks for Arafat, even though the U.S. has stated that it would not deal with... Arafat.

Indeed, the White House have a disease called "selective hearing" but so does too many Israelis voters. Mazen said that he will not arrest or disrupt terrorists, he said he will not confiscate guns. Yet 66% of Israelis wants to give him "a chance" temporarely. It reminds me of what my friend in Kochav Yair told me: "I use to vote left, for years the left told us that we mistranslated, that they really didn't want to kill us, that it was a language barrier, now I vote Likud"

[L@mplighterM]

Powell criticized Israel (today) for targeting Hamas leaders his major complaint is the timing of these assassinations. I think its plain wrong for the US Administration to send mixed signals to the Arabs. I’ll take it one step further by saying that the US should be in there dealing with the Islamic terrorists if they don’t like the way that Israel deals with the matter.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Powell criticized Israel (today) for targeting Hamas leaders his major complaint is the timing of these assassinations. I think its plain wrong for the US Administration to send mixed signals to the Arabs. I’ll take it one step further by saying that the US should be in there dealing with the Islamic terrorists if they don’t like the way that Israel deals with the matter.

Yes, these remarks "regretting" Israel hunting down and capturing or killing mass murderers are reprehensible.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has decided that its foolish "road map" is more important than everything else. It's more important than the war against terrorism, and it's more important than the truth.

This is why Bush is even willing to pretend Arafat is "out of the picture." It really doesn't matter to him whether he is or isn't. It's the perception he cares about.

[L@mplighterM]

Once upon I had several chat pals in the EU and one by one they made remarks that I didn’t care for and so they dropped one by one. It’s hypocritical to make speeches stating that you’re hunting down terrorists and ridding the world of evil whilst you’re turning a blind eye to the actions of Hamas. I would even go as far as saying that by taking a stance like that you’re supporting terrorism

It seems to me that the Whitehouse is run in a schizophrenic fashion when it comes to fighting Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Just as Arafat has refused to condemn terrorism Bush has also avoided calling Islam a religion that does not promote peace.

Peace can’t be achieved by allowing imams, mullahs, sheiks, ayatollahs or terrorist leaders to call for terrorism. That must be stopped! These individuals have followers in the millions that are willing to do their bidding.

My gut feeling tells me that when it comes to terrorism we haven’t seen nothing yet the worst is yet to come. Islamic fundamentalism may even collapse western civilization sometimes in the future.

[Salim]

Want a good laugh in bad times?
Just have a look at this article.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/6085261.htm

Well, it really made me laugh, you just must love them. :)

[Mediocrates]

The Saudis Know How to Get Results


How do we get across to the American People that George W. Bush is no
different than his father in his relationship with Saudi Arabia? The Bush
Family has had close ties, both economically and otherwise, with the royal
family in Saudi Arabia for over 50 years. Working through the large
American corporations Bechtel and Halliburton, both of which helped develop
the whole Saudi enterprise, the Bush family has inextricably bound itself
to the Saudi royal family.

The anti-Semitism that Saudi Arabia spreads extensively was secretly
admired and not at all distasteful to Bush Sr. In fact, the Bush family
has had intricate ties with those responsible for bringing Hitler to power
in Germany. Bush Senior is well aware of the extensive monies the Saudis
pour into the United States, so that Arabs on campuses can propagate
anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda.

The influence former President Bush has on his son, the President of the
United States, is well known. It is significant that it was James Baker,
his father's Secretary of State, who came out of the woodwork to
successfully handle George W.'s claim to the presidency. Moreover, it was
because of Bush Senior and James Baker's influence on George W., that Colin
Powell was appointed as U.S. Secretary of State by the younger Bush. Bush
Sr. and James Baker seemingly installed Powell to watch over George
W. Bush, and to insure that the close ties with Saudi Arabia continue.

There is little question that Saudi Arabia has a despotic and
anti-democratic regime. The Saudi royal family expends a good deal of money
supporting Al Qaida and anti-American values in its world-wide
propaganda. Nevertheless, the Bush family ignores the influence of
Saudi's Ambassador on U.S. - Israel foreign policy. An article in the
New Yorker magazine on March 24, 2003, spells out in detail the manner in
which this is accomplished. This entire article can be emailed to you upon
request.

No one in high places in the U.S. Government escapes the well placed gifts
that the Saudis award indirectly. The Saudis have learned how to be
effective in this area.

In this insidious manner, the Saudis have found a sympathetic ear in the
Bush family. Their policy of excluding Jews from their own country, is
patently opposed to the basic principles of American
democracy. Notwithstanding, there is no word of criticism of the Saudis
emanating from either Powell or President George W. Bush. Moreover, the
proposals of Powell on the "Road Map" are indistinguishable from the Saudi
"peace plan". Powell or President Bush never mention the Saudi's barbaric
and anti-democratic practices in their own country. Nor was there any
action taken by America when the Saudis failed to help America during the
Iraqi war. Some day the true nature of the Saudi influence will be fully
revealed. Until then, America should be acting in its own true
self-interest. That self-interest should not be confused with what benefits
the Saudis.



Jerusalem, June 22, 2003 Ruth and Nadia Matar

=============================================
Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green)
POB 7352, Jerusalem 91072, Israel
Tel: 972-2-624-9887 Fax: 972-2-624-5380
mailto:michael@womeningreen.org
http://www.womeningreen.org
To contribute: https://host5.apollohosting.com/womeningreen/donation.html


To subscribe to the Women in Green list,
please send a blank email message to:
list4-subscribe@womeningreen.org

To unsubscribe from the Women in Green list,
please send a blank email message to:
list4-unsubscribe@womeningreen.org

[andak01]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Their policy of excluding Jews from their own country, is
patently opposed to the basic principles of American
democracy.

Incidently, I just came across the point at which this practice began in Karen Armstrong's short survey of Islam. Non-Muslims were allowed into Mecca and Medina from the time of the Prophet (SAW) and before until the fourteenth century. This was a reactionary period that was still reeling from the Mongol invasion. So it could fairly be said that this policy is also patently opposed to basic Islamic principles. Presumably Prophet Muhammad (SAW) upheld these principles and his own policy was to allow non-Muslims to live in Mecca and not to force Islam on its inhabitants.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by andak01
Incidently, I just came across the point at which this practice began in Karen Armstrong's short survey of Islam. Non-Muslims were allowed into Mecca and Medina from the time of the Prophet (SAW) and before until the fourteenth century. This was a reactionary period that was still reeling from the Mongol invasion. So it could fairly be said that this policy is also patently opposed to basic Islamic principles. Presumably Prophet Muhammad (SAW) upheld these principles and his own policy was to allow non-Muslims to live in Mecca and not to force Islam on its inhabitants.
So, in effect you are saying that we are the benefactors of 700 years of aberrant islamic behavior which really shouldn't be held against the "real" muslims?

Since andak has me on his "ignore list", this comment may "hang in the ether" as though it had never been.

Sigh.......................

[Communication]

Originally posted by andak01
Incidently, I just came across the point at which this practice began in Karen Armstrong's short survey of Islam. Non-Muslims were allowed into Mecca and Medina from the time of the Prophet (SAW) and before until the fourteenth century. This was a reactionary period that was still reeling from the Mongol invasion. So it could fairly be said that this policy is also patently opposed to basic Islamic principles. Presumably Prophet Muhammad (SAW) upheld these principles and his own policy was to allow non-Muslims to live in Mecca and not to force Islam on its inhabitants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, in effect you are saying that we are the benefactors of 700 years of aberrant islamic behavior which really shouldn't be held against the "real" muslims?

[Johnny Yuma]

Funny thing about totalitarian regimes. They always seem to want to take a leap w a a a y back into their history and pull out what they consider to be their golden age, and drag it along, kicking and screaming, into some science fiction-like post modern version of the same thing. The NAZIS did it. The Stalinists did it. The Fascists did it. Imperial Japan did it.

The goal, tedius and boring as it always has been, is always the same: A neat and tidy place for everyone and everything, and everyone and everything in its place, with a supreme ruler, along with a privileged few, over all. In short, a totalitarian state with no messy dissent.

And who are the latest visioneers of totalitarianism? Yep! You guessed it! Islamicists. And what do they want? Surprisingly, even though every other one has failed, they want the same damned thing, and are making the fatal error that every other one has made, albeit usually at the end; they turned into a culture of death.

Do they want to be like the Nordics? No.... Do they want to be like the conquering Romans? No.... Do they want to be like the Kamakura Shoganate? No.... They want to resurrect the 7th Century Caliphate, the scourge of the infidels, and sit on rocks with their lap top computers and satellite phones, directing those who are willing to die for their leaders, and bring the golden age of Islam into a "modern" Islamic world under the Sha'ria law.

Guess what? It ain't gonna work, kids.... It never does...

More communists were killed by other communists, under Stalin, than by any other group. The higher you got in the communist party, the closer you came to your own death.... The same thing was true of the NAZI party; the higher you got, the more likely some person scratching their way to the top behind you, or above you, would off you. The same thing is already happening in the Islamicist paradigm.

So I pose this question: How many Muslims have been killed by Muslims, as opposed to being killed by non-Muslims? I would venture to say at least a magnitude more. And who killed Sadat? Who killed Qadir? How many times have they tried to kill Karzai? How long will Mohammed Yasser Abdul-Ra'ouf Qudwa Al-Husseini, or Mahmoud Abbas/Abu Mazen, last, when they've worn out their usefullness, or someone in Hamas decides they've sold out?

The world ignored all those previous totalitarian regimes, for a time, whether through fear, or ignorance, or indifference/apathy/cowardice? But eventually, the world girded itself up and put an end to their tired a$$ed dreams of ruling the world.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Communication
So, in effect you are saying that we are the benefactors of 700 years of aberrant islamic behavior which really shouldn't be held against the "real" muslims?

"Real" Muslims, all Muslims are people inclined to the same weaknesses and strengths as all people. You will find saints and sinners among us. Islam itself is a message which, like the message of Judaeism and that of Jesus (SAW) comes from God. Just as you will find KKK members that quote from the Bible or gang members that tatoo Christ's image to their backs prior to committing drive by shootings, so we find among one fifth of the world's population those who use the name of Islam to commit acts of oppression and hatred. These concepts were around in plentiful supply long before the birth of Islam and they exist an places where no Muslim has ever set foot. We have at present two genocidal civil wars going on in Liberia and the Congo and Christian based cannibal sects in Uganda for example.

[kauffner]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Funny thing about totalitarian regimes. They always seem to want to take a leap w a a a y back into their history and pull out what they consider to be their golden age, and drag it along, kicking and screaming, into some science fiction-like post modern version of the same thing. The NAZIS did it. The Stalinists did it. The Fascists did it. Imperial Japan did it.

It isn't just totalitarian regimes that do this. America's founding fathers saw the U.S. as successor to the Roman Republic. You can see this in the use of the word "senate," Washington's Neoclassical architecture, and the choice of the eagle as a symbol. Modern Israel has the same sort of relationship with ancient Israel. The French glorify the pre-Roman period and French education famously begins with a passage about "Our ancestors, the Gauls." (Anything more recent is apparently too controversial.)

[andak01]

I have been watching a very interesting show on PBS about Queen Victoria's Empire. There were anti-Imperialist, humanist voices at that time, Prince Albert and Gladstone among them. Unfortunately, the drive for economic gain outstipped ethics and we end up with horrors like Cecil Rhodes men firing machine guns and mowing down the natives in order to control the diamond mines or Indians being strapped to cannons and blown to bits. This is the true face of barbarism disguised as the white man's "duty". True civilization demands cultural diversity and diplomacy, not hegemony and oppression.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by kauffner
It isn't just totalitarian regimes that do this. America's founding fathers saw the U.S. as successor to the Roman Republic. You can see this in the use of the word "senate," Washington's Neoclassical architecture, and the choice of the eagle as a symbol. Modern Israel has the same sort of relationship with ancient Israel. The French glorify the pre-Roman period and French education famously begins with a passage about "Our ancestors, the Gauls." (Anything more recent is apparently too controversial.)

But the subject is totalitarian regimes that expand to take over the world, not those that go after them. BTW, Americans aren't sitting around in togas; well, unless it's a frat party. But since you brought up France, thank you. Napoleonic France experienced precisely what I'm talking about.

As an aside: If you do a little more delving into the motivation and mindset of the founding fathers of America, you may discover that they were almost all Masons, and much of what you may interpret as strictly Roman, in the architecture and governmental structure, is actually extracted from the Masonic teachings. However, since I'm precluded from going into the details, because of my obligations, you'll just have to research it for yourself.

[Revkha]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
The Saudis Know How to Get Results


How do we get across to the American People that George W. Bush is no
different than his father in his relationship with Saudi Arabia?


An interesting story was reported in the St. Petersburg Times (Florida) about 4-6 months after 9/11. There were several members of the Saudi royal family enrolled as students at the University of Tampa in the fall of 2001. On 9/11 when all planes were ordered grounded (except for Air Force One), there was one plane that was allowed to fly. It flew to Tampa and picked up the members of the royal family from the University of Tampa. Then it flew to Lexington, Kentucky to pick up other family members who were in Lexington to purchase horses. The plane then departed to the Boston area where it picked up some members of the Bin Laden family and from there it flew to Saudi Arabia. The sources for the story were Americans who were hired to protect the Saudis specifically on that day.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by andak01
"Real" Muslims, all Muslims are people inclined to the same weaknesses and strengths as all people. You will find saints and sinners among us. Islam itself is a message which, like the message of Judaeism and that of Jesus (SAW) comes from God. Just as you will find KKK members that quote from the Bible or gang members that tatoo Christ's image to their backs prior to committing drive by shootings, so we find among one fifth of the world's population those who use the name of Islam to commit acts of oppression and hatred. These concepts were around in plentiful supply long before the birth of Islam and they exist an places where no Muslim has ever set foot. We have at present two genocidal civil wars going on in Liberia and the Congo and Christian based cannibal sects in Uganda for example.

but who decides what's real and what isn't, what is dictated by the koran and what isn't etc., and how do we, as outsiders deal with all those who claim that action X or Y is a religious obligation. Like the veil, for example, which is clearly an oppressive tool which has been internalized as a sign of virtue - just like Hassidics wearing black (because they were forced to do so in the ghettos - only the gentiles were allowed to wear bright colours). Does that mean that it would be Ok, for example, for the government to not permit females to wear a veil?

I think the difference is that the KKK and the like do not seem to speak for all white christians, while, on the other hand, the extremists DO appear to speak for Islam. Like the fatwa on Salman Rushdie or the spoutings of the wahhabiists.

I'm not saying Islam created any of these things, and I think most people would support me in this, but what i am saying is that the Muslim religion, especially in the Arab world, has been co-opted by a bunch of ideological nuts and religious zelots. this happened a long time ago. So long, in fact, that harkening back to some good old days is no longer legitimate. It is not possible to go back to some pristine sanitized tolerant version of Islam. the only thing that is possible is modernization, reformization adn secularization - the "corrupters" of Islam, if you will, will never, of course, allow this to happen, and will continue to speak for Islam and Muslims. just like CAIR, which seems to be a perfect example of how the extremists have co-opted the religion to the point where the original message or religion is gone.

And the wars in Africa that you spoke of are not really religiously motivated, unlike in the Sudan or Nigeria, where the Muslims have been trying their best to oppress the Christians and impose Shari on them. There is a substantive difference between secular conflicts where those involved have a religion and conflicts that, in large part, have their foundations in religion, religious interpretations and the like.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by andak01
I have been watching a very interesting show on PBS about Queen Victoria's Empire. There were anti-Imperialist, humanist voices at that time, Prince Albert and Gladstone among them. Unfortunately, the drive for economic gain outstipped ethics and we end up with horrors like Cecil Rhodes men firing machine guns and mowing down the natives in order to control the diamond mines or Indians being strapped to cannons and blown to bits. This is the true face of barbarism disguised as the white man's "duty". True civilization demands cultural diversity and diplomacy, not hegemony and oppression.
Well, I can always count on andak to show up and equate any travesty in history which he can dredge up to equate to the current situation, in hope of lessening any intensity that the rest of us might feel about the barbarities that are being perpetrated by "you know who" in the present day.

I wonder if he actually thinks we will feel so guilty about some unrelated past events that we will give islamofascism a pass?

I continue to speak in the third person as I remain on his "ignore list".

Thank you Communication for "relaying" my reply above. Had he known that I was the author, he would not have been so easy going in his reply and, doubtlessly, would have had his "anti-MichaelC" signature activated.

[Revkha]

Originally posted by Canajew

I'm not saying Islam created any of these things, and I think most people would support me in this, but what i am saying is that the Muslim religion, especially in the Arab world, has been co-opted by a bunch of ideological nuts and religious zelots. this happened a long time ago. So long, in fact, that harkening back to some good old days is no longer legitimate. It is not possible to go back to some pristine sanitized tolerant version of Islam. the only thing that is possible is modernization, reformization adn secularization - the "corrupters" of Islam, if you will, will never, of course, allow this to happen, and will continue to speak for Islam and Muslims. just like CAIR, which seems to be a perfect example of how the extremists have co-opted the religion to the point where the original message or religion is gone.


Nicholas Kristof in an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times today http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/24/opinion/24KRIS.html
reports that the Islamic fundamentalists may have won the war in Iraq and he refers to a iron curtain that may be falling over Iraq with repercussions for women. More women are feeling pressure to begin wearing the veil. Shopkeepers are posting signs encouraging women to cover their hair. Christians who sell alcohol are being attacked and forced out of business. This practice may not be widespread in Iraq yet but it could spread in the right climate. Kristof refers to a possible future Iraq as being Iran Lite.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by andak01
I have been watching a very interesting show on PBS about Queen Victoria's Empire. There were anti-Imperialist, humanist voices at that time, Prince Albert and Gladstone among them. Unfortunately, the drive for economic gain outstipped ethics and we end up with horrors like Cecil Rhodes men firing machine guns and mowing down the natives in order to control the diamond mines or Indians being strapped to cannons and blown to bits. This is the true face of barbarism disguised as the white man's "duty". True civilization demands cultural diversity and diplomacy, not hegemony and oppression.


So we have a bunch of natives playing peaknuckle and all of sudden they end up being shot by Rhodes men. I wonder what else is missing in your redention of history. Further I’m certain that if indeed natives were blown to bits by cannons then they deserved it.

[andak01]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
So we have a bunch of natives playing peaknuckle and all of sudden they end up being shot by Rhodes men. I wonder what else is missing in your redention of history. Further I’m certain that if indeed natives were blown to bits by cannons then they deserved it.

I know, I know, they had the audacity to defend their lands from people with better weapons who claimed the land and made slaves of the survivors. Might makes right and the weak deserve what they get??? I don't buy it. It might make one man or even a generation rich, but the damage they do has to be bourn by future generations.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Canajew
but who decides what's real and what isn't, what is dictated by the koran and what isn't etc., and how do we, as outsiders deal with all those who claim that action X or Y is a religious obligation.

Start by recognizing that there are a plethora of motivations political, cultural and religious that drive the world's Muslims. Even the Muslims who claim to want hegemony would have to kill 98% of the other Muslims to achieve the type of hegemony they want. There are Muslim humanists, spiritualists and great intellectuals as well.

Like the veil, for example, which is clearly an oppressive tool which has been internalized as a sign of virtue - just like Hassidics wearing black (because they were forced to do so in the ghettos - only the gentiles were allowed to wear bright colours).

I don't see anything oppressive about the veil, so long as it is voluntary. Nuns are not forced to wear their habits and nobody in my family, either here or in Morocco is forced to wear a hijab. Still, some do and wouldn't have it any other way.

Does that mean that it would be Ok, for example, for the government to not permit females to wear a veil?

That is already largely the case in Turkey. Women in the universities are forbidden to wear a veil and men are forbidden to wear beards.

I think the difference is that the KKK and the like do not seem to speak for all white christians, while, on the other hand, the extremists DO appear to speak for Islam. Like the fatwa on Salman Rushdie or the spoutings of the wahhabiists.

Did you know that Khatami rescended the fatwa against Rushdie?
http://publishersweekly.reviewsnews.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA166083&publication=publishersweekly
http://www.ishipress.com/fatwa.htm


I'm not saying Islam created any of these things, and I think most people would support me in this, but what i am saying is that the Muslim religion, especially in the Arab world, has been co-opted by a bunch of ideological nuts and religious zelots.

The squeaky hinge gets the oil. Or in this case, the squeaky hinge loses the oil.

this happened a long time ago. So long, in fact, that harkening back to some good old days is no longer legitimate. It is not possible to go back to some pristine sanitized tolerant version of Islam. the only thing that is possible is modernization, reformization adn secularization - the "corrupters" of Islam, if you will, will never, of course, allow this to happen, and will continue to speak for Islam and Muslims.[quote]

Pious Muslims, like the pious of other religions tend to be soft spoken. We don't remember Mother Theresa for her firebrand speeches.

[quote]just like CAIR, which seems to be a perfect example of how the extremists have co-opted the religion to the point where the original message or religion is gone.



And the wars in Africa that you spoke of are not really religiously motivated, unlike in the Sudan or Nigeria, where the Muslims have been trying their best to oppress the Christians and impose Shari on them.

I would prefer if you said "their" Sharia. This is a Sharia where the wealthy and men go free and the poor women bear the brunt of brutal punishments. There is a large tribal element to the conflict that goes largely unreported. The Hausas and the Yorubas don't require religion to kill each other in the street. And the fact that one of the great oil reserves of the world runs beneath their feet does nothing to ameliorate things. Nothing like the barbarians running amok to excuse external incursions. Look how blissfully we ignore the Congo and Liberia (except as a flag to fly on our cruise ships).

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/34a/076.html

There is a substantive difference between secular conflicts where those involved have a religion and conflicts that, in large part, have their foundations in religion, religious interpretations and the like.

From what I've seen in the past century or too, religious conflicts tend to no more bloody than secular ones. Secularism doesn't even bother to deny how many people it kills. The assumption is simply that these Red Skins, these Darkies, these Spear chuckers, these Chinee simply got in the way of progress. Colateral damage, even when it stacks up into the millions.

[Communication]

What was I going to say? Oh yeah, damnnnnnn......

[Communication]

You know, andak, all three of the world's monotheistic religions are tribal. There's really no point in trying to pretend that's not the case. Even the hindus are tribal, and thus exclusionary now that the religion has gone nationalistic. I like your Iman (am I getting that correct?). He appears to be a good man who has given you excellent training. And I don't think that you're the only good Mulsim out there. There's ayesha, so that makes two. I don't care that Jews no longer have homes in Mecca and Medina. I'm a little more upset about the historic Jewish communities that have vanished from places like Moracco, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc...But what can you do? Move forward I suppose.

[Communication]

More back on topic for this thread...

In case you don't know already, the SF Chronicle happens to have one of the most liberal POVs in the US. So I was surprised when they reported this:


Arafat raised $2.5 million from Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy to finance continued terror attacks against Israel in an effort to undermine Abbas.

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/06/23/MN285456.DTL

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by andak01
I know, I know, they had the audacity to defend their lands from people with better weapons who claimed the land and made slaves of the survivors. Might makes right and the weak deserve what they get??? I don't buy it. It might make one man or even a generation rich, but the damage they do has to be bourn by future generations.


Their Land?

That really depends how you define their land and it seems to me that there’s no way that they would know how to hollow out a mountain to search for diamonds, gold and other minerals. Rhodes and his men had every right to be where they where and they also had every right to defend themselves against aggression.

I think the white culture has done a lot for Africans and they continue to do so.

I think you have a vivid imagination when it comes to the issue of slaves but this isn’t the time and place to discuss African history.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Communication
More back on topic for this thread...

In case you don't know already, the SF Chronicle happens to have one of the most liberal POVs in the US. So I was surprised when they reported this:


Arafat raised $2.5 million from Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy to finance continued terror attacks against Israel in an effort to undermine Abbas.

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/06/23/MN285456.DTL


....they probably didn't say it was a bad thing....

[andak01]

Originally posted by Communication
You know, andak, all three of the world's monotheistic religions are tribal. There's really no point in trying to pretend that's not the case. Even the hindus are tribal, and thus exclusionary now that the religion has gone nationalistic. I like your Iman (am I getting that correct?). He appears to be a good man who has given you excellent training. And I don't think that you're the only good Mulsim out there. There's ayesha, so that makes two. I don't care that Jews no longer have homes in Mecca and Medina. I'm a little more upset about the historic Jewish communities that have vanished from places like Moracco, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc...But what can you do? Move forward I suppose.

Religions are what they are. Islam has a tendency to look backwards, but we look backwards to Abraham. Islam was intended to have a global message. If it had really been entirely spread by the sword as is often portrayed, people would have dropped it at the first opportunity.

We contemporary Muslims owe it to posterity to be ambassadors of our faith. That doesn't mean simply rolling over when we are attacked, but it does mean seriously trying to access the realities of the world from a perspective of justice and tolerance. Our American founding fathers opened the door to revolutionary change of government in the case of unjust regiems, yet made it clear that this was an extremis solution. Jihad should also be looked upon as an extremis solution to protect the Muslim ummah from distruction, but not to be entered into lightly or for purposes of gain.

[Mil]

Posted by Andak:




Our American founding fathers opened the door to revolutionary change of government in the case of unjust regiems,


Our founding fathers were driven by idiocy coming from a specific regime sitting a thousand miles away from their shores.


yet made it clear that this was an extremis solution.


Who said that? Washington?


Jihad should also be looked upon as an extremis solution to protect the Muslim ummah from distruction, but not to be entered into lightly or for purposes of gain.


That's exactly the reason Jihad has been used by many in the leadership of the Arab world for striclty political purposes in the past 60 years in order to involve the uneducated, poor and religious Arab masses in power struggles, civil wars, nation rivalries, and geopolitical conquests..... I guess it's typical part of Arab nationalism or rather ideology behind even the most secular of Arab political movements as Baath or Nasserism. Aflaq - the founder of Baath - who was Christian himself has clearly recognized that this political movement would not have any wide-support without a strong emphasys on strictly Islamic values.

[Communication]

Originally posted by andak01
Religions are what they are. Islam has a tendency to look backwards, but we look backwards to Abraham. Islam was intended to have a global message. If it had really been entirely spread by the sword as is often portrayed, people would have dropped it at the first opportunity.

We contemporary Muslims owe it to posterity to be ambassadors of our faith. That doesn't mean simply rolling over when we are attacked, but it does mean seriously trying to access the realities of the world from a perspective of justice and tolerance. Our American founding fathers opened the door to revolutionary change of government in the case of unjust regiems, yet made it clear that this was an extremis solution. Jihad should also be looked upon as an extremis solution to protect the Muslim ummah from distruction, but not to be entered into lightly or for purposes of gain.

Hey,

I like how you hedged your statement by saying that Islam wasn't spread entirely by the sword. It was pretty much universal practice among pagan cultures to take on the god(s) of the conquering nation, since their very defeat symbolized that their god was inferior. It worked for Christianity too. But somehow building those churches on top of the ruins of the old pagan temples didn't manage to wipe out all of the previous cultures, and often you ended up with two cultures fused in some interesting way. You've stated yourself that Islam is very diverse. I see a lot of similarities with Judaism in your Islam. In addition to cultural differences, you stated yourself...politics manipulates religion. Some people say they are one and the same. But my last post was mainly in reaction to a particular statement of yours:

"True civilization demands cultural diversity and diplomacy, not hegemony and oppression."

That's a very American way of thinking. I don't think that it's neccessarily "Muslim," to the extent that the two can be seperated. There are a lot of Jews who are humanists too, although humanism isn't something that's "authentically" Jewish.

The fact that the message of Islam was meant to be global, or the fact that Islamic culture leverages other cultures, doesn't prevent it from being tribal. Islam still segregates believers from non-believers, especially in the world to come, but also in regard to achieving spiritual enlightenment in this world. Do non-belivers even have a share in the world to come?

[andak01]

Originally posted by Mil
Who said that? Washington?


I suggest you read the Declaration of Independance. That's what I was referring to. If Patriot Act II goes into effect, anyone harboring such ideals will be apt to lose their citizenship.

Jihad should also be looked upon as an extremis solution to protect the Muslim ummah from distruction, but not to be entered into lightly or for purposes of gain.


That's exactly the reason Jihad has been used by many in the leadership of the Arab world for striclty political purposes in the past 60 years in order to involve the uneducated, poor and religious Arab masses in power struggles, civil wars, nation rivalries, and geopolitical conquests..... I guess it's typical part of Arab nationalism or rather ideology behind even the most secular of Arab political movements as Baath or Nasserism.

This is something that should be better understood. These people spouting religion are the antithesis of it. You only hear them crying out when they want to kill someone, not when they want to provide human kindness or charity.

Aflaq - the founder of Baath - who was Christian himself has clearly recognized that this political movement would not have any wide-support without a strong emphasys on strictly Islamic values.

And in South America, it has been a politicized Christian clergy that have led revolutionary movements there. One has to appeal to the masses with a paradigm they understand. In WWII Japan, it was Zen Buddhism that paved the way to suicide warfare and the rape of Nanking. Religion is a tool, which like any other can be used for good or evil ends.

[Mil]

Posted by Andak:


This is something that should be better understood. These people spouting religion are the antithesis of it. You only hear them crying out when they want to kill someone, not when they want to provide human kindness or charity.


Apparently they always want to kill someone then. The concept of Arab unity from its early start in the forties, to UAR, to Arab Union, and the Arab League, to all the other attempts - had only a few uniting factors: Religion (culture), Israel and common geopolitical platform. Not to mention that all the forces opposing any rise of secularism, democracy or any social reform movements for that matter all had a relationship to strong Islamic fundamentalists as all those "Muslim Brotherhood" movements. The same movements that were organized into malitias or rather terrorist groups and used quite successful by one regime vs. the other. I really love the sagas of Assad of Syria vs. King Hussein of Jordan both supporting Islamic religious groups against each other to do a extensive blood-letting. All while using very strong Islamic language to promote their political standing.





And in South America, it has been a politicized Christian clergy that have led revolutionary movements there.


You think South America is an example? Try Europe for a size about 300 - 400 years ago. Same idiocy.


One has to appeal to the masses with a paradigm they understand.


I totally agree, however, in no way does this promote secular government on the contrary it digs a grave-hole for the regimes as the modern history of ME has shown.


In WWII Japan, it was Zen Buddhism that paved the way to suicide warfare and the rape of Nanking. Religion is a tool, which like any other can be used for good or evil ends.


Welcome to history 101. The problem that I have is that while South American example is good the Middle East has WMD and its regimes are quite hostile not only to the West and Israel but also toward each other and within each other. Sunnis are against Shiites, who are against the Druze, who don't like the Alawis, who despise the beduins, he really hate the Maronites, who direspect the Kurds, who cannot stand the Persians and the Hashemites and etc.... Islam in ME has created a very scary political climate that runs along religious and ethnic lines making groups and entire countries to gather at each other. May be three hundred years ago you would not care about such infighting but right now with the WMDs, and huge armies all massed against each other and big economic importance of the region to the world this is simply unacceptable.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by andak01
And in South America, it has been a politicized Christian clergy that have led revolutionary movements there. One has to appeal to the masses with a paradigm they understand. In WWII Japan, it was Zen Buddhism that paved the way to suicide warfare and the rape of Nanking. Religion is a tool, which like any other can be used for good or evil ends.
Always hoping and, no doubt praying, that you can find some religion, somewhere, that looks as bad as islam so that maybe you can convince us that islam is really just a bunch of sweethearts who would never scream, "allahu akbar" while blowing up women, kids, and, well......you know, whoever.

I am well aware that in the murky depths of history when most empires lopped off heads, etc, to get what they wanted, that armies went into battle under the banners of Christendom. And that across history whenever people engaged in battle, they prayed to their gods.

But here we are in the 21st century, (some of us!), and muslims are murdering folks right and left while leaving no doubt in the mind of any that they are doing it for allah, indeed reveling in the slaughter because they think they are allah's special little pets for cleansing the world of infidels.

Whatever vague connections of religion to slaughter that may be made concerning faiths other than islam are as nothing compared to the direct relation that islamic terrorists proudly boast of in our present age.

Your attempts to dredge up whatever religious inspiration may or may not have driven the conflicts of history in order to cast the present day atrocities of muslim terrorism in, what?, a better light?, demonstrates your desperation to change the subject. That is not so easily done as no one but muslims fight and kill while singing their god's praises, thus keeping it fresh in eveyone's mind just who is racking up a body count for their deity THESE days.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by andak01
Religion is a tool, which like any other can be used for good or evil ends.
We agree on something.

Girl dies during circumcision, surgeons charged
Egypt's prosecutor charged two surgeons with negligence on 20 July after an 11-year-old girl died while they were circumcising her, security sources said.
They said the surgeons, who performed the operation on 19 July, told the prosecutor that Mona Abdel Hafez Fadloun had died after she developed an allergy to an antibiotic injection and not because of the circumcision.
Forensic experts are examining the body to determine the cause of death, the sources said. The unnamed surgeons were released after paying bail. They will be called for further questioning.
Female circumcision, usually performed on pre-pubescent girls, is common in Egypt although it is banned by a Ministry of Health decree.
It involves cutting part or all of the clitoris and other genitalia and is known as genital mutilation because of the severe forms it often takes. Side-effects include sexual dysfunction and hemorrhage.
Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, sheikh of Al Azhar, the Sunni Muslim world's most prestigious seat of learning, has said the practice is un-Islamic, but other clerics favor it, basing their case on an unauthenticated saying of the Prophet Mohammed.

Reuters

[Johnny Yuma]

James Brown sang- This is a man's world.


He should have been singing - This is a Muslim man's world.

Guidance For The Muslim Wife (http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/gmwife01.htm)

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by andak01
We contemporary Muslims owe it to posterity to be ambassadors of our faith. That doesn't mean simply rolling over when we are attacked, but it does mean seriously trying to access the realities of the world from a perspective of justice and tolerance. Our American founding fathers opened the door to revolutionary change of government in the case of unjust regiems, yet made it clear that this was an extremis solution. Jihad should also be looked upon as an extremis solution to protect the Muslim ummah from distruction, but not to be entered into lightly or for purposes of gain.

BreakPoint with Charles Colson
Commentary #011015 - 10/15/2001
A View from the Afghan Border

After the September 11 terrorist attacks, I dismissed those responsible as simply anarchists. Serious Muslims, I argued, don't frequent strip joints and bars.

I was wrong. My eyes were opened in a conversation at the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary board meeting with fellow board member Christie Wilson, III. Christie grew up in Afghanistan where his parents were missionaries and he continues to be active in ministry to Muslims.

On September 11, Christie was on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. He heard about the attacks in the home of a Muslim friend who was watching the television coverage. Christie saw and heard the reactions of Afghans and Pakistanis firsthand. Some were deeply sympathetic. Others
danced for joy in the streets. We are seeing, said Christie, a major power struggle within Islam with serious implications for the entire world. There are, he said, two main sects within Islam -- the Sunnis (the 90 percent majority), and the Shi'ites. After the death of Muhammad in A.D.
632, four rulers, or caliphs, divided the leadership of Muhammad's religious state. Sunnis believe that all four were legitimate. Shi'ites believe that only one, Ali, was the legitimate successor. The result is a deep schism within the Muslim world over Islamic law and spiritual authority. Radical Sunnis -- including bin Laden, the Taliban, and the terrorist network -- are now stirring up unrest in the Arab world and beyond. Bin Laden is not engaged in terror for terror's sake, but is cultivating his role as the leader of the radical Sunnis. Bin Laden's plan is to arouse anti-Western passions and bring radical elements to leadership throughout the Muslim world. In an October 7 broadcast, bin Laden said, "I tell them that these events have divided the world into two camps, the camp of the faithful and the camp of infidels. . . . Every Muslim
must rise to defend his religion." The moderate Sunnis in places like Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait could be deposed by an uprising of radical groups who buy into bin Laden's utopian vision of a single, unified Islamic state. If bin Laden can stir up firebrands in those countries, he can topple them. He will then consolidate power among radical Sunnis which will be the next step to an all-out Muslim jihad against the West. The Islamic worldview denies the sinfulness of man, which gives rise to utopian visions: If man is corrupted by society, then those who come to power can create the perfect society by strictly enforcing Islamic law. I hasten to add this is not a view most Muslims hold, but make no mistake, bin Laden is seeking to change that. If bin Laden succeeds, the consequences for the world would be catastrophic.
This is, as President Bush said, a war with very high stakes. And this is why the president has built a coalition of support for the U.S., including moderate Muslims. The stage is being set by bin Laden, however, for a major confrontation between the West and Islam.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by andak01
Incidently, I just came across the point at which this practice began in Karen Armstrong's short survey of Islam. Non-Muslims were allowed into Mecca and Medina from the time of the Prophet (SAW) and before until the fourteenth century. This was a reactionary period that was still reeling from the Mongol invasion. So it could fairly be said that this policy is also patently opposed to basic Islamic principles. Presumably Prophet Muhammad (SAW) upheld these principles and his own policy was to allow non-Muslims to live in Mecca and not to force Islam on its inhabitants.

BreakPoint with Charles Colson
Commentary #011018 - 10/18/2001
Understanding Islam and Tolerance

In nearly every discussion about Islam we're told
that Islam is, among other things, a "tolerant"
religion.

Is Islam really a tolerant faith? According to some
historians, the historical record is far from clear
on this score.

One example of Islam's tolerance that is often cited
is the treatment of Jews and Christians living in
Islamic societies. We are told that Jews and
Christians were freer to practice their faith in
places like medieval Baghdad and Southern Spain than
Jews were in Christian Europe.

Now there's no denying Christians weren't as tolerant
as they should have been. But this characterization
of Islam's treatment of Jews and Christians, is,
according to historian Bat Ye'or, "a radical
distortion of what happened." In her book "The Decline
of Eastern Christianity Under Islam," the Egyptian-
born Ye'or says that Islam's regard for its Christian
subjects could best be described as one of contempt.

How could be it otherwise? As she reminds us, Islam's
spread was the product of a "military conquest," not
peaceable conversions. The degree of massacre,
enslavement, and other brutality exceeded any thing
being done in Christian Europe.

For those Christians who survived the initial
conquest, life wasn't that much better. There were
pockets of relatively good treatment. But on the
whole, "tolerance" is hardly the word to describe the
treatment. Hundreds of thousands of Christians and
Jews were traded as slaves; they were required to
wear distinctive clothing; and they were denied the
protection of Islamic law.

And the closer we get to our time, the worse things
seem to get. In 1916, 1.5 million Christian Armenians
died at the hands of their Turkish Muslim rulers.
Many more went into exile in Western Europe and
America.

No less lethal is the treatment Sudanese Christians
have received from the Islamic government since that
government tried to impose Islamic law, or Shari'a,
on them. At least 2 million have died, and thousands
have been sold into slavery.

Another place where Muslims are trying to impose
their faith on their Christian neighbors is Northern
Nigeria. There, three northern states, all of whom
have a sizable Christian population, have followed
Sudan's example and adopted Shari'a, the Muslim law.

If you're looking for a place where Christians are
doing the same thing to Muslims, you won't find one.
In fact, the last time a non-Christian society
volunteered to convert en masse -- Japan after World
War II -- we opted to send Bibles and missionaries to
encourage spiritual rather than cultural conversions.

What accounts for the difference? Historian Richard
Connerney recently wrote that in Islam, "the themes
of religion, politics, and law are inseparable . . ."
According to Connerney, conquest and jihad are woven
into the fiber of the religion. Thus, belligerence
towards people of other faiths and cultures is,
arguably, inherent to Islam.

[red crabtree]

YES! While historical revisionists would like to make Islam a "tolerant" religion in which it was so good many volutarily converted, they convientantly forget the underlying social structure in which those conversations took place.

The Ottomans had a boy tax. children who were removed from their homes at a young age, made to convert to Islam and fill the ranks of the Jannassaries, the lead fighting group of the Islamic Turks army. The only ones that were made Jannassaries were Christian boys. The slaves that ran the Ottoman empire were all non-Muslims that were forced conversations, as Muslims were not allowed to be made slaves, yet the Ottoman empire could not be run without slave power. Given this and the other circumstances that Christian and Jews lived with under the Ottoman's how many of those conversations can really be called voluntary? While some enjoy pointing out the ills and sins of Western civilizations and religions, me thinks they should also take a reality check on the Islamic cultures and religions. If I were forced to make a decision between converting to a different religion or giving up my children to slavery and death in the Jannassaries I would have converted too. The Jannassaries were not allowed to marry or have any sort of family life whatsoever. The lived in barracks all their lives unless killed in battle. A lot little better than the Enuchs of China and elsewhere.

There are strong social reasons that Turkey is a secular Muslim society with laws that support this. Not any different than the changes made in Japan to disallow warlords from being able to rise again. Both because the "norms" of their society brought them to ruin and bloodbaths.

It is not currently politically correct to point out that there is and was much about the Islamic religion that was wrong in terms of humanity and what they have done and are still doing. While it may not be PC, it is still true. Right now it takes courage to be able to stand up and say what is the truth. The Islamic's were not always tolerant, anymore than various Christian sects have always been tolerant. Through the centuries Islamics HAVE killed people for their faith, for their unwillingness to adopt social more that were not part of their own culture, forced people into slavery etc... not forcing an villages or areas into the Muslim faith was not simply being tolerant either. Having people of different faiths allowed slaves to be culled from the population, and also other economic reasons to keep a few Jews and Christians around. Where else would "special" tax money have come from?

It is a complete misnormer to believe a war on terrorism can or will be won by not attacking it at the roots. Hamas etc... all must go regardless of whether they are attacking Americans or not. In the minds of these fascists there is no separation between Americans and Israeli's. Over and over and over this treaty has been tried, that treaty has been tried. To what end?

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by red crabtree
YES! While historical revisionists would like to make Islam a "tolerant" religion in which it was so good many volutarily converted, they convientantly forget the underlying social structure in which those conversations took place.

The Ottomans had a boy tax. children who were removed from their homes at a young age, made to convert to Islam and fill the ranks of the Jannassaries, the lead fighting group of the Islamic Turks army. The only ones that were made Jannassaries were Christian boys. The slaves that ran the Ottoman empire were all non-Muslims that were forced conversations, as Muslims were not allowed to be made slaves, yet the Ottoman empire could not be run without slave power. Given this and the other circumstances that Christian and Jews lived with under the Ottoman's how many of those conversations can really be called voluntary? While some enjoy pointing out the ills and sins of Western civilizations and religions, me thinks they should also take a reality check on the Islamic cultures and religions. If I were forced to make a decision between converting to a different religion or giving up my children to slavery and death in the Jannassaries I would have converted too. The Jannassaries were not allowed to marry or have any sort of family life whatsoever. The lived in barracks all their lives unless killed in battle. A lot little better than the Enuchs of China and elsewhere.

There are strong social reasons that Turkey is a secular Muslim society with laws that support this. Not any different than the changes made in Japan to disallow warlords from being able to rise again. Both because the "norms" of their society brought them to ruin and bloodbaths.

It is not currently politically correct to point out that there is and was much about the Islamic religion that was wrong in terms of humanity and what they have done and are still doing. While it may not be PC, it is still true. Right now it takes courage to be able to stand up and say what is the truth. The Islamic's were not always tolerant, anymore than various Christian sects have always been tolerant. Through the centuries Islamics HAVE killed people for their faith, for their unwillingness to adopt social more that were not part of their own culture, forced people into slavery etc... not forcing an villages or areas into the Muslim faith was not simply being tolerant either. Having people of different faiths allowed slaves to be culled from the population, and also other economic reasons to keep a few Jews and Christians around. Where else would "special" tax money have come from?

It is a complete misnormer to believe a war on terrorism can or will be won by not attacking it at the roots. Hamas etc... all must go regardless of whether they are attacking Americans or not. In the minds of these fascists there is no separation between Americans and Israeli's. Over and over and over this treaty has been tried, that treaty has been tried. To what end?

We're on the same page with political correctness, and we're in agreement with your estimation of the noncalant approach to erradicating terrorism. And we're not alone.


We should not kid ourselves. The modernization of Islam is hardly imminent, and it will not occur without enormous struggle. There are several deeply imbedded obstacles in Islamic society, not least the often-noted lack of a tradition of secular politics. To many Muslims, what may simply seem more "natural" is a totalizing ideology that seeks to unite society and the state within a single revolutionary whole. Nor is it clear, despite the UN's recent report, that the Muslim world is capable of the realistic self-appraisal necessary for a modernizing shift to occur.
Many non-Western societies, after all, have tried the path of violent resistance to the enormous military, economic and cultural power of the West. It was only when faced with defeat and domination that nations like China and Japan undertook a serious study of what, in Mr. Lewis's phrase, "went wrong." Joining the West when they could not beat it, they adopted a variety of Western institutions while retaining a core of their own culture. This process of social learning has been much slower in Muslim societies; for Arabs in particular, it has been all too convenient to blame Israel and the United States for their own lack of progress.
If the wait for Muslim modernization is likely to be a long one, how, then, should the West respond in the short term as it faces the continued prospect of terrorism, suicide bombings and weapons of mass destruction? The determined application of military power is certainly part of the answer. European fascism did not fall because of the inherent wickedness of its animating ideas; having brought havoc to the societies that embraced its doctrines, it lost legitimacy because it was crushed on the battlefield. Just as Osama bin Laden and his cause gained status and support with the successful attacks of September 11, so the rout of al Qaeda from Afghanistan and continuing U.S. operations against radical Islamic terrorism are absolutely key to dampening Islamist fervor.

[Mediocrates]

The reponse is simple, detente and isolation in equal measures. We 'waited' for communism to modernize and it collapses just as we said it would. Keep Islamism bottled up as well.

[L@mplighterM]

It’s true that we were engaged in a cold war with communism and it undoubtedly cost mega bucks to maintain. I’m almost certain that the Russians were involved in covert attacks against American interests.

Nevertheless Islam is engaged in a silent invasion throughout the world actually I would classify their move as brilliant. The west is still stuck in a linear thinking mode and that will be our downfall.

I condemn terrorism in the strongest terms but admittedly it works and its certainly cost effective. These Islamic fundamentalists might be seen as being more backward than hillbillies but actually the way that they confront us is amazingly smart.

From my point of view I see only growth in Islam and in my opinion that will continue.

[Johnny Yuma]

Post deleted by originator

[red crabtree]

One cannot isolate what you cannot find. Militant Islam is not more or less confined to one particular country or one Muslim society. Unlike Russia, using a cold war stategy will get more people killed. What can be done though is to make life so uncomfortable for the rulers of the Muslm countries that they will be forced to confront what is happening in their countries. I do not simply mean economic embargos, they have proven time and again to not be effective against the ruling elite, instead they make life more difficult for the people, but not for the despots that run the country. It is they that must be isolated while giving to the people. By virtue of what must be done, the ways it would be done would have to be through the backdoor. Western Civilizations should not hobnob with those that are oppressive. Not a difficult concept really. From an American perspective there would be no invites to the White House, no state dinners etc... all that does is legitimize corrupt regimes. Trying to make nice with these folks is an old line thinking that has proven not only to be ineffective, but also diasterous for our foreign policies. A bully and a despot is just that no matter how much you attempt to civilize and manipulate them. It does not work. I can think of no single instance in American foreign policy in which this has worked. It has however caused us untold problems. You lie down with dogs you will get up with fleas.

I do not believe the Islamist will win. While I have doubts about Western Europes backbone to fight against what is wrong in the name of progressive thinking, I have no doubts whatsoever about the backbone of Joe American. Lamplighter you mention more backwards then hillibillies. Let me first give you a quick history lesson. The term hillibilly originated because of the Scotch-Irish that had settled in the country, primarily in the mountains of the Carolinas and Virginia. These people were originally Scots Presbyterians who were moved from lowland Scotland to Catholic North Ireland by the British with a two fold purpose. First to remove an element from lowland Scotland that refused to allow the Church of England to take away their Calvanist religion(these people signed documents attesting to the fact that they would fight and spill their own blood to keep this from happening in their own blood and also wore red scarves around their neck to signify this, these people were called Rednecks by the British) and the other reason of course was to get a protestant element into North Ireland. So approximately 100,000 Presbyterian Scots were moved to Northern Ireland. Then along came the origin of the troubles. The Irish Catholic revolted when William of Orange was king of England. He was actually a German-Dutch Prince who had married the daughter of the last English King and was given the crown over her brother because he was protestant, unlike the brother who was Catholic. William marched his forces into Northern Ireland and was supported by the Protestant Scots, who by this time had been there a couple generations and absorbed a fair amount of Irish culture. Not hard since the two peoples were from the same cultural background anyway.

These Scots-Irish were called Billy Boys as they still are today, in northern Ireland. When large numbers emigrated to America in the early 1700's they were termed hillbillies by the British soldiers here. This was a term to mean that they were supporters of William of Orange and they lived in the hills and hollars of Virginia and the Carolina's. Some also in South Western Pennsylvania. Of course others went elsewhere but this is where the bulk of them settled. The original meaning of hillbilly is not what it is today. That said it was the emigration of the Scotch-Irish that was a large push for independence in the United States. It was the Scotch-Irish that went through the Cumberland Gap first to get to Kentucky, who primarily settled Tennessee to begin with, who then went on into Texas and Missouri. From Missouri they settled the west. This particular group of people led the way more often then not in the settlement of this country. If you trace the roots of many settlements you will find this over and over. Where these people settled primarily you will still find conservative politics, deep religious Christian beliefs and a firm committment to the freedoms this country affords us. While some may bemoan the backwardness of the "hillbillies" it is worth knowing the entire history and what impact these peoples have had on this country. When push comes to shove in terms of a fight for this country and it's freedoms I would always put my money on those "hillbillies" . While many think of them as poor and backwards, they also have a resilence and a fierce independence that should shame those who believe themselves more "progressive" and "liberal" The areas of America that are termed the bible belt is where you will find the descendents of the Scotch-Irish. The terms Hillbilly and Redneck have always been terms of derision, but not under the same understanding. However it was those hillbillies and rednecks that helped lead this country to freedom and by and large continue to support those ideals. Did you know that West Virginia sends more of it's sons and daughters into the military per population capitia than any other state? Some bleeding hearts will tell you that is because the area is so poor that they have no other choice. I will tell you it is because there is a culture there that believes service to the country is good and honorable.

You see I know all this not simply as a history buff, but because these are my people. I am not a religious conservative by any means, nothing fundamental in my practice of my religion, but I am abnormal when looking at the large extended paternal side of my family. But discounting that my belief system runs side by side with the belief system the rest have. By and large you will find those of Scotch-Irish descent to believe deeply that God, Country and Family are the most important things in life. The rest of it is ancillary. A threat to this is a threat to EVERYTHING held dear. So give me the backwards hillbillies over the progressives any day. I know who will have my back.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by red crabtree
One cannot isolate what you cannot find. Militant Islam is not more or less confined to one particular country or one Muslim society. Unlike Russia, using a cold war stategy will get more people killed. What can be done though is to make life so uncomfortable for the rulers of the Muslm countries that they will be forced to confront what is happening in their countries. I do not simply mean economic embargos, they have proven time and again to not be effective against the ruling elite, instead they make life more difficult for the people, but not for the despots that run the country. It is they that must be isolated while giving to the people. By virtue of what must be done, the ways it would be done would have to be through the backdoor. Western Civilizations should not hobnob with those that are oppressive. Not a difficult concept really. From an American perspective there would be no invites to the White House, no state dinners etc... all that does is legitimize corrupt regimes. Trying to make nice with these folks is an old line thinking that has proven not only to be ineffective, but also diasterous for our foreign policies. A bully and a despot is just that no matter how much you attempt to civilize and manipulate them. It does not work. I can think of no single instance in American foreign policy in which this has worked. It has however caused us untold problems. You lie down with dogs you will get up with fleas.

I do not believe the Islamist will win. While I have doubts about Western Europes backbone to fight against what is wrong in the name of progressive thinking, I have no doubts whatsoever about the backbone of Joe American. Lamplighter you mention more backwards then hillibillies. Let me first give you a quick history lesson. The term hillibilly originated because of the Scotch-Irish that had settled in the country, primarily in the mountains of the Carolinas and Virginia. These people were originally Scots Presbyterians who were moved from lowland Scotland to Catholic North Ireland by the British with a two fold purpose. First to remove an element from lowland Scotland that refused to allow the Church of England to take away their Calvanist religion(these people signed documents attesting to the fact that they would fight and spill their own blood to keep this from happening in their own blood and also wore red scarves around their neck to signify this, these people were called Rednecks by the British) and the other reason of course was to get a protestant element into North Ireland. So approximately 100,000 Presbyterian Scots were moved to Northern Ireland. Then along came the origin of the troubles. The Irish Catholic revolted when William of Orange was king of England. He was actually a German-Dutch Prince who had married the daughter of the last English King and was given the crown over her brother because he was protestant, unlike the brother who was Catholic. William marched his forces into Northern Ireland and was supported by the Protestant Scots, who by this time had been there a couple generations and absorbed a fair amount of Irish culture. Not hard since the two peoples were from the same cultural background anyway.

These Scots-Irish were called Billy Boys as they still are today, in northern Ireland. When large numbers emigrated to America in the early 1700's they were termed hillbillies by the British soldiers here. This was a term to mean that they were supporters of William of Orange and they lived in the hills and hollars of Virginia and the Carolina's. Some also in South Western Pennsylvania. Of course others went elsewhere but this is where the bulk of them settled. The original meaning of hillbilly is not what it is today. That said it was the emigration of the Scotch-Irish that was a large push for independence in the United States. It was the Scotch-Irish that went through the Cumberland Gap first to get to Kentucky, who primarily settled Tennessee to begin with, who then went on into Texas and Missouri. From Missouri they settled the west. This particular group of people led the way more often then not in the settlement of this country. If you trace the roots of many settlements you will find this over and over. Where these people settled primarily you will still find conservative politics, deep religious Christian beliefs and a firm committment to the freedoms this country affords us. While some may bemoan the backwardness of the "hillbillies" it is worth knowing the entire history and what impact these peoples have had on this country. When push comes to shove in terms of a fight for this country and it's freedoms I would always put my money on those "hillbillies" . While many think of them as poor and backwards, they also have a resilence and a fierce independence that should shame those who believe themselves more "progressive" and "liberal" The areas of America that are termed the bible belt is where you will find the descendents of the Scotch-Irish. The terms Hillbilly and Redneck have always been terms of derision, but not under the same understanding. However it was those hillbillies and rednecks that helped lead this country to freedom and by and large continue to support those ideals. Did you know that West Virginia sends more of it's sons and daughters into the military per population capitia than any other state? Some bleeding hearts will tell you that is because the area is so poor that they have no other choice. I will tell you it is because there is a culture there that believes service to the country is good and honorable.

You see I know all this not simply as a history buff, but because these are my people. I am not a religious conservative by any means, nothing fundamental in my practice of my religion, but I am abnormal when looking at the large extended paternal side of my family. But discounting that my belief system runs side by side with the belief system the rest have. By and large you will find those of Scotch-Irish descent to believe deeply that God, Country and Family are the most important things in life. The rest of it is ancillary. A threat to this is a threat to EVERYTHING held dear. So give me the backwards hillbillies over the progressives any day. I know who will have my back.

Wonderful post. Well said.

[Donna]

Oh that's good stuff. Thank you!

Originally posted by red crabtree

You see I know all this not simply as a history buff, but because these are my people. I am not a religious conservative by any means, nothing fundamental in my practice of my religion, but I am abnormal when looking at the large extended paternal side of my family. But discounting that my belief system runs side by side with the belief system the rest have. By and large you will find those of Scotch-Irish descent to believe deeply that God, Country and Family are the most important things in life. The rest of it is ancillary. A threat to this is a threat to EVERYTHING held dear. So give me the backwards hillbillies over the progressives any day. I know who will have my back. [/B]

[MichaelC]

Cool history lesson, RC.

[Communication]

Hey, I don't want to go "soft" on everyone here, but andak's mosque was just vandalized. I agree that Islam needs to undergo a reformation of sorts in many parts of the world, but I think that we should move away from saying that there is something wrong with Islam itself. Maybe andak has some ideas? :(

[L@mplighterM]

Deleted.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Communication
Hey, I don't want to go "soft" on everyone here, but andak's mosque was just vandalized. I agree that Islam needs to undergo a reformation of sorts in many parts of the world, but I think that we should move away from saying that there is something wrong with Islam itself. Maybe andak has some ideas? :(
I am sorry Communication because I like and respect you, but I am of the belief that there IS something wrong with islam itself and until islam itself shows me that that is not so, my attention will remain on the problem.

With all due respect, people being slaughtered in the name of Allah kinda outweigh vandalism, though I hope that such things will cease. Perhaps if muslims were a bit more vehement (read "at all") in denouncing terrorism, people such as I could be swayed to see it all in a different light.

[L@mplighterM]

If a mosque was vandalized it was most likely Muslim(s) from another sect that did it. One trick used by the Nazis was to destroy their own offices/buildings and blame it on the Jews.

I would venture to say that more mosques have been burnt and/or vandalized by fellow Muslims than others.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by red crabtree
I do not believe the Islamist will win. While I have doubts about Western Europes backbone to fight against what is wrong in the name of progressive thinking, I have no doubts whatsoever about the backbone of Joe American. Lamplighter you mention more backwards then hillibillies. Let me first give you a quick history lesson. The term hillibilly originated because of the Scotch-Irish that had settled in the country, primarily in the mountains of the Carolinas and Virginia. These people were originally Scots Presbyterians who were moved from lowland Scotland to Catholic North Ireland by the British with a two fold purpose. First to remove an element from lowland Scotland that refused to allow the Church of England to take away their Calvanist religion(these people signed documents attesting to the fact that they would fight and spill their own blood to keep this from happening in their own blood and also wore red scarves around their neck to signify this, these people were called Rednecks by the British) and the other reason of course was to get a protestant element into North Ireland. So approximately 100,000 Presbyterian Scots were moved to Northern Ireland. Then along came the origin of the troubles. The Irish Catholic revolted when William of Orange was king of England. He was actually a German-Dutch Prince who had married the daughter of the last English King and was given the crown over her brother because he was protestant, unlike the brother who was Catholic. William marched his forces into Northern Ireland and was supported by the Protestant Scots, who by this time had been there a couple generations and absorbed a fair amount of Irish culture. Not hard since the two peoples were from the same cultural background anyway.

These Scots-Irish were called Billy Boys as they still are today, in northern Ireland. When large numbers emigrated to America in the early 1700's they were termed hillbillies by the British soldiers here. This was a term to mean that they were supporters of William of Orange and they lived in the hills and hollars of Virginia and the Carolina's. Some also in South Western Pennsylvania. Of course others went elsewhere but this is where the bulk of them settled. The original meaning of hillbilly is not what it is today. That said it was the emigration of the Scotch-Irish that was a large push for independence in the United States. It was the Scotch-Irish that went through the Cumberland Gap first to get to Kentucky, who primarily settled Tennessee to begin with, who then went on into Texas and Missouri. From Missouri they settled the west. This particular group of people led the way more often then not in the settlement of this country. If you trace the roots of many settlements you will find this over and over. Where these people settled primarily you will still find conservative politics, deep religious Christian beliefs and a firm committment to the freedoms this country affords us. While some may bemoan the backwardness of the "hillbillies" it is worth knowing the entire history and what impact these peoples have had on this country. When push comes to shove in terms of a fight for this country and it's freedoms I would always put my money on those "hillbillies" . While many think of them as poor and backwards, they also have a resilence and a fierce independence that should shame those who believe themselves more "progressive" and "liberal" The areas of America that are termed the bible belt is where you will find the descendents of the Scotch-Irish. The terms Hillbilly and Redneck have always been terms of derision, but not under the same understanding. However it was those hillbillies and rednecks that helped lead this country to freedom and by and large continue to support those ideals. Did you know that West Virginia sends more of it's sons and daughters into the military per population capitia than any other state? Some bleeding hearts will tell you that is because the area is so poor that they have no other choice. I will tell you it is because there is a culture there that believes service to the country is good and honorable.



My contact with hillbillies has been limited to the “Beverly Hillbillies” and I loved that show. Granny, Jethro and his sister sure seemed out of it to me but the show gave me a lot of laughs. Perhaps my use of the word hillbilly was seen as being derogatory but that wasn’t my intent and I apologize if it left that impression. If the post in any way offends you I’ll remove it and again I’m sorry if it upset you.

[red crabtree]

OH! Please do not think you offended me, not in the least! Generally if someone offends me I will straight up say so. I like history, a favorite hobby of mine, and it just so happens that my dad's side of the family is primarily Scotch-Irish, though the first of the family here came from the border country of England the family almost immediately married into the Scotch-Irish and continued to do so, giving the family that culture. Well, there was that one French Hugonout. :D All you did was give me an opportunity to let a few know where the words Hillbilly and Redneck really come from, and to tell you why in my opinion radical Islam will not win. I worry more about those that would roll over when faced with a threat then I do the Islamists. Why? History shows us many times that minority rule that is harmful can be forced on majorities when the majority is one, easily swayed and two, when people either are afraid to fight against it or believe it will die it's own death. Hitler's Germany is a case in point. Though the same thing can be seen even in gang controlled areas of this country. The majority may not be in gangs but they allow the culture to exist by their silence and unwillingness to act. I guess more than anything my response was trying to tell you that I believe by virtue of who I am and my cultural background that the Islamists will not win and why. Please believe me there was no offense taken from your post.

Communication you say that we should move from away from saying there is something wrong with Islam. It is my opinion though that there are some very inherent problems with the religion. And until Islam can come out of the dark ages, there will continue to be so. That does not mean that I can't find glorious and wonderful things about various Muslim Empires, I can.


As an example let me turn to the Crusades. After 9-11 there was much hallybo regarding the crusades, seen by too many as an attack on peaceful Islam and a dark stain on Western culture, it was most often protrayed this way by the media. When President Bush used to word "crusade" in his speech following 9-11 it was pointed to as all that was wrong with Western culture and our arrogance and ignorance regarding the middle east. However the crusades were not undertaken for the reasons popular media claims. The crusades were a direct response to Muslim aggression -an attempt to turn back or defend lands that had traditionally been Christian.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.



With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense

By and large the crusades were a failure, yet the Muslim world still now points to them as a primary cause of problems between the two religions of Islam and Christianity. One would think that they lost, but the reality is that they lost not the battles of the crusades but the battle to continue to subjegate all that they were shooting for. Many people point to the defeat of the Ottoman's at the gates of Vienna in 1638 as the final defeat of Islam in western culture. In one way it was, by leaving Western Europe able to evolve into the culture it is now, and by extension what the US is.

Something was beginning to brew in Europe. Realize in 1507 emperors of the Holy Roman Empire no longer came to Rome to be crowned, a visible way to place religion as a controlling power behind that of nation-state rulers. In 1517 Martin Luther posted his edicts, and then the 30 year war commenced. By the time the Ottoman's were turned back from Vienna, Europe was coming into a new age. The Renaissance, born from a strange mixture of Roman values, medieval piety, and a unique respect for commerce and entrepreneurialism, had led to other movements like humanism, the Scientific Revolution, and the Age of Exploration. Even while fighting for its life, Europe was preparing to expand on a global scale. The Protestant Reformation, which rejected the papacy and the doctrine of indulgence, made Crusades unthinkable for many Europeans, thus leaving the fighting to the Catholics. In 1571, a Holy League, which was itself a Crusade, defeated the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto. Yet military victories like that remained rare. The Muslim threat was neutralized economically. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the once awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and pathetic—no longer worth a Crusade. The "Sick Man of Europe" limped along until the 20th century, when he finally expired after WWI, leaving behind the mess that is now the middle east.

It is cultural relativism that wants us to believe that Islam is not such a bad religion. This mindset is that there is no objective truths or universal values that pertain to all of mankind. So under cultural relativism Islam is a good religion, because under cultural relativism refuses to say that something in any culture could be wrong. That would mean that Western values of basic human rights etc... are "better" than other cultures. This is not allowed. And somehow it is supposed to be shameful to believe that cutting the clitoris off a prepubescent female is wrong because that is simply part of another culture. Or that forcing women into a backseat of life in very overt fashions should not be a problem. Somehow when terrorists strike at civilians it is not they who are condemned by the whole world, instead the cultural relativists try to figure out what we did to piss them off instead of truly looking into what is going wrong with this culture. This thinking would be like sitting around wondering what it was the Jews did that pissed Hitler off so bad. It wasn't what the Jews did, it was fundamental flaws in the culture that allowed Hitler to even get to more than writing Mein Kampf.

The only reason that Islam has gotten a pass is because of it's status as a religion. Problem is it is not simply a religion that people choose to practice, it is also what the culture is because no other competition for cultural norms are allowed. It is little more than Nazism, fascism wrapped in a religious flag. Yes, not all practice it in it's fundamental forms, but I sure as hell don't hear the moderates, not even in this country condemning those fundamental forms either. Instead they excuse, they pacify and in the process become not only cultural relativists but historical revisionists as well. Islam was not a peaceful religion spread by missionaries, and it's goal was never to accomandate other religions or cultures. And personally I have great difficulty being able to respect a religion that refuses to respect mine. It surely wasn't Jews or Christians that took over the Church of the Nativity with guns. And how many Islamic clerics condemned that? The silence was deafening.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by red crabtree
OH! Please do not think you offended me, not in the least! Generally if someone offends me I will straight up say so. I like history, a favorite hobby of mine, and it just so happens that my dad's side of the family is primarily Scotch-Irish, though the first of the family here came from the border country of England the family almost immediately married into the Scotch-Irish and continued to do so, giving the family that culture. Well, there was that one French Hugonout. :D All you did was give me an opportunity to let a few know where the words Hillbilly and Redneck really come from, and to tell you why in my opinion radical Islam will not win. I worry more about those that would roll over when faced with a threat then I do the Islamists. Why? History shows us many times that minority rule that is harmful can be forced on majorities when the majority is one, easily swayed and two, when people either are afraid to fight against it or believe it will die it's own death. Hitler's Germany is a case in point. Though the same thing can be seen even in gang controlled areas of this country. The majority may not be in gangs but they allow the culture to exist by their silence and unwillingness to act.

All right I believe you and we’ll just move on.

Signed: Gomer Pyle

I wish that I could be as certain that you are that Islam will not be the dominating religion in lets say 100 years.

I know for a fact that seeds left in a packet will never grow. There are far too many politicians that refuse to acknowledge that Islam in it entirety is a very real threat to western civilizations. Personally I couldn’t care less what religions individuals subscribe to as long as they aren’t harmful to me or mine.

It seems to me that our leaders are afraid to call a spade a spade. Perhaps they fear reprisals against their families if they come out and criticize Islam. I do know that if we resume on our current path Islam will eventually dominate the world.

It takes very few hunters to make a society feel hunted and lets face it the thing that people treasure most is the life of their loved ones and their own.
That’s how people like Hussein, Hitler, Stalin and others have been able to control the masses it would have been easy to destroy them in their infancy.

The question is whether the evils from within Islam can be stopped dead in its track and I don’t think that will ever be the case. It will fester and grow spreading its evil tentacles to the four corners of the world.

[red crabtree]

In some ways I agree with that. Since 9-11 I can feel myself becoming more and more conservative. Not so much as in Republican conservative, but most definately part of their foreign agenda appeals to me. And I am not the only one. A recent poll in either Time or Newsweek only a few weeks ago showed that a majority of women polled in the US are swinging the same way. There is a great deal politically on domestic issues I do not agree with Bush on or the Republican party, but when it comes to fighting terrorism I have, to my surprise, found myself pretty damn close. And ultimately I feel that there won't be a need for education, healthcare etc... if we don't have a country to use it in.

I think the roadmap to peace is not even worth toilet paper. In the news a few hours ago Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Fatah have all agreed to a cease-fire. Doesn't do a thing for me. Seen it before and expect to end the same as all the others. So what is GW thinking? Yet there is something here that just doesn't ring right to me. GW is going against some of his main constituents, those he knows will vote for him. I can't help but feel this roadmap is little more than a chess move. It will play out over time, but Israel I hope knows that the US will not leave them hanging. While it drove me crazy to hear the man say people "misunderestimate" him I think he is right. Well, not in how to butcher the English language ;) but that there is a tendency to underestimate the Machiavellian ways he plays politics. I also believe that GW personally feels that Islam is a threat. His early speeches after 9-11 indicated as much. I don't believe he has changed his personal beliefs, he is simply gving enough rope for people to hang themselves. I may be all wet in this estimation, but it is what I believe.

We do well to remember what Abraham Lincoln said
The Shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shephard as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as a destroyer of liberty"

We must not forget this, and then we will never have difficulty knowing who the wolves are.

[L@mplighterM]

I think that we must realize that human lives hang in the balance with what Bush says and doesn’t say. When Bush was campaigning for the presidency he made it quite clear that he didn’t want the US to be the policeman of the world.

9/11 changed all that and the speeches that he made shortly thereafter were fiery and he made it quite clear that he was a man that would bring Islamic fundamentalists to their knees. On the other hand he went out of his way to define Islam as a religion of peace.

I no longer see Bush as an individual that is dedicated to destroying Islamic terrorists wherever they may be on the contrary his administration is establishing a safe haven for terrorists in the WB and GS. So here we have the leader of the most powerful nation in the world kissing Arafat’s butt and I can see no good reason as to why that should be the case.

Based on previous track records the PA will not detain or arrest terrorists and if they were to do so the jails would have revolving doors. I like consistency in my life and GW and his administration is no longer able to provide that aspect.

When fighting terrorists you have to be like a big strong oak tree that stands strong against the wind. Bush has blinked and as far as I’m concerned he has lost the game, perhaps he feels that if the hands the Arabs the WB and GS on a platter terrorism will end. It will not!

[L@mplighterM]

Snip:

Abbas said that at Aqaba, Bush promised to speak with Sharon about the siege on Arafat. He said nobody can speak to or pressure Sharon except the Americans.

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

http://www.israelforum.com/board/newreply.php3?action=newreply&threadid=3137


I tend to disbelieve Abbas but the way that Bush is handling the issue there may be some truth to this.

[red crabtree]

In all honesty I do not like Bush. I find that fighting terrorism by limiting freedoms here to be a very bad choice. It bothers me tremendously to have John Poindexter as the big fat head who has the right to look through people's email, what they get out of the library, what magazines they subscribe to etc... the man has proven once already he has no compunction in breaking laws that congress has set up. I fear he would have no problems going further than the mandate he has now, that already has much latitude. If there were another man with a proven track record of honesty I may feel different, but Poindexter is not a man of honesty or integrity. There are others in the administration that are from the Iran-Contra scandel that were pardoned by papa Bush before any were ever even tried, and to me that smells to high heaven. Then of course there are the connections of the Patriarch to those that financed the Nazi's. I know it has been said many times before so did many other prominant families of the times, but I cannot think of one of those that continued to do business with the Nazi's once it was illegal like Bush's grandfather did. I find most of the domestic policies to be for the normal Joe American. Yet the democrats have not one viable candidate in my mind. And as a daughter of a career Navy man and an ex wife of an Air Force man, and currently married to an ex Marine I also have a strong tendency to feel the democrats do a fairly poor job of handling foreign affairs. In my mind not since FDR has there been a democrat with balls when needed.

So what is an average American to do? Deal with what we have and push the man to do what is right. I personally do not believe a word that comes out of Abbas mouth. That quote attributed to him regarding what Bush said is not believable to me. Seems to me there would be no better way to push up approval ratings for the president in this country than to go after terrorists at the same time the election process was going on. We do tend to rally round the flagpole when threatened. To ignore terrorism during an election would be foolhardy in my mind. And in terms of being in Israel but not here I would say there would be no better person to point that out in than Joe Liberman. Too easy to point at Bush and say aloud what the heck are you doing leaving the Israeli's to hang? THAT is a war on terrorism? Why you are just playing!

To leave Israel in the cold would be a dangerous political game that could easily come back to bite ya, in my opinion anyway. It may have been more acceptable at one time, but in today's world and the war on terrorism, I believe it would be pretty foolhardy to do so.

[red crabtree]

OOPS! I meant most domestic policies are NOT for the average Joe American.

[Claire]

Could we use a more accurate term to describe our topic of discussion say The Roadtrap. How do you think the elections will effect this process?

[Communication]

Sorry, Claire, I just want to make one point:

My goal was not to whitewash the political side of Islam or the history of Jews under Islamic rule. I’ve read Bat Ye’or’s Islam and Dhimmitude as well as numerous personal histories of Sephardic Jews. I’ve watched PA television programs where Arab leaders extol the virtues of killing Jews and I’ve read the testimony of Palestinian mothers who praise their children as martyrs for killing themselves along with Jewish children. There tends to be a great lack of introspection among Muslims in the ME, and a very sick pathology has developed there, although I think that much of that has to do with Islamic propaganda coming from Muslim religious leaders, their governments and their media. I don’t see the point in going back to Mohammed, unless you also want to go back to Joshua, or the birth of Communism- wherever you have revolutionary movements, people use either isolation or violence to protect their followers from the influence of outsiders. Islam just happens to have been a particularly aggressive movement, as was Christianity and Communism. Since the early 20th century, Islam has been increasingly used as a tool for Arab nationalism. Isn’t Zionism Jewish nationalism? It’s Islamic arrogance that makes Muslims think that only they are entitled to a nationalist movement in the ME, which has been the home of all three monotheistic religions for thousands of years beginning with the Jewish people. It’s almost unfathomable that Muslims, who claim to be followers of all the Jewish prophets, and thus benefactors of Jewish civilization, would deny Jews the right to at least some portion of our historic homeland in the ME, especially given the fact that they succeeded in driving the Jews out of Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Yemen…But then, not many Muslims living in the ME even realize that Jews ever lived in those places. That information is kept from them, as well as passages in the Koran that predict the Jewish return to our historic homeland.

To Muslims in the ME, Israelis are Caucasian European invaders, not fellow Semites, not victims of European aggression, not refugees, and certainly not victims of Arab nationalism. The images broadcasted of Israelis to the Arab world are gun toting settlers and IDF soldiers who murder and starve Palestinians, uproot their olive groves and take their land. And being totally helpless to do anything to help their people because their governments do nothing politically or financially, they turn to the one source of empowerment that is still available to them, which is their religion. And the clerics and government leaders promote this outlet because history has proven that there is no better way to consolidate power than through an enemy, and the Jewish enemy has been proven to be the most powerful scapegoat of all. The real danger in my view is that at some point, Arab nationalism will become, if it hasn’t already, Islam itself. There are segments of the Jewish community where this is happening too. While political conflicts can be resolved, religious ones endure. And where does all this leave the Christian Arabs? And what about Arab Israelis, both Christian and Muslim?

As far as everybody’s suggestions go, I just don’t know how we are suppose to use them. I doubt that anyone on this board is a military strategist, no heads of state, no purveyors of weapons or the black arts. Since most of us do have a stake in this conflict, what can we do?

[Claire]

Communicator: I certainly didn't intend to insult you; I agree with your analysis. Arab Christians living in the PA certainly will not do well under the proclamation of Islam as the official religion. I have an Arab Christian friend who has been in the US since she was a child, so she is very Americanized, married to an American, etc., I stayed with her relatives in Nazareth for a short time when I visited Israel in l986. I wonder how they are fairing.

I was banned from another board for questioning Dubya's born-again status and inflammatory statements about the Prez's Saudi $$ connections and Grandaddy Prescott's Nazi ones. I hope posts such as "It wouldn't be the first time a Bush was responsible for Jews being murdered," and "The Rise of the Fourth Reich, the end of democracy in America," would be acceptable here. There is much evidence that King Karl Rove, not Dubya is running the US anyway, so maybe investigation of his religious beliefs (I think he believes he is God) would be more revealing.

[MichaelC]

You always make your points well, Communication.

The last point that you made concerning the relatively "common person" status of those at this board seems true to me. I kinda see the board as a social thermometer. You can get a cross section from essentially reasonable people about the important issues here. I may not like some of those views, but all in all the problems we are really dealing with are addressed from a variety of perspectives and though we may not convince another of our own position, we may yet attain an awareness as to how others are feeling.

I myself seem to have become somewhat of a one argument person here (some might say a broken record), having gravitated to what is most significant to me in the chaos of confrontation with islam. And that is that this problem within islam, concerning which you have expressed your views above, is something to which islamic people themselves do not seem to be addressing much effort to produce a solution. I do not put much stock in the handfull of muslim speakers who are the exception to the rule. It is my view that a significant movement must arise from within islam that decries terrorism and does not content itself with simply making a single statement but continues to hammer at the problem in actions and language that are clear to all.

If muslims themselves do not vociferously denounce terrorism instead of rationalizing it, whitewashing it, seeking excuses for it, mining the historical record for instances of abuses by others to justify it, then no one will believe that they do not, as evidenced by their overall silence on the matter, support it.

Sure, maybe it's just not fair. But that's the way things are in my view. There are many other groups who've had to pass through this type of reformation, so muslims will find themselves in good company. But if islam does not produce its own prophets of peace and non-violence, it will never be able to communicate any of this "islam is a peaceful religion" stuff to the world.

[Mil]

Posted Claire:


I was banned from another board for questioning Dubya's born-again status and inflammatory statements about the Prez's Saudi $$ connections and Grandaddy Prescott's Nazi ones. I hope posts such as "It wouldn't be the first time a Bush was responsible for Jews being murdered," and "The Rise of the Fourth Reich, the end of democracy in America," would be acceptable here. There is much evidence that King Karl Rove, not Dubya is running the US anyway, so maybe investigation of his religious beliefs (I think he believes he is God) would be more revealing.


Claire, don't warry national foreign policy is not run by public opinion.

[andak01]

Whew! What a long and interesting thread. I could not begin to reply to it all. Let me make a few short statements. One thing that even Bat Y'eor and I are in agreement with (outside of the spelling of her name which I take from memory) is that things have gotten considerably worse on the tolerance front with regards to Muslims. To start with, at their most intolerant, Muslims know no race or nationality. For example, people from eight nations attended my daughter's birthday recently and they all came together as family. But religious tolerance has been another matter. I find that foreign-born Muslims are more prone to this. And it might be fair to say that they are fifty years behind the times in this regard. The most effective way to change their attitudes is to show them the example of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) himself. Jews and Christians were not banned from Mecca during his lifetime. In fact, the first benefactors of Islam were the Jews and the Christians. King Negus of Ethiopia gave shelter to some of the earliest refugees from Mecca. Jews and Christians were given amnesty by Saladin and before by Umar. But Hakim, who the Druze follow was a madman who destroyed the church of the Holy Sepulcre (1009 CE). It was he that broke the relative tolerance that had been in place for a couple of centuries. I believe it was Hakim more than anything else that precipitated the Crusades.
http://i-cias.com/e.o/druze.htm

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by andak01
For example, people from eight nations attended my daughter's birthday recently and they all came together as family.


Were there Catholics and Mormons there as well?

[andak01]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Were there Catholics and Mormons there as well?

Baptists and Church of Christ and an invited Hindu who couldn't attend. He's coming to dinner over the weekend. I don't think I know any Mormons.