[hillbilly]

Again, I have stated on this forum, more than once, that I think we are eye-ball deep in World War IV.

I have also stated in this forum, that I think World War IV has been going for much longer than since 9-11-01.

Here's a column from a Scripps Howard News Service writer about what will probably be the next major theater of World War IV, after Afghanistan and Iraq.


http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=314043&attrib_id=7374


When Someone Tells You He Wants to Kill You - Take Him Seriously

By Clifford D. May
Scripps Howard News Service
November 3, 2005

Call it Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Mein Kampf moment.

Eighty years ago, Adolf Hitler published an autobiography-cum-manifesto. Its title translates as “My Struggle.” In it, Hitler talked of his desire for revenge against France, the German nation's need to control more land, and the means by which his National Socialist Party could gain power.

It also included, of course, a clear indication of his genocidal intentions against the Jews.

Last week, Iran's president echoed those themes. He talked about his “struggle” – the word translate into both Arabic and Persian as “jihad” -- his desire for revenge against America and the West, the Islamic nation's need to control more land, and the means by which his Militant Islamist movement could gain global power.

He also included his genocidal intention to wipe Israel “off the map.”

Of course, there are differences between Hitler in 1925 and Ahmadinejad in 2005. Perhaps the biggest is this: When Hitler made his threats he was an obscure politician whom hardly anyone took seriously.

By contrast, Ahmadinejad is the president of a large and wealthy nation that operates terrorist organizations and is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons.

Had Hitler's threatening words inspired serious action then, millions of people – Jews, Gypsies, Czechoslovaks, Americans, British, Russians and others – would not have been slaughtered in the 20th Century.

If Ahmadinejad's threatening words inspire serious action now, millions of people may be spared in this century. But while President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and others responded with strong rhetoric, neither penalties nor restraints seem likely to be imposed on the Islamist Fascist regime in Tehran. Indeed, not a single European ambassador was withdrawn – not even temporarily.

In most Arab and Muslim capitals there weren't even rebukes for Ahmadinejad. The exceptions were Egypt and the Palestinian Authority which, along with Jordan, have recognized Israel. Muslim leaders who make that concession, Ahmadinejad promised, will “burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.”

While all this is news it isn't really new. I was a young reporter in Iran in 1979 when the Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile in France and took power. Back in those days, too, the ruling mullahs had the will – if not yet a way – to exterminate Israelis, though their loudest chant was always “Death to America!”

After the Holocaust, civilized people vowed “Never Again!” It has been observed that the phrase has come to mean that never again will German Nazis in the 1940s slaughter millions of Jews in Europe. Anything else is possible. Most members of the “international community” have been averted their eyes from the genocidal campaigns waged in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo and Darfur.

Testifying before a U.S. Senate committee this week, Newt Gingrich – a historian before he entered politics – said that Ahmadinejad's threat “calls to mind the reported response of a Holocaust survivor. When asked what lesson he had drawn from the experience, he answered, ‘When someone tells you he wants to kill you -- believe him.'"

Little commented on has been the section of Ahmadinejad's speech where he put his threats against Israel into broader perspective, into the context of a long war between what he sees as rival civilizations.

“We are in the process of a historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years,” he said.

"'In this historical war, the situation at the fronts has changed many times. During some periods, the Muslims were the victors and were very active, and looked forward, and the World of Arrogance was in retreat.

"'Unfortunately, in the past 300 years, the Islamic world has been in retreat vis-a-vis the World of Arrogance.”

That will change, Ahmadinejad promised. He said that when people ask him if it is really “possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?” he replies: “[Y]ou had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved.”

There is every reason to believe him and other Islamist Fascists. There is every reason, this time around, to do whatever it takes to stop them.

Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

[boofus]

:barf:islam.

If any other church behaved that way it would rightfully be called a xenophobic death cult, not a religion. But we gotta be all PC ya know.

[Kim]

I top think we are blind. I can not predict the future but I have a feeling that these people are not just going to stop and act nice. I really dread what I feel is ahead. I dread it for all the deaths that are going to take place. I just hope we win. I hope we will fight. I hope we do not wait to late. History does repeat and the dang thing is I really do not believe we will react soon enough. It is going to take another terrorist attack. We are already griping and moaning and groaning as it is now. If I lived in a major city I would move. If I had children I would teach them to shoot. I would prepare them in case there is another WW ahead. I would quit blowing money and save. Coarse I already do that. I would think and prepare myself for what might come. :scrutiny:

[shootinstudent]

islam.

If any other church behaved that way it would rightfully be called a xenophobic death cult, not a religion. But we gotta be all PC ya know.

Ironic, you calling "the Church of Islam" xenophobic.

There is no "Church of Islam." It isn't a centralized religion, and if you take a look at what the vast majority of its adherents are saying, they condemn and abhor terrorism of all types, for any reason.

Islamist radicals are the problem, not all Muslims. What amazes me is that people will make claims about the entire religion, knowing full well that they haven't taken 10 minutes of any day in their lives to investigate what the religion actually teaches, what different factions there are within the religion, and what kinds of cultural differences there are amongst its members.

Responding to broad based claims about all Muslims like the one boofus made isn't "PC", it's honest.

[c_yeager]

I think its amusing that people can write the most insane drivel imagineable but can avoid all criticism by simply prefacing it with "muslims are bad".

If you dont mind, could you share your highly thought out, and not at all amusingly insane, theory about how WWIII has already happened?

[hillbilly]

cyeager, World War III was the fifty-year long "Cold War" against the USSR that had hot flareups in Korea, and Cambodia, and Vietnam, and Africa and Cuba and South and Central America and even in parts of Europe.

If that whole experience didn't qualify as a "World War" then the term is a dusty, meaningless relic from history with no meaning anymore.

To put it into easy to understand "gun terms" if the Cold War wasn't an actual World War, then why is the FN-FAL rifle nicknamed the "Free World's Right Arm?"

Why would the world have been divided into "The Free World" and the rest, and why would the "Free World" have needed a right arm like the FN-FAL if the Cold War was not a real World War?

The Cold War was World War III.

The war of radical Islam trying to put the whole world into the ummah and under a second Caliphate is World War IV, and it's been raging for decades.

Only the US was so narcissistic and self-absorbed that it took the biggest single mass-casualty inflicted on American soil since Robert E. Lee invaded the north in 1863 to make us take any notice.


hillbilly

[Ezekiel]

If you dont mind, could you share your highly thought out, and not at all amusingly insane, theory about how WWIII has already happened?

As a guess, strikes me as the Cold War: but that is merely my belief. Wasn't that about 50 years -- with occasional armed conflict -- to halt Communist expansion throughout the globe? :confused:

[geekWithA.45]

For most of us, WWIII was shorthand for instantaneous global thermonuclear destruction.

Little did we recognize that WWIII was being fought in our very midst, both at home and abroad, and like WWI, which was called "The Great War", while actually in progress, it took a bit of distance and perspective to see the deal.

This isn't exactly a novel premise local to THR.

[Leatherneck]

“[Y]ou had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved.” Bring it on.

TC

[Werewolf]

Islamist radicals are the problem, not all Muslims.Yeah... Riiiiiight!

And not all Germans were NAZI's either yet they turned a blind eye to the death camps in their neighborhoods and happily picked up a rifle and served the regime.

It doesn't matter that the average muslim doesn't believe in terrorism. When the state says pick up a rifle and fight they will pick up a rifle and fight - just like the average Joseph Sechspack did in Germany in 1939.

[longeyes]

There is no "Church of Islam." It isn't a centralized religion, and if you take a look at what the vast majority of its adherents are saying, they condemn and abhor terrorism of all types, for any reason.


And yet...

And yet...

And yet...something there is that predisposes a surprisingly large contingent of young men of that faith to engage in barbarous behavior. Whether it's religion or culture doesn't matter, what matters is that we understand that it's happening.

I don't see the broad condemnation, backed up by decisive actions, that you do. Nor do most of us in the West. Moral silence aids and abets, or, as they like to see these days, "enables." When a culture finds a growing number of its members engaging in unacceptable behavior, it needs to do some serious soul-searching. Where are the mothers and fathers of these wild "French youths?" Maybe they should do less praying and more parenting.

[shootinstudent]

And yet...something there is that predisposes a surprisingly large contingent of young women of that faith to engage in barbarous behavior. Whether it's religion or culture doesn't matter, what matters is that we understand that it's happening.

Uh, what barbarism is that you're referring to?

Also, while we're at it...what constitutes a "large contingent" of 1.2 billion people? Do you have any idea how statistically insignificant a news article about even a hundred incidents is compared to a population that large?



I don't see the broad condemnation, backed up by decisive actions, that you do. Nor do most of us in the West.

That's because you're not looking. Very simple to show that: ask yourself when's the last time you read a Muslim daily, a religious work by a recognized Muslim authority, or anything that is the product of the Muslim world.

When a culture finds a growing number of its members engaging in unacceptable behavior, it needs to do some serious soul-searching. Where are the mothers and fathers of these wild "French youths?" Maybe they should do less praying and more parenting.

Maybe they're not praying at all, and indeed, that could be a part of the problem...the majority of religious leaders in Islam unequivocally condemn this kind of violence. The roots of modern terrorism are not and never have been about the particulars of the religion, although religious iconography has certainly come along with the movement.

The problem here is that you're commenting on a culture and world about which you know virtually zero. It'd be like someone in China commenting on American culture when he doesn't read english, has never been to America, doesn't really know any Americans, and has never really read any of the common American media in any language. Just as State News in China doesn't really give you an in depth look at what the American cultural trends are, reading CNN and drudge report isn't giong to give you anything remotely like a good understanding of the Muslim world and the issues it faces.

[Gunpacker]

It is impossible for me to think of a worse situation than to have someone willing to sacrifice his own life as a martyr in charge of nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear weapons and other nightmare scenarios is assured then IMO. The folks in Iran may be that type. We will surely win the exchange, but we won't be winners. (His teeth rolled across the floor like chicklets, but he won the fight and got the girl, so he's the winner)

[longeyes]

The problem here is that you're commenting on a culture and world about which you know virtually zero.

A. You don't know what I know about that culture. You're an expert? Are you a Muslim? I've been meaning to ask that, by the way.

B. When someone threatens or attacks me, I don't have to have their full dossier and psychiatric record in front of me to make a judgment and respond. In the end we don't care WHY this behavior is occurring--it's a matter of interest and curiosity, obviously--we care about how to subdue and eliminate it.

[shootinstudent]

A. You don't know what I know about that culture. You're an expert? Are you a Muslim? I've been meaning to ask that, by the way.

I didn't claim you did know anything about that culture. What I claimed was that it's obvious, reading your posts and seeing that you are clearly an honest man who says what he believes, that you do not know much about what is going on in the Muslim world. Making a statement like "Muslims are..." is generalizing a group of a billion people who do not share a common language, culture, history, or politics. It is as senseless as saying "Religious christians are invading the US daily to take its welfare and jobs." Yes, it's true that almost all illegal immigrants are religious christians, but are you framing the issue properly if you describe it that way?

Am I a Muslim? No. When I'm not in the US, I pretty much live with one (my special someone) and make an effort to understand her religion and her parents' culture. But that isn't really relevant, because what matters is looking into what source material there is for yourself...read some Muslim websites, look for some Muslim papers, and see how you can make contact with people who are living in these places that you would include as part of the "muslim problem." If you can do that and then honestly make a statement like "Muslims support terrorism", I'll eat every last page I've ever posted.

B. When someone threatens or attacks me, I don't have to have their full dossier and psychiatric record in front of me to make a judgment and respond. In the end we don't care WHY this behavior is occurring--it's a matter of interest and curiosity, obviously--we care about how to subdue and eliminate it.

And herein lies the source of your misunderstanding: You are admitting that you don't care why the problem is occuring, yet you're making claims as if you've investigated the causes of terrorism. How do you go about eliminating terrorism when you have no idea what its causes are, or no real idea of who specifically is involved?
The comparison to someone attacking you is not valid. You aren't focusing on the individuals who commit the attacks. You're going from literally a handful of people who have attacked your country, to the claim that all 1.2 billion people who name their religion with the same word are just like the attackers. As I pointed out above, even a cursory look into the religious and cultural issues at play will make it plain to you that such an idea is silly.

The terror groups are not even remotely religiously or culturally similar to the vast majority of Muslims; they're more like 20th century fascist gangs than they are like traditional Muslims. The more people in the west learn to distinguish, the more potential we will have for maintaining and developing alliances against terrorism. As long as we don't care what's going on in the huge array of cultures that makes up Islam, why should we expect those same people to care what's happening to the US?

[TheEgg]

Am I a Muslim? No. When I'm not in the US, I pretty much live with one (my special someone) and make an effort to understand her religion and her parents' culture.

Do you think that this 'relationship' might give you a unique insight into Islam, or perhaps does it skew your ability to make an honest assessment?

Honest question by the way, not intended to imply anything.

As I have written before, I know only a few Muslims (this is in Dallas, TX BTW) -- of the few I know, about 40% of them vocally support the Jihadists and cheer their 'victories'. The other 60% keep their mouth shut because of fear. I know no Muslims who will make public statements criticizing terrorists.

This is an extremely small sample and I am making no claims about this representing the mass of Muslims. But this is what I know from my first hand observations. I does not make me feel warm and fuzzy.

[pauli]

the really funny thing is that in some little cafe in tehran, there's a bunch of guys having the exact same conversation, but with the accusations pointed in the other direction.

[shootinstudent]

Do you think that this 'relationship' might give you a unique insight into Islam, or perhaps does it skew your ability to make an honest assessment?

Honest question by the way, not intended to imply anything.

Entirely fair question. No, I don't think it gives me a unique insight into Islam, because knowing someone who practices a faith doesn't tell you anything about the teaching...it just tells you about the personality and lifestyle of one particular adherent.

My assessment of the religion and of the politics of the Muslim world are, as far as I'm concerned, totally irrelevant to what my personal friends are like and believe. As much as they are good people, that doesn't prove the whole religion and culture are good, and just the same, the religion being good won't prove that any particular person who identifies with the religion is good. The only strong presumption I have out of my relationships with Muslims is against type-classification of Muslims as intolerant, medieval, etc.

As I have written before, I know only a few Muslims (this is in Dallas, TX BTW) -- of the few I know, about 40% of them vocally support the Jihadists and cheer their 'victories'. The other 60% keep their mouth shut because of fear. I know no Muslims who will make public statements criticizing terrorists.

It's easy to meet extremists because, like all radicals, they are eager to say fanatical things all the time. You might be surprised by what you see when they are around other Muslims...my experience with the radicals is that they're the equivalent of that annoying acquaitance who, nose-up and finger pointing, quotes the Bible every time someone mentions going for a drink after work. It is, in my experience, just as annoying for most Muslims to be around those kinds of people as it is for the rest of us.

I'm curious as to what the other 60 percent of Muslims are afraid of in Dallas...are they afraid of identifying themselves as Muslims, or of the radicals?

As for statements criticizing terrorists...I've seen it posted on this board by Marko Kloos, and elsewhere. If you limit yourself just to religious leaders, you can spend all month reading the various fatwas and other condemnations of terrorism. Even the radical groups publically condemn terrorism, because it's virtually impossible to justify it based on even the most stretched reading of the religious material available. But for the radicals, this has never been about being true to the faith...it has everything to do with totalitarianism and control, and the few who actually buy into their religious preaching are stooges.

[Cosmoline]

It's easy to meet extremists because, like all radicals, they are eager to say fanatical things all the time.

Sure, but in this case the fellow in question is the President of Iran and an open advocate of nuclear power! It's impossible to brush his comments aside as coming from some fringe group. He was elected by a groundswell of public support after spending virtually no money on his campaign.

By the same token, the leader of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad is hardly the leader of an isolated fringe group, but he still got tons of applause and little criticism from other Muslim leaders for his rantings about Jewish world conspiracies.

If rabid hatred for Jews and America isn't common in the Muslim world, where are these leaders coming from? Why aren't they being denounced and replaced internally?

[carebear]

Given the economic problems and lack of political freedoms in most modern Muslim states it is realpolitik to continue to either give lipservice to or openly go along with the "Blame the West/Jews" cry to keep your people from realizing the true cause of their misery, their repressive and oligarchic political leaders.

If it weren't for the Western bogeyman a lot of fat cat sheiks would find themselves in the Shah's shoes, perhaps with a modern form of government instead of a medieval religious satrapy in charge.

That said, the (ME in particular) Islamic world still bears a lot of pain and jealousy over getting their domination of the world turned around so soundly and suddenly by a bunch of infidel barbarians. Going from Divine Right Rulers to third-rate economic and cultural backwaters is hard on a cultural psyche.

[TheEgg]

I'm curious as to what the other 60 percent of Muslims are afraid of in Dallas...are they afraid of identifying themselves as Muslims, or of the radicals?

The later. They are afraid of extreme elements in their own community -- at least that is what they tell me.

And remember, I am making no claims about this 40 - 60 ratio being applicable to Dallas in general, or to any place else -- this is just the rough numbers among those Muslims that I know personally and thus can make some sort of factual statement about.

[shootinstudent]

It's impossible to brush his comments aside as coming from some fringe group. He was elected by a groundswell of public support after spending virtually no money on his campaign.

No it's not. If you believe that he A) Has any real power against the Ayatollah and B) Was actually elected freely, then...I've got a great deal on the brooklyn bridge for you. The Iranian government is a picture perfect example of a small but well organized gang being able to use violence to silence everyone else.


As for Mohamad, are you referring to this speech?

http://www.bernama.com/oicsummit/speechr.php?id=35&cat=BI

Here are some choice quotes:

31. With this their people and the ummah become angrier and turn against their own Governments. Every attempt at a peaceful solution is sabotaged by more indiscriminate attacks calculated to anger the enemy and prevent any peaceful settlement. But the attacks solve nothing. The Muslims simply get more oppressed.

That looks like a pretty clear condemnation of terrorism to me.

Some more:
42. We also know that not all non-Muslims are against us. Some are welldisposed towards us. Some even see our enemies as their enemies. Even among the Jews there are many who do not approve of what the Israelis are doing.

43. We must not antagonise everyone. We must win their hearts and minds. We must win them to our side not by begging for help from them but by the honourable way that we struggle to help ourselves.

Back to Israel and Palestine...a political conflict with religious overtones, but one that is fundamentally about land being taken from people without their consent, and now about land being occupied by a minority group that does not recognize any right to self determination or political participation of the majority of the people in the land they occupy. Given the history, it's not surprising that people on the other side of the Israel-Palestine debate are buying into the garbage conspiracy theories. They are simply ignoring the European and American self-interest that was involved in the 40's and 67 politics, which leads them to ridiculous claims about Jewish conspiracies.


Is this man's speech laced with Jewish conspiracy theory overtones? Yes. But is he calling for extermination and terrorism? No. If rabid hatred for Jews and America isn't common in the Muslim world, where are these leaders coming from? Why aren't they being denounced and replaced internally?

They aren't being replaced because the most radical, like those in Iran, aren't elected in the first place. Also, for the more moderate leaders like those in South East Asia, at some level, they are in fact correct that the Muslim world has gotten a raw deal from 50 years of US and European policy that did not respect any right to self determination in the Muslim world. Shah Pahlavi, Saddam Hussein, Ibn Saud, Nasser, Nawaz Sharif, and Mubarak are some of the superstars who have received US support over the years. Add to that a military occupation in Palestine/Israel that is uniformly regarded, outside of the US and Israel, as illegal, and you should not be surprised that the Arab and Central Asian world is angry and suspicious of the United States.

But even given all that...what you will not find is broad support for killing innocent people, a practice that has been condemned by nearly every religious authority in the Muslim world, Arab included.

Edited to add:

I want to be clear on my views here: Blaming Jews and vast conspiracies is unjustifed and wrong. Understanding how people manage to sell it in these parts of the world doesn't make it any less so.

[Cosmoline]

No it's not. If you believe that he A) Has any real power against the Ayatollah and B) Was actually elected freely, then...I've got a great deal on the brooklyn bridge for you. The Iranian government is a picture perfect example of a small but well organized gang being able to use violence to silence everyone else.


As for Mohamad, are you referring to this speech?

http://www.bernama.com/oicsummit/speechr.php?id=35&cat=BI



YOU ARE DEFENDING HIM!?! Good grief. Here's the excerpt that outraged the non-Muslim world:

"34. It cannot be that there is no other way. 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way. And we can only find a way if we stop to think, to assess our weaknesses and our strength, to plan, to strategise and then to counter attack. As Muslims we must seek guidance from the Al-Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet. Surely the 23 years’ struggle of the Prophet can provide us with some guidance as to what we can and should do..

You cite his general condemnation of terror tactics, but this pales in comparison to his larger call to slaughter Jews, don't you think? There cannot be any defending this man or any justification for what he has said. Though efforts to do so are exactly what I've come to expect from the apologists of radical Islam. You mention something done or said, and they will change the subject and talk about alleged Zionist crimes or point to something else the same person said denouncing terrorism. Outside the Muslim world, leaders like this would be taken out and shot. Even in places where hatred of Jews runs deep, such as the former USSR, no major politicians can get away with this sort of thing.

they are in fact correct that the Muslim world has gotten a raw deal from 50 years of US and European policy that did not respect any right to self determination in the Muslim world. Shah Pahlavi, Saddam Hussein, Ibn Saud, Nasser, Nawaz Sharif, and Mubarak are some of the superstars who have received US support over the years. Add to that a military occupation in Palestine/Israel that is uniformly regarded, outside of the US and Israel, as illegal, and you should not be surprised that the Arab and Central Asian world is angry and suspicious of the United States.

Cry me a river. The Arab nations tried multiple times to slaughter the Jews in Israel and crush the nation. They got one of the most righteous smackdowns in world history in 1948, and then got it again and again after that. If this is your definition of a "raw deal," I'll be laughing all afternoon.

The division of the British protectorate of Palestine between its Jewish and Palestinian parts was no different from the division of the British colony of India between its Hindu and Muslim parts. But for some odd reason the Muslim world is a thousand times more obsessed with little Israel than it is with massive, nuke-armed India. And you tell me they don't hate Jews? HA!

[shootinstudent]

You cite his general condemnation of terror tactics, but this pales in comparison to his larger call to slaughter Jews, don't you think? There cannot be any defending this man or any justification for what he has said. Though efforts to do so are exactly what I've come to expect from the apologists of radical Islam.

His reliance on conspiracy theories is wrong and ignorant. But he did not, anywhere in that speech, call for killing all Jews, and you know it because you cut off your quote at exactly the point where he starts talking about how the founders of his religion did not use violence and reprisal to grow.

Here's the very next paragraph:

35. We know he and his early followers were oppressed by the Qhuraish. Did he launch retaliatory strikes? No. He was prepared to make strategic retreats. He sent his early followers to a Christian country and he himself later migrated to Madinah. There he gathered followers, built up his defence capability and ensured the security of his people. At Hudaibiyah he was prepared to accept an unfair treaty, against the wishes of his companions and followers. During the peace that followed he consolidated his strength and eventually he was able to enter Mecca and claim it for Islam. Even then he did not seek revenge. And the peoples of Mecca accepted Islam and many became his most powerful supporters, defending the Muslims against all their enemies.

"Even then he did not seek revenge." "Did he launch retaliatory strikes? No."

The man is arguing that to strengthen the Muslim world, Muslims should make peace and worry about their own problems, and then they can be strong...after which time no revenge should be taken for the past. It's not pro-American or Israel, but that is a HUGE difference from "Let's kill all the Jews."

Your accusation that the man is calling for extermination is flat out false. I'm defending the speech as one that is not rabid and insane, even if it does rely on stupid conspiracy theories. Wrong is not the same thing as bloodthirsty.


Cry me a river. The Arab nations tried multiple times to slaughter the Jews in Israel and crush the nation. They got one of the most righteous smackdowns in world history in 1948, and then got it again and again after that. If this is your definition of a "raw deal," I'll be laughing all afternoon.

You need to go back and read the primary sources. The Arabs were not trying to slaughter all Jews, there was no Israel before 1948 to crush (it didn't exist), and the Arabs were the ones crying for a cease fire...which the Jewish Agency (precursor to the Israeli state) rejected. What happened in 1948 was that a bunch of immigrants finally got organized enough to revolt and declare Palestine a new country, owned and controlled by said immigrants. Right or wrong, it was NOT an Arab plot to kill all jews that caused the war. Before that, the Arab leaders who ruled in the wake of the Ottomans clearly expressed sympathy for the plight of the Jews and invited the US and Britain to accept refugees along with the Arab states.

Edited to add:

The division of the British protectorate of Palestine between its Jewish and Palestinian parts was no different from the division of the British colony of India between its Hindu and Muslim parts. But for some odd reason the Muslim world is a thousand times more obsessed with little Israel than it is with massive, nuke-armed India.

You're joking right? The partition has led to literally millions of deaths. But, unlike Israel...the Indian hindus who now rule in India were there just like the Muslims, and both recognize a legitimate right to occupy the land and participate in government. Tension is ongoing, anyway.

[Cosmoline]

What exactly do you think he means when he calls for the Muslim world to unite and "counter attack" the "few million Jews"? Write them a really nasty protest letter?

His following paragraph references the need to pull back from time to time, build up strength and then attack. His obvious goal is to "Take Israel Back" for Islam. That's the analogy. They will make truces with the infidel, but the only peace for them comes when they have taken command and made Islam the dominant religion. Nowhere does he claim the Muslim world should make peace with Israel. There's a huge difference between a TACTICAL TRUCE as discussed in the Koran and PEACE. This piece of excrement sure isn't advocating permanent PEACE with Israel and the west. His reference to that portion of the Koran shows he wants a TRUCE and enough time to build up Islamic unity and strength before the final assault on Israel and the west can begin.

I see. So the Arabs were really trying to secure a just and lasting peace with Israel in 1948. Well I must admit they had a pretty novel way of doing it, sending troops and the Arab Legion in and killing any Jews they encountered. Very novel. The Jews must have misunderstood. All those bullets and shells flying their way were really messages of hope and love for the Jewish people.

[longeyes]

And herein lies the source of your misunderstanding: You are admitting that you don't care why the problem is occuring, yet you're making claims as if you've investigated the causes of terrorism. How do you go about eliminating terrorism when you have no idea what its causes are, or no real idea of who specifically is involved?
The comparison to someone attacking you is not valid. You aren't focusing on the individuals who commit the attacks. You're going from literally a handful of people who have attacked your country, to the claim that all 1.2 billion people who name their religion with the same word are just like the attackers. As I pointed out above, even a cursory look into the religious and cultural issues at play will make it plain to you that such an idea is silly.

The terror groups are not even remotely religiously or culturally similar to the vast majority of Muslims; they're more like 20th century fascist gangs than they are like traditional Muslims. The more people in the west learn to distinguish, the more potential we will have for maintaining and developing alliances against terrorism. As long as we don't care what's going on in the huge array of cultures that makes up Islam, why should we expect those same people to care what's happening to the US?

I get it now: gangsters have no relation to the culture around them. Bunk. These people don't operate in isolation; they are aided and abetted. Are there large "terror groups" flying the flags of other faiths on this planet? Not that I'm aware of.

By the way, I AM interested in the whys of aberrant behavior, but where survival is involved I am happy to abbreviate my research.

One more question: Weren't the Arabs on "the wrong side' in WW II?

[shootinstudent]

I get it now: gangsters have no relation to the culture around them. Bunk. These people don't operate in isolation; they are aided and abetted. Are there large "terror groups" flying the flags of other faiths on this planet? Not that I'm aware of.

Well, like I said....you need to start doing some reading. The terror groups reject the traditional religious authorities and operate underground, just like drug gangs and mafias....you're not aware of how different their religious flag is from the majority of Muslims' because, again, you haven't bothered to look.

One more question: Weren't the Arabs on "the wrong side' in WW II?

No.

[Cosmoline]

So the Arab support for Nazi Germany was a GOOD thing?

[longeyes]

What was the role of the Arabs in the Holocaust?

During the World War II years the Arab nations and their leaders sided with the Nazis against the Allies. Jews were routinely attacked by the Arabs. Their attitude may be epitomized by Haj Amin Al Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who sat in Berlin with Hitler, where he requested that Hitler bring his "Jewish Solution" with his well-oiled killing machine to kill all the Palestinian Jews he could find.
- by Emanuel A. Winston
Middle East analyst & commentator


Historically, the Islamic world's orientation to genocide against the Jews has not been limited to idle phrasemaking. Even before Israel came into existence in 1948, on November 28, 1941, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin, met in Berlin with Adolph Hitler. The subject of their meeting was "the final solution of the Jewish Question". This meeting, which followed Haj Amin's active organization of Muslim SS troops in Bosnia, included the Mufti's promise to aid German victory in the war. Later, after Israel's trial and punishment of Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann in 1961, Iranian and Arab newspapers treated the mass murderer as a "martyr", and congratulated him for having "conferred a real blessing on humanity" by liquidating six million Jews.
- Louis Rene Beres
Professor of International Law
Department of Political Science
Purdue University



The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and advisor of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures.
- by J. B. Schechtman, in THE MUFTI AND THE FHRER: THE RISE AND FALL OF HAJ AMIN EL-HUSSEINI (New York: T. Yoseloff, 1965).


The Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini was the equal of any of the war criminals. In postwar testimony, a senior aide to Eichmann described el-Husseini's appetite for destruction. He said that the Mufti visited the Auschwitz gas chambers, in disguise, and reproved the Germans for their lack of diligence in the destruction of the Jews. He loudly protested the proposed Nazi deal to save 4,000 Bulgarian Jewish children or to exchange trucks for Hungarian Jews.
The Mufti was never tried because the Allies were afraid of the storm in the Arab world if its national hero were to be treated as a criminal. The Mufti was received as a national hero in Egypt where he was among the sponsors of the 1948 war. Indeed, the Mufti represents the link connecting the two attempts to destroy the Jews, that of the Nazis and that of the Arabs. It is thus not surprising that the Mufti has a lofty place in the PLO's pantheon. Arafat saw the Mufti as an educator and leader, declaring in 1985 that he deemed it an honor to walk in his footsteps. Arafat stressed that the PLO continued to march in the path carved out by the Mufti.

- by Arie Stav in Arabs and Nazism, OUTPOST, January 1996

from www.yahoodi.com

[shootinstudent]

I see. So the Arabs were really trying to secure a just and lasting peace with Israel in 1948. Well I must admit they had a pretty novel way of doing it, sending troops and the Arab Legion in and killing any Jews they encountered. Very novel. The Jews must have misunderstood. All those bullets and shells flying their way were really messages of hope and love for the Jewish people.

No. In 1948, they were trying to prevent illegal immigrants from rebelling and taking over Arab land. Slaughters of Arabs happened at the hands of the Jews too...it was a war, and tragic like all wars. But the bare facts remain: the Jewish groups were comprised of recent, illegal immigrants, and they did not represent a majority of the inhabitants of that land. That's why there was a fight when they declared a new religious state, not because "Arabs hated Jews."

His following paragraph references the need to pull back from time to time, build up strength and then attack. His obvious goal is to "Take Israel Back" for Islam. That's the analogy.

Now you're just trying to read secret connotations into his speech. He says in plain language three things: 1. Terror attacks are wrong and backwards ways of thinking produce them, 2. Not all Jews are evil, and 3. The example to follow is one of peace making, internal improvement, and abstaining from reprisal and revenge.

How did you get "but really, I want to kill all jews" from that? The Arabs, and, indeed, literally the entire world save the US continue to regard the Israeli occupation of the post 67 areas as illegal...so taking back Palestinian land, whether you agree or not with the position, is not a "radical muslim" notion.

This issue has been discussed, all links to supporting documents are in it in a good long discussion: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=160818&highlight=Israel


The Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini was the equal of any of the war criminals. Since I just saw it...the one person you cited, longeyes, is a great example of the wonderous leadership that Western Governments have managed to install. The "mufti" was appointed by the British, not elected, and he was behind as much killing of Arabs who supported a partition agreement as he was instigating anti-Jewish violence. He's another western middle east policy success story to join the ranks of Saddam.

[Cosmoline]

So the 1948 war was all about enforcing the immigration laws of the British empire? It's interesting that the armies coming to enforce these laws weren't remotely British and were themselves illegal armed immigrants into the territory.

Are you denying that there was a large population of Jews in that area before the British established their protectorate?

I ask you again, what part of

"and then to counter attack"

are you having problems understanding?

[shootinstudent]

Are you denying that there was a large population of Jews in that area before the British established their protectorate?

Yes. See the link above for links to population figures. At its height, the immigration push swelled the Jewish population in Palestine to 30 percent. As for the causes, they are discussed ad nauseum in the link and you can go read the primary sources for yourself. All I am doing is parroting the information you will find there.


I ask you again, what part of

"and then to counter attack"

are you having problems understanding?

Quote the whole block and you'll see. What part of "take no revenge" is unclear?

[Cosmoline]

Take no revenge AFTER victory is theirs and Israel is again under Islamic rule, certainly. That's in keeping with the Koran. But to have PEACE with Israel? That's not what he's advocating, not by a longshot.

All I am doing is parroting ...

I could have told you that. It's the same line from all apologists for the current state of the Islamic world. Tons of sidestepping and finger pointing, but a total unwillingness to come to terms with the evil of the cause. I suspect in the end Islam will need to have its back broken with its own reformation before it comes to terms with the modern world. Expecting anything rational to come from these people is like expecting rational thought from a Catholic in the middle ages or a high priest of Ra in ancient eygpt.. The higher parts of the Islamic brain are in hibernation. The Islamic world is still in shellshock at having been completely outstripped by the Infidels. Almost like one of those computers in the old Star Trek that melts down after being confronted with a paradox. Some seem determined to retreat to the sanity of a new dark age, while others are trying to define themselves by who they hate.

[shootinstudent]

But to have PEACE with Israel? That's not what he's advocating, not by a longshot.

That's definitely true. He doesn't consider it a legitimate state, like lots of people in the world. I disagree with him, but the position it not completely nuts and only held in radical muslim circles. And it's a far cry from "let's kill all jews!"

I could have told you that. It's the same line from all apologists for the current state of the Islamic world. Tons of sidestepping and finger pointing, but a total unwillingness to come to terms with the evil of the cause. I suspect in the end Islam will need to have its back broken before it comes to terms with the modern world. Expecting anything rational to come from these people is like expecting rational thought from a Catholic in the middle ages. The higher parts of the brain are in hibernation.

Yeah, what I meant I was parroting were the original UN documents on the region. You should read them sometime; I'm not citing disputed or controversial historical facts. It's all pretty well written up from numerous sources.

As for "these people", that's another one of those gross generalizations that takes no account of political and religious differences. Turkey is Israel's second strongest ally; last I checked, those Turks are mainly Muslim. Being opposed to terrorism and oppression seems pretty rational to me...the vast majority of Muslims are on board with that one. What exactly is the "irrationality" you see as typical of the Muslim world? Surely you do not mean the undemocratic, oppressive thugs who have managed to rule in the middle east...that's like blaming Pinochet and Castro on Christianity.

How did you go about figuring out what the "Islamic world" is or is not?


Also...
Did you not see all the parts in Mahomad's speech where he was talking about how terrorism and backwards radical theology had wreaked havoc on Muslim society?

[Cosmoline]

And it's a far cry from "let's kill all jews!"

Not really. If you consider that to destroy Israel you'd have to do just that. It's true that under Islamic doctrine if the Jews gave up and agreed to abide by Islamic laws and the taxation imposed on them they would not be slaughtered. But otherwise--it's the sword for them. That's what destroying Israel means. And I don't know any Jews in Israel who'd surrender.

[shootinstudent]

If you consider that to destroy Israel you'd have to do just that. It's true that under Islamic doctrine if the Jews gave up and agreed to abide by Islamic laws and the taxation imposed on them they would not be slaughtered. But otherwise--it's the sword for them. That's what destroying Israel means. And I don't know any Jews in Israel who'd surrender.

Okay, let me get this straight: If the Israeli government in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were changed to a secular Arab one, all Jews would die??? How does that work?

As for "Islamic doctrine", wrong. The tax was for protection, which was customary at the time (and a lower tax than that charged by the Christian emperors). If you didn't pay it, you got no protection from the Caliph...which meant no whining if someone (even a Muslim) came to steal your things and ransack your city. Medieval, but not crazy. It's not that different in America today: if you don't pay your taxes, you will lose your property and be punished. And for the time, it was positively the best deal running. Pay a tax, and you get guaranteed religious freedom, and anyone who messes with you has personally insulted the Caliph.

Your claim about what "destroying Israel" means in his speech is absurd, since he clearly separates himself from the position that all Jews are fighting against Muslims.

[Cosmoline]

Surely you do not mean the undemocratic, oppressive thugs who have managed to rule in the middle east...that's like blaming Pinochet and Castro on Christianity.

How did you go about figuring out what the "Islamic world" is or is not?

I don't recall Pinochet or Castro reyling too much on Catholic doctrines to justify their political oppression. The Reformation broke the back of the Catholic World 500 years ago, and the upshot of that revolution was to free Europe from constantly having to cite religious authority for every argument and every view. As you can see from the very text we've been arguing about from the Malay leader, every point is backed with citations to the Koran. This is typical even for non-religious leaders in Islamic states. the doctrine of Islam underlies everything, just like Catholic doctrine underlied and informed every aspect of life in Medieval Europe. Catholic doctrine isn't any less nutty than Islamic doctrine when you try to use it to guide your politics.

Turkey is the exception because it was founded as an intensely secular state. And it's no accident that Turkey remains one of the few real success stories in the Islamic world. But even in Turkey and, as we see, in otherwise modern Malaysia, we still see political leaders gaining support by operating under an intensely Islamic worldview, using precise doctrines from the Koran to find a way to counter attack Israel and the west. It's madness.

Terrorism is a tactic, and that's all it is. The use of it by Muslims is disturbing, but it really wouldn't be helpful to see the Islamic world return to the use of actual formal armies to attack Israel and the west. Terrorism is a symptom of the Islamic world's insane desire to return to dominance over the west, but it's only a symptom. The cure will have to involve bashing the brains out of traditional Islam and leaving it relegated to the Mosques. The only ones who can do that in the long run are Muslims themselves, and I don't see that happening.

[Cosmoline]

Your claim about what "destroying Israel" means in his speech is absurd, since he clearly separates himself from the position that all Jews are fighting against Muslims.

Yes, but WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO WILL NOT LEAVE OR ABIDE BY ISLAMIC LAW? They get the Daniel Pearl treatment.

Your argument that the tax on Jews is the same as modern US taxation is absurd. The tax in question was against the Jews as a religious group, imposed on them in exchange for allowing them to continue their religion.

[shootinstudent]

I don't recall Pinochet or Castro reyling too much on Catholic doctrines to justify their political oppression.

Pinochet certainly promoted Catholic identity in Chile. Castro didn't, but that's all beside the point...because the extremist leaders in the middle east don't rely on traditional Islamic doctrines either. They turn to a few radical scholars, and then leave the rest of their regimes to things like the "Elders of Zion" and blood libel. That's not an Islamic grounding.

As you can see from the very text we've been arguing about from the Malay leader, every point is backed with citations to the Koran. This is typical even for non-religious leaders in Islamic states.

He's at a conference for Islamic world leaders and you think it's odd that he mentions the religion? As noted...his points aren't that radical. He condemned terrorism and argued for rejecting the "religious" radicals who've managed to dominate in some places.


just like Catholic doctrine underlied and informed every aspect of life in Medieval Europe. Catholic doctrine isn't any less nutty than Islamic doctrine when you try to use it to guide your politics.

The point is that "Islamic doctrine" isn't what Bin Laden and folks say it is. You can get a decent indicator of that if you read Mohamad's speech, but he's no religious authority either.

[GT]

Blah blah blah blah blah...

"Words, words, words"

What Hamlet was referring to is the fact that words are meaningless without actions (in his case doing something about the murder of his father and his own dispossession of the Danish throne by his uncle).

Moslem actions:
Islam has become the religion of losers.
Moslems have been rioting in modern times at least since the black moslems of the Temple of Islam rioted in Detroit back in the 30's. It's what they do. It's part of their Modus Operandi.

Black moslems were largely responsible for the Watts riots and, ironically, the death of Malcolm X who returned from Mecca with a new vision of whites and blacks living together in harmony (go figure).

The rioting Moslems of Paris are saying (as well as "Jihad" and "Allahu Akbar" and "This is Baghdad") "leave us alone". But that means leave us to enforce our own laws and our own society separate from yours.

There's Hillbilly's war. It's like the war of a body against a cancer. The enemy is within yet it must be destroyed.

The enemy is using 21st Century Western technology (text messaging and email) to defeat law enforcement in order to enforce a regime that would deny access to that very technology.
It is like the paradox of voting for Communism, one vote and you will never have to vote again.
This is a war for the right to live like a filthy heathen.

You want to see Moslems working it out and trying to move forward? Look at Iraq.

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thinktanktown/2005/11/a_cheerier_view.html


The think tanker writes that on the political front the situation is also better than it is depicted by critics. He acknowledges that ethnic strife among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds remains a possibility. He also acknowledges that the Bush administration has been “inept” in making the case for its Iraqi policy.

But, he says, “Iraqis debate. They tolerate dissent. Politicians hash out compromises. The constitution may not be ideal, but it is fair.” He contrasts those hopeful steps with the harsh dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Tunisia, and Egypt.

Rubin urges patience and a longer view of what’s going on in Iraq: “Democracy and reconstruction are processes. Progress is slow, but to those who know Iraq, it is there. Iraqis criticize certain Washington decisions and embassy strategy. Few, though, see any merits in abandonment.”

This is how your new Islam will grow after WWIV, if it is given a chance.
Not out of riots in the Paris suburbs.


Student you are discredited. You are sleeping with the enemy therefore your apologia is meaningless propaganda. Feeling sorry for Palestinians is not observation and critical thinking.


G

[Daemon688]

From what I understand about Islam is this: It does not condone offensive wars. It does not condone the killing of innocents (one of the greatest sins). Christians, Jews, and Muslims themselves share more in common than they care to recognize. However, when you have people cutting off heads in Iraq, Islamic or not they are representatives of Islam. So, to the average American viewer we say "look at those crazy Muslims" whether you agree with this or not, it's happening. Religion has been perverted by followers of the faith at some time or another and that INCLUDES christians.

We see generalizations of people all the time. Hence stereotypes, negative or positive. They can be applied to any broad range from nationality, race, religion, etc. When two groups come into conflict it's not unusual for the two groups to make wild generalizations. Propaganda plays both sides and each group tries to portray each other in the most unflatterling light possible all to serve their own agendas.

If you want a peaceful religion join the Buddhists.

[Cosmoline]

If a speech calling for the Islamic world to unite against the Jews, take over Israel but have mercy on those who surrender is your idea of "moderate" Islam--I think you're proving my point! If that's moderate I'll keep my rifle handy, thanks just the same.

[shootinstudent]

Yes, but WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO WILL NOT LEAVE OR ABIDE BY ISLAMIC LAW? They get the Daniel Pearl treatment.

Your argument that the tax on Jews is the same as modern US taxation is absurd. The tax in question was against the Jews as a religious group, imposed on them in exchange for allowing them to continue their religion.

Also wrong. Execution for conversion is forbidden by the traditional scholars and the Book. And no, the tax in question was levelled against anyone the Caliph conquered. It was higher for non-Muslims than for Muslims, and it wasn't just "allowing" the religion...it bought active protection. If renegade Muslims messed with a people who had settled with the Caliph, they had the Caliph to answer to. Which is part of the reason why Christians and Jews used to welcome the Muslims with open arms.

It's a shame, IMO, that radicals have been able to use our oil dollars to turn a region with a long history of tolerance and respect for other religions into a land of violence and oppression.

[shootinstudent]

Cosmoline,

I urge you to read the discussion Israel and Palestine. I'm sorry, but there is no way to take a secular look at that situation and conclude that claims on the land against Israel are totally irrational. There are arguments to be made in both ways, but the origins and past policies of the Israeli state have been seriously flawed.

[Cosmoline]

I'm well aware of Israel's history and I recognize some serious mistakes were made. It was a mistake, for example, to try to use the West Bank and Gaza as buffer zones. Those snake pits should have been left with Egypt and Jordan. Israel did a huge favor to her neighbors in trying to govern them, since they are basically impossible to govern. The best thing she can do now is pull all the settlements out, build a massive DMZ protected by heavy weapons and mine fields, and let the Arab world do whatever it wants on the other side of the wall. You cannot govern an asp and you sure can't live with it either.

But the founding of Israel as the Jewish portion of Palestine was perfectly appropriate. Just as founding Pakistan as the Muslim portion of India was appropriate. The invading Arabs in '48 had no real concern with British immigration laws. They simply wanted the Jews off what they felt was "Muslim land." And they still do.

[shootinstudent]

But the founding of Israel as the Jewish portion of Palestine was perfectly appropriate. Just as founding Pakistan as the Muslim portion of India was appropriate. The invading Arabs in '48 had no real concern with British immigration laws.

How long had most of the Jews who participated in the foundation been living in Palestine? 10 years, maybe? What is legitimate about allowing people to immigrate onto land already inhabited, and then allowing them to create their own minority religious government?

There is no comparison to India. Both groups, the hindus and the muslims, had been living in the subcontinent for centures. The Arabs in 48 weren't invaders; they were the majority inhabitants and they still are. If you look at the numbers, even today, Arab Muslims outnumber the Jewish inhabitants of the region by several million (that includes only Israel and the Occupied Zones.)

As far as I'm concerned, the foundation is water under the bridge given the level of development the Israelis have achieved. The occupation zones and the complete and total lack of respect for Palestinian self rule is the problem to be solved now, and it will take a big gust of wind right out of the radicals' sails when it happens. (You do realize that withdrawing to the pre 67 borders means withdrawing from Old Jerusalem, right?)

[Standing Wolf]

If Ahmadinejad's threatening words inspire serious action now, millions of people may be spared in this century. But while President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and others responded with strong rhetoric, neither penalties nor restraints seem likely to be imposed on the Islamist Fascist regime in Tehran.

Strong rhetoric has never won a war.

[Cosmoline]

The Arabs in 48 weren't invaders; they were the majority inhabitants and they still are.

The armies of neighboring Arab nations weren't invaders? I see, they were just bringing gifts to welcome their Jewish friends is that it?

Yes, Jews had been moving to from Europe the holy land legally and illegally for half a century. So what? Does that mean the Arabs get to push them out in '48?

But this isn't about the complexities of British colonial law. Muslims have the same view of Jews many leftists have. They don't mind Jews so long as the Jews are powerless victims. They will even tolerate a Jewish minority. But strong Jews who kick the hind ends of Arab armies over and over again not only shame Islamic manhood, they throw the entire Islamic religion into question. How could Allah let this happen? Added to this is the notion that once soil is part of Islam, like the holy lands, it must ALWAYS be part of Islam.

[shootinstudent]

The armies of neighboring Arab nations weren't invaders? I see, they were just bringing gifts to welcome their Jewish friends is that it?

No, those armies were invited at the Request of the Palestinian representatives to help them defend against a minority illegal immigrant rebellion. The citation to one of the key UN debates on this subject is in the other thread. You should read it.

Yes, Jews had been moving to from Europe the holy land legally and illegally for half a century. So what? Does that mean the Arabs get to push them out in '48?

Before November 48, it wasn't Israel. It was still Palestine, ruled only under a transitional UN government that itself derived authority from a temporary British mandate. What right did a bunch of immigrants have to tell the people who had been living there for generations, and who were the majority, that they had no say in what went on around their homes? I myself believe in Democracy, and so I think it's wrong to make decisions about who will govern pieces of land without taking any account at all of what the majority of its inhabitants want.

The reason Arabs hate Israel so much is the same reason so many leftist pigs at home hate Israel. They don't mind Jews so long as the Jews are powerless victims. They will even tolerate a Jewish minority

Do you think the illegal immigrant rebellion might have somethign to do with that hatred? And the fact that they continue to be a minority, yet they rule the whole of the territory (which was never intended to be 100 percent Jewish, even by the Jewish Agency sympathetic UN)???

[carebear]

Not that the Palestinian inhabitants EVER ruled themselves.

Israel, Egypt, Persian, Phoenician, Greece, Rome, Byzantium, Ottomon, Brits and now Israel again.

I realize I'm missing some short periods in the middle but the last time the "Palestinians" as an ethnicity were even remotely self-determining they were warring pre-bronze age separate tribes.

[longeyes]

If you want a peaceful religion join the Buddhists.

Tell it to the Tibetans. Maybe if they weren't so peaceful they'd still have a country.

[longeyes]

From what I understand about Islam is this: It does not condone offensive wars. It does not condone the killing of innocents (one of the greatest sins).

Theory is a beautiful thing.

And headless men (and women) tell no tales.

[longeyes]

And no, the tax in question was levelled against anyone the Caliph conquered. It was higher for non-Muslims than for Muslims, and it wasn't just "allowing" the religion...it bought active protection.

There's a word for that (not in The Book): extortion.

Badda bing!

[longeyes]

If renegade Muslims messed with a people who had settled with the Caliph, they had the Caliph to answer to. Which is part of the reason why Christians and Jews used to welcome the Muslims with open arms.

Long live The Godfather!

[shootinstudent]

Israel, Egypt, Persian, Phoenician, Greece, Rome, Byzantium, Ottomon, Brits and now Israel again.

I realize I'm missing some short periods in the middle but the last time the "Palestinians" as an ethnicity were even remotely self-determining they were warring pre-bronze age separate tribes.

You could use the same argument to deprive two thirds of the world's population of the right to self rule. A better way to frame the issue is this: Do you think it's just and in line with modern values to include a regime as one in another of the chain you listed???

The Palestinian Arabs recognized themselves as part of the greater Arab rule, and wanted to join the Arab League and be freed from UN and British rule. They had political organizations and an ethnic identity that mattered to them, which is clear if you go through the UN reports and over the british papers before then. I am a proponent of the UN partition plan, which I think could've secured a workable peace from the start...but it didn't happen because the proto-Israeli groups invaded the part that wasn't theirs immediately upon declaring independence. The continuing lack of recognition of the history and current situation is fueling the militants, and I think it's in the interest both of securing peace for Israel (and they deserve it, having sacrificed so much to build the most developed state in the region), and in discrediting the terror propagandists.

There's a word for that (not in The Book): extortion.

Badda bing!

All mandatory payments are at some level extortion. You need to take a step back and consider the context. In terms of the 7th century world, this was a very well advanced and tolerant system. That's not really relevant to what kinds of government we know how to run today, and it's also not really proof about any government today...talking about the Muslim Caliphate to prove something about Muslims today is like claiming that the Byzantine and Roman rulers were exemplars of western freedom and humanity.

[carebear]

Except that the descendents of the Romans and even the Byzantine/Ottomans have created secularized democracies that respect individual rights to freedom and self-determination and even worship while the descendents of the Cliphate are still on the whole hereditary monarchys and/or religious oligarchies/theocracies who still rule using the same code they had a thousand years ago.

The Muslim world never had a Reformation and has been paying the price ever since.

As for the Palestinians, I didn't see the Egyptians or Jordanians ceding the areas of their territory claimed by the P's outside of the Israeli conquests either, at least not until it became politically expedient to ease tensions with the West AND create a buffer to pester the Israelis and keep the P's from trying to overthrow their nations. No, they used them as shock troops to try to destroy Israel over and over again. Better they take the casualties.

[shootinstudent]

Except that the descendents of the Romans and even the Byzantine/Ottomans have created secularized democracies that respect individual rights

How long did that take?

the descendents of the Cliphate are still on the whole hereditary monarchys and/or religious oligarchies/theocracies who still rule using the same code they had a thousand years ago.

I disagree. This is a good article on modern Islamic radicalism in the middle east: http://www.meforum.org/article/14

What masquerades in some places as "traditional Islam" today is most certainly a modern invention.


As for the Palestinians, I didn't see the Egyptians or Jordanians ceding the areas of their territory claimed by the P's outside of the Israeli conquests either, at least not until it became politically expedient to ease tensions with the West AND create a buffer to pester the Israelis and keep the P's from trying to overthrow their nations.

The entire piece of land that the Palestinians were asking for, and that would've been used for division under the UN partition plan, is within Israel's borders or in the Occupied Zones.

No, they used them as shock troops to try to destroy Israel over and over again. Better they take the casualties.

The directions the surrounding arab states and the Palestinian groups have taken since the 40's has been nothing short of sick and twisted, definitely. It's no longer about self-determination for the power-mongers, but rather about Arab nationalism and a twisted vision of morality that celebrates attacks on old ladies at bus stops. I think it's a disgrace, and I think a substantive move towards reconciliation on the part of the Israeli and American governments will help to discredit and marginalize the hate-mongers like Hamas and Al Qaeda.

[carebear]

How long did it take for the West to Reform itself and grow a real civilization?

The process could be said to have begun with the stopping of Islamic Imperial aggression at Tours and continued during the counterattack against Muslim aggression (the Crusades) and the recapturing of traditionally Christion (or at least pagan) territory so I'd say the Islamic world has had an equal amount of time to Reform itself. it isn't like the "West" was this monolith that always acted smoothly in its own climb toward true civilization. The Muslims don't get a pass.

The problem is, they start pointing fingers at others and taking on the role of victim following Lepanto when the rise of the individual in the West put the first solid nails in their coffin of tyranny.

They could have sucked it up and realized they were losing because their culture was inadequate but instead they clung to a sinking spar and developed the jealousy of the West that fuels so much of the radicalism today.

As for the governments?

Sheikdoms, emirates and a "religious council"-led Persia are medieval forms of government. Whether they have perverted their theology is immaterial in explaining their primative governmental structures. Heck, at least adherence to tradition has an internal logic to it. Claiming the religion is changed kicks that particular leg out from under why they persist in obsolesence and doesn't replace it with anything.

The Palestinian Homeland?

Egypt at a variety of times held Gaza and the Sinai, Jordan the East and West bank. If they hadn't started a war they could have handed both territories off to the Palestinians in '48 and avoided much of the trouble since.

The West is and since the 1500's has been the very LEAST of the Arab (in particular) and Muslim (in general) world's problems. 99% of their troubles can be justly and easily laid at their own door(s).

[shootinstudent]

The process could be said to have begun with the stopping of Islamic Imperial aggression at Tours and continued during the counterattack against Muslim aggression (the Crusades) and the recapturing of traditionally Christion (or at least pagan) territory so I'd say the Islamic world has had an equal amount of time.

That is not a tenable position. 732 was in the thick of the darkness for the west, and more than 700 years of darkness followed it. The "traditionally Christian" territory was never recaptured, except for a brief period during the crusades (when the crusader armies were wiped out by militarily superior forces), and in Spain over a long, tortured period, that was followed immediately by that cultural highlight: the Spanish Inquisition.


They could have sucked it up and realized they were losing because their culture was inadequate but instead they clung to a sinking spar and developed the jealousy of the West that fuels so much of the radicalism today.


You honestly believe that they're just jealous today??? The culture was doing just fine. The European renaissance, especially in the sciences, has its roots in Islamic intellectual products. The Ottoman turks were definitely advanced...they had a system of imperial government (the Millet) that was vastly superior to anything the Europeans had at the time.

As for the governments? Sheikdoms, emirates and a "religious council"-led Persia are medieval forms of government. Whether they have perverted their theology is immaterial in explaining their primative governmental structures. Heck, at least adherence to tradition has an internal logic to it. Claiming the religion is changed kicks that particular leg out from under why they persist in obsolesence and doesn't replace it with anything.

The modern Iranian and Saudi Governments are not even remotely like the Caliphate, or the fractured states that followed, or the Ottoman empire. There is virtually zero resemblance. Read the article about the religion; it's not just a claim, it's pretty well documented.



Egypt held Gaza and the Sinai, Jordan the East and West bank. If they hadn't started a war they could have handed both territories off to the Palestinians in '48 and avoided much of the trouble since.

Read the linked thread. Egypt did not start the war in 48. The Zionist rebellion is what kicked off the war. What exactly would Egypt have gone to war against if there hadn't already been a rebellion???

The West is and since the 1500's has been the very LEAST of the Arab (in particular) and Muslim (in general) world's problems. All their troubles can be justly and easily laid at their own door(s).

Is that so? Well, I encourage you to look up Ibn Saud's Marauders, along with Muhammad ibn Abd Al Wahhab. Those are the founders of the modern Islamic radical movement as funded by Saudi Arabia. Who do you think funded their rise to power, and willingly recognized the terror state they created that is now Saudi Arabia? You might also look up such great names as TE Lawrence...

Hint: It wasn't the "Arabs" (who were actually experiencing a time of cultural liberalism and learning before the House of Saud arrived on the scene. The liberal culture remains in Lebanon.)

Britain and the US were more than happy to replace the turks with a bunch of gangsters in order to secure oil rights...and internationally funded Wahhabism is what we have to show for it.

[Werewolf]

The above is an erudite and interesting discussion but you know what it is irrelevant.

Cultures clash - that's history, that's now, that's the future. When they clash one wins and one loses. The winners make the rules and if history is any indicator the losers generally don't get to stick around for long after their defeat.

To all the apologists for western culture who hate us so much - buy a turban and move to Iran - I'm sure you'll enjoy all the religious and political freedoms they have there that the west doesn't. Oh yeah... don't forget the economic prosperity you'll enjoy.

To all those that say if we just understand them and why they hate us - good luck - I'm sure you'll attain understanding while they're gang raping your wife (afterall the way she dresses in her provocative western style means she's just asking for it) and hacking off your head to please Allah!

To the rest: You either are for western culture or you aren't. If you aren't get out or shut up - we don't need you. If you are then either believe the western way is best and resolve yourself to the fact that you may someday have to fight for it or get out.

Because one way or another the medieval barbarians that constitute middle eastern culture are coming for you - to convert you or kill you. They don't care one way or another.

[TheEgg]

<sigh> I have the answer to my question now, Shootinstudent.

It seems to me that you have swallowed the entire apoligia of the radical Muslim world. "It is always someone else who has driven us to our crimes."

[Cosmoline]

Britain and the US were more than happy to replace the turks with a bunch of gangsters in order to secure oil rights...and internationally funded Wahhabism is what we have to show for it.

All of the Muslim world's problems are the fault of the west--of course. :scrutiny:

[shootinstudent]

All of the Muslim world's problems are the fault of the west--of course.

Strawman that doesn't change the point. It's not like we've been uninvolved in the middle east, and our involvement has contributed significantly to the current state of affairs. There is not a single "Muslim hotspot" in the world where colonialism and western power politics haven't appeared on the scene, suspiciously in between the older, more tolerant systems (you know, the Muslims who used to create safe havens for Jews fleeing European pogroms) and the new radical terror states.

I don't see how identifying the Arab terror leaders and how they came to power constitutes "blaming only the west".

[carebear]

Where do you get your history?

Spain: Pagan (Roman), Christian (Roman), Christian (post-Roman dark ages), invaded by Muslims who advanced and converted militarily down the previously pagan or Christian (Roman/post) North African coastline, resisted by the rump Christian kingdoms in the North for years until finally the invaders were slowly forced out/rolled back after Charles Martel's victory at Tours.

Christian Territory reclaimed

The Balkans: similar situation but used as a source of slaves for the Janissaries and civil Service by the Ottomon Empire until years of warfare reduced Islam's control

Christian Territory mostly reclaimed

Byzantium/Turkey: Traditional Eastern Christian stronghold, yes, never recaptured militarily but Western political and economic ideals hold tenuous sway.

Just because the West never recaptured and HELD the root territories of Judaism and Christianity cannot disguise the fact that those territories were forcibly invaded by a new Imperialistic religion that directly led to their becoming part of the Third World rather than successful modern nations. And the Crusades are about the last time the West lost big (albeit, at the end of incredible supply lines against superior numbers of opponents and while combatting political infighting) against Muslim armies. We must have done something right since then. :rolleyes:

Speaking of which, if the West "owes" its success to Islamic thoughts and advances, why the heck haven't the nations of Islam been able to use them to succeed.

They ruled the known world for centuries while during the European dark ages my ancestors barely scraped by. Why are they losers now?

As for the Inquisition, as you say that was a horrific interlude in Western religious history which directly led to the Reformation of the church and long, bloody internecine wars that in the end led to the Renaissance and the political and humanitarian civilisation of the nations of Europe and the beginning of the dominance of the West.

The Islamic peoples apparently never got disgusted enough with the religious barbarism many of its adherents then and now excused as holy to decide to break the back of the religious leaders and secularize their governments. By retaining medieval theocratic ideals as equal to modern philosophical thought they hamstrung themselves.


As for direct lineage from the Caliphate? Strawman.

A hereditary Kingdom is a hereditary Kingdom. House of Saud or Sultan of Bahrain. A theocracy is a theocracy and the revolutionary council of Iran is a theocracy with final political say. Without an independently elected legislature tyranny is tyranny and no specious semantic games can change it.
for whatever reason, and it is in fact religious domination of political and philosophical thought, the peoples of Islamic countries never rose up to assert in blood their right to be free from their oppressors.

Sure, European history is littered with war and evil, but it certainly led to something far better than the serenity of unchanging tyranny the Muslim East has labored under.

[Cosmoline]

Speaking of which, if the West "owes" its success to Islamic thoughts and advances, why the heck haven't the nations of Islam been able to use them to succeed.

For the same reason the west had so much trouble taking advantage of thoughts and advances until after the Reformation. The Catholic Church was able to sanction those who dared to speak out against the accepted scientific dogma. In hindsight everyone--including most in the Church--agree that those were dark times. Having the Church in charge of scientific and intellectual matters was as bad for the Church in the long run as giving Popes their own military forces.

What we're seeing now is an Islamic world that cannot come to terms with reality. The response of many has been to retreat back to the 8th century and try to enforce brutal religious laws, in hopes that their Allah will then reward them by smiting the Great Satan and Israel. This is, unfortunately, not just the reaction of a tiny minority. It's been supported by millions across the Islamic world. In Iran, for example, it's a mistake to blame the revolution on US support of the Peacock Throne. The US supported many nasty dictators world wide during the cold war, but only the Islamic world chose to respond to this by returning to a religious dark age. This was not something done by a tiny minority, as the apologists would have you believe.

Even those well familiar with the west won't admit reality. They don't support a return to religious laws, but they *do* refuse to accept that the Islamic world is to blame for any of its problems. They instead blame western "colonialism" for the problems, and of course Israel which as we all know has take over nearly all of the Muslim world and turned them into newts with Jewish magic.

Until the Islamic world casts off the old religious dogma and steps into the modern world, it's going to be mired in poverty corruption and depression. This is not the fault of the west--it's solely the fault and responsibility of Islam itself. Put it this way. If the UK could sway US Presidential elections and prop up a dictator here--it would NOT be the fault of the UK. It would be solely OUR fault and solely OUR responsibility to take charge of our own destiny.

[shootinstudent]

carebear,

Use years for each event and you'll see the problem with your timeline.

North African coastline, resisted by the rump Christian kingdoms in the North for years until finally the invaders were slowly forced out/rolled back after Charles Martel's victory at Tours.

Charles Martel fought at Tours in 732. The last Muslim stronghold fell in Spain in 1492. I don't see what it is you think this proves.

The Balkans: similar situation but used as a source of slaves for the Janissaries and civil Service by the Ottomon Empire until years of warfare reduced Islam's control

What year did the Turks leave the Balkans? What year did it start being "Christian" territory? And....who perpetrated the most recent atrocities there? Hmmm...is the Bosnian conflict proof that Christian culture is backwards, because even in the 90's, christians saw fit to shoot little girls in the street just for being Muslim? If not, then why is the mess in the middle east proof that Islam is "medieval"?

Byzantium/Turkey: Traditional Eastern Christian stronghold, yes, never recaptured militarily but Western political and economic ideals hold tenuous sway.

You're forgetting Syria, Iraq, Armenia, and North Africa. "Western political ideals" hold sway in Turkey only because of the Muslim leadership that wanted it, not because of the Byzantine heritage.

Your generalizations like "a theocracy is a theocracy" are moot. It's like saying "a tax is a tax, therefore we have an ancient taxation system."

They ruled the known world for centuries while during the European dark ages my ancestors barely scraped by. Why are they losers now?

The Mongol invasions didn't help, and neither did it help when Europe went on a colonization spree that ripped the middle east and the Islamic east to pieces. Did you forget to google the Colonial period? It's the same story in Christian lands that have been colonized, with few exceptions. Maybe the reason they are in such dire straights is the same reason South America is such a mess.

Sure, European history is littered with war and evil, but it certainly led to something far better than the serenity of unchanging tyranny the Muslim East has labored under.

It wasn't unchanging tyranny. Your problem is that you are presuming that, because their societies now are backwards, this represents something static. That is not the case; the Islamic world has regressed. It was a pretty good place to live before the days of modern European colonization, especially if you were Jewish...in the past the Muslim states were the only ones that consistently protected Jews from pogroms, something the West didn't manage to achieve until after World War II.

I see this quite often. People have cartoon versions of history, and use it to draw conclusions about what exists today. That is certainly dangerous...it's what the Islamist radicals are doing, and look at where it's gotten them.

[Mongo the Mutterer]

shootinstudent -- history is wonderful, and can be viewed many ways through the prism of time.

This is the president of a soveriegn nation in today's world:

"He said that when people ask him if it is really 'possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' he replies: '[Y]ou had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved.'"

If he indeed made this statement I would like you to answer for the "religion of peace" what he means. How do you think he plans to "achieve" it? Why is it his "goal"?

And, most importantly, why, in view of past history, should not Israel or the US take him at his word and consider this a declaration of war?

[shootinstudent]

Mongo,

Why do unelected, mostly religiously untrained politicians get to speak for "the religion of Peace"? Don't people here wonder why all these guys have terror squads and never face elections, if they have so much support in the Muslim world?

It is clear that the governments involved are dangerous. But since when are those folks the ones who speak for the whole religion?

[longeyes]

Islam is Was-lam, cut it anyway you want.

The proof of what Islam is is what they are achieving now, en masse, as a culture, not some sanitized and rosy-colored view of the past or the accomplishments of a handful of scholars who were aberrations even in their world.

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Mongo,

Why do unelected, mostly religiously untrained politicians get to speak for "the religion of Peace"? Don't people here wonder why all these guys have terror squads and never face elections, if they have so much support in the Muslim world?

It is clear that the governments involved are dangerous. But since when are those folks the ones who speak for the whole religion?Then why are there FATWAs issued against the politicians? If the religious community doesn't agree, and the leader of an "ISLAMIST REPUBLIC" (which I believe Iran is), why don't they criticize and marginalize him.

BTW if there are "terror squads" in IRAN, why don't the Imams OUTSIDE issue the Fatwas??

[shootinstudent]

Then why are there FATWAs issued against the politicians? If the religious community doesn't agree, and the leader of an "ISLAMIST REPUBLIC" (which I believe Iran is), why don't they criticize and marginalize him.

BTW if there are "terror squads" in IRAN, why don't the Imams OUTSIDE issue the Fatwas??

You answered your own question on inside Iran. It's an undemocratic terror state that imprisons and kills people who speak out against the authority of the Mullahs.

As for the second....there are fatwas against the politicians, against terrorism, against political violence, and against religious coercion. Literally hundreds of them. Most Muslims in the world consider the particular type of religion followed by the Iranian leadership to be heretical and to have strongly unislamic overtones.

The reason you don't know that is that CNN isn't a register for rulings of Islamic law. To find that you'd have to look at Islamic sources....which no one seems to be doing. Odd, if you ask me, to make all kinds of claims about what Muslims are or are not preaching without touching ANY islamic sources at all.

[carebear]

Shootin,

The timeline proves my point. Christianity comes about 1st Century AD and is adopted by Constantine in what the 4th? Every piece of Roman territory thus was either pagan (from Christian and Jewish eyes anyway) and then Christian, except for the pagan then Jewish territories of the Palestinian coast. Islam arises only in the early 7th after Mohammed's vision from Gabriel.

From there his vision spreads like wildfire and eventually spreads with fire and sword, through the fractured infighting remnants of empire in most cases, across the ME, into the Balkans and down the N. African coast into Spain.

Therefore, EVERYWHERE Islam touched was traditionally held by another faith. So what that it took a weakend scattered Spain centuries to free itself from foreign domination, longer for the Balkans. The point is they were counterattacking the unwanted invasion of a foreign culture. They rose from far more hardship than Islam did and in a matter of centuries cast down these divine right rulers of the known world and relegated them to the dustheap of history.

[Mongo the Mutterer]

You answered your own question on inside Iran. It's an undemocratic terror state that imprisons and kills people who speak out against the authority of the Mullahs.Hello??? last time I checked the Mullahs were Muslim leaders.

The reason you don't know that is that CNN isn't a register for rulings of Islamic law. I quit watching the Communist News Network about 12 years ago, so it is hard for me to validate your sentance. However, If the rest of the Muslim community has a problem with the Iranians, they should speak out on any news entity available to them LOUDLY.

[shootinstudent]

Therefore, EVERYWHERE Islam touched was traditionally held by another faith. So what that it took a weakend scattered Spain centuries to free itself from foreign domination, longer for the Balkans. The point is they were counterattacking the unwanted invasion of a foreign culture. They rose from far more hardship than Islam did and in a matter of centuries cast down these divine right rulers of the known world and relegated them to the dustheap of history.

Interesting. You think the Spanish crown that perpetrated the Inquisition was a popular force, coming out of grassroots desire to get rid of those "foreigners" who had lived in Spain for 800 years??? I wonder why all the Jews who had been in Spain for even longer ran away en masse to the Muslim lands across the straits of gibraltar. The people who fought the Muslims at this time were divine right rulers, and their political touch wasn't gone (The Hapsburgs, that is) until WWI.

Turning the medieval European states into some kind of "cultural revolution" is silly. That was the height of brutality and incivility in Europe's history. They had all the nastiness of the Romans, combined with all the political sophistication of modern Haiti.

I'm sorry, but today's affairs notwithstanding, there is no justifying what the "Christian" conquistadors of Spain and Eastern Europe did. They took over, slaughtered every Jew and Muslim they could get their hands on, and instituted a religious system of rule and cronyism that caused hundreds and hundreds of years of warfare. "European stability" and civility before thye World Wars are a myth; they had some good ideas, but that part of the world was torn by violence, racism, and religious hatred just as much as the Islamic world is now plagued by the same issues.

I think it's good to remember our own European heritage in this context for two reasons:
1. So that we don't forget the horrific acts of intolerance our culture has proven capable of inspiring, and
2. So we remain committed to seeing redevelopment and end to terrorism in the Muslim world. Believing that such a thing will never be possible, and acting in accordance with that belief, is going to hand the terrorists a far greater victory than any they could win for themselves.

[shootinstudent]

Hello??? last time I checked the Mullahs were Muslim leaders.


You think that because you never checked it. Start by looking up the difference between Shi'at Ali and Sunni.


I quit watching the Communist News Network about 12 years ago, so it is hard for me to validate your sentance. However, If the rest of the Muslim community has a problem with the Iranians, they should speak out on any news entity available to them LOUDLY.

They have been. The problem is that you're not looking at the things they write. Muslims don't control the news networks in America, so short of buying full page ads in the sunday paper, why would you expect to see Muslim religious materials (and fatwas are entirely religious) in an American news article?

[Mongo the Mutterer]

You think that because you never checked it. Start by looking up the difference between Shi'at Ali and Sunni.Ya know, it is kind of up to them to show us the difference, and if they have to take out ads they should do so.

It doesn't seem to me that it is my obligation to immerse myself in Muslim lore, sects, or whatever. I do not plan to take long walks in the moonlight with them. What I expect them to do is this:

1. Clean up their nests and get rid of the terrorists.

2. Leave us the hell alone.

If they don't do those two things they will eternally regret the escalation which can befall them. Iran is making war noises. Our argument is with Iran at this point, as a nation. If there are (as I have heard) elements in the Iranian nation who disagree with their rulers, they should overthrow their government.

[.45Guy]

I assume we can all agree that most Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Now let us look at the Q'ran. Here a few choice excerpts, with three different translations as it is "impossible" to properly translate into English. Enjoy:
Sura 5:72

"Unbelievers are those who say: 'God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.'" (Dawood excerpt)

"They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers." (Pickthall)

Sura 3:28

"Let not believers make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful - he that does this has nothing to hope for from God - except in self-defense. God admonishes you to fear Him: for to God shall all return." (Dawood)

" Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying." (Pickthall)

Sura 3:118

"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal. We have made plain to you Our revelations. Strive to understand them." (Dawood).

"O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if ye will understand." (Pickthall)

Sura 5:51

"Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrongdoers." (Dawood)

" O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk." (Pickthall)

Sura 3:120

"When you are blessed with good fortune they (unbelievers) grieve: but when evil befalls you they rejoice. If you persevere and guard yourselves against evil, their machinations will never harm you. God has knowledge of all their actions." (Dawood)

"If a lucky chance befall you, it is evil unto them, and if disaster strike you they rejoice thereat. But if ye persevere and keep from evil their guile will never harm you. Lo! Allah is Surrounding what they do." (Pickthall
Sura 4:76

"The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan. Satan's cunning is weak indeed." (Dawood)

"Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak." (Pickthall)
Sura 4:89

"They (Muslims who don't want to fight) would have you disbelieve as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may be all alike. Do not befriend them until they have fled their homes in the cause of God. If they desert you, seize them and put them to death wherever you find them. Look for neither friends nor helpers among them." (Dawood)

"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them," (Pickthall)

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

Sura 5:62-63

"You see many among them (the People of the Book - Jews & Christians) vie with one another in sin and wickedness and practise what is unlawful. Evil is what they do. Why do their rabbis and divines not forbid them to blaspheme or to practise what is unlawful? Evil indeed are their doings." (Dawood)

"And thou seest many of them vying one with another in sin and transgression and their devouring of illicit gain. Verily evil is what they do. 005.063 Why do not the rabbis and the priests forbid their evil-speaking and their devouring of illicit gain ? Verily evil is their handiwork." (Pickthall)
Sura 9:29

"Fight against such as of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the truth Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Dawood)

Here is the same sura in three other translations:

YUSUFALI: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

PICKTHAL: "Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."

SHAKIR: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. "

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Wow .45. Now I'm not a biblical scholar... very far from it. But I never caught in the Bible where we were to "fight" those of other religions.

As a matter of fact, I was kind of taught to respect the religion of others...

[Coronach]

I quote from the Holy Book of THR Forum Rules:We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of abortion, religion and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR, and any threads dealing primarily with these subjects will be closed or deleted immediately.