Scripps Howard News Service column on World War IV

[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.