BS: Muslim Violence

Subject: BS: Muslim Violance
From: GUEST,martin gibson
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 08:14 AM

Girls heads cut off. Islam is such a religion of peace.


Three Indonesian girls beheaded
By Tim Johnston
BBC News, Jakarta

Three girls have been beheaded and another badly injured as they walked to a Christian school in Indonesia.
They were walking through a cocoa plantation near the city of Poso in central Sulawesi province when they were attacked.
This is an area that has a long history of religious violence between Muslims and Christians.
A government-brokered truce has only partially succeeded in reducing the number of incidents in recent years.
Police say the heads were found some distance from the bodies.
It is unclear what was behind the attack, but the girls attended a private Christian school and one of the heads was left outside a church leading to speculation that it might have had a religious motive.

Islamic state
Central Sulawesi and Poso in particular was the scene of bitter fighting between Muslims and Christians in 2001 and 2002.
        
Muslim gang members carry makeshift rifles as Christian homes burn in sectarian violence-wracked Poso, December 2001

Flashpoints: Sulawesi

More than 1,000 people were killed before a government-brokered truce.
Although the violence has been subdued, it has never gone away completely.
A bomb in May in the nearby town of Tentena, which is predominantly Christian, killed 22 people and injured over 30.
The fighting four years ago drew Islamic militants from all over Indonesia and many have never gone home.
Analysts say the militants have targeted central Sulawesi and believe that it could be turned into the foundation stone of an Islamic state.
The analysts have warned that the violence could resurface at any time.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: stevenrailing
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 08:18 AM

Christianity committed the same type of crimes. difference is Christianity has matured.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 12:24 PM

Violance is violence, anyway you spell it and regardless of who is doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 12:30 PM

The quote from the article says repeatedly that the violence is happening between the Christians and the Muslims in that area. But then it only reports the violence done by Muslims against Christians. So wich is it... violence against Christians, by Muslims, or violence between Christians and Muslims? And if it is, as the article says, violence between Christians and Muslims, why doesn't it report any of the violence against Muslims by Christians?

Looks like this is just another transparent attempt to whip up hatred against Muslims.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 12:45 PM

There are plenty of Muslims who whip up their own salad of hatred; there are plenty of Christians who do the same; and there are even Jews who do the same, of which Martin is sometimes one.


Seems to me that someone ought to listen to the Teachers who suggest that hatred is not good for you.   Don't care which -- Buddha, Jesus, Allah, Zarathustra.

Funny how many turn to the gods of war and violence when the biggest missing piece is from a different part of the heart altogether.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: freda underhill
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 01:16 PM

here is a link to an article in Inside Indonesia It's an old article, but can given an idea of the complexity of competing factors that contribute to violence in Indonesia.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 02:59 PM

A person cannot be a murderer and a Muslim. Or a Christian.

History has myriad examples of hypocrisy, people committing criminal acts under the guise of religion.

Journalists may be dumb enough to swallow the Muslim vs Christian cover for such behavior, but the rest of us should think a little more.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 03:11 PM

From Freda's article...

Ambon is in a state of simmering civil war. The latest outbreak in mid-July had by early August left dozens dead. Hundreds died in earlier fighting between Christians and Muslims from January till April 1999. Similar communal battles broke out in the remote fishing town of Tual, also in southern Maluku province, in April, again leaving hundreds dead. Many tens of thousands of refugees, mostly Muslim, have fled the conflict for South Sulawesi.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Peace
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 03:13 PM

Hatred in the name of religion. What a NOVEL concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 06:52 PM

Whether a man's head is cut off by extremist Muslims or a girl is plowed under by an Israeli bulldozer, violence is to be deplored in any way shape of form. Violence cuts across every religious, ethnic or national line and whenever employed it does no good whatever.

The real violence is about denial and the self-righteous use of it by anyone including the present administration in the U.S.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: John O'L
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 09:19 PM

"...one of the heads was left outside a church leading to speculation that it might have had a religious motive."
Why not the other two then? There's way too much of such 'speculation' IMO


Terrific post Amos. I'll quickly genuflect at that shrine and then be moving right along.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 06:39 PM

Typical answers by Mudcat regulars who justify insanity.

Sure, religion can be a springboard for violence. Always has. But the article just points how as usual the one religion that continues to be violent in such a historic, barbaric manner.

Comparing this to bulldozers is idiotic.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 07:41 PM

Oh so now its O.K. to be violent as long as its done in a civilized manner? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 07:51 PM

When I think of those--of any religion--who commit violence in the name of their religion, I only hope there is a just God.

If, there will be a lot of nasty surprises.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 07:54 PM

And as an afterthought, that also goes for anyone of any religion who tries to sow hatred for any other religion.

I trust you take my point here.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: GUEST,Zbar
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 08:14 PM

Seems to me I recall thousands and thousands of ethnic Chinese that were mass murdered in Indonesia not all that long ago historically, and it wasn't because of religion. It was because they were Chinese, period.

Ignorant and violent people can always find a handy excuse to kill their neighbours...regardless of what their religion is...as long as their neighbours are seen to be different in any way. The Chinese were hated for 2 very simple reasons:

1. They were generally good at running businesses and making money.

2. They were "different".

The reason those girls were killed was most likely because their killers saw them as "different". That's what is behind most such violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 09:40 PM

Zbar - I am not condoning the killing of the Chinese in Indonesia but I do think there is another way of looking at it.

1. They were good at exploiting people

2. They were not Indonesian

In other words, most people do not like it when people from another country exploit their resources and their labour.

The Chinese were not liked in VietNam, either. Its a hard pill to swallow when your country is owned by foreign interests, even if it is done legally.

In B.C., Kinder Morgan (Texans) just bought our gas pipelines. We don't like it. In fact, everytime someone from the U.S. buys another Canadian resource, company or industry, we protest. Why? Because it means that the profit will be going into a country other than our own. We would rather see our own country prosper.

Some people feel strongly enough about it to actually do something about it. If your own government is corrupt enough to allow a take over by foreign nationals, the people are moved to take action.

Exploitation makes some people very angry and unfortunately that anger is sometimes directed at certain ethnic groups because they are identifiable. Hopefully, people are beginning to realize that it is not religion or ethnicity that is creating the wide gap between the rich and the poor.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 09:51 PM

Oh yay! Now we'll have all those brilliant, fun penis and vagina and pubic hair insults back again!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 11:36 PM

Amos is the full of hate hypocrite.

He hates Bush 'cause he won the election.
He hates me 'cause I voted for Bush.
And he hates Bush and me 'cause Kerry lost.

I don't hate him though. He's entertaining.

Old guy

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Peace
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 12:10 AM

"Amos is the full of hate hypocrite."

That was said by someone who doesn't know Amos at all. He is a genuine thinking being with the heart of a angel.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 09:02 AM

Oh, I am definitely pro-tit - does that make me a protitute?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 01:59 PM

Given the choice between a protitudinal and an antititudinal stance, I think the natural superiority of the former is a given...

Old Guy - I know for a fact that the REAL reason Amos hates you has nothing to do with your politics. He's jealous of your sequined underwear, the ones with the little embroidered flowers.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Peace
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 02:02 PM

Hell, LH. We are ALL jealous of them!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 02:02 PM

Nah, I don't hate Ole Guy; I enjoy his rare moments of lucidity, just like I enjoy any other thinking person's and I respect his ability and right to reach the conclusions he chooses based on the data he selects.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 02:22 PM

Don't I KNOW it, Bruce. ;-) It makes me sick just thinking about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 02:49 PM

The Muslim religion is probably the greatest threat to humanity today. Take a religion that totally integrates faith and government and believes in spreading it's message through armed conflict, put it in a position of watching the infidels all around it, who are destined for Hell anyway, gather wealth and power, and you have a recipe for apocalypse.
I am not saying that Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or the Nordic Pantheon are superior to the Muslim belief system, only that most of the others have received a generous dose of rationality over the past 2000 years, and that tends to reduce the number of frothing, raving fundamentalists within them. The sad thing is that true believers, Christian and Muslim alike, interpret their prospective word-of-god pamphlets (the Bible and the Koran) literally, and literal interpretation is rife with intolerance.
Religious fundamentalism is organizationally-imposed madness. How else could you induce relatively sane humans to decapitate innocent children, impale babies, burn people at the stake, and fly planeloads of people into skyscrapers, all the while convinced they were doing GOOD?
Personally, I believe it is time for the Human Race to declare religion in all its forms to be baseless, medieval, mythological bullshit, elevate ethical behavior to a science which can be studied and applied, turn churches and mosques into universities or museums, realize we're all going to die and there will be no harps or virgins, and get the fuck on with the serious business of preserving the human race and the planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 02:51 PM

Four soldiers from the Army's Task Force Baghdad soldiers died Monday when their patrol struck a roadside bomb in Youssifiyah, 12 miles south of Baghdad in an area known as the ``triangle of death.''

Two other soldiers from the 29th Brigade Combat Team were also killed in a bombing Monday near Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad. The U.S. military also said a Marine was killed Sunday near Amiriyah, 25 miles west of Baghdad.

Those deaths raised the death toll for October to more than 90, the highest monthly total since January when 107 American service members died. The latest deaths brought to 2,025 the number of U.S. service members who have died since the Iraq war began in March 2003.

In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said there is no readily apparent explanation for why the number of U.S. casualties was higher in October than in previous months. But he said the insurgents' roadside bombs - which the military calls improvised explosive devices, or IEDs - are getting more sophisticated.

``We see an adversary that continues to develop some sophistication on very deadly and increasingly precise stand-off type weapons - IEDs, in particular. They're obviously quite capable of killing large numbers of noncombatants indiscriminately, and we're seeing a lot of that, too,'' Di Rita told reporters.

The insurgents continually search for new and more effective ways to use IEDs, he said, while U.S. forces look for new ways to counter the IED threat.

``We're getting more intelligence that's allowing us to stop more of these things, find more of them. So we're learning from them (the insurgents) and the enemy is learning from us, and it's going to be that way for as long as there is an insurgency,'' Di Rita said.

Before dawn Monday, Marines backed by jets attacked insurgent positions near the Syrian border, destroying two safe houses believed use by al-Qaida figures, a U.S. statement said. The statement made no mention of casualties, but Associated Press Television News video from the scene showed residents wailing over the bodies of about six people, including at least three children.

At the local hospital, Dr. Ahmed al-Ani claimed 40 Iraqis, including 12 children, were killed in the attack. But the claim could not be independently verified.

APTN footage from the scene showed Iraqi men digging through the rubble of several destroyed concrete buildings with a pitchfork or their hands. In the building of a nearby home, women cried over the bodies of about half a dozen blanket-covered bodies lined up on a floor. Some of the blankets were opened for the camera showing a man and three children.

``At least 20 innocent people were killed by the U.S. warplanes. Why are the Americans killing families? Where are the insurgents?'' one middle-aged man told APTN. ``We don't see democracy. We just see destruction.'' He didn't give his name.

Elsewhere, two separate mortar attacks in Baghdad and northern Iraq killed three Iraqi people and wounded 11 on Monday.

---

Thank gawd fer that dose of rationality, I say.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 03:41 PM

The greatest threat to humanity today is the worship of the almighty dollar, fundamentalist style.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Wesley S
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 04:30 PM

For so many people in this world the almighty dollar IS a religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 04:31 PM

Agreed, Carol! That...and blaming other people for one's own emotional problems. Every time America starts feeling bad about itself it goes off and fights a war somewhere to feel better. That is also true of people like Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. They all make the mistake of blaming someone else for their own emotional problems, and they are willing to kill for it. Deciding who did it to who "first" is largely a waste of time, because you'd have to go back to prehistory to settle that little issue...

It's always a mistake, no matter who does it to who else.

Ye who rave on about the evils of "religion" are probably blind to the functioning of your own. Look to whatever you place ultimate faith in...there is your chosen religion. It does not require a church, a prophet, or a holy book. It does not even require a "god" outside of you, because your own ego can BE the ruling god of your chosen religion, and in most cases, it IS.

Note with what vehemence you defend it on a daily basis. Take my advice...it ain't worth no more than the latest nonsense from Billy Graham or Osama Bin Laden. It will pass away soon enough, and the World won't miss it much when it does.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:06 PM

OK, let's suppose I do have my own belief system, and it includes the following precepts:
1) Women are inferior to men. They should always walk behind me and be kept completely enshrouded in cloth so that they won't be contaminated by outsiders.
2)I believe that a Mighty Power listens to everything I say, and tells me what I should do, up to and including destroying people who disagree with my beliefs. In fact, if I fail to do what this Mighty Power instructs, red men with horns will punish me with fire.
3)Acting through a middle-aged man in a robe, the Mighty Power converts Merlot wine to sacred blood and Premium saltines to sacred flesh with a simple incantation.
4)I wear sacred undergarments which protect my purity.
5)If I die in the act of destroying those who disagree with me, I win instant admission to Heaven for myself and all the members of my family PLUS I receive 19 "dark-eyed virgins".
6)There are people living near me who are so spiritually filthy that even their slightest touch might contaminate me. I believe they should all be permanently marked for easy identification.

How do you like my personal belief system? It really should pose no problem for you, Little Hawk, unless you are a) a woman b) spiritually unclean or c) disagree with me.

Now, if any individual exhibited these beliefs and practices, he would at the least be thought insane, and at the most be imprisoned because of the threat he posed to others. In fact, these are beliefs held by several major religions. Are you saying because these beliefs are institutionalized, recorded in sacred texts and supposedly handed down by a Mighty Power, that beliefs and behaviors intolerable in an individual are acceptable in a group?

Granted Little Hawk, you and I are probably not insane or dangerous. We do not believe that those who disagree with us are hell-bound, Satanic, or out to corrupt and destroy our children. We are open to different ideas. Hell, we are so tolerant and open-minded that we even think homicidal self-righteous fundamentalist maniacs have a right to their own opinion.
And I don't think that most Muslims or Christians are maniacs, just the ones who view the world in terms of us and them, good and evil, God and Satan. Just the true believers who follow the letter of the book. And because true belief necessitates the decision "I am following the right precepts and the true path as mandated by God" ,other paths are wrong, false, and mandated by Satan. There is no place in Osama's, nor in Pat Robertson's, world for your concept of God.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:10 PM

PS Can someone possibly correct the spelling of "violence" in this thread title?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Peace
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:11 PM

I agre. Coreck the speling! Muslum.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:21 PM

I can't do much, LEJ, about the fact that there are a lot of people in the World who believe idiotic, destructive, and dysfunctional things. I can do something about myself. I believe in "live and let live". I gather that you do too. I hope so, anyway.

I do not blame my problems in life on other people's dysfunctionality, generally speaking...although I've had moments when I blamed my parents for some of them. ;-) I'm trying to get over that gradually. I figure that my problems are mostly self-created...so my job is to fix myself, not other people.

I'll say this, though. Although you and I are not what would be regarded as "insane or dangerous" by a lot of people's yardstick...some might regard us that way if they thought very differently about certain things. One has to bear that in mind when travelling in a foreign culture, and act accordingly. There is always the possibility of being totally misunderstood by people.

And...everyone is insane by someone else's standards. Maybe not dangerous...but insane? Yep.

It's when people are fairly obviously insane by almost everyone's standards, and in a way that directly affects others, that we take real exception to it. Most Muslims I know (and I know a fair few) do not in the least agree with Osama Bin Laden's view of how to establish a better World. I guess the Muslims that I know are "liberal" or progressive Muslims.

Everyone has a right to his own opinion. He doesn't have a right to do harm to others on account of his own opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:56 PM

There were about 3,000 peace-loving people drinking coffee and working at their desks on 9/11/1. I would bet that most of them were quite a bit like us. I'm sure many were religious, probably most in that live-and-let-live moderately religious way that characterizes most of your country and mine. They probably believed that most people do have a right to their own opinion, and that God has "many doorways through which the faithful may enter". What killed them was a catastrophe engineered by a group of men who didn't see the world in that way at all.

These hijackers didn't act to make a political statement. They didn't go to their deaths shouting "long live Osama" or "God Bless Syria". They were possessed by religious fervor.
This is where I disagree about the Almighty Dollar. Say what you will, the Almighty Dollar won't coerce someone into driving a plane into a building, or beheading an Irish relief worker. Because there is SOME LOGIC to what someone will do for money, there are predictable outcomes. A person acting on the tenets of an irrational belief system is almost completely unpredictable. He will carry you, or me, or the people drinking coffee in Trade Center 1, kicking and screaming into his World View.
Much of the Bible and the Koran are primitive texts that refer to strife and scuffling among people thousands of years ago, when a man could pick up a sword and cleanse the world of his enemies in the name of God. And there are plenty of specific references to doing just that in both of them. Well, nowadays, a man doesn't need anything as crude as a sword. A vest loaded with C4, or a truck, or an airliner, or a freighter can multiply his righteous power one million fold.

And the fact, unpleasant as it is, is that these methods of dealing with unbelievers are as much a part of sacred text as are admonitions to "love thy neighbor" or "turn the other cheek". Those moderate Muslims and moderate Christians who want to live and let live have simply decided, as they have decided to not take the 6 day creation story literally, to ignore these passages, while tolerating those who follow the literal truth.

If we tolerate their beliefs, do we not enable their actions?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 07:03 PM

The flaw in your reasoning, LEJ, especially when you make a blanket statement like, "The Muslim religion is probably the greatest threat to humanity today", is that it assumes that all Muslims believe what you have described, which couldn't possibly be farther from the truth. It's a stereotype about Muslims that is being promoted by people with bigoted hate agendas.

The truth is that the people you have described are extremist fundamentalist Muslims, and there are millions of Muslims in the world who are not extremist fundamentalists. Extremist fundamentalists of other belief systems are guilty of many things that are just as reprehensible as what you have described... even today, at this point in history.

And my last post points to one kind of extremist fundamentalism that is far more dangerous to humanity than any other kind of extremist fundamentalism.

Extremist fundamentalism is the problem, not Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 07:19 PM

Because there is SOME LOGIC to what someone will do for money, there are predictable outcomes.

This couldn't be further from the truth. The total destruction of earth as a place capable of supporting human life is a possible (many scientists would say quite likely) outcome of many of the decisions and actions of people who worship the almighty dollar above all else.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 07:50 PM

Carol
You are taking what points you prefer to take from my argument and attacking those. My main point is this : Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are not political or social constructs. They are religions which have as their origins specific sacred texts, which all three believe to be the Word of God. This I also believe to be true of the other major world religions. The difference between dangerous fundamentalists in any of these and the moderate practitioners is this: The Fundamentalists follow the letter of the sacred texts, believing that in so doing they will gain salvation.
NOW...since all three sacred texts have numerous disagreements, either only ONE is the Truth, or God is suffering from a severe personality disorder. To believe that all three are acceptable requires a neutral standpoint,ie, you cannot be a true believer and hold that view. If you are a true believer, you must determine that those who disagree are wrong.

We agree on one thing. Extremist fundamentalism is the problem. This is why I think Islamic extremism is more dangerous than other forms: In Islamic culture, there is no tradition of the separation of church and state. That separation is an alien concept to them. The Mullahs who rule Iran are Islamic Extremist Fundamentalists. They hold the same belief system as the suicide bombers. They are short months from having a nuclear weapon.

Does Christian Fundamentalist extremism pose an equal threat? Not yet, anyway. In most Western democracies there is a long standing tradition of separation of church and state, even though being put under seige by the current crop of neocon knuckleheads.

I am not going to defend the abuses foisted on the world to make money. Greed has been at the heart of many unjust things done in the world, and religion has often been used as its justification. So has racism. Homosexuals have been persecuted for hundreds of years because, again, the "Bible condemns it."

I think religion of all types is man's most irrational construction, and his most dangerous. In a world of limitless opportunities to reduce suffering, disease, war and ignorance, religion stands as the greatest obstacle to our success as a species. And I am not hopeful that we can overcome it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 08:08 PM

"Those moderate Muslims and moderate Christians who want to live and let live have simply decided, as they have decided to not take the 6 day creation story literally, to ignore these passages, while tolerating those who follow the literal truth.

"If we tolerate their beliefs, do we not enable their actions?"

I definitely agree with that last paragraph, Lonesome EJ, but I do want to point out that a substantial number of moderate Muslims and Christians are speaking out. Some folks condemn moderate Muslims and Christians for not taking a stand against the more extreme members of their religion, but from my observations, the moderates of both religions are getting a bum rap. I've heard several Muslim imams being interviewed on the radio (my local NPR affiliate, that bastion of the "liberal media") who are most angry and upset, first by the actions of extremists within their religion claiming that they are acting in the name of Allah when the Koran specifically forbids what they are doing, and secondly (and rightly so!) when Christians and others lump all Muslims into the same category. They're tired of hearing the perpetual juxtaposition of the words "Muslim" and "extremists," as if the two words are welded together. I've heard them speak out strenuously against those who select particular passages from the Koran and act as if they were the only passages that matter.

That rings loud bells for moderate and progressive Christians and the same holds true for them. When people who don't know any better say "Christians say this" or "Christians believe that," as if Christianity was some kind of monolith, there is little weeping and wailing, but a great gnashing of teeth. Probably one of the most prominent Christian spokespersons is the Rev. Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics : Why the Right Gets It Wrong and The Left Doesn't Get It. Within the past few years, Wallis has been interviewed on radio and television any number of times (usually on local NPR and PBS affiliates), and he is currently traveling around the country giving lectures (around 200 lectures and speeches within the past year). Also, there are many book discussion groups around the country discussing Wallis's book, and it's the subject of adult forums in many moderate and progressive Christian churches.

Moderated Muslims and Christians alike are bloody well fed up with the extreme wings of their respective religions and that fact that people are thoughtlessly lumping the moderates in with the extremists. And they are speaking out loudly. But you don't hear much about it because they just don't get the news coverage. So that's the reason for some of the book groups and adult forums:   to get something like a "grass roots" movement under weigh.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 08:46 PM

Don

There is hope for Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike, as well as Hindus and Confucianists. In today's world, all of us share essentially the same challenges and problems. Most people take the road of moderation where their religion is concerned, and this road shares many of the same beliefs: Universal truths, as expressed in the 10 commandments and found in all cultures, coupled with the truth about the world as taught to us by the scientific principle. This is the basis of a religion that we could all share. Some have called it Secular Humanism. Some have merely called it Reason. It lacks some things present in Religion. It does not promise that, by following certain precepts, we will survive Death. That is indeed the trump card for most religions. Would people have really worn hair shirts, walked 100 times around a cross on their knees, and self-flagellated unless they thought there was a reward, unless there was a Heaven? Would they have slaughtered each other doing "god's will" unless it bought them a pass from the grave and reunited them with lost loved ones?

No, Reason can't promise us pie in the sky. It is, however, the belief we humanists, moderate Christians, and moderate Muslims already share. It's my sincere wish that we will find a way to leave our destructive mythologies behind and, if we can't make our Heaven here on Earth, at least stop making it a hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 08:52 PM

Women of Muslim faith all across the Muslim world have begun a Muslim feminine liberation movement seeking to bring Muslim thinking into an age of equality between the genders. (I have lost the link but it was on the web today).

They are not using bombs or blades to do, and they behead no-one. I would expect there will be some carefully applied mood control, in the best tradition of the wives of Greek warriors, but probably nothing worse than that and a little emotional blackmail.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 09:05 PM

From the India Hindu:

Muslim women launch "gender jihad"

Giles Tremlett— © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

Male chauvinism is the destruction of Islam as a balanced way of life: activist



Barcelona (SPAIN): Marching under the banner of a new ``gender jihad'', Islamic feminists from around the world this weekend launched what they hope will become a global movement to liberate Muslim women.

The meeting, which drew women from as far apart as Malaysia, Mali, Egypt and Iran, set itself the task of squaring Islam with feminism. That meant not just combating 14 centuries of gender discrimination in the Muslim world, participants said, but also dealing with the animosity to Islam of many Western or secular feminists. They insisted that many of the fundamental concepts of equality embraced by feminism could also be found in the Koran.

``Gender jihad is the struggle against male chauvinistic, homophobic or sexist readings of the Islamic sacred texts,'' said Abdennur Prado, one of the meeting's Spanish organisers.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 09:19 PM

Moslem Violence.

There, you happy?

It still is the same thing no matter how you spell it. A religion and a way of life that is completely barbaric and stuck in the 10th century.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 09:23 PM

And then, unfortunately, there are those that are hell-bent on stirring up strife.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: bobad
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 09:24 PM

Yeah, just like those that ritualize infant mutilation and female purification baths.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: bobad
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 09:31 PM

Not referring to you Don Firth, cross posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 10:53 PM

I don't want to pry into Tia's life but I have an idea to combat Muslim violence.

We need the Queer Corps. Take all the homos in the military and form a new lean mean fightin' machine called the Queer Corps.

Them friggin terrorists will vacate any battlefield populated by the Queer Corps.

I'll even donate my sequined underwear to the "Head" Commander.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 11:06 PM

LEJ, if you mean that you think extremist fundamentalist Islam is the greatest threat to humanity today, I think it would be a very good idea to make sure you communicate exactly that, and that you don't make blanket condemnations of "the Muslim religion". I know you can understand the distinction that I am making... the distinction between the statement, "the Muslim religion is the greatest threat to humanity today", and "extremist fundamentalist Islam is the greatest threat to humanity today", and why it is so very, very important to enunciate these distinctions.

Having said that, I do disagree with your premise, but we can agree to disagree on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 11:24 PM

Also, this...

Does Christian Fundamentalist extremism pose an equal threat? Not yet, anyway. In most Western democracies there is a long standing tradition of separation of church and state, even though being put under seige by the current crop of neocon knuckleheads.

The Christian religion does not have any "long standing tradition of separation of church and state". Some western democracies have such a tradition, but those democracies include Muslims along with the Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, etc. that make up their populations.

Conversely, we have seen that Christianity, when married to totalitarian political systems, is just brutal and repressive as Islam is now, or ever has been. The main difference is that there presently aren't any countries with totalitarian political systems married to Christianity. So the problem, again, is not the Muslim religion... it is totalitarianism married to religion.

There are and have been countries with democratic political systems and Muslim majorities, in which there is a separation between the majority religion and the government.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 01:25 AM

That is damned generous of you, Old Guy! (about the underwear, I mean) Your character has gone way up in my estimation. ;-)

I don't think there are any statistics to suggest that homosexual men are poor fighters on the battlefield, are there? You gotta remember that among homosexuals there are those who prefer to play the more feminine role and those who most definitely don't....besides which, women can also fight like hell when they choose to. Therefore, I should think that forming gay combat formations might actually be quite effective if you want a good fighting army.

Don't forget, the Spartans, who were the most effective fighters in ancient Greece and in the whole world at that time, seem to have virtually all been either homosexual or bisexual. It didn't make them weaklings on the battlefield. Quite the contrary. They were utterly deadly.

So...where did the modern BS about effeminate poofs come from anyway? I'd guess it was the natural reaction of heterosexual males who are scared shitless when the subject of homosexuality "comes up". Maybe they're scared because they fear some such latent tendency in themselves.

One has to wonder. In my case, I never gave a damn about it one way or another. I find the idea of men having sex with men totally unappealing and a complete turn-off, but do I worry about other people doing that or liking it? No. I simply don't care, as long as they don't bother me about it, and as long as they keep it private and between consenting adults. I consider it a total non-issue. Boring, in fact.

Some religious text proscribes it? Well, I don't care about that either. I love God, but I don't think he's a beancounter and I don't think he wrote the Bible either. Men wrote the Bible. They were no doubt inspired by God in many of the passages, but they were men and they were fallible. They included a lot of their own cultural blind spots and prejudices in what they wrote.

Fundamentalist Muslims take a very dim view of most of the same things that fundamentalist Jews and Christians take a dim view of...and all because of the same ancient holy books! They all revere Abraham, Moses, Solomon, and Isaiah! I find that ironical. Extremely so. What you have here is a religious family quarrel. That can be a pretty vicious situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 01:31 AM

...and we have just been provided with an example of why the distinctions I was talking about are so important. As we have just seen, there are people who would love nothing better than to have all Muslims killed, and they make every effort to spread hateful lies about all Muslims (rather than just telling the truth about extremist, fundamentalist Muslims), in the hope that one day their fantasy might come true. And I'd hazard a guess that in the last century or so, far more Muslims have been killed by non-Muslims than the other way around.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 01:32 AM

Cross posted, LH. My last post was not in reference to you or your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 08:48 AM

I have to side with Lonesome EJ on this issue. The simple fact is that the "fundamentalists" and "extremists" are the ones who follow the messages in their respective sacred texts; the "moderates" are the ones who disregard their sacred texts, other than the parts that suit them. Anyone with an open mind who reads the Koran or the Bible will find that both are full of admonishions to kill the nonbelievers. Some (fundamentalists) accept these in their entirety as the teachings of their god; others (moderates) pick and choose which of the teachings they will follow, and still somehow claim to be the true adherents of their respective faiths.

And no, this is not just a case of fundamentalists reading poetic or metaphorical language and mistakenly taking it literally. Sure, some of the language in these texts is open to alternate interpretations, but much of it is very specific, and clearly meant to be taken literally. If the Bible is the word of God, then God means for the nonbelievers to be killed in brutal fashion. If the Koran is the word of Allah, then Allah means for the infidels to be killed in a similarly brutal manner. If you actually read these things, honestly, and with an open mind, it is almost impossible to reach a different conclusion.

Instead of engaging in increasingly tortured twists of logic to hang onto these ancient religions, it's about time for humanity to recognize these books for what they are; ancient myths that may have served a purpose at one time, but can only do us harm in our time. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are hateful, hurtful, and dangerous, and it's time we outgrew them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 08:53 AM

it's about time for humanity to recognize these books for what they are; ancient myths that may have served a purpose at one time, but can only do us harm in our time. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are hateful, hurtful, and dangerous, and it's time we outgrew them.

Outgrowing only happens individual by individual. That's why the state HAS to be kept separate from considerations of religion. If we could impart only ONE concept to our Iraqi and Persian and Arabic neighbors, that single idea -- that the state should have no part of religion -- would be a good one to use.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 10:31 AM

Amos, I think you're absolutely right. I also think we need to be reminded of this ourselves from time to time (in fact, now would be a good time).

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 10:43 AM

The mistake in you reasoning, Whistletop, is this:

The Bible is not a single book written from a single source. It is many books, deriving from many time periods, representing many, MANY different points of view of different individuals in different historical and cultural situations. A fundamentalist ignores that and makes a leap of faith to take it ALL as one seamless, undifferentiated message from one source. To do so, he must willfully ignore the fact that those sources repeatedly contradict one another and express points of view that are totally conflicting. The messages coming from Jesus, for example, are in many ways a direct contradiction of much of the philosophy in the Old Testament.

Fundamentalists are in a state of denial or radical self-hypnosis, in that they simply refuse to recognize any inconsistencies.

A religious "moderate", as you put it, may well be someone who is tremendously inspired by Jesus' philosophy of forgiveness, not judging others, being non-violent, etc... If so, he will try to emulate that philosophy, and he will most certainly not try to emulate the "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" vicious stuff in the Old Testament...or the lunatic ramblings in Revelations, for example.

He can STILL be a Christian, as far as he is concerned and do that. He may not be a Christian as far as someone else is concerned, but so what? There are probably at least 80,000 different ways of being a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew.

You do NOT have to believe every friggin' word in the Bible to be a Christian! (in my opinion) Nor do you have to practice every friggin' rule in the Koran to be a Muslim. (again, in my opinion)

It would be as stupid as to be a modern atheist who believes that Time Magazine is a really good source of information...and then basing your entire silly life 100% on every literal word that Time Magazine ever prints about anything and basing it on NOTHING else!

An idiot might do that, right? Or a fanatic.

An intelligent person would read each passage in Time with a careful eye, and then make his own mind up as to whether it made sense to him or not and whether he should believe it or not. That's what a religious moderate does with an ancient holy book.

Holy books are inspired by God, not dictated by God. (I would assume) Accordingly, they are bound to be influenced just a tad by the guy (or gal) who receives the inspiration. If the guy thinks it's perfectly all right to burn unbelievers at the stake and pluck their eyes out...what is he going to write down? If he's bloodthirsty, he will imagine a bloodthirsty God. Inspiration cannot pass through a dirty vessel without itself being stained in the process.

So think for yourself. No book is the final answer to existence and no book ever will be.

And you don't have to believe some book IS to believe in God! Or to belong to an organized religion, if that be your choice.

There are so many ways of belonging to organized religions that if you wrote them all down on paper it would stretch from here to the moon. Religious believers will always run the gamut from extreme fanatics to very reasonable and kindly people.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 11:17 AM

Carol said "The Christian religion does not have any "long standing tradition of separation of church and state" as a paraphrase of what I said.
That's not at all what I said. I said "in most Western democracies" (meaning the United States and the European and South American democratic republics which followed shortly after)"there is a long-standing (since 1781)tradition of separation of church and state". The founders who established the government of the United States set up a system that would be free of the influence of religion. They had as a negative example the dominating influence in England of the Church of England, and in France, Spain, and Italy the influence of the Catholic Church.
I would never say that the Christian Religion has such a tradition, and believe it to be quite the opposite.

As to this....
"LEJ, if you mean that you think extremist fundamentalist Islam is the greatest threat to humanity today, I think it would be a very good idea to make sure you communicate exactly that, and that you don't make blanket condemnations of "the Muslim religion". I know you can understand the distinction that I am making... the distinction between the statement, "the Muslim religion is the greatest threat to humanity today", and "extremist fundamentalist Islam is the greatest threat to humanity today", and why it is so very, very important to enunciate these distinctions"

What I believe is that most "moderate" religious practitioners are primarily rational humanists, and by clinging to the more mystical, mythological elements of their respective godbooks, they aid and abet their more fundamentalist brethren in their twisted thinking, and are thus complicit in their actions. The Muslim Religion, therefore, because of this, and because of their inherent need to put their god in their government, is in my opinion, the greatest danger to man's continued existence. It is, simply, the most aggressive current strain of a virus called religious belief. Therefore, I stand by my statement, while agreeing that the fundamentalist segment is the primary problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 11:32 AM

Little Hawk, I agree with you to a point. However, adopting such a flexible definition makes the words "Christian," "Muslim," etc. essentially meaningless. If a Christian is anything anyone says a Christian is, why do we have the word at all?

Moreover, while I have not taken a poll, I believe that most self-proclaimed Christians would say that they believe in the Bible (whether or not they know what's in it). If Christianity means anything at all, it means subscribing to the teachings of Jesus -- who himself proclaimed that he came not to deny the (earlier) scriptures, but to "fulfill" them. He also proclaimed that he came not to bring peace, but a sword. Even if a Christian only endorses the four Gospels, and dismisses the rest of the Bible (essentially adopting a very small portion of a very large book, or collection of books), he is still signing on to an awful lot of bigotry, conflict, and potential bloodshed.

Islam is even worse; practically every page of the Koran contains hateful passages about infidels, and what should be done with them, and what is in store for them after they die. Again, if a Muslim disavows these scriptures, what is left for him or her to subscribe to?

I believe that the reason moderate, peaceful people still claim to be Christians or Muslims or (religious) Jews these days is because most of them are either ignorant of what their chosen scriptures actually contain, or choose to pretend that it isn't so. So we continue with this polite fiction, calling ourselves Christians or Muslims or Jews, but acting surprised when other self-proclaimed Christians, Muslims and Jews actually take the tenets of their faiths to heart and act on them. Wouldn't it make more sense for us to admit that these texts do not form a good basis for rational living, and find a better way?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 11:38 AM

LH
Most readers of Time don't consider it the word of God, and are therefore free to accept or reject statements in Time. You are talking about a rational viewpoint, based on what a reader knows about facts. Religion, by its basic nature, is irrational, has nothing to do with fact, and is not subject to the same rules.

As to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism sharing the Old Testament, Catholicism and Protestantism share the Old and New Testament and look at the murder done in the name of that distinction.

True believers do indeed believe the Bible was "dictated by God". Makes you wonder why He made Shakespeare a better writer, don't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 11:41 AM

The one and primary problem between people is this: some people are afraid of anything different they see in other people, and their fear makes them hostile. Their lives are dictated by fear.

This is true of many religious people, and it is true of many people who are fundamentally opposed to the the very idea of religion.

They are the mirror image of one another in their mutual fear, distrust and intolerance.

A healthy mind, whether religious or not, is curious about and quite interested in those who are different and is friendly, and welcoming toward differences. An ignorant mind fears what is different. An illuminated mind is refreshed by it.

So, give it up, guys. You will not fix the World by attempting to eliminate or discredit either religions or atheism. You will fix it by practicing "live and let live" and by living according to love, not fear. By saying "yes", not "no". By saying "Welcome, friend!", not "Go to Hell!"

That, by the way, appears to be exactly what Jesus, Gandhi, Buddha, and a great many other spiritual masters have tried over and over again to teach people. How many have listened? Of those, how many have had the courage and wisdom to try it out themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 12:10 PM

What I believe is that most "moderate" religious practitioners are primarily rational humanists, and by clinging to the more mystical, mythological elements of their respective godbooks, they aid and abet their more fundamentalist brethren in their twisted thinking, and are thus complicit in their actions.

I think this is wrong. Not only do they not aid and abet their more fundamentalist brethren, but they can have a moderating influence on them, and also on people who are fundamentalists in other ways, such as people who are fundamentalist empire builders, fundamentalist money worshipers, and people who are profoundly destructive to humanity in other ways.

I can just as easily say that by adhering to a moderate form of capitalism, you aid and abet more fundamentalist forms of capitalism, like war profiteers, for example.

The Muslim Religion, therefore, because of this, and because of their inherent need to put their god in their government, is in my opinion, the greatest danger to man's continued existence.

"Inherent" is an exceedingly bad choice of words in this context. There is no "inherent" need to put god in their government, as evidenced by the fact that there are countries with Muslim majorities and secular governments and political systems.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 12:14 PM

LEJ, I believe in God, I believe that Jesus, Buddha, Zoroaster, Krishna, Gurumayi, Joan of Arc, Vasudeva, Mohammed, and God knows how many other enlightened beings since the dawn of time were messengers of God...delivering true and valuable spiritual teachings in whatever way best suited their culture and their time.

This does not force me to believe that the Bible...or any other book...is the one, only, and total literal Word of God. I figure it's an attempt by a whole lot of different people to render the Word of God as best they understood it at the time, and people are fallible.

Got that?

Is it so hard to understand?

I used the Time Magazine example simply as an analogy of a pattern of thinking. You don't need to tell me it's not the Word of God! ;-)

Whistlestop. We have the word "Christian" because most people like to label themselves. They derive security from belonging to a label, and being part of a group. As to what a Christian really is, that is totally subjective, the interpretation being completely in the mind of the one using the word.

Most people in fact have no idea what a Christian is, since it's merely a matter of opinion. They just think they know what a Christian is.

I refuse to label myself, because I recognize the utter futility of all such labels. I'm human. That's good enough.

You are quite correct that "most of them (members of religions) are either ignorant of what their chosen scriptures actually contain, or choose to pretend that it isn't so." So true.

I'll tell you what religion is for most people. It's merely a form of cultural identity that they are familiar with (usually from early childhood) and feel they belong to. How much do they EVER bother to really think about it? Hardly at all. They just do what they've been taught to do...like robots. The same is true of national identities, like saying "I'm an American." or "I'm a Mexican." or "I'm a Japanese." It's an imaginary mind-construct that gets in the way of people just being people, getting along with each other, and treating others as their equals.

It's arbitary. No one should be surprised that most religious people are largely uninformed about their own religion. That's par for the course. People automatically defend and are often ready to kill or die for what they are familiar with (religion, race, nation, political party, etc)...for no other reason than that they ARE familiar with it.

That's how silly it all is. Pathetic, in fact. Politicians and religious leaders take gross advantage of this unthinking tendency in people all the time. (of course, most of those politicians and religious leaders don't really think very clearly about it themselves, so it's basically the blind leading the blind)
most of them are either ignorant of what their chosen scriptures actually contain, or choose to pretend that it isn't so.
When someone like Jesus or Gandhi comes along and points out to them clearly what is really going on, they are quite likely to kill him just to shut him up.

Brotherhood/sisterhood would get in the way of the ruling power structure, after all, and it would put the arms makers permanently out of business.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 12:51 PM

Little Hawk, it sounds like there is much we agree on. For that reason I'll try to disregard the disparaging "Give it up, guys!" stuff, as well as the inferences that I am intolerant. I'm not intolerant; many of the people I know and love would describe themselves as belonging to one or another of the religions I've mentioned, and I tolerate them quite well. I do practice a "live and let live" philosophy, and I do welcome people as friends rather than telling them to go to hell. There's no need to instruct me in these things.

Your last message, however, sounds much closer to what I was trying to say. "Silly" and "pathetic" are your descriptions of people's adherence to religions and reliance on the comfort of labels; I probably would have avoided those words so as to avoid giving offense, but I appreciate the sentiments. We're on the same page.

I do agree with Lonesome EJ, though, that when we continue to acquiesce in the incessant and pervasive trumpeting of the virtues of religion, we give aid and comfort to the violent adherents of those religions. One of the passages in the Bible that I like very much is the one about the truth setting you free. I think there is value in truth for truth's sake, so I think it's worth dispensing with our pleasant fictions about religion and telling it like it is. The adherents of these three religions that I cited are responsible for enormous pain and suffering in the world today, which they explicitly justify by reference to their respective religious texts and teachings. Might this suffering still continue if the religious justifications were taken away? Sure, but that's no reason for the moderate, peace-loving people among us to continue to support the institutions that provide the justifications.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 01:02 PM

Little Hawk

I understand that you believe in Jesus, Buddha, Joseph Smith, Bob Dylan, and other enlightened beings etc It's the salad bar approach to Belief...take some of the cole slaw and potato salad and leave the carrot jello alone. Nothing wrong with that. I suspect your approach to reaching heaven is likewise esoteric. Perhaps you think that right action leads to inner peace, or even unity with the life force. I'm treating this rather lightly, but I think that such belief is admirable.

Other people believe that specific dictated behaviors are required to reach a specific, concrete reward. They aren't content with unity with the life force. They want to know they'll be able to romp around in the afterlife in a place that resembles the Epcot Center. Part of their path to eternal vacation may very well involve the destruction of you and me and anybody within a 2 mile radius. They don't believe, as you do, that the Bible or the Koran or the Book of Mormon are "attempts" to "render the word of God". They believe that those books ARE the Word of God, and as such are infallible.

Do I believe Religion should be outlawed? I am actually way too much of a pragmatist, as well as being basically, fatally tolerant, to profess that. I would hope, however, that by seeing religion for the flawed belief system that it is, that Humankind would discard it. And I think we're running out of time to do it.

Carol

Communism, Capitalism, Feudalism, and most other isms are as open to abuse by tyrants as religion. The difference is that Communism can be broken down to theoretical precepts that are fact-based. Problem: Peasants own no land and therefore they are trapped within a cycle of back-breaking production and virtual enslavement to those who own the land. Solution: Distribute land to the peasants and they will break the enslavement cycle and produce more goods while benefitting themselves and society in general through the process. I know that's a gross oversimplification. But it points out what Communism is meant to be...a scientific solution to an existing problem based on known facts. The fact that Communist governments, or Capitalist ones, become tyrannical bureacracies are not a direct result of the theoretical solution, but a perversion of it. Religion is not fact based. It is primarily a solution to the problem of Fear, mainly Fear of Death. The idea that death can be escaped is highly irrational, and the solutions... counting beads, bowing toward Mecca, and wearing sacred underwear... are likewise irrational. Religion is a myth-based, irrational solution to an unsolvable problem. Unlike communism or capitalism, it is the basic theory that makes no sense, and therefore the perverse and insane outcomes produced are the only logical part of the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 01:37 PM

Whether or not what you are suggesting is true, LEJ, makes no difference in the end, because what we are discussing is what is the greatest threat to humanity. If the planet becomes incapable of supporting human life, it doesn't make one whit of difference if it is caused by a perversion of things you consider to be rational and fact based, or basic precepts that you don't consider to be rational or fact based. The end result is the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 01:44 PM

BTW, the most basic precepts of capitalism are that business is its own justification and that the only valid thing to consider when making business decisions is what will be best for the short term bottom line. This may be rational in the short term, but it is incredibly irrational in the long term, and is what makes fundamentalist capitalism so very much more dangerous to humanity in the long run than any religion could possibly ever be.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 02:53 PM

Carol
Adam Smith might have differed slightly with your view of the basic precepts.
One of the main points of Smith's The Wealth of Nations is that the free market, while appearing chaotic and unrestrained, is actually guided to produce the right amount and variety of goods by the so-called "invisible hand" rule. If a product shortage occurs, for instance, its price rises, creating a profit margin that creates an incentive for others to enter production, eventually curing the shortage. If too many producers enter the market, the increased competition among manufacturers and increased supply would lower the price of the product to its production cost, the "natural price". Even as profits are zeroed out at the "natural price," there would be incentives to produce goods and services, as all costs of production, including compensation for the owner's labour, are also built into the price of the goods. If prices dipped below a zero profit, producers would drop out of the market; if they were above a zero profit, producers would enter the market. Smith believed that while human motives are often selfish and greedy, the competition in the free market would tend to benefit society as a whole by keeping prices low, while still building in an incentive for a wide variety of goods and services. Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and argued against the formation of monopolies.

One can argue with Smith's theory, but it certainly is a rational description of what he perceives Capitalism to be and one which, frankly, I find to be more compelling than yours. However, having said that, I believe you and I could have a reasonable disagreement on Capitalist theory and application which would be missing from any argument based on the Catholic precept that "the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist", because there is absolutely no factual substantiation for such a statement. It relies entirely on faith, and as such is subject for neither proof, disproof, nor reasonable disagreement.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 02:58 PM

Free market capitalism is not the same thing as fundamentalist capitalism. Quite a different animal, in fact. As with Christianity and Communism, free market capitalism has never really been tried.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 03:33 PM

Well, I have no opinion at all about Joseph Smith at this point, LEJ. ;-) I don't honestly know enough about him to have an opinion.

I think if there IS a spiritual truth out there it would be ludicrous if it had come through only one religion! Or one holy book. Only the raving human ego could come up with such an exclusive notion as that.

What I really believe in is not religion but spirituality. Religion is mostly about following rigid rules and forms. Spirituality is about personal transformation into greater love, freedom, and awareness. Some spirituality can be found in all religions. (for example: the spiritual aspects of the Muslim religion are best found in the Sufi teachings and traditions) Some spirituality can also be found in any coherent and useful philosophy or practice which exists outside of organized religion. Spirituality is that which works to improve life for everyone and every thing, including nature, not just for some at the expence of others.

Bob Dylan? Yeah, actually I do think that Dylan has been instinctively articulating a great deal of spiritual truth throughout his creative career. He has served very well in that respect, regardless of his personal quirks and failings, which are well known. Most of us suffer from a good many of those.

William Shatner? Hmmmmm. Gotta think about that, mull it over. I woudn't want to say anything hasty about it. ;-) "The Gospel According to Shatner" could lead humanity in directions previously unthought of, right??? Right?

Hmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 03:52 PM

LH
I agree with everything you said in your above post, with the exception of your strange and excessive devotion to Shatner. Like other mythical creatures such as Apollo, the Little Mermaid, and Pete Best, what actual evidence do you have that He exists? Don't tell me that this jowelly, puffy-faced character-actor who was awarded an Emmy has anything in common with the athletic, dashing, and overbearing "Capt Kirk" Shatner sometimes seen in ancient video materials? Or that this early Shatner has anything in common with the rock and roll Shatner who recorded the strange and frightening Common People. This multi-headed deity of yours is an obvious product of our collective imaginations. I believe it was George Takei who said "if Shatner did not exist (and I'm not saying he does), it would have been necessary to invent him. And thirty years later, to re-invent him."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: GUEST,Martin gibson
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 05:05 PM

I just saw on DVD the movie Batman Begins.

Best Batman movie yet. did anyone else see it? Or are you all to busy trying to out-philosophise each other just to see your own words in print.

Lsat I checked, all of the hot air on MY THREAD I STARTED had no effect on anything, especially crazy fucking Moslem extremists.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 05:25 PM

I saw Batman Begins a few days ago, also on DVD. I agree, Martin. It is the best Batman movie so far, by a long shot.

That still isn't saying much, of course. The others were awful.   Batman movies are insubstantial escapist nonsense. But it was the best one yet.

I bet it would've been even better with Angelina Jolie in it. (Not that I'm complaining about the girl they had in it...she was fine.) The little Michael Jackson-like lawyer guy was gloriously creepy.

LEJ - Shatner is a conundrum. He is either a symptom of the final convulsions of decadence and societal collapse...or...he is the herald of a shining new order which will lead mankind into vistas of accomplishment beyond imagination. You have to listen to "Common People" repeatedly, suspending judgement, until your normal perceptions of reality dissolve and are replaced by one of two things:

1. a glow of unexpected rapture

2. an immediate need to purge violently

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 06:21 PM

I always thought Batman had repressed homosexual tendencies. Or maybe Robin was too feminine. Either way it had an agenda that struck me as before it's time. A gym movie without the showers?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 06:39 PM

I think you've nailed it, LH. Shatner is the yin and the yang.

Denny Crane!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 07:04 PM

Whistle Stop, I have a question. Have you actually read the Koran yourself, or are you telling us what is in there based on stuff you've heard or read from other people?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 07:50 PM

Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: An evil fate.
(Koran 9:73

Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.
(Koran 9:123)

The believers who stay at home- apart from those that suffer from a grave impediment- are not the equal of those who fight with their goods and their persons. God has given them a higher rank than those who stay at home. God has promised all a good reward; but far richer is the recompense of those who fight for Him...He that leaves his dwelling to fight for God and His apostle and is then overtaken by death, shall be rewarded by God...The unbelievers are your inveterate enemies.
(Koran 4:95-101)

Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whoever fights for the cause of God, whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him...The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan...Say "trifling are the pleasures of this life. The hereafter is better for those who would keep from evil..."
(Koran 4:74-78)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violance
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 11:29 PM

practically every page of the Koran contains hateful passages about infidels, and what should be done with them, and what is in store for them after they die

The reason I asked the question is because I wanted to know if this statement is supportable by a careful reading of the Koran.

And I am also aware that the Bible, in particular, the old testament, is an extremely violent text. But I just wanted to know about that one statement from Whistle Stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 11:34 PM

...that's why I specifically asked Whistle Stop. So Whistle Stop, although others have offered to help with my question, I would still be interested to know whether or not you have read the Koran yourself, or if you are reporting what you have read and/or heard from others.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Peace
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 11:42 PM

Third party in here. I have read the Koran, and I find it to be no more or less violent than any other religious tract. If stuff gets taken out of the context it was meant to be in, it can become violent, real fast.

If all I choose to recall of Christ's words is, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword", then I can easily make the case that I should go off killing everyone I want to because Christ sanctions it.

Hell, anybody can find stuff to support any argument in any religion. I bet I could selectively quote Hitler and make him sound like yer favourite school teacher from grade 4 or 5. These friggin' religious leaders from all religions who pick and choose what they promulgate--hey, folks, they have agendas. I don't think the religious works were on the same track as them. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 11:51 PM

BTW, one last point... I think, in the Koran, "infidel" specifically refers to Pagans. And the Old Testament of the Bible also instructs believers to kill infidels. One passage in particular on that subject, I believe, goes something like, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". I seem to recall that there are many such passages in the Old Testament instructing that Pagans should be killed or otherwise treated badly.

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are largely the same belief system, really, separated only by a few cultural differences. And Islam considers Jews and Christians to be brethren of Muslims (people of the book).

The kinds of things people are putting in this thread about Islam and the Koran is leading me to believe that the greatest threat to humanity today (besides fundamentalist capitalism), is ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 12:00 AM

Do you guys realize this thread can go on forever and just get more agitated ..... just like the way this subject has been going on since someone invented Ra, then someone came up with yhwh, then there was Yeshua, then someone came up with Allah .....

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 04:45 AM

But none of them hold a light to Batman. He is the new religion. Don those tights and get close to the lord.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 05:47 AM

Hail to the Sun God
He is the Fun God
Ra! Ra! Ra!

:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Paul Burke
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 06:05 AM

Or even the oldest surviving hymn, sung by Tutankhamun's dad Akhenaten to Aten, the sun, at dawn:

The Sun, as God, is Aten.
Hip, hip, hip, hooray!
The Sun, as God, is Aten,
And he's coming out to play!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 06:51 AM

Or Freddie Merc's wonderful rendition..."Sun goddy to love."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 08:20 AM

Carol, I have been away from the Mudcat since yesterday; I wasn't avoiding your question, although I do appreciate Lonesome EJ and others chiming in on this .

No, I certainly have not read all of the Koran, or even most of it. I have read portions, and have also read commentaries by other people whose opinions I respect (as well as commentaries by people whose opinions I don't respect), and have listened to various people arguing these points, pro and con. In fact, even though I grew up in a nominally Judeo/Christian family and culture, I have not read all, or even most, of the Bible. I have read enough to form some opinions about its contents, however. I suspect that is true of most of the people who are contributing to this thread.

As for the whole "quoting out of context" thing, keep in mind that quotes are always out of context, by definition. If I were to attempt to quote the Koran in context, I would have to quote the entire book, along with relevant commentaries from learned Muslim scholars, and dissenting views by others. I hope nobody expects me to do that, particularly on an internet music forum.

What is important, it seems to me, is to have some awareness of the context, and to sincerely try to honor the context when offering particular quotes. You'll just have to accept my assurances (or not, I suppose) that I have no ulterior motive that would drive me to distort the context deliberately. I have read and thought on these matters, and I am offering my opinion. For the purposes of this forum, I think that's sufficient.

My point, which others may have articulated better than I, is that we often seem willing to suspend our judgments about certain writings that we would find hateful if we didn't know that they were considered sacred by the adherents of certain established religions. I think we should stop suspending judgments, stop making excuses for religion, and let everyone's writings and teachings rise or fall on their own merits. If I had read an editorial in this morning's newspaper that said that people who don't subscribe to a particular viewpoint should be summarily executed, I would not hesitate to condemn it. I see no reason to refrain from condemning these sorts of utterances just because they are contained in a "sacred" book.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 10:28 AM

Well, pardon me for being blunt, but I think it's incredibly irresponsible to say something like "just about every other page of the Koran (or Bible, or any other religious text)... etc."

If you haven't read it, you really aren't in any position to make such a statement, regardless of whom you have been listenting to or reading. I'll just chalk that one up to ignorance, which as I have said before, I consider to be one of the greatest threats to humanity today.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 10:47 AM

LH: Where are those deadly Spartans today? Were they beaten by an even deadlier army of Homos and BIs?

I really have no animosity to Homos "as long as they keep it private and between consenting adults" but the problem is they like to push it in everybody's face.

The objection I have with mainstream Muslims is they do not take the muslim extremists to task. They let them do their dirty deeds. When a moderate Muslim gets killed by an radical, they blame it on the US. Whne a moderate get killed by the US in the process of combatting the radicals, they blame it all on the US.

I say it is time to call on thae moderate muslims to do something about the radicals or they will all be treated as violent.

Amos where do you get off saying I select my data? Who selects your data? Maybe you should watch the leading cable news channel like mainstream America does.

Are you feeling better now after your most recent Bush rants? Probably not. What about that double decker bus?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 11:26 AM

Carol, if you want to dispute my points, feel free. I note that you haven't done that -- you have simply alleged that I am ignorant and irresponsible. This makes me suspect that you are every bit as ignorant as you feel I am.

I don't claim to be an expert, just a reasonably well informed individual who has observed certain things about the world, has educated himself to a degree, and feels entitled to express his opinions. As I acknowledged before, I have not read the full text of the Koran; I would be surprised if you have, but if I am wrong about that, please enlighten me. For now, I don't see any evidence that your level of expertise is any greater than mine. I DO get the sense, however, that you are more willing than I am to assume, and to assert, that Islam is a benign force -- a "religion of peace," as others have alleged -- without offering any evidence to back up your claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 11:49 AM

I dispute this...

practically every page of the Koran contains hateful passages about infidels, and what should be done with them, and what is in store for them after they die

And I do consider it to be a very ignorant thing to say. You can't support it with anything whatever, and it's just not true. Making a statement like that with no basis for it is very inflamatory, and serves no constructive purpose.

Go read the Koran yourself, and then come back and tell me if you still think that "practically every page" contains what you have said.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 12:06 PM

"The objection I have with mainstream Muslims is they do not take the muslim extremists to task."

Not true, Old Guy. I've heard several programs, both on national television and on KUOW-FM, my local NPR affiliate (that bastion of the "liberal media" that righties hate so much because they report all the news and give all viewpoints a chance rather than simply act as a cheering section and apologist for the Bush administration), on which Muslim clergymen were interviewed, and they all spoke out strongly against Muslim extremists. Some of them presented quotes from the Koran that specifically forbid many of the things the extremists are doing.

If you are not aware of this (as, apparently, you are not), perhaps you should get your nose away from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh every once in a while and get a little information that isn't totally biased.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 12:10 PM

Something intrigues me about Muslims.

At one time Jews and Muslims were all the same.

How in the hell did they evolve into to separate but in someways silirar religion that want to ahnialate each other?

It seems the Jews are willing to coexist with Muslims but the Muslims are unwilling to let the Jews exist.

Why can't they settle their differences?

Maybe we should just let them kill each other and solve the problem. If it werent for our dependence on oil from the middle east why should we care?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 12:18 PM

How many pages then, Carol? Out of how many total? Is the bad stuff only on one page out of two? Two out of five? Three out of seven? No, you've got me there; I can't be more precise than I have been, and I'm willing to concede for the sake of this discussion that my reference to "practically every page" was a fairly sweeping statement. Given your presumed familiarity with the entire Koran, I'm hoping you can enlighten me on exactly how many pages DO contain disparaging, condescending, hateful references to non-believers, how many contain descriptions of the torments that await them, and how many contain directives to kill them. Then you can tell me whether the ratio of hateful vs. non-hateful pages is really a significant enough issue to call my basic point into question.

No, I won't go read the whole Koran just to have the pleasure of continuing the debate with you. I have read some of it, and that was painful enough (it's not a real page-turner). I have certainly read enough of it to know that it's got a lot of hateful stuff in it, sprinkled liberally throughout. Muslims claim that the Koran is the word of Allah, and there is no question that it is the book that provides the underpinnings of their faith. Therefore, if the stuff is in there (and believe me, ignorant though I am; the stuff is in there), I have reason to believe, and opine, that Islam is not the benign, peaceful, tolerant religion that other ignorant people claim it is.

So what do you base YOUR opinions on?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 12:32 PM

Thanks Paul Burke for posting the oldest surving hymm.

It makes a lot more sense to me and is much more civil than the other gibbersh going on these days.

I will certainly sing it first thing each morning in my back yard before I welcome the new day with my customary coffee and cigarette.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 12:49 PM

Carol

You didn't ask about violent passages from the Old and New Testaments, you asked about the Koran. If you want Jewish or Christian violent dogma, there's plenty of that as well. There is just as much hate in a Crusade as there is in a Jihad, and just as much holy justification.
But Christianity, especially in its stronghold of Europe and the Americas, has been diluted by humanism for a much longer time. Numbers of practicing Christians in Europe, in fact,are at an all-time low. Fewer and fewer are approaching the Bible literally. This is a very positive trend. One can only hope that this trend toward Reason, coupled with an instinct for survival, can beat back the neo-con born-again movement in the US, and reverse the strengthening Muslim Fundamentalist movement in the Mideast and Southwest Pacific.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 06:48 PM

LEJ, I didn't ask about those things because Whistle Stop didn't make such a broad, sweeping, inaccurate generalization about those texts as he did about the Koran. As I stated in one of my recent previous posts, I am very aware of the violence in the Old Testament, and I'll take your word about it in the New Testament.


How many pages then, Carol? Out of how many total? Is the bad stuff only on one page out of two? Two out of five? Three out of seven?

And that is my point. If you're going to be making such assertions about the content of something, you really ought to know what's in it first. And if you can't make your point without mischaracterising a text that you have not even read, maybe you don't have a valid point.

Given your presumed familiarity with the entire Koran, I'm hoping you can enlighten me on exactly how many pages DO contain disparaging, condescending, hateful references to non-believers, how many contain descriptions of the torments that await them, and how many contain directives to kill them.

I have not read the entire Koran, so I won't be so presumptuous as to suggest that I know how many of these things it contains.

But I have read enough of it to know that there are large parts that simply address Muslim law according to how it was supposed to have been received by the Prophet about how Muslims are to go about living their daily lives, in much the same way as the Bible and the Torah do for Christians and Jews. And I have read enough about the Koran to know that it has its basis in the teachings of the Bible and the Torah, with the words of the Prophet added as a continuation of the same basic religious tradition as that expressed in those texts.

I do not claim that any of these texts are in any way peaceful or tolerant. But neither do I subscribe to the notion that an entire religion and all of its adherents can be painted with one, broad, over-generalised brush, especially by those who are not familiar with what the religion is really all about.


Old Guy, if the Muslims didn't want the Jews to exist, there would be far fewer Jews in the world today than there are.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Peace
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 09:33 PM

"Old Guy, if the Muslims didn't want the Jews to exist, there would be far fewer Jews in the world today than there are."

The converse holds equally true, BTW.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Peace
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 09:41 PM

Now, if we could only figure out who has a vested interest in having Jews, Muslims and Christians hate each other . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 09:45 PM

Insecure people.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 10:13 PM

Now, if we could only figure out who has a vested interest in having Jews, Muslims and Christians hate each other . . . .

My guess is that whatever other categories they fit into, they are money worshippers first and foremost.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 10:17 PM

"money worshippers" ... insecure people conforted and absorbed by false security.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Peace
Date: 02 Nov 05 - 10:19 PM

I am 100% with you on that, Carol and sIx.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 07:14 AM

I appreciate that every faith has its share of literalists. Christians have their Evangelicals. Jews have the ultra-Orthodox. For God's sake, even Buddhists have fundamentalists.

But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam is literalism mainstream. Which means that when abuse happens under the banner of Islam, most Muslims have no clue how to dissent, debate, revise or reform.
(Irshad Manji about 'The trouble with Islam today')

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 08:12 AM

Carol, it sounds like you and I may have roughly the same familiarity with the Koran. We have read some of it, have read and heard the viewpoints of others who are familiar with it, and have come to some conclusions about its contents, while recognizing that neither of us has gone through it word for word. So we're equally knowledgeable -- or, to put it in your terms, equally ignorant. We have simply come to different conclusions about it; yours more tolerant and accepting of its precepts, mine less so.

In general, I'm a pretty tolerant person, and I certainly don't make a habit of discriminating against anyone in any way based on their religious beliefs. But I also consider myself to be a person who tries to see the world realistically, and is willing to point out, when appropriate, that the Emperor has no clothes. While I don't know you, I get the impression that you are perfectly willing to accept the broad-brush characterizations that many Muslims, and non-Muslims, apply to Islam; that it is not at its core a violent and intolerant religion. I wish that I agreed with you, in fact. But, having seen much evidence to the contrary, I cannot.

Since you seem to be under the impression that I am more accepting of the violent, bigoted, persecutorial aspects of Judaism and Christianity than those of Islam, let me assure you (again) that I am not. I am not a Jew, nor a Christian, nor a Muslim, and I find the hateful aspects of each of these religions equally appalling. I also find the broad societal acceptance of these hateful teachings equally discouraging. I continue to feel that we would be better served if we publicly, explicitly disavowed these hateful texts, and stopped deferring to religious people simply because they are religious people. Hate is hate, bigotry is bigotry, violence is violence, regardless of what text is cited to justify it. Your continued harping on my "ignorance" has not convinced me otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 08:44 AM

' Excuse me for making a nice living."

Geeez MG ... I'm fortunate enough to have a good paying job which I work hard at ... one that puts a nice roof over our heads, one that provides me with a dependable nice auto, one that puts good food on the table ... but I'm also secure in the reality that it could all be taken away from me in a New York minute. I'm also secure in the reality that there is much, much, much more to my life, than this good payin job, after all it's just a job, my life is my life and it is what I (and only I) make of it.

I'm also secure in my beliefs that I don't need a rabbi, I don't need a bishop, I don't need a shaaman, I don't need minister, I don't need a cleric, and I don't need a medicine man. It's when you require these needs, that's were the trouble starts.

My 2 cents worth.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 08:44 AM

To the experts on Jews and Muslims:

What does "we deny their right to exist" mean when spoken by a palestinian leader?

What was the Six-Day War about and what was the result? Who started it, why did they start it and who whipped who's ass?

I am not going to get sucked into an argument by someone looking for an fight. I just ask some questions to invoke discussion, state my opinions and present facts that I believe support them.

Old guy

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 10:24 AM

Whistle Stop, my only complaint about what you said is that it makes claims that neither you nor your reading of the Koran can support. The specific statement that "practically every page" etc. All I am saying to you is that you might want to consider how you choose your wording a bit more carefully. That's all. If you continue to refuse to understand my point, that's not really my problem.


But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam is literalism mainstream.

Wolfgang, while I admire her work, I think Irshad Manji is also a bit guilty of too broadly generalizing. She said "Islam" as though it is a more monolithic entity than it is. Here in the US, those Muslims who were born in this country tend to not be particularly literalist. And a lot of the Muslims in this country were born here. Many of them converted to Islam from other religions. A significant number of people of African descent, whose ancesters were brought here as slaves have embraced Islam, and these, in particular, are extremely moderate and not literalist in their practice of their religion. So in the US, it is completely inaccurate to say that in Islam, literalism is mainstream, and to the extent that she is engaging in that kind of generalization, I would have to disagree with her. If she wants to address Islam as it is practiced in specific areas of the world, and make those kinds of claims about that, I think I would have greater difficulty dissagreeing with her.


What does "we deny their right to exist" mean when spoken by a palestinian leader?

It refers specifically to Israel as a political entity and as a state with a particular religious identity, and not to Jews generally.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 10:35 AM

What was the Six-Day War about and what was the result? Who started it, why did they start it and who whipped who's ass?

It was about taking land. Israel started it, and they whipped Egypt and Jordan's ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 10:49 AM

Carol, it didn't sound like that was your only complaint. I will concede -- in fact, I already have -- that "practically every page" was a pretty sweeping phrase. I don't know, and neither do you, exactly how many pages we're really talking about; to some extent I suppose that would hinge on which passages one interprets as "hateful," and which passages one considers to be something else. But it really doesn't matter in any case.

Still, if that truly was your only complaint with what I wrote, perhaps we agree on more than I thought. If not, then when you said that was your "only complaint," perhaps you were choosing your own words carelessly, just as you are suggesting I have done?

I'll make one last suggestion before trying to leave this unfortunate exchange behind: let's both try to respond to the substance of what is being said, rather than quibbling over a single instance of careless wording as if that were the crux of the issue being discussed. Can we agree on that, at least?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 10:52 AM

I don't know, Whistle Stop. Careless wording of the sort you used can have profoundly unfortunate consequenses for a lot of people. So I can't promise what my response will be if I see something like that again. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 11:24 AM

Carol, I'm pretty confident I haven't caused any lasting damage to the Islamic world though the wording of a posting on the Mudcat. Since your own phrasing is no more precise than mine (just as your knowledge of the topic at hand appears to be no more extensive than mine), perhaps a little humility is in order?

Anyway, I was trying to part with you as friends, and see if we could agree to look to the substance in the future, rather than wrangling over each others' phrasing. I still think that is a better approach to take to these discussions, but evidently I haven't convinced you of that, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 11:39 AM

Thanks, Peace.

Whistle Stop, by yourself, you don't do all that much damage. But it's the national climate of hate that springs up around the kind of generalizations you made, and that are at the same time being made by many others here in the US and elsewhere, that cause serious and often tragic consequences for a lot of people.

There is nothing un-humble about what I am saying. I am saying that when we make broad, sweeping mischaracterizations about whole groups of people based on ignorance of what we are talking about, we feed into a collective nurturing of hatred toward targeted groups of people. This kind of thing has consequences for a lot of people, and when I see it happening, it is quite likely that I will speak out. I don't feel any need for enmity with you over it. I just follow my conscience. It's the best I can do.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 12:58 PM

Message creep, Carol; you should watch that.

I did not make, and would not make, "broad, sweeping mischaracterizations about whole groups of people based on ignorance of what [I was] talking about." In the first place, it's obvious that your ignorance of the topic is at least equal to mine, so I think THAT is where you might show a little more humility than you have so far. Second, I was not characterizing people so much as I was characterizing a book; admittedly, it's a book that a certain segment of the population regards as sacred, but I did not make the leap to saying that all of those people are actually as evil as the book encourages them to be (some certainly are, but I'm sure most aren't).

At the risk of dumbing this down too much (and using more of the artless language you find so troublesome), my opinion is that the Koran simply contains too many bigoted, inflammatory messages, and too many overt incitements to violence, to ignore. I feel that people should be prepared to acknowledge it as such, and stop basing their worldview on it. And yes, I've read enough of it to feel confident in saying that.

Follow your conscience, and I'll follow mine; I'm sure it's the best either of us can do. [And the next time you decide to call me ignorant, I recommend that you be prepared to show that you're less so.]

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 01:10 PM

I don't think my ignorance of the topic was as great as yours, Whistle Stop. I knew enough to know better than to make a statement like,

"practically every page of the Koran contains"

But you have agreed that what you said was not valid, and I accept that. Everything else I have posted that was addressed to you since you said that was in direct response to questions you asked of me. But the issue, as far as I'm concerned, is not whether or not either of us is ignorant. It's how we use our words, and what we are willing to do about it when our words are shown to be incorrect and are likely to promote the spread of hateful stereotypes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 01:35 PM

Carol, "ignorant" is a word, too. You used it, and I don't think you should be surprised that I was offended.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about your ignorance level, as we disagree about mine. I haven't seen any evidence that you have any particular knowledge of the topic; I just see that you disliked it when I expressed an opinion that was contrary to your own.

And no, I did not "agree that what [I] said is not valid." I said that it was a pretty sweeping statement, and I admitted that I could not give you a precise count of how many offensive pages there are in the Koran. But I believe that what I said is valid, and nothing you have said would cause me to question that. You just called me ignorant, and you said that ignorance is the greatest threat to humanity today (the implication there is obvious). You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. But I certainly did not agree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 02:01 PM

I just see that you disliked it when I expressed an opinion that was contrary to your own.

Not at all. Had you made a statement that was based on what you actually know about the subject, I would not have used the word "ignorant". Trying to make this about something other than what it is really about isn't accomplishing anything whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 02:09 PM

I think, if you take a very careful look at the posts I've made in response to others with whom I have disagreed in this thread, you will see that my responses have been quite different than my response to you, even though I disagreed with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 02:59 PM

You'll forgive me if I don't scroll back through the thread (which is quite long at this point) to compare and contrast your various postings; I'm really only concerned with your responses to me, which were kind of insulting. You don't know me, don't know my background, but you feel free to make comments like those without offering anything substantive in rebuttal to the points I raised. I am willing, even eager, to find more redeeming qualities in the Islamic faith, but you give me nothing substantive to go on. Again, I've seen no indication that you know more about this subject than I do, but I've seen ample indications that you're willing to ignore the offensive stuff in the Koran so you can quibble with me about how many pages it appears on, and make disparaging comments about me in the process.

However, this haggling is getting tiresome. I would have more respect for you if you would withdraw the insulting comments instead of reiterating them, and focus on the actual issue; then we could have a meaningful exchange of views. You don't seem to want to do that, though, so I don't really see much point in continuing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Mehitabel
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 09:16 PM

I had many conversations with Archie the Cockroach over the years, and found him to be very perceptive, Martin...therefore I regard your statement as unreasonably prejudiced. Unreasonable prejudice seems to be a way of life with you though, so I'm not really surprised. He spelt better than you too, even though he couldn't handle the "shift" key, so it was all in lower case.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 09:54 PM

CarolC - 03 Nov 05 - 10:35 AM

What you were asked was:

"What was the Six-Day War about and what was the result? Who started it, why did they start it and who whipped who's ass?"

You answered:

"It was about taking land. Israel started it, and they whipped Egypt and Jordan's ass."

Now why did you not provide an answer to the second and fourth parts of the question.

On the parts that you did answer:

The first bit you got wrong - It was about defending land and the survival of an entire nation.

The second part that you didn't answer was that result was an overwhelming victory for the Israeli's and a humiliating defeat to the massed ranks of pan-Arab nations ranged against Israel.

Third part you got right - the first example of defence by pre-emptive stike.

The fourth part that you didn't answer was that a large number of frontline and supporting Arab States publically for weeks threatened the sovereign State of Israel, a recognised member of the United Nations, with complete and utter destruction, and to back that threat up they massed their armies on Israel's borders.

The fifth part you got right.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: pdq
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 10:00 PM

Doesn't a burning car pollute the air?

                     from Paris with love

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Pancho Villa
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 10:12 PM

Hey Gringo. You talking to me?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Bandito
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 10:15 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Bandito
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 10:17 PM

Geebsons?

We doan need no steenkin Geebsons.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Pancho Villa
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 10:21 PM

Si. Eef I find that pathetic impotent gringo called Geebson I certainly take care of him. He weel never insult any laydees around heer again. I assure you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 10:22 PM

You still aren't getting the point of what I said, Whistle Stop, so I'll make one more attempt then I'm giving up.

Whether or not you know anything at all about Islam is not the point. Neither is whether or not I know anything at all about Islam. The point is that you made a very inflamatory, and broadly sweeping condemnation about the entire content of a text that you admit you have not read. It's not whether or not you are ignorant of the subject, it is whether or not, despite your ignorance, you pretend to know what you're talking about. That was and is the only point I was addressing when I said what I did that you didn't like. And I stand by what I said. It's that kind of ignorance (not whether or not you know something, but your willingness to spread hateful falshoods that have no basis in fact, while pretending you know what you're talking about) that is one of the biggest threats to humankind.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 10:32 PM

Si Pancho, theese Geebson she need a lesson een how to treet de laydees, theese ees for shure. I am theenkin maybee Geebson, she doan like dee laydee, maybee she ees, how you say theese, a peelow biter.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 10:34 PM

Now why did you not provide an answer to the second and fourth parts of the question.

I answered all of them in my three points...

The Six-Day war was about increasing Israeli territory. The result was that Israel increased its territory. Israel started it. They started it so they could increase their territory. Israel whipped Egypt and Jordan's asses.

The first bit you got wrong - It was about defending land and the survival of an entire nation.

No it wasn't. They could have survived as a nation without taking any land.

The second part that you didn't answer was that result was an overwhelming victory for the Israeli's and a humiliating defeat to the massed ranks of pan-Arab nations ranged against Israel.

I answered this when I said that Israel whipped Egypt and Jordan's asses.

Third part you got right - the first example of defence by pre-emptive stike.

As I said... Israel started it.

The fourth part that you didn't answer was that a large number of frontline and supporting Arab States publically for weeks threatened the sovereign State of Israel, a recognised member of the United Nations, with complete and utter destruction, and to back that threat up they massed their armies on Israel's borders.

Even the Israeli military and some of it's former prime ministers say Israel wasn't in any real danger from Egypt or Jordan (or anyone else). In fact, one very high ranking member of the Israeli military at the time of the Six-Day War says it's an insult to the Israeli military to try to suggest otherwise.

The fifth part you got right.

I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: NH Dave
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 10:59 PM

From what I have seen of the various Arab Israeli wars, over the last 50 years, the Pan Arabic States start the process off by overt or covert agitation/acts of war, Israel overcomes their massed armies, takes lots of their land, and eventually yields some of it back upon the urging of the UN. Israel rearms herself with help from the US, the Pan Arabic States rearm with the help of Russia/USSR, and the process starts all over again.

Well, guess what, Russia isn't near as eager or able to help rearm the various militant Arabs, because she has spent herself out of money trying to keep up with the US militarily and in space. This leaves our Arabic brethren only Iraq and Iran, two states far enough away that they generally don't get involved in these wars unless they do something extremely dumb, in which case Israel doles out hurtin' to them too. Build a Breeder Nuclear Reactor, guess what? Israel bombs it down to glowing rocks, sand, and muddy water.

Start encroaching on what Israel considers her buffer zones by launching rockets or suicide bombers across a common border, Israel reduces the buildings from which the missiles or suicide bombers were launched, and closes down her border so the various neighbors can't come to work in Israel, and let them eat sand for a bit.

Israel only needs the help from the US to rapidly rearm them in aircraft and missiles, and given time they can even build these for themselves. I certainly don't hear of any of the neighboring Arabic states producing anything on their own except trouble, and border incidents. Most of their Arms and equipment came from Russia, or the USSR, who may well decide not to rearm these folks as their money doesn't spend much better than the Russian Ruble. The Arabic states that have a source of money, usually in oil, are not directly involved in invading Israel, although they may support militant groups involved in trying to overthrow the Israelis. They know that they can't reliably ship oil unless some form of peace reigns, so it is to their advantage to attempt to restore some from of peace in that region, although this does not keep some of these states from aiding the terrorist groups.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 04:22 AM

Good post NH Dave.

CarolC,

Under the circumstances that Israel found themselves in June 1967, Israel as a country would have survived approximately one month.

Had the combined mobilised armies of Syria, Jordan and Egypt not camped out on Israel's borders there would have been no need for Israel to take the Golan Heights, the West Bank of the Jordan, the Gaza Strip and Sinia. It was all about the survival of the State of Israel, to make it harder for those frontline states to attack. It did make it harder, but it didn't prevent them attacking Israel six years later in 1973. They lost that as well, and of the territory 'occupied' by Israel, they have handed back 98% of it in return for peace accords with Jordan and Egypt. Hussain of Jordan who gave Tosser Arafat and the 'Palestinian People' a home, was repaid for his eforts by aforementioned Tosser Arafat attempting a coup to overthrow the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan - Arafat failed and had to toddle off to make his millions in Tunisia.

Israel started it, because there was no other option open to them, as stated in the past some national leader can threaten to wipe out another nation (English - Scots; Sweden - Norway) and that threat would be taken with a pinch of salt. Make that threat to an Israeli and he has every reason in the world to take it deadly serious. The rhetoric, military posturing and closure of international waterways by Israel's neighbours in 1967 was adjuged by the United Nations as sufficient grounds for Israeli action.

"Even the Israeli military and some of it's former prime ministers say Israel wasn't in any real danger from Egypt or Jordan (or anyone else)."

"the Israeli military" - What! All of them???? Now this seems to run counter to your own views on sweeping generalisations. Certainly in May 1967 the situation didn't look so rosy from the Israeli perspective, so IF the Israeli military were of that opinion they were keeping damn quiet about it. Those whose opinions you are sharing with us - did they at some later stage have books to sell?

"one very high ranking member of the Israeli military at the time of the Six-Day War says it's an insult to the Israeli military to try to suggest otherwise." Who was that Carol? If he did say that at the time, it was either moral boosting in the face of a threatening situation or it's a remark that has been taken out of context.

Similar examples from British History would be Wellington at both Assay and at Waterloo. Another would be Churchill in 1940. Both knew in themselves that they would win, or at least not lose, but to most independent observers around at the time it certainly didn't look that way. Both men had to put a face on it, remain calm and provide leadership - they both did it, in spades.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: pdq
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 09:38 AM

4 NOV 2005
Fiery riots spread beyond Paris

PARIS, France (CNN) -- Rioting erupted for an eighth straight night in the impoverished suburbs of Paris, with angry youths setting fire to a school, a bus depot, three warehouses and hundreds of vehicles.

Although officials said the unrest late Thursday and early Friday was less intense than in previous nights, the disturbances spread outside the Paris region for the first time.

Violence was reported in some 20 communities around Paris and across the country, including areas near Rouen in northern France, Dijon in the east and Marseille in the south.

In the Seine-Saint-Denis region to the north and east of the capital, youths fired buckshot at riot police vehicles in Neuilly-sur-Marne, The Associated Press quoted the area's top official, Prefect Jean-Francois Cordet, as saying.

A group of 30 to 40 youths harassed police near a synagogue further east in Stains, Cordet said.

However, police reported seeing fewer large groups of youths rioting, and "contrary to the previous nights, there were fewer direct clashes with the forces of order," AP quoted Cordet as saying.

"The peak is now behind us," Gerard Gaudron, mayor of one of the worst-hit suburbs, Aulnay-sous-Bois, told France-Info radio. He said parents were determined to keep their teenagers at home to prevent unrest.

"People have had enough. People are afraid. It's time for this to stop," AP quoted Gaudron as saying.

Officials said 187 vehicles and five buildings -- including three sprawling warehouses -- were destroyed overnight in Seine-Saint-Denis, located between central Paris and Charles de Gaulle airport.

More than 400 vehicles were destroyed across the entire Paris region, including about two dozen buses at a terminal near Versailles, authorities said.

Police detained 27 people and reported two injuries -- one a policeman and another a handicapped person badly burned during an arson attack on a city bus, Reuters reported.

The latest violence flared despite the presence of about 2,000 additional police officers, and despite hopes that festivities marking the end of Ramadan would calm tensions.

Much of the rioting has occurred in areas heavily populated by poor African Muslim immigrants and their French-born children...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 10:41 AM

I stand corrected, Teribus. I should have said members of the Israeli military rather than "the Israeli military".

I will find the information you have requested.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 01:00 PM

Teribus:

I liked your post but I would suggest you should have put the line:
"Israel started it, because there was no other option open..."
as:
"Israel "started it", because there was no other option open..."

Egypt closed the Strait of Tiran to Israeli Shipping. Egypt demanded that the UN peacekeeping forces leave the Sinai, which the UN complied with under U Thant. Nasser was recorded in conversation with King Hussein of Jordan regarding military cooperation.

There is a distinction between a state of war, an act of war, and a pre-emptive strike.

The mideast nations had been in a state of war since Israel's founding in the battles of 1948. Closing the Strait of Tiran, as Egypt did, was an act of war.

The fact that Israeli jets found Egyptian jets on the ground is a tribute to the hubris of the Arab forces and the unwillingness of the Israelis to submit to their enemies' playbook.

Israel is a small country surrounded by (at that time) enemy states with no fixed state of peace since 1948. It would be folly for Israel to wait for her territorial integrity to be invaded any further than it already had been. Indeed, in 1973 when Arab forces penetrated Israeli lines and attacked on Yom Kippur, Israel came close to losing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Peace
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 02:27 PM

This land is your land, this land is my land, from the Arab border to the Arab border to the Arab border to the Arab border . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: bobad
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 03:06 PM

"This land is your land, this land is my land, from the Arab border to the Arab border to the Arab border to the Arab border . . . .to the Mediterranean Sea."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 06:22 PM

And this is the only part that's free!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Peace
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 06:40 PM

bobad: I was quoting Gary Eisenkraft--it was a rendition he did years ago in Montreal. Club was the Penelope.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: bobad
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 07:52 PM

Peace

Was that the old Penelope on Stanley St.(if I remember correctly) or the new Penelope on Sherbrooke St. where, by the way, I recall seeing Sonny Terry and Brownie McGee and the Fugs (on different occasions).

My friend Peter (he of the Vermont maple syrup) recalls seeing you perform there and remembers being impressed by your version of Dylan's "Girl From the North country".

Sorry for the thread drift but it seems to me that this thread has about run it's course anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 08:53 PM

Is there an Arab border ??

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Peace
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 10:00 PM

bobad,

Gary used to sing that at the Penelope on Stanley. He may have at the New one on Sherbrooke. Funny you mention GFTNC. I was talkin' about that on another thread a few days back--something about arranging songs, trying to be true to the writer's concept of the song and meaning, etc. I haven't done it in decades. Thank your buddy for the kind words, and for the excellent maple syrup. It was delicious, BTW.

I took lots of the garlic some crazy bugger sent me to a Greek restaurant in town. The owner--who's also my landlord and friend--well, he decided he had to teach me the 'right' way to eat garlic. He and I went through about four dozen (YES, that is 4 x 12 cloves) in a few hours. I got home at about 3:30 AM and responded to a fire page (was a motor vehicle collision) at about 5:45 AM. I blugged about a half tube of toothpaste into my mouth. Was foaming by the time I got to the hall about 4 minutes later. Didn't help a bit. Fortunately, we got turned back when we were about three clicks from the scene. The guys kept saying stuff like, "If anyone's dead, let Bruce do the mouth to mouth. Ought to bring the guy back." Sheesh. But, Gus and I really enjoyed it, with many thanks to the kind people who shared their hard work and delicious garlic.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 10:29 PM

The Fugs .... who can forget them, for those who knew of them.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: bobad
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 10:41 PM

"Kill for Peace", one of their songs, would be appropriate to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Nov 05 - 10:01 AM

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship." -- Patrick Henry

"Do not let any one claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics." -- George Washington

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Nov 05 - 11:59 AM

Those are fascinating quotes, Guest, and they indicate just how different society was in those days. It was also, for example, considered quite normal to own slaves. Jefferson did. It was also considered quite normal that only men voted...and only men of substantial means, landowners and such. The male gentry ran the place.

And they still do now, of course, but not officially... ;-)

As for slavery, it's not official now either but it is readily accomplished by rigorous mental conditioning applied from a very early age by the means of TV, schools, radio, and video games. The result: a hypnotized populace enslaved to money and consumerism, trapped like rats in a maze they cannot see any way out of.

Such people are easily manipulated into going overseas and killing funny-looking poor people who talk in strange languages and worship Allah. Whereas those funny-looking poor people are likewise easily manipulated by their leaders into strapping bombs on themselves and blowing themselves up in a marketplace or flying an airliner into a skyscraper.

Monkey see, monkey do. Lotta dead monkeys at the end of the day.

When will the monkeys wake up and realize they are all in one cage together?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Nov 05 - 12:23 PM

Go ask the monkeys who teach their little ones to blow themselves up, killing infidels in the name of Allah

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Nov 05 - 12:40 PM

...and if you ask the, "hypnotized populace enslaved to money and consumerism" they will tell you its so that Iraq can be freed from terrorism because thats what the t.v. told them.

...and if you can't believe the t.v., who can you believe?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Nov 05 - 02:55 PM

Here you go, Teribus...


On Israel's expansionist intentions -

"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion - 1936

"The main danger which Israel, as a 'Jewish state', poses to its own people, to other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim...No zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on the restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state." Israeli professor, Israel Shahak, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years."

"[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diary, quoting Moshe Dayan - May, 1955


On whether or not any other countries posed a legitimate threat to Israel in 1967--


Le Monde, June 3, 1972

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."

--Yitzhak Rabin (Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967)


Le Monde, June 3, 1972...

"All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, had never been considered in our calculations prior to the unleashing of hostilities. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our defence against the Egyptian threat. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army."

--General Mattitiahu Peled, Chief Quartermaster-General's Branch, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff


Ma' ariv, April 4, 1972...

"There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger."

--General Chaim Herzog, Commanding General and first Military Govemor, Israeli Occupied West Bank


New York Times, August 21, 1982...

"In June l967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

--Menachem Begin


"I myself well remember how (before I was "in opposition") the necessity of war with was explained to me and others a year before the 1956 war, and the necessity of conquering "the rest of Western Palestine when we will have the opportunity" was explained in the years 1965-67."

--Holocaust surviver and Israel Jew, Israel Shahak


The New York Times, May 11, 1997--

"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.

And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Nov 05 - 03:27 PM

GUEST, although Patrick Henry and George Washington said a lot of good things, they were as capable of talking rot as anyone.

For those who are not sure of the effect that religion has on a society, particularly when government and religion become so entangled that they are essentially one and the same, I recommend reading The Closing of the Western Mind : The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason by Charles Freeman. It's a fairly sizable tome, but it reads almost like a novel.

This book more than amply demonstrates that when religion (in the case dealt with by Freeman, the Christian religion) gains the secular power that an emperor or any other governing body can give it, the inevitable result is something like the Dark Ages.

There are those alive right now who think this is a good thing. And some of them are in positions of secular power.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Peace
Date: 05 Nov 05 - 03:33 PM

Very interesting article.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Nov 05 - 04:16 PM

Thanks for replying CarolC (05 Nov 05 - 02:55 PM)

Quoting "David Ben-Gurion - 1936" is hardly relevant to events in 1967. Likewise quoting Moshe Dayan - May, 1955.

Your reference to the "Le Monde" article of June 3, 1972. Yitzhak Rabin does not state that the threat could be ignored, remember my reference to the similarity with Wellington and Churchill. And this was stated in 1972, six years after the Israeli victory, not quite at the time as you referred to it as.


Le Monde, June 3, 1972... Again six years after the event. Note also that he only refers to Egypt, no mention of Jordanian or Syrian involement. By the way CarolC it was not primarily the military threat of troops on the border that threatened Israel but the closing of the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aquaba(Sp?) that posed the real danger to Israel. You having kindly given the original quote in its original context show that it was highly qualified. After all Guderian on the Eastern Front in 1944 and 1945 tactically was capable of holding up two Soviet Armies with as little as three German Divisions, the Germans however were always going to lose.

Ma' ariv, April 4, 1972... Again six years after the event.

"There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger." As did Wellington at Waterloo and Churchill in 1940, all it does is signify confidence. It DOES NOT imply that they should not have done what they did do.

New York Times, August 21, 1982... 15 years after the event a former Israeli Prime Minister makes a statement of fact with regard to the Egyptian Army, he does not mention the intercepts in which Nasser fooled King Hussain of Jordan into joining the fight before Israel's pre-emptive strike (You see Carolc Israel did not think much of Egypt, or Syria's Air Forces, they were however more concerned about the abilities of the Jordanian Air Force, which they, the Israelis, rated)

So what you have offered me are quotes and statements from

1936
1955
1972
1982
1997

Relating to events that happened in 1967

To back up your contention that, lets see how did you originally put it in your post of 03 Nov 05 - 10:34PM

"Even the Israeli military and some of it's former prime ministers say Israel wasn't in any real danger from Egypt or Jordan (or anyone else). In fact, one very high ranking member of the Israeli military AT THE TIME OF THE SIX DAY WAR says it's an insult to the Israeli military to try to suggest otherwise."

But he didn't say it AT THE TIME OF THE SIX-DAY WAR did he CarolC. That comment was attributed to General Mattitiahu Peled, Chief Quartermaster-General's Branch, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff in an interview with Le Monde, in June 3, 1972 - SIX YEARS AFTER THE SIX-DAY WAR - Now that is not at the time of - IS IT???

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Nov 05 - 04:59 PM

Quoting "David Ben-Gurion - 1936" is hardly relevant to events in 1967. Likewise quoting Moshe Dayan - May, 1955.

It's completely relevant because it is evidence of the expansionist agenda that the people who eventually became the architects of the State of Israel, and the the Israeli government have had since before Israel was a country. Several of the other quotes I provided support this as well.

Your reference to the "Le Monde" article of June 3, 1972. Yitzhak Rabin does not state that the threat could be ignored, remember my reference to the similarity with Wellington and Churchill.

People keep saying that Israel was forced to wage a first-strike war against other countries in 1967 because it faced the threat of annihilation by those countries. And in this particular thread, they are using it to support their contention that "the Muslims" want all Jews dead. The quotes I provided show that this was clearly not the case, and that Israel never considered itself to be under the threat of annihilation by Muslims in the period leading up to the 1967 war. Whether or not Israel had any legitimate reasons for starting that war is a different matter, and one that the other quotes in my last post address. Israel started the war for the purpose of increasing the size of its territory.

And this was stated in 1972, six years after the Israeli victory, not quite at the time as you referred to it as.

I never said it was stated at the time of the Six-day War. I said it was stated by someone who was high ranking member of the Israeli military at the time of the Six-Day War. I didn't specify when he said it. The Syrian issue was addressed by other quotes that I provided in my last post.

By the way CarolC it was not primarily the military threat of troops on the border that threatened Israel but the closing of the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aquaba(Sp?) that posed the real danger to Israel.

Israel was attempting to divert water resources from at least two Middle Eastern countries at that time, Egypt and I believe Jordan being those two (I'll have to check to see if there were others). Egypt's closing of the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqba was in response to this aggression on the part of Israel. Israel was trying to bait Arab countries to go to war with it. At least two of the quotes I have provided show that this is true.

"Even the Israeli military and some of it's former prime ministers say Israel wasn't in any real danger from Egypt or Jordan (or anyone else). In fact, one very high ranking member of the Israeli military AT THE TIME OF THE SIX DAY WAR says it's an insult to the Israeli military to try to suggest otherwise."

He was A MEMBER OF THE ISRAELI MILITARY AT THE TIME OF THE SIX DAY WAR.

Nice attempt to use a mischaracterization of what I said to try to score points though.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,---------?
Date: 05 Nov 05 - 05:08 PM

One of the most notable characteristics of the human ego is this: the desire to enhance its own fragile sense of identity by proving itself right. In order to do so, it must prove another or various others to be "wrong" (and by implication...inferior, stupid, bad, dangerous, even downright evil). It does this in order to feel superior to those others, thus enlarging and strengthening its embattled sense of self. It can do so either from a position of strength (like the USA or Israel) or from a position of weakness...which then becomes righteous martyrdom (like the Arab jihadists, AfroAmerican activists, Jews following WWII, Palestinians, radical feminists, gay activists, white power activists and militias, etc). The ego that acts from a position of weakness needs "powerful oppressors" and looks for them everywhere. The ego that acts from a position of strength needs "criminals" or "undesirables" or "terrorists" or "threats to society" or a foreign enemy system of some kind and looks for them everywhere.

The ego must have opponents and enemies in order to feed its own delusions of moral superiority and justify its own feelings of insecurity and anger...its own desire to win, to dominate, to discredit, to humiliate, and to destroy its chosen opponents and enemies.

And THAT, my friends, is what has driven this thread to well over 100 posts. That and only that. That is what drives all these endless political wrangles on this forum.

That is also what has perpetuated the conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere. The human ego. It has no mercy nor justice, neither does it respect or forgive. It plays to win. It can't live without "enemies" to hate and oppose. If you want to find the AntiChrist, just look inside your own nattering little mind that is willing to post endless arguments and rebuttals on threads such as this one and you will find him or her, much nearer than you thought.

Your only true enemy is inside your own head.

This ego perishes at the moment of biological "death"...at which point all its clever arguments and the verbal (or other) points it scored on its chosen opponents are revealed at their true worth:

absolute zero

Your ego is, in any case, a fiction, a mere mind construction, and a small and desperately sad one. That becomes evident eventually...but in most cases, only at or near the moment of death. That, interestingly enough, is the point at which most people realize the worthlessness of their material possessions too, and their social standing, and their fame (if they have any), and all the other artificial and ephemeral stuff they have spent their attention on in their search for personal fulfillment.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Altruist
Date: 05 Nov 05 - 05:20 PM

I would say fuck off, but would it matter? Come home son, all is forgiven.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,-------?
Date: 05 Nov 05 - 08:06 PM

And, the ego does NOT respond well to being exposed! It resorts to silly insults, name-calling, and aspersions on other people's sexual organs. How droll. Spirits do not have sexual organs nor do they worry about them in the least. It simply does not matter at that level of existence. Neither does 99% of the other stuff you obsess about on this forum.

You wouldn't even come here, Martin, if not for the irresistible attraction of harassing people you can disagree violently with and abuse verbally and feel superior to. That's why you like it here. Some of your targets are unwise enough to respond in kind, and that fits your plan perfectly. You are then mutual actors in a meaningless drama of your own creation.

Think about it. You could be doing something useful now for humanity and for yourself, instead of abusing people on an obscure Internet forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Nov 05 - 11:32 PM

Interesting link, Peace. I especially liked the part that stated, "Israeli society has become the society of a besieged stronghold-a military garrison society...." What a pathetic way to live. It seems it would be so much better to live in a country shared by Arabs and Jews who would democratically elect its politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Nov 05 - 11:01 AM

It is an interesting article. I found this part to be particularly significant, because it shows that the Egyptians, at least, believed that future battles would happen on their own land, and not within Israel...

4. In any future battle the Israeli Army would face Arab armies with different standards of fire power and its use, different command structures benefiting from past experience, and a higher morale, as the Arab forces would be aware of fighting for the heart of their homeland and not only for its borders.

Muhammad Hassanain Haykal, in 1969, believed that Israel would eventually try to wage war in the heart of his own country, but he doesn't say anything at all about the possibility of Egypt trying to wage a war within Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Peace
Date: 06 Nov 05 - 11:08 AM

I think from a military perspective that the Egyptians did not have the moxie to invade and consolidate their gains in the Israeli homeland. When the Syrians took a shit kickin'--well, their tanks--it changed the battle 'balance of power'. The 'fog of war' (neat line from Clauswitz) certainly applied in bot the '67 War and the Yom Kippur War. I think also that whether or not Haykal says Egypt would wage war in Israel or not is moot. If they coulda, they woulda, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Nov 05 - 11:14 AM

Possibly. I guess that means that even Egypt knew it was not a significant threat to Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Nov 05 - 11:57 AM

The whole Arab world is a threat to Israel.

Get it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 12:41 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

The Six-Day War (Hebrew: מלחמת ששת הימים transliteration: Milhemet Sheshet Hayamim), also known as the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Six Days' War, or June War, was fought between Israel and its Arab neighbors Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. It began when Israel launched what it considered a pre-emptive attack against Egypt, following the latter's closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and the deployment of troops in the Sinai near the Israeli border, and after months of increasingly tense border incidents and diplomatic crises. By its end Israel controlled the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 06:41 PM

"Israel never considered itself to be under the threat of annihilation by Muslims in the period leading up to the 1967 war."



Threat, most certainly. You are arguing that the Arabs did not have the ability. They certainly WERE making the threat, and perhaps believed that they could destroy Israel. You have only brought out ISRAELI statements: How about some of the ones from the Arab states?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 08:07 PM

I think the fact that Israel didn't regard the bellicose language coming from any Arab countries to represent a credible threat, plus the undeniable results of the 1967 war, is enough. If Israel didn't consider them a credible threat, I think we can be pretty confident that they were not a credible threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 08:37 PM

"I think the fact that Israel didn't regard the bellicose language coming from any Arab countries to represent a credible threat, plus the undeniable results of the 1967 war, is enough. If Israel didn't consider them a credible threat, I think we can be pretty confident that they were not a credible threat."

Sorry .... your absolutely wrong with that staetment Carol. There had been hostilities between the 2 since the conception of the state of Israel. Israel did not feel comfortable prior to the 1967 war, they did regard them as a credible threat. Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser vowed to avenge Arab losses of 1956 and press the cause of Palestinian nationalism. To this end, he organized an alliance of Arab states surrounding Israel and mobilized for war. For Israel it was act now or pay the price later.

MG is very correct with his statement "The whole Arab world is a threat to Israel."


sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 08:43 PM

Me 6 posting there at 8:37.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 09:19 PM

Number 6, perhaps you ought to go back and read the thread. I've already posted quotes from people who were high ranking members of the Israeli military as well as people who have served as prime ministers and other government figures in Israel, all of whom say that nobody in official circles in Israel believed that there was any "threat of annihilation" from Arab countries during the period just prior to the 1967 war.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 09:27 PM

And MG is in no way correct in that statement. Egypt and Jordan have both signed non-aggression treaties with Israel. During the period leading up to and during the 1948 War, Jordan was secretly working with Israel to help Israel increase the size of its territory, in exchange for Jordan taking what was left (except for Gaza). Jordan has since helped Israel many times in various ways. Some Arab countries may wish they were threats to Israel, but Egypt and Jordan are not among them. And those who might wish they were, are not, because of Israel's nuclear capabilities.

The biggest threat to Israel is its own policies, which are leading to its own economic collapse as well as the economic collapse of its biggest benefactor, the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Peace
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 09:42 PM

"Armed forces in the Arab countries were mobilized. Israel was confronted by an Arab force of some 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft. The armies of Kuwait, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were contributing troops and arms to the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian fronts."


From here.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 09:46 PM

No, Carol C, Six is right. I am right. My Rabbi is right. And you are wrong.

Just because a government signs some kind of peace treaty with Israel doesn't mean they don't hate their guts, which they do. Like you do, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 09:50 PM

They may have realized at that exact point in time there was no threat of complete annihiliation, but they certainly were aware of the possibility they were going to be annihilated ... which could have been a possibility if they 'sat still'. Don't forget it was only a short time previous in history were the Jewish race was almost annhiliated from the face of Europe. Don't forget who who was backing the Arab alliance.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Peace
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 09:51 PM

"There are theories that the entire 1967 War was a botched attempt by the Soviet Union to create tensions between West Germany and Arab countries by highlighting West Germany's support for Israel.

In her September 2003 article in the Middle East Review of International Affairs, Isabella Ginor detailed Soviet GRU documents proposing such a plan and further detailing faulty intelligence fed to Egypt claiming troop buildups near the Golan Heights in Syria. [85]"

From

Worth reading, IMO. Long read, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 10:52 PM

"But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them."

David Ben-Gurion - 1936

Various Israeli leaders have made statements very much like this one. I'd say the Arabs had far more to fear from the people with the above stated agenda than Israel has ever had from Arabs. The Jewish Arabs were coexisting with the Christian and Muslim Arabs for a long, long time, without any of these groups wiping out any of the others. Until the Europeans showed up. The indigenous Arab peoples, Jew, Christian, and Muslim alike, suffered as a result of the influx of European Jews during the latter part of the 1800s and the early part of the 1900s. All of them were afraid, and rightly so, that they were about to be displaced, both economically as well as physically.

The enmity that has arisen between the indegenous people of that area and the people who settled there from Europe is not the same thing as the anti-Semitism of Europe, and does not deserve the same treatment. The indigenous people of the Middle East did not create the problems that have arisen there since European Jews started colonizing in that region. They did and do have valid grievances, which have never been acknowleged by Britain, the United States, or Israel, the countries most responsible for creating these problems. They have every right to believe, based on the statements made by Israeli leaders, as well as Israeli actions, that Israel intends to continue to displace those who have not already been displaced. If Israel wants to eliminate any ill will against it in the Middle East, it needs to address these issues.

And Israel needs to stop doing this...

"[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space."

--Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diary, quoting Moshe Dayan - May, 1955

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 11:19 PM

That quote certainly does no represent the whole of Moshe Dayan, in reference to that quote Dayan would have preferred it if the Arabs struck first, believing it would more beneficial to the israelis in winning th conflict as apposed to Israel making the first strike. ... Dayan was a liberal, who advocated peace with the Arabs, but he was also a realist knowing all to well the Islamic agenda towards the state of Isreal and Jews in general.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 11:27 PM

Here's an alternate narrative to the one provided in your first link, Peace. This site also contains some cautionary advice that I think we had all better pay attention to...

http://www.countercurrents.org/en-mesbahi251104.htm

"Israel gets two thirds of its water from territories that it has invaded: the Golan Heights and the West Bank. It takes water from the Jordan and stores it in the Sea of Galilee in contravention of international law, which states that water should not be diverted from its catchment basin. This water is then transported to Israel�s cities, farms and industries.

The river Jordan flows from the Golan Heights in Syria and from the Lebanon, through Jordan, Israel and Palestine. In 1949 Israel began taking water from the Golan Heights and in 1951 invaded, driving out the villagers and ignoring UN Truce Supervision protests. In 1953 the Eisenhower Administration prepared a unified plan for the use of the Jordan River, granting Israel use of 33% of it. But Israel wanted more than that, so in September 1953 Israel began secretly constructing a pipeline to divert the Jordan from the Golan Heights in defiance of the US. The US found out and applied sanctions. Israel suspended work on the pipeline briefly, US aid was resumed and then Israel continued to work on the diversion project, which was soon complete. Syria and Jordan protested against Israel�s appropriation of their water and the PLO attacked the pipeline. Israel subsequently ignored several UN Security Council Resolutions and occupied the Golan Heights in 1967."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 11:34 PM

There are plenty more quotes like that one from many, many Israeli leaders (and leaders of the Zionist movement prior to the creation of the State of Israel). Here's another one from Moshe Dayan about the tactics being used against Syria in the Golan Heights. Provocation and revenge has always been the standard operating procedure of the decision makers of Israel and the leaders of the Zionist movement prior to the creation of the state of Israel. And it continues to be their standard operating procedure even now...

"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.

And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was..."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 11:38 PM

OK Carol ... what do you think is the solution to Arab/Israeli peace?

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 11:40 PM

I'm as bad if not worse than you Carol for double posting ...any as you can see that was me up above.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 01:32 AM

End the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and give them full autonomy and control of their borders, water aquifer, and air space, using the Green Line as the border, and give Gaza full autonomy with control of its borders and air space. Israel can place its troops on its side of the Green Line if they feel they need the protection. And then Israel should leave the Palestinians in peace so they can go about the business of building their country.

Water issues are going to take everyone down together if they are not approached in a spirit of cooperation. I think the guy in the website I posted about water has some good ideas about how to approach those problems. But it wouldn't hurt for the people in the effected areas to conserve water and not be wasteful with it.

And Israel should adopt a constitution, with officially declared borders (those borders being the Green Line, with the possibility of some mutually acceptable exchanges of land, but only if fully agreed upon by both parties). I think a symbolic "right of return" gesture would be constructive. This would mean Israel allowing a small number of refugees to return, and acknowledging that all of the refugees are human beings who have also been the victims of the terrible history of WWII.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 07:24 AM

And the "right of return" of the greater number of Jews (than Palestinians: 830,000 Jews vs 640,000 Palestinians) driven out of Arab countries?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Peace
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 10:28 AM

Anyone heard about the arrest of a terrorist 'ring' in Sydney/Melbourne? Wonder if they were Jewish or Muslim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 11:26 AM

Actually I think they were Mormans Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 11:40 AM

CarolC ... I agree with what you say, especially ... "And Israel should adopt a constitution, with officially declared borders (those borders being the Green Line, with the possibility of some mutually acceptable exchanges of land, but only if fully agreed upon by both parties)."

I however don't think it will ever happen in our lifetime ... fervent religious agendas, distrust on both sides have caused scares that are too deep to completely make this feasible.

I would also like to add that the middle East (Israel included) has been unjustly manuipulated in the past by the Russians and U.S. who had there own interests and fears at stake.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 03:21 PM

And the "right of return" of the greater number of Jews (than Palestinians: 830,000 Jews vs 640,000 Palestinians) driven out of Arab countries?

Absolutely, beardedbruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 12:35 AM

I found this a couple of days ago. It's taking me a long time to get all the way through it, but I have decided to post it here because I think it's important.

Livia Rokach, the author of the work in the following link, was a daughter of Israel Rokach, Minister of the Interior in the government of Moshe Sharett, second prime minister of Israel.

http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/sacred_terror.html

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 12:48 AM

That is an excellent link, Carol. I couldn't read it all because computer text is hard on my eyes but I skimmed it and all I can say is, aint it the truth!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 01:54 AM

If you want to read the whole thing, you might be able to get better results if you print it out with a text size you find readable and reading it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 07:41 AM

Carol,

since you dislike a statement like 'practically every page' you'll surely understand my wish that you may explain to me what 'a significant number' is. 3, 19, 412?

Regarding the Six days war, four Arab countries' forces were involved, not only two. Of these four countries only one was attacked first by Israel, two of the other three attacked Israel first, for the last one there can be some debate who has started if I recall correctly.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 11:06 AM

Just 1 page would be significant.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 11:25 AM

Wolfgang, read the contents of the link I provided in my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 11:30 AM

On your question about my use of the term "significant number" with reference to African American Muslims... it isn't possible at this time to say how many because there are no reliable sources for the numbers. Different sources give different numbers. However, it is a significant enough number for Islam to be considered an important segment of African American culture here in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 11:33 AM

Carol, huh?

My question was to your post from 03 Nov 05 - 10:24 AM

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 12:46 PM

But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam is literalism mainstream.

--Wolfgang

Wolfgang, while I admire her work, I think Irshad Manji is also a bit guilty of too broadly generalizing. She said "Islam" as though it is a more monolithic entity than it is. Here in the US, those Muslims who were born in this country tend to not be particularly literalist. And a lot of the Muslims in this country were born here. Many of them converted to Islam from other religions. A significant number of people of African descent, whose ancesters were brought here as slaves have embraced Islam, and these, in particular, are extremely moderate and not literalist in their practice of their religion. So in the US, it is completely inaccurate to say that in Islam, literalism is mainstream, and to the extent that she is engaging in that kind of generalization, I would have to disagree with her. If she wants to address Islam as it is practiced in specific areas of the world, and make those kinds of claims about that, I think I would have greater difficulty dissagreeing with her.

--me

My 09 Nov 05 - 11:25 AM post, suggesting you read the contents of the link in my 09 Nov 05 - 12:35 AM post, is in response to this from you...

Regarding the Six days war, four Arab countries' forces were involved, not only two. Of these four countries only one was attacked first by Israel, two of the other three attacked Israel first, for the last one there can be some debate who has started if I recall correctly.

My 09 Nov 05 - 11:30 AM post is in response to this from you...

since you dislike a statement like 'practically every page' you'll surely understand my wish that you may explain to me what 'a significant number' is. 3, 19, 412?

...and it answers your question about what I mean when I say "a significant number of people of African descent, whose ancesters were brought here as slaves have embraced Islam".

Some people place the number in the millions, some people place the number in the hundreds of thousands. But nobody has provided any kind numbers that can be proved statistically.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 01:00 PM

Correction:

But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam is literalism mainstream.

--Wolfgang, quoting Irshad Manji

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 01:25 PM

Carol, it is in a way interesting to read this piece of propaganda.
But you can't seriously mean that would be a response to the points in the second paragraph of my 09 Nov 05 - 07:41 AM post. I have made two points:
(1) Israel was fighting against military forces of four Arab countries (and not two as you had stated)
(2) The order of events was a bit more complicated than your formulation makes it look. Yes, Israel attacked first. Yes, Israel found itself in war with four Arab countries. But Israel did not attack first all four Arab countries.

Now to that page:

(1) They even don't get the number of Arab countries involved in that war correct though their number is a 50% improvement upon your 03 Nov 05 - 10:35 AM post.
(2) I have tried to find the part where they describe how the war started and in all parts I have found they just stated in very general terms that Israel has attacked three Arab countries or use very unclear formulations. They make the same very unspecific formulations as you do. So that's not relevant to my point that the order of events was a bit more complicated.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 02:21 PM

Carol, it is in a way interesting to read this piece of propaganda.

Propaganda? It's the personal diary of one of the leading figures of the Israeli government during the early days of the State of Israel. To call it propaganda makes no sense whatever.

But you can't seriously mean that would be a response to the points in the second paragraph of my 09 Nov 05 - 07:41 AM post. I have made two points:

(1) Israel was fighting against military forces of four Arab countries (and not two as you had stated)

(2) The order of events was a bit more complicated than your formulation makes it look. Yes, Israel attacked first. Yes, Israel found itself in war with four Arab countries. But Israel did not attack first all four Arab countries.

You can't have read the whole thing at all. According to the personal diary of Moshe Sharett (including quotes from many other prominent figures in the history of that time in Israel), Israel had formulated its plans to conquer Gaza, the West Bank, the southern part of Lebanon, Golan and other parts of Syria, way back in the 1950s - long before 1967. It also contains direct quotes from Sharett, as well as other prominent Israeli leaders stating that none of Israel's actions in 1967 as well as before and after that time were because it perceived a threat from any Arab governments, in fact, quite the opposite... it wanted war very badly with these countries because it knew very well that it would win any wars with them, and that its sole purpose in waging the various wars that it instigated from the 1940s to the 1960s were specifically for the purpose of increasing the size of its territory, poisoning relations between Western powers and Arab countries, and for the purpose of solidifying Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.

These are the words of the people who were carrying out these plans. These are their stated, intentions in their own words. These were compiled and put into a readable context by the daughter of one of the people involved, Israel Rokach, Minister of the Interior in the government of Moshe Sharett, who was the second prime minister of Israel. Moshe Sharett's diary gives a running commentary on the events as they were unfolding at the time, and it was not written for publication... it was his private diary.

(1) They even don't get the number of Arab countries involved in that war correct though their number is a 50% improvement upon your 03 Nov 05 - 10:35 AM post.
(2) I have tried to find the part where they describe how the war started and in all parts I have found they just stated in very general terms that Israel has attacked three Arab countries or use very unclear formulations. They make the same very unspecific formulations as you do. So that's not relevant to my point that the order of events was a bit more complicated.

I suggest you go back and read it again (the whole thing, this time).

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 02:27 PM

"These are the words of the people who were carrying out these plans. These are their stated, intentions in their own words."



CarolC,

   With this quote, I fail to see why you have rejected the numerous statements by the Arabs about what THEY intended to do. It seems like you think only Jews should be believed.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 02:34 PM

If you read the contents of that link, beardedbruce, that question is answered quite well. The leaders of the countries that were under attack from Israel were in precarious postitions in their own countries, politically. They were under attack from Israel, both terrorist attacks as well as military attacks. They could not keep their countries together and also keep their positions in their respective governments if they did not at least look like they were doing something to protect the citizens of their countries (as well as the refugees from Palestine who were taking refuge in their countries).

BTW, Israeli Jews and the Jews of the Diaspora are/were just as much victims of these policies on the part of the leaders of Israel as the people of the Arab countries against whom Israel was committing these acts of aggression. As Prime Minister Sharett's diary shows, these Israeli leaders were just as willing to shed Jewish blood as they were Arab blood if it accomplished their agenda in the long run.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 03:08 PM

Carol you have got all excited over made-up journalism before.

Until you have some background verifying that the 'diary' in question is real and accurately quoted, and care to find some Arab diaries to compare and contrast, you are generating a lot of steam from a very small kettle.

It looks to me like a web site cooked up to make all interpretations for the reader, it is encompassed by diatribe and propaganda, and bereft of the context of reprisal and counter-reprisal in which the participants lived.

Meanwhile it belongs in its own thread. Surely you know how to start one.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 03:33 PM

I have no intention of starting a thread for that material, robomatic. It specifically addresses the subject of this thread. The proof that the diary is genuine comes from the fact that it was first made public by Moshe Sharett's son. And being a written record (no doubt, hand written), it serves as its own evidence of its existance.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 03:48 PM

Here is some information about legal actions that were taken against the people seeking to publish the excerpts of Prime Minister Sharett's diary, by Sharett's family, using copyright infringements as their justification. These legal proceedings are a matter of public record...


"On April 11, 1980 the AAUG received communication from a well-known law firm in New York requesting in the "firmest manner possible" that we refrain from printing, publishing or otherwise reproducing portions of the diary. The law firm, acting on behalf of the family of the late Moshe Sharett and the Israeli publisher of the diary, threatened to "initiate prompt litigation in a Federal District Court" on the grounds of alleged violation of United States copyright laws.

Subsequently, the AAUG received a telegram from the Sharett family emphasizing that all rights would be vigorously protected if the association published "parts or all of Moshe Sharett's diaries." Anxious transoceanic calls were received by our office from the Israeli media. Our right to publish was questioned, but not on the legal grounds cited by the Sharett family and its legal counsel. Instead, we were hysterically accused of attempting to expose Israel via Sharett in a sensationalist manner. The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv headlined a front-page story, "Israel's Haters in the U.S.A. translated with No Permission the Diaries of Moshe Sharett" (April 4, 1980). According to former Knesset member Uri Avneri, writing in Haolam Hazeh (September 23, 1980), the Israeli Foreign Ministry initially supported Moshe Sharett's son, Yaqov, who edited the Hebrew publication of the diary, in his attempt to suppress publication of Livia Rokach's study based on the diary. "But to his disappointment, the Foreign Office did not uphold its support for him. The Jerusalem politicians decided that pursuing a legal course in stopping the dissemination of the book would be a mistake of the first order, since this would give it much more publicity.""


The material in Livia Rokach's publication is meticulously referenced, and the references are included at the bottom of the page.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 03:54 PM

Ok ..... Israel (and only Israel alone) was the nation that initiated the 1967 war. Let that be recorded in history. End of story.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 04:01 PM

Uh....six. Try reading the relevant material on the topic instead of initiating historical review by fiat.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 04:09 PM

Nope ... Israel (and only Israel)initiated the 1967 war .... it's all on the World Wide Webb. Been readin' all the facts on this thread. So forget about anything else you heard in the past.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 04:37 PM

Historical documents are just that... historical documents. It doesn't matter whether you read them on the web, in a newspaper, a magazine, in a library, or some government's historic archives. They're still historic documents.

And yes... Israel is responsible for the war. It wanted the war because war served its strategic interests at the time.

If people want to, they can see this information as a kind of liberation. Under the circumstances, it is possible to step out from under the black cloud of fear that the Jews of Israel and the Diaspora have lived under since the end of WWII, that has been the result of Israeli propaganda aimed specifically at keeping all Jews afraid all the time. It's not a bad thing to find out that there aren't anywhere near as many people who want you dead as you think there are.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 05:03 PM

Quite a surprise to the folks in the Twin Towers, or some hotels in Amman.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 05:09 PM

CarolC, you still have not addressed why ONLY Jews should be taken at their word, and never Arabs. You give excuses why the Arab leaders have, since 1948, called for Israel's destruction. Will you allow Israeli officials to make similar statements so THEY can maintain control? I doubt that...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 05:24 PM

Quite a surprise to the folks in the Twin Towers, or some hotels in Amman.

I didn't say nobody wants you dead. Just not anywhere near as many as you might think.

CarolC, you still have not addressed why ONLY Jews should be taken at their word, and never Arabs.

Believe me... I never said that. But I have been told that many times here in the Mudcat by many people who say Arabs should never be believed. If we are going to agree to believe what Arabs say, I can produce reams of testimony and other historical references from Arabs to support what I am saying. And there are several quotes from Arab leaders in the material about and from Prime Minister Sharett.

Will you allow Israeli officials to make similar statements so THEY can maintain control?

I don't understand this question.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 08:16 PM

"It's not a bad thing to find out that there aren't anywhere near as many people who want you dead as you think there are."

Carol .... come on now. That statement is absolutely absurd. Why don't you carry an Israeli passport, stick it to you forehead and take a hitchikin' trip through Syria, Saudi, even Egypt ... just see how far you can get.

Not being difficult and no animosity here Carol, but I can't let that statement go by.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 08:26 PM

That was me at 8:16.

gotta get a double post in.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 08:52 PM

Carol .... come on now. That statement is absolutely absurd. Why don't you carry an Israeli passport, stick it to you forehead and take a hitchikin' trip through Syria, Saudi, even Egypt ... just see how far you can get.

I can understand what you are saying, Six. But what I am saying is that if Israel stops doing the things that are causing the kind of ill will that you are talking about in the Middle East (and if the US would do this as well), and if both countries would treat the people of the region, and especially the Palestinians justly, that ill will is going to dissipate over time. This is the only real solution to the problems in the Middle East. Escalation is not a real option for the long-term survival of any of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 09:32 PM

I agree but just don't blame the Israelis, but more so blame the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and every other country that has been mucking about for their own greed about over there. Playing both sides (Arabs and Israelis) for their own agendas.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 10:19 PM

I agree but just don't blame the Israelis, but more so blame the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and every other country that has been mucking about for their own greed about over there. Playing both sides (Arabs and Israelis) for their own agendas.

This won't work. If Israel doesn't take responsibility for its role in helping to create the situation as it is now, it's not going to change its tactics. As a citizen of the US, I take responsibility for whatever part of the problems that my tax dollars have helped to create. You're right that the US, Britain, France, and Russia have been playing people against each other. But so has Israel. And all of these countries have been using people like you and me to help them accomplish their agendas, including Israel. It's time for us to tell them we don't want them to do it any more. It's time for all of us to tell all of them to stop. They are making us all complicit.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 11:14 PM

Gee CarolC, how many Israelis cut off someone's head recently?

You are almost the complete Nazi.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 11:23 PM

Sorry Carol ... can't agree with you. Israel is a country fighting for it's life ... somewhat overreacting, sure but can you blame them .... Jews have been kicked around for centuries ... but they endure, and they endure extremely well .. they succeed, through all the pogroms, antisemitism, and almost complete annhilition but they endure ... it can't be denied there is jealously for their success through it all ... their success is paramount in philosophy, in the arts, in politics, in academia, in writing, in agriculture, in industrialization, in humanity, in medicine, in mercantilism. Israel is undeniably their home, every jew's home. The same sentiments can be said about the indeginous people of North America. They fought and were defeated. Israel will not be defeated. . I'll probably take a beating on this, but I'm taking a stand for what I believe in.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: bobad
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 11:41 PM

" if Israel stops doing the things that are causing the kind of ill will that you are talking about "

Do you mean it should just let itself be smashed to pieces bit by bit by suicide bombers and rocket attacks and not try to defend itself by cutting off the head of the snake before it strikes.

" If Israel doesn't take responsibility for its role in helping to create the situation as it is now"

That smacks of blaming the victim to me.

I'm with sIx all the way on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 11:44 PM

Sorry Carol ... can't agree with you. Israel is a country fighting for it's life

No it isn't. That is a fabrication created by a few power hungry people who have been using the very valid feelings of victimization that Jews all over the world feel because of prior experiences as a lever to manipulate them into doing things that are harmful for not only the Jews themselves, but also harmful for all of humanity.

... somewhat overreacting, sure but can you blame them .... Jews have been kicked around for centuries

Yes, I can understand this. But if Jews are wedded to their victimization, they will never break free of it. And the government of Israel is cynically using this in ways that are not good for anyone.

... but they endure, and they endure extremely well .. they succeed, through all the pogroms, antisemitism, and almost complete annhilition but they endure... it can't be denied there is jealously for their success through it all ... their success is paramount in philosophy, in the arts, in politics, in academia, in writing, in agriculture, in industrialization, in humanity, in medicine, in mercantilism.

Jews have a lot to be proud of. But jealousy is not the reason for the problems between the Arabs and the State of Israel. And I don't think I can agree with your statement about Jews being paramount in everything in the world. That sounds like supremacism to me, and it doesn't take into account other peoples whose accomplishments are just as great.

Israel is undeniably their home, every jew's home. The same sentiments can be said about the indeginous people of North America. They fought and were defeated. Israel will not be defeated. . I'll probably take a beating on this, but I'm taking a stand for what I believe in.

Well, I certainly am not suggesting that Israel should be defeated. And you cannot find a single thing I have said that suggests that I have. I am saying that Israel must coexist with its neighbors and the rest of the world, or it's all of humanity that will ultimately be defeated.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 11:56 PM

Do you mean it should just let itself be smashed to pieces bit by bit by suicide bombers and rocket attacks and not try to defend itself by cutting off the head of the snake before it strikes.

No, that is not what I mean at all. If Israel will end the occupation of the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, and leave the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem alone and let them get on with building their country and living their lives, the problem will go away. The head of the snake is dispair. You can't cut that off. The only way to make it go away is to remedy the situation that is causing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 11:56 PM

Sorry ... still can't agree with you Carol.

as to .. "That sounds like supremacism to me, and it doesn't take into account other peoples whose accomplishments are just as great."

The point is ... for a race of people to have been kicked around as much as they have ... their accomplismnets are extreme against the odds .. sorry, but they are a very successful, and have contributed immensly to society and the world, yes almost supermacist, yes somewhat ... hard to swallow, but face it, it's true. That's the point I expect to get clobbered with.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: bobad
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 12:04 AM

sIx

If by supremacist you mean intellectual superiority there appears to be some evidence that corroborates that theory http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4032638

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: number 6
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 12:13 AM

Thanks Bobad ..... it is very interesting.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 12:20 AM

bobad - ...and this theory being put forth by the same guy who, "has suggested that homosexuality is caused by an infection."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 12:31 AM

The point is ... for a race of people to have been kicked around as much as they have ... their accomplismnets are extreme against the odds .. sorry, but they are a very successful, and have contributed immensly to society and the world, yes almost supermacist, yes somewhat ... hard to swallow, but face it, it's true. That's the point I expect to get clobbered with.

Well, I don't know any Jews who consider Jewishness to be a "race", but that aside, yes, their accomplishments are certainly great, and the odds they have faced have been monumental. But this can also be said for other peoples as well. Yes, Jews have contributed immensly to society and the world. But so have other peoples. None of us exists as a separate entity from the rest of humanity. All of our accomplishments are interconnected, and we build upon the accomplishments of others. I don't think it's constructive to try to assess greater or lesser values to different kinds of accomplishments, or even intelligence.

I know how it feels to be discriminated against. All of my life, I have been treated as less than others because I have learning disabilities. I would most certainly score less than many people in an IQ test. But I don't think that would be a true measure of my real intelligence, or my abilities. I don't see why we need to place greater or lesser values on different peoples and different kinds of intelligence. They're different, but not any more or less valid. It's what makes the world such an interesting and varied place.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: bobad
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 12:33 AM

dianavan

I was waiting for someone to try that. It is more credible to attack the science behind the theory rather than the person or his previous work. If you have an analysis of the theory to which you refer, I would be interested to read your critique of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:15 AM

Al Qaeda in Iraq Says It Attacked Hotels in Jordan

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 10:19 AM

Propaganda? It's the personal diary of one of the leading figures of the Israeli government during the early days of the State of Israel. To call it propaganda makes no sense whatever. (Carol)

Carol, you didn't get it. I have called the content of that link 'propaganda' and not the few quotes of a diary in that link. Your link doesn't go to a diary as one could assume when reading your sentence but to a A study based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary. This study is what I have called propaganda.

I suggest you go back and read it again (the whole thing, this time). (Carol)

Carol, I do not think that you have understood my two points. I have taken no position here to the political development towards the six days war and how the plans of the countries involved were. That is your point and I have posted nothing to this. I have posted a correction to an information you had wrong (how many countries was Israel in war with in the six days war?). You point to a link and I say that get it wrong in that link as well. What use is it telling me I should reread it when I say they have got it wrong. Wrong information doesn't go away with a second reading. The sequence of events in the war (who actually attacked whom first?) is also not treated in that link so rereading the content of that site is irrelevant.

Why do you react as if I was attacking your whole position when I merely correct an error of fact on your side?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 10:44 AM

Regarding the recent Al Qaeda attack in Jordan, one detail is a bit ironic in these circumstances. According to the news one of those killed is General Baschir Nafeh, the head of the Palestinian military intelligence in West Jordan. If the Israelis had wanted to kill him I bet they would have been able to do it with a bit less of 'collateral damage'.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 11:57 AM

Why do you react as if I was attacking your whole position when I merely correct an error of fact on your side?

The way you worded your post looked to me like you were saying that the other countries attacked Israel first, and even just the quotes from Moshe Sharett himself, and not Livia Rokach (who, being the daughter of Sharett's interior minister, was in a pretty good position to write a piece like that, so even calling that part propaganda seems a bit knee-jerk to me) show that Israel had been attacking the other countries, repeatedly, almost since it became a country.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 12:03 PM

"No, that is not what I mean at all. If Israel will end the occupation of the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, and leave the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem alone and let them get on with building their country and living their lives, the problem will go away. The head of the snake is dispair. You can't cut that off. The only way to make it go away is to remedy the situation that is causing it."

I think this sums it up. It is a territory dispute. And it has nothing to do with the US, Canada or the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 12:38 PM

In the Sixdays war, Israel attacked Egypt first, Jordan attacked Israel first, Iraq units attacked Israel first. As for Syria it depends if you call the shelling of Israeli villages an attack (then it would be Syria that started) or the crossing of the border (then it would be Israel).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 01:15 PM

Wolfgang, in my 03 Nov 05 - 10:35 AM post, I did not state how many countries' militaries were involved. When I say Egypt and Jordan got their asses kicked, I am specifically talking about loss of territory.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 01:54 PM

It began when Israel launched what it considered a pre-emptive attack against Egypt, following the latter's closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and the deployment of troops in the Sinai near the Israeli border, and after months of increasingly tense border incidents and diplomatic crises.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 04:08 PM

No it didn't Guest. It started in the 1950s, when the leaders of Israel first cooked up the plan for invading and occupying the West Bank, Gaza, Golan, and a few other places. Everything else was just pretext to give the operation a patina of legitimacy.


On the subject of Arabs and Jews, here's an interesting article from an Arab Jew...

http://www.al-bushra.org/israel/reflection.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 04:13 PM

The issue of Israel 'starting' the Six Days War is a concoction on the order of Holocaust denial. The Israelis taped Nasser and King Hussein coordinating their agreement. There was a parade after the war with huge papier mache figures of them highlighting the incident. Nasser demanded the UN vacate the Sinai and U Thant complied. After the war there were plenty of Egyptian tanks to be found in the desert, along with thousands of pairs of Arab shoes ('member the shoes?).
Wolfgang has correctly recalled that three other countries attacked Israel up front.
the only thing some on this thread are regretting is that Egypt didn't have a chance to launch their aircraft first.

As for the precious Arab Lands, the rules of war are that when you lose lands in warfare, well, you lose lands in warfare. These are well observed facts of life on every settled continent of the spherical Earth. Only Israel seems to be exempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 05:33 PM

Nice try with the "holocaust denial" smear, robomatic, but no cigar. In fact, the promotion of the idea that Israel was not the aggressor in the 1967 war, and the years leading up to it, is far more akin to something like "holocaust denial" than the opposite.


From Moshe Sharett's diary...

(The "reprisal" mentioned in the entry dated 27 February 1955, refers to a revenge campaign waged by Israel in response to Egypt bringing the Israeli terrorists who carried out "the Lavon Affiar" to justice)...

"Ben Zvi raised as usual some inspired questions ... such as do we have a chance to occupy the Sinai and how wonderful it would be if the Egyptians started an offensive which we could defeat and follow with an invasion of that desert. He was very disappointed when I told him that the Egyptians show no tendency to facilitate us in this occupation task through a provocative challenge on their side. (11 October 1953, 27)...

...One, that the army considers the present border with Jordan as absolutely unacceptable. Two, that the army is planning war in order to occupy the rest of Western Eretz Israel.4 (26 October 1953, 81)...

...[I met with] Roger Baldwin, the envoy of the U.S. League of Human Rights who visited Cairo.... Nasser talked to him about Israel, saying that he is not among those who want to throw Israel into the Mediterranean. He believes in coexistence with Israel and knows that negotiations will open some day. (25 January 1955, 680)...

...Cable from Eban...the U. S. is ready to sign an agreement with us whereby we shall make a commitment not to extend our borders by force, it will commit itself to come to our aid if we were attacked. (28 January 1955, 691)...

...Teddy [Kollek] brought a message from Isser's [head of the Security Services] men in Washington. The partners (the CIA) renew their suggestion for a meeting with Nasser, who does not regard the initiative of the meeting canceled because of the outcome of the trial. ... He is as willing to meet us as before and the initiative is now up to Israel. (10 February 1955, 716...)

...[In regard to Washington's proposals for a U.S.-Israel security pact] I cabled Eban that we are willing to accept a clause which obliges us not to extend our borders by force, but we should in no way commit ourselves to desist from any hostile acts because this would mean closing the door on any possibility to carry out reprisal actions. (14 February 1955, 726)...

...Ben Gurion arrived...with...the Chief of Staff, who was carrying rolled up maps. I understood at once what would be the subject of the conversation.... The Chief of Staff's proposal was to hit an Egyptian army base at the entrance to the city of Gaza.... [He] estimated that the enemy losses would be about ten...and that we have to be prepared for a few victims on our side. Ben Gurion insisted that the intention is not to kill but only to destroy buildings. If the Egyptians run away under the shock of the attack, there may be no bloodshed at all.

I approved the plan. The act of infiltration near Rehovot--30km from the border of the Gaza Strip--shocked the public and a lack of reaction is unacceptable.... In my heart I was sorry that the reprisal would be attributed [by the public] to Ben Gurion. After all, I did authorize a reprisal action...when Ben Gurion was away from the government, and it was purely by chance that the operation did not take place. I would have approved this one, too, regardless of Ben Gurion being the Minister of Defense. (27 February 1955, 799-800)...

...I am shocked. The number [of Egyptian victims (39 dead and 30 wounded, including a 7-year-old boy,)] changes not only the dimensions of the operation but its very substance; it turns it into an event liable to cause grave political and military complications and dangers.... The army spokesman, on instructions from the Minister of Defense, delivered a false version to the press: a unit of ours, after having been attacked supposedly inside our territory, returned the fire and engaged a battle which later developed as it did. Who will believe us? (1 March 1955, 804)...

...The embassies should be instructed to condemn Egypt and not to be on the defensive.... Now there will be a general impression that while we cry out over our isolation and the dangers to our security, we initiate aggression and reveal ourselves as being bloodthirsty and aspiring to perpetrate mass massacres...it is possible that this outburst will be interpreted as the result of the army and the nation's outrage against the Powers' policy of ignoring the security of their state and will prevent the continuation of that policy to the bitter end. We, at least, have to make sure that this will be the common impression.... I dictated a briefing for the embassies.... It is desirable that the press should express the following: (a) Our public opinion had been agitated by the penetration of an Egyptian gang into a densely populated area and its attack on public transportation; (b) It seems that the clash developed into a serious battle as the exchange of fire was going on; (c) Egypt always claims that it is in a state of war with Israel which it demonstrates by acts such as blockade and murders and if there is a state of war, these are the results; (d) This event cannot be detached from the general background of the feeling of isolation which prevails in Israel in view of the West's alliances with the Arab states...the most recent example of which is the Iraq-Turkey Pact whose anti-Israeli goals are particularly evident.

The last argument (d) needs very cautious handling in the sense that it should not be attributed to us and should be confided only to the most loyal [commentators] who must be warned not to appear inspired by our sources.

When I wrote these things [the instructions to the embassies] I still didn't know how crushing is the evidence that was already published, refuting our official version. The huge amounts of arms and explosives, the tactics of the attack, the blocking and mining of the roads...the precise coordination of the attack. Who would be foolish enough to believe that such a complicated operation could "develop" from a casual and sudden attack on an Israeli army unit by an Egyptian unit?...

...Yesterday . . . there was a conversation between [Salah] Gohar [the chief Egyptian representative to the mixed armistice commission] and [Joseph] Tkoa, The Egyptian representative informed [Tkoa] immediately that right after the previous meeting [which took place immediately following the Gaza attack]...Nasser told him...that he had had a personal contact with lsrael's Prime Minister and that there were good chances that things would develop in a positive way, but then came the attack on Gaza, and naturally now...it's off.

Lawson [U.S. Ambassador] thinks that the reason for the warning and the threats [from Arab countries] is fear which has seized the Arab World due to Ben Gurion's comeback. The Gaza attack is interpreted as signaling a decision on our part to attack on all fronts. The Americans, too, are afraid that it will lead to a new conflagration in the Middle East which will blow up all their plans. Therefore, they wish to obtain from us a definite commitment that similar actions will not be repeated. (12 March 1955, 837)...

...We do not need (Dayan said) a security pact with the U.S.: such a pact will only constitute an obstacle for us. We face no danger at all of an Arab advantage of force for the next 8-10 years. Even if they receive massive military aid from the West, we shall maintain our military superiority thanks to our infinitely greater capacity to assimilate new armaments. The security pact will only handcuff us and deny us the freedom of action which we need in the coming years. Reprisal actions which we couldn't carry out if we were tied to a security pact are our vital lymph...they make it possible for us to maintain a high level of tension among our population and in the army. Without these actions we would have ceased to be a combative people and without the discipline of a combative people we are lost. We have to cry out that the Negev is in danger, so that young men will go there....

...The conclusions from Dayan's words are clear: This State has no international obligations, no economic problems, the question of peace is nonexistent.... It must calculate its steps narrow-mindedly and live on its sword. It must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no--it must--invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge.... And above all--let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space. (Such a slip of the tongue: Ben Gurion himself said that it would be worth while to pay an Arab a million pounds to start a war.) (26 May 1955, 1021)"


From Moshe Dyan on Israeli tactics of inventing pretexts for waging war for the purpose of increasing the size of its territory...

"I have been meditating on the long chain of false incidents and hostilities we have invented, and on the many clashes we have provoked which cost us so much blood, and on the violations of the law by our men-all of which brought grave disasters and determined the whole course of events and contributed to the security crisis...

(These actions) are our vital lymph. They...help us maintain a high tension among our population and in the army...in order to have young men go to the Negev we have to cry out that it is in danger. (26 May 1955, 1021)"


The 1967 war was just a completion of what was begun by Israel in the 1950s.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 05:40 PM

As for the precious Arab Lands, the rules of war are that when you lose lands in warfare, well, you lose lands in warfare. These are well observed facts of life on every settled continent of the spherical Earth. Only Israel seems to be exempt.

Yes, only Israel is exempt. While the United States waged two wars with Iraq for taking Kuwait by force, it has never waged a single war against Israel for any of the lands it took by force (in violation of the Geneva Convention). Only Israel is allowed to take land by force ) in violation of the Geneva Convention).

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 06:29 PM

Carol:

You have ignored all of human history and concentrated on the one source of limited information to hand. Quoting an alleged diary from events in the 50's and using that to argue the '67 war shows you trying to walk over an intellectual suspension bridge of toilet paper. You did not directly address any arguments I've made in this thread.

Your concentration on your current set of quotes reminds me of the expression: "When all you have is a hammer, all your problems begin to look like nails."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 07:01 PM

"The 1967 war was just a completion of what was begun by Israel in the 1950s. "

Actually,

The 1967 war was just a attempted completion by Arab nations of what was begun by the Arab League in the 1940s.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 08:46 PM

You have ignored all of human history and concentrated on the one source of limited information to hand. Quoting an alleged diary from events in the 50's and using that to argue the '67 war shows you trying to walk over an intellectual suspension bridge of toilet paper. You did not directly address any arguments I've made in this thread.

No I haven't. I've provided quotes from quite a few other people as well. It's you who have chosen to ignore them. There is no shortage of quotes from many, many people who were there in the thick of what was going on at the time that are in complete agreement with Prime Minister Sharett's diary. You choose to ignore these people as well, because you think that if you ignore them collectively and only address them one by one, you can prove they don't exist. Well they do exist. I've posted several of them right here in this thread.

The 1967 war was just a attempted completion by Arab nations of what was begun by the Arab League in the 1940s.

Only tangentially. What the Arab League attempted to do in the 1940s was to preserve some of the Palestinian homeland for the Palestinians. But that wasn't why Israel provoked the 1967 war.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:15 AM

Carol, you wrote:
... I've provided quotes from quite a few other people as well. It's you who have chosen to ignore them. There is no shortage of quotes from many, many people who were there in the thick of what was going on at the time that are in complete agreement with Prime Minister Sharett's diary. You choose to ignore these people as well, because you think that if you ignore them collectively and only address them one by one, you can prove they don't exist. Well they do exist. I've posted several of them right here in this thread.

I have noticed that you have selected quotes 'in space' in other words you rip certain quotes out of any contextual references, and you have no 'other' quotes (from comparable Arab sources, diaries of leaders, broadcasts, interviews, etc.) for balance. This is comparable to what I've seen on anti-semitic websites where they quote some horrendous sounding section of the Talmud to demonstrate the perfidy of the Jews, at the same time the hatred that they espouse is implicit.

Carol you wrote:
... What the Arab League attempted to do in the 1940s was to preserve some of the Palestinian homeland for the Palestinians. But that wasn't why Israel provoked the 1967 war.

The United Nations attempted to preserve Palestinian homeland in the 1940s, but the Arabs chose to invade the part allocated to Jews. The manner of preserving Palestinian homeland in this sense was an elimination of Jews (many of whom were Palestinians themselves).

The 1967 war was provoked by Gamal Abdul Nasser and his allies in Syria, Iraq, and Jordan.
                      - - - - - - - - -
What this has to do with "Muslim" violence is debatable. The Arab-Israeli wars have been just that. . . Israel is a multi-ethnic society with Jewish, Muslim, and Christian citizens.
                      - - - - - - - - -
Perhaps, Carol, you siezed on Arab-Israeli wars as a way to beat the initiator of the thread over the head. Laudable though this may be, the thread could more properly have been redirected by concentrating on the subject, Muslim violence. You could have pointed out that the broad majority of Muslims are like the majority of everyone else...what is going on is a repeated attempt by a well financed and populated minority of people who are using terror as a tactic against their own people with a view toward igniting civil war in Iraq between Sunnis and Shiites and polarizing the Muslim majority elsewhere in the world. It is a war for control and it is an attempt to exert this control globally.

Interesting follow up topics flow from this: That Muslims are obviously being manipulated for political as well as religious reasons. If we look to the past we can see where other religions have gone through similar periods. When you can convince individuals to turn themselves into guided missiles you have a cheap and fearsome weapon. What is the appropriate response to this in the West?

Does Muslim violence generates enough fear to feed the ambitions of political rightists in the west? Does it call for political reformations in the Middle East?

I'm impressed that despite almost two weeks of destruction in the arrondissement of Paris that for the most part the violence there is seen not as Muslim violence, but as class/ economic violence. This would indicate that a lot of leaders are maintaining their ability to discriminate between motivations.

Has terror ever worked as a tactic?

Tactics matter. The violence of Al Qaeda may very well rehabilitate the European and Arab view of America in the Mid-East, and convince people that American intervention was timely.

You may argue that Muslim violence is a reaction to imposed authority from the West. But is this correct? Saddam's entire rule was a Stalinist exercise in terror. Al Qaeda is an amorphous, internet savvy to export this terror to the rest of the world.

If the battlefield is indeed the world, isn't it legitimate and even rather clever to provide a focus point in a place like Iraq?

Have a nice weekend.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:02 AM

A post of most excellent fancy Robomatic.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:12 AM

flamenco ted,

Care to provide ANY point that robomatic made that you have some evidence is not valid? I think his questions are ones that all sides should be looking at.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:21 AM

"As for the precious Arab Lands, the rules of war are that when you lose lands in warfare, well, you lose lands in warfare. These are well observed facts of life on every settled continent of the spherical Earth. Only Israel seems to be exempt.

Yes, only Israel is exempt. While the United States waged two wars with Iraq for taking Kuwait by force, it has never waged a single war against Israel for any of the lands it took by force (in violation of the Geneva Convention). Only Israel is allowed to take land by force ) in violation of the Geneva Convention)."

Ha! You know very well that the borders a nation defines as it own is predicated on its ability to defend them. Name 5 countries that have not had their borders change in the past 100 years :)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:30 AM

the last was me. I'm thinking you may be able to come up with some in South America perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:19 PM

I have noticed that you have selected quotes 'in space' in other words you rip certain quotes out of any contextual references, and you have no 'other' quotes (from comparable Arab sources, diaries of leaders, broadcasts, interviews, etc.) for balance. This is comparable to what I've seen on anti-semitic websites where they quote some horrendous sounding section of the Talmud to demonstrate the perfidy of the Jews, at the same time the hatred that they espouse is implicit.

I've seen the same thing done in all of the pages you tend to use as your evidence, only the hatred implicit in them is hatred of Arabs. But my material doesn't come from anti-Semitic websites. I get almost all of my references from Jewish websites, and from books written by Jews. The agenda I am fighting against, is the agenda of spreading hatred of Arabs (and also Muslims) that Israel and the US have for the purpose of justifying their continued agressions against these people, and in the case of Israel, its continued occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, its continued stranglehold over Gaza, and also it's continued oppression of the people in these places.

The United Nations attempted to preserve Palestinian homeland in the 1940s, but the Arabs chose to invade the part allocated to Jews. The manner of preserving Palestinian homeland in this sense was an elimination of Jews (many of whom were Palestinians themselves).

This is nonesense. Even before Israel declared its independence, it had already waged a terror campaign against Palestinian villages in the part allocated to the Arabs, and it had already cleared several of them of all of their residents, killing many, and displacing many more. All this before Israel declared its independence. After Israel declared itself a state, the vast majority of the fighting occured in lands allocated to the Palestinians. Israel invaded these lands, cleared them of their inhabitants, and destroyed hundreds of Palestinian villages, killing and/or displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians in the process. This was their plan and their agenda right from the start, as stated by several of the top Israeli planners and military people.

The 1967 war was provoked by Gamal Abdul Nasser and his allies in Syria, Iraq, and Jordan.

I have provided several quotes in this thread, and I have read quite a few that I have not included here, that Nasser did not want war. This is coming from the people at the top in Israel at the time of the war. I have also provided quotes from several people (at the top in Israel at the time of the war) who articulated Israel's agenda of provoking wars whenever the opportunity would arise, specifically for the purpose of increasing Israeli territory. And I have included quotes from these same people talking about a deliberate strategy of misleading the rest of the world about, A. Israel's intentions in the region, and B. committing acts of hostility against other countries and blaming them on those other countries. The "Lavon Affair", the facts of which are not in dispute, is one example of this. Israel blew up buildings and transportation in Egypt, specifically for the purpose of making it look like Egypt did it. Sharett references several other similar events in his diary. And then there was the unprovoked attack on the Egyptian military base in Gaza in 1955. So we have a pattern of deception, terrorism, and naked agression by Israel against its neighbors.

Even Israeli historians include the quotes I am talking about in their books on the subject. The only people who don't are the propagandists who are still supporting these strategies on the part of the Israeli government.

What this has to do with "Muslim" violence is debatable. The Arab-Israeli wars have been just that. . . Israel is a multi-ethnic society with Jewish, Muslim, and Christian citizens.

The person who started this thread drew that line in the sand when he said that all Arabs are the enemy.

You could have pointed out that the broad majority of Muslims are like the majority of everyone else

Have made this point repeatedly.

Has terror ever worked as a tactic?

It worked (and continues to work) extremely well for Israel. At least so far.

You may argue that Muslim violence is a reaction to imposed authority from the West. But is this correct? Saddam's entire rule was a Stalinist exercise in terror. Al Qaeda is an amorphous, internet savvy to export this terror to the rest of the world.

No, I would not make that argument. I would however, argue that the interference by the West, as well as the willingess on the part of countries like the US, Britain, and Israel to shed Muslim blood for political and material gain, and the breakdown in anything that could possibly resemble "normalcy" in the Middle East and elsewhere that these things have caused has created the chaos and the agony that ultimately results in people becoming radicalized, as we are seeing now. But as far as the people at the top of the radicalized Muslim groups, like Al Qaeda, I'd say their strategy is to make the imperialist ambitions of the US, Britain, and Israel so expensive for them that they will eventually either give up, or destroy themselves economically. And I think their strategy is winning.

Have a nice weekend yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:33 PM

Ha! You know very well that the borders a nation defines as it own is predicated on its ability to defend them.

Not according to the Geneva convention.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:40 PM

Did we really need more evidence as to why the Geneva conventions are useless and as I mentioned before, unenforcable? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:43 PM

Maybe not. But if we're going to violate them ourselves, I guess we should stop trying to enforce them against others.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:45 PM

I was serious about the question I posed though. Maybe the Mudcaters can come up with a list.

Greenland
Iceland
Canada

I'm not sure on those.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:51 PM

"I guess we should stop trying to enforce them against others"

If you consider that the US has the most destructive and largest wmd systems, I think you can deduce that the US does not take the GC seriously. I would agree that the US tries to limit other countries' ability to defend themselves with WMD. And I suppose this is where the sayings 'having your cake and eating it too' or 'why buy the cow when you get the milk for free' come in. It's good IF you can get it and you are the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 12:14 PM

Muslims do not as a rule react well to being called Arabs. These are two entirely different concepts. Muslim has a religious basis, and Arab is an ethnic descriptor.

In the same vein Israeli and Jew are two separate things.

As far as I can recall Israel was initially attacked by several Middle East nations and after six days of hostilities came out the winner, having in the process acquired some considerable extra territory.

This was not considered reprehensible when Western nations did the same thing.

Food for thought...........

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 01:27 PM

As far as I can recall Israel was initially attacked by several Middle East nations and after six days of hostilities came out the winner, having in the process acquired some considerable extra territory.

This is a fabrication. Israel attacked Egypt, and because of a mutual protection agreement the other countries were obliged to come to its assistance. Syria was also protecting the demilitarized zone from being completely absorbed by Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 01:50 PM

Free of historical revisionism and true to the facts as I remember them:
Six Day War

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 02:25 PM

Free of historical revisionism, my sweet arse. That website you linked to is one of the biggest propaganda arms of the Israeli government on the whole internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 02:42 PM

Oh, and your references were paragons of truth sweetness and light? Out of context, unproven allegations and alleged motivations?

You got your sources, I got mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 02:57 PM

Too many people know the truth now, robomatic. The old lies and deceptions that websites like the one you linked to use are not going to work very much longer. They depend on people being kept in a state of ignorance, and they also depend on being able to silence people who know the truth through the use of intimidation and character assasination. But those tools are no longer viable, and as more and more people become aware of the truth, websites like the one you linked to look more and more absurd in their efforts to stifle the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 03:14 PM

Two little words CarolC:
ad hominem

When ya got nothing goin' for ya by way of additional propaganda, misdirection, or fabulatin' ignore the logic and scape the goat.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 06:25 PM

I agree, robo. Ad Hominem. That's the only argument you have presented so far against any of the sources I have provided.

As to what I offer, I offer this...


Comments on "the soul of American Jewry"

An excerpt from an op-ed article by
Georgetown Law Professor Norman Birnbaum
published in the Los Angeles Times...1999

    "We claim full rights in this country by virtue of universal criteria of citizenship. For most American Jews, life here is marvelous, free of the savage persecutions of the European past and of the subtler but still painful discrimination earlier generations encountered in America. Our Israel, in other words, is here.

    That ties of solidarity and sympathy connect us to the people of Israel is clear. There is, however, a flagrant contradiction between our enjoyment of citizenship in a multi-ethnic, multireligious and multiracial democracy and the notion that solidarity with Israel requires that we accept any policy it might choose to follow toward the Arabs it rules. The matter is made worse when Jews who think differently are branded as self hating,and Gentiles who disagree are told that they are anti Semitic. Fortunately for Israel, its population debates this matter strenuously. The recent election demonstrates that an Israeli majority wishes to make a new beginning in relations with the Arabs.

    That has been lost, apparently, upon some of Israel's supporters here. The phrase about Israel living in a "bad neighborhood" speaks volumes. It applies American notions of class and racial conflict to a totally different historical situation, and reveals the ignorance of those who employ it. Egypt and Jordan are not bad neighbors to Israel; they are very good ones.

    The phrase is revealing in another way. It bespeaks a view of life as a jungle in which survival demands a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye--and the permanent oppression of the Arabs in their own homeland.

    A good many Israelis see that if conflict with the Arabs continues, they are in danger of becoming like the Germans from 1933 to 1945--accomplices if not perpetrators of permanent oppression. American Jews can pay tribute to our tradition--and to our own experience of America--by backing them. We should also reach out to fellow Americans who are Arabs and whose rights to full citizenship are as great as ours.

    The most profound threat to American Jewry comes from the unreflective belief that humans are subject, in the last analysis, only to the law of the jungle. Nothing, in that case, can protect us--here or anywhere else."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 07:13 PM

CarolC:

" Israel attacked Egypt, and because of a mutual protection agreement the other countries were obliged to come to its assistance."

That is the best laugh I have had all week.

Just one thing I would like to comment on CarolC, as someone who watched this little piece of history unfold - Wasn't it lucky for Egypt that all their allies just happened to have their armies fully mobilised and parked on Israel's borders in anticipation of such an Israeli attack - Nothing like foresight is there?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 12 Nov 05 - 11:03 PM

Something new to whine about:

There is a new (to me) conservative talk show host on the radio.

Jackie Mason. A Jew's Jew. He was raised and trained as a Rabbi but he found comedy paid more.

I like the way he stops for a breath and snorts after every 5 or 6 words as he rattles off a steady stream that borders on humerous but still serious.

Now get out you hankies.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 12:50 AM

CarolC

Very few take you seriously with your anti-Israel rants.

Old Guy, Jackie Mason is right on. Has been a voice of truth for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Buffy
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:24 AM

CC the Jew expert:

Real quick now with out Googling, What does Ashkenazim and Sephardim mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:32 AM

Hey, I'm not even an expert and I know that! A = Northern and Eastern European origins and S means southern European, North African, etc.

The real question is what is the difference between Reform Jews and Zionists?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Buffy
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 02:37 AM

Why did the Romans make the ride backwards on their Donkeys?

Why did they make them parade through the cities with crotchless drawers?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:36 AM

Iranian leader rebuts critics over Israel remarks

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 08:49 AM

Police Arrest Woman In Jordan Bombings

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:07 AM

Just one thing I would like to comment on CarolC, as someone who watched this little piece of history unfold - Wasn't it lucky for Egypt that all their allies just happened to have their armies fully mobilised and parked on Israel's borders in anticipation of such an Israeli attack - Nothing like foresight is there?

Defensive positions, Teribus. Based on Israel's prior attacks and other acts of aggression against them, they knew what Israel's plans were. Can't blame them for wanting to be ready for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 11:24 AM

Carol C responded:
Defensive positions, Teribus. Based on Israel's prior attacks and other acts of aggression against them, they knew what Israel's plans were. Can't blame them for wanting to be ready for it.

Not that I agree with your statement, Carol, 'cause I don't, but that logic is precisely the logic of George W. Bush's penetration into Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Fats Wallerstein
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 12:53 PM

The real question is what is the difference between Reform Jews and Zionists?

What the $%^& are you talking about?

Most Reform Jews are Zionists. So are most Orthodox and Conservative Jews.

Most Jews are Zionists. Some are not. Many Christians and even some Muslims are Zionists.

Reform Judaism is a theological denomination of Judaism that began in Germany in the late-19th century and became the dominant Jewish denomination in America in the 20th century.

Zionism is simply the belief that there should be a Jewish homeland in what was historically the Jewish homeland thousands of years before the first Arabs arrived and thousands of years before the founding of Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 01:09 PM

CarolC,

Your contention that the fully mobilised Arab Armies arrayed against Israel and deployed on her borders were defensive formations is laughable.

To anyone who has studied strategy and tactics there are easily discernable (i.e. marked) differences between units drawn up to defend and those massed to attack. Those differences relate to disposition and composition of units, particularly in armour and artillery. The Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian army dispositions taken up in May and June 1967 were consistant with those of an army in attack posture.

It may seem a little odd, but an Army is at its most vulnerable when it is assembling for an attack. Nothing is in the right place to repell an attack, which would explain why the Israeli forces who were massively outnumbered managed to defeat the Armies of all three nations so decisively, particulary if as you say CarolC that they already knew of Israel's plan of attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 01:10 PM

Guest troll, Buffy, quick, what are Mizrahim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 01:12 PM

Except, Teribus, what you are saying doesn't square with what many of the leaders of Israel were saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 03:08 PM

I don't agree with, or condone, Israel's current posture CarolC, but there are many better reasons for that than the six days war.

It is a fact that Israel was forced into that conflict by the actions of her neighbours.

Having read many posts on the subject of Israel from you, I have long known that supplying sources is pointless. Those which disagree with your pre-conceived viewpoint are dismissed out of hand as propaganda, while those which agree are the very epitome of honesty and truth.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 05 - 03:43 PM

Except, CarolC, what you are saying doesn't square with what many of the leaders of Arab nations were saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:08 AM

Speaking of what Arab leaders have said, this site has a speech given in 1947 by the King of Jordan to some people in the US about Arab concerns at that time in their history. You have to scroll down a bit to see it...

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_jewssansfrontieres_archive.html


It is a fact that Israel was forced into that conflict by the actions of her neighbours.

We shall see.

Having read many posts on the subject of Israel from you, I have long known that supplying sources is pointless. Those which disagree with your pre-conceived viewpoint are dismissed out of hand as propaganda, while those which agree are the very epitome of honesty and truth.

This sounds like a cop-out to me, Don. That, along with the ad hominem argument about my viewpoint being pre-conceived (which, by the way, is a lie... I didn't form the opinions I hold now until I started reading threads like this one here in the Mudcat, and started looking into things myself), don't really amount to much of an argument at all. But just for shits and giggles (and so everyone can see the other lie you told about me in your last post), why don't you count how many times I have used the word "propagana" in reference to other people's sources here in this thread? And then you can count how many times other people have used the word "propaganda" in reference to my sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 06:05 AM

Speaking of violence, here are some testimonies from IDF soldiers about the violence they witnessed being committed against Palestinians by the IDF. I love that one of the sites is named "Breaking the Silence"..

http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/index_en.asp

http://www.alternativenews.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=251


I found this one particularly chilling, because in this one, they were deliberately stetting traps for and killing children...

http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/testimony_en.asp?full=415

I want to say that I respect the hell out of these men. It takes a hell of a lot of courage to do what they are doing, and I, for one, am grateful to them for doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 06:13 AM

I should clarify my last statement. What I respect is that they are speaking up.

Here's a link to the testimonies page of the "Breaking the Silence" page. This page should make it easier to access the testimonies than the other link I provided...

http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/testimony_en.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:06 AM

CarolC:

You have changed the topic of this thread for the second time to avoid addressing facts presented against your statements.

For every testimony of Israeli misbehavior you cite without question, other testimonies of cruelty can be cited of others. The fact that Israelis are willing to criticize Israelis is a mark of a free society. Rather than take that as a sign that one country at least in the Middle East has freedom, you assume the silences of the totalitarian regimes as signs that all must be well and beat Israel over the head with the information Israelis themselves have provided.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:35 AM

Here you go CarolC, what some of the Arab leaders were saying at the time, if something like that was aimed at you, what would your evaluation of it be - interested to hear the answer to that.

"In an address to the UN General Assembly on October 10, 1960, Foreign Minister Golda Meir challenged Arab leaders to meet with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to negotiate a peace settlement. Nasser (Egypt) answered on October 15, saying that Israel was trying to deceive world opinion, and reiterating that his country would never recognize the Jewish State.

Nasser's rhetoric became increasingly bellicose; on March 8, 1965 he said:
"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."

A few months later, Nasser expressed the Arabs' goal to be:

"... the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."

On May 13, 1967 a Soviet parliamentary delegation visited Cairo and informed the Egyptian leaders that Israel had concentrated eleven to thirteen brigades along the Syrian border in preparation for an assault within a few days, with the intention of overthrowing the revolutionary Syrian Government.

This was a complete fabrication designed by the Soviets to destabilize the Middle East. Similar false information may have been given to Egypt by the Soviets as early as May 2. The build up and aggressive intent were denied by Israel.

UN Secretary General U Thant reported that UNTSO observers on the Syrian border:
"... have verified the absence of troop concentrations and absence of noteworthy military movements on both sides of the [Syrian] line."


On May 15, Israel's 19th Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.
On May 16, Nassar requested the withdrawal of the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956. Egyptian forces moved up to the UNEF lines and began to harrass the UN positions. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. This was a direct violation of the conditions under which Israel had returned control of the Sinai to Egypt after the Sinai Campaign. The UN force was supposed to safeguard Israel from Egypt again closing the Straits of Tiran or launching terrorist attacks from that quarter.

King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30, 1967, under which Jordan joined the Egyptian-Syrian military alliance of 1966 and placed its army on both sides of the Jordan river under Egyptian command. He had little choice since Jordan housed 700,000 Palestinian Arabs whose rioting in November 1966 almost brought down Hussein's government. On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria. President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq added these words to the mountain of provocation:

"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

Armed forces in the Arab countries were mobilized. Israel was confronted by an Arab force of some 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft. The armies of Kuwait, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were contributing troops and arms to the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian fronts.

Israeli forces had been on high alert during the three weeks of tension which began on May 15, 1967 when it became known that Egypt had concentrated large-scale forces in the Sinai penninsula, an alert status Israel could not maintain indefinitely. The country could not accept interdiction of its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba. Israel had no choice but preemptive action.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 03:53 AM

Just taking some time to look deeply into the matter, Robomatic. It takes time, but I've learned a lot in the last couple of days. Now, on the subject of "freedom" in Israel, maybe not so much. A lot of young men who refuse to serve in the occupied areas for reasons of conscience are being jailed rather than being allowed to do alternative service. A free country would allow alternative service for reasons of conscience.


Now, on the subject of Egypt and the 1967 war, like I said... Nasser's was a defensive posture. In the words of President Nasser himself (and we know how much people, beardedbruce in particular, give great weight to what the Arabs have to say for themselves)...

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1956Nasser-suez1.html

Speech by President Nasser of the United Arab Republic, September 15, 1956

    "In these decisive days in the history of mankind, these days in which truth struggles to have itself recognized in international chaos where powers of evil domination and imperialism have prevailed, Egypt stands firmly to preserve her sovereignty. Your country stands solidly and staunchly to preserve her dignity against imperialistic schemes of a number of nations who have uncovered their desires for domination and supremacy.

    In these days and in such circumstances Egypt has resolved to show the world that when small nations decide to preserve their sovereignty, they will do that all right and that when these small nations are fully determined to defend their rights and maintain their dignity, they will undoubtedly succeed in achieving their ends. . . .

    I am speaking in the name of every Egyptian Arab and in the name of all free countries and of all those who believe in liberty and are ready to defend it. I am speaking in the name of principles proclaimed by these countries in the Atlantic Charter. But they are now violating these principles and it has become our lot to shoulder the responsibility of reaffirming and establishing them anew. . . .

    We have tried by all possible means to cooperate with those countries which claim to assist smaller nations and which promised to collaborate with us but they demanded their fees in advance. This we refused so they started to fight with us. They said they will pay toward building the High Dam and then they withdrew their offer and cast doubts on the Egyptian economy. Are we to declaim [disclaim?] our sovereign right? Egypt insists her sovereignty must remain intact and refuses to give up any part of that sovereignty for the sake of money.

    Egypt nationalized the Egyptian Suez Canal company. When Egypt granted the concession to de Lesseps it was stated in the concession between the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian company that the company of the Suez Canal is an Egyptian company subject to Egyptian authority. Egypt nationalized this Egyptian company and declared freedom of navigation will be preserved.

    But the imperialists became angry. Britain and France said Egypt grabbed the Suez Canal as if it were part of France or Britain. The British Foreign Secretary forgot that only two years ago he signed an agreement stating the Suez Canal is an integral part of Egypt.

    Egypt declared she was ready to negotiate. But as soon as negotiations began threats and intimidations started. . . .

    Eden stated in the House of Commons there shall be no discrimination between states using the canal. We on our part reaffirm that and declare there is no discrimination between canal users. He also said Egypt shall not be allowed to succeed because that would spell success for Arab nationalism and would be against their policy, which aims at the protection of Israel.

    Today they are speaking of a new association whose main objective would be to rob Egypt of the canal and deprive her of rightful canal dues. Suggestions made by Eden in the House of Commons which have been backed by France and the United States are a clear violation of the 1888 convention, since it is impossible to have two bodies organizing navigation in the canal. . . .

    By stating that by succeeding, Abdel Nasser would weaken Britain : s stand against Arab nationalism, Eden is in fact admitting his real objective is not Abdel Nasser as such but rather to defeat Arab nationalism and crush its cause. Eden speaks and finds his own answer. A month ago he let out the cry that be was after Abdel Nasser. Today the Egyptian people are fully conscious of their sovereign rights and Arab nationalism is fully awakened to its new destiny....

    Those who attack Egypt will never leave Egypt alive. We shall fight a regular war, a total war, a guerrilla war. Those who attack Egypt will soon realize they brought disaster upon themselves. He who attacks Egypt attacks tile whole Arab world. They say in their papers the -whole thing will be over in forty-eight hours. They do not know how strong we really are.

    We believe in international law. But we will never submit. We shall show the world bow a small country can stand in the face of great powers threatening with armed might. Egypt might be a small power but she is great inasmuch as she has faith in her power and convictions. I feel quite certain every Egyptian shares the same convictions as I do and believes in everything I am stressing now.

    We shall defend our freedom and independence to the last drop of our blood. This is the stanch feeling of every Egyptian. The whole Arab nation will stand by us in our common fight against aggression and domination. Free peoples, too, people who are really free will stand by us and support us against the forces of tyranny�."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 04:08 AM

Teribus, when I take some of the juicier quotes from your copy-paste and Google them, I find that none of the sites in which I find the quotes in question document the material they present. For all we know, they could be just pulling that stuff out of thin air (and from what I have read coming from Nasser himself, I tend to think that's precisely what they did).

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 05:03 AM

For the rest of it, I'll rely on Norman Finkelstein's debunking of Michael Oren's account of what happened. Oren's account is pretty consistant with the account favored by the government of Israel. (Take note, Teribus - Finkelstein actually documents his work.) Here's some of it...


http://www.ussliberty.org/orenbook.htm

Abba Eban with Footnotes
Michael Oren's Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East
Reviewed by Norman Finkelstein

1.

Michael Oren's new study of the June 1967 war has enjoyed unusual success in the United States. Although weighed down with nearly a hundred pages of endnotes and bibliography, this "most comprehensive history ever published" (book blurb) of the June war immediately leapt to the top of best-seller lists. The New York Times lavished unstinting praise on the book ("gripping," "fascinating," "staggering," "masterly," "engrossing," "fabulous," "thrilling," "powerful") in several reviews, while Newsweek reported that even President Bush had been greatly influenced by it.

In his introduction Oren, an American-born Israeli historian, professes that his account of the June war is uncommonly detached (SDW: pp. xiv-xv). Were this the case it would surely be an achievement, especially in light of the author's own pronounced right-wing political biases. In fact, Oren basically reiterates the official Israeli version of the June war. Notwithstanding his claim that the book's conclusions are based on massive new research findings culled from multiple, recently opened state and United Nations archives, it happens that all the Arab and most of the crucial Israeli (and Soviet) archives remain closed, while the U.N. archives have been accessible for many years. The only substantially new documentation Oren brings to bear comes from U.S. archives, yet none of his cited findings significantly alter the known picture of American policy during these fateful months while, on the most controversial questions - e.g., Did the U.S. give Israel a "green light" on the eve of its preemptive strike? - no new light is shed.

It would seem that Oren's main achievement is lending a scholarly veneer to, as it were, the Abba Eban version of the June war. To reconcile the historical record with this apologetic narrative he resorts to several distinct, if overlapping, procedures:

attaching equal weight to a public statement (or memoir) and the hard evidence of an internal document contradicting it

burying in an avalanche of dubious evidence a crucial counter-finding

minimizing, misrepresenting, or suppressing a crucial piece of evidence

In the ensuing pages, I will illustrate how Oren skews the historical record of the June war by deploying these techniques.

2.

Reaching back to the Zionist movement's struggle for statehood, Oren begins with the broader historical context of the June war. This partisan account sets the book's tone. He reports that the Zionist movement reacted with "restraint" to Palestinian guerrilla attacks in the months following UN approval of the 1947 Partition Resolution (SDW: p. 4), whereas senior Haganah intelligence officers on the ground pinned responsibility for the escalation of hostilities on the "ill-conceived Jewish military actions and over-reactions" (I&R: pp. 82-3). In one place he rightly suggests that Israel stopped short of conquering the West Bank and Gaza due to fears of incorporating densely populated Arab areas and triggering a war with Great Britain. Yet, just two pages later he contrives the fanciful explanation that Israeli leaders refrained from further conquest because they "had been duped" (he never says by whom) into believing that in exchange "they could retain the territories they had conquered beyond the Partition borders, and keep the refugees out" (SDW: pp. 5, 7). He recalls Ariel Sharon's murderous assault on Qibya in October1953 (the wrong year is given), which left 69 Arab civilians dead, but then enters the apologetic caveat "inadvertently, he claimed," and sanitizes the covert Israeli firebombing of public institutions in Egypt to thwart Nasser's rapprochement with the West as "vandalizing" (SDW: p. 9). Crediting Israeli public statements and representations during arms talks with Western powers, Oren maintains that successive Israeli leaders "panicked" at Israel's imminent destruction by Arab states - even when the Western and Israel intelligence estimates he himself cites belied these alleged threats (SDW: pp. 16-17, 25-6).

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 05:16 AM

3.

A massive Israeli "reprisal" against the Jordanian village of Samu in November 1966 marked the onset of the crisis culminating in the June war. Although Jordan was taking maximum steps to curb infiltration from its border (Oren seems to doubt this on p. 31, but cf. I&R: p. 125), the IDF methodically razed Samu and killed 18 Jordanian soldiers and civilians (one Israeli soldier died). Harshly condemned in the United Nations, including by the U.S delegate, the assault poisoned inter-Arab relations as Jordan denounced Egypt for sheltering behind the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) rather than coming to its assistance. In early April 1967, long-simmering tensions between Israel and Syria reached a head in a major aerial engagement in which six Syrian planes were shot down. In Oren's account, a prime "catalyst" of the June war was Syrian belligerence culminating in this dogfight: "The calculus of Syrian attacks, whether direct or through Palestinian guerrilla groups, had become overwhelming for the Israelis" (SDW: p. 49). His extensive discussion of these direct and indirect "Syrian attacks" merits close analysis.

The armistice agreement between Israel and Syria at the close of the 1948 war called for the creation of demilitarized zones (DZs) along their common border, and an Israeli-Syrian Mixed Armistice Commission (ISMAC). Oren initially states that the DZs constituted "areas of Israel evacuated by the Syrian army" but then quickly backpedals, designating them as areas "over which Israel claimed total sovereignty" (SDW: p. 23) - a claim lacking any international sanction. In his account of the unfolding conflict punctuated by armed clashes over the DZs, Oren occasionally implies that Israel acted the belligerent (SDW: pp. 9, 14) or that both sides were equally blameworthy (SDW: pp. 23, 48-9), but overwhelmingly he portrays Israel as the innocent victim of Syrian aggression: Israel "thwarted Syria's.attempts to dominate the DZs"; "Obstructing [ISMAC's] work was Syria's demand for control over the DZs [and] Israel's rejection of that demand"; "Israel was indeed preparing the groundwork for a reprisal against Syria.At the next Syrian provocation, Israel would send armored tractors deep into the DZs, wait for them to be fired on, and then strike back. The provocation was not long in coming"; and so forth (SDW: pp. 27, 44, 45-6; cf. pp. 29, 42, 64). In fact, all independent observers on the scene recalled that - in the words of Odd Bull, chief of staff of UN forces in the Middle East - "the status quo was all the time being altered by Israel in her favor" as Arab villagers were evicted, their dwellings demolished, and "all Arab villages disappeared" in wide swaths of the DZs. Oren frequently quotes from Bull's essential memoir but omits mention of these observations, and similar ones by numerous other eyewitnesses (I&R: pp. 131-2). Indeed, he suppresses what is surely the most revealing source on the root cause of these border clashes. In an interview that created a stir in Israel after its belated publication, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan declared:

I know how at least 80 percent of all of the incidents there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's speak about 80 percent. It would go like this: we would send a tractor to plow.in the demilitarized area, and we would know ahead of time that the Syrians would start shooting. If they did not start shooting, we would inform the tractor to progress farther, until the Syrians, in the end, would get nervous and would shoot. And then we would use guns, and later, even the air force, and that is how it went..We thought.that we could change the lines of the cease-fire accords by military actions that were less than a war. That is, to seize some territory and hold it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us.

It was just such a staged provocation - an Israeli tractor plowing through a disputed field despite Syrian pleas for compromise - that sparked the April 1967 aerial battle. In Oren's reckoning, however, the battle ensued after a pattern of "Syrian provocation" (SDW: p. 46).

Denied the right to return home or compensation, Palestinian refugees organized commando raids against Israel and, after a February 1966 coup in Syria, the new "radical" regime escalated support for them. According to Oren, the "reasons for this upsurge [of Syrian support] were obscure, as inscrutable as the Syrian regime itself" (p. 42). Yet in a statement not quoted by Oren, head of Israeli military intelligence General Aharon Yariv bluntly acknowledged shortly before the June war that Syria backed these raids "because we are bent upon establishing.certain facts along the border" - i.e., in retaliation for Israel's land-grab in the DZs (I&R: p.133; Oren alludes to this explanation on pp. 24, 27). Oren's narrative is replete with references to these Syrian-backed Palestinian attacks supposedly causing Israel's "security situation" to deteriorate "from worse to insufferable": "Over the course of 1965.the armed wing of al-Fatah received Syria's support in carrying out thirty-five attacks according to Israel's reckoning, 110 by Palestinian accounts"; "Over the course of 1966, Israel recorded ninety-three border incidents - mines, shootings, sabotage - while the Syrians boasted seventy-five guerrilla attacks in the single month of February-March"; in late 1966 "eleven guerrilla attacks, most of them from Jordan, ensued in rapid succession - seven Israelis died and twelve were wounded..Then.a paramilitary police vehicle struck a mine. Three police were killed, one wounded"; "the first months of 1967 saw some 270 incidents - an increase, Israel acknowledged, of 100 percent.Al-Fatah issued a series of thirty-four communiques describing its actions in great detail and praising the courage of its martyrs"; during April-May 1967 "al-Fatah undertook no less than fourteen operations. Mines and explosives were planted not only on the Israeli side of the Syrian and Jordanian borders, but across from Lebanon as well"; and by late May "The IDF's hands were tied; al-Fatah could attack at will" (SDW: pp. 24, 27, 31, 45, 48, 63; cf. pp. 25, 28, 29, 42, 46, 53). After these cumulatively overwhelming statistics, it comes as something of a shock when Oren quotes Moshe Dayan from an October 1966 Knesset speech to the effect that "There is no major wave of infiltration today. Just because several dozen bandits from al-Fatah cross the border, Israel does not have to get caught up in a frenzy of escalation" (SDW: p. 81). In fact, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, Yehoshaphat Harkabi, concluded shortly after the war in a sober balance-sheet - not cited by Oren - that the "operational achievements" of the Palestinian commando raids "in the thirty months from [their] debut to the six-day war are not impressive by any standard" (italics in original). Emphasizing that the few successful sabotage operations and Israeli casualties in that period (a total of 14 civilians, police and soldiers) "did not endanger Israel's national life," he recalled that "to hide its mediocre results, Fatah inflated communiqu�s which bore no resemblance to what actually took place. Often, reported actions did not take place at all, and the Israeli authorities had difficulty identifying them" (I&R: p. 133). Inflating the threat posed to Israel, Oren cites as if credible these communiques bearing "no resemblance" to reality. Elsewhere Oren mockingly reports that after the June war "in a communique issued from Damascus, al-Fatah claimed credit for killing Prime Minister Levi Eshkol with a surface-to-surface missile" (SDW: p. 317). One wonders why Oren didn't credit this communique as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 05:20 AM

4.

In the first weeks of May 1967 Israel's Cabinet reportedly decided to attack Syria and numerous Israeli officials openly called for massive retaliation. Although Oren acknowledges these very real threats and even quotes Ben-Gurion and Dayan as deploring such bellicose provocations, he nonetheless reckons them as "efforts to forestall a major confrontation with Syria" (SDW: p. 53; cf. p. 51). The Soviets apparently got wind of the Israeli Cabinet decision and conveyed a warning - albeit overblown - to Nasser. Maintaining that "the reasons for the Russians' warning would remain obscure," Oren offers multiple tortured speculations in the body of the text such as "the tendency of Communist decisionmakers to be influenced by their own propaganda on imperialist and Zionist perfidy," and tucks away in a footnote the most obvious explanation: that Israel was in fact planning an attack (SDW: pp. 54-5, p, 342n52). Indeed, just a few pages after reporting the Israeli decision to strike, he dismissively refers to "yet another Soviet claim of threats against Syria" (SDW: pp. 51, 59).

Ridiculed in the Arab world for standing idly by after the Samu raid and the downing of Syrian aircraft, Nasser reacted in mid-May to the new Israeli threats by moving Egyptian troops into the Sinai and ordering the removal of UNEF from Sinai, Gaza, and Sharm-el-Shaykh overlooking the Straits of Tiran. To dampen tensions on the Sinai front, U.N. Secretary-General U Thant proposed (with the support of Israel's closest allies, the US and Canada) the repositioning of UNEF on the Israeli side of the border. Oren defends Israel's peremptory rejection of U Thant's initiative on the grounds that "incorporating contingents from countries hardly sympathetic to Israel, UNEF would be less likely to stop aggression than to limit Israel's response" (SDW: p. 72). Oren doesn't offer a jot of evidence to support this allegation of UNEF's partisanship (there isn't any), but acknowledges earlier on that "the mere presence of UNEF had sufficed to deter warfare during periods of intense Arab-Israeli friction, to keep infiltrators from exiting Gaza and ensure free passage through the Straits of Tiran" (SDW: p. 67). In addition, he repeatedly suggests that Nasser's decision to remove UNEF (as well as U Thant's acquiescence in it) put the Egyptian leader in a position to "threaten" peace (SDW: pp. 67ff). It's hard to understand, however, why stationing UNEF on the Egyptian side of the border preserved peace while stationing it on the Israeli side wouldn't have or, put otherwise, why UNEF would deter Egyptian aggression on the Egyptian side but not on the Israeli side. Oren also rapidly disposes of U Thant's stopgap proposal enthusiastically supported by Nasser (although Oren never mentions this) but firmly rejected by Israel to reactivate the Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission (EIMAC) (SDW: p. 74).

Following the removal of UNEF from Sharm-el-Shaykh, Nasser declared the Straits of Tiran closed to Israeli vessels (and foreign vessels carrying "strategic" cargo) bound for the Israeli port city of Eilat. Although acknowledging that "few Israeli-flag vessels in fact traversed the Straits," Oren designates them a "lifeline of the Jewish state" and Eilat a "thriving port" (SDW: pp. 81, 83). In fact, only five percent of Israel's trade passed through Eilat, and oil, which was the only significant commodity possibly affected by the blockade, could have been re-routed (if circuitously) through Haifa. Oren reports extensively on the "frightful" news that Egypt had mined the Straits and otherwise forcibly implemented the blockade, only to note later in passing that actually "the waterway remained mine-free" (SDW: pp. 84, 90, 95; cf. p. 166). Indeed, he makes no mention that just a few days after Nasser announced the blockade, vessels using the Straits apparently weren't any longer even being searched (I&R: p. 139).

Oren maintains that Israel had won "international recognition of its right to act in self-defense if the Straits were ever blockaded" and, even more emphatically, that the U.S. had "pledged" to "regard any Egyptian attempt to revive the Tiran blockade as an act of war to which Israel could respond in self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter" (SDW: pp. 81, 12). Yet the actual documentary record shows that Israel obtained from the U.S. and other maritime states support only for its right of "free and innocent" passage in the Straits; that the U.S. called for "any recurrence of hostilities or any violation by any party" to be referred back to the U.N.; and that even U.S. officials and legal scholars, not to mention U.N. secretaries-general Hammarskjold and U Thant, stressed that this was a "complicated" jurisdictional dispute warranting mediation (there's a passing reference by Oren on p. 141 to the "murky legal waters of Tiran"). It would seem that Oren conflates Israel's declared policy - "Interference, by armed force, with ships of Israel flag exercising free and innocent passage in the Gulf of Aqaba and through the Straits of Tiran will be regarded by Israel as an attack entitling it to exercise its inherent right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and to take all such measures as are necessary." - with that of the U.S. and the international community.

Reaching Cairo just after the blockade was announced, U Thant elicited a "very significant" (his words) assent from Nasser to a new diplomatic initiative: the appointment of a special UN representative to mediate the crisis, and a two-week moratorium on all belligerent acts in the Straits. Israel peremptorily rejected both of U Thant's proposals. Its dismissal of the moratorium proposal rates only a scant mention in Oren's account (he never bothers to mention Egypt's acceptance and Israel's rejection of a special mediator), while Nasser's repeatedly expressed willingness to submit the Straits dispute to the World Court (for Israel inconceivable) is dispatched in a single, negatively charged phrase (SDW: pp. 126, 144; I&R, p. 129 and sources cited).

Alongside U Thant, the U.S. also tried its hand at mediation in late May and early June. In what Oren rightly describes as "precisely the opening the White House sought," Nasser agreed to send his vice-president to Washington to explore a diplomatic settlement (SDW: p. 145). Just two days before the Egyptian's scheduled arrival, however, Israel attacked. Recalling that the U.S. was "shocked.and angry as hell," Secretary of State Dean Rusk speculated that "We might not have succeeded in getting Egypt to reopen the straits, but it was a real possibility" (I&R: p 129; SDW: p. 196). Even Middle East Record, a semi-official Israeli compilation, observed after the June war that "a number of facts seem to indicate Abdel Nasser's belief in the possibility of terminating.the conflict through diplomacy" - pointing in particular to his "suggestion" that the World Court arbitrate the Straits dispute, his "vagueness" on the blockade's enforcement, and his "willingness" to revive EIMAC (I&R: pp. 129-30). One would never guess from reading Oren that such a "real possibility" existed for "terminating.the conflict through diplomacy," if only because the crucial facts enumerated in this mainstream Israeli compilation enter just barely or not at all in his uniquely comprehensive and impartial history of the June war.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 05:22 AM

5.

A major thrust of Oren's account suggests that Israel launched its preemptive strike in the face of an imminent and overwhelming Arab attack. Basing himself on a few self-serving postwar Egyptian memoirs, Oren gives over many pages to "Operation Dawn," a preemptive strike allegedly planned for near the end of May by Nasser's powerful defense minister, `Amer, and said to be abruptly aborted by Nasser. Yet, even mainstream American and Israeli historians crediting Operation Dawn typically consign it to a footnote or a phrase, whereas Oren, citing the same Egyptian memoirs, turns this ephemeral and inconsequential alleged episode into a centerpiece of his history, thereby magnifying the threat Egypt posed. Fabricating a mammoth speculative edifice on an already flimsy evidentiary foundation, Oren professes to divine Nasser's subtle calculations for supporting Operation Dawn (SDW: pp. 95, 120), even after acknowledging that it is unclear whether "Nasser even knew about the plan" (SDW: 92). Oren further observes that the "Egyptian first strike" posed a "potentially greater threat" to Jordan than an Israeli attack because an unsuccessful Egyptian offensive would be blamed on Jordan, undermining Hashemite rule, while a successful Egyptian offensive might "continue onward to Amman." "The predicament, as defined by royal confidant Zayd al-Rifai," Oren continues, "was mind-boggling: `Even if Jordan did not participate in a war.it would be blamed for the loss of the war and our turn would be next'" (SDW: p. 128; the ellipsis is Oren's). Turning to the source Oren cites, we read that King Hussein feared an Israeli attack in the event of a regional war "no matter what Jordan did." To document Jordan's worry, the source quotes al-Rifai: "Even if Jordan did not participate directly in a war that was started by Israel it would not only be destroyed by the Arab world and even blamed for the loss of the war but our turn would be next" (my italics). It would seem that the "predicament" posed by an "Egyptian first strike" to Jordan wouldn't have been quite so "mind-boggling" if Oren hadn't excised the phrase "that was started by Israel."

At one point in his chapter on the "countdown" to the June war Oren implies that Nasser had resolved not to attack on the eve of Israel's preemptive strike (SDW: p. 158). This acknowledgment easily gets lost, however, amid a barrage of alleged contrary indications. For example, he solemnly quotes the 4 June Israeli Cabinet decision to "launch a military strike aimed at.preventing the impending assault by the United Arab Command" and, citing the UNEF commander that Egyptian troops stood poised for an "offensive" as well as the renewed hopes of `Amer "to launch an air and ground offensive in the Negev," he closes the chapter by invoking Eshkol's plea on 5 June that "all Israel strove for was an end to the immediate threat" (SDW: pp. 158, 167, 160, 169; cf. p. 99). In fact, there almost certainly wasn't an impending Egyptian assault. "The Egyptian buildup in Sinai lacked a clear offensive plan," Avraham Sela, a colleague of Oren's at the Shalem Center, reports, "and Nasser's defensive instructions explicitly assumed an Israeli first strike." Oren doesn't adduce any evidence refuting this standard view. Even Menachem Begin, a member of the Israeli cabinet in June 1967, publicly admitted: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." Oren omits any mention of Begin's remarkable testimony.

Citing mostly public statements and tendentious memoirs, Oren suggests that Israel's security was rapidly deteriorating and, on the eve of the preemptive strike, Arab armies posed an "existential threat" (his phrase): "It is now a question of our national survival, of to be or not to be" and "The noose is closing around our necks" (Yitzhak Rabin, IDF chief of staff), "Eshkol now understood that time was not on Israel's side.," "The news in the interim was frightful. Egypt's 4th division had completed its deployment in Sinai.," "[T]he general staff determined that `every day is a gamble with Israel's survival,'" "Should Egypt attack first, `Israel has had it'" (Avraham Harman, Israel's ambassador to Washington), "[Israel's] one chance for winning this war is in taking the initiative and fighting according to our own designs..God help us though if they hit us first" (Dayan), "`This is Egypt's greatest hour,'.the combined Arab armies could push Israel back to the UN partition lines, or further" (Aharon Yariv, chief of military intelligence), and so forth (SDW: pp. 153, 86, 87, 90, 97, 147, 149, 150-1; cf. pp. 100, 106, 156, 157, 164, 168, 210).

Yet, these avowals are flatly contradicted by what intelligence agencies and officials were privately reporting: Israel's security situation was in fact steadily improving and it would win a quick and easy victory regardless of which side initiated hostilities. Indeed, Oren cites portions of this confident internal record in the very same passages that he uncritically reports the panicky pretenses. U.S. intelligence predicted that "the IDF would win a war in two weeks even if attacked on three fronts simultaneously - one week if Israel shot first," and, according to Oren, U.S. and Israeli intelligence estimates "agreed entirely." The U.S. ambassador to Israel reported back to Washington that "[the Israelis] feel they can finish Nasser off." Labor Minister Yigal Allon expressed to the Cabinet "total faith in the IDF's ability to beat the Egyptians," Chief of the Central Front, Uzi Narkiss, dismissed the Arab forces as a "soap bubble - one pin will burst them," and Divisional Commander Ariel Sharon declared that "The army is ready as never before to repel an Egyptian attack.to wipe out the Egyptian army." Mossad chief Meir Amit assured Eshkol that "If [Nasser] strikes first, he's finished" and he also told U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara that "the war would be over in two days." In this regard it also bears notice that Oren cites the premonition of Quartermaster General Mattityahu Peled that "the Egyptian threat had to be eliminated at once if Israel were to survive" but not Peled's subsequent admission that this posture had been a "bluff," and he quotes statements by IDF chief of operations Ezer Weizman that "We must strike now and swiftly.we must deal the enemy a serious blow, for if we won't other forces will soon join him," and "All the signs indicate that the Egyptians are ready to strike. We have no option but to attack at once," but not Weizman's later acknowledgment that actually "there was no threat of destruction" and the Egyptians would have "suffered a complete defeat" even if they "attacked first." (SDW: pp. 110, 139, 146, 147, 122, 133-4, 151, 87, 99; cf. pp. 104, 152, 159, 165, 172) Far from panicking on the eve of the June war, the "IDF under Rabin" was - in the words of Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld - "at the peak of its preparedness," "confident in its power" and "spoiling for a fight and willing to go to considerable lengths to provoke it."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 05:23 AM

6.

Because he portrays Israel as reacting to an "existential threat" in June 1967, Oren devotes relatively little space to its political motives for attacking. He briefly recalls that, like France during the Algerian war, Israel was "at war with Arab nationalism," and that Ben-Gurion's "nightmare" from the early 1950s onward was that Nasser might emerge as "another Ataturk" uniting the Arab world (SDW: p. 10). He also points up (but without probing its meaning) Israel's fear of losing its "deterrence power" (SDW: pp. 79, 81, 87-9, 123). In effect, Israel conceived any independent, modernizing movement in the Arab world as potentially undercutting its regional dominance and accordingly threatening its existence. The emergence of Nasser - and Nasserism - incarnated this challenge of "Arab nationalism" to Israel's "deterrence power." To meet this threat Israel sought to cut Nasser down in 1956, but failed owing to US opposition. In June 1967 a new opportunity arose: "Our objective is to give Nasser a knockout punch," Rabin declared on the eve of the war. "That, I believe, will change the entire order of the Middle East" (SDW: p. 151). With U.S. officials finally blessing this goal at the end of May and early June, the last obstacle to administering the "knockout punch" was removed (I&R: pp. 142-3).

Oren maintains that Israel's sole objective in the June war was "eliminating the Egyptian thrust and destroying Nasser's army." The conquests of the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza, West Bank and Golan Heights weren't "planned or even contemplated." In formulations strikingly reminiscent of Benny Morris's account of the origins of the Palestinian refugee problem ("born of war, not by design"), Oren avows that the Israeli offensives had been "determined less by design than by expediency" and by "the vagaries and momentum of war, far more than by rational decision making." In fact, just as Morris's formulation apologetically distorted the dynamics of the 1948 expulsions, so Oren's formulations apologetically distort the dynamics of the 1967 conquests. (SDW: pp. 311-12, 259-60; cf. p. 291)

Unsurprisingly, many external circumstances shaped the course of Israel's offensives: Arab resistance (or the lack thereof), international public opinion, U.N. diplomacy, Soviet threats and American responses, and so on. There also wasn't a tactical or strategic consensus among Israelis on exactly how to proceed with the offensives. For example, despite pressures, Dayan temporarily held off conquering the West Bank and Golan Heights apparently because, attaching top priority to the Egyptian Sinai, he dreaded a multi-front war (SDW: pp.187, 190-1, 195, 232, 253, 260-2, 276, 279). Finally, Israel required pretexts - however flimsy - to launch the offensives: on the Egyptian front it alleged that Nasser's belligerence justified a preemptive strike, while on the Jordanian and Syrian fronts it pointed to armed hostilities. Oren dramatically reenacts the Jordanian actions - "Two batteries of the American-made 155-mm `Long Tom' guns went into action, one zeroing in on the suburbs of Tel Aviv.The Jordanians gradually escalated the fighting,.introducing 3-inch mortars and 106-mm recoilless rifles.Arab Legion howitzers launched the first of 6,000 shells on Jewish Jerusalem" (SDW: pp. 184-7) - whereas in van Creveld's rather more sober balance-sheet Hussein responded to Israel's preemptive strike against Egypt with "two symbolic thrusts," and a "few" artillery shells and air attacks (against Israeli airfields) because "he had no choice but to do something, all the while hoping to avoid serious retaliation." And, for all his purple prose depicting a "massive artillery barrage" here and a "Syrian thrust" there, Oren seems to concede that Syrian hostilities were largely symbolic (to ward off the accusation that "Syria was willing to fight to the last Egyptian"), and that Israel desperately sought the "right pretext" to attack Syria (SDW: pp. 229-31, 260, 262, 276, 278, 291).

Although a plurality of circumstantial factors plainly came into play during Israel's offensives, it's plainly untrue that these offensives weren't "planned or even contemplated." Rather the contrary; with external constraints temporarily in abeyance, internal differences provisionally resolved and just barely credible pretexts in hand, Israel implemented - albeit hesitantly and in piecemeal fashion - long-incubating plans to conquer the Sinai, Gaza, West Bank and Golan Heights. Ironically, Oren himself copiously documents that Israeli elites had contemplated and meticulously prepared for these offensives over many years. He reports that on the southern front "contingency plans" had been developed after conquering the Sinai in 1956 "for moving tanks over desert wastes that were widely believed insurmountable"; on the eastern front "the dream of completing the War of Independence and freeing the Land of Israel" had "guided" the "military planning" of "all" Israeli commanders, and "a drawer full of plans" had been developed to "knock out Jordanian artillery concentrations on the West Bank and lay siege to East Jerusalem"; and that on the northern front an "array of contingency plans for dealing with Syria" had been developed "from a limited assault on the Golan ridge.to.conquering the entire Heights," and "to conquer[ing] the enemy's capital within eighty hours" (SDW: pp. 211, 155, 154, 302; cf. p. 284). Even as Oren claims that Israel never "even contemplated" anything beyond neutralizing the Egyptian military threat, he reports that in the weeks leading up to the June war (or before hostilities actually broke out on the Jordanian and Syrian fronts), different IDF commanders expected to "conquer Gaza"; "strike Egypt, and then we'll fight Syria and Jordan as well"; "advanc[e] into Sinai and.to the Jordan headwaters in the north and the Latrun corridor leading to Jerusalem"; "advance westward to al-`Arish and, time permitting, beyond in the direction of the Canal"; "take care of the Syrians"; "eliminate the Egyptian army and.seize the initiative on other fronts as well"; "get to the Canal and to Sharm al-Sheikh"; "eliminat[e] the Jordanian air force even without provocation"; and "take Jenin" in the West Bank. With his eye riveted on conquering "all of the Sinai Peninsula," Dayan declared in early June, according to Oren, that "Our success.will be judged not on the number of Egyptian tanks we destroy.but on the size of the territory we'll seize" (SDW: pp. 81, 87, 90, 91, 122, 133, 155, 187, 208, 153; cf. 88, 152).

Oren uncritically quotes Yigal Allon's avowal that "Israel sought no territorial gain" (SDW: p. 122). Yet, he ignores Allon's seminal article written just before the June war analyzing Israel's prospects in the event of a preemptive strike: "In case of a new war, we must avoid the historic mistake of the War of Independence and, later, the Sinai Campaign. We must not cease fighting until we achieve.the territorial fulfillment of the Land of Israel." Oren reports that just after the June war Allon "led" the Cabinet ministers urging retention of the occupied territories (SDW: p. 314). It seems he didn't exactly undergo - as Oren's account suggests - an overnight conversion. In fact, the planning for and anticipations of the June offensives reflected Israel's long-standing territorial desiderata. From just after the first Arab-Israel war, many Israeli leaders lamented not conquering the West Bank and Gaza, and accordingly envisaged as part of the 1956 "Sinai campaign" annexing them, as well as the Egyptian Sinai. In many respects, 1967 was simply a replay of 1956 - but, crucially, with the U.S. now on board. Oren himself reports that Weizman reputedly claimed "the right to Hebron and Nablus and all of Jerusalem"; that Chief of Central Command Uzi Narkiss "regretted Israel's inability to seize the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1948" and saw the June war as an "opportunity to rectify Israel's failure in 1948, a miraculous second chance," declaring at a postwar briefing that "Central Command fulfilled its natural aspirations and established Israel's borders on the Jordan"; that "shortly before the outbreak of hostilities" Rabin exhorted troops on the Jordanian front to "complete what we were unable to finish" in 1948, and "many" officers "shared that sentiment"; and that already on the third day of the war Israel contemplated retaining the West Bank, Gaza and the Sinai (SDW: pp. 135, 155, 192, 257, 191, 253-5). Oren also quotes uncritically Eshkol's claim that "Of course, we don't want a centimeter of Syrian territory." Yet he himself repeatedly notes that Eshkol "went a little crazy" coveting the Jordanian headwaters in the Golan (SDW: pp. 122, 228-9, 261; cf. p. 23, 280), while Moshe Dayan - in a postwar interview not quoted by Oren - stated with "absolute certainty" that the main impetus behind Israel's seizure of the Golan was not Syrian shelling but "good land for agriculture..lust for that ground."

According to Oren, Israel's territorial conquests during the June war "came about largely through chance": they just happened (SDW: p. 312). To judge by the historical record, however, they were just waiting to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 05:25 AM

7.

Oren's account of events attendant on the June war frequently descends to vulgar propaganda. Deeming the Israeli combined air and naval assault on the U.S.S. Liberty, in which 34 U.S. Navy men were killed and 171 wounded, an "accident" and an "incident [of] faulty identifications," Oren rehashes official Israeli tales and embellishes on them with his own whoppers. He avers that Israeli reconnaissance pilots flying just overhead on a cloudless morning missed noticing the Liberty's five-by-eight-foot American flag fluttering in the wind because they "were not looking for the Liberty, but rather for Egyptian submarines"; that "the IDF could have easily sunk the Liberty," although with the IDF's extended air attack using missiles, cannon and napalm, followed by a torpedo attack followed by sustained fire on the crippled vessel that left 2/3 of the crew dead or wounded, the miracle is that the Liberty managed, just barely, to stay afloat; and that Israeli ships, after torpedoing the Liberty, "ceased firing the instant the mistake was realized and offered to assist the ship," although surviving members of the crew uniformly testify that the Israeli ships fired from close range after the torpedo explosion and after stopping near the fantail, where the Liberty's name and hull number appeared in large letters (a new oversized American flag had also been unfurled), finally firing on the life rafts in the water, and then left the area for more than an hour before returning to offer assistance (SDW: pp. 264, 271).

Oren claims that the IDF, unable to handle the throngs of Egyptian prisoners, dispatched them toward the Canal and was at pains not to harm them, and "no evidence was found" that Israel executed Egyptian POWs (SDW: pp. 259, 270-1). He is apparently unaware of the national debate that erupted in Israel a few years ago after the publication of unimpeachable eyewitness testimonies of Israeli soldiers as well as the testimony of an Israeli military historian that the IDF executed scores of Egyptian POWs during the June war. Oren also claims that only a "few" of the Palestinians who fled during the June war sought repatriation after it ended (SDW: 306), whereas a conservative Israeli scholarly source reports that fully 120,000 of these Palestinian refugees (half the total number) applied to return but only 21,000 were allowed to do so. Finally, in his survey of developments since the June war, Oren recalls that in the post-Oslo period "Palestinian terrorists killed dozens of Israeli civilians" (SDW: p. 313), but neglects to mention that Israeli forces killed a far greater number of Palestinians and that the "vast majority" of these killings were "unlawful" (Amnesty International).

***

Whenever Israel faces a public relations crisis in the U.S. - i.e., a jot of the reality of its brutal policies manages to break free of ideological controls - a new propaganda initiative is launched to lift the spirits and close the ranks of the Zionist faithful. After Israel's bloody invasion of Lebanon in June 1982, the Zionist book of the month was Joan Peters's From Time Immemorial. Soon after the Palestinians entered into revolt in September 2000 and Israel unleashed a new round of violent repression, From Time Immemorial - although definitively shown to be a hoax - was reissued and soared to the top of the Amazon list, soon followed by Oren's book (Amazon frequently featured them together). While certainly a much more sophisticated enterprise, Six Days of War serves the same political agenda as From Time Immemorial. In the introduction Oren states as his goal that the June war "never be seen the same way again." In fact he simply repeats the same old, tired apologetics. Like From Time Immemorial, its real purpose is to reclaim the lost world of Zionist heroism and innocence. With so much water under the bridge, however, except among true believers (admittedly not a small number) it's unlikely to succeed.

Norman G. Finkelstein
November 2002

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:00 AM

One last thing. robomatic, you are trying to make excuses for a government that allows its soldiers to set traps for and kill children for no reason other than because they want to, by saying that Israelis are free to criticize other Israelis, so that means it's a free country.

Pardon me if I'm not impressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Buffy
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:37 AM

CC: Nice try

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:21 AM

When I say Egypt and Jordan got their asses kicked, I am specifically talking about loss of territory. (Carol)

Syria doesn't like to be omitted from that list.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:34 PM

I am aware of Syria's losses, Wolfgang, but "asses kicked" implies something bigger than Syria's loss as compared to the losses of Egypt and Jordan. You are trying to argue very specifically about the definitions of US English slang. That's a fruitless exercise.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:54 PM

And Guest troll, Buffy, why is it that whenever people talk about the different sub-groups of Jews in Israel, they only mention the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim, but they almost never mention the Mizrahim? Perhaps they would prefer to forget they exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 02:16 PM

From The Australian:
Militants kill Thai villagers

November 17, 2005
NARATHIWAT, Thailand: Nine villagers from the same family were gunned down in their sleep yesterday by suspected Islamic militants in southern Thailand, as attacks escalated in the Muslim-majority region.

An unknown number of militants used grenades and automatic weapons to attack three homes in Ra Ngae district's Bo-Ngo village at 1.30am, killing all of those in one of the houses, including an infant, witnesses said. The massacre brings to 18 the number of people killed during the past week.

"There are nine villagers shot dead and another nine wounded," said Pracha Tearat, governor of Narathiwat province where the attack occurred, adding that the wounded had been taken to hospital and were out of danger.

Mr Pracha said the victims were targeted because they co-operated with the Government in its bid to quell an Islamic insurgency in southern Thailand that has been raging for more than 22 months.

"It's the really brutal work of militants. They kill everyone if they learn that those people take sides with the Government," he said.

The area where the attack took place is known as a hotbed of extremism. After the attack, about 50 villagers sealed off the area.

By noon, as many as 400 police and troops had gathered at a school about 1km from Bo-Ngo, while about 2000 villagers blocked the entrance to the village.

"As of now, we cannot investigate who the gunmen are but I think it was set up by the militants to put the blame on the Government and prevent villagers from co-operating," Supreme Commander General Ruengroj Mahasaranond said in Bangkok.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:09 PM

I was speaking about the loss of territory list. I doubt Syria would insist on being on the got their asses kicked list.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:22 PM

Wolfgang, I am aware that Syria lost territory. The term "got their asses kicked" can refer to either the action or the result of the action. I used it to refer to the result of the action. In Syria's case, I wouldn't use the phrase "got their asses kicked" to refer to the amount of territory they lost, in comparison to what Jordan and Egypt lost. So I still wouldn't use that term in reference to Syria. You can disagree with my use of the term if you want to, but that is what I meant by it. If I were to try to come up with a euphemism for what happened to Syria, I would probably say that they were robbed.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 05:13 PM

Carol:

I'm amazed that you think one writer's debunking of another writer constitutes an acceptable reply to the points that have already been brought out on this thread. From your pearl string of entries that are nothing but quotations I conclude that the 'debunking' is bunk. It is at least as slanted as it claims the original material to be.

Quoting a political screed from Gamal Abdel Nasser in the fifties has little to do with the '67 war.

This train of accusations and counter accusations is outside the topic of this thread. If you are unwilling to start your own thread on "who started the 1967 Arab-Israeli war" I am not willing to further your smoke-screening effort against this thread. As I wrote earlier you should address the thread topic on its own merits or lack thereof, and save your attacks on Israel and the Israelis for your own thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:13 PM

I'm amazed that you think one writer's debunking of another writer constitutes an acceptable reply to the points that have already been brought out on this thread.

I can't imagine why, robomatic. The points he debunks are the same ones that I have been refuting here in this thread. He does a far better job of presenting the facts than I am able to do. And the beauty part is, as often as not, he uses documetation in Oren's book as his evidence.

From your pearl string of entries that are nothing but quotations I conclude that the 'debunking' is bunk. It is at least as slanted as it claims the original material to be.

I take that to mean you have not read it. But either way, your response is an ad hominem argument. However, since that's the only kind of response you ever give to my posts on this subject, I'm not at all surprised.

Quoting a political screed from Gamal Abdel Nasser in the fifties has little to do with the '67 war.

I am not just addressing the 1967 war. I am defending my position that the person who started this thread is wrong when he says that all Arabs are the enemy. Nasser's screed? Can't you do any better than make snide, ad hominem attacks? Sounds like you hate Arabs, too. Nasser's speech shows the consistancy of the defensive posture of the Arab countries in question. Together with the speech from King Hussein and the material presented by Mr. Finkelstein, it shows the continuity of the attitudes of the Arabs in the region from the very beginning until the present day. Again, you are attempting to ignore the whole so that you can deny the parts. It won't work.

This train of accusations and counter accusations is outside the topic of this thread. If you are unwilling to start your own thread on "who started the 1967 Arab-Israeli war" I am not willing to further your smoke-screening effort against this thread. As I wrote earlier you should address the thread topic on its own merits or lack thereof, and save your attacks on Israel and the Israelis for your own thread.

Who died and made you God? As I said before, the person who started this thread made the thread about Arabs when he declared all Arabs to be the enemy. I am saying that all Arabs are not the enemy, and I am providing the documentation that has been requested by others here in this thread to defend my position. You don't get to decide what this thread is about and what it's not about. And you don't get to decide whether it is permissable for anyone to defend a group of people who have been unjustly attacked here in this thread.

I don't have any desire to start a thread for the purpose of attacking anyone (unlike the person who started this thread). I am only interested in defending people who are being unjustly attacked by others. That's all. If you don't like that, too bad. And it is you who is engaging in the smoke-screening effort. Or maybe white-wash would be a better term. Actually, I think you are doing both. Your last post contained nothing of substance, and consists intirely of diversionary tactics and ad hominem attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:35 PM

CarolC:

Okay, so it's pretty clear your motivation was not so much in addressing the topic as in opposing the initiator of the thread. I think that is borne out by the character of your response, which was not contributive to the thread but diversionary in that you have all but accused certain people, myself included as being anti-Arab, merely because we disagreed with your revisionist history based on selected quotes of selected sources.

Had you been more creative in your original approach, and less prone to a (perfectly understandable) antagonism to the original poster, you could have steered this thread to a more enlightened perspective by distinguishing between Arab-Israeli wars and the actual topic:

Muslim violence

As you are well aware, not all Muslims are Arabs, so it is warping the thread to go on and on about Arabs. And as you are well aware, there is a lot of Muslim on Muslim violence.

As for your image of Nasser the enlightened and defensive, are you aware of Nasser the user of poison gas attacks?:

1963-1967 (Egypt, Yemen)
Egypt employs chemical weapons in attacks against royalist forces in the Yemen civil war. Reports indicate that Egypt uses mustard gas, phosgene, and tear gas in the attacks. Egypt uses Soviet-built AOKh-25 aerial bombs to deliver phosgene, and Soviet-built KHAB-200 R5 aerial bombs as well as artillery shells abandoned by British forces after World War I to deliver mustard gas. Some reports also suggest that Egypt uses a nerve agent.

I think that Israel was probably well aware of Egyptian fighting tactics when she made the decisions requisite to preserve her life and her people.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 11:26 PM

Nope. Wrong again. My posts have nothing whatever to do with the person himself. My posts are entirely about what he said. I respond in exactly the same way no matter who makes those kinds of broad, sweeping, WRONG, and prejudiced statements about any group of people. And when I disagreed, people requested that I support my stance. I did, and now you are criticizing me for it. Tricky, tricky, robomatic.

And now you are pointing fingers again at Arabs about something that people you support are also guilty of. That's hypocrisy. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. But since you brought the subject of poison gas into the conversation in such a one-sided way, I guess I'll have to go find some documentation to support my assertion that you are being hypocritical. No problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 11:55 PM

I must be getting tired. Forgot to respond to this bit...

I think that Israel was probably well aware of Egyptian fighting tactics when she made the decisions requisite to preserve her life and her people.

Ok... I'll look into this one, also. But you have not provided any documentation that shows the government of Israel was concerned about this during the buildup to the war, while I have provided quite a bit of documentation showing that the Israeli military and government were not concerned about Egypt as a threat during the buildup for the war. And I have also provided quite a bit of documentation showing that the Israelis didn't think that Nasser was planning to attack first. And I have also provided documenation showing that Nasser was still working with the government of the US to try to prevent war during the days just before the war (he sent his vice president to the US for this purpose), while Israel rejected any negotiations, prefering to attack instead. And they even said why they prefered to attack (to take territory, and to weaken the other countries in the region). You really ought to read that book review from Norman Finkelstein. You would look a lot less uninformed if you did.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 06:40 AM

Last week, a Turkish woman was shot by her father after she had complained in a TV magazine about domestic violence in her family. That was the third murder of a woman within one year in Turkey after a TV appearance complaining about male violence in her family. One TV series, titled 'The voice of the woman', has been discontinued due to these murders.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 05:15 PM

Wolfgang, somebody ought to rescue that woman before she gets killed again. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 01:18 PM

CarolC:

Carol you wrote:
And now you are pointing fingers again at Arabs about something that people you support are also guilty of.

That's your specialty. You need to be more specific as I'm not aware of myself doing that, just you doing that.

Your assertions are bogus. You have provided a quotathon of Israeli leaders no doubt trying to de-emphasize the sense of peril that Israel was in in the days prior to the Six Day War. You have attacked a book about the war by quoting another book about the first book. These are indeed references, but as usual you have not related your references or your quotes to reality or valid historical analysis.

That sense of peril was real and palpable to the participants. Your assertions that Israel knew she was in no danger is honestly laughable.

Since this little back and forth between us is unrelated to the thread topic of Muslim Violence I am not going to address it in this thread any more. Kindly start a thread over Origins of the Six Day War and I'll 'join' with you there.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 08:09 PM

Your assertions are bogus.

Ad hominem

You have provided a quotathon of Israeli leaders no doubt trying to de-emphasize the sense of peril that Israel was in in the days prior to the Six Day War.

This is speculation, and not born out by the facts or the evidence. If I were to engage in what you are doing with this statement, you would call it propaganda.

You have attacked a book about the war by quoting another book about the first book.

There is nothing wrong with doing this. If the first book addresses the same points that are being debated in this thread, and if the second book effectively refutes what is asserted in the first book, it is a perfectly legitimate for me to use the information, the FACTS, the documentation, and even the arguments as they are presented in the second book to support my argments here in this thread.

These are indeed references, but as usual you have not related your references or your quotes to reality or valid historical analysis.

Ad hominem. Had you actually read the piece by Mr. Finkelstein, you would know that this statement by you is incorrect.

That sense of peril was real and palpable to the participants. Your assertions that Israel knew she was in no danger is honestly laughable.

Your assertion that it was is what is laughable. Yes, for many people in Israel, the sense of peril was real and palpable, because that served the purposes of the Israeli government. But many members of the Israeli government have said, many times, that this was a ruse that they had made up and that it was not true. And the facts on the ground bear this out. Again, if you had actually read the piece by Finklestein, you would know how ridiculous your assertions are to the contrary.

Since this little back and forth between us is unrelated to the thread topic of Muslim Violence I am not going to address it in this thread any more. Kindly start a thread over Origins of the Six Day War and I'll 'join' with you there.

As I have repeatedly said, I am not interested in conducting a separate debate on the 1967 war. My debate is about whether or not Arabs are the "enemy". Had you actually read any of my posts, you would know this already. But I don't have any problem with you extricating yourself from this discussion.


Wolfgang, I don't understand what you think will be served by only addressing domestic violence as it occurs in one part of the world, or by only one segment of society. Do you think you help women by ignoring domestic violence in other parts of the world, by other peoples, just so you can give Mulsims a black eye in this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 10:14 AM

Do you think you help women by ignoring domestic violence in other parts of the world, by other peoples, just so you can give Mulsims a black eye in this thread? (Carol)

You are making assumptions, Carol, namely that I ignore domestic violence in other parts of the world and about my motives. Both assumptions are wrong.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:42 PM

So what's the point of only discussing domestic violence among Muslims (and ignoring domestic violence among all other people) here in the Mudcat, Wolfgang? Why isolate domestic violence among Muslims for discussion here in this thread and in other threads, instead of addressing it as a global problem that exists everywhere and among all peoples and groups?

I can't think of any reason other than to encourage ill will toward Muslims.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:03 PM

Carol:

Thanks for coming back to the subject of this thread. Unfortunately for you it is called "Muslim Violence". This does not mean there is no other violence but it is open to a particular characterization of violence. You might feel that it is persecutorial, which is your right, but that doesn't mean that anyone who so asserts is a bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:51 PM

I really can't see how a concerted effort to single out one group of people for continual and repeated attacks (like this thread, for instance) can produce any result other than bigotry and prejudice, robomatic. That's the tactic employed whenever governments and other groups want to turn entire groups of people into scapegoats and objects of hate. And it's a tactic that works, as we can see from history. That's why we have to show this tactic for what it is whenever we see it being employed, like here in this thread. The very people who are trying to defend this practice as it is used against Muslims here in the Mudcat, are the first to attack its use when the group or groups to which they belong are the ones being spotlighted in this way. It's not just wrong when the other guy does it... it's wrong when you do it, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 11:37 AM

I can't think of any reason other than to encourage ill will toward Muslims. (Carol)

I think you are right there, Carol, you can't. And my experience in other threads about this theme with you is that no amount of explaining will change that.

So I'll add nothing to the only point of my last post: You have been making two wrong assumptions. Period.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:08 PM

(translated from DER SPIEGEL)

Southeast Asia's peaceful co-existence among religions is under siege, from Bangkok to Jakarta.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 09:32 PM

Nice try

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 09:14 AM

I see the radical cleric, Abu Qatada has hit the streets again today. He is out of prison and back into the community thanks to European judges.

The 51-year-old Palestinian was released from Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire by prison authorities. He has been described as Al Qaeda's spiritual leader in Europe.

The Home Secretary has described him as posing a "real threat to the UK's national security".

The cleric is fighting deportation to Jordan, where he has been convicted of terrorism charges in his absence.

Human Rights judges in Europe ruled he could not be deported to Jordan without assurances from the authorities there that evidence gained through torture was not and will not be used against him to secure a conviction.

Welcome to soft touch Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 01:35 PM

He has not been convicted of any crime, but has spent over 6 years in gaol despite that. That is why the English courts ruled he must be released.   If there is a crime let him be properly tried. No conviction that admits any evidence based on torture is proper (or reliable). If he is properly convicted then let him be punished in accordance with law. Nulla poena sine lege.

I am very happy that the UK benefits from the rule of law and that governments and police can (usually) be held to account by law. Without that they are not to be trusted.

English law has had three flirtations with abandonment of the rule of law: the court of Star Chamber; the divine right of kings, and peine forte et dure for those who refused to plead and were "mute of malice". All are correctly today reviled, as are those who would permit a secret police, like the Gestapo, to exist outside the law.

It is a shame however that this and the previous government have not got the courage or honesty to try someone who they say is a danger to the fabric of society. He may very well be that.

It is a shame that Jordan (or a front man) will not mount a private prosecution here (if there are alleged crimes it knows of that might be justiciable under English law) so that it could try to prove a case without resort to evidence obtained by torture.

The man may very well be all the evil things he is said to be - but how often do governments lie? If they are allowed to lie and our courts help them to do so we are all at risk of government oppression.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 01:46 PM

Other liberal democracies are able to deport people like that.
There are few countries in the world who treat suspects and criminals well enough to allow us to deport or extradite.
Hamza is claiming immunity from extradition to USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 02:18 PM

When he was inside Long Lartin high-security jail, Abu Qatada issued a 6,000-word statement to his followers which he had smuggled out through a vistor and had posted on jihadi websites.

In it he praised the Mujahidin and the 'martyrs of Hamas' and claims his treatment is helping to radicalise a new generation of young British Muslims.

In the statement he says: ' A new generation of the Muslim youth has been raised and especially amongst our brothers who originate from the Indian subcontinent, who were no longer mesmerised by the English authority, nor English values - rather they hate it and they know its enmity towards them, so they have become enemies towards it.'

He also boasts that prison has helped him lose more than 50lb in weight and he has been cured of diabetes and back problems.

The cleric claims that Bilal Abdullah, the NHS doctor jailed for the car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow in 2007, told him he was heavily influenced by his taped sermons.


It could only happen here in the UK !

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:30 PM

If it's true, White Man, then let him be convicted. If what you say reveals a crime.

Keith - first comes the question whether such "deportations" are lawful.    How much do you trust governments? I know I upset this one. And the last one. And the one before that. I am quite happy that the UK subscribes to the rule of law.

Secondly, there is a very interesting point. I was hoping to go to a dinner tonight to discuss it with an eminent academic but I did not feel well enough so did not.

Where, in English law, is the obligation to obey the ECHR?

The Human Rights Act confers certain rights but they yield to sufficiently clear primary legislation. In that ultimate eventuality the UK courts can merely issue a declaration of non-conformity.

The European Communities Act is not so limited, but European Court of Human Rights decisions are not made part of English law by the ECA unless they form part of European law. Until recently it was clear that they did not form part of the acquis communautaire. The vital question is whether recent treaty changes have changed that.

If they do, then pursuant to the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, an aptly worded statute could, either by express repeal or by implied repeal, reverse that effect. The recourse of other EU nations would be under the EC treaty, which does not as such save via the ECA affect UK law.

What, then, would our masters which art in Brussels do? Send a gunboat?

What would other parties to the ECHR do?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:39 PM

Here is a link to the story Richard. Hope you are feeling a bit better this evening.

Keith.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5109904/Abu-Qatada-smuggling-statements-out-of-prison.html

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:52 PM

So? What is the offence? Has anyone been tried or convicted? I didn't say I liked him, but he is as entitled to the rule of law as the rest of us and when governments can dispose of any of us without legal accountability they are dangerous times.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 07:36 PM

Richard, you know as well as I do, that guys like this play the PC UK laws like a fiddle.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 02:20 AM

What UK law has this man broken? Why is he not prosecuted for it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 03:01 AM

He is wanted for Terror crimes in Jordan.
He is being held awaiting extradition.
If he is deeply involved in an aggressive terrorist organisation he poses a threat to the people of this country

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Musket
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 04:58 AM

Oh shit. Ok Bridge, I fully agree. As someone who has been known to be outspoken myself, I take comfort in the fact that we have a judicial system that although far from perfect, is blind enough to insist on transgressions of the law as it stands before agreeing an conviction.

We should be grateful for that.

Even if scrotes like this bloke benefit from it.

At the risk of "here we go again, Mather reminding us he is an ex miner to wedge the fact into an unrelated thread..." Th*tcher once called me and my colleagues "the enemy within." When you are a citizen of a free country and your elected leader says that, it can be quite chilling. I reckon it was about then that I welcomed the blind impartial justice system.

Regarding "Muslim" violence. I was in Glasgow recently. I was shocked about all the "ginger" violence. Something should be done about these radical ginger people.

zzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 05:10 AM

Damn, all this agreement between Mither and me is getting quite alarming. Apart from the gingerist prejudice. My daughter is a ginger ninja.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 06:41 AM

The Law applies to this man as much as to anyone here in UK. If he has indeed broken the Law he should and would be prosecuted, tried, convicted and punished. On release, he is not bound to be deported to a country where he would be tortured or executed. I can see no fault in this. Even if people do 'play the Law like a fiddle', our system must stand. Wasn't it Thomas More in 'A Man For All Seasons' who said "If we cut down trees in the forest of the Law, where shall we shelter when the wind starts to blow?" Changing or ignoring our legal system could rebound on us all. I agree with Richard on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 09:17 PM

While agreeing that our laws are too soft on those who would bite the hand that currently feeds them, I must (with the most profound reluctance) concur.

If we allow these people to force us away from what we know to be right, we are hardly better than they.

Having said that, it should not be beyond the capabilities of our authorities to make his life so restricted and uncomfortable as to encourage his departure to one of the countries which support his kind.

I would suggest that MI5 have a ticket to Iran ready for his use.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 07:04 AM

Isn't it the case that, by his utterances, he has probably broken the UK's 'Incitement to Racial Hatred' law(s).

That's a question, BTW, not a statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Musket
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 07:57 AM

He quite possibly has. In which case, a prosecution and successful conviction would lead to either imprisonment, fine or community service as per the sentencing guidelines.

It wouldn't, unless I am mistaken, have much bearing on the decision as to whether Jordan can be trusted not to torture its prisoners. If we knowingly send someone to a regime where torture is used, we are complicit in that torture. By condoning it, who knows? We might even embrace it.. It is a short step between condoning behaviour of a regime and copying them. We have enough questions regarding rendition to answer as it is without going further..

This bloke is a threat, but by addressing it we lose. Every freedom measure curtailed is a victory for terrorism. The object of terrorism is to terrorise, as Lenin succinctly put it. Hence whenever you are inconvenienced at airport security, you put up with it, but you are on edge. Every time you are at a high profile public event, you are on edge. That is the victory of terrorism.

The minimum law changing and freedom curtailing is the minimum victory for terrorism. The more we curtail freedom, the higher the victory for terrorism.

Bit of a bugger really...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 08:09 AM

Ian, I wasn't suggesting that his guilt, if that's what it turned out to be, was justification for deporting him to Jordan. I was asking the question as a result of our learned friend's queries regarding what, if any, offences he has committed.

However, I do believe that our laws against racist behaviour and language should apply equally, right across the board and, if he has 'Incited racial hatred' by his behaviour and things he has said, then he should be punished in the appropriate manner, exactly the same as anyone else, of any ethnicity, origin or background, who was guilty of breaking those laws.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 08:09 AM

He isn't British, so he can say what he likes, plenty of groups will support his "freedom of speech" it is only home grown Brits that face action over expressing facts of reality in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 08:15 AM

And it was a genuine question, not a 'hiding under the bridge with a blow-torch' jobbie!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 10:12 AM

""Isn't it the case that, by his utterances, he has probably broken the UK's 'Incitement to Racial Hatred' law(s).""

I would say yes, in multiple ways on multiple occasions, though I don't suppose the penalties would be too onerous, or likely to represent a long term solution.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 10:24 AM

True enough Don, but the law should be applied even-handedly whenever, and by whoever, it's broken.

If it's right to prosecute a certain J. Terry Esq. for making racist remarks (and we're still awaiting the outcome of deliberations about whether to go ahead with that one), it must also be right to prosecute Abu Qatada.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Musket
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 11:40 AM

Just to note GUEST's post.

Everybody physically in the jurisdiction of UK law is subject to it, so a foreigner inciting hatred on UK soil can be prosecuted. Obvious exceptions would include treason I suppose, but not inciting hatred. Hatred is not a nationalistic offence, but conspiracy to encouraging lawbreaking of other natures, (riot, murder, arson..)

Backwoodsman. I wasn't saying you were suggesting his guilt. (Must be an easier way of saying that?) I agreed that is was a good question and gave my bar room barrister tuppence worth.

I feel better for saying it and I seem to come over all humanitarian. Must make up for it and sing some songs of slaughtering Johnny Foreigner at Epworth Folk Club tonight. (Plug for Eric & his leg.) I feel a Crimean ditty coming on....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 01:36 PM

Yes. He should be tried. In a court with proper rules of evidence. When he's found guilty I'll know he committed the crime (unless it's one of the plainly disgraceful verdicts like the treason verdict on Lord Haw-Haw). I'd guess it was probably a good runner, but the courts have not always agreed with me on that particular topic!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 03:16 PM

The British had internment camps in Ulster between 1971 and 1975. That took questionables off the streets. Where was the rule of law there Richard ?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 03:29 PM

Der - guest, the authority derived from Parliamentary enactment and any internee could mount a legal challenge. Can you read?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 06:01 PM

Thank you Richard. I understood it as, The internments were initially carried out under Regulations 11 and 12 of 1956 and Regulation 10 of 1957 (the Special Powers Regulations), made under the authority of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 (the Special Powers Act). The Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (the Detention of Terrorists Order) of 7 November 1972, made under the authority of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 (the Temporary Provisions Act), was used after direct rule was instituted. Thus illegal, the British Government under Prime Minister Edward Heath had to suspend the Northern Ireland Government and replace it with direct rule from Westminster as Ulster Unionists were more or less out of control against th Nationalist community.

One point to remember is, th British government were found guilty of torturing these innocent men.

The Irish Government, on behalf of the men who had been subject to the five techniques, took a case to the European Commission on Human Rights (Ireland v. United Kingdom, 1976 Y.B. Eur. Conv. on Hum. Rts. 512, 748, 788-94 (Eur. Comm'n of Hum. Rts.)). The Commission stated that it...unanimously considered the combined use of the five methods to amount to torture, on the grounds that (1) the intensity of the stress caused by techniques creating sensory deprivation "directly affects the personality physically and mentally"; and (2) "the systematic application of the techniques for the purpose of inducing a person to give information shows a clear resemblance to those methods of systematic torture which have been known over the ages...a modern system of torture falling into the same category as those systems applied in previous times as a means of obtaining information and confessions.[17][18]


The Commissions findings were appealed. In 1978 in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) trial Ireland v. the United Kingdom (Case No. 5310/71),[19] the facts were not in dispute and the judges court published the following in their judgement:

These methods, sometimes termed "disorientation" or "sensory deprivation" techniques, were not used in any cases other than the fourteen so indicated above. It emerges from the Commission's establishment of the facts that the techniques consisted of:

(a) wall-standing: forcing the detainees to remain for periods of some hours in a "stress position", described by those who underwent it as being "spreadeagled against the wall, with their fingers put high above the head against the wall, the legs spread apart and the feet back, causing them to stand on their toes with the weight of the body mainly on the fingers";
       (b) hooding: putting a black or navy coloured bag over the detainees' heads and, at least initially, keeping it there all the time except during interrogation;
       (c) subjection to noise: pending their interrogations, holding the detainees in a room where there was a continuous loud and hissing noise;
       (d) deprivation of sleep: pending their interrogations, depriving the detainees of sleep;
       (e) deprivation of food and drink: subjecting the detainees to a reduced diet during their stay at the centre and pending interrogations.

These (a to e) were the 'five techniques' referred to above. The court ruled:

    167. ... Although the five techniques, as applied in combination, undoubtedly amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, although their object was the extraction of confessions, the naming of others and/or information and although they were used systematically, they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture as so understood. ... 168. The Court concludes that recourse to the five techniques amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment, which practice was in breach of [the European Convention on Human Rights] Article 3 (art. 3).

On 8 February 1977, in proceedings before the ECHR, and in line with the findings of the Parker Report and UK Government policy, the Attorney-General of the United Kingdom stated:

    The Government of the United Kingdom have considered the question of the use of the 'five techniques' with very great care and with particular regard to Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention. They now give this unqualified undertaking, that the 'five techniques' will not in any circumstances be reintroduced as an aid to interrogation.

Richard, read a book by John McGuffin called "The Guineapigs" for more information.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 03:18 AM

"Must make up for it and sing some songs of slaughtering Johnny Foreigner at Epworth Folk Club tonight. (Plug for Eric & his leg.)"

Damn and blast! Missed that one!
I'd hoped to make your acquaintance at the recent Crooked Billet singaround/session I attended, Ian, but alas not.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 03:57 AM

So, Guest, the UK government did abide by the rule of law after legal challenge, on the basis of what you assert. Is that not so?

Your original point (assuming you are the same guest) was that internment as such was contrary to the rule of law. You do not appear to have made any progress towards showing that to be so.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 11:05 AM

Internment, non-jury trials? The precedent was set in Ireland by Eamon De Valera and Gerald Boland in January 1940.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 03 Jul 14 - 03:44 AM

Oh crumbs! My husband will be travelling in 3 weeks' time back to Ivory Coast to visit his family. He's going via Amsterdam and Paris. As his name is very Muslim, and he's black, I just hope he doesn't run into any difficulties or delays, or he'll miss his onward flights. He'll have tons of luggage too, 2x 23Kg, plus 12Kg flight bag, and they may want to rummage through the lot. Also, the French Traffic Controllers are doing their annual strike action; It'll be a miracle if he gets there at all! He has a UK passport, but that probably won't make much difference. The 'home-grown' fundamentalist terrorists have UK passports too!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Jul 14 - 03:52 AM

Oh look - a thread from Martin Gobson - gone but not regretted.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jul 14 - 04:32 AM

"Internment, non-jury trials? The precedent was set in Ireland by Eamon De Valera and Gerald Boland in January 1940."
Both commonly used by Britain in regard to Ireland - and I don't exactly believe Guantanamo is an overseas branch of Butlins.
A recent programme on interrogation methods used by Britain while detaining suspects showed that they constituted torture and were first developed in Kenya for use on Mau Mau suspects
Britain has recently payed a large sum in compensation to detainees who were castrated while under detention.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Musket
Date: 03 Jul 14 - 05:32 AM

Can I claim royalties from this person pretending to be Musket?

Or will the moderators kindly check IP addresses and remove them?

It isn't hard to remove them. You do it often enough to my genuine posts.