Obit: More Muslim intolerance?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:38 PM

"So now you're saying that the people whose families have been living on and working that land for more than a thousand years should be punished for something that was done by Hashemite Jordanians? "

Are you talking about the Jews who were driven out of the Wet Bank, and should now be allowed to settle there?

"The Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem have absolutely no rights whatever. "

Basically TRUE- So where are YOU asking other ARAB nations to settle them as citizens, like the Israelis had to do with the Jewish refuges from Arab nations?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:48 PM

Are you talking about the Jews who were driven out of the Wet Bank, and should now be allowed to settle there?

First of all, most of the Jews who are settling in those areas are not Arabic Jews. Many of them, in fact, are from the US originally. Secondly, if Arabic Jews wanted to go back to those lands and live as Palestinian Jews, with the exact same rights and responsibilities as Christian and Muslim Palestinians (and not in segregated, Jewish only communities, accessed by Jewish only roads, guarded by the Israeli Defense Forces), I would be ecstatic! I would be incredibly happy about that, and I would totally support their desire to do it.

Basically TRUE- So where are YOU asking other ARAB nations to settle them as citizens, like the Israelis had to do with the Jewish refuges from Arab nations?

If I heard of any sort of movement that advocated for Arabic Jews who wanted to move back to their countries of origin, I would be right there with them (figuratively speaking), advocating for their right to go.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:53 PM

I see that I misunderstood you question. I don't advocate for removing any more Palestinians from their land. The refugees that are already in other countries whould be allowed to become citizens if they want to, and to enjoy all of the same rights as other citizens of those countries.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:59 PM

"The refugees that are already in other countries whould be allowed to become citizens if they want to, and to enjoy all of the same rights as other citizens of those countries. "

But they are NOT allowed, and do not have those rights. So, will you put the same burden you seek to place on Israel on those Arab countries?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 11:03 PM

But they are NOT allowed, and do not have those rights. So, will you put the same burden you seek to place on Israel on those Arab countries?

I think they do have full citizenship in Jordan, beardedbruce. But you bet... I support the idea that the countries that have already absorbed Palestinian refugees absolutely should give them citizenship, and all of the same rights as the other citizens of those countries. But I also would like to see Israeli Arabs having the same rights as Jews in Israel... something they most certainly do not have at this time.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 02:00 AM

Palestinians in Gaza have more rights than those in Suadi Arabia or Kuwait.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:43 AM

Waiting with baited breath CarolC....

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 12:06 PM

That's not possible, beardedbruce. The Palestinians in Gaza have ZERO rights. If the Palestinians in Suadi Arabia or Kuwait also have zero rights, then that would mean that the Palestinians in Gaza and the Palestinians in Suadi Arabia or Kuwait have exactly the same rights.

I'm working on it Ooh-Aah2.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 12:08 PM

Zarqawi group beheads two Iraqis working at US base: video
AFP: 1/21/2005

DUBAI, Jan 21 (AFP) - The group of Al-Qaeda frontman in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, posted a video on the Internet on Friday showing the beheading of two Iraqis after they "confessed" to working at a US base in the country.

The men identified themselves as Ali Hussein Jassem Mohammad al-Zubaidi and Ahmad Alwan Hussein al-Mahmadawi, both residents of Sadr City, a teeming Shiite slum in Baghdad.

They said they worked at a US base in Ramadi, a bastion of Sunni Muslim insurgents west of the Iraqi capital.

Zubaidi said he thought he would be working for a Lebanese company named Safwan, but found himself working at the US base. Both he and Mahmadawi, who said he was a "tanker driver," called on those who work with US forces to desist or face death.

After making their "confessions" in front of a banner carrying the name of Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda Group of Jihad in the Land of Two Rivers, the video showed each man having his head cut off.

The severed heads were held aloft by the men's slaughterers and put on their backs to shouts of Allahu Akbar, or God is greatest.

The grisly footage of the beheading, in which about four men appeared to be involved, was followed by a chilling written warning from the group that "anyone who helps the occupying enemy in any way" would meet the same fate.

The group of Zarqawi, Iraq's most-wanted man, has repeatedly posted such videos showing what it calls "the implementation of God's ruling" against Iraqi "apostates" or foreign hostages.

Another Al-Qaeda linked group calling itself the Army of Ansar al-Sunna has also often released such footage, most recently on Wednesday when it showed two Iraqi men being shot dead for working with a US firm on preparations for the January 30 elections.


01/21/2005 18:52 GMT - AFP

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 12:24 PM

beardedbruce, in looking over your posts from last night, I am getting the impression that the way you talk about Israel being "punished", by "punished", you mean not be allowed to remove all Palestinians from the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, and annex those lands to Israel. That is not a punishment. Israel has no more legitimate claim to those lands than Saddam Hussein had to Kuwait. It is not a punishment for you to force someone who is stealing your stuff to stop doing it.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 12:32 PM

...and furthermore, for Israel to keep those lands after liberating them from the Jordanians is exactly the same thing as if the US kept Kuwait after liberating it from Saddam.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 12:38 PM

Nothing is 'exactly the same' as anything else.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:17 PM

It's close enough, pdq.

can't believe CarolC is still in her flower-scented dream-world re. the Muslims are no more disposed to violent fundamentalism than anyone else - oh pleeeeze Carol, wake up or shut up

The Muslim fundamentalists (not necessarily the same thing as people who are fighting for liberation from occupation... these can be from any number of other religions besides Islam) are repsonsible for the deaths of hundreds of civilians in Iraq. The Christian fundamentalist president of my country is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of civilians in that same country.

Yes, I think I would have a very difficult time as a woman in the more repressive fundamentalist Muslim countries. But you can't make the kinds of changes that the women of that region need by killing all of the men. And that is precisely what the Christian fundamentalist president of my country is in the process of doing (and in the process, he is killing large numbers of women and children along with them).

I think you are the one who needs to wake up or shut up.

if these young Palestinian men are brave enough to blow themselves up you'd think they would be brave enough to sit in front of tanks - a few wet crunches on the TV, and the world would be firmly on their side

This is one of the stupidest things I've read in a long, long time. When Arabs (including Arab civilians) get killed by the IDF (or Israeli settlers), it almost never gets reported in the Western Press. That's not because it doesn't happen... it happens with great regularity. But if the Western press reports even a fraction of these killings, they get accused of being biased against Israel (and by extension, of anti-Semitism). At least three human rights activists/peace activists who were not Arabs have been killed by the IDF, and more have been targeted with violence from Israeli settlers. There was some reportage in the Western press of the killings, but not any that I've seen of the other targeted violence. If these people had been Arabs, we in the West would never have seen one word about it in the our press. And yet, even with the limited press coverage that we saw about the killing of these activists, those "few wet crunches" have not brought the world firmly on the side of the Palestinians.

Anyway, the Palestinians wouldn't need a Gandhi if the Israelis had an Abraham Lincoln.


""My back is broken," Rachel told Alice Coy, a fellow ISM activist who was with her.

An Israeli pathologist, Dr. Yehudah Hiss, noted that Rachel appeared to have been run over by the bulldozer, Sweeney wrote. Hiss found the cause of death to be "pressure to the chest." Her shoulder blades had been crushed; her spine was broken in five places and six ribs broken. Her face was apparently slashed by the bulldozer blade.

The IDF produced a report that says, "Corrie was not run over by an engineering vehicle." It added, "for good measure" Sweeney says, that Corrie was "hidden from view of the vehicle's operator."

The footage seen in the BBC film proves these statements to be false. The family of Rachel Corrie believes the IDF report to "be a blatant fabrication," Sweeney wrote.

The British cameraman James Miller was shot dead by an Israeli sniper as he left a house in Rafah with two other journalists on the night of May 2. An Associated Press TV News (APTN) cameraman filmed the entire scene.

One of the three journalists held a white flag; Miller was shining a light on the flag and a third journalist held up her British passport. There was no shooting and the area was quiet as the audio track of the film clearly proves.

The three had walked about 60 feet toward an Israeli armed personnel carrier to request safe passage to leave the area when the first shot was fired. "We are British journalists," Saira Shah cried out into the darkness.

"Then comes the second shot, which killed James," Sweeney wrote. "He was shot in the front of his neck. The bullet was Israeli issue, fired, according to a forensic expert, from less than 200 meters [600 feet] away."

The IDF maintains that Miller was shot during crossfire, although no shooting is heard on the APTN tape apart from the two shots fired from the Israeli military vehicle.

When the APTN tape was shown to an Israeli soldier, who is shown in the film, he said the television team did not look like Islamic terrorists and concluded: "That's murder.""

www.realnews247.com/bbc_rachel_corrie_report.htm


Justice for James Miller

The Tomas Thurndale Fund

In Memorium: Rachel Corrie


http://us.altnews.com.au/drop/node/view/1125

By Nir Hasson,
Haaretz Correspondent

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/488976.html

Police say settlers may have been behind attacks on five international peace activists in the West Bank last Saturday. The peace activists were assaulted when they were escorting Palestinian children to school in the village of Al-Tuwani in the southern Hebron hills, on a route that passes between the settlement of Maon and the outpost called Maon Ranch. An Italian peace volunteer and an Amnesty International member required medical treatment after being badly beaten with clubs.

This is the latest of three attacks on volunteers perpetrated in the past month.

Kim Lamberty, an American volunteer with Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), described the first attack against members of her organization on September 29: "We were escorting five children to school, when five masked figures dressed in black jumped out at us. The children began to run. I was knocked down and beat with a chain. I lay immobile so they would think I was dead."

Lamberty's arm and leg were broken. Her colleague Chris Brown was also hospitalized with a punctured lung. Last Wednesday, rocks were thrown at a single volunteer, who escaped unharmed.

Police say the attacks are not spontaneous outbreaks of violence, but rather the work of a well-organized group, whose members wear black, don ski masks and arm themselves with wooden clubs, chains and rocks. Jewish settlers in the area have long been harassing Palestinian residents. Palestinian children are afraid to go to school and many have dropped out.

The recent attacks are seen as an intensification of the violence. "Until now we were subjected to stone-throwing and spontaneous actions, but not a planned ambush," says Rabbi Arik Ascherman of Rabbis for Human Rights, another organization active in the area.

Activists also complain about police indifference to the attacks. "We lay waiting there for half an hour before the police came. We could have easily been killed," says Lamberty. No suspects have been detained yet "but if the assailants were Arabs they would have arrested the whole village and found the guilty parties" says Ezra Nawi, an activist with Ta'ayush Arab-Jewish partnership.

Over the past week the Israel Defense Forces has been discussing solutions with the residents of Tuba and with the peace activists. The IDF is demanding that the international volunteers leave, promising that soldiers would take over the job of escorting the children safely to school. But Palestinian children are afraid of the soldiers. "We don't trust the IDF to keep up the routine either," Nawi said.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:25 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,935018,00.html

Israeli troops 'shoot British peace activist'

Staff and agencies
Friday April 11, 2003

"Israeli troops in the Gaza Strip today shot a British peace activist as he was trying to move children away from gunfire, witnesses said.

The activist, named by Reuters as Tom Handoll, in his early 20s, had been working as a human shield with the International Solidarity Movement at the Rafah refugee camp, near the Eyptian border.

He was standing between Israeli troops and a group of Palestinian children when soldiers opened fire, said Khalil Abdullah, an activist with the Palestinian-backed group.

Mr Handoll was reportedly trying to help two children caught in gunfire to cross the street when Israeli soldiers shot him in the head.

The director of the Rafa hospital, Ali Musa, said that Mr Handoll was "clinically dead" after sustaining brain damage."

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,quizmaster
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:32 PM

HISTORY TEST
Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test. The events are actual cuts from past history. They actually happened!!!

Do you remember?


1. 1968, Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
a. Superman
b. Jay Lenno
c. Harry Potter
d. a Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4.During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7.In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8.In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10.In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11.On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12.In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

Nope, .....I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?

So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics
intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling.

Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel doubly ashamed of themselves - if they have any such sense.

As Forrest Gump so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does."

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:58 PM

My God, how you love to write, or transcribe, or whatever! All a waste of time, as my basic point still stands: violence is getting the Palestinians absolutely nowhere. I am in complete agreement with you on all the disgusting Israeli behaviour you have so laboriously transcibed (if you had read my post more carefully you would have seen that I am already convinced that Israeli violence, agression and land-snatching is the root of the problem). However the fact remains that whatever apalling abuses the Israelis perpetrate can be neatly covered up by them and the western media (I completely agree that it is biased) by referring to the constant Palestinian violence, especially suicide bombings.

My mention of 'a few wet crunches' was too flippant. However I am convinced that peaceful civil disobedience on a massive sale would be infinitely more effective than endless desultory shootings, bombings etc. Expecting the problem to be solved by an Israeli Abraham Lincoln is as naive as Gandhi expecting the problem of the British in India to be solved by the King abruptly deciding that it was time to come home.

As for the other thing: I'm sorry (aren't we all) your Pres. is a fundie dickhead, but you are confusing the number of people killed by him with the broader statement that Muslims are more inclined to fundamentalism. They don't have the power to kill as many as he has (just wait until they get the bomb), but there's more of 'em in proportion to moderates than even Christianity (which, I repeat, I cordially dislike). In many Muslim countries and communities fundamentalism is actually considered normal - even in the US a fundie is viewed as a fundie.

With regard to your very lame response re. women in Muslim countries, you reply to the effect that one can't improve the lives of women in these countries by killing all the men, which is what the President is trying to do. Please let me know what the actions of Mr Bush have to do with the topic of this thread, with me, where I have ever supported him in any form, or where I have advocated killing all Muslim men - a classic CarolC fudge/non-sequitur.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 04:02 PM

Whoops! Quizmaster nipped in before me. My last post was of course, addressed to the ubiquitous CarolC.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 04:05 PM

Quizmaster: PC it ain't but I damn near wet myself laughing at that one, thanks for bringing a bit of levity [one word not two!]into an otherwise po-faced discussion.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 04:24 PM

Quite true, Mr. MacKenzie. Don't expect an answer from CarolC anytime soon. She is stuck on the one about "Elmer Fudd".

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 04:33 PM

Quizmaster, yours is one of the best posts here in a long time!

I got every answer right as I knew I would

CarolC., you goishe shiksa, what do you think of it?

Or are you daydreaming about Elmer Fudd's penis?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 04:57 PM

Martin - Are you still dreaming about having a penis that works properly?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 05:38 PM

Alright, Quizmaster. Here's a few for you:

Which nation used its intelligence services to squash the first ever fledgeling democracy in Iran and then installed the Shah as a (brutal) dictator and as its puppet?

Which proto-nation massacred hundreds of women, children, and old men, execution style in the late 1940s in order to frighten all of the people in the surrounding areas into fleeing their villages and homes so they could then steal all of the land belonging to those who fled?

Which country's intelligence services are responsible for the rise to power of Saddam Hussien?

Which Western country helped Saddam Hussien kill thousands of Iranians and Iraqi Kurds?

Which country used the Mujahadeen and the civil war in Afghanistan in order to help it in its cold war against the Soviet Union, and then, after helping to completely destroy that country, simply abandoned it, giving rise to the conditions that gave birth to the Taliban and its subsequent rise to power?

Which country funded the Taliban during its rise to power?

And here's the point. This is for you, Quizmaster, and also for the bigot Ooh-Aah2...

The reason that Islamic fundamentalism has become the problem it is today is because of the meddling of countries like the US and Israel (and Britain), who have created so much chaos in the Middle East and other Muslim parts of the world, that it is not possible for the people there to be able to evolve more liberal and democratic societies.

It is not because Muslims are any more inherently prone to fundamentalism.

Martin Gibson, I don't need to say anything insulting to you. You are your own worst enemy.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 05:14 AM

You've written it in big red letters - how exciting! Still doesn't make it true I'm afraid...

...otherwise India would be the worst terrorist nation of the lot, being the place where Britain came first, stayed longest and, arguably, exploited hardest.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 05:31 AM

But I like the quiz! In fact you beat me to it, quizmaster's was just crying to be answered. Unfortunately for your argument, your list very obviouslyfails to include a great many other nations, people and places which we all know the US has unscrupulously meddled with and yet have conspicuously failed to produce global terrorist networks.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 05:38 AM

Wel Ooh Aah 2 since you put it like that, could the ongoing success of the Muslim faith in converting more people be put down to countries or people, wanting to know who their friends are?
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 01:50 PM

Not at all Ooh-Aah2. You're not thinking things through. What are the differences between India, for instance, and Afghanistan?

I bet you won't be able to figure it out.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 03:26 PM

Well, it looks like this thread has become an Arab-Israeli thread, which I think would have been better done as its own (umpteenth) thread on the issue. The give and take here is interesting, but it's a challenge to my instinct to try and keep these issues appropriately labeled.

BUT -
just in case anyone wants to stay with the original title regarding "More Muslim intolerance" based on the apparent assassination of a Public figure in Europe for perceived anti-Islamic utterances, the current column by Thomas Friedman is appropriate:

Thomas Friedman: Divided We Stand

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 03:37 PM

How about that India is majority Hindu, while Afghanistan has long been noted for its particular brand of mullah-inflamed Muslim fanaticism? The British never had any more than about 200,000 people among India's population of millions - many of them civilians such as doctors, missionaries and officials in very vulnerable, isolated areas - and yet they never experienced widespread terrorism against them, even in the bitterest depths of the independence struggle.
   Incidentaly the British repeatedly got absolutely nowhere trying to pacify Afghanistan (they wanted to instal a fiendly puppet ruler - sounds familiar!- because, quite rightly as it turns out, they were worried about Russia's intentions in that area.) One of the main reasons they got nowhere because of the extreme Muslim fanaticism of the population - read some Kipling or the numerous non-fiction histories of the time! Muslim fanaticism long pre-dates meddling by Britain and America, but the modern world has given them better tools and a diaspora to work with.
   British soldiers in Afghanistan had no illusions about what would happen to them if they were caught - being beheaded was the least of it, they could expect to be castrated (usually by the women) have their mouth urinated in until they drowned, be pegged down on ant nest or even be flayed alive - as Kipling wrote (more or less)

          When your lyin' out wounded on Afghnistan's plains
          And the women come out to cut up your remains
          Just you roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
          And go to your God like a soldier.

The Afghans did not do this to fellow Afghans - then as now they were in a perpetual state of war amongst themselves - this was a religion-inspired response to infidel invaders. Sound familiar?
    I note you did not respond to my second post. And why should we pick on the USA all the time? China is a disgusting imperialist, killing about 1.1 MILLION Tibetans since they invaded. Ever heard of a Tibetan terrorist?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 03:43 PM

To repeat what has been stated above, Muslims have many different sects and theologies.

There are extremists in every religion.

I'm sure that those who planned and bombed the Oklahoma City building thought of themselves as good Christians.

This is why we must encourage religious plurality, and the rights of secular advocates as part of Separation of Church and State.

Frank

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 05:49 PM

Nope, that's not it, Ooh-Aah2.

The differences are these:

1. India has its share of fundamentalist Hindu terrorist groups, and fundamentalist Hindu terrorist incidents, but those incidents effect people that you and most of the West couldn't really give a shit about (they are mostly Muslims, Christians in India, and Sikhs), so you never hear about them.

2. Afghanistan's civil infrastructure was completely destroyed and people had no means of maintaining any kind of continuity in their civic life and in their civilization. India's civil infrastructure was never destroyed, and the continuity of their civilization was never fully disrupted. So even though both countries have problems with fundamentalist perpetrated terrorism, and even though the fundamentalist Hindus who are intolerant of people who are not Hindus are becoming more and more powerful in the Indian government, they haven't yet taken over all of it, as happened with the Taliban. In Afthanistan, the Taliban, terrible as they were, created order out of the warlord driven chaos that existed there before they took over.

3. Terrorism is not something that is practiced randomly, despite what many people might like to think about it. Terrorism is designed to produce a specific result, and the targets of terrorists are chosen with specific strategic goals in mind. In the case of fundamentalist Muslim terrorism, the targets are chosen to promote the goals of removing/ending the interference of countries like the US, Britain, Israel, (and in the case of some countries, also France) in the affairs of Muslim countries that is ongoing and that is seen as a current threat to the interests of these countries. So this conflict would naturally involve both Muslim countries and "Western" countries.

British colonial rule promoted divisions within India. It promoted stratifications and divisions that were not so much of a problem for India prior to British colonial rule, but which have become problems that have been continually increasing in severity over the decades since the end of British colonial rule. So the effect has been that the strategic targets of terrorists in India are, for the most part, other groups within India, rather than groups outside of India. The exception to this being some conflict between India and Pakistan over the disputed territory of Kashmir. There is no ongoing terrorism by people from India towards Britain because Britain is no longer any kind of threat to any of the different groups within India.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 07:00 PM

dianavan, as long as your asking, my penis works fine for all functions. It would gladly give you your favorite fetish. A golden shower.

CarolC. Wrong. People like you are the enemy of Jews everywhere.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Abu Mohammed
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 08:36 PM

Terrorism is not something that is practiced randomly, despite what many people might like to think about it. Terrorism is designed to produce a specific result, and the targets of terrorists are chosen with specific strategic goals in mind. In the case of fundamentalist Muslim terrorism, the targets are chosen to promote the goals of removing/ending the interference of countries like the US, Britain, Israel, (and in the case of some countries, also France) in the affairs of Muslim countries that is ongoing and that is seen as a current threat to the interests of these countries. So this conflict would naturally involve both Muslim countries and "Western" countries.

I'm afraid that this CarolC is not as smart as she thinks she is. When we commit an act of terrorism against the zionist dogs, we know that it will not lead to the end of the occupation or the zionist repression.

We know that for every jew we kill, the jews will destroy more of our houses and more of our people. We don't care about that. The goal of our terrorism is to make sure there is no so called peace with the zionists. We don't care if our people live in misery for another decade or another century. We know that sooner or later, we'll so outnumber the jews that we'll drive all of them from a true Islamic Palestine that will cover every inch from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

When the great Osama brought down the towers, he knew that it would lead to more Muslim deaths in our lands than would die in New York. He didn't care. We don't care.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 09:04 PM

Guest, Abu - You are full of shit!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 11:26 PM

GUEST,Abu is a bigoted Arab/Muslim-hater who is making an attempt at irony. Not a very good one, either.

No, Martin, you and people like you are the enemy of Jews everywhere. But you and people who think like you just haven't figured that out yet.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 12:05 AM

Interesting to note, also, is the fact that Gandhi was assasinated by a Hindu fundamentalist.

The idea that the British never met with anything that might be described as "terrorism" is laughable. Indians put up a vigorous resistance to the British when they were first attempting to colonize India. What finally won India for the British was as much their ability to co-opt the upper classes in India to do their bidding... divide and conquer, as anything else. Perhaps it says something about the integrity of the Muslims in Afghanistan that they weren't so easily bought by the British, whose only goal was the exploitation of the people and resources of that country without any genuine regard for the rights of the indigenous population. The Muslims in Afghanistan didn't sell their people out to the British as the Hindu upper classes in India did.

To be fair, this can't be said about all Muslims. Napoleon was able to successfully use the same tactics on the Muslim Imams in Egypt as the British used on the Hindus in India.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:44 AM

So Gibson is allowed, on this forum, to tell dianavan he will gladly urinate on her - you fucking sick sick bastard Gibson, do the world a big favour and walk in front of a truck.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 12:00 PM

Thanks for the pleasure of offending you!

I merely let dianavan know that her criticism of my penis is wrong and would show her in what is probably her favorite fetish.

Go take a dump in your pants, Guest. Then fall out of an airplane hard on your ass.

Carol C. Isn't Abu Mohammad your cousin? He's dead on right you know.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 12:03 PM

He's not my cousin, Martin. I think he is probably you without your cookie.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 04:31 PM

Don't count on it CarolC. I have no reason to remove my cookie. I'll say what I want to as me any time of the day. No reason not to.

OK so he's not your cousin. He's your blowjob.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Oh-Aah2
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 06:11 PM

Strewth CarolC, you are no historian. And you have picked the wrong person to expose your ignorance to, as 18th century Indian history is a passion of mine; I have travelled there 10 times, twice to gather material for a possible book. My main problem is that your ignorance is so invincible that to answer it I need to wriute half a book online.
(1) If you think that the resistance of 18th century Indians to British incursons is in any was comparable to modern terrorism you have already lost the agument. Was King Harold at Hastings a terrorist?
(2)The main initial resistance to the British was led by the Indian princes you accuse of selling out their people, including Muslims. Neither were they, or the Afghans motivated by any lofty patriotic ideas, as the country was a chaotic mis-mash of warring states due to the collapse of the Mughal Empire; they were often more aggressive in their expansionist plans than the British themselves. The British successively took on and defeated the French-backed ruler of Arcot (Muslim), then Siraj-ud Daula of Bengal (Muslim), then Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan of Mysore (Muslim), then the five Maratha kingdoms (several times), the Sikhs under the Khalsa, the Sindhis (Muslim) and the Gurkhas, along with large numbers of less notable rulers, (many Muslim), all struggling to carve out their independent feifdoms in the fluid political and military mess.
(3) I will not attempt to match the unbelievable facility with which you pin down the vexed issue of 'what won India for the British' - historian you clearly aint. However the common people were so exhausted and harried by endless invasions, forced levies, looting, massacres, raids, abductions for forced labour etc associated with the hideous anarchy following the death of Aurangzeb (does the word 'Pindari' mean anything to you? Didn't think so!) that the peace and stability which total British rule finally brought to India was at first seen a blessing. When Gandhi and the INC activated the people against the British there was negligible terrorism against them - except in Bengal, most of which is now Bangladesh, which is a M_______ country (fill in the blank).
(4)The Muslims of Afghanistan were not motivated by 'integrity' (unbelievable ignorance!) They were motivated by precisely the fanaticism which made it death for a non-Muslim to live in Afghanistan (do you know what the name of the Hindu Kush mountain range means - 'killer of Hindus'), which destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan, all Hindu temples and Buddhist monastaries and which made it death for a non-Muslim to visit Mecca for centuries (read Richard Burton, John Masters, Eric Newby, or, for that matter, anyone).
(5) the Hindu upper classes of India were precisely the people who founded the INC, being the most educated and self-aware. To suggest they sold out their people to the British is a monstrous untruth, and betrays a simple, black and white, paper-cut out understanding of history characteristic of all too many Americans.

It is neccessary to bring all this back to the thread. To summarise: Islam IS more prone to fanaticism than other religions; this was true before stupid US and British actions fuelled the flames. The more I become aware of your patchy knowledge of history, the more I realise how it is possible for you to deny this uncomfortable truth.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 10:00 PM

(1) If you think that the resistance of 18th century Indians to British incursons is in any was comparable to modern terrorism you have already lost the agument. Was King Harold at Hastings a terrorist?

Obviously not, because your definition of "terrorist", "fundamentalist", and "extremist" requires that the person so described be a Muslim. The same behaviors exhibited by people who are not Muslims, you manage to find other names and categories for.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:08 PM

Yeah, Carol's been to India 10 times also via www.india.com or some other stupid webstie that she belives everything it says.

Ooh-Ahh, my fedora is off to you.

She's gone running to the hills to regroup. She'll be back, though with a whole new army of links that of course must be fact, because she found them and for no other reason.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 09:22 AM

Two very different voices (back to the theme of the thread):

Jordanian born al Qaeda leader in Iraq Zarqawi (I'm not sure I got the English transliteration correct):

"(why he is against elections) it's the aim of the USA to bring the Shiite pigs into power...(the aim in the long run is to help create a Great-Israel)...
(why he is against democracy) Democracy means that the people rule (but that's un-Islamic since the Koran says:) Let noone have part of God's rule. (Therefore no real Muslim can live in a democracy or in a country with freedom of religion. For) if a Muslim commits apostasy his punishment is death." (I don't a the full version)

Francois Zabbal has been university teacher in Jordan and been forced into exile in 1984:

(full German language version in a Swiss newspaper here; it's a translation from the French which I haven't located yet)

(my partial translation:)
Missed chance for a reform?
Muslim thinkers in Europe

(There once was said) that Europe will be the nucleus for a reformation of the Islam...(Now we can see, however,) that in this favourable context (Europe) the most promising and forward looking thinking about the Islam did not develop at all. Grown-up in Europe Muslim activists are now the backbone of European Islam....
As time goes by they (the exiled and born in exile) develop a more unified view of the Arab world. Looked at from afar it seems to be less torn and fragmented as it really is. In the host country they feel obliged to defend the world which they have left but that they, in a kind of sublimation typical for the exiled, build up into a world of intact living and faith....
From that comes a militant attitude both among the born in Europe and the migrating to Europe Muslim intellectuals making defense of Islam a political personal matter. Under the pretext of fighting against racism known intellectuals who up to now had rather been distanced from religion and faith become advocates of Islam...Under the pretext of objectivity Islam is condensed into its most orthodox and antiquated form.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 01:15 PM

Your 24 Jan 05 - 06:11 PM post, Ooh-Aah2, certainly has presented me with a few challenges. It's one of the most disjointed and incoherently assembled arguments I've ever seen.

Ten visits is it then? Oohhhh... I'm in awe of your amazing abilities. Ten visits to a country the size of India and with a history as complex as it is certainly makes you the world's foremost and most difinitive voice on all things India

historian you clearly aint

LOLOLOLOL... hahahahaha...

It's true. I do not claim to be an historian. You, on the other hand, oh great white hunter, you must certainly be the world's best historian. How could you be otherwise... your sources (the ones you have named at any rate) are impeccable... a novelist, a man who worked for the British government in the 1800s, during the period of colonial rule in India (and no doubt quite a good cheerleader for the cause of British colonial rule), and a man who wrote travelogues and memoires.

hahahahaha...

I'll sort out the rest of your mess as time permits.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 02:36 PM

Ooooh Ahhhh. Give her a top hat and cane for her tap dance performance.

she's just flailing in the wind.

I can dig it. thanks for so easily making her look like the idiot she is.

Plenty here are wise to her tactics. there's fine sport in it, occasionally.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:50 PM

does the word 'Pindari' mean anything to you? Didn't think so!

Actually, it does mean something to me, but I don't see that it is in support of any of your arguments execpt for the idea that British colonial rule was preferable to all of the alternatives. Very ethnocentric of you, to say the least. The British government, and subsequently, the US government, also used arguments like those to justify their reprehensible treatment of the indigenous peoples of what is now the US and Canada.

To summarise: Islam IS more prone to fanaticism than other religions; this was true before stupid US and British actions fuelled the flames

Interesting point. Let's examine what Christian Europe was up to during the period in question....

The British began influencing the region in the early 1600s. What was Christian Europe up to prior to and during that time? It was conducting witch hunts, and torturing and killing people (mostly women) who were accused of being witches... burning them alive in many cases. In Spain, Jews and other people who were not Christians were being forced to convert or be exiled. Many thousands were killed for not complying with the edict to convert to Christianity. Scientists were being killed and/or imprisoned for promoting ideas that contradicted the Bible and/or Christian church doctrine. The Christian Church was the final word on everything in the lives of all Euopeans during that time, and people disobeyed or contradicted the church at their peril, and oftentimes at the cost of their lives.

And what was Christian Europe doing in the New World and elsewhere during that time? It was committing mass genocide against the indigenous peoples in the Americas for being "heathens" (and also for their gold and other riches), and enslaving Black Africans and shipping them to the New World where they were bought and sold as chattel and treated as no more than animals. And the Europeans found their justification for this practice of slavery in the Bible. (To be fair, there were also Jews who were involved in trading in African slaves, and I don't know whether or not they used any sort of religious doctrine as a part of their rationalization of this practice, but I think it's safe to say that at least a large percentage of the slave industry was driven by European Christians who found their "justifications" in the Bible).

Ha. Talk about being ignorant of history. You win the prize on that one.

More later.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:54 PM

I should clarify that by this statement:

The British began influencing the region in the early 1600s.

...I am speaking, in this case, specifically about India and the surrounding areas.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:01 PM

CarolC......................

desparate housewife in a trailer court.

Certainly not Wysteria Lane.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:11 PM

CarolC, my whole point is that the British did not experience widespread terrorism in the independence struggle - only 60 years ago. How sad you wrote all that accurate and true stuff about how nasty Christianity used to be for nothing!

With your post before that I scent victory, as you are resorting to sarcasm and personal abuse rather than argument. My only point is that I do know a little about India having visited it many times and studied it at Univesity and privately; rather a better foundation than a lot of desperate Googling, your all-to-obvious resource. Whoops! Phone! Back ina mo..

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:14 PM

Carol C.

This has played out pretty cool.

Stop googling and start gargling.