Muslims Against Terrorism

[Skeptic]

Imagine this situation:

A powerful political organization wants to organize a day of support for the palestinians and the (so-called) "Second Intifada" on university campuses.

A large student organization, called "The Free Student Association", refuses. It claims that this is obviously an attempt to politicize the campuses, and make the a hotbed for antisemitism.

Where did this happen?

In an American University Campus? Get real. In Berkeley, the students rallied continuously for "palestinian rights" (to kill jews) and call repeatedly for israel's destruction. In Columbia, Edward Said, and in MIT, Chomsky, are the two leaders of the "israel must be destroyed" camp. No, being a "good radical" in american campus politics requires, first of all, rabid antisemitism.

In an European campus? Puh-leaaase. Europe, with a growing--and increasingly violent and radical--muslim population will do anything whatsoever to keep them quiet. There, too, support for "justice in the middle east" (e.g., israel's destruction and a second holocaust) is a necessity in order to join the world of the righteous "liberals".

It happened in Teheran. Yes, THAT Teheran--the capital of Iran. And, yes, the students are, of course, muslims. And, yes, with all probability observant ones as well.

Why?

Well, it stands to reason, when you think about it. While the students in the west are busy with ******** courses that promote "muticulturalism" and the idea that all cultures--whether a mideaval islamic theocracy or a modern democracy--are all "equal" and anybody that disagrees is a "racist", the students in Teheran know very well what life in a strict Islamic state REALLY means.

These students probably don't have too much love to israel or the US. I doubt they'd shed a tear if israel is destroyed. However, they know very well that ISLAMIC FANTACISM DOESN'T WORK.

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. There is no research, no decent government, no non-corrupt officials, and very often no clean water or electricity. Sure, you can blame all that on a jewish conspiracy and/or american hegamony and/or some other enemy du jour, but that doesn't change reality.

(I am reminded of a funny incident from the People's Reublic of Berkeley, CA. In the 1980s, most of the city council's meetings time dealt, of course, with international politics. One day, the city council was dealing in all seriously with the issue--so relevant to the residents of Berkeley--of what, if any, should the liberal, enlightened, modern position that Berkeley should officially take about the situation in the middle east. When the chair asked if there are any questions, a woman stood up and said that this is all very nice, but why hasn't the city fixed the broken lamppost in front of her house for the last three months? This was met with loud cheering from the croud.)

The events in Iran make me hope that, after all, the west will not only win, but that victory is inevitable. israel might be destroyed in the meantime (replaced with the usual outcome of such "liberation of the muslims"--namely, butchery and expulsion of all non-muslims); more bombs will hit New York; but, in the end, it will win for the same reason it won against communism: nobody really wants to live in an Islamic country, and everybody wants to live in the west.

[Ben Shniper]

Bless the freedom seekers of Iran. If they can build a democracy, may it BE better than America and Israel.

-Ben

[Skeptic]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
Bless the freedom seekers of Iran. If they can build a democracy, may it BE better than America and Israel.

-Ben

Actually, historically speaking, the Persians (or as they are now known, the Iranians) were certainly the most advanced people, politically and socially, in the region. Humeini and his thugs are--historically--an aberration, an exception, not the rule.

Of course, you cannot demand a better proof of the futility of Islamic fundamentalism than this. But the left, with its "multiculturalism" mantra, will not listen. After all, they still have marxists...

I was in Iran some years back and as Islamic countries go it isn't too bad. I am familiar with Saudi and I can tell you Iran is any day better than Saudi.

True the Islamic strictures exist, but it is a country that is trying to build an Islamic country that works. I have seen women in Iran isn high posts, walk the streets alone at night and on a more mundane level some of their movies have been great. Compare this to the situation of America's great friend, Saudi Arabia.

There was a great deal of bad press for Iran, immediately after the revolution. The Shah was a tyrant, no question about it. But he had American support. The other governments of the middle-east were getting fidgety about a popular revolt against the god given authority of the monarchy. Besides which Iran is shiite while other countries are Sunni.

There is a progressive movement in Iran, I think one needs to give it time. I foresee it growing as the only sensible Islamic nation in the wolrd. Shiite Islam is historically a progressive movement.

[Lazarus]

Where does Muslim's Against Terrorism fit or fits into this thread?

If this concerns the organization, then try here; http://www.matusa.org/flash.html

Skeptic, I was unable to find any other reference in your post that even infers that any Muslim may be against terrorism. As a matter of fact, you seemed to have painted a fairly hostile image that acts as a blanket condemnation of any person or institution that may feel that there is some merit in the claims of the Palestinians, or the the Muslim world as a whole.

Quote:

Posted by Skeptic
In Berkeley, the students rallied continuously for "palestinian rights" (to kill jews) and call repeatedly for israel's destruction.

Concerning the first part of this statement, I don't understand how a call for basic rights to democracy, such as being able to vote in a national election, or retaining ownership of your legally deeded land is much of a call for the murder of innocent people. If the students went beyond these simple claims, then, they deserve to be derided. Please, could you post your sources on the claims that this student organization is calling for the murder of Jewish people or the destruction of Israel?

Quote:

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

Please, enlighten me. What are the premises for this argument?

Quote:

There, too, support for "justice in the middle east" (e.g., israel's destruction and a second holocaust) is a necessity in order to join the world of the righteous "liberals".

Again, I am perplexed. I did not know that our European allies were dedicated to Israel's destruction. I thought several to be onboard with the US in support of the Israeli gov't. Again, could you, please, direct me to your sources? I am deeply concerned.

Quote:

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.

Now, would this accusation hold true for any other theocratic gov't, other than Islam, attempting to consolidate power in a nation where the people already suffer many religious, political, nationalstic and economic divides?

Quote:

it will win for the same reason it won against communism: nobody really wants to live in an Islamic country, and everybody wants to live in the west.

Well, I apologize for my ignorance. I thought that communism in Eastern Europe and Western Asia fell due to terrible economic decisions, corruption, an opening of world trade and communications, and being outspent by the West. I've been wrong before. Oh, and I would think that Fundamentalists would like to live in their own personal theocracy. Those that want to live in the west, I think, would prefer to live in their own nation, if they were free of the threat of repression, and experience a healthy economy.

Actually, I don't mean to be harsh, but I felt that I read a rant full of hysteria and paranoia. Personally, I do not, and will not support any theocracy, whether it is Muslim or Jewish, (and especially an American Christian theocracy), nor do I seek the destruction of any nation. At the same time, voicing my opposition to the policies of a nation that we support is my right as an American citizen, and that does not make me less of a patriot. It doesn't even make me a liberal! It just makes me an American...

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Lazarus:

Quote:

Concerning the first part of this statement, I don't understand how a call for basic rights to democracy, such as being able to vote in a national election, or retaining ownership of your legally deeded land is much of a call for the murder of innocent people.

Problem: Basic rights to democracy and respect for private property are rather attenuated in the Muslim-Arabic world. If one was really concerned that these were to be extended to Palestinians then the most logical course of action to support would be the formal annexation of the occupied territories by Israel.

Quote:

Now, would this accusation hold true for any other theocratic gov't, other than Islam, attempting to consolidate power in a nation where the people already suffer many religious, political, nationalstic and economic divides?

I'm sure it would, if only I could think of any non-Islamic theocracies. There aren't any Christian ones. Tibet was a Buddhist theocracy, and IIRC Bhutan still is.

Quote:

I've been wrong before. Oh, and I would think that Fundamentalists would like to live in their own personal theocracy. Those that want to live in the west, I think, would prefer to live in their own nation, if they were free of the threat of repression, and experience a healthy economy.

He wasn't talking about the fundies, just the common folk. Remember that shipload of Afghans trying to gain admittance to Australia?

Quote:

Personally, I do not, and will not support any theocracy, whether it is Muslim or Jewish, (and especially an American Christian theocracy), nor do I seek the destruction of any nation.

And when was an American Christian theocracy ever a viable concept? In a nation that's 25% Catholic, has a large number of adherents to Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as a myriad of Protestant sects that are often at odds with each other on theological points?

I take it that you support China's occupation of Tibet, since the alternative is a Buddhist theocracy?

[Lazarus]

Quote:

Posted by Shane Costello
I take it that you support China's occupation of Tibet, since the alternative is a Buddhist theocracy?

This last line seems to sum up your entire point throughout your post. This is no different than saying during the second world war, "If you don't support communist Russia, then you must support nazi Germany." It is not rational, nor logical.

Quote:

Problem: Basic rights to democracy and respect for private property are rather attenuated in the Muslim-Arabic world. If one was really concerned that these were to be extended to Palestinians then the most logical course of action to support would be the formal annexation of the occupied territories by Israel.

First off, are you attempting to say that Palestinians living in the the non-occupied territories enjoy these freedoms? I did not know that any people other than Jewish citizens of Israel had the right to vote in national elections. I may be mistaken, but I doubt it. Plus, I thought there was a different level of proof needed to prevent public annexation of private property depending on your citizenship throughout Israel. Again, I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I would love for someone with knowledge of Israeli law to weigh in on this one with references.

Quote:

I'm sure it would, if only I could think of any non-Islamic theocracies. There aren't any Christian ones. Tibet was a Buddhist theocracy, and IIRC Bhutan still is.

Well, I do know of a Jewish Democratic theocracy. Then, there used to be plenty of Christian theocracies. And, do you have a real point to this? My point was that I consider a theocracy wrong despite the religious tenets of that theocracy, not because of them. I think that was apparent, but I will try to be more precise next time.

Quote:

He wasn't talking about the fundies, just the common folk.

Oh, sorry. I thought he said, "nobody really wants to live in an Islamic country." I thought that was fairly inclusive. But, like I said before, I've been wrong before. So, I'll give you that one. He was talking about everyone but the fundies.

Quote:

And when was an American Christian theocracy ever a viable concept?

Oh, I dunno. Maybe those non-Mormons living in Salt Lake City are complaining for nothing.

Quote:

In a nation that's 25% Catholic, has a large number of adherents to Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as a myriad of Protestant sects that are often at odds with each other on theological points?

Hmm, so, are you insinuating that coallition Christian gov'ts are not possible? I find that they have many issues in coomon. Plus, have you noticed the drives lately to remove the teaching of evolution from our public schools, and its replacement by religious doctrine? Have you noticed all of the web-sites advocating the concept of a USA based in Christian law, and history? Have you noticed the drive to put religious icons of only one faith into the public sphere, or to at least have many returned? Have you missed the spurt of religious support in recent legislation?

Look, man, I was not saying that the concept of an American Christian theocracy was viable. We're too much of a plutarchy for that. I was saying that I would not support such a thing, and infering that there is a rather vocal group the supports this idea.

Let me try one more time for those who are blinded by their own prejudices. Support for human rights for all people, is not a call for the limiting of human rights for some people. Too many people are too quick to impose their personal prejudices on others, and to stereotype those that aren't just like them. And, these people are not just Muslims or Jews, or Buddhists or Christians, or even Atheists. I'm all for finding ways to recognize the inherent value of all people, and not to perpetuate the status quo of choosing sides.

Yes, we do need to control those people that will threaten our society, but this is not an excuse for not understanding or considering the motivations of those people. Without knowing the motivations, and understanding the best routes to acheive our goals, the problems we face now will not go away. And, this is what we are not doing. The world does not necessarily share our belief system, and to expect them to see the light of our personal glory is naive.

[Skeptic]

[quote]Originally posted by Lazarus
Where does Muslim's Against Terrorism fit or fits into this thread?

Er... due to the fact that I was describing a group of muslims who were against terrorism?

Skeptic, I was unable to find any other reference in your post that even infers that any Muslim may be against terrorism.

If I said that Martin Luther King Jr. was a great guy, would you complain that I "had not anywhere in your post is it even inferred that other black people might be great guys"?

You can't win with some people...
Concerning the first part of this statement, I don't understand how a call for basic rights to democracy, such as being able to vote in a national election, or retaining ownership of your legally deeded land is much of a call for the murder of innocent people.

Huh? The whole point of my statements is that these students in Iran are AGAINST such murder. What the hell does "legally deeded land" have to do with these students, I cannot imagine.

Please, could you post your sources on the claims that this student organization is calling for the murder of Jewish people or the destruction of Israel?

Huh? I didn't say they do that. In fact, I said they were saying the exact opposite!

As for why this is noteworthy--why we would EXPECT the students to call for israel's destruction and the murder of the jews--that is because this is Iran's official position since Humeini came to power, and it very often used students to demonstrate and make these claims. The american embassy hostages, for example, were originally retained from leaving by students that surrounded the embassy calling for their death.

Again, I am perplexed. I did not know that our European allies were dedicated to Israel's destruction.

We can start with the French ambassador to London, who declared he cannot see why the "****** little country, israel" should exist and that its existence is "a theat to world peace". We can continue with the hypocritical european reaction which instantly condemn israel for every military action it takes, but says nothing at all when jews are killed. Or the huge increase in attacks against jews in europe in the last two years. Or the nobel prize committee's attempt to strip from the Nobel peace prize--not Arafat who started the war, but Peres, who believed he is for peace. Or the numerous, continous, and unrelenting "academic discussions" in european universities that "prove" israel must be destroyed for the sake of justice, peace, mom and apple pie.

But, above all, we can start with europe's continual support for the palestinian "rights", including the "right" or return, which--according to the palestinians themselves--is the critical stage in israel's destruction.

Now, would this accusation hold true for any other theocratic gov't, other than Islam,

Since there is no such thing, there is no need to discuss it. Can you name one such government? And, no fair saying England just becasue the Queen, the nominal ruler, is also the head of the Anglican Church...

Oh, and I would think that Fundamentalists would like to live in their own personal theocracy.

Wrong. One of the most important traits of fundamentalism is that, by its very nature, it not only wants to live in a theocracy, but wants to force everybody else to do the same. Somehow, Muhammad Atta was not "Satisfied to live in his own theocracy" but considered turning the US into one is essential.

[LucienVanImpe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus
First off, are you attempting to say that Palestinians living in the the non-occupied territories enjoy these freedoms? I did not know that any people other than Jewish citizens of Israel had the right to vote in national elections. I may be mistaken, but I doubt it.

You are mistaken - as anyone with even the scantest knowledge of Israel should be able to inform you.

Full voting rights are granted to Arabs in Israel. They are also allowed to hold public office. In fact, approximately one tenth of Knesset members are Arabs, and they can even attend a mosque which is an integrated part of the Knesset building complex.

Muslims make up around 85 percent of the 1.1 million Arabs in Israel, and they enjoy the exact same rights as everyone else - except that they are exempt from army service.

[Shane Costello]

originally posted by Lazarus:

Quote:

This last line seems to sum up your entire point throughout your post. This is no different than saying during the second world war, "If you don't support communist Russia, then you must support nazi Germany." It is not rational, nor logical.

You said "Personally, I do not, and will not support any theocracy....." , not me. If you do not support any theocracy, then you cannot by your own definition support the reinstatement of the Dalai Lama in Tibet.

Quote:

Hmm, so, are you insinuating that coallition Christian gov'ts are not possible? I find that they have many issues in coomon. Plus, have you noticed the drives lately to remove the teaching of evolution from our public schools, and its replacement by religious doctrine? Have you noticed all of the web-sites advocating the concept of a USA based in Christian law, and history? Have you noticed the drive to put religious icons of only one faith into the public sphere, or to at least have many returned? Have you missed the spurt of religious support in recent legislation?

I've also noticed the fact that the US has a constitution that's unambiguous on the subject of church-state separation. Is there any issue of the Christian Right's agenda that has come to fruition? Is Christian prayer now permitted in state schools?

Many issues in common? Why then is evolution thought in Catholic schools, and the ones controlled by the more enlightened Protestant denominations?

Since a theocracy entails the beliefs of one religion being enshrined in law then the religiious diversity of the US makes the concept of theocracy unviable.

Quote:

First off, are you attempting to say that Palestinians living in the the non-occupied territories enjoy these freedoms?

Yes. In fact the only Arabs in the Middle East to enjoy these freedoms are those living in Israel.

Quote:

Well, I do know of a Jewish Democratic theocracy.

Do you know what a theocracy actually is? It's a society ruled by religious clerics or on the principles of a single religion. Democratic theocracy is an oxymoron.

Quote:

Then, there used to be plenty of Christian theocracies. And, do you have a real point to this?

The past tense. There used to be Christian theocracies. There aren't any more (unless you want to include the Vatican City). You said "Now, would this accusation hold true for any other theocratic gov't, other than Islam, attempting to consolidate power in a nation where the people already suffer many religious, political, nationalstic and economic divides?". I'm pointing out that there aren't any other theocracies worth talking about other than Islamic ones.

Quote:

Oh, I dunno. Maybe those non-Mormons living in Salt Lake City are complaining for nothing.

Maybe they are, since a Mormon theocracy in Utah would be unconstitutional.

Quote:

Let me try one more time for those who are blinded by their own prejudices.

A hefty challenge for someone blinded by their own ignorance.

Quote:

Support for human rights for all people, is not a call for the limiting of human rights for some people. Too many people are too quick to impose their personal prejudices on others, and to stereotype those that aren't just like them

Like totalitarian Muslim theocracies?

[demon]

Lucien Vanlmpe "You are mistaken - as anyone with even the scantest knowledge of Israel should be able to inform you.

Full voting rights are granted to Arabs in Israel. They are also allowed to hold public office. In fact, approximately one tenth of Knesset members are Arabs, and they can even attend a mosque which is an integrated part of the Knesset building complex.

Muslims make up around 85 percent of the 1.1 million Arabs in Israel, and they enjoy the exact same rights as everyone else - except that they are exempt from army service."

What planet are you from?

[demon]

L

[LucienVanImpe]

Quote:

Originally posted by demon
What planet are you from?

Am I supposed to discern some kind of meaning from this question, any particular reason why you wish to share your profound bewilderment with the board on this special occasion?

If so, I would suggest that you convey a little more information relating to your confusion. If not, I might advice you to brush up on your inventory of insults. Granting me extra-terrestrial status because you object to the content of my post seems somewhat juvenile.

Thanks.

[demon]

I suggest you brush up on your own scant knowledge of "democracy" in Israel and spend less time swallowing dictionaries.

[digitalmcq]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
Imagine this situation:

A powerful political organization wants to organize a day of support for the palestinians and the (so-called) "Second Intifada" on university campuses.

A large student organization, called "The Free Student Association", refuses. It claims that this is obviously an attempt to politicize the campuses, and make the a hotbed for antisemitism.

Where did this happen?

In an American University Campus? Get real. In Berkeley, the students rallied continuously for "palestinian rights" (to kill jews) and call repeatedly for israel's destruction. In Columbia, Edward Said, and in MIT, Chomsky, are the two leaders of the "israel must be destroyed" camp. No, being a "good radical" in american campus politics requires, first of all, rabid antisemitism.

Can you show me some evidence of any of these individuals/groups calling for 'israel's destruction'? How 'bout evidence of 'rabid antisemitism'? Maybe you can tell me what groups are rallying for "palestinian rights ... to kill jews" (and provide evidence that they do so).

Direct quotes from the works of these individuals and groups will suffice.

[LucienVanImpe]

Quote:

Originally posted by demon
I suggest you brush up on your own scant knowledge of "democracy" in Israel and spend less time swallowing dictionaries.

More vagueness. If there is any particular point you disagree with, then please speak out instead of blaming me for writing something which apparently conflicts with your view of Israel.

[Lazarus]

Let me begin by addressing both LucienVanImpe and demon, you are both correct. My original confusion came about by an improper understanding of the Palestinian argument with a section of the 1992 Law of Party, and in the fact that the Knesset elects the Prime Minister. While I knew that Palestinians were elected to the Knesset, my apprehensions were in the area of qualifications to vote. Here is one of the passages from The Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights & the Environment;

Quote:

Political participation: Palestinians political participation inside Israel is expressly conditional upon the acceptance of the Jewish Exclusivity of the State. These pre conditions are expressed explicitly in the 1992 Law of Political Party, and in particular, the amendment of Section 7A(1) of the Basic law: the Knesset, which prevents candidates from participation if their platform suggests ““expressly or by implication,… (1) denial of the existence of the State of Israel as the State of the Jewish people”

This was my mistake, and I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. I am waiting on more information concerning this Palestinian argument.

Quote:

You said "Personally, I do not, and will not support any theocracy....." , not me. If you do not support any theocracy, then you cannot by your own definition support the reinstatement of the Dalai Lama in Tibet.

Please, Shane, stop trying to saddle me with your illogical arguments. Withholding support for one ideology does not infer support for another. I will grant you that I would prefer the rule of the Dalai Lama over the rule of a totalitarian state such as China, but this does not mean that I support theocracy. Please, do not assume positions that I do not state. If there is a question of my opinions, please, feel free to ask, and I will happily grant you the same consideration.

Quote:

Do you know what a theocracy actually is? It's a society ruled by religious clerics or on the principles of a single religion. Democratic theocracy is an oxymoron.

This is a very interesting definition of theocracy. however, it is a bit exclusive. You may like to investigate this matter further, and include all of the various definitions offered. It is misleading to choose one portion of one possible definition to make an effective argument. Furthermore, if you are suggesting that one political ideology such as theocracy cannot exist in some form in coallition with another, I respectfully, ask for some support of this argument.

Quote:

I'm pointing out that there aren't any other theocracies worth talking about other than Islamic ones.

Again, Shane, are you finding context difficult? I said that I didn't care about what religion a theocracy may be based on. I said, "I consider a theocracy wrong despite the religious tenets of that theocracy, not because of them."

Quote:

Maybe they are, since a Mormon theocracy in Utah would be unconstitutional.

Respectfully, does the constitutionality of something determine its existence? You may or may not agree, but here is some history of the founding of the LDS church, and some modern takes. The choice to give these reports credence is yours. Plus, it is not difficult to find non-Mormon people complaining of the Church-State role in Utah. A simple web search would suffice. Anyway, here's some links;
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea....mencimer.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea....mencimer.html
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon041.htm

Quote:

A hefty challenge for someone blinded by their own ignorance.

If you took my statement concerning prejudice as an ad hominen attack on you personally. I apologize for that. That was not my intent. If you wish to infer that I am ignorant, then that is your right. I only ask that if you are going to attempt to argue my opinions, please, stay in context, and attempt to argue my conclusions, not my questions.

Finally, Israel is a democratic state with freedom of worship, but it is also a Jewish state. Israeli state institutions are replete with Jewish symbols and ideology. Israel makes no argument that it was founded as a Jewish state. There are many laws written explicitly to favor Jewish people. Please, read this US Department of State human rights report;
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/nea/794.htm
And, please, understand that I do not hold either side in this conflict to a higher lever of responsibility. A principal point I've been trying to make from the beginning is that we cannot make all the right decisions without knowledge of the motivations of all of those people involved.

[Lazarus]

Quote:

Posted by Skeptic
Huh? I didn't say they do that. In fact, I said they were saying the exact opposite!

Well, I'm sorry if I did not understand your post, but I read the followng;

Quote:

In Berkeley, the students rallied continuously for "palestinian rights" (to kill jews) and call repeatedly for israel's destruction.

This sounds to me like you said that Berkeley students rallied for Palestinian rights to kill Jewish people, and that thay called for the destruction of Israel. I only asked for references for ths claim. Admittedly, this sentence, among a few others, helped to set the tone for how I read the rest of your post. If I misinterpreted your intentions, I am sorry, and would enjoy reading a more precise characterization of your opinions.

And, yes, our French allies may not be in support of the state of Israel, but I did not say that all of our allies support the Israeli state. For instance, Great Brittain voices support for Israel. There are different levels of support among our allies. Furthermore, I would appreciate some verification that the French gov't supports the destruction of Israel. Afterall, you did say that, "There, too, support for "justice in the middle east" (e.g., israel's destruction and a second holocaust) is a necessity in order to join the world of the righteous 'liberals'." This is in a paragraph that began with the subject of European nations. And, later you added the French anology. Was the intent here that liberals demand Israel's destruction, or that European liberals demand Israel's destruction? I would appreciate clarification, and corroboration of this claim. All I ask for is whether your remarks are speculative, or authorative, and evidence to support authority.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
Imagine this situation:

A powerful political organization wants to organize a day of support for the palestinians and the (so-called) "Second Intifada" on university campuses.

A large student organization, called "The Free Student Association", refuses. It claims that this is obviously an attempt to politicize the campuses, and make the a hotbed for antisemitism.

Where did this happen?

In an American University Campus? Get real. In Berkeley, the students rallied continuously for "palestinian rights" (to kill jews) and call repeatedly for israel's destruction. In Columbia, Edward Said, and in MIT, Chomsky, are the two leaders of the "israel must be destroyed" camp. No, being a "good radical" in american campus politics requires, first of all, rabid antisemitism.

finished with the strawmen yet?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Lazarus:

Quote:

This is a very interesting definition of theocracy. however, it is a bit exclusive.

It's the only definition of theocracy!

Theocracy: n (pl theocracies) (a state having)government by a deity or priesthood.

Quote:

Furthermore, if you are suggesting that one political ideology such as theocracy cannot exist in some form in coallition with another, I respectfully, ask for some support of this argument.

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

How easy is it to order a budweiser in Iran then?

Quote:

Again, Shane, are you finding context difficult? I said that I didn't care about what religion a theocracy may be based on. I said, "I consider a theocracy wrong despite the religious tenets of that theocracy, not because of them."

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

Quote:

Respectfully, does the constitutionality of something determine its existence? You may or may not agree, but here is some history of the founding of the LDS church, and some modern takes. The choice to give these reports credence is yours. Plus, it is not difficult to find non-Mormon people complaining of the Church-State role in Utah. A simple web search would suffice. Anyway, here's some links;
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fe...4.mencimer.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fe...4.mencimer.html
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon041.htm

Is it surprising that in a state where 70% of the population is Mormon that the LDS would have an influence. Likewise here in Ireland 90% od the population is Catholic, and societal mores reflect that. To suggest that either place is a theocracy is nonsense. Take Utah:

Not everyone in Salt Lake was thrilled with the Mormons' "little piece of Paris." The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the First Unitarian Church sued the city, arguing that the deal gave the "indelible impression that the LDS church occupies a privileged position in the community" and blurred constitutional distinctions between church and state. So far, though, they haven't made much headway. But what did they expect? The federal judge hearing the case was a Mormon, hand-picked by fellow church-member Sen. Orrin Hatch
So the LDS are subject to the rigours of the law, and do not occupy a privileged legal position. Utah couldn't be a theocracy in that case.

The Utah ACLU is a busy chapter, and much hated for such things as its regular letters to small-town mayors reminding them that it is illegal to prohibit city recreational activities on Monday nights just because that's when Mormons are required to have "family home evening."
So the ACLU has a chapter in Utah, even though it appears to be at constant loggerheads with the LDS. How well are civil liberties groups tolerated in actual theocracies such as Iran?

Quote:

If you took my statement concerning prejudice as an ad hominen attack on you personally. I apologize for that. That was not my intent. If you wish to infer that I am ignorant, then that is your right. I only ask that if you are going to attempt to argue my opinions, please, stay in context, and attempt to argue my conclusions, not my questions.

No problem.

[LucienVanImpe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus
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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

Well, I do know of a Jewish Democratic theocracy

Did you or didn't you say that?

Quote:

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...r/einstein.htm

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

[Earthborn]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

Originally posted by Malachi151

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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/ant...r_on_Jews.html

The International Jew - Henry Ford 1927

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

Quote:

"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!"

Quote:

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/vie...d.php?tid=4773

Quote:

"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]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
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.