Muslims Against Terrorism

[LucienVanImpe]

While I knew that Palestinians were elected to the Knesset, my apprehensions were in the area of qualifications to vote.

Yes, you incredibly espoused the ignorant claim that Palestinians do not have voting rights in Israel, but I take note of your retraction.

I don't know what the poster 'demon' is correct about, though. That I'm from another planet? That Israel is not a democracy as he obscurely seems to allude to?

Now you have shifted attention away from this gross misrepresentation of the Israeli state to Section 7a(1) of the Basic Law of the Knesset. Which, of course, has nothing do with your original claim of voter rights (those are dealt with in Section 5).

In fact, it doesn't even have anything particular to do with Palestinians. It applies to all candidates, including Jews, Christians, Druids, Bedouins etc.

You could have quoted part 2 and 3 of this sub-section as well. They prevent anti-democrats and racists from running. Fairly basic demands.

One is left to wonder why you grasped for this particular straw. It shouldn't come as a surprise that Israel is a Jewish state, neither that the Basic Law excludes candidates who are opposed to this fundamental provision.

What is so upsetting?

 

[Lazarus]

It's the only definition of theocracy!

So, are you saying that a gov't founded in religious doctrine, and that applies theistic law, (rather than common law for instance), but is governed by elected officials which are in fact laymen cannot be a theocracy? Then, what would you call such a gov't? Personaaly, I'd call it a democratic theocracy, or a theocratic democracy. But then, this cannot be because you insist that such an entity could never exist. Well, why could this not exist, or why would it not be a theocracy or a democracy?

As far as definitions are concerned, please try http://dictionary.reference.com/ and enter the word theocracy. If you want more variations, I'm sure that I could bring on several other variations.

Not before you name all the other non-muslim theocracies you claim to be in existence.

Again, man, please stop inventing arguments for me. I never said that there were any non-muslim theocracies in existance at this time. I mentioned that only in the past tense. It was you that said that I made that claim.

Also, this is perhaps one of the strangest arguments I've ever heard. You will not support your own assertions on the grounds that I have not supported a claim that I never made. Even if I did make that claim, does that mean that your previous claims may go unsupported?

Huh? I pointed out that theocracies exist in an significant number only in Muslim countries. What are you talking about?

Let's try again, but I'm getting real tired of this game you are playing. I mean no disrespect, but did you learn your debating skills from Duane Gish? Follow all of the posts concerning theocracy all the way back to the beginning, then read forward. Next, do not pick and choose specific points taken out of context. Rather, use the entirety of the argument offered. After that, please stop accusing me of saying things I never said. I do not intend on posting each of these comments in order.

So far, I've attempted to support any claim that I actually made. If I have failed to do that in your view, then that is fine. I did not enter into this thread to disect sentences out of context, nor to defend claims that I either haven't made, or didn't think were important. The majority of your arguments seem to have been taken from questions I've posed to you or to skeptic. I was sincerely seeking support for your claims, and have yet to receive any, with the possible exception of a copied definition.

I want nothing more than to understand the opinions of others, and share what meager knowledge that I am capable of. If others make claims through authority, then I would expect those claims to be supported. Otherwise, we have nothing more than useless rhetoric.

If you must attack the position of others, rather than to defend your own, you have no right in making the assertion that anyone else is "blinded by their own ignorance." Unless, you can answer the specific questions which have been posed to you, then you are not worth my time to continue this debate.

 

[Skeptic]

What is so upsetting?

The fact that a jewish state exist.

A french state, an american state, an arab state, a palestinian state, etc.--in fact, ALL other states, including such luminaries like Sudan and North Korea--are expressing the "legitimate national rights" of their people. It is ONLY the jews who have no national rights, and whose state--just because it is a jewish state, in the same sense France is a French state--is essentially "racist" and "evil".

Of course, it doesn't matter that your criticism of the "racist israel" actually has to be correct; you don't have to know the first thing about israel or its democracy (such as knowing that arabs citizens--and, generally, all citizens--can and do vote.) It's the priciple of the criticism--"israel is evil"--that is important. You'll find SOME reason to justify it, ANY reason, later, when you get around to actually learning something about israel.

Besides, the arab world blaming israel for lack of democracy is probably the ultimate case of the pot calling the kettle black. Can you imagine the palestinians allowing jews to vote in their elections? Of course not; it is open only to palestinians--and for that matter, only to palestinians who support Arafat. Can you vote for a jew in Egypt? Of course not. Even within their sham, dictatorially-controlled "elections", it is offically the law that the president has to be muslim and Egypt is a muslim state. Can you vote for a non-muslim in Sudan? That would be hard, since being a non-muslim in Sudan is a death sentence, as the muslims in the north are carrying on a war of annihilation against the animist and christian south. Which didn't stop Sudan for sending representitives to the UN's "anti-racism conference" in Durban to blame israel for being racist.

(Then again, maybe there IS a better case of the pot calling the kettle black: in the 1970s, Algeria asked the UN to condemn israel for "aerial terrorism"--for putting armed guards in its planes, that made them harder to hijack by algerian terrorists. Really.)

 

[Skeptic]

I mean no disrespect, but did you learn your debating skills from Duane Gish?

Says the man who blames israel for being "racist" because it doesn't allow arabs to vote, without knowing that it DOES allow just that, and always did.

Sort of like Duane Gish's repeated demands for "just one transitional fossil", completely ignoring the fact that literally thousands exist.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Lazarus:

So, are you saying that a gov't founded in religious doctrine, and that applies theistic law, (rather than common law for instance), but is governed by elected officials which are in fact laymen cannot be a theocracy?

Under the definition I found in my dictionary, no. A theocracy would be under the rule of a priesthood, who more than likely would be anointed, rather than elected.

Personaaly, I'd call it a democratic theocracy, or a theocratic democracy. But then, this cannot be because you insist that such an entity could never exist. Well, why could this not exist, or why would it not be a theocracy or a democracy?

Because it doesn't exist, never has, and more than likely never will. Or do you know differently? What about this Jewish democratic theocracy you mentioned earlier?

Again, man, please stop inventing arguments for me. I never said that there were any non-muslim theocracies in existance at this time. I mentioned that only in the past tense. It was you that said that I made that claim.

Really?

Well, I do know of a Jewish Democratic theocracy

Did you or didn't you say that?

Also, this is perhaps one of the strangest arguments I've ever heard. You will not support your own assertions on the grounds that I have not supported a claim that I never made. Even if I did make that claim, does that mean that your previous claims may go unsupported?

What claims have I failed to support?

 

[Malachi151]

No, being a "good radical" in american campus politics requires, first of all, rabid antisemitism.

Oh lord, talk about over simplification. How is being against the policies of a country anti-Semitic? I think that Israel is a screwed up situation and that the Israelis have done some wrong things. So now, because I can acknowledge that people in Israel have contributed to the problem I am a hater of all Jews? I think not.

And this goes to the ideas of Zionist Jews, because they, the Zionist Jews, see Israel as a symbol for an entire "group" of people, who refuse to be called a racial or a religious group, just an amorphic idea of Semitic which again is racial but no one wants to say that its racial thing.

Its nothing against the Jewish people because they are Jews. It would not matter WHO was in Israel's position. If French people, British people, Germans, etc were there then people would be speaking out against them too.

However, they know very well that ISLAMIC FANTACISM DOESN'T WORK.

Of course not, no religious fundamentalism works. Why would liberals support Islamic Fundamentalism? They wouldn't.

The moment you have an islamically-ruled country, that is the end of democracy, freedom of speech, women's rights, and numerous other freedoms, and on the other hand you have enormous military expeditures to establish religious compliance at home and export islam, through terrorism, abroad.

The moment you have any country that it ruled by any religion, it does not have to be Islamic, and that includes Judaism, although I admit Judaism is many, many times better than Islam in terms of something to govern a country by.

The thing is, certain Jews have to stop taking any action against a Jew as an affront to an entire group of people, that's just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, and not all Jews do that, but the ones who do cause enough problems for the rest.

Every group in the world does not have its own country you know anyway, why do the Jews need a country?

It takes more history on this matter to see what is really going on here.

Prior to WWII Zionist Jews were pressing to have Israel. There were many other Jews that were against it though, these being the socialist Jews, main of the Bolsheviks, but others too.

The Anglos hated the Jews for the most part, which is why Anglos from around the world helped Hitler to power. They wanted to get all of the Jews out of every country in the world. This includes many wealth Anglos in America and Britain, etc. Churchill was all for the Zionists and the creation of Israel, because he wanted all the Jews to leave England and go there.

The Jewish internationalists opposed Israel, Einstein testified before a committee that he was opposed to the formation of Israel and he said that Zionism was a bad influence on the world that would only bring trouble. The Bolsheviks and people like Einstein felt that Jews should not separate themselves out and that they should integrate into society. That's exactly what the Anglos didn't want, they didn't like the Jews in society, and they believed in an international Jewish conspiracy to take over the world linked with Communism. This is really what people like Churchill and Hitler, and Du Pont, and Ford, etc, believed and acted on in collaboration.

If you go back to before the war you see a change in the British position in the Middle East shortly before the war. They had been favoring the Arabs in the international zone, but then they changed to supporting the Jews, because they were preparing for Zionism and to expropriate the Jews from Europe.

The creation of Israel is by its very nature the most anti-Semitic thing that has ever been done, its like if we created a black state in America and encouraged all the blacks to go there.

Now, the creation of Israel has screwed the entire world, just as Einstein said it would, and Trotsky and the other socialists as well.

Prior to the creation of Israel the Jews and Muslims got along better then the Christians and the Jews. The Jews were a productive force in the Middle East, working along side the Muslims.

Think of what the world could be like today if there was no Israel and if instead the Jews had put their efforts to work in the Middle East working with the Arabs to build a better region. Of course the Anglos knew that too, and that's why they also supported Zionism, to get the Jews out of the oil rich regions and to a place of lesser influence, because they fears the Jews ability to be effective businessmen in the Persian Gulf, which they wanted to control themselves, and have been trying to do so ever since.

The truth is that Israel is anti-Semitic.

What would have been the best thing for the Middle East? No Israel, and Pan Arabism. All of the countries in the Middle East unite to form a United States, which many Arabs have wanted to do for a long time. Who wanted Pan Arabism? The secular Arabs. The Middle East was more advanced culturally 80 years ago then it is today. If there had been no Israel then Islamic Fundamentalism would not have grown, and if Pan Arabism happened then the Middle East would be a strong thriving place of secular government today most likely, with Kurds, and Jews, and Arabs all living together. Its too late for that though.

Who is behind the reasons why that did not happen? The Anglos. The Brits and Americans were afraid of what a united and peaceful Middle East may produce with all of the oil there, they feared that the Middle East would become too powerful if the region was allowed to progress, and so they have systematically worked to destroy it over these past 100 years, and they are successful.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html

http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/einstein.htm

All of this information is covered in my paper to a degree, which is linked in my sig

 

[Earthborn]

Under the definition I found in my dictionary, no. A theocracy would be under the rule of a priesthood, who more than likely would be anointed, rather than elected.

By your own definition, Iran is not a theocracy as it isn't ruled by a priesthood but by elected officials.

Actually according to your definition no Islamic country can ever be a theocracy, because Islam doesn't have any priesthood. Scholars in Islamic law and writing are not automatically priests, so no matter how much influence they have on the government, according to your definition, they couldn't make their country a theocracy.

I think this shows that the definition is much to narrow, as I have no problem at all considering Iran to be a theocracy.

 

[Baker]

The Anglos hated the Jews for the most part, which is why Anglos from around the world helped Hitler to power. They wanted to get all of the Jews out of every country in the world. This includes many wealth Anglos in America and Britain, etc. Churchill was all for the Zionists and the creation of Israel, because he wanted all the Jews to leave England and go there.

Your conspiracy theorys make even AUP look sane.

Prior to the creation of Israel the Jews and Muslims got along better then the Christians and the Jews. The Jews were a productive force in the Middle East, working along side the Muslims.

Think of what the world could be like today if there was no Israel and if instead the Jews had put their efforts to work in the Middle East working with the Arabs to build a better region. Of course the Anglos knew that too, and that's why they also supported Zionism, to get the Jews out of the oil rich regions and to a place of lesser influence, because they fears the Jews ability to be effective businessmen in the Persian Gulf, which they wanted to control themselves, and have been trying to do so ever since.

Can you provide any proof at all for these absurd claims.
If there had been no Israel then Islamic Fundamentalism would not have grown??
There has been Islamic Fundamentalism through out history.

The truth is that Israel is anti-Semitic.

What would have been the best thing for the Middle East? No Israel, and Pan Arabism. All of the countries in the Middle East unite to form a United States, which many Arabs have wanted to do for a long time. Who wanted Pan Arabism? The secular Arabs. The Middle East was more advanced culturally 80 years ago then it is today. If there had been no Israel then Islamic Fundamentalism would not have grown, and if Pan Arabism happened then the Middle East would be a strong thriving place of secular government today most likely, with Kurds, and Jews, and Arabs all living together. Its too late for that though.

Who is behind the reasons why that did not happen? The Anglos. The Brits and Americans were afraid of what a united and peaceful Middle East may produce with all of the oil there, they feared that the Middle East would become too powerful if the region was allowed to progress, and so they have systematically worked to destroy it over these past 100 years, and they are successful.

Now this is another out right lie.

Arab leaders have repeatedly made clear their animosity toward Jews and Judaism. For example, on November 23, 1937, Saudi Arabia's King Ibn Saud told British Colonel H.R.P. Dickson: "Our hatred for the Jews dates from God's condemnation of them for their persecution and rejection of Isa (Jesus) and their subsequent rejection of His chosen Prophet." He added "that for a Muslim to kill a Jew, or for him to be killed by a Jew ensures him an immediate entry into Heaven and into the august presence of God Almighty."

Official British document, Foreign Office File No. 371/20822 E 7201/22/31; Elie Kedourie, Islam in the Modern World, (London: Mansell, 1980), pp. 69-72.

Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in "an offensive manner." The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.

Norman Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands, (PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979), p. 84; Maurice Roumani, The Case of the Jews from Arab Countries: A Neglected Issue, (Tel Aviv: World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries, 1977), pp. 26-27; Bat Ye'or, p. 72; Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, (NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984) p. 158.

 

[Malachi151]

Your conspiracy theorys make even AUP look sane.



If there had been no Israel then Islamic Fundamentalism would not have grown??

Well that is obviously impossible to prove, but I suspect it is true. Fundamentalism is generally a reactionary force to outside threat. In peace and prosperity fundamentalism does not grow.

Arab leaders have repeatedly made clear their animosity toward Jews and Judaism. For example, on November 23, 1937, Saudi Arabia's King Ibn Saud told British Colonel H.R.P. Dickson: "Our hatred for the Jews dates from God's condemnation of them for their persecution and rejection of Isa (Jesus) and their subsequent rejection of His chosen Prophet." He added "that for a Muslim to kill a Jew, or for him to be killed by a Jew ensures him an immediate entry into Heaven and into the august presence of God Almighty."

This statement was made after tensions were growing in the region of Israel due to British involvement.

Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in "an offensive manner." The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.

Yes, but overall the Jews and Muslims got along better then the Jews and Chrisitans, Spanish Inquisition anyone? That was an anti-Semitic event directed at the Jews, and just one of many that occured between about 400 CE and 1600 CE

The Jews and Their Lies - Martin Luthor 1543

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html

The International Jew - Henry Ford 1927

http://www.ety.com/berlin/ford1.htm

"WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT?

Simply identify the source and nature of the influence which has overrun our schools and universities. Let the students know that their choice is between the Anglo-Saxons and the Tribe of Judah. Let the students decide, in making up their allegiance, whether they will follow the Builders or those who seek to tear down. It is not a case for argument. The only absolute antidote to the Jewish influence is to call college students back to a pride of race.

We often speak of the Fathers as if they were the few who happened to affix their signatures to a great document which marked a new era of liberty. The Fathers of our nation were the men of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic race. The men who came from Europe with civilization in their blood and in their destiny. The men who crossed the Atlantic and set up civilization on a bleak and rock-bound coast; the men who drove north to Alaska and west to California; the men who opened up the tropics and subdued the arctics; the men who mastered the African veldt; the men who peopled Australia and seized the gates of the world at Suez, Gibraltar and Panama; men who have given form to every government and a livelihood to every people and an ideal to every century. They got neither their God nor their religion from Judah, nor yet their speech nor their creative genius- they are the Ruling People. Chosen throughout the centuries to Master the world, by building it ever better and better, and not by breaking it down.

Into the camp of this race, among the sons of the rulers, comes a people that has no civilization to point to, no aspiring religion, no universal speech, no great achievement in any realm but the realm of "get," cast out of every land that gave them hospitality, and these people endeavor to tell the Sons of the Saxons what is needed to make the world what it ought to be!

If our sons follow this counsel of dark rebellion and destruction, it is because they do not know whose sons they are, of what race they are the scions. Let there be free speech to the limit in our universities and free intercourse of ideas, but let Jewish thoughts be labeled Jewish, and let our sons know the racial secret."

"NAME THE ENEMY!

…

Judah has begun the struggle. Judah has made the invasion. Let it come. Let no man fear it. But let every a man insist that the fight be fair. Let college students and leaders of thought know that the objective is the regnancy of the ideas and the race that have built all the civilization we see and that promises all the civilization of the future; let them also know that the attacking force is Jewish.

That is all that will be necessary. It is against this that the Jews protest. "You must not identify us," they say, "You must not use the term 'Jew'." Why? Because unless the Jewish idea can creep in under the assumption of other than Jewish origin, it is doomed. Anglo-Saxon ideas dare proclaim themselves and their origin. A proper proclamation is all that is necessary today. Compel every invading idea to run up its flag!"

THE STATE OF ALL - JUDAAN
Judaism is the most closely organized power on earth. It forms a State whose citizens are unconditionally loyal wherever they may be and whether rich or poor.

The name which is given to this State, which circulates among all the states, is "All-Judaan."

The means of power of the State of All-Judaan are capital and journalism, or money and propaganda.

All-Judaan is the only State that exercises world government; all the other States can and may exercise national government only.

The principal culture of All-Judaan is journalistic; the technical, scientific, literary performances of the modern Jew are throughout journalistic performances. They are due to the marvellous talent of the Jews for receptivity of others' ideas. Capital and Journalism are joined in the Press to create a political and spiritual medium of Jewish power.

The government of this State of All-Judaan is wonderfully organized. Paris was the first seat, but has now been moved to a lower place. Before 1914 London was its first, and New York its second capital. New York now supplants London.

All-Judaan is not in a position to have a standing army and navy, other states supply these for it. It was the British Fleet which guarded from hindrance the progress of all-Jewish world economy, or that part of it which depends on the sea. In return, All-Judaan assured Britain an undisturbed political and territorial rule.

Then New York supplanted London. The drift of the Jews in the 19th century, expedited into a great flood after World War I, made the United States the seat of Jewish power and influence. "America," and her fleets, armies, citizens, takes the place of Britain as the "ruler of the world." It merely means that Jewry has moved from the British Empire to the American Continent.

All-Judaan is willing to entrust the government of various strips of the world to nationalistic governments; it only asks to control the governments. Judaism is passionately in favor of perpetuating nationalistic divisions for the Gentile world. For themselves, Jews never became assimilated with any nation. They are a separate people, always were and always will be.

All-Judaan's only quarrel with any nation occurs when that nation makes it impossible, or tries to make it so, for All-Judaan to control that nation's industrial and financial profits. It can make war, it can make peace; it can command anarchy in stubborn cases, it can restore order. It holds the sinews of world power in its hand and it apportions them among the nations in such ways as will best support All-Judaan's plan.

Controlling the world's source of news, All-Judaan can always prepare the minds of the people for its next move. The greatest exposure yet to be made is the way that news is manufactured and the way in which the mind of whole nations is molded for a purpose.

When the powerful Jew is at last traced and his hand revealed, then comes the ready cry of persecution and it echoes through the world press. The real cause of the persecution (which is the oppression of the people by the financial practices of the Jews) is never given publicity.

All-Judaan has its vice-governments in every capital. Having wreaked its vengeance on Germany, it will go forth to conquer other nations. Britain it already has. France and Russia it has long held. The United States, with its good-natured tolerance of all races, offered a promising field. All-Judaan is here. The scene of operations changes, but the Jew is the same throughout the centuries.

Zionism vs Bolshevism Winston Churchill 1920

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html

Now, the issue is what the Anglos believed, their perception.

They believed in Jewish conspiracy, and they acted on Jewish conspiracy. I don't believe it, they did though.

Read all of Ford's book. Ford collaberated with Hitler, the entire Holocaust was an internationally endorced event linked to anti-Communist efforts. It was primarily anti-Communist and anti-Semitic, and the links were drawn between Bolshevism and the Jews. I myself am on the side of the Bolsheviks in the overall matter, and totally opposed to the goings on, but the fact is that Churchill and the Brits were working towards cooperation with Hitler to rid Europe of the Jews. Churchill was not so drastic as Hitler though he just wanted them moved out to Israel, he didn't want to kill them all. However, he knew of the killings an didn't do anything because he was complacent in the matter.

Also, Hitler was the progeny of Zionist Jews, and the attack in Germany was on Bolshevik Jews, not Zionist Jews. The attack in Europe was on Bolshevik Jews, not Zionist Jews. The "problems" as seen by the Anglos was acutely Bolshevism, but they were uneasy with all the Jews. Ford didn't discriminate, he didn't like Zionist or Bolshevik Jews.

When reading Ford's work you see that this is about much more than "hate", it goes *WELL* beyond that. Now, if what Ford wrote was right or wrong does not matter, what matters is that millions of people around the world believed it going into WWII, and there were fascist organizations in America, and all over Europe too, incluing France, England, etc. All supporting getting rid of the Jews, with Anglo millionairs all over the world supporting Hitler and also the creaton of Israel to ship the rest of the Jews there.

Eisntien and the "International Jews", as Ford called them, the ones he called the enemy, because they were secular and liberal and socialist and supporitng unions and such, opposed Zionism because they saw Zionism as Jewish fascism, which it is.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

http://www.boottotheskull.com/mb/viewthread.php?tid=4773

"US" is the United States.

Most of the world owes their existance to us.

We have sacrificed to save the bosnians from extermination and to liberate the moslems from the communist in Afghanistan,and they have STABBED US IN THE BACK!

I have no sympathy for any mohammadan scum.

If they wish to practice their vile religion in their ratholes,fine.But when they make cowardly attacks against us,we should respond to them with severe,brutal force.

America does have it's faults,but we ARE the good guys.

- edited to add my point which was:

As long as this mentality pervades The White House, Congress and Talk Radio, then I don't hold out much hope for a reproachment with Iran.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

By your own definition, Iran is not a theocracy as it isn't ruled by a priesthood but by elected officials.

Actually according to your definition no Islamic country can ever be a theocracy, because Islam doesn't have any priesthood. Scholars in Islamic law and writing are not automatically priests, so no matter how much influence they have on the government, according to your definition, they couldn't make their country a theocracy.

I think this shows that the definition is much to narrow, as I have no problem at all considering Iran to be a theocracy.

Not true.

First off, Shiia Islam does have a priesthood. Ayatollah isn't just another name for mullah, it's a level of mullah. President Khatami is the next step down a "Hojat al Islam."

Second, the Majlis cannot pass any laws that don't pass muster with the ruling Council of mullahs. In the end Khatami's efforts at reform have been stifled not by an intransigent parliament, but due to reforms being blocked by the council and by Ayatollah Khameni, who, much Ayatollah Khomeni, is who is actually running the show.