These quotes would be a riot!
 

I never heard either of these quotes until yesterday, and I stumbled upon them accidentally. I've long held the same opinion of Islam, and even then Churchill knew what I came to believe that it is only our technological superiority which has kept Islam at bay since their expansion into Spain and Eastern Europe was halted.

Now these are two men whos lives I hold in high regard. Its been long my personal belief that Churchill is the most important man, to Western Civilization, of the 20th century. I think their opinions are worth listening to.

The very interesting thing about both these quotes is that Israel did not exist yet. I'd like you all to think about it. Israel is the focus of this conflict apparently, yet, long before Israel was born out of the ashes of WWII, two of the greatest leaders of their time had the above thoughts on Islam.

So for those of you who think this is all about Israel and not part of a bigger clash of cultures, where did these men go wrong in their assessment?

It doesnt even have to be an Israel issue. I'll play Devil's advocate here because you know someone has to.

The linage of Hagar? Well thats an interesting story in itself. Infact I think that story which was written by a human is the base for many of the problems we see today. God gives Abraham's wife permission to allow him to sleep with her handmaiden, turns around and years later allows her to get pregnant. This leaves 2 offspring each with a different mother. God in his infinate wisdom states the Hebrew child will be ruler supreme and the Egyptian and his offspring will be the ass of man. People actually took that as reality.

It certainly pays if you lucky enough to be born Hebrew right. Im suprised it took as long as it did for an Arab to write their own mythology. The irony of all of this is these "stories" shape politics in this day and age.

In the times Ive been to the Holy Land I met many Palestinians who were Christians.

Ive read some of the Koran and the Old Testament is every bit as violent. I prefer Homer to the both of them.

Thanks for the quotes I had never read them either.

The problem with quotes like these is that they are nothing more then unintended hypocrisy.

I'm sure they believe what they said, but if you were to remind them that Yahweh "gave" Palestine to the Hebrews, and both assisted and looked the other way as they exterminated the other tribes in the area, and then fought with and killed each other, Messers Adams and Churchill would act as though nothing was wrong.

They speak what they were taught. I don't blame them for it, but I also don't take it as truth, any more then Theodore Roosevelt's beliefs in Anglo-Saxon dominance.

I see so Winston Chruchill, savior of Briton, was taught to hate muslims and was only parroting what he was taught in Sunday school? I have a hard time believing that. Perhaps Adams, as his was of an age before, perhaps, but Chruchill? No way, his words were not based on religious belief but of observation.

Because it's impossible that a guy who grew up in the late 1800s might end up with racist or anti-ethnic beliefs?

Just because he was a great leader and saved his country doesn't make his statements automatically any more correct.

I see, so if you think there is a problem with Islam, you must be a racist.

Boy that argument is getting old here.

No, but I do think that in many cases even intellegent people are willing to take things as face value and belief instead of showing a willingness to research what they don't understand.

They might believe what they say, but that doesn't make it right, any more then (spare me the Godwin's Law comments) Hitler's beliefs about the Jews were right.

Personally, I would put them in the same side of "misinformed" although with obvious differences in the consequences of the comments.

Believing what somewhat says just because they are 'important figure' is just an appeal to authority. Sometimes it is a good thing to appeal to, but more often than not the belief a person holds shouldn't be accepted anymore than the average person's belief until it holds up against scrutiny. I believe that's all djtestudo was trying to do here.

Exactly. Thanks :)

This shows the man was ignorant in this regard. Slavery of women? not by a long shot.

again, ignorance prevails. the claim that he 'degraded the condition of the female sex' is so ignorant that it ashamed me that you believe it in this day and age. Adams and Churchhill were of a different era, I wonder if either of them had ever even see a muslim not in a manuscript.
again, patently false.

Israel was born out of the ashes of WWII? What do you mean by that? And the topic of Palestine HAS been used by many muslims leaders to try and give themselves a broad support. It is unfortunate that a noble cause has been confused in many minds by such acts.

UsTwo, I would like to know exactly what resonated with you in those quotes. You mentioned the technological superiority, and I agree with you, but think that the necessary factors for stopping the Muslims should be broadened to include such things as temporary unity under the banner of the pope, cultural differences...many many other reasons, but tech. is definitely an important factor

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading in my Islamic History class that it is the Muslims who claim themselves to be decended from Ishmael (from Hagar).

I agree its not slavery in the typical definition. The Islamic ideal for women seems to be based on the paranoid fear of infidelity/cuckolding. Women are not allowed to be with men who are not relatives until they are married and after they are married the only exception is the husband. Its a social chastity belt. The independence of women is limited as well, they are always reliant on their male relatives and therefore always 'under guard'. This can be seen for example in Saudi Arabia where women are not allowed to drive. To make it even more clear, as a doctor you are not allowed to work on a woman of child bearing age as a male. I know this from the Saudi Arabian women we had in my dental program, as well as my female department head who spent time over there. No other major cultures are as paranoid about their genetic inheritance on the planet today. From my readings of the Koran (its easier to spell with a K) I don't think this level of paranoia is justified. Yes women are very much second hand citizens, but they are in the old Testament as well, and I view this is merely a cultural quirk using Islam to justify it. Interestingly the idea that faithful Muslims (males) will be attended by virgins of unparalleled beauty in the afterlife is throughout the Koran, to the point I think there was something of an obsession with sex at the time of its writing. This plus the obsessive cloistering of breeding age women makes me wonder what the culture was like prior to Islam among the common people.

You know this had not struck me prior to writing this but Mohammed was a crafty guy. He set up a system which guaranteed warriors had a motive for conquest, and a very basic, instinctive motive. Let me explain....

1. 'Casual' sex was made difficult among young men (and women but thats not an issue).
2. The Koran specifically allows for captured slave girls.
3. The Koran states multiple, multiple, multiple times that faithful Muslims will find unspoiled women awaiting them in heaven.
4. Polygamy means that men at the lower rungs on the social ladder may have no wife at all.
5. You MUST fight non-believers, you must never trust them, and if they are stronger than you, you wait until you can beat them. Any horror you inflict upon them is Allah's will.
6. To retreat from non-believers is sinful. Fight and die!

This is really an amazingly simple but effective system. War and conquest is what leads to you being able to have sex, either with captured slave girls, or virgins in heaven. I'm glad I decided to respond to this as I had not seen the genius of the original design until now. Its the exploitation of instinct and religious fervor, and explains how the early Islamic invasions were so successful.


I have, women are second class citizens in Islamic nations. They are treated very well, like favored pets, but still no where near a mans equal.

History and the Koran disagree with you here. Interestingly, while the old testament is very violent, it does not as a rule preach violent expansion but was more the taking of the 'promised land' and maintaining it. The Koran is open ended in its goals and views the whole world as its promised land for the taking.

What nobel cause? As for what I mean by that, it was the modern state of Israel which was born out of the ashes of WWII. The historic state of Israel was invaded so many times that claims to the land are rather hard to sort out at this point. The Jews would be the oldest remaining group who has a claim.

Islam has become a retrograde force. The reason the Arab world is so far behind technologically is Islam. It holds such a grip on the people that they can not advance socially beyond a 5th century mentality and technology is a danger to the status quo, for example Saudi Arabia has internet filters that would make the Chinese blush. I could go in depth on this, I have before, but most Arab scholars feel the same way. Christianity was the same way, but we did shake it off so to speak (and this was eluded to by Churchill). Our cultural traditions and the framework of Christianity was such that we were able to do so, I don't think Islam gives you any wiggle room to do so without completely rejecting it. Its not even allowed to have an non-Islamic state in the Koran. Western gay rights, womens right, even democracy would all be sinful and worthy of destruction as non-believers. This little factoid has me more worried about the concept of Iraqi democracy than any other factor.

Seaver, I second. Sons of Ishmael versus sons of Isaac, all descendants of Abraham is a central tenet to the Islamic and Judaic mythology.

Again, people, Islam/Muslims are not a race, there are plenty of white muslims etc..... the "if you have a problem with Islam you must be racist" is really getting tiring and entirely incorrect.

I think Churchill had a unique experience during the WWI era. I believe he was Lord of the Admiralty or something like that and he was also incharge of the Palestinian Mandate. He definitely would have had first hand experience in that whole debacle. In fact, that experience almost ruined his career. The British handling of the Middle East around that time was ..... pretty much a failure (my opinion). I like Churchill too, but his quotes/writings are just his opnion on things.

I would guess that John Quincy Adams got his views either with the dealings of a young USA with the Barbary Coast, Tripoli etc or maybe he read extensively about the history of that area (which almost certainly would have been biased).

UsTwo, have you read Clash of Civilizations? I like that one (puts on flame-proof suit). I found it to be very interesting. I should probably read it again though for the anticipated riot that;s about to ensue.

I have many Muslim friends and have just recently been there. From my observation, the most "free" muslims were in Israel. Free to worship and live as they please. The Paelstinians were pretty "liberal" too but then again, many of them are Christian. Then there were the Arabs druze (non-Muslim Arabs) that were pretty modern. By far the most shocking were the Saudis. When I was in Egypt, man, the way they treated "their" women.....scary stuff.

In my opinion, Israel is just a red herring/straw man that the oppressive regimes use to keep their subjects off their own back. I got the distinct sense that Saudi etc are more afraid of their own people than anything. Conflict or blame of Israel is the perfect excuse for these regimes to hold onto power and their oppressive practices. Maybe later I will share a story of my experience in an Egyptian barbershop (discussing Mubarek and George Bush while having a blade to my face - a shave).

Thanks for listening.

Yes thats right. I reread my post to make sure I didnt accidently put Issac. That is a high point in my disagreement with the Bible especially the Old Testament. Surely a being of infinate wisdom would have seen the trouble of setting a situation up like this. Almost as if God could stir up some shit and watch all the little humans scramble. The Odyssey is another great story. Zeus shaped lives for a time. The Sun circled the Earth for a time. This story of God intentionally creating a rift and further stating the Arabs will be the ass of man still seems to be dictating policy to this day. Or at least being used a very lame excuse.

Actually that quote pre-dates the Mandates. That quote was at the same time in which Lawrence of Arabia was stirring up the Arabs to fight against the Ottomans in a revolt. He realized how quickly the average Muslim answered the call for Jihad, and realized the possible impacts of it later on.

Ah, I did not see the bottom of the quote. 1899, close but no cigar.

In what way is a thread doing nothing but condemning an entire faith a suitable contribution to discussion of politics? What is the political content here?

I don't know whether to be angry or dejected.

I am being completely serious when I say that I am personally, and deeply, offended by your views on this matter. Does it not bother you that you are indicting millions of Muslims who are also loyal Americans and share many of your values?

Are you completely incapable of believing that which anyone who bothers to spend time with the world's Muslims knows: that the vast majority of us love peace and hate bloodshed; we love our families and mourn our lost loved ones; we spend our lives working hard to provide for our children.

The average Muslim does not sneak off to make bombs after dropping his kids off at daycare. The average Muslim does not willingly strap a bomb around his son's waist for the glory of God. The average Muslim doesn't rejoice when he hears that a bus was blown to bits in Tel Aviv. The average Muslim is not a monster.

What is your inexplicable attraction to the idea of an inevitable clash? By what right do you claim to define Islam in contradiction to the beliefs of the vast majority of its adherents?

(http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm)

The assessments of the two men whom you quote are utterly wrong. That they are men who otherwise have my respect does not change this fact.

Well, it seems I managed to assassinate the thread.

I guess you're unwilling to look the object of your bigotry in the face.

As I grow and adapt to the current climate I find myself perplexed at the current situation. Let me speak from personal perspective if I may.

Hiredgun, I find your sentiments sincere, and I praise your feelings. I wish I could find them uniform amongst your religion. Saying that I hope does not come off as ignorant or offensive. Obviously a lot of the portrayal does have a lot to do with the selective nature of the media and the world at large. But yet I do not find things so simple.

Take the world at large, in this context the Muslim/Islamic world. Look at the spread of Sharian law throughout the muslim world. I see no good coming from the likes of African Islamic nations, Sudan, Egypt, Libya, Somalia, Nigeria. The Middle East, Syria, Lebanon, The House of Saud, Iran, all very problematic. The Balkans? Georgia? The far East? Pakistan? Kashmir? Even in the South East area, Indonesia is marred with problems.

Some here might equate the problem as extremism, hopefully that's what it is. The Islamic world is and has been facing a major problem for a long time. I have no problem saying that it is something innate to the nature of the religion.

I'm sure my having said that will no doubt stir the inference of Christian culpability in the world history, do me a favor and piss off if you try and play that card, it in no way addresses the real issues posed to this current world climate that Islam poses.

We don't find ourselves having problems with historically "christian nations", nations that are no doubt by and large free and democratic.

No doubt we are at a turning point in the grand scheme of world history. Europe is faced with a major problem concerning it's citizenry. To be honest my google skills are not "l33t", so I have a hard time referencing this. However, within this century I have seen figures that have pointed to an Islamic take over of Western Europe. Within generations a strong part of the population will be muslim, here is an example for a reference at this time. http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=60 , http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2005/0705europe.asp

I know links aren't appreciated, but I don't feel like adding that much information to my post. Don't blame this on laziness, for me it's a matter of relevance.

This poses problems as Islam is by and large becoming increasingly militant in the world? Is it just extremists? Where are the rest of you? Are you afraid to speak up?

Perhaps the worst part is reasonable muslims by and large only exist in the "west". But a big problem is the growth of Extremism the world round, and sadly it is no longer being limited to the Middle East; it is growing in the west.

Maybe instead of labeling anybody who sees this growing trend and problem in Islam as a bigot, the issue actually gets addressed. Call me ignorant, but if you think there is no clash of civilizations, I must ask of you what world do you live in, and if you would be so kind could you please point me to the rainbow bunny sunshine.

/endrant
I hope this makes a lick of sense.

Let me start this way: your post, Mojo, unlike the OP, is not offensive.

That's not at all true. Several of the people I quoted earlier are among the highest political and religious leaders of the (non-Western) Muslim world. Qaradawi in particular is one of the biggest names in Islamic jurisprudence right now.

A great many of us speak up.

http://www.isna.net/index.php?id=35&backPID=1&tt_news=4
http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm
http://www.al-islam.org/dilp_statement.html
http://www.freemuslims.org/
http://www.m-a-t.org/
http://www.rayhawk.com/classics/matusa/faq.html
http://www.cair-net.org/crisiscenter/html/cair_ad.html
http://www.islam-democracy.org/terrorism_statement.asp
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=1062
http://www.oic-oci.org/english/fm/11...eclaration.htm
http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/wtc-heresy.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1690624.stm
http://www.livingislam.org/k/dcmm_e.html
http://www.themodernreligion.com/ter...-imamzaid.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...7/195606.shtml
http://www.muhajabah.com/9-11_poem.htm
http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.c..._of_islam.html
http://www.islamfortoday.com/adi03.htm
http://beirutspring.blogspot.com/200...uld-arabs.html
http://islam.about.com/cs/currenteve...icide_bomb.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4775588
http://www.borrull.org/c/noticia.php?id=34219
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...A9648C8DED.htm
http://www.islamfortoday.com/akbar04.htm
http://www.voanews.com/english/archi...TOKEN=71832657

I would agree that we need to do more. But to say that the Muslim majority is silent is entirely baseless.

I think you can figure it out. When the body counts across the globe in the name of Islam continue to rise, its a political issue. I find it interesting that world leaders have seen this coming for some time.

Not really. If they share my values then they are not of the dangerous fundamentalist mind set that is taking over Islam in the Islamic world. I'm having lunch with a Muslim who shares my values today, I think we will be talking mostly about the Bears.

People are people before they have religion. Your religion is being used as an excuse for some horrific things, and not just isolated incidents but nation wide in cases. Most people want to live in peace, this includes bombing victims.

I argue the average Muslim has sympathy for the ones who do. Maybe not the average Muslim in the US, but the average Muslim in the Islamic world. If they didn't you wouldn't see rich Muslims giving money to the suicide bombers families in such a public manner. You wouldn't see these murderers glorified on TV.

Its not an attraction, its a prediction. I'm not sure it IS a majority who fit the 'Religion of Peace' role, but even if it were say only 10%, that is 179 million for the Jihad. I think its higher.


From the bottom of that website....

Islam For Today has only three photos like this...

http://www.islamfortoday.com/FLMusli...anflagicna.jpg

And sadly umpteen like this...

http://www.islamfortoday.com/Pro_Tal...onstrators.jpg

Looks like that website has a better idea of the problem then you do. Its not people like me, its people like the last photo. Its a problem within Islam.

I have seen nothing to prove them wrong. Just you stating a majority are peaceful.

Not at all, it was a needed view.

Let me distill what you said here. You said a majority of Muslims are peaceful and I was wrong and gave a list of websites. We have riots in Europe as we speak in Sweden by Muslim youths, the French police want armored cars to patrol Muslim neighborhoods, we have rich Muslims giving money to the families of suicide bombers and a death cult in Palestine, we have 10% of all BRITISH Muslims stating they would not report a terror attack if they knew of one (just think what that would be in say Damascus), we have almost every major hot spot in the world revolving around Islamic separatist or terror groups, and I'm suppose to embrace the religion of peace and think of these murderers are just aberrations of a peaceful religion?

If Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance you should be offended, but not by me or those like me, but by the millions of Muslims who are 'extremists' and causing such suffering in the world. I can only react to what I see happening, and I see genocides, I see the glorification of murder, I see intolerance, and I see an on going war that has only stopped to take a breather.

I'm glad SOME Muslims are speaking out against terrorism, I'm glad SOME think they need to be expunged from the religion, but they are downed out by the bombs of the fanatics, the calls for the destruction of Israel, the seemingly weekly riots in Europe, the genocides of Africa, the persecution of Christians in Indonesia, the bombing in Bali, the guerilla war in the Philippines, the siege of a Russian school, 'honor' killings daily, just to many specific horrors to even mention. I'd love, just once, to see a protest against an act of terrorism of the same level and furor as a protest against a Danish cartoonist, hell I'd like to see more than a handful of people, just once. Instead I'm told a majority are peaceful, and maybe they are, but they are turning a blind eye and seem only worried about what people like I think about their religion, and not worry about what millions are doing in their religions name.

I agree that a change needs to take place. I take every opportunity to exhort my coreligionists to help me make this change.

The reason we worry about the kind of things you're saying is because they're counter-productive. Instead of driving a wedge between peaceful Muslims and fanatical ones, and instead of focusing on the violence itself, these ideas conflate all of us, lumping us into a single category and blaming terrorism on some problem inherent in the religion itself.

When you quote that "the essence of his doctrine was violence and lust" and then nod approvingly, you're saying that Islam as a faith is incompatible with modern, liberal values. So you basically invalidate me as a person, along with implying that all the efforts of all moderate Muslims to help steer us back on the right course are futile and superfluous, because Islam itself is evil and must be defeated. The spread of these views makes our job that much more difficult.

I feel that there are two contradictory strains of thought in your posts, one of which I can reconcile with, and the other which I cannot. On the one hand you recognize that non-fundamentalist Muslims exist (you say you're having lunch with one of them) and that the fundamentalist mindset is the problem. You recognize that Islam is being used as 'an excuse' for various reprehensible acts, which seems to be an acknowledgement that Islam itself is not by its nature the problem, that alternative formulations exist and should be supported by Muslims.

Then there's another strain which seems to argue that Islam is evil at its very root. You pull excerpts from the Quran in an effort to prove that the doctrine itself was always corrupt. You pull out these quotes from Churchill and Adams that are really nothing but broad, unfair generalizations. You seem to think that there's no hope, that moderates are nothing but insignificant statistical outliers who (and here's the really offensive part) don't authentically represent their faith. (This is distinct from whether or not we represent it statistically, although on that matter you and I also disagree.)

Edit: Also, I apologize for the 'bigot' comment. It came out in frustration and serves no useful purpose.

hiredgun, If God would grace me with one tenth of your eloquence, patience, and respectfullness, I would indeed feel blessed by Him!

thats probably the shortest post ive ever read coming from Host.

i entertained the idea of posting to this thread earlier in the piece, but saw it futile in the face of ustwos blatant bigotry. ustwos narrow views on islam and selective arguments, and even more selective examples of muslims sadly make an open and honest line of communication impossible.

ive got to side with hiredgun here as the voice of reason.

I felt I also had to chrip up here in support of hiredgun. Your post was excellent, gun, and it really represents the level-headedness that will be neccessary, in the long run, to get this world through whatever conflicts are going on against and within the Islamic faith.

I often get the impression that Ustwo's solution is to eradicate Islam, when the real goal should be make sure that views similar to hiredgun's are propagated throughout the Muslim community and up to the religous and political leaders of Islam.

Hows does Churchill feel about the Jews?

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/ish.htm

Some people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.

And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.

The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and successful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia's economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.

International Jews

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.

Terrorist Jews

The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.

Protector of the Jews

Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin's authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offences against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalised their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms. The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated.

A Home for the Jews

Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism.
Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.

Also,

http://www.jewishpost.com/jewishpost/jpn201b.html

before john quincy thought as he did, john adams (his father) signed the treaty of tripoli (in 1797)
here's my favorite part:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

things since got pretty thoroughly messed up.
in alot of ways, don't you think?

Yep, Ustwo, those quotes sure are a riot!

http://www.moodsmilies.com/smilies/sleepy/yawn.gif

...

Just remember that his words were not based on religious belief but of observation.

That is 90% of it. The only thing I would add is...imagine you are living as a poor Muslim in the early days of Islam after it has become wide spread. In order to stay in power, you will have to use force and fear tactics on the general population to keep them in line. Public stoning, beheadings, hands chopped off, and banishment out to the desert were pretty strong incentives to stay in line.

UStwo and ASU....have you read or studied the Koran?

I havent, so maybe you can put your references and commentary from the Koran in context.

I'm not a biblical scholar either, but I could cherrry pick quotes from the Old and New Testament that would suggest a similar message to what you ascribe to Islam.

If you havent read the Koran and dont want to take the time, I would at least suggest reading a statement from Jordan's King Abdullah:

We are aware of the dangers and challenges the Islamic Nation is facing today at this difficult juncture of its course. Evils threaten its identity, incite disunity, tarnish its religion and assail its tenets; they attack fiercely the very message of Islam. Some who attack Islam imagine it is their enemy. But it is not their enemy. Others, who claim to belong to Islam, have done gruesome and criminal acts in its name. The message that is under attack is the message of tolerance, revealed by the Almighty to His prophet Muhammad, God's prayers and salutations be upon him, and carried after him by his orthodox successors and household members: a message of brotherhood and humanity; forming a righteous religion that embraces the entire sphere of human life, upholding what is good and forbidding what is wrong, accepting of others, and honouring all human beings.

http://www.kingabdullah.jo/main2.php...d=464?_hmka1=1

You will find many references to the Koran, not in full contex either, but at least from someone whom I would suggest is more authoritative on the Koran than either of you.

I don't have a problem with the people following the religion. For hundreds of years, it was used to create a stable society and not let crime get out of control. The police force in 800AD is very different from what we have today, and the religion helped to reduce crime.

My post had very little to do with the Koran, just that you had to follow it or got sent out to the desert. There are other penalties for crimes laid out by the Koran if I remember correctly.

I have. While it's not a message of conquor and obliterate, it definately lends itself well. There are messages to conquor and force others to submit (and humiliate them). Even messages that do not explicitley state to conquor have been interpretted for over a thousand years as so. There is a quote which says, "Seek out knowledge, even in China." So you say, "what does that have to do with it?" Well the Muslims went and did that, and conquored all the way over there. That is why there is a very significant population of muslims in western China today.

Doesn't the Koran say that you must crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women? Or is that the bible?

I do believe that was Arnold in Conan the Barbarian...

I don't know if that's true or not, but you owe me a dry pair of underwear.

for those of you who seem to think that by merely reading the Quran and literally interpreting it is as easy as ABC, then you got something else coming. even though you can read it and comprehend its meaning, its not for anyone to lift unbased judgements from. there are rules and sciences dedicated to this art which takes many years to master.

even the most knowledgeable of scholars and commentators in the muslim world on the Quran and islamic texts do not call their own interpretations of the Quran as fact since man is not free from error. they accept their efforts in trying to interpret the Quran as merely that, an effort based on the various sciences of jurispedence based on authentic sources. however, it is their humble opinion.

one such scholar who would be unknown to most here, but is known by virtually every muslim is Ibn Kathir. his works consists of thousands of pages of commentary on the quran. works have been made to interpret his works, works have been done to interpret theirs and so on and so forth. so for someone to just read the Quran and interpret it literally for themselves for their ownself indulgence or to knitpick, then they are doing themselves an injustice.

should your really want to know the Quran, then do yourself a favour and pick up the Quran. Then ask a muslim on their take on what it means, look at it from a muslim viewpoint as well as a non muslim viewpoint. read books from both sides ofthe story, because any text can be interoreted to mean just about anything you want it to depending on what you REALLY want to believe. i'm sure mr churchill had his beliefs skewed by his times and his lack of knowledge of islam, its sciences and its laws.

those that read the Quran literally and knitpick are doing nothing better than binladen himself who's literal intretation of the Quran is skewed in the other direction.

Thanks for implying that I dont know much about the Quran. In fact Middle Eastern Studies is my major, and Islamic History is my specialization. I've spoken with Sheiks, muslim professors, and more than my share of Talims. I know the various schools of law and interpretations, and Kathir is not the one you should research for he is not predominant in the regions in which terrorism origionates. If you want to look up religous interpreters, Hanafi or Maliki are predominant.

While there will be undoubtably one or two people point out the difference between Islamic Law and Interpretation, they are all-encompassing. And unfortunately for that, only those Sheiks or Imams who study said law can create fatwas (or decrees) so they are extremely influcenced. Neither of these schools have come out strongly against terrorism, in fact more of their Imams in the regions openly support it.

You're sort of talking about two very different scales there. Ibn Kathir is an individual scholar whose Tafsir of the quran is extremely influential. Hanafi and Maliki are the names of two entire schools of thought. The two categories are not incompatible, i.e. no one is an 'adherent' of Ibn Kathir in the sense that one might follow one of the schools, while an avowed Hanafi or Maliki is not unlikely to read and accept the interpretation of Ibn Kathir.

What I was saying is the Imams/Sheiks of the Hanafi/Maliki schools of thought/law stay primarily within the interpretations held by their school. With VERY few of these teachers speaking out against the use of terrorism, and the majority openly supporting it, it says a lot against the notion that it's only a few violent people within the society. If the leaders of the religion openly support it why are we to assume the population do not?

Perhaps for the same reason that although the Pope and most priests believe there shoud be civil laws prohibiting abortion, most Catholics dont (at least in the US)?

seaver, i dont know why you felt that i was directing my comments at you. i wasnt. though i dont agree with everything you say, your reasoning can be understood.

however,

my post was really a complaint with almost any lay person proclaiming that the quran is this or that without any knowledge or back up or evidence to prove their point except for their own literal interpretation of words on a page. as you would surely appreciate the quran has many meanings, and jurists have many opinions on every aspect of it. These jurists are the main schools of thought that you refer to (Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi'i, Hanbali) - though there are a fewer less known ones.

what i was refering to however, as hiredgun pointed out is not the schools of thought but rather the Tafseer of the quran by classical scholars such as Ibn Kathir. Though he followed the shafi'i school, his work is held in high prestige by all schools of thought and they all accept his authority on the subject. Some adherents of some schools of thought wont accept the opinions of other scholars of others math'habs , but ibn kathir is an exception.

i do think that you are wrong in saying that he isnt predominant in the regions in what terrorism originates. Ibn Kathir studied under Ibn Taymiya and ibn Qayyim in Syria in the 1300's, and is regarded by many as a touchstone for the salafi school of thought. the movement followed by binladen himself.


in regards to scholars not coming out against terrorism, this has been covered in previous threads, but there has been many. sometimes its the good things that muslims do that dont get noticed, and only the bad things that get magnified.

You aren't far off at all:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061015/...esia_poll_dc_1

Only 18,700,000 Indonesian muslims are of the "violent extremist kind" Everyone relax, its only a small handful and they don't represent the majority.

edit: for the sake of accuracy, here's some survey statistics: Sample size 1,092, sample population 187,000,000. Confidence level 95%, confidence interval 10.22. 1,092 is a small sample size for such a large population. Based on the study, we can be 95% certain that the actual number of "extremists" in Indonesia is between 16,807,560 and 20,611,140.

I haven't heard of this could you please provide a source? Thanks.

Dlk, I will yield to you on this issue, I am not as well versed in Ibn Kathir as you appear to be.

I'll take the silence that followed to be an agreement. Finally we're all in agreement. Isn't that just grand?

You didn't make a point, stevo. Are those numbers right? Damned if I know. I have a feeling we disagree as to what we (the U.S., whoever) should do about those numbers, but you only left us to assume what you believe those numbers actually imply.

What do you believe they imply?

Well, ok. I see that there is a number of Muslims who support terror from around the globe, I think there was a chart published a few months back about it. There also seems to be a large silent bloc that either doesn't support it and is afrtaid to speak up or is underreported, or they are complicit and in silent agreement and support of the terrorists. Or the large bloc may be mixed.

I do find it odd that not many of the Muslim leadership speak out and denounce terrorism more vocally. Yes I did see the above links on some Muslim leaders that denounce terrorism. That's good, I just wish it was more publicized (probably another thread).

I suppose fear is a pretty big deterrent to speak out against the terrorists. It's like trying to find someone to testify against the local neighborhood gangster. The silence doesn't neccessarily mean that everyone supports the gangsters.

Still, I would like to see more Muslims speak out, hold demonstrations against terrorism and for the press to report that as well.

Simply that there's quite a bit of muslim extremists in the world. No doubt.

But in the context of this discussion: Is it because Islam is, by its nature, a violent belief system? Who knows, but you can't deduce anything either way simply based on those numbers. I refuse to let it be proven and assumed so easily.

And, assuming these numbers are "high," this also implies to me that the solution to the problem (whatever that problem is) would require something more intricate than simply declaring that the religion is definitively violent and should be eradicated. It just seems like an oversimplification of the issues.

There has to be some correlation attesting to the idea that violence and Islam are related. Otherwise it would have to be one big coincidence that a majority of the worlds issues regarding human rights and conflict are perpetuated or involving of Muslims and/or Sharia law (read: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, Iran, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Georgia/Checynia(sp), Sudan, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, Egypt, Yemen, and now increasingly Western Europe).

Hmm...I don't know if there is a correlation. I believe it to be more corruption and manipulation by bad leadership. Perhaps a corruption of Islam for nefarious purposes is more the point. I don't feel like the leaders of many of those countries represent Islam anymore than I feel George Bush represents Christianity. I think the Taleban are about as unIslamic as you can get with their hypocrisy. Allowing the opium crops, etc. I can't remember but didn't they ban music and dancing but were caught listening to Britney Spears?

I also think Islam is used as a political tool further twisting the religion and blurring the lines. So in my view, it's not Islam that is to blame but rather the people who corrupt it, much like any religion.

Sharia law might be a good debate for another thread so it can be more focused.

The same can be said about christian evangelicals in the US government:
Why don't you stop posting neocon propagandist nonsense...and let this thread die. It is a gathering place for offensive and illinformed commentary. I am embarrassed for our muslim brothers who happen upon some of the simplistic, ill conceived posts here...... I have no more connection to what Mojo_PeiPei thinks and posts than any of the muslims who he accuses have....to others who claim to be muslim, but promote violence.

America doesn't act as a Christian actor. American government doesn't act within a solely christian framework. We didn't act in Iraq for Christian purposes, we operated for geo-political purposes. Evangelical terrorism is so statistically small and insignificant, that it is effectively an abherration of Christians or the American population as a whole.

Where is any neo-con propaganda btw? I mean unless of course you consider reality and facts to constitute propaganda.

I posted it so its neo-con propaganda by default.

One in ten christian evangelicals advocate jihad?

Is the poll I posted above neocon propaganda?

no ustwo--you posted a sequence of quotes from famous dead guys whose ignorance about islam made you feel as though yours was legitimate. and you bit it from a far right blog that you did not cite.

what was surprising is that while the thread was twitching its way toward oblivion, an interesting discussion happened between hiredgun, dlishguy and seaver. so even here you can see that discussions between opposing political viewpoints concerning islam are possible without degenerating into the idiocy of the present one----where you now have arguments that i take to have been made seriously---though frankly have trouble imagining it possible--that "a percentage" of the world's muslim population "supports" this ridiculous construct you call "terrorism" therefore islam as a whole has some kind of proclivity toward violence.

here is this brilliant logic in another context: only people who drive cars have strapped a bomb to the undercarriage and driven into a building.
therefore everyone who drives a car may strap a bomb to the undercarriage and drive into a building.
to make this appear legitimate, the qualifier gets tossed in that a certain (arbitrary) percentage of car drivers support such actions.

the usual pattern from here would be to generate a whole series of meaningless generalizations about people who drive cars----all of which would be further qualified--sooner or later--with "i know a couple of car drivers and they are nice people.....they are not like the rest. therefore i have no particular problem with car drivers."

the argument now being tossed about with reference to islam is, if anything, even more stupid.

Here's a twist to that: I'm inclined to believe that a perspective where one is resigned to being at war with the entire culture of Islam is, in a sense, advocating a jihad scenario. Otherwise, these people would be doing everything in their power to avoid it. Instead, we see views such as the quotes in the OP spread around, creating more and more hate between cultures, thus aiding the notion that a jihad is on its way. It serves no purpose but make the chances of war greater, does it not?

That's the impression I'm getting from the convesative side of this discussion, at least. I sense that you guys have abandoned all hope that a war with Islam could be avoided, and are now of the belief that the only outcome must and will be all out war. Perhaps that is the key difference in the perspectives in this thread.

These quotes would be even more of a riot!
 

. . . . . . . . . . . .

host was right, this thread is embarrasing.

I have a challenge to the tilted left, or those of you that view the Islamic world as a mystical land with enchanted chocolate rivers and yummy rainbow gum drops.

Refute what I put forward, and if possible (here's the tricky part) do it without bringing in Christian culpability (also I don't how the Treaty of Tripoli relates as it was ratified with different versions, some without the tenth clause, and was allowed to die after few years time) or the playing of the following two cards: It must be the leaders/corruption or this as all mere "neo-con propaganda". Do yourselves a favor and open your minds on this one, it will be a stretch for some of you, but I have a feeling that some of you are at least reasonable enough to acknowledge the fact that there is a major problem in Islam, that it is not limited to a small minority on some dark continent far away, and it is not getting any better.

'terrorism' is a ridiculous construct...

Before I'd even touch the rest of your post, you must expound on this facinating idea.

You sir are an optimist of the highest order.

I think most on the "tilted left" (or your insulting enchanted candyland) agree that there are many followers of Islam who have hijacked the religion for their own ideological goals, as followers of other religions have done throughout history (sorry Mojo..I dont see why Islam should be viewed in a vacuum).

I think the point that many here have made is that a policy to fight terrorism would be more effective if it were to focus on how to respond to the extemists rather than to continue to attack the religion, which will only result in more anti-west sentiments and ultimately more moderate muslims who feel attacked and may be moved to the extemist beliefs themselves.

How does our policy attack the religion? Does acknowledging the fact that they are muslims perpetuating an idealogy spawned from the Islamic tradition make it an attack on the religion? I guess so. Confounding.

thank you, dc, that's my opinion as well.

Has any of the left here claimed that Islam has a spotless reputation? Of course not. Our contention has been that problems do exist, but the solution is not to make blanket statements and policies regarding Islam. We've seen people in this thread (hiredgun) and friends of people in this thread (Ustwo's lunch date) that represent a level-headed, reasonable side of Islam. We're not sure whether that group represents the majority of Muslims, but we need to make sure those people become the ones in power of the Islamic people, and not the extremists that are currently causing all this trouble around the world.

Another reason we are against the notion of being against Islam as a whole, is that it takes us down a road that has no winners. Here's the only set of events I see that starts with the ideals put forth in the OP:

1. Islam is inherently evil and violent.
2. In order for the world to be safe, Islam must then be destroyed, since it's mere presence brings evil and violence.
3. Declare war (in some form or another) against all followers of Islam, since they are, by definition, evil and violent.
4. Partake in said war, causing mass international instability, and countless casualties.

If there's another set of events that I'm not seeing, please let me know. Because I, for one, find that to be an unacceptable situation. One that needs to be avoided at all costs. My idea for avoiding this is to reject the first statement, then work to get moderate Muslims who are not evil and violent into control of the Islamic community.

Is that so unreasonable?

How are you going to get the moderate muslims to stand up? They don't seem to be willing to do it by themselves, repression and Sharian rule is growning in the (Islamic) world, not declining.

Also, I must ask this question, Hiredgun if you'd be so kind, where are you from originally? Being left to assumptions, it seems apperent to me that you are problem from America/Canada. As such you are not representative of the global Islamic culture; Hiredgun to me would be a dasterdly "westerner" one who lives within the Judeo-Christian realm of the infidels.

"I think the point that many here have made is that a policy to fight terrorism would be more effective if it were to focus on how to respond to the extemists rather than to continue to attack the religion, which will only result in more anti-west sentiments and ultimately more moderate muslims who feel attacked and may be moved to the extemist beliefs themselves."

And how would you respond to islamic extremism without offending these moderates that you speak of, who at our reaction to this extremism, would become extremists themselves?

It seems to me your acknowledging that "moderate", which I would guess is what you think is the majority, of muslims are ready to start flying planes into buildings and setting up roadside bombs at the drop of a hat.

You're such a racist...

That's a problem for statesmen smarter than myself to figure out. I cannot provide specifics.

I'm inclined to believe that it would be a more desirable task to accomplish than any vague war against what could be the majority of the Islamic community, though.

Mojo......Where is repression and sharia law growing...putting aside the fact that sharia law should not be equated with support of terrorists with different ideologcal goals? The new Iraq constitution which the US proclaims as such a victory for the Iraqi people is based, in part, on sharia law.

Moderate muslims are in power in most of the top 10 muslim countries and are standing up, with the exception of Iran, which doesnt have the support of the people. The goverments of Indonesia, Pakistan, India (not a muslim government), Turkey, Egypt, Algeria (not moderate, but cracking down on suspected terrorists), Morroco are all working with the US to some extent to fight terrorism, as are the smaller muslim nations of Jordon, Kuwait, and others.

And Mathew, your "racist" comment is not worthy of response.

"Moderate" is the word eh?

Familiar, this is, I have seen this before... Ustwo addressed that here http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ight=Indonesia, but for arguments sake....
Again Pakistan's cooperation is only due to the regime's preference, a defacto dictator, who has been the victim of 3 assassination attempts, who has entirely to many problems with Islamists in the military, who exerts little to no control in the Taliban sympathetic/controlled Pushtan region. This is a country that was blowning up churches after erroneous news stories about Quran desecration at Gitmo. Musareff is only as moderate and helpful as it suits him, on that note, I wonder where Bin Laden is???

India- Historical reference fact, where have the bloodiest religious wars ever been fought? When? What religions? Case in point India/Pakistan, four wars this century 47', 65', 71', 98', Moslems and Hindu's. Building off that seems to me problems and Kashmir still exist, also this doesn't take into account the problems in Bangladesh's formation. I wonder why they might want to fight in our war on terror? because they have been dealing with Islamic extremists for 60+ years!

Turkey- let's ask the Kurds what they think, also I am a little disconcerted about their whole reaction to the Pope's comments awhile back. They've seem to been dealing with their own inner problems with terrorism, some destructive acts, I wonder if it is not a discontent population or Al Qaeda?

Egypt- Ustwo made a good point in the linked above thread... they are the second biggest recipent of America aid. Similar to other countries they also have serious internal problems with Islamic extremists, seems to me a certain leader of theirs was assassinated a few decades back...

Also your point about Iraq and Sharian law bring up its own plethora of issues to deal with. Namely that Iran is starting to excert massive influnence in Iraq, don't know if you know but Iran is Shiite, so is majority of Iraq, there was a war that killed a million people, Saddam was secular ran off the clerics to Iran, they are back, there are ones like Al- Sadr one of the biggest problems we are facing. That's a lazy detailed commentary. I think most people monitoring the situation in Iraq, see it has a problem that Sharia law is being adapted, especially because of the situation with Iran.

I'm not ignorant of the internal killings and the unrest stirred up by the extemists in these countries, but the fact is that these governments are moderate (as are the majority of their muslim population) and are working with the international community and particlulary the west, to strengthen their response to these internal extremists and to institute political and judicial reforms, albeit not as quickly or as succesfully as we would like.

If we want them to continue, its in our interest not to inflame their more moderate muslim populations with policies like attacking a sovereign muslim country that did not pose a direct threat to us and where our actions killed thousands of innocent muslim civilians, locking up (some for years at a time now with no outside contact) and torturing "suspected" muslim terrorists with no opportunity to prove their innocence, making references to islamofacists, etc.

Edit:
I agree with you on Iraq/Iran connection . The result of our invasion was to create a scenario where SCIRI and Dawa (the two shia sectarian political groups with connections to Iran) would be in control of the government and would strengthen ties to Iran.

Iran, Iraq to strengthen security, intelligence ties

I think it was Howard Dean who predicted this before the war :)

Indeed you are an optimist. I would love to engage in such a challenge, but such an answer would fall upon deaf ears. No matter what is said, aside from supporting the right, it will be either ignored (thanks Ustwo), or viewed through bias. A majority of the right holds its views as incontrovertible, and will not listen to our "leftist drivel", or anything sharing an inclination towards that view's favor. If care towards incessantly being right (in literal meaning of the word) was shunned, then I'd be willing. Unfortunately this is not the case.

Edit: Screw it. I'll give it a try.

You would engage in such a challenge but you would loose. Any answer I ever encounter comes down to me being a bigoted xenophobe and not once addresses the issue at hand. Don't think that I have a monopoly on excluding perspective. Please give me your leftist drivel by the way, I would welcome it, you might find I am not so unreasonable when presented with facts and basis, as opposed to condescension and pomp.

I wasn't talking about yo.... *sigh* nevermind. Let's start.

The accusation is that Islam is directly linked to, and causes, violence. I disagree. Let's start by taking a look at the top 59 populations of Islam in the modern world.
______________________________________________________________
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...try-smooth.png
Sunni (green) and Shi'a (blue). (based on the CIA factbook)
____________________________________________________________
Indonesia, India, Turkey, Nigeria, China and Morroco take the majority of the top ten largest Muslim populations. Yet these countries are not consistently engulfed in jihad, or Islam based violence. Most of the conflict in these countries are out of political coups, political disagreement on some level, or religous persecution (not to be confused with religion-based-violence). Somalia is a great example of this.


Sources: US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report 2004, CIA FactBook, census.gov, www.conflicttransform.net

I can't reach you, Mojo...you "know what you know".... my ambition with the effort in this post is to provoke the suspicions of others who might read this thread, that you, and other folks who "know what you know", are heavily influenced by neocon propagandists:

<b>I begin with Islamophobe, Daniel Pipes, writing in David Horowitz's neocon propaganda "rag", "FrontpageMag:</b>
The 2002 "presentaion" by Murawiec is of interest, in addition to it's warped content, because of the slate.com article that follows this WaPo piece, and links Murawiec to Richard Perle, "top ten" neocon !
background:
<b>Paul Reynolds of the BBC reports on the money flow to the Rand Corp., and then the Rand Corp. report, "Civil Democratic Islam: partners, resources and strategies" by Cheryl Bernard is examined.... following that is a Wapo report that tells us that Ms. Bernard is married to Zalmay Khalilzad, protege of Bush admin. insider, Thomas E. Gouttierre, director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska at Omaha......</b>
I posted an article on 11/19.2005, about Zalmay Khalilzad, husband of Cheryl Bernard, who is the author of the Rand Corp. article:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...77&postcount=4
in this TFP thread:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=1941577#post1941577"> Why Have Dems & Repubs Sold Out To Chalabi & How Do We Take Back the Government?</a>

<b>If you read my posts on the thread linked here, and above the preceding WaPo article, <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=1941577#post1941577"> Why Have Dems & Repubs Sold Out To Chalabi & How Do We Take Back the Government?</a> ....you might begin to wonder it Mojo, Ustwo, et al, arw correct in their pronouncements about Islam, or whether their opinions are heavily influenced by neocon propagandists, John Rendon, and "the Rand Corporation with financial help from the Smith Richardson Foundation, a conservative trust fund which hands out more than $120 million a year to universities and other research organisations..... As much as anything else, folks, the negative PR intended to divide and conquer Islam, is about control of the oil, and other neocon and corporatist ambitions of global dominance...
"</b>

Ch'i do you know whats going on in India, Indonesia, and Nigeria in relation to Islam? China its harder to get reports from due to the nature of its government. Turkey is kept in check by the same system that is keeping Algeria out of the hands of the radicals, which is the military is very secular, and will not allow radicals to come to power or they will overthrow the government. One of the most interesting 'checks and balances' I've seen. This still hasn't saved 150,000 Algerian citizens, or kept radical protests out of Turkey.

If this is your shining example of the peaceful Muslim, you might want to rethink.

You, sir, are paranoid. So its all just one big conspiracy to get the oil and the folk on the right are too stupid and blind to notice. There's no such thing as islamofascists and militant islam is only a problem in conservative thought, not in the "real world" where, I assume, you reside.

Arguing, debating, or whatever its called, with a position such as yours is pointless to say the least. I'd much rather prefer to hear what Ch'i and DC_dux have to say, what they think. At least it contains substance. Sure beats hearing "its teh proaganda!!!!11!! you only 'know what you know' because your too stupid to think for yourself" bit I hear from you on any number of issues. :|

ps. you forgot the reverse vampires.

If you look at the most recent State Department reports on Turkey and Indonesia, you will certainly see numerous and agregious human rights violations but the reports also cite how these moderate (yes, moderate) civilian elected governments are trying to reform.
We wont see western style democracies anytime soon, but it seems to me we should work with these moderate muslim governments and encourage and support further reform, rather than alienate them and their citizens and potentially create situations than feed the more radical elements.

Mojo_PeiPei: Sure. I'm originally from Pakistan, and I was raised in a very religious household. I'm clearly English-educated, of course, but I'm not even really important here. I know tons of Pakistanis who have never left Pakistan. I've never met one who didn't mourn 9/11, or who condones terrorism in general. Such people exist there, but generally not in the mainstream society. They represent an extreme. The same is true in Egypt, where I recently lived for a year. This is true even among those who would be called Islamists... those who espouse political Islam or push for the enforcement of Islamic law.

Again, let me reiterate that when I say that, I don't mean to entirely marginalize the problem. I acknowledge the problem. There is a problem with Islam in the world today, and it's a problem that Muslims will need to do much more to address. But to say that it's a problem somehow fundamental to Islam, that brutishness and violence somehow form the very essence of Islam, is in the realm of the absurd. It simply doesn't reflect the lived reality of over a billion people on this planet.

http://www.nypress.com/18/28/travel/TRAVEL-AMISH.jpg Yep, Jebbadia Stevo, its about time I fire up this infernal lap top and give my daily dose of neocon propaganda.

Very well stated and I respect your honesty. However, I will have to take issue with you in regards to how moderate Muslims recognize the problem. If they do indeed recognize it, then they need to take the next step and come out en masse to denounce every act of violence done in the name of Islam. Anything short of that will be as if they have done nothing at all. Sorry, but I speak for a lot of Americans who feel enough time has been given for moderate Muslims to stpe up to the plate and stomp the extremism out of their own religion.

UStwo....I dont see how that photo contributes to the discussion in any meaningful way.

If you and Host have problems with each other, I suggest you both take it private.

I think the first thing removed in a liberal is his sense of humor.

If you were really interested in, contributing to the discussion in any meaningful way, you would have pmed me your message but instead you posted it here for all to read.

P.S. Read the Koran, you will find it very interesting I'm sure and its a pretty easy read.

A lot of Muslims have spoken up, and I've talked about this earlier in the thread. Take a look at those posts. I agree that we need to do more. But I think your characterization, that this task is entirely the responsibility of the Muslim community itself, is unfair. How easy do you think it is to convince people with a message of moderation and peace when the dominant conservative discourse is one that condemns and blames the Islamic faith itself at every turn, and while, as far as most Muslims can see, the US has still provided no actual, plausible justification for the war it began 3 years ago?

UsTwo, your cherry-picking of quotes from the Qur'an is not a useful way to try to understand Islam, unless your only purpose is to find ways to condemn it and reinforce your existing view. Let me demonstrate.

Lend me a little under 6 minutes and watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C10sSC2kB3Q

It is from Richard Dawkins' documentary on faith; Dawkins is an outspoken atheist and makes a pretty vitriolic attack on Christianity based on scripture. Can you please explain to me the difference between his analysis of the Bible, and your understanding of the Qur'an?

Thank you for making my point for me again.

I have tried on numerous threads to discuss the issues with you in a civil and rational manner.... from your assertions about Carter and Rice to radio deregulation and the problems with islam.

More often then not, you respond with sarcasm and what you obviously think are "witty" and humorous retorts.

There is a reason I callled you out publicly on your latest...and I will continue to do so when I see an inane post. (consider this such a public response).

But I will also discuss the issues with you anytime you are prepared to do so in a mature and reasonable way. :)

i'll answer the questions posed earlier in this thread, but not in this context.
you want an actual discussion, mojo, please start another thread.
this one is done.

No, its not unfair. Only Muslims can alter Muslim behavior and culture. Blaming the US for the Muslims community's own failures may bode well in liberal circles, but it doesnt exactly square with reality and represents either cowardice or refusal to condemn and reform their own people and religion

I agree, make another thread for this mojo.

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Obviously, there are millions of Muslims who denounce terror, as any simple search of the net or news sites will show. People, however, speak of Islam as if it were one big religion, with some Pope sitting at the head of it telling people what to do. There is no centralization of Islam, and there are many sects. It is very obvious that in some parts of the Muslim world - Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan - a breeding ground exists for terrorism, due in part to the shithole conditions that these people live in brought about by constant warfare, poverty and oppression, and in part due to groups using Islam to motivate others into commiting terror attacks. Whereas other areas are much more stable, making genuine movement towards more secular, democratic, representative and liberal forms of government and society.

As for the line about not blaiming the US for Islamic terrorism, Iraq used to be a secular country without religious terrorism. Now it is a nation utterly engulfed by terrorism based upon religion, and in which the various sects prey upon one another.

Everyone involved in this - from Muslims around the world to the US and it allies - have had a hand in the rise of terrorism, and it is either incredibly partisan or incredibly uneducated to suggest otherwise.

I take exception to some of hiredgun's statements as well. I don't live in Pakistan, I'm not a Muslim, but I have absolutely heard Muslims speak of hating the US and the west (even while living here) and at least quietly applauding certain terrorist actions. I find it ... implausible to think he has never heard a Muslim express such sentiments in his presence, when surely, he knows more Muslims than I do.

I'm sorry you find my experiences implausible, highthief. They are mine, and true, although I don't make any particular claims as to how far they can be generalized. My connections to Pakistan are largely friends and family, and as you can imagine, it would not be easy to support anti-American terror when you have loved ones living in the bullseye.

Great argument, stevo...and the agenda is about much more than oil......


Has the thought crossed any of your minds that it is "odd" that one man, neocon trained, PNAC member, Zalmay Khalilzad, "picked" Karzai to rule Afghanistan, served as US ambassador in Afghanistan, and then moved on to pick the Iraqi government coalition, and now serves as US ambassador to Iraq, after a track record of defining the US strategy for that region of the world, under the influence of "Jihad" book publisher, Thomas E. Gouttierre...obscure Nebraska professor, the only man from academia who apparently advises the US government on Afghan affairs?

If there really is an emerging "caliphate" that Bush is committed to stop, why are the ranks of diplomatic and DOD personnel, so "thin"? Why does Zalmay Khalilzad appear to be the "entire show"? <b>Can any of you who have been "spoon-fed" this "Isalmic Fascist" bullshit, and then enthusiastically "licked the spoon", even stand to read the following contradictions? Doesn't the reporting document that the CIA and USAID were the authors of jihad? What have you personally, been right about, lately? My advice is to open your mind. I'm sharing the information that I have found. It speaks volumes about you, when your reaction is to attack me personally, just because I show you things that threaten your belief systems.</b>
<b>Bush's "caliphate" message:</b> continued in next post....

...and this is the manipulated message....courtesy of the US government and the "Lincoln Group", that you've apparently bought into. It's as contrived and irrational, IMO, as Bush's description of how Saddam could have "avoided war".
You're "at war" with an "islamic fascist" "caliphate" bogeyman, that was created and produced by your own president and his government. <b>I am not !</b>
<b>...again with the blood (of American troops) for oil "line", and the "caliphate" bullshit:</b>

I'm not saying you are being untruthful, but often people hear things but don't file them away, especially when they may find themselves in a position of conflict between conflicting ideologies and loyalties. It happened in Europe in WW2, it happens in Israel and Palestine today, and I am pretty sure it happens to a large number of Muslims, also (Americans too, for that matter).

Polls such as this:

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1766106.htm

lend some credence to the idea that support for terrorism, while hardly universal as some on Team Bush like to claim, is nevertheless, substantial even in nations like Indonesia, a somewhat less hard line Muslim nation than many others.

And this one:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248

Ok Host, so Karzi is a proven ally with strong tribal roots in Afghanistan and a deep understanding of the culture. So obviously using him to aid our interests proves that Islamiscism is simply made up in order for Bush to declare war.

Sorry, if we weren't using Karzi's expertise in the region I would be pissed.

Foreign Affairs magazine conducted a survey recently on "Public Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy:
What is most striking is the finding that "nearly three-quarters worry that our actions in the Middle East are aiding the recruitment of terrorists."

If that overwhelming majority of Americans surveyed feel that our policies are aiding the recruitment of terrorists, isnt it logical that moderate muslims around the world would have the same sentiment?

I would put myself among the 53% who believe that "improved communication and dialogue with the Muslim world will reduce hatred of the U.S."

There is no guarantee of success and certainly nothing we, or any outsiders do will have an immediate impact, but IMO, dialogue and a change in policy would be a step in the right direction.

Ustwo, stevo, mojo, ect: You've made a claim that Islam causes violence, but have yet to prove it.

I dont see anywhere where they said Islam causes terrorism. They said that Islam and it's history more than lends itself to this mentality. That the warlike and aggressive nature of Muhammad and his companions early on in the religion's history reverberate itself today and fuels the fires of terrorism.

They posted statistics which help their argument that many Muslims, even Westernized Muslims, openly support terrorism and state that it is allowed by Islam.

Never did they state that Islam leads to terrorism, that the Arabs/Turks/Egyptians/(Fill in race here) are savages or are born terrorists. Never did they state that if you are Muslim you hate the West and want to kill innocents.

How many people have to be killed in the name of religion before it becomes "provable" for you? 1000? 10000? Whats the number?

I said violence, as did the one I directed my post towards:
. . . . . . . . . . . .
I fail to see the connection between killings in the name of a religion and Islam causing this violence. Don't confuse the two.

As my Psychology teacher pounded into our heads, "Correlation does not equal Causation." Correlation means they have a similarity, as in when one increases another does (or decreases) in a relatively close scale. Now it is a fact that if you rule out Islamic terrorists, the level of terrorism acts in the world dramatically decreases (though there still are acts).

Yes, the name of religon kills. Because we've agreed on that fact, the next logical conclusion is to stop all religon. We should probably start with the biggest, theoritically saving the most people from death fastest. Which is the biggest religon, again? I'm trying to remember. It's like Judism and Islam, but not quite. It has followers in the highest eschelons of our own government. It rhymes with "fisty annity".