Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations [Archive]

David_in_NYC

06-15-2004, 04:29 PM

Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations (http://www.tzemach.org/articles/agenda_islam.htm)

Professor Moshe Sharon

(Prof. Moshe Sharon teaches Islamic History at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.)

There Is No Fundamental Islam

"Fundamentalism" is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how the Koran is interpreted.

All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.

The Language of Islam

You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam in the West, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists in the world says that doing this is like a cricket reporter describing a cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or civilization the language of another. For Islam, you've got to use the language of Islam.

Driving Principles of Islam

Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God.

But it's not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one cannot be a Moslem.

But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behaviour. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible.

The Bible

Let me explain the difference.

The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways.

In Judaism, it leads to national salvation — not just a nation that wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That's the idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible.

The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation, which, from time to time, meet each other.

But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this fact of salvation.

Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, you don't just walk around and obliterate the image of God. Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their fundamentals speak about honouring the image of God and the hope of salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals.

The Essence of Islam

Now let's move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world.

Let's look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation — namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sins, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions."

The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam.

When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years — 640 AD — the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.

Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems

Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before him. However, he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems.

Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat, which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the Evangelion or Gospel — namely the New Testament.

The Bible vs. the Koran

Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran?

Mohammed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now].

Nevertheless, the laws are very clear — Jews and Christians have no rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them.

Islamic Rule and Jihad

What happens if Jews and Christians don't want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don't want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That's jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don't have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East — their war is against the Jews and Christians.

A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There are Americans in Arabia were no Christians should be. In this pamphlet there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are desecrating the home of the prophet.

Two Houses

The Koran sees the world as divided into two — one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it. The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) — that's the place where Islam rules — and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb — the house of war. Not the "house of non-Muslims," but the "house of war." It is this house of war which as to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule.

This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it's so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions.

David_in_NYC

06-15-2004, 04:30 PM

(cont.)

Islamic Law

Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict. In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law.

However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these schools of laws.

The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it's war.

There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war. These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we're talking about fighting against the Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the Hanbali school of law that is being followed.

Islam and Territory

This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually Islamic.

This is why whenever you hear about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you hear — territory, territory, territory. There are other aspects to the conflict, but territory is highly important.

The Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for which it was created.

Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how he dies, because — and this is very important — this is an eternal war between the two civilizations. It's not a war that stops. This war is there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is a war that will not end.

Islam and Peace

Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and Moslem.

With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution — a cease-fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic side wins. The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent, which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel.

Let me remind you that the document speaks of peace — you wouldn't believe what you are reading! You would think that you were reading some science fiction piece. I mean when you read it, you can't believe that this was signed by Israelis who are actually acquainted with Islamic policies and civilization.

A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, Arafat went to Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized, saying, "Do you think I signed something with the Jews which is contrary to the rules of Islam?" (I have obtained a copy of Arafat's recorded speech so I heard it from his own mouth.) Arafat continued, "That's not so. I'm doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did."

Whatever the prophet is supposed have done becomes a precedent. What Arafat was saying was, "Remember the story of Hudaybiya." The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext.

Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years. Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the jihad [thus breaking the "peace" agreement].

In Israel, it has taken over 50 years in this country for our people to understand that they cannot speak about [permanent] peace with Moslems. It will take another 50 years for the western world to understand that they have got a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is virile and strong. This should be understood: When we talk about war and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms.

Cease-fire as a Tactical Choice

What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing — when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice.

Sometimes, he may have to agree to a cease-fire in the most humiliating conditions. It's allowed because Mohammed accepted a cease-fire under humiliating conditions. That's what Arafat said to them in Johannesburg.

When western policy makers hear these things, they answer, "What are you talking about? You are in the Middle Ages. You don't understand the mechanisms of politics."

Which mechanisms of politics? There are no mechanisms of politics where power is. And I want to tell you one thing — we haven't seen the end of it, because the minute a radical Moslem power has atomic, chemical, or biological weapons, they will use it. I have no doubt about that.

Now, since we face war and we know that we cannot get more than an impermanent cease-fire, one has to ask himself what is the major component of an Israeli/Arab cease-fire. It is that the Islamic side is weak and your side is strong. The relations between Israel and the Arab world in the last 50 years since the establishment of our State has been based only on this idea, the deterrent power.

Wherever You Have Islam, You Will Have War

The reason that we have what we have in Yugoslavia and other places is because Islam succeeded in entering these countries. Wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic civilization.

What are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What's happening between Pakistan and India?

Islamic Infiltration

Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war, but there's also war by infiltration.

One of the things which the western world is not paying enough attention to is the tremendous growth of Islamic power in the western world. What happened in America and the Twin Towers is not something that came from the outside. And if America doesn't wake up, one day the Americans will find themselves in a chemical war and most likely in an atomic war — inside the U.S.

End of Days

It is highly important to understand how a civilization sees the end of days. In Christianity and in Judaism, we know exactly what is the vision of the end of days.

In Judaism, it is going to be as in Isaiah — peace between nations, not just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more need for weapons and nature will be changed — a beautiful end of days and the kingdom of God on earth.

Christianity goes as far as Revelation to see a day that Satan himself is obliterated. There are no more powers of evil. That's the vision.

I'm speaking now as a historian. I try to understand how Islam sees the end of days. In the end of days, Islam sees a world that is totally Moslem, completely Moslem under the rule of Islam. Complete and final victory.

Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by somebody and they'll be replaced by the Christians.

The Jews will no longer exist, because before the coming of the end of days, there is going to be a war against the Jews where all Jews should be killed. I'm quoting now from the heart of Islamic tradition, from the books that are read by every child in school. They Jews will all be killed. They'll be running away and they'll be hiding behind trees and rocks, and on that day Allah will give mouths to the rocks and trees and they will say, "Oh Moslem come here, there is a Jew behind me, kill him." Without this, the end of days cannot come. This is a fundamental of Islam.

Is There a Possibility to End This Dance of War?

The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war?

The answer is, "No. Not in the foreseeable future." What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.

But for Islam, the establishment of the State of Israel was a reverse of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule, now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule; Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema.

And (this is the worse) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.

++

David_in_NYC

06-15-2004, 04:32 PM

(cont.)

I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don't know. Israel finds itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to salvation.

(end of article)

L@mplighterM

06-15-2004, 06:07 PM

The easy answer is to obliterate the capitals of several Islamic states and carry on from there.

The right or wrong of using the atomic bomb in Japan has been debated for decades it did however shut the Japanese the hell up.

Nuke the bastards!

Oh Jerusalem

06-15-2004, 11:45 PM

This should be elementary reading for every western world leader.

What scares me is how much of this I already knew.

Before I knew this, however, I had trouble understanding a certain Moslem forum member, named muslim4israel2 (http://www.israelforum.com/board/member.php3?s=&action=getinfo&userid=249) no longer here.

I can't find where he said it here but at some point he gloated about how great and important the show of power and strength was in Moslem countrues. And I asked him what a better world we would live in if those same efforts were dedicated to humaintarian causes. He just shot back some answer indicating the need for power to be an ends to itself, which sounded like some diabolical villian out of a Marvel superhero comic book.

Now I know better.

I have some challenges here for my fellow forum members:

Ahava, ask your moderate Moslem friends what they think of all this?

Mora, Peacelover, Tdidier, Ollie, Justcurious and the rest of you westerners, do you have any disagreements with this article's assessments? What are the implications regarding Moslem populations and influence in your countries? Should anything be done? If so, what?

Andak, how would you rebut Prof. Sharon's analysis?

And finally, my fellow Jews and Israelis, what are you thinking when you talk of peace with the Palestinians? How many more times will you be suckered into believing that a peaceful solution is possible?

Oh Jerusalem

06-16-2004, 01:44 AM

Someone caught on:

Army Chief Likens Terror Threat to Cancer (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040615/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_war_2)
Tue Jun 15, 2:03 PM ET
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - The Army's top soldier on Tuesday likened the global war on terrorism to fighting cancer and said that although it may go "in remission" it will not disappear.

"Past wars have been like having pneumonia. It may leave a bunch of scars on your lungs, but you get cured of it," Gen. Peter Schoomaker told reporters. "This (war) is a little bit like having cancer. You may get it in remission, but it's never going to go away in our lifetime."

The threat from Islamic extremism is particularly worrisome for its potential of an attack involving weapons of mass destruction, he said.

"I can't remember a time that, honestly, was more dangerous than what we're in today because of the nature of this threat," Schoomaker said in a wide-ranging interview with a group of reporters.

Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary of homeland security for border and transportation security, said Tuesday that while the threat is real, it's very difficult to predict when terrorists will strike.

"Whereas we expect action very quick in American society, it's nothing for them to wait eight years between the first World Trade Center attack and the second one," Hutchinson said on CBS's "The Early Show."

"And so they're patient; they wait for the right time," he said.

Schoomaker, who came out of retirement last August to become the Army chief of staff, said the Iraq (news - web sites) war has been a tough challenge for the Army but also presents an opportunity to force changes in the way the service is structured.

"It's stressing the Army. I don't think that's a secret," he said.

He said the Army is on track to create as many as 15 additional active-duty combat brigades, which will allow it to maintain the current pace of operations in Iraq and elsewhere indefinitely. The first of those new brigades was created this month in the 3rd Infantry Division, which is preparing for a second tour of duty in Iraq starting late this year.

Schoomaker said he believes the U.S. effort in Iraq is making more progress than is generally reflected in news reporting. When asked whether he believed the United States is winning the war, he offered a cautious assessment.

"I think we're advancing the checkers," he said. "It's not as pretty as we'd like, not as predictable." He added, "This war that we're in is not going to be won militarily." It will be won in the economic and information arenas, he said, because the battle to preserve the system of nation-states against Islamic extremists who want to destroy it "really is a clash of ideas."

Asked about the military ramifications of the scheduled June 30 handover of sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government, Schoomaker said it will not change the Army's focus on defeating the insurgency and stabilizing the country.

"I don't think our soldiers are going to be any safer," after June 30, he said. "In fact I think it's very, very dangerous to think somehow because 30 June comes along that you can act differently" in terms of the military approach.

He also pledged to vigorously pursue the investigation into the mistreatment of Iraqis at the Abu Ghraib prison.

"We need to get to the bottom of it and deal with it comprehensively, and we will," he said.

Schoomaker said he would like to see a senior four-star general put in charge of an ongoing investigation into the role of military intelligence officers in the Abu Ghraib episode. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. general in Iraq, has asked to be replaced as overseer of the probe, a move that would allow him to be interviewed in connection with the case.

Oh Jerusalem

06-22-2004, 01:00 AM

Allah's Butchers (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13849)
By Ralph Peters
FrontPageMagazine.com (http://www.frontpagemag.com/) | June 21, 2004

Perhaps the greatest blasphemers in any religion are those who appoint themselves as God’s executioners. When an entire civilization embraces such butchers, both the civilization and the religion are in trouble.

The ritual slaughter of Paul Johnson Jr. in Saudi Arabia wasn’t simply the act of a cluster of terrorists, but a reflection of the failure of the entire Arab world.

Religions are what men make of them. In the Arab heartlands of Islam, Muslims are making a gory mess of their faith. It’s time to end the politically correct baby-talk insisting that Islam isn’t the problem. In the decaying Arab world, Islam is the problem—because of the way bitter old men interpret and deform its more humane precepts while embracing its cruelest injunctions.

The decapitation of yet another American civilian can’t be dismissed as an aberration from “true” Islam. The tradition of beheading unarmed prisoners dates to the earliest decades of the Muslim faith. The butchering of Paul Johnson, Nick Berg and others isn’t a new phenomenon—it’s revivalism, “that old-time religion” returning for a re-match with secular devils.

Millions of Muslims find such atrocities inspiring. Millions more view such cruelty as just. It’s the vicarious revenge of the self-made failure. And for every rent-a-cleric the Saudi government pushes in front of a television camera to condemn such acts, thousands of other mullahs continue to preach anti-Western hatred--the brutal specificity of which would horrify even America’s leftists, if only they stopped apologizing to terrorists long enough to listen.

The Saudis, especially, have sown the wind and now are reaping the whirlwind. I personally have seen their attempts to “purify” Islam and provoke anti-Western rage, from Africa to Southeast Asia, from Central Asia to the Arab homelands. No matter how many terrorists the Saudis kill on their own soil hereafter, they will remain guilty—in great part—for every murder committed by Muslim extremists. They created the monsters who now have run amok.

But the problem is far greater than the degenerate House of Saud. We face a phenomenon new to history: A once-great civilization failing before our eyes. Whether or not one subscribes to the idea of a “clash of civilizations,” we are incontestably witnessing the crash of an entire civilization, that of Middle Eastern Islam.

After centuries of self-destructive behavior, Arab civilization is unable to compete in a single field of human endeavor relevant to progress. Instead, Arab societies are racing backward into superstition, bigotry and a narcotic culture of blame. They have grown so impotent in every other regard—unable even to translate great wealth into minor power—that Arabs rich and poor, educated and illiterate, are enraptured by their rare “triumphs” over the West, from 9/11 to the barbaric murder of Westerners doing the work that Arabs themselves are too slothful or incompetent to do.

Baghdad fell, to the collective shame of those Arabs who prefer homegrown despots to Western-inspired democracy. The Arab revenge is to slaughter innocent captives. It makes no difference that the Koran specifically forbids the mistreatment of prisoners. As with the worst demagogues in every religion, the apostles of terror cite religious texts selectively. But if such practices are limited to fringe elements in other world religions in our time, the perversion of faith pervades today’s Islamic mainstream.

One can’t say that, of course. Arab Muslims are allowed to spew anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Hindu, anti-everybody-else hate speech. That’s just their culture, you see. But it’s taboo for a Westerner to suggest that the roots of terror may go a bit deeper than a black sheep or two in a few Middle-Eastern families.

Leftist apologists for terror here in the United States attack any attempt at a frank discussion of the Middle East’s problems with charges of bigotry and neo-imperialism. But if we examine the madness of the American Left dispassionately, we find that it’s the Noam Chomskys, Susan Sontags and their acolytes from the campus greensward who are the true bigots. Imperialists, too.

By refusing to hold Middle Eastern civilization to reasonable standards of behavior and responsibility, our domestic Left has given new life to the “little brown brother” school of colonialist thought. According to the Left’s internal logic, Arabs aren’t capable of the same moral reflection and behavioral maturity well-educated whites demonstrate. And, of course, Arabs are oppressed (no matter that their oppressors are all Arabs).

Arab extremists and dictators have become the ghetto blacks of hard-Left foreign policy. They’re all victims of Washington and bear no personal responsibility for their own errors, failures or crimes. It isn’t the Saddams, Abdullahs, Assads or Mubaraks who oppress the Arab masses, you see. Despots are never guilty--unless they get too chummy with the Americans. Anyway, dictators are victims, too. The mass graves and misery that haunt the Middle East (if such inconveniences must be mentioned at all) are my fault. And yours, dear reader. We’re to blame for all that’s wrong with the world. And don’t you forget it!

The family secret of the hard-Left is that its followers share one powerful trait with Osama bin Laden: They need to look down on others, to feel superior and just. If the lords of terror dispense with displays of pity for their victims, it’s only because they haven’t yet attained the leftist’s level of hypocrisy.

Why shouldn’t we hold a civilization accountable for its own failures and horrors? Why does our domestic Left revel endlessly in the excesses of a few renegade guards at Abu Ghraib prison while remaining silent on the industrial-scale massacres of Saddam Hussein—and other terror regimes? Why don’t our self-appointed “voices of conscience” speak out against the beheading of Paul Johnson Jr. or Nick Berg? What about the hundreds of Iraqi doctors, lawyers, engineers and educators slain by terrorists for trying to build a humane government in the Middle East? What about the countless civilians killed by car bombs? What about the victims of 9/11?

The silence isn’t just deafening. It’s revolting.

We all await, anxiously, Michael Moore’s film “Trolling For al-Qaeda.” A pity Paul Johnson Jr. won’t be around to watch it.

Ralph Peters is the author, most recently, of Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0811700844/103-2581958-2523800?v=glance).

Oh Jerusalem

06-22-2004, 01:43 AM

Another American official wakes up. We can only hope that more senior US officials are as aware as John Lehman as to what ails the world.

Please read it carefully. This is the guy who has been kicking the pants of his fellow 9/11 Commission members who are Bush-bashing away while conveniently forgetting what their goal is.

Can this guy run for president in 2008? Or as VP, alongside McCaine?

The U.S. Naval Institute 130th Annual Meeting and Annapolis Naval History Symposium (2004)
Address by Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, May 2004

'Our Enemy Is Not Terrorism' (http://www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2004/articles/0621lehman.html)

The former Secretary of the Navy and current member of the Kean Commission investigating the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States addressed the U.S. Naval Institute 130th Annual Meeting and Annapolis Naval History Symposium on 31 March. Following is an edited version of his remarks.

The subject here is naval history and the naval history to come. This is particularly relevant, given the subjects I've been immersed in over the last year-the so-called war on terrorism and the attacks of 9/11, what went wrong, and what we should do to fix it. I have learned that what these two institutions-the U.S. Naval Institute and the U.S. Naval Academy- stand for are at the center of what we face as a nation going forward.

We are at a juncture today that really is more of a threshold, even more of a watershed, than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was in 1941. We are currently in a war, but it is not a war on terrorism. In fact, that has been a great confusion, and the sooner we drop that term, the better. This would be like President Franklin Roosevelt saying in World War II, "We are engaged in a war against kamikazes and blitzkrieg." Like them, terrorism is a method, a tool, a weapon that has been used against us. And part of the reason we suffered such a horrific attack is that we were not prepared. Let's not kid ourselves. Some very smart people defeated every single defense this country had, and defeated them easily, with confidence and arrogance. There are many lessons we must learn from this. We were not prepared intellectually. Those of us in the national security field still carried the baggage of the Cold War. We thought in concepts of coalition warfare and the Warsaw Pact. When we thought of terrorism, we thought only of state-sponsored terrorism, which is why the immediate reaction of many in our government agencies after 9/11 was: Which state did it? Saddam, it must have been Saddam. We had failed to grasp, for a variety of reasons, the new phenomenon that had emerged in the world. This was not state - sponsored terrorism. This was religious war.

This was the emergence of a transnational enemy driven by religious fervor and fanaticism. Our enemy is not terrorism. Our enemy is violent, Islamic fundamentalism. None of our government institutions was set up with receptors, or even vocabulary, to deal with this. So we left ourselves completely vulnerable to a concerted attack.

Where are we today? I'd like to say we have fixed these problems, but we haven't. We have very real vulnerabilities. We have not diminished in any way the fervor and ideology of our enemy. We are fighting them in many areas of the world, and I must say with much better awareness of the issues and their nature. We're fighting with better tools. But I cannot say we are now safe from the kind of attack we saw on 9/11. I think we are much safer than we were on 9/11; the ability of our enemies to launch a concerted, sophisticated attack is much less than it was then. Still, we're totally vulnerable to the kinds of attacks we've seen in Madrid, for instance. We face a very sophisticated and intelligent enemy who has been trained, in many cases, in our universities and gone to school on our methods, learned from their mistakes, and continued to use the very nature of our free society and its aversion to intrusion in privacy and discrimination to their benefit.

For example, today it is still a prohibited offense for an airline to have two people of the same ethnic background interviewed at one time, because that is discrimination. Our airline security is still full of holes. Our ability to carry out covert operations abroad is only marginally better than it was at the time of 9/11. A huge amount of fundamental cultural and institutional change must be carried out in the United States before we can effectively deal with the nature of the threat. Today, probably 50 or more states have schools that are teaching jihad, preaching, recruiting, and training. We have absolutely no successful programs even begun to remediate against those efforts. It’s very important that people understand the complexity of this threat. We have had to institute new approaches to protecting our civil liberties the way we authorize surveillance, the way we conduct our immigration and naturalization policies, and the way we issue passports. That's only the beginning. The beginning of wisdom is to recognize the problem, to recognize that for every jihadist we kill or capture as we carry out an aggressive and positive policy in Afghanistan and elsewhere another 50 are being trained in schools and mosques around the world. This problem goes back a long way. We have been asleep. Just by chance about six months ago, I picked up a book by V. S. Naipaul, one of the great English prose writers. I love to read his short stories and travelogues. The book was titled Among the Believers (New York: Vintage, 1982) and was an account of his travels in Indonesia, where he found that Saudi-funded schools and mosques were transforming Indonesian society from a very relaxed, syncretist Islam to a jihadist fundamentalist fanatical society, all paid for with Saudi Arabian funding. Nobody paid attention. Presidents in four administrations put their arms around Saudi ambassadors, ignored the Wahhabi jihadism, and said these are our eternal friends.

We have seen throughout the last 20 years a kind of head-in-the-sand approach to national security in the Pentagon. We were comfortable with the existing concept of what the threat was, what threat analysis was, and how we derived our requirements, still using the same old tools we all grew up with. We paid no attention to the real nature of this emerging threat, even though there were warning signs. Many will recall with pain what we went through in the Reagan administration in 1983, when the Marine barracks were bombed in Beirut-241 Marines and Navy corpsmen were killed.

We immediately got an intercept from NSA [National Security Agency], a total smoking gun from the foreign ministry of Iran, ordering the murder of our Marines. Nothing was done to retaliate. Instead, we did exactly what the terrorists wanted us to do, which was to withdraw. Osama bin Laden has cited this as one of his dawning moments. The vaunted United States is a paper tiger; Americans are afraid of casualties; they run like cowards when attacked; and they don't even bother to take their dead with them. This was a seminal moment for Osama. After that, we had our CIA station chief kidnapped and tortured to death. Nothing was done. Then, we had our Marine Colonel [William R.] Higgins kidnapped and publicly hanged. Nothing was done. We fueled and made these people aware of the tremendous effectiveness of terrorism as a tool of jihad. It worked. They chased us out of one place after another, because we would not retaliate. The Secretary of Defense at the time has said he never received those intercepts. That's an example of one of the huge problems our commission has uncovered. We have allowed the intelligence community to evolve into a bureaucratic archipelago of baronies in the Defense Department, the CIA, and 95 other different intelligence units in our government. None of them talked to one another in the same computerized system. There was no systemic sharing. Some will recall the Phoenix memo and the fact that there were people in the FBI saying, "Hey, there are young Arabs learning to fly and they don't want to learn how to take off or land. Maybe we should look into them." It went nowhere.

Oh Jerusalem

06-22-2004, 01:44 AM

(continued)

We had watch lists with 65,000 terrorists' names on them, created by a very sophisticated system in the State Department called Tip-Off. That existed before 9/11, but nobody in the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] bothered to look at it. The FAA had 12 names on its no-fly list. The State Department had a guy on its list named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He was already under indictment for his role in planning the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. The State Department issued him a visa. I could go on and on.

Two big lessons glare out from what our investigations have discovered so far. Number one, in our government bureaucracy today there is no accountability. Since 9/11-the greatest failure of American defenses in the history of our country, at least since the burning of Washington in 1814-only one person has been fired. He is a hero, in my judgment: [retired Vice] Admiral John Poindexter. He got fired because of an excessive zeal to catch these bastards. But he was the only one fired. Not any of the 19 officers lost their jobs at Immigration for allowing the 19 terrorists-9 who presented grossly falsified passports-to enter the country. One Customs Service officer stopped the 20th terrorist, at risk to his own career. Do you think he's been promoted? Not a chance. That is the culture we've allowed to develop, except in the Navy. We've all felt the pain over the last year of the number of skippers who have been relieved in the U.S. Navy: two on one cruiser in one year.

That's a problem for us. It's also something we should be mightily proud of, because it stands out in stark contrast to the rest of the U.S. government. In the United States Navy, we still have accountability. It's bred into our culture. And what we stand for here has to be re-spread into our government and our nation.

Actions have consequences, and people must be held accountable. Customs officer Jose Melendez-Perez stopped the 20th terrorist, who was supposed to be on Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania. Probably because of the shorthanded muscle on that team, the passengers were able to overcome the terrorists. Melendez-Perez did this at great personal risk, because his colleagues and his supervisors told him, "You can't do this. This guy is an Arab ethnic. You're racially profiling. You're going to get in real trouble, because it's against Department of Transportation policy to racially profile." He said, "I don't care. This guy's a bad guy. I can see it in his eyes." As he sent this guy back out of the United States, the guy turned around to him and said, "I'll be back." You know, he is back. He's in Guantanamo. We captured him in Afghanistan. Do you think Melendez-Perez got a promotion? Do you think he got any recognition? Do you think he is doing any better than the 19 of his time-serving, unaccountable colleagues? Don't think any bit of it. We have no accountability, but we're going to restore it.

The other glaring lack that has been discovered throughout the investigation is in leadership. Leadership is the willingness to accept the burdens and the risks, the potential embarrassment, and the occasional failure of leading men and women. It is saying: We will do it this way. I won't let that guy in. I will do this and I'll take the consequences. That's what we stand for here. That's what the crucible of the U.S. Naval Academy has carried on now since 1845, and what the U.S. Naval Institute has carried on for 130 years and hasn't compromised. We all should be very proud of it. We need leadership now more than ever. We need to re-spread this culture, which is so rare today, into the way we conduct our government business, let alone our private business.
Having said all this, I'm very optimistic. We have seen come forward in this investigation people from every part of our bureaucracy to say they screwed up and to tell what went wrong and what we've got to do to change it. We have an agenda for change. I think we're going to see a very fundamental shift in the culture of our government as a result of this. I certainly hope so. This should be a true wake-up call. We cannot let this be swept under the rug, put on the shelf like one more of the hundreds of other commissions that have gone right into the memory hole. This time, I truly believe it's going to be different.

andak01

06-22-2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish.

Outright lie. Not ALL the speakers or even anywhere near a majority speak like the extremists do. I venture a bet that I have spent more time listening to live kutbahs in Mosques in several countries over a period of years than the learned professor. And I have never heard anything remotely resembling the drivel quoted from extremists in FrontPageMagazine and the like. It may not be uncommon in parts of Palestine, Pakistan and rural Afghanistan, but it is not representative of Mexico, Canada, America, China, places where millions of Muslims live peacefully.

These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.

Mozel tov, he reads Arabic. Any constructive ideas what to do with said knowledge? Or is it best to use knowledge to dehumanize and destroy?

Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God.

First, last and foremost.

But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behaviour. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible.

Lie number two. Though there are differences, the differences are much fewer than most are willing to admit. In fact, there are parts of the Quran that admit within them of being previously revealed to the Jews. Example.

5:32
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

I can understand the man's preference for the Bible. Why not? That's his own scripture. But imagine if I wrote an article proclaiming my own beliefs as superior and the road to salvation. I can hardly believe that this Jewish orientalist has heartfelt convictions when he proclaims the New Testament a worthy work.

The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation, which, from time to time, meet each other.

I could just as easily say that the Quran is a continuation of the prophetic message of Judaism. But it's patronizing to say such a thing. Let those who God guides to Islam pursue it, and those on another path go their way.

Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God.

I wasn't aware that Jews ascribed to such an idea. The very nature of God makes the idea preposterous. How could an omnipresent, omniscient, timeless being be like a man?

But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their fundamentals speak about honouring the image of God and the hope of salvation.

And we honor the image of God by not creating mediocre copies of something we don't even have the power to fully fathom. Many Christian protestants are iconoclastic as well. BTW, these are the Christian fundamentalists.

Now let's move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world.

A basic misunderstanding. One who submits to Islam submits to God, not to a religion or a person or some stereotype Arab on horseback. THAT'S why we say Moses was Muslim. He was mu-slim ( one who submits ). Any of you Jews deny that Moses (peace and blessings upon him) submitted his heart and soul to G_D? I wouldn't blame you for hating the term itself, in as much as it has negative connotations to you. But Moses didn't part the sea because of arrogance. He did it from submitting to faith.

Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sins, while Islam speaks about ruling the world.

Right! What a joke.

http://www.bibletime.com/bt/site/sermons/WhoRules/index.html

Who rules the world? Jesus does. When does he rule it? Now. Why do we care? It impacts most of the rest of our Christian experience.[/quote]

http://prowebserv.com/christianity/gospel/bible/

[i]Christianity cannot be wiped out
Christianity will prevail
Every knee shall bow
And every tongue confess
Even you will profess
That Jesus Christ is Lord
The day you stand condemned
Before Christ and His redeemed

I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions."

It really isn't a quote if he doesn't give the source. My Yahoo search on this quote led me back to Sharon and Israel forum.

The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam.

Well, dang. So Islam acted imperially, not like Christianity. After all, it's not like the Christians had an empire based in Rome or anything like that in 634! Why if they had, they could have done things like imposing their religion on the pagans. But instead, the idolaters of Byzantium were...

Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.

OK, but are we talking Jim Crow law humiliation or Sioux Indian nation humiliation or Nazi humiliation or black slave humiliation (many of whom in America were stripped by force of their Muslim religion)?

Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems

See above. Submitters. He was speaking in Arabic, so it is fair to translate that word just like any other.

Mohammed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books.

Absolute lie. He claimed they were corrupted through translation and transmission. Even the Quran speaks of the revelation of those books as true revelations. So saying that they were pure forgeries would almost amount to blasphemy.

A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden.

This guy's on everybody's mailing list!!!

Look, those of you who want to believe that Bin Laden holds the true message of Islam...well, enjoy yourselves! You are as ignorant as his followers.

L@mplighterM

06-22-2004, 07:42 PM

andak01

06-22-2004, 07:55 PM

You want to kill 1.2 billion people with nukes. The sad part, some people will agree with you. I expect you to defend yourself, but killing people isn't always the best defense.

David_in_NYC

06-22-2004, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by andak01
Outright lie. Not ALL the speakers or even anywhere near a majority speak like the extremists do. I venture a bet that I have spent more time listening to live kutbahs in Mosques in several countries over a period of years than the learned professor. And I have never heard anything remotely resembling the drivel quoted from extremists in FrontPageMagazine and the like. It may not be uncommon in parts of Palestine, Pakistan and rural Afghanistan, but it is not representative of Mexico, Canada, America, China, places where millions of Muslims live peacefully.

Muslims in China don't live peacefully - they have been fighting a war with China a long time. Ever hear of the Uighurs? Muslims in Canada aren't peaceful either - they are attempting to institute Sharia code there, and have already embarked on several anti-Jewish pogroms. Muslims in America killed 3000 people on 9/11. They preach terror to this very day, just across the river from me.

And of course, these 'peaceful' Muslims you allege exist are outnumbered 100-1 by the ones in the Middle East, where you admit incitement to violence is routine.

Mozel tov, he reads Arabic. Any constructive ideas what to do with said knowledge? Or is it best to use knowledge to dehumanize and destroy?

Or to use that knowledge to defend humanity from the evil that is Islam?

Lie number two. Though there are differences, the differences are much fewer than most are willing to admit. In fact, there are parts of the Quran that admit within them of being previously revealed to the Jews. Example.

5:32
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

I can understand the man's preference for the Bible. Why not? That's his own scripture. But imagine if I wrote an article proclaiming my own beliefs as superior and the road to salvation. I can hardly believe that this Jewish orientalist has heartfelt convictions when he proclaims the New Testament a worthy work.

Interesting how you completely ignore that the very basis of Islam is the claim that Jews and Christians corrupted the Bible.

I could just as easily say that the Quran is a continuation of the prophetic message of Judaism. But it's patronizing to say such a thing. Let those who God guides to Islam pursue it, and those on another path go their way.

Christianity is a continuation of the message of Judaism. A flawed one, and incorrect, but it is an extension and not an obliteration of Judaism. Islam on the other hand declares that Judaism and Christianity as they exist are false, and adds the charge that Jews and Christians deliberately falsified the Word of God.

I wasn't aware that Jews ascribed to such an idea. The very nature of God makes the idea preposterous. How could an omnipresent, omniscient, timeless being be like a man?

We are like shadows of God. He is not like us; we are like Him.

Try reading Genesis, Chapter 1. You'll find verse 26 most interesting, I'm sure. Apparently you were insincere as a Christian as well, if you didn't know this.

And not only is this not preposterous, it is essential. If you believe that man is made in the image of God, then you will not easily be led to destroy that image. On the other hand, if you reject this, as in Islam, then there is no such prohibition to the barbaric treatment of other human beings.

And we honor the image of God by not creating mediocre copies of something we don't even have the power to fully fathom. Many Christian protestants are iconoclastic as well. BTW, these are the Christian fundamentalists.

Some honor! Your idea of 'honor' is quite strange... is this the same 'honor' from which is derived the Islamic tradition of 'honor killings'? If you really had any respect for God, the least you could do is not violate the commandment not to worship idols, such as the meteorite in Mecca that millions of Muslims pray to each year.

A basic misunderstanding. One who submits to Islam submits to God, not to a religion or a person or some stereotype Arab on horseback. THAT'S why we say Moses was Muslim. He was mu-slim ( one who submits ). Any of you Jews deny that Moses (peace and blessings upon him) submitted his heart and soul to G_D? I wouldn't blame you for hating the term itself, in as much as it has negative connotations to you. But Moses didn't part the sea because of arrogance. He did it from submitting to faith.

Moses didn't 'submit' to anything. He was inspired and acted of his own free will, not because he sublimated his own will to some supernatural force. Again, you demostrate a thorough ignorance of the basics of God's teachings.

Right! What a joke.

http://www.bibletime.com/bt/site/sermons/WhoRules/index.html

Who rules the world? Jesus does. When does he rule it? Now. Why do we care? It impacts most of the rest of our Christian experience.

http://prowebserv.com/christianity/gospel/bible/

[i]Christianity cannot be wiped out
Christianity will prevail
Every knee shall bow
And every tongue confess
Even you will profess
That Jesus Christ is Lord
The day you stand condemned
Before Christ and His redeemed

Can you tell the difference between that, and Islam's vision in which all other religions are wiped out? Judaism also claims to be, and is, in my belief, eternal (or at least until the end of days). I'll give you a hint - the Christian vision doesn't require killing anybody.

It really isn't a quote if he doesn't give the source. My Yahoo search on this quote led me back to Sharon and Israel forum.

Guess you didn't try very hard. I didn't have too much trouble finding this quote from an online version of the Koran (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=religions&size=First+100). Try Surah 9:33; 48:28; and 61:9.

So either you're an ignorant and insincere Muslim, or a blatant liar. Which is it?

Well, dang. So Islam acted imperially, not like Christianity. After all, it's not like the Christians had an empire based in Rome or anything like that in 634! Why if they had, they could have done things like imposing their religion on the pagans. But instead, the idolaters of Byzantium were...

Actually, the Christians did not have an empire based in Rome in 634; the Western empire was destroyed at that time. And you totally ignore that while Christianity is no longer imperialist, and thus is not a concern to the rest of the world, Islam remains so. Is it a problem only if it is not Islam, or will you join the rest of us in ending Islamic imperialism?

OK, but are we talking Jim Crow law humiliation or Sioux Indian nation humiliation or Nazi humiliation or black slave humiliation (many of whom in America were stripped by force of their Muslim religion)?

We're talking something approximate to the Nazi 'humiliation', or 'genocide' as it is more accurately known.

Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems

See above. Submitters. He was speaking in Arabic, so it is fair to translate that word just like any other.

See above. All the Biblical prophets acted of their own free will. None of them submitted to the inhumanity known as Islam, or did anything similar to what Mohammad demanded of his followers.

Absolute lie. He claimed they were corrupted through translation and transmission. Even the Quran speaks of the revelation of those books as true revelations. So saying that they were pure forgeries would almost amount to blasphemy.

And this is the part where you have to be terminally stupid to be a Muslim. So this Mohammad dude somehow knew the real truth, and the religions dedicated to the Bible had it all wrong. And I've got a bridge over the Euphrates to sell, too - cheap!

Look, those of you who want to believe that Bin Laden holds the true message of Islam...well, enjoy yourselves! You are as ignorant as his followers.

I think I've well proven that you're the ignorant one... you couldn't even be bothered to read the first chapter of Genesis, yet you're some sort of expert.

What you are, really, is a pathetic apologist for murderers and terrorists. When you get caught in the inevitable reaction to Islamic violence, I will agree that you deserve it.

David_in_NYC

06-22-2004, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by andak01
You want to kill 1.2 billion people with nukes. The sad part, some people will agree with you. I expect you to defend yourself, but killing people isn't always the best defense.

Andak, we're trying to prevent having to kill 1.2 billion people with nukes. But the longer Islamic violence continues, the less likely we will be able to succeed.

One of these days you might get it. Apparently today is not that day.

L@mplighterM

06-22-2004, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by andak01
You want to kill 1.2 billion people with nukes. The sad part, some people will agree with you. I expect you to defend yourself, but killing people isn't always the best defense.

I wouldn’t shed a tear if world governments eliminated Islam from the face of this earth, every citizens should demand that from their leaders.

There’s always the straw that breaks the camels back and I suppose Islam hasn’t claimed enough fodder yet.

I think a nuclear bomb detonated a couple of hundred feet over Baghdad would have been extremely effective in showing Islam that the west means business. I’m not the captain that drives Islam but I think Muslims would do well to change their politics/religion.

andak01

06-22-2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
Interesting how you completely ignore that the very basis of Islam is the claim that Jews and Christians corrupted the Bible.

That is NOT the basis of Islam. The basis is our declaration of faith. There is no God but God. That message is in the Bible too and has never been corrupted.

A flawed one, and incorrect, but it is an extension and not an obliteration of Judaism. Islam on the other hand declares that Judaism and Christianity as they exist are false, and adds the charge that Jews and Christians deliberately falsified the Word of God.

Wrong on both counts. How does this count as an extension of Judaism?

John 2 001:007
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

001:009
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

3:23
And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

From the Quran? No, Acts, New Testament.

19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Bin Laden? No, supposedly the words of Jesus in the book of Luke.

Oh Jerusalem

06-22-2004, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by andak01
That is NOT the basis of Islam. The basis is our declaration of faith. There is no God but God. That message is in the Bible too and has never been corrupted.
You're playing with semantics. The Quran can only be true if it is claimed that Jews have corrupted the Bible and Christians the New Testament.
Wrong on both counts. How does this count as an extension of Judaism?
Christianity is a historical extension of Judaism. And Christianity claims that with the advent of Jesus, there is a new order - not that the old order was false or intentionally corrupted in its essential texts.
19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Bin Laden? No, supposedly the words of Jesus in the book of Luke. [/B]
Yes. I cannot be bothered but I believe this verse and others has been discussed under RELIGION, regarding Christianity's inherent violent attitude to non-Christians and how the Vatican has tried to dispute or revoke such teachings.

No Moslem equivalent of a Vatican II Council appears on the horizon. On the contrary.

David_in_NYC

06-22-2004, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by andak01
That is NOT the basis of Islam. The basis is our declaration of faith. There is no God but God. That message is in the Bible too and has never been corrupted.

You could be executed in Pakistan for blasphemy for that statement. Here's what the Koran has to say:

[4.46] Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places and say: We have heard and we disobey and: Hear, may you not be made to hear! and: Raina, distorting (the word) with their tongues and taunting about religion; and if they had said (instead): We have heard and we obey, and hearken, and unzurna it would have been better for them and more upright; but Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief, so they do not believe but a little.

It might help if you read the book that the religion you claim to adhere to is based on.

Wrong on both counts. How does this count as an extension of Judaism?

John 2 001:007
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

001:009
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

3:23
And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

From the Quran? No, Acts, New Testament.

19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Bin Laden? No, supposedly the words of Jesus in the book of Luke.

I guess you understand as little of Christianity as you do of Judaism and Islam. Unfortunately for you, this particular Jew is reasonably well versed in Christianity.

Luke 19:27 relates a story told by Jesus. It is not Jesus' command! They are the words of the noble who is the subject of the parable.

And Acts 3:23 is a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, and 19. So not only did you totally miss the point, you managed to slur the Torah in the process. Good work.

Christianity claims to be the fulfillment of Judaism; it does not claim the Jews corrupted the Torah, only that we missed the boat, so to speak. Islam, on the other hand, makes explicit claims the contradict the Torah. For example, it claims that it was Ishmael and not Isaac was offered as a sacrifice by Abraham.

Oh Jerusalem

06-22-2004, 11:17 PM

Andak, we're still waiting (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=102028#post102028).

Canajew

06-23-2004, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by andak01
Outright lie. Not ALL the speakers or even anywhere near a
A basic misunderstanding. One who submits to Islam submits to God, not to a religion or a person or some stereotype Arab on horseback. THAT'S why we say Moses was Muslim. He was mu-slim ( one who submits ). Any of you Jews deny that Moses (peace and blessings upon him) submitted his heart and soul to G_D? I wouldn't blame you for hating the term itself, in as much as it has negative connotations to you. But Moses didn't part the sea because of arrogance. He did it from submitting to faith.

bull. Islam is not merely a religion, and it is dishonest to present it as such. Much mroe, it is a religious-political apparatus. Islamic attempts to appropriate the religious figures and symbols of other religions was merely an attempt to appropriate the legitimacy granted to those other religions. Note the consistency of this with the fact that Moslems, since their very beginning, have been destroying the religious structures of other religions and constructing their own religious structures on top of them. They are trying to appropriate legitimacy and simultaneously de-legitimize the other religion (as "imperfect" and the like, as per the Koran).

Moses was not a Muslim, because he did not believe that Mohamed was his messenger. Otherwise, you would not be able to say that Jews and Christians are not Muslims as well, which they clearly are not (a point which most Muslims tend to completely agree with, though you might like to obfuscate).

Islam may have a line to convince the good followers among it to follow the political agenda of those in charge (much like the Church did in medievil Europe), but this is just a line. Islam was developed by a warlord and his cabal to exert political control over his followers and to construct the foundations for a sustained empire at war with all those empires around it.

As for submission, it is about time Islamists started submitting to those of god's creatures (peace be upon them and all that) who are seeking the betterment and advancement of humanity through technology, progress, and freedom, and submitted less to what the warlords and tyrants decided they should submit to by couching it in religious terms.

For if Islam wins, it is the end of modern civilization and the beginning of a new dark age. But if Islam looses, by either dropping its delusional tyrannical utopian vision or through its subjugation by other, less dysfunctional civilizations, then the future of humanity at least potentially looks bright.

What do you think of that? You want Islam to win? I assume you do. What do you think that means? And please don't come back with "its not about win or lose" because it is. The dominant paradigm going forward will either be a secular technologically focused society based on Judaeo-Christian ethics or ot will be a backwards looking oppresive tyrannical Islamic theocracy when progress is eschewed for some sadistic tyrants' views on decency and implementing the "true word" (lol) of god. I mean, I know I don't think much of the "authenticity" of any "holy books", but the Koran is a far more obvious opportunisitc fabrication designed to develop a following and cement control than the New Testament, and about equivalent to the book of Morman. And there is certianly more wisdom in buddhist teachings.

Oh, and I have a birthmark on my back, which just proves what I am saying is true.

L@mplighterM

06-24-2004, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by andak01
That is NOT the basis of Islam. The basis is our declaration of faith. There is no God but God. That message is in the Bible too and has never been corrupted.

Wrong on both counts. How does this count as an extension of Judaism?

John 2 001:007
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

001:009
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

3:23
And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

From the Quran? No, Acts, New Testament.

19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Bin Laden? No, supposedly the words of Jesus in the book of Luke.

Snip:

The Janus* face of Islam (NFB January 16, 2002)

By Abul Kasem

Islamists living in the infidel West are greatly alarmed and deeply perplexed after the September terrorist attack in America. After 9-11, many of them are doing overtime to search the 'goodies' from the Qur’an and are desperate to prove that Islam is a religion of unbound mercy to their host countries. They repeatedly quote a handful of these 'goldies' from the 'Meccan Verses' of the Qur’an, which are milder in tone than the ones descended on Medina. They carefully hide the unconscionable, intolerable, barbaric verses that litter the almost entire Qur’an by saying that 'those verses are out of context' and are not applicable to the infidels who have given them a chance for a better life and have accepted them as their own countrymen. Nothing can be worse than this hide and seek game of the Islamists living in the West. It is in the interest of all the non-Muslims (as well as the innocent Muslims who have very little knowledge about 'real Islam') that the truth must be told.

The message is very clear. Those Islamists living in the West quote those 'goodies' from the Qur’an are actually showing the dead 'Meccan Islam' to the vast majority of the ignorant non-Muslims (as well as half-informed Muslims) to camouflage the most up to date version of Islam; i.e. the living and breathing 'Medina Islam'. The strategies of these Islamists are also very clear:

· When in the West or in the land of the infidels or when weak, then practice 'Meccan Islam'.

· When in Islamic paradises or when the number of Muslims becomes sizable in an infidels land, then practice 'Medina Islam' or the 'real Islam'.

The sooner the humanity discovers this double face of Islam (a la Roman god Janus) the quicker will it be saved from the further catastrophe of the like of 9-11.

So, how do we know about the 'living and breathing Medina Islam'? Here is the answer.

In order to understand the 'real Islam' we must look at Qur’an in chronological order and not the way it is published. The chronological order shows which verses are canceled and which verses are replaced. It is meaningless to study and to explain Qur’an without the knowledge of its currency. Many verses in the Qur’an have been replaced by other verses.

http://rationalthinking.humanists.net/janus_face_of_islam.htm

Oh Jerusalem

06-25-2004, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Andak, we're still waiting (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=102028#post102028).
In Jewish Halachah (legal law), sometimes a rule is applied: Shtika Kehoda'a - Silence is (almost) like admittance. :o

andak01

06-26-2004, 01:51 PM

Good Lampy. Explain that to your kids while their hair is falling out in nuclear winter, how you saved the world from intolerance and made it safe for people who think exactly like you do.

andak01

06-26-2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
In Jewish Halachah (legal law), sometimes a rule is applied: Shtika Kehoda'a - Silence is (almost) like admittance. :o

Your silence to my PM is an admittance that you really aren't interested in any kind of civil discussion. Frankly, I'm horrified at how what this forum has become. Some fairly rational people who I felt I could at least communicate with have moved over to the banner of genocide. I suppose that means that Al Qaida is winning in turning this world into a battleground. It is true, a few bad apples can spoil everything.

BTW, what is it I'm admitting to? That I want to kill all of you??? That is as disgusting as it is laughable.

MichaelC

06-26-2004, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by andak01
I suppose that means that Al Qaida is winning in turning this world into a battleground. It is true, a few bad apples can spoil everything.

This statement of yours very well sums up the problem people here have with your viewpoint. You are forever pushing the idea that there's only a "few bad apples" (what an euphemism for the reality of the situation!) while over and over it is demonstrated to you that there is a vast problem with the way islam inspires so much slaughter.

You are willfully blind to the truth.

andak01

06-26-2004, 02:34 PM

You are forever pushing the idea that there's only a "few bad apples" (what an euphemism for the reality of the situation!) while over and over it is demonstrated to you that there is a vast problem with the way islam inspires so much slaughter.

20,000 bad apples, according to the State Department figures, about 400% of what it was before we started our preemptive strikes and said "bring 'em on". Al Qaida is the largest such group, so there could be as many as 100,000 recruits out of 1.2 billion Muslims- a whopping 1/8th of 1 percent! But never fear, killing them is going to convince the remainder that they really aren't at war with the west. Images of helicoptors blowing up mosques is going to keep them from wanting to defend themselves. Processed lunch meat!

This war is destined to be as sucessful as the war on drugs or the war against poverty. And approximately as long lived.

ibrodsky

06-26-2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by andak01
Images of helicoptors blowing up mosques is going to keep them from wanting to defend themselves. Processed lunch meat!

Typical anti-American, pro-Islamo-fascist statement from andak01: the Muslim barbarians who blow up hotels and decapitate hostages are, in his twisted view, "defending themselves."

andak01

06-26-2004, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Typical anti-American, pro-Islamo-fascist statement from andak01: the Muslim barbarians who blow up hotels and decapitate hostages are, in his twisted view, "defending themselves."

I'm not anti-American. I'm pro-education, pro- respect of women, pro- free speech and anti-facism.

andak01: the Muslim barbarians who blow up hotels and decapitate hostages are, in his twisted view, "defending themselves."

No. Innocent people caught up in the conflict are defending themselves even if the conflict was started by terrorists. When an occupying invasion force attacks, people have the legal right to defend themselves. That's international law. They do not have a right to kill innocent civilians.

I really wish that nobody was being killed. And people that kill civilians and soft targets are indeed barbarous. But in the end, Iraq was invaded. Resistance should be anticipated. Instead, we were led into this war with pollyanna predictions that Iraqis would all love us. Some of them do, but not enough.

At any rate, be clear that I am not one of those saying we should withdraw from Iraq. We drilled the hole in the dyke. Now we've got to keep our finger in it till the water goes away.

Our biggest mistake IMO was not to transition from a military occupation force to a police force quickly enough. The military can't be blamed for being put to do the wrong job.

MichaelC

06-26-2004, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by andak01
20,000 bad apples, according to the State Department figures, about 400% of what it was before we started our preemptive strikes and said "bring 'em on". Al Qaida is the largest such group, so there could be as many as 100,000 recruits out of 1.2 billion Muslims- a whopping 1/8th of 1 percent! But never fear, killing them is going to convince the remainder that they really aren't at war with the west. Images of helicoptors blowing up mosques is going to keep them from wanting to defend themselves. Processed lunch meat!

This war is destined to be as sucessful as the war on drugs or the war against poverty. And approximately as long lived.
You love to play fast and loose with numbers while totally ignoring that there are millions of supporters of these advance warriors for islam. Along with that, there is no movement within islam to condemn these "bad apples". And you consider neither condition significant. is it really any wonder that people here leap to confront you.

andak01

06-26-2004, 05:36 PM

You love to play fast and loose with numbers while totally ignoring that there are millions of supporters of these advance warriors for islam. Along with that, there is no movement within islam to condemn these "bad apples". And you consider neither condition significant. is it really any wonder that people here leap to confront you.

Contrary to what is being said around here, I don't suggest that people sit on their hands. I'm just saying that the most violent solutions aren't always the best ones. You don't hunt down every fox on earth to make your chickens safe. It's cheaper and safer to build a fence. Maybe a fence or a policy of assassination is what works for you. But I'd want to look at the resulting security, not just how many of the enemy gets killed. Changing the school curriculum in Palestine is going to go farther toward preventing anti-semitism than a policy of open hunting season.

The kind of support that counts most is money, weapons or recruitment. We are making strides in counteracting all of that, and that and good intelligence are the kind of efforts I support most. If there are no camps and no training, then the type of coordinated attack like 9/11 or Bali will give way to occasional attacks deranged individuals. Many of those can be prevented through better security.

There was plenty of support for the Nazis in Europe after the war, but there was no infrastructure or network. We are dealing with a new type of enemy with a new paradigm. That requires some new solutions. Genocide is an old and uneffective one. Ask the Nazis.

MichaelC

06-26-2004, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by andak01
Contrary to what is being said around here, I don't suggest that people sit on their hands. I'm just saying that the most violent solutions aren't always the best ones. You don't hunt down every fox on earth to make your chickens safe. It's cheaper and safer to build a fence. Maybe a fence or a policy of assassination is what works for you. But I'd want to look at the resulting security, not just how many of the enemy gets killed. Changing the school curriculum in Palestine is going to go farther toward preventing anti-semitism than a policy of open hunting season.

The kind of support that counts most is money, weapons or recruitment. We are making strides in counteracting all of that, and that and good intelligence are the kind of efforts I support most. If there are no camps and no training, then the type of coordinated attack like 9/11 or Bali will give way to occasional attacks deranged individuals. Many of those can be prevented through better security.

There was plenty of support for the Nazis in Europe after the war, but there was no infrastructure or network. We are dealing with a new type of enemy with a new paradigm. That requires some new solutions. Genocide is an old and uneffective one. Ask the Nazis.
I do not fault your suggestions as far as they go. But I maintain that they simply do not go far enough. We are at war. A real war. In war, the enemy is trying to kill you and you prefer to kill the enemy first. That is the state of things. It is already a huge conflict that threatens to get really out of hand if WMD's proliferate in arab countries. We have to stop that, not with wishful thinking or "high falutin" ideas, but with action. There is simply no alternative.

The things you suggest are activities post bellum and will perhaps serve to alter what is to come at that point, but there is little chance of instituting reform without eliminating the intractable enemy we are currently dealing with.

I reiterate what I have maintained throughout our lengthy and mostly cantakerous dialogue:if there were an international movement that was vocal and visible from within Islam that vociferously denounced terrorism, perhaps even issuing fatwas condeming the perpetrators of such conduct, you would see a "sea change" among the critics of islam. We just want something tangible to convince us that there is really anyone there to match the description you are fond of giving us describing moderate muslims. A few guys on the corner won't do. We need to see large numbers of these alleged moderates standing up for what is right, risking it all to assert the "peaceful" nature of their religion. If they do not appear, the only conclusion that can be drawn by rational people is that they do not exist.

Since there are so many muslims willing to "martyr" themselves to attain nefarious ends, why are there no muslims willing to "martyr" themselves to give credence to the so-called peaceful nature of islam?

Oh Jerusalem

06-26-2004, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by andak01
Your silence to my PM is an admittance that you really aren't interested in any kind of civil discussion.
Sorry, forgot about that. I will answer you shortly.

But where was I uncivil? Yes, I have an intuitive feeling that Islam is not world-friendly, let alone Jew-friendly.

Keep in mind that it's me here who speaks up publicly on your behalf, taking your word at face value.

I and others here, however, see contradictions between what you state and what we see as Islam's statements to Moslems.

If you can't respond to my point, just say so.
Frankly, I'm horrified at how what this forum has become. Some fairly rational people who I felt I could at least communicate with have moved over to the banner of genocide.
This is true and horrible immature talk. But let's be honest. Is there a possibility of a world war of Islamic terrorists versus the non-Islamic world. Some would say it's already begun. If and when such a time comes, there will be a dreadful amount of bloodshed the world over. And I wonder which side will use a genocidal weapon first.
I suppose that means that Al Qaida is winning in turning this world into a battleground.
So, it's the victim's fault? At least that how you come off sounding.
It is true, a few bad apples can spoil everything.
I see you actually tried defining "a few". But as MichaelC points out, you've got your number squewed.
BTW, what is it I'm admitting to? That I want to kill all of you??? That is as disgusting as it is laughable.
I truly don't know. Why can't you simply explain this Moslem prophecy to us, as it was or would be taught to you.

Notice how you're avoiding the issue, again?

Oh Jerusalem

06-27-2004, 02:45 AM

There's a lot of pent up hate in the US and it's beginning to spill over and show up in the ugliest of fashions.

That being said, I fully agree with the very last paragraph of CNN's article.

Beheadings fuel fresh backlash against Muslims (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/26/beheading.backlash.ap/index.html)
Saturday, June 26, 2004 Posted: 8:35 PM EDT (0035 GMT)

EAGLESWOOD TOWNSHIP, New Jersey (AP) -- The recent beheadings of two Americans in the Middle East have added fuel to the angry backlash against Arab-Americans and Muslims that began after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The murders of Paul Johnson and Nicholas Berg triggered hate mail, verbal attacks and anti-Muslim signs. Muslims received death threats and their mosques were vandalized.

"Since 9/11, every time there is an incident overseas attributed to Muslims or Arabs, we go on orange alert ourselves," said immigration lawyer Sohail Mohammed.

"There are individuals here who are off the wall, who think that every woman who wears a hijab or every man named Mohammed is out to blow things up."

Al-Qaida-linked militants in Saudi Arabia decapitated Johnson, an American engineer, after warning that they would kill him if the Saudi government did not release jailed comrades. Berg, a businessman, met a similar fate last month in Iraq.

Following Johnson's death, anti-Islam signs surfaced around the rural New Jersey neighborhood where he once lived. One read "Stamp Out Islam" next to a drawing of a boot over a crescent and star. Another, hung on a mailbox next door to Johnson's sister's home, was more detailed.

"Last night I wasn't a racist, but today I feel racism towards Islamic beliefs," it read. "Last night Islamics had a chance to speak up for Paul Johnson, but today it's too late. Islamics better wake up and start thinking about tomorrow."

The New Jersey attorney general sent bias crimes investigators to the area, along with stepped-up state police patrols. The signs are gone now, replaced with hand-lettered placards on utility poles that say "Our prayers are with the Johnson family."

But more anti-Muslim graffiti appeared Thursday on a Muslim man's home in Egg Harbor Township.

"It's really our fear coming true," said Faiza Ali of the New Jersey chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "It indicates a hatred that could turn into something violent."

Relatives of Johnson, in a statement made through a church pastor after a memorial service Saturday, said that they hope his legacy is one of peace in the land he grew to love during more than a decade abroad.

"When history is written on the war on terrorism, let Paul's death be the catalyst that led to thousands more Westerners working in harmony with people in the Middle East to ensure fear and barbaric acts against free peoples come to an end," the Rev. Kyle Huber of Greentree Church said.

The day after Johnson's death, a coalition of Muslim groups held a rally to condemn the killing in Paterson, the heart of New Jersey's Arab-American community.

A few days later, vandals tossed empty liquor and beer bottles at a mosque in Union City as congregants inside mourned a teenager who died in a car crash.

"If they are throwing empty bottles today, they could be throwing rocks, or worse, shooting at us tomorrow," said Aref Assaf, president of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee's New Jersey chapter.

Two mosques in Florida were vandalized in the days after Johnson's killing. In the Tampa suburb of Lutz, someone broke into the Islamic Community Center and scrawled "Kill All Muslims" on the mosque's interior walls, then smashed windows. In Charlotte Harbor, someone vandalized a mosque's sign and left threatening phone messages.

In the St. Louis suburb of Ballwin, Missouri, vandals painted a swastika and the word "Die" on the wall of the Dar-Ul-Islam mosque.

In Texas, dead fish were dumped near the entrance sign to a mosque under construction in a suburb of Houston.

And in the Chicago suburb of Orland Park, residents urged officials this past week to reject a mosque's building application. A Baptist pastor told a public hearing he feared it would attract Islamic extremists and violence. The center was approved over boos and catcalls from the audience.

"I believe the time is coming when Muslims will not be safe inside the U.S. borders," one man wrote to the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations. "I see nothing wrong with us doing the same things to them that they are doing to innocent people."

"It is high time you people wake up and smell the blood," another man wrote to Assaf's group in New Jersey. "Turn in the terrorists. They are your relatives, in a lot of cases. Cousin Omar. Uncle Mohammad. You know what I mean. Until you come forward to help us stamp out this vermin, you are as bad as they."

Oh Jerusalem

06-27-2004, 05:18 AM

Much of what we're discussing here is discussed in Symposium: The Koran and Anti-Semitism (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13956).

This is a very long read and very interesting and detailed. I find it more than coincidental that Dr. Mohammed points out that the Bible's Joshua would be considered a war criminal today and the fact that Andak mentioned the exact same argument in the last day here on the forums.

MichaelC

06-27-2004, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Much of what we're discussing here is discussed in Symposium: The Koran and Anti-Semitism (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13956).

This is a very long read and very interesting and detailed. I find it more than coincidental that Dr. Mohammed points out that the Bible's Joshua would be considered a war criminal today and the fact that Andak mentioned the exact same argument in the last day here on the forums.
But, just like andak, this Dr. Mohammed fellow must ransack the historical record for examples of people behaving just like muslims do in the present era. While the rest of the world has moved on from such behavior, islam continues in pretty much the same modus operandi it began with, "lopping off the heads of the unbelievers".

scattergood

06-29-2004, 07:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by andak01
Contrary to what is being said around here, I don't suggest that people sit on their hands. I'm just saying that the most violent solutions aren't always the best ones. You don't hunt down every fox on earth to make your chickens safe. It's cheaper and safer to build a fence. Maybe a fence or a policy of assassination is what works for you. But I'd want to look at the resulting security, not just how many of the enemy gets killed. Changing the school curriculum in Palestine is going to go farther toward preventing anti-semitism than a policy of open hunting season.

The kind of support that counts most is money, weapons or recruitment. We are making strides in counteracting all of that, and that and good intelligence are the kind of efforts I support most. If there are no camps and no training, then the type of coordinated attack like 9/11 or Bali will give way to occasional attacks deranged individuals. Many of those can be prevented through better security.

There was plenty of support for the Nazis in Europe after the war, but there was no infrastructure or network. We are dealing with a new type of enemy with a new paradigm. That requires some new solutions. Genocide is an old and uneffective one. Ask the Nazis.

I have been reading the back and forth with Andak01 for a few months now and think that it is time to weigh in. I agree and disagree with Andak01:

1) Yes changing the cirruculum in the Muslim schools will go a long way to correcting the deficient and backwards education that the male 1/2 of the population receives (women of course aren't allowed to learn to read in many, not all, countries...and I'd fix that).

2) Yes, changing the education process is a lot better than putting a few hundred thousand troops into a country and bombing people into submission.

3) But here is the rub Andak01, how do you change the cirruculum and teach tolerance and openness without bombing the powers that be in the Islamic countries into submission? Being nice? Offering them money? We tried that and look what it got us.

I don't espouse the belief that all Muslims should die, just like I wouldn't have espoused the belief that all Germans should die in WWII. But Nazism was defeated, and defeated soundly MILITARILY. It took TEN YEARS before an election was held in post-war Germany. It looks like it'll happen in less than THREE YEARS in Iraq.

The real problem is that in order to win a war you have to destroy one or both of two elements, either the WILL or the ABILITY of the combatant to fight. In WWII TENS OF MILLIONS of people died in order to destroy the Axis Power's will and ability to fight. In the various theatres in the 'War on Terror' it is a mixed bag:

1) Israel is focusing mainly on the ability of the Arabs to attack, since they are precluded from going in, taking the kids out of Jihad Summer Camp and giving them a proper education.

2) In Afghanistan the coalition forces destroyed the will of most combatants, and the ability of most combatants to fight.

3) In Iraq, the coaliton forces aren't in all honesty doing a great job of fighting the ability of the terrorists to fight, but are focusing on the will of the country by trying to make it a pluralistic and participatory government. It will be interesting to see if this works (G-d willing it does).

I think I read on this board something that rang true to me as I read much of what Andak01 writes: A fundamentalist Muslim wants to kill you, a moderate Muslim says nothing while he does.

Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, has parts of it's liturgy that are beautiful, open, and transcendant and parts that are vile, violent, and totalitarian. Right now Islam seems to be focusing on the violent aspects, in the main, in opposition to Judaism and Christianity which over the last 200 years have focused on the more pluralistic and humane aspects of their beliefs.

And until the 'moderates' of Islam are able to wrestle control of Islam from the fundamentalists and apply their open and gracious beliefs to non-Muslims and see non-Muslims as members of the HUMAN UMMAH, then us non-Muslims will resist the totalitarian manifisations Islamic expansion.

ScatterGood

Canajew

06-29-2004, 08:24 PM

I have been reading the back and forth with Andak01 for a few months now and think that it is time to weigh in. I agree and disagree with Andak01:

1) Yes changing the cirruculum in the Muslim schools will go a long way to correcting the deficient and backwards education that the male 1/2 of the population receives (women of course aren't allowed to learn to read in many, not all, countries...and I'd fix that).

2) Yes, changing the education process is a lot better than putting a few hundred thousand troops into a country and bombing people into submission.

3) But here is the rub Andak01, how do you change the cirruculum and teach tolerance and openness without bombing the powers that be in the Islamic countries into submission? Being nice? Offering them money? We tried that and look what it got us.

I don't espouse the belief that all Muslims should die, just like I wouldn't have espoused the belief that all Germans should die in WWII. But Nazism was defeated, and defeated soundly MILITARILY. It took TEN YEARS before an election was held in post-war Germany. It looks like it'll happen in less than THREE YEARS in Iraq.

The real problem is that in order to win a war you have to destroy one or both of two elements, either the WILL or the ABILITY of the combatant to fight. In WWII TENS OF MILLIONS of people died in order to destroy the Axis Power's will and ability to fight. In the various theatres in the 'War on Terror' it is a mixed bag:

1) Israel is focusing mainly on the ability of the Arabs to attack, since they are precluded from going in, taking the kids out of Jihad Summer Camp and giving them a proper education.

2) In Afghanistan the coalition forces destroyed the will of most combatants, and the ability of most combatants to fight.

3) In Iraq, the coaliton forces aren't in all honesty doing a great job of fighting the ability of the terrorists to fight, but are focusing on the will of the country by trying to make it a pluralistic and participatory government. It will be interesting to see if this works (G-d willing it does).

I think I read on this board something that rang true to me as I read much of what Andak01 writes: A fundamentalist Muslim wants to kill you, a moderate Muslim says nothing while he does.

Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, has parts of it's liturgy that are beautiful, open, and transcendant and parts that are vile, violent, and totalitarian. Right now Islam seems to be focusing on the violent aspects, in the main, in opposition to Judaism and Christianity which over the last 200 years have focused on the more pluralistic and humane aspects of their beliefs.

And until the 'moderates' of Islam are able to wrestle control of Islam from the fundamentalists and apply their open and gracious beliefs to non-Muslims and see non-Muslims as members of the HUMAN UMMAH, then us non-Muslims will resist the totalitarian manifisations Islamic expansion.

ScatterGood

very well said.

andak01

07-02-2004, 06:56 PM

I think I read on this board something that rang true to me as I read much of what Andak01 writes: A fundamentalist Muslim wants to kill you, a moderate Muslim says nothing while he does.

That's an excellent justification for killing all of us. Why not just say the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim and be done with it?

I get very disconcerted when I see what I once thought were moderates on this board essentially saying that advocating tolerance and peace is as much a sign of extremism as advocating war. In short, you advocate any sort of violence against terrorists, then extend that to people who might sympathize with terrorists, and then again to any Muslim who you suppose is lying. Then you extend your definition of lying Muslims to all 1.2 billion of us.

andak01

07-02-2004, 07:12 PM

Since there are so many muslims willing to "martyr" themselves to attain nefarious ends, why are there no muslims willing to "martyr" themselves to give credence to the so-called peaceful nature of islam?

A lie you tell again and again and again and again.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-08-iraq_x.htm
BAGHDAD (AP) — Insurgents shot and killed a U.S. soldier guarding a gas station Monday in northern Iraq, and an Iraqi policeman died trying to defuse a bomb, the U.S. military said.

http://www.rense.com/general45/KILLED.HTM
Iraqi police and others seen to be working or cooperating with U.S. and allied authorities are increasingly the target of attacks by loyalists to the former regime. Last month 17 policemen were killed in twin bomb blasts in and near Baquba.

http://www.iht.com/articles/126740.html
Late Monday, gunmen fired at a hotel housing Polish troops in the holy city of Karbala, but were repulsed by Iraqi police, said Karbala police spokesman Rahman Mashawi. He said the police and the attackers fought a gunbattle that left one policeman dead. Police arrested two of the gunmen and there were no Polish casualties.
.
Poland heads a multinational force in south-central Iraq to which it has contributed 2,400 troops based in Karbala, 75 miles south of Baghdad. So far, two Polish soldiers have been killed in Iraq.
.
A bomb exploded outside a liquor store early Tuesday in a south Baghdad neighborhood, shattering windows but causing no casualties, witnesses said.
.
On Monday night, a rocket landed in an empty parking lot inside the ‘‘green zone,’’ the sprawling headquarters of the U.S.-led coalition in Baghdad, a central command spokesman said on condition of anonymity. There were no injuries or casualties.
.
The attack occurred a day after guerrillas killed seven policemen in two separate hit-and-run attacks on checkpoints in Ramadi west of Baghdad, which is part of the Sunni Triangle, the stronghold of Saddam Hussein loyalists.
.
The insurgents have been blamed for most of the violence since President Bush declared an end to major hostilities on May 1. But frequent suicide bombings have also raised suspicion about involvement of foreign fighters including al-Qaida operatives.
.
On Monday, Interior Minister Nouri Badran told a news conference: ‘‘There is a presence of al-Qaida in this country. We’ve announced that directly and indirectly.’’
.
‘‘A lot of the suicide attacks have the fingerprints of the crimes committed by al-Qaida,’’ he said.
.
Badran provided no evidence to back his claim. There was no immediate comment from U.S. military commanders who have been wary of drawing a clear connection between al-Qaida and the insurgency even though a handful of non-Iraqi Arab and foreign fighters have been detained or killed in Iraq.
.
A U.S. official in Washington said Saturday that Kurdish forces had captured a senior al-Qaida figure, Hassan Ghul, as he tried to enter northern Iraq. Ghul was turned over to the United States for interrogation, the official said on condition of anonymity.
.
The suicide vehicle attacks have been aimed largely against U.S. forces but also claimed the lives of hundreds of Iraqi civilians.
.
The latest attack was on Jan. 18 when a pickup truck exploded at the gates of the U.S.-led coalition’s headquarters, killing at least 31 Iraqis and wounding more than 120.
.
Earlier this month, a U.S. military commander in the ‘‘Sunni Triangle’’ said al-Qaida and other foreigners might be trying to come into Iraq.
.
‘‘I think al-Qaida and foreign fighters are trying to get involved in Iraq,’’ said Gen. Raymond Odierno, the commander of the 4th Infantry Division. ‘‘I think in the next six to eight months, they (will) start to really try to infiltrate the area.’’
.
Badran also said the insecurity in the country does not allow for holding direct elections, which is at the heart of a political dispute between the coalition administration and Iraq’s majority Shiites.
.
A U.S. plan for transfer of power calls for setting up a provisional government through a caucus system. But the Shiites are demanding direct elections. The United Nations is considering sending a team to Iraq to find out if elections can be held.
.
In the north, military divers were still searching the muddy waters of the Tigris River on Tuesday for three missing U.S. soldiers, including two pilots of an OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter that crashed Sunday in Mosul during rescue operations after a patrol boat capsized, a military spokesman said.
.
It was the fifth U.S. helicopter lost in Iraq this month, three of which were downed by hostile fire. AP-NY-01-27-04 0400EST BAGHDAD, Iraq Insurgents attacked the headquarters of Polish forces in a southern city, triggering a gunbattle that killed one Iraqi policeman, and guerrillas fired a rocket into the U.S. compound in Baghdad, officials said Tuesday.
.
Meanwhile, Iraq’s interim interior minister blamed Osama bin Laden’s terror network al-Qaida for many of the suicide car bombings in the country in recent weeks.
.
Late Monday, gunmen fired at a hotel housing Polish troops in the holy city of Karbala, but were repulsed by Iraqi police, said Karbala police spokesman Rahman Mashawi. He said the police and the attackers fought a gunbattle that left one policeman dead. Police arrested two of the gunmen and there were no Polish casualties.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1036198/posts
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - An Iraqi policeman was killed in a bomb blast near Baghdad and gunmen attacked a U.S. Army patrol in the northern city of Mosul Monday, the latest attacks on Iraq's occupiers and those seen as collaborating with them.

http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004033010340007&Take=1

30 Mar 2004 10:34 GMT DJ Iraqi Policeman Killed In Attack On Checkpoint

BAGHDAD (AP)--Gunmen fired at an Iraqi police checkpoint in east Baghdad Monday, killing a lieutenant, police Col. Ahmed Iz-Adin said Tuesday.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-05-15-saudi-shootout_x.htm

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Saudi security forces arrested four suspected terrorists and were pursuing others Saturday after a shootout in a residential neighborhood of the capital, security officials said.

andak01

07-02-2004, 07:19 PM

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0%2C5936%2C6941055%255E1702%2C00.html

FOUR members of the Saudi security force were shot dead by suspected extremists they were hunting in southern Riyadh today, a security official said at the scene.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60201-2004Jan29.html?nav=hptoc_w

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- Suspected terrorists exchanged fire with Saudi security forces raiding a house in Riyadh on Thursday, killing five Saudi agents, the Interior Ministry said. One suspect was arrested.

http://216.26.163.62/2004/me_saudis_05_21.html

ABU DHABI – Saudi security forces have engaged in a daylight shootout with Al Qaida insurgents near the kingdom's capital.

Saudi security sources said the shootout took place on Thursday in a village north of Riyad regarded as sympathetic to Al Qaida. They said four Al Qaida insurgents and a Saudi officer were killed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18852-2002Jul3?language=printer

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 2 – In a shootout at a remote checkpoint, security forces killed four heavily armed al Qaeda fighters today as the men drove out of a lawless border area near Afghanistan, Pakistani officials said. Three Pakistani security men also were reported killed.

http://www.rense.com/general18/14killedinalqaeda.htm

(AFP) - Dozens of Arab veterans from the Afghan war fought a gunbattle with Pakistan forces that left 14 Arab militants and Pakistani security forces dead, officials said.

MichaelC

07-02-2004, 07:48 PM

And still there is no visible, vocal, international movement of brave muslims willing to risk their lives to publically, in force, denounce terrorism and demand that the jihadists wantonly slaughtering in the name of allah be brought to justice.

No movement anywhere.

In view of that I maintain the opinion that I have ALWAYS expressed openly on this board, that no body of "moderate" muslims exists with the courage to stand collectively against jihadism. There are only mealy mouthed fakes like andak who pretend out of one side of their mouth that they are holy, and sacred, and wonderful and wouldn't hurt a fly, while out of the other side of their mouth they run down America for its effort to rid the world of some of the worst religious psychopaths to have ever drawn breath, assuring us all the while that these monsters are not "really" muslims, though they shout allah's praises as they conduct their monstrous deeds.

The millions of muslims who ought to be raising the roof and demanding that the jihadists be sent straight to hell are nowhere to be seen. andak thinks that some guy here and some guy there who behaves as a normal human ought to behave will suffice in place of the great body of muslims who should be taking to the streets with a loud voice.

I hold another view and it's not a lie as andak likes to call everything that he cannot counter.

Go on out and start that international movement to denounce terrorism andak, and you will see me change my tune.

andak01

07-02-2004, 09:37 PM

Here is your original quote.

Originally Posted by MichaelC
Since there are so many muslims willing to "martyr" themselves to attain nefarious ends, why are there no muslims willing to "martyr" themselves to give credence to the so-called peaceful nature of islam?

Since I know you read almost all of my posts, I expect you have read the twenty or so that contain news of Muslim police and security workers, not to mention soldiers killed while fighting terrorism. You have also seen the photos I've posted of tens of thousands of Muslims marching against terrorism in Casablanca and Jordan.

In addition, I just gave examples of around fifty Muslims killed doing just what you say NO Muslims do. You say that after having read of Muslims dying in gun battles with terrorists. You are in denial. You are a liar. The best you can do when faced with a mountain of evidence is to continue telling the same lie.

Here's more about an entire army of Muslims fighting in Waziristan.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0625/p07s01-wosc.html

March 16-28, 2004: A major Pakistani operation against foreign militants and their local supporters in Waziristan leaves 130 dead, including 48 security forces.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/sept11_OBL_030908.html

At least eight people were murdered in the town of Angoor Ada, in broad daylight, on the suspicion they were informing the U.S. of bin Laden's whereabouts, according to locals. As a result, locals are tightlipped about al Qaeda's presence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3814807.stm

"It is the continuation of the operation which started last week in response to the attack on our security forces," military spokesman Major-General Shaukat Sultan told the Reuters news agency.

"Wherever we find a hideout or base of militants we will knock it out," he said.

The BBC's Rahimullah Yusufzai in Peshawar says that the latest manoeuvres are highly significant, because they are taking place in the mountainous Angor Adda area - regarded as one of the last strongholds of foreign militants.

He says they will be regarded by the army as the culmination of their ongoing efforts to flush foreign forces out of South W