03-04-2007, 12:56 PM | #81 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
Can we agree that the Mufti was a "bad, bad" man.....that he collaborated with the Nazis, but that his "collaboration" had no more "impact" on actual aid to the Nazi war effort, than say.....the collaboration of Prescott Bush or his partner, Harriman....or that the Mufti was any "badder" with regard to the "hands on" killing of innocents, than terrorists Menachim Begin, David ben Gurion, Yitzak Rabin, et al? The Mufti was never tried or convicted at Nuremberg. My reading shows him to be a "distant cousin" of Arafat. Hannah Arendt, German Jewish refugee and later, prominent American political philosopher, was sent by the New Yorker magazine, in 1963, to cover the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Israel. She concluded that the Mufti was demonized by Israeli government intention, via that trial, and that the demonization was politically motivated and out of proportion: Quote:
Given all of the above, isn't it fair to say that those who disagree with the most negative assessment of the Mufti's complicity with the nazis and "the final solution", are at a disadvantage to argue that his "crimes" were less than meets the eye, both because of the Mufti's own exile in Berlin, and his support of the nazis, and the much more limited means and opportunities of his Palestinian supporters to influence the rest of the world, than those of Israelis and their western supporters? Dc_dux, I see no more point in "saddling" this generation of Palestinians with the legacy of the Mufti, than I do in saddling this generation of Iraelis with the terrorist acts of Israel's founders, or of saddling the current president Bush with the financial activities of his grandfather that aided the nazis. When I post about Prescott Bush and the terrorist founding leaders of the state of Israel, I do so to focus on the hypocrisy of the opposing "black or white" arguments. The "gray areas" do not seem to sap the convictions of the most resolute, because they don't often admit that they are on the map..... |
||
03-04-2007, 01:22 PM | #82 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
RB, exactly. "Terrorism" has become a term along the lines of "evil". It's perceived as inexcusable. It's paired up with things like "they hate freedom" and such so much that any possible understanding of their rational would make you yourself one of them. It's an ancient way to control hatred of the enemy, and is just as successful today as it was when the Catholic church fought the Saracens. Of course, the second one does peer through the haze of control into the meaning of the actions of 'terrorists', it becomes clear. I agree that terrorism is wrong, as wrong as war, but to deny the meaning of terrorism is to lose the freedom to think for yourself. OBL doesn't attack us because he hates freedom or because he hates American Idol (though I'm sure he's not a fan), but because we've fucked with his people time and time again. He felt and feels betrayed because of things that happened when the US was still demonizing Communism (the last great enemy before terrorism, go figure). The Palestinians don't suicide bomb in Israel because they hate the Jews so much as they hate being prisoners in their own homes. They hate watching their homes and businesses bulldozed in the name of "Jewish safety". They hate having walls built around them, with armed guards and cameras. They don't like being bombed. Is it right when someone explodes himself in a bus of civilians? Of course. But to act as if they are blindly hating without reason is like saying that Bush wire taps our phones to protect us. It's naive.
|
03-04-2007, 01:40 PM | #83 (permalink) |
Banned
|
As I outlined here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ad#post2139216 ...if the US regime was serious and balanced in it's views and reactions to "terrorism", it's terrorist "jihad" propagandist Tom Gauthier, would be in a jail cell, instead of being principle administration advisor on Afghanistan, and his "protege", Khalilzad, would not be arriving at the UN to chair the US delegation there. The current US approach to "terrorism" and to "jihad" is a farce, to anyone with any curiousity and the initiative to use a newspaper archival resource, probably available at the website of their own, local library, would dispense with a "black or white" POV. We are not little children, we adults in the US. Blind faith in, followed by regurgitation of the "talking points" of our national leadership, is not patriotic, nor does "blind faith" support the troops..... |
03-04-2007, 02:29 PM | #85 (permalink) | ||||
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
Quote:
And, his young relative, Arafat, may well have been a distant cousin (rather than nephew or grand nephew) who referred to Haj Amin el-Husseini as Uncle out of respect. In either case, Arafat joined el-Husseini's jihad against Jews in the Middle East in 1946, which began when el-Husseini was appointed Mufti by the Brits in 1921 (there are many sources). If that is considered demonizing the Mufti (and Arafat), so be it. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-04-2007 at 04:36 PM.. |
||||
Tags |
begets, terrorist, terrorists |
|
|