You should really read this - this guy is more right-wing than my Likud-voting friends.

What he says is not new. It is quite popular standpoint. I don't share it, however, I cannot dispute facts for my lack of knowlege of history. I *KNOW* Jews are NOT innocent in this conflict, but what I'm trying to convey those here that take interest is that Palestinian side claims is more about twisted lies than anything else.

I just hope they don't decide to wack off this guy just like they wanted to do Rushdie for his "Satanic Verses".

Read this as well. That thing he tells about Mufti and Muhammad's horse is also true - doublechecked.

"You see, it was Arafat's uncle who served as the grand mufti of Jerusalem in the 1920s and 1930s. It was his uncle who concluded, for the first time, that Mohammed had ascended into heaven from the site known as the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount. And it was his uncle who, in an unholy alliance with Adolf Hitler, condemned the Jews and their designs on their eternal capital city."

quote:

---

...in October 1943 a second SS division appeared in Yugoslavia, the 13th Division "Handschar". It consisted of 20,000 Bosnian Muslims, the so-called "Mujos".
The Mujos were organised along the lines of the old imperial Austrian army, with officers and even NCOs of German race, but they wore the Turkish fez with their SS runes, and in contrast with the "six godless SS divisions" of 1941, each battalion had a chaplain or Imam. While training in France, the division received the spiritual ministrations of the Mufti of Jerusalem.

The Mufti Hajji Imam had fled to Berlin after the failure of the pro-German Iraq rebellion of May 1941. A shabby fraud with an impressive record of failure, he was treated by Ribbentrop's Foreign Office as a plenipotentiary of the Arab peoples.
Himmer made the Mufti an SS Gruppenfuehrer, and in May 1943, when the Handschar division was still in the paper stage, he wanted to move him to the SS leadership main office in order that he might direct the recruiting*.

---

The SS - Alibi of a Nation 1922-1945, G Reitlinger

*Nuremburg document, Case XI, NG 3334

http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/7/0,5716,9277+1+9168,00.html

From that link,

"'Arafat was one of seven children of a well-to-do merchant whose wife was related to the anti-Zionist grand mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni (d. 1974)."

Some further probing turns up,

http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/3/0,5716,42553,00.html#Article

From that site,

"Husayni, Amin al-
b. 1897, Jerusalem, Palestine, Ottoman Empire
d. July 4, 1974, Beirut, Lebanon

also called AL-HAJJ AMIN, grand mufti of Jerusalem and Arab nationalist figure who played a major role in Arab resistance to Zionist political ambitions in Palestine.

Husayni studied in Jerusalem, Cairo, and Istanbul, and in 1910 he was commissioned in the Turkish artillery. He became a strong voice in the Arab nationalist and anti-Zionist movements. In December 1921 the British, who had accepted a mandate for Palestine after World War I, named Husayni permanent president and mufti of the newly created Supreme Muslim Council--the most authoritative religious body in the Palestinian Muslim community.

Husayni came to dominate the Palestinian Arab movement after a bitter clash with other nationalist elements, notably the Nashashabis, over personal rather than ideological differences. During most of the period of the British mandate, bickering between these groups seriously weakened the effectiveness of Arab efforts. In 1936 they achieved a measure of unity when all the Palestinian groups joined to create a permanent executive organ known as the Arab High Committee under Husayni's chairmanship. The committee demanded a cessation of Jewish immigration and a prohibition of land transfers from Arabs to Jews. A general strike developed into a rebellion against British authority. The British removed Husayni from the council presidency and declared the committee illegal in Palestine. In October 1937 he fled to Lebanon, where he reconstituted the committee under his domination. Husayni retained the allegiance of most Palestinian Arabs, using his power to punish the Nashashabis.

The rebellion forced Britain to make substantial concessions to Arab demands in 1939. The British abandoned the idea of establishing Palestine as a Jewish state, and, while Jewish immigration was to continue for another five years, it was thereafter to depend on Arab consent. Husayni, however, felt that the concessions did not go far enough, and he repudiated the new policy. This was a serious error for the Arab cause; solid Arab support for Britain might have prevented the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.

Ceasing to play an active role in Palestinian affairs, Husayni spent most of World War II (1939-45) in Germany. At the war's end he fled to Egypt."

In a faith where mindsets are so skewed that they believe killing a woman who is raped is more important than punishing the rapist, nothing is off limits.

On a related note, check these two stories that were aired last week on 60 minutes:
http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/story/0,1597,242349-412,00.shtml
http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/story/0,1597,241115-412,00.shtml

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_btl/20001011_xcbtl_myths_brmi.shtml

You should really read this - this guy is more right-wing than my Likud-voting friends.

What he says is not new. It is quite popular standpoint. I don't share it, however, I cannot dispute facts for my lack of knowlege of history. I *KNOW* Jews are NOT innocent in this conflict, but what I'm trying to convey those here that take interest is that Palestinian side claims is more about twisted lies than anything else.

I just hope they don't decide to wack off this guy just like they wanted to do Rushdie for his "Satanic Verses".

Cheers,
Scout

---

The article was quite fascinating, those historical facts (?) really surprised me. An imaginary nation with imaginary rights to land, people with an imaginary historical background and imaginary religious monuments in the city???

There is one problem with the article though-it contains facts and historical truth and therefore cannot be accepted by any Arab other than that weird journalist.

Well, it is true. After all Palestinians belong to Arab nation. They are not different from their brothers in Egypt or Syria in genetical and cultural aspects. So it is true that as a nation Palestinians are a myth. As for the origin of the word "Palestine" and "Palestines" it is true as and supported in non-Jewish scripts. About religeous monuments I'm not so sure. It depends how far back you look. The story with the horse of Muhammad that shitted near the wailing wall and now should be regarded as Muslim religeous place is rediculous. Muslims do not have a solid historical proof that Muhammad ever went to Jerusalem.

In the end it doesn't matter whose and whom, the whole Israeli-Arab thing is nothing but a frontline of the war that western civilization is fighting with Islam civilization. It's simply two incompatible mindsets fighting each other.

While the story has not been confirmed yet by archaeological evidence, it would explain an awful lot. The feud between Jacob and Esau is generally considered to be the beginnings of the feud between Jews and Arabs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mbaxter:
In a faith where mindsets are so skewed that they believe killing a woman who is raped is more important than punishing the rapist, nothing is off limits.

---

And obviously that would be what the average muslim believes. Must be just some statistical fluke that none of the (admittedly not very many) muslims I know either in real life or over the net wouldn't believe anything like that. But hey, let's not let that get in the way of a good rant against anything that's not white, christian or jewish. Now, what would you propose for a final solution to this muslim problem? Shall we deport them to Madagaskar or what?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mbaxter:
On a related note, check these two stories that were aired last week on 60 minutes:
[URL=http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/story/0,1597,242349-412,00.shtml]http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/story/0,1597,242349-412,00.shtml

---

And the point of that link would be? Why the crusade against muslims mbaxter? I'm sure you know as well as everyone that forcing daughters to marry someone other than the one they're in love with is neither common to all muslims nor exclusive to muslims; that's very common in many parts of south- and east Asian countries, whether the religion happens to be islam, hindu, buddhism, or whatever. Korea and Philippines are some of the worst places despite one being largely buddhist and the other catholic. And you don't have to go that far back even in christian or jewish history in europe to find some rather interesting ways of treating women...

Lies hold within them the seeds of their own destruction.

I've always liked that quote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jussi Saari:
And obviously that would be what the average muslim believes. Must be just some statistical fluke that none of the (admittedly not very many) muslims I know either in real life or over the net wouldn't believe anything like that. But hey, let's not let that get in the way of a good rant against anything that's not white, christian or jewish. Now, what would you propose for a final solution to this muslim problem? Shall we deport them to Madagaskar or what?

Jussi

---

I don’t believe the average Muslim would approve the killing of anybody. The man who killed his sister was a MENTALLY RETARDED person and his example should not be used in the context of our discussion.

Nevertheless, the basic fact about the Palestinians stands. Their political ideology is little more than a new breed of fervent and extreme anti-Semitism . The Palestinian anti-Semitism is supported and cultivated by their elected authorities & law enforcement in ways that remind us of the situation in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Islam as a whole is suffering from a disease called hypocrisy and many its followers are responsible for cultivating hate in the hearts of future generations of Muslims. All without any trace of remorse, all in the name of a religion whose name, when translated into English is "humbleness”

Jussi Saari, feel free to join those people as they cry crocodile tears over the injustice being done to them.

I don't think it is a muslim thing. Islam is a wonderfully tolerant religeon in its roots. It's the Middle-East/Asian "traditions" that maimed it into a driving force for the blind hatred. It's very natural thing - to call religeon, something that works on human subconciosness, to motivate this or that action. I must say Christianity had its own share of zealotness and cultivation of hatred. My friend told me that his father was approached in the train in Germany very recently and the person asked him "Why did you kill Jesus?". WTF....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Jussi,

I don't think it is a muslim thing. Islam is a wonderfully tolerant religeon in its roots.

---

I don't get it, Scout. Have you ever visited any of the terrorist sites run by Muslim Fundamentalists? For every act of injustice, cruelty or terrorism they are able to find a passage in the Koran that decribes in simple and direct language why it's ok (as long as the victim is non-muslim) to engage in that particular activity. Isn't the Koran at the very bottom of Islam's roots? I just don't get it.

AFAIK, it's not the Koran itself they are preaching from, but the saying of prophets e.t.c Plus, the language of the holy books is never direct one. It can be interpreted and taken out of context.

When I went (mid-1998) I was surprised by the amazing amount of tolerance of everybody's culture/beliefs/religions.

Its like - Its Friday, the Muslims get it off - then okay, its Saturday, its the Jews' day off and then - Sunday, the Christians have it off. Everyone just understood.

I guess I expected there to be a latent hostility - not unlike blacks in America will describe happens to them (you know, they say they go into a store and feel watched as if they're going to steal something, or if they're walking on a street minding their business they say a white woman will get surprised when they find the black guy behind them - "Sorry!"). But there was none of that.

Don't know how historically correct, but interesting none-the-less.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
It's simply two incompatible mindsets fighting each other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Zed:
The Islamic mindset is incompatible with the more progressive mindset of the "Western" nations - using the term "Western" very loosely here; there are "Westernized" nations all over the globe.

---

I wonder what you mean with "islamic mindset". The mindsets of your average muslim in say Turkey, Bosnia, Indonesia or Singapore are likely a lot closer to western or asian mindsets than saudi-arabian. Islam is a religion, and like most religions it can be interpreted in many different ways to suit any culture. It's just the incompatible ones that we keep hearing about; if muslims live peacefully among buddhists and christians in Singapore or Malaysia it's not news, but if a bunch of fundamentalists start killing and generally oppressing women and infidels in Afghanistan or blowing themselves apart in Tel Aviv or US embassies/warships/barracks, that is news. There is nothing inherently incompatible with islam and western cultures, but there is much incompatible with two peoples who are both convinced that a piece of land should be theirs, or any culture x and a fundamentalist/extremist movement y, where y may be islamic, christian, jewish, communist, fascist or nationalist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
My friend told me that his father was approached in the train in Germany very recently and the person asked him "Why did you kill Jesus?". WTF....

Cheers,
Scout

---

Just for the record, I did not kill Jesus. It was my great-uncle (who was a nut). He even left a note: "I killed Him. I did it! Sorry..."

Jussi, if what you say is true (and I'm a firm believer that it is) then it brings up an interesting question. Clearly the number of moderate, law-abiding, peace-loving Muslims in the world far exceeds the minority of fundamentalist nuts we keep seeing in the news. So if that is the case why won't the peaceful majority speak OUT against the violent minority?? I never see the more moderate Muslims express outrage or any sort of discontent at an embassy bombing or a suicide attack on civilians. If I were Muslim I would go to great lengths to distance myself from that type of ideology, in fact it would be #1 on my agenda to disassociate myself from such nuts. And yet we see after every new terrorist act (especially against Israelis) how the Islamic world either gives smug consent to what happened, or at best they fall silent and don't speak out against it.

Dr. M. Kedar: Come all to Jihad - "Hayya 'Ala al-Jihad"

Monday, October 23, 2000

--------------------

"Dear colleagues and friends,

Listening to the Palestinian media these days gives the clear impression that what the Jews of Israel are facing now is no less than a call for Jihad, a holy Islamic war. The term Jihad itself, while avoided by the Palestinian leadership, is constantly on the lips of announcers and interviewees. I know it is frightening, but it should be said clearly and loudly.

The message of the Palestinian radio - to which I constantly listen - is that the impure Jews (who - according to Islamic tradition - are "sons of pigs and monkeys" - ahfad al-qirada wa-alkhanazIr - Koran 5, 60) are threatening to perpetuate their occupation of the al-Aqsa mosque, and thus to defile the Islamic sanctuaries (tadnis almuqaddasat al-Islamiyyah). The Palestinian media negate the fact that two Jewish temples once stood on that site, since, after all, both the Old and New Testaments are forgeries of Jews and Christians (Ghyyarou wa-baddalou).

Since the Jews are those who have incurred Allah's wrath (al-maghdoub 'alayhim - see al-Jalalayn commentary, Koran 1, 7), how dare they demand the rule over their alleged "Temple Mount"??

Israeli Arab citizens have no choice but to answer the call to Jihad: At the entrance to umm al-fahm there is a big road sign showing the Dome of the Rock in chains, with the inscription "al-aqsa is in danger" (al-aqsa fi khatar).

The unification of the PA and the radical Islamist groups (Hamas and Jihad (!) ) is also a sign of the common Jihadic effort. The "help" of the Lebanese Hizballah, who kidnapped three Israeli soldiers some weeks ago, is another sign of a broad Islamic effort (jahd). What Arafat is trying to do is to widen the scope of the war: from national struggle between the Israelis and the Palestinians to religious war between the Jews and the whole Islamic world.

The reaction of the presidents of Yemen (Saleh), Lybia (Qazzafi) and Iraq (Saddam Husayn) is exactly what one could expect - readiness to participate in the Jihad. On the other hand, Egypt's president, Mubarak, who himself is constantly threatened with a domestic Jihad by his own groups of Islamic radicals, is one leader who tries to stop this Jihadic trend in order to maintain Egypt's stability. Bashar al-Asad who also does not relish the idea of Jihad ('Alawis - 1982 - Hamah - remember?) rushed to Mubarak to discuss their mutual fear of Jihad. The Russian minister of foreign affairs, is also concerned about Islamic upheaval, because of his unpleasantnesses in Chechniya and Tataristan, and so was impelled to rush to the Middle East to see what can be done.

The reality is that in these days, in full view of the whole Western world, Israel faces a real, although modern, Jihad, over the question of the future of Jerusalem. The West has to realize that if this Jihad succeeds, the next battle will be over the rest of the State of Israel (al-Diyar al-Muqaddasa) all of which is considered a Waqf (Islamic endowment), and if that battle is won, Europe and the rest of the non-Islamic world (dar al-harb, the house of war) are next.

As an aside, one might recall that Jerusalem was under the rule of King Husayn of Jordan until 1967. Why didn't HE give Jerusalem to the Palestinians as the capital of their state? It seems that they tolerated his rule over the Holy City because he was a Moslem, but the Jews? God forbid...

And another question: Why was the capital of Jund Falastin (the district of Palestine) during the first Islamic period Ramlah, 30 miles from Jerusalem?

Seeing the recent events in the context of Jihad explains what is currently happening in he Middle East between the Moslem majority and the Jewish minority and may offer a reasonable forecast for what might occur in the near future: the war over Jerusalem is only the beginning."

Dr. M. Kedar Dept. of Arabic Bar-ilan University

Why defend the indefensible?

The fact is, its the majority of the populace in these Islamic countries that are calling for blood all the time. This is not some little fringe thing. I hate to shatter the politically correct illusions some of you hold, but these terrorist groups we're always hearing about are widely liked by the common people. The moderate ones are always in a minority. And even the "moderate" Muslims are not as moderate or open-minded as even our most radical right-wingers in the US. Why do you think terrorist groups are able to operate with impunity in all these countries? They have the support of the common people. They would be easily eradicated otherwise. The truth is leaders like Asad of Syria, or Gen. Musharraff of Pakistan, are afraid of treading too much on their own terrorist groups. They would find themselves facing a massive uprising from their own people and military. It is ironic that these dictators understand better than some of you just how radical their own populations are.

Yes, there are the educated elites in these Muslim countries who are always trying to keep a lid on their own population. These elites, and their children, are the ones we meet in the USA and Europe. They are not representative of most Muslims. Not by a long shot. Ever notice how every Muslim country is called "The Islamic Republic of ... ". There's a reason for that. They take it seriously.

Some examples of the "Islamic mindset" I'm talking about:

- No doubt fearing a public backlash, last year the parliament in Jordan was unable to even pass legislation against the widespread practice of "honor killings" of women. This is where the family, usually the father or a brother, murders the daughter if she has been raped, or marries against her father's permission, or commits some other major sin against Islam. This is not confined to Jordan, by the way.

- A similiar phenomenon in Iran, Afghanistan, and other Islamic countries is the stoning to death of women who commit adultery or engage in sex before marriage. No one has ever been tried for murder over this practice. Again, this cannot happen as it would invoke a violent backlash from the public.

- Osama bin Laden, America's public enemy No. 1, is in fact a hero to most Pakistanis, according to recent poll conducted there. Admiration for bin Laden is by no means confined to Pakistan. He is even more a hero in Afghanistan, and an icon for Muslims in many other parts of the world as well. In Pakistan, for instance, the most common name given to a newborn is "Osama" in honor of him.

- In the wake of the USS Cole attack, after the US hinted they were looking at Osama bin Laden as a suspect, mullahs throughout Pakistan warned that if the US strikes at bin Laden, there will be a "bloodbath" on US citizens there. These aren't threats coming from some little fringe group, these are mainstream religious leaders widely respected in Pakistan. After the 1998 cruise missile attack, there were anti-US demonstrations throughout Pakistan and the sentiment has grown stronger since. A Western diplomat said: "There will be a massacre of foreigners, particularly Americans, if these attacks take place. The reactions to the last strikes weren't that severe, but a second strike, coupled with all the humiliation Pakistan feels in respect to America, will provoke a catastrophe."

- Iran's new government, for all the talk of it being "progressive" compared to other Islamic states, is still unwilling to lift the fatwa death sentence on Salman Rushdie (author of "The Satanic Verses"), for fear of what reaction such a move might invoke from their population and the opposition parties.

The truth is I could go on and on with examples like this which show that intolerance and radical thinking are not a fringe movement in the Islamic world, but more of a mainstream thing. But this post is already too long, and I think I made my point.

Why am I knocking Islam so much? Because I can't stand religious intolerance of any kind, and Muslims happen to the worst offenders. Christians and Jews used to be just as bad, several hundred years ago, but thankfully they progressed. Anyway we're living in the present, so we have to deal with the present, not ancient history.

None of you should fool yourselves into thinking that terrorism and jihad can be easily eliminated. They're too popular to the masses, there's a never-ending supply of Muslims eager to join the jihad. You'd have to commit genocide on a massive scale to stamp out the bin Laden's and Hezbollah's of the world, which isn't going to happen.

Maybe someday Islam will become tolerant and progressive. It only took the Christians about a thousand years to get to that point!

quote:

---

Originally posted by mbaxter:
The fact is, its the majority of the populace in these Islamic countries that are calling for blood all the time.

---

Bwhahahaha!!!! Please stop mbaxter, funny as your ridiculous claims are, you're still a pain in the butt. I guess I don't have much tolerance for bigots. Call it a character flaw.

quote:

---

This is not some little fringe thing. I hate to shatter the politically correct illusions some of you hold, but these terrorist groups we're always hearing about are widely liked by the common people.[quote][b]

That must be the reason why many of the Chechen civilians fleeing to Ingushetia often seemed to hate "those bloody arabs who act like the own Chechnya" (as one woman put it in an interview last year) almost as much as they hate Russians.

[b][quote]The moderate ones are always in a minority. And even the "moderate" Muslims are not as moderate or open-minded as even our most radical right-wingers in the US. Why do you think terrorist groups are able to operate with impunity in all these countries? They have the support of the common people.

---

In all these countries? Let's see: in Lebanon Hezbollah did indeed have the support of the common people. Given that they provided health care and education for the locals in many areas, generally treated them well, and fought against the hated IDF occupying army, that's hardly a surprise. While I don't approve all of what their methods, in the end any armed force under those circumstances is likely to be popular.
As for the others, the uneducated rural population of Afghanistan may support Taleban but in the cities they rule by fear imposed by large numbers of bearded AK-toting thugs, not by popular support. Likewise in Chechnya most reports indicate that the various guerrilla bands have managed to lose much of their popular support from the civilians. In Dagestan, when the wahhabits invaded the border areas the common people didn't support them and disliked the Russian army mainly because they weren't aggressive and effective enough and refused to give the locals guns so they could have defended themselves. That's how popular your fanatics are.

quote:

---

They would be easily eradicated otherwise. The truth is leaders like Asad of Syria, or Gen. Musharraff of Pakistan, are afraid of treading too much on their own terrorist groups. They would find themselves facing a massive uprising from their own people and military.

---

In Syria (and most other arab socialist countries) the muslims are quite moderate by large. It just happened to suit the late Hafez Al Assad's Syria just fine that a bunch of terrorists were giving trouble to Israel. King Hussein didn't like it quite so much, and put the terrorists out in an operation that killed more Palestinians than in Sabra, Shatilla and Qana combined, but the people didn't mind that as long as the terrorists were silenced.

As far as the common people are concerned, Syria, Iraq, Libya are (religion-wise) a much more open-minded and liberal societies than say Saudi-Arabia or Iran.

quote:

---

It is ironic that these dictators understand better than some of you just how radical their own populations are.

---

Since you know it soooo well, you must have extensively travelled in those areas, talked to the people, or at least you know people over there through internet, or at the very least know people who have travelled there, right? If nothing else you've at least read a couple of good books about the subject?

quote:

---

No doubt fearing a public backlash, last year the parliament in Jordan was unable to even pass legislation against the widespread practice of "honor killings" of women. This is where the family, usually the father or a brother, murders the daughter if she has been raped, or marries against her father's permission, or commits some other major sin against Islam. This is not confined to Jordan, by the way.

---

Source, please.

quote:

---

A similiar phenomenon in Iran, Afghanistan, and other Islamic countries is the stoning to death of women who commit adultery or engage in sex before marriage. No one has ever been tried for murder over this practice. Again, this cannot happen as it would invoke a violent backlash from the public.

---

You really don't know what the hell you're talking about, do you? It's done in Afghanistan and some of the Wahhabit-controlled parts of former Soviet Union. Interestingly even Iranian religious leaders condemned the Talebans' oppression of women for giving a bad name to all islamic countries...

Btw, did you know that in Vietnam (which for an Asian country is relatively liberal about women) the punishment for adultery was a small fine for men and death by trampling by elephants for women, until French law replaced the traditional laws in late 19th century? In catholic Philippines, adultery by women is a serious offense, and adultery by men is also partly the wife's fault because it shows she was incapable of satisfying his husband's needs... Indonesia and Singapore are in some ways much easier place for women, despite being partly Islamic...

quote:

---

Osama bin Laden, America's public enemy No. 1, is in fact a hero to most Pakistanis, according to recent poll conducted there. Admiration for bin Laden is by no means confined to Pakistan. He is even more a hero in Afghanistan, and an icon for Muslims in many other parts of the world as well.

---

In Afghanistan, sure, in the countryside especially. Pakistan, I'm a bit surprised but if you can produce evidence of the poll and how and where it was conducted, I'm willing to believe.

quote:

---

I think I made my point.

---

Quite so. If anyone thought that you're not an ill-informed bigot, his mind is surely changed by now.

quote:

---

Why am I knocking Islam so much? Because I can't stand religious intolerance of any kind

---

You want to fight religious intolerance?!?! Yeah, sure.

quote:

---

Maybe someday Islam will become tolerant and progressive.

---

Islam is not the problem. Problem is ill-educated, poor people who have a real or imagined grievance against another group of people and who are being fed propaganda from their leaders, which in the absence of another news source they will believe. The situation is the same whether it's the holy mission to kill jews because they're Untermenschen, or because they are infidels in Palestinian land, or because they are capitalist enemies of the working class, or to forget about the jews and create a greater east asian co-prosperity sphere to drive away the European oppressors of Asian peoples, to be replaced by an Asian oppressor.

But instead of seeing the big picture, what you're doing here is a cold war style black-and-white rhetoric where one group is responsible for all evil in the world, only it's islam and not communism this time. Well, I guess it makes some people happy to have an enemy who is the threat to peaceful life as we know it. It used to be fashionable to use Jews for that, but I guess nowadays it's them sandniggers that fit the bill better, Israel being a western ally and all. Except if you're Asian, then it's the Chinese.

You said it yourself in part of your post: the educated muslims we see in Europe are not the fanatics. Now, if the entire islamic country had education, free press, reasonabley healthy economy and flat enough income structure...

quote:

---

Disclaimer: The above does not apply to Indonesia, Turkey, and Malaysia.

---

Well, I guess this is some progress at least...

Jussi

The honour killings is indeed factual as well, he already provided a link which provided a synopsis of the story as it appeared on 60 minutes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Morrison:
Hey Jussi, I don't have the time to go through all your myriad of errors, suffice to say that while your position is more moderate than Mbaxters it is wrong on many counts. The Assoc. Press reported this week that Pakistan vowed to avenge any attack taken by the US against Osama bin Laden. The public do indeed support him in Pakistan.

---

I was quite sceptical about the widespread public support of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and the claim about honor killings in Jordan, but as you'll see from my post I didn't deny them outright since I wasn't sure. Also while killing women or throwing acid in the face for the "honor" of the family are a problem in many south asian countries, let's not stretch that into that being what *most* people do, all over except for a few and far between exceptions like mbaxter would like to have us believe.

quote:

---

There are many other errors too. For example, Hamas recieves almost 40% of its funding from north american donors. There is widespread support for terrorism from many quarters of the Islamic world.

---

I'm not surprised about Hamas receiving much of it's funding from the US, it's not like your average Lebanese or Palestinian of Afghan had a lot of money to donate...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jussi Saari:
I guess I don't have much tolerance for bigots. Call it a character flaw.

---

Curious contradiction here. I can't think of any force in the world today which is more bigoted or intolerant than Islam, except perhaps the KKK. But at the least the KKK is a fringe movement. Also, I wish you'd stop digging back into previous centuries to support your claim that Islam is no more intolerant than other faiths. We live in the present, we deal with the present.

Why don't you just come out and admit the truth - that you support the various Muslim causes and you'd like to see them win. Seems pretty obvious. Are you a Muslim yourself, by the way (be honest)?

Just for the record, I don't have some kind of religious beef with Islam. You won't hear me condemning their "false gods" or whatever and declaring mine superior. I'm an just an atheist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jussi Saari:
I was quite sceptical about the widespread public support of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan ....

---

For starters;

A Call to Arms http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/binladen000418.html

Holy Cause http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/Afghan000423_ciablowback.html

The real meat is in two articles that are unfortunately not archived by the respective websites. See if you can find them...but I will try to post bits from my copies.

"Inside Jihad U.; The Education of a Holy Warrior." The New York Times. June 25, 2000 by Jeff Goldberg

and

"Pakistani boys receive education in violent art of holy war." Washington Times August 11, 2000 by Ben Barber.

This one here does not mention OBL explicitly, but is still a good read.