Islam advocates murdering babies

[B-Man]

Something needs to be done about the type of thinking that promotes the slaughter of innocent families, including babies.

The murders and the martyrs
Diana West
August 25, 2003

Eleven-month-old Shmuel Zargari was buried in Israel this week with only his 14-year-old brother in attendance from his immediate family. His parents and three other siblings missed the funeral, having been grievously wounded by Shmuel's murderer, a 29-year-old Muslim cleric named Raed Abdel-Hamid Mesk, who believed Allah would invite him to paradise for self-detonating a Jerusalem bus packed with the Zargaris and other young families.

Mesk's ultimate destination is debatable, but the number of people he murdered on Tuesday is not. Twenty Jews died in the wreckage, among them five Americans; scores more, including some 40 children, face recovery from injuries exacerbated by metal shards packed among the explosives. No further suffering will pain Shmuel Zargari, a murder victim before his first birthday, but the desolation of his funeral accentuates the trauma of the crime. No bright side here; no silver lining and no light at the end of the tunnel -- unless you are the killer-cleric's widow. "I thank God that my husband has become a martyr," said pregnant Arij Mesk, who is also the mother of the couple's two- and three-year-old children. "God gave Raed something he always dreamed of. All his life he dreamed of being a martyr."

We may expect celebrations of such murderers in the Arab world -- Reuters reported on one in Lebanon this week in which hundreds of Palestinian men took to the streets to celebrate the bus attack -- but that doesn't happen here, right? Following the bus bombing, however, SoundVision.com, an avowedly Muslim Web site originating in Bridgeview, Ill., some presumably young and presumably North American Muslims mainly blogged approval of, and even sadistic delight in, the Jerusalem carnage.

Most chilling was the theological justification for "martyrdom operations" that cropped up on the Web site. A blogger from Canada identified as "Egyptian Guy" (with a Hezbollah logo) quoted at length from a fatwa originating from an organization of Islamic scholars called the European Council for Fatwa and Research. "Martyrdom operations are not suicide and should not be deemed as unjustifiable means of endangering one's life," wrote the council's Sheik Faysal Mawlawi. Indeed, they "are a sacred duty carried out in form of self-defense." (Self-defense against 11-month-old bus passengers?) "Whoever is killed in such missions," concluded the sheik, "is a martyr, may Allah bless him with high esteem."

Not exactly what I would bless him with, but there's more. The Middle East Media Research Institute (www.memri.com) reports that the European Fatwa and Research Council hunkered down in Stockholm this summer to discuss "Jihad and Denying Its Connection to Terror." It all depends, it seems, on what the meaning of terror is. According to the council's Sheik Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, one of the leading figures in Sunni Islam, "martyrdom operations ... are not in any way included in the framework of prohibited terrorism, even if the victims include some civilians." ("Some" civilians.) The sheik listed six reasons, among them the following: "It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb (the Domain of Disbelief where the battle for the domination of Islam should be waged) is not protected." That means non-Muslims aren't "protected" in non-Muslim lands (and it's no bed of roses in Muslim lands) -- not even by, or rather, especially not by, the loftiest religious precepts of a significant swath of Islam.

This point reminds me of a passage in one of the greatly readable primers on Islamic jihad (the historical movement, not the terrorist group), "Jihad in the West," (Prometheus Books, 1998) by Paul Fregosi. Comparing Christian and Muslim war crimes in the 16th century, Fregosi writes, "Both sides murdered and tortured equally well. But," he adds, quoting historian Jack Beeching, "'the bloody deeds done by nominal Christians went contrary to the utterances of the founder of their religion. ... The Christians guilty of such deeds must have been aware at the backs of their minds that what they did was wrong.'" Fregosi notes: "The Muslims who carried out the same deeds, and worse, felt no guilt at all. On the contrary, they felt they were obeying the will of God. Surveying the Christian scene with an unblinking eye, Beeching adds, 'From this friction between doctrine and practice might come a change for the better.

Perhaps,' he adduced, 'this is the reason why the Christian West has never stagnated.'"

Perhaps. It is certainly true that as currently preached by many leading Islamic clerics around the world, no such friction between religious doctrine and murderous practice exists.

Killing Jews -- and by extension, Americans and other Westerners -- is doctrinally OK according to way too much of Islam. This is what must cease if ever there is to come a change for the better.

[Al Mirpuri]

Islam does not advocate the killing of noncombatants in warfare.

The Palestinians have - in their plight - resorted to unIslamic methods to which they have given an Islamic veneer.

The early Muslims found themselves attacked by the pagan Arabs and so had to fight a defensive war. After the death of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) the Arabs fought a number of expansionist wars and gave a religious veneer to these. In this they are no different to the Crusaders of the Middle Ages or the colonisers of Africa in the nineteenth century.

Islamic Terrorism is like Green Consumerism - an oxymoron.

As Shakespeare wrote, The Devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes. And so can any rascal with an axe to grind.

[B-Man]

Islam does not advocate the killing of noncombatants in warfare.

Al, regardless of what you and I think, unfortunately there are thousands who not only believe Islam advocates these actions, but commit these gruesome crimes.

Somethings needs to be done about this way of thinking.

[MMMMMM]

[Tuco]

The Palestinians have - in their plight - resorted to unIslamic methods to which they have given an Islamic veneer.

The problem for the Palestinians, because of the targets they choose, and the media coverage that ensues, is that they are not furthering their cause. They only isolate themselves in the world's eye. You would think that one of thier more intelligent leaders would realize this and act accordingly.

Before Mr. Alger et all start to quote Israeli baby murders, save your breath. These are equally reprehensible, but the fact remains that, in the world's eye, Israel is a sympathetic figure because the Palestinians tend to targer innocents rather than leaders.

Why wouldn't the Palestinians alter thier tactics and try and court world opinion? They would move much closer to thier goal if they played the victim. Countries would apply pressure (especially the US) to the Isralies to make a deal with the Palestnians to end the conflict.

Dont they not want to win? Surely they must see that the sure way to lose is to attack civilians. It's like they are saying "Screw it, I know we are going to be exterminated, so let's take some women and children with us"

They would not be exterminated, however, if they played the victim in the world's eye. Stop the suicide bombing, throw some rocks at an Israeli tank once in a while and cry into the camera. The world's sympathy would be with you in no time.

Tuco.

[Ray Zee]

tuco, it is not the palistinians that want to have a country to call their own or a safe place to live. its the nutty ones that want an end to all living beings that dont practice their religon. these cannot be reasoned with and have to be dealt with sooner or later. they are the ones that keep all the others from frealizing a good life. and since it is their problem they need to take care of it and get off their scared butts. or they will suffer even more. all the arab world needs to get together and wipe out the fanatics.

[brad]

well we know that in first gulf war the iraqi troops took babies out of incubators and threw them on the ground. (in kuwait).

[Tuco]

it is not the palistinians that want to have a country to call their own or a safe place to live. its the nutty ones that want an end to all living beings that dont practice their religon

I dont understand this. You mean that average palestinians dont want peace or a country to call thier own?

Tuco.

[Ray Zee]

the palistinians want to have a country to call their own or a safe place to live. its the nutty ones that want an end to all living beings that dont practice their religon

[ACPlayer]

We need to understand the motives of why there were some 80 odd bombings in Israel in 2001 and 2002 while continuing to condemn them. Simply putting the blame on Islam is much too simplistic. Politicians of every religion have used religious fervor to commit atrocities over the centuries.

Incidentally, from 1994 to 1999 there were "only" 20 bombings. Do the "historians" in this group know what changed in early 2001? I have one datapoint for you to consider: Ariel Sharon was elected in Feb 2001 after his infamous incitements of the Palestinians (visit to the temple mount and other statements to win the right wing vote).

If the Palestinians had Apache helicopters, tanks, etc, I am sure Hamas would use those instead of suicide bombers.

I wonder what is the ratio of innocents killed by IDF v Hamas et al? I understand that Hamas etc target civilians whereas the IDF does not target them. This is simply a point of interest to me and not intended to create a moral equivalence (as some are fond of saying).

[MMMMMM]

Let's compare what nutty Christians and nutty Islamists want.

Nutty Christians want everybody to follow what they see as the proper moral code and they want government to help them legislate this, along with some school prayers etc. Nutty Islamists want similar (if more extreme) things. But the difference is that nutty Christians are generally willing to let those who don't convert to Christianity be dealt with by God himself (after sufficient pestering), while nutty Islamists believe it is their duty to wage war to bring about an Islamic paradise on Earth and to absolutely force everybody to submit to Shar'ia (Islamic/Koranic Law). Nutty Christians still often pray for their enemies' salvation, or for their enemies' souls to be shown mercy by God. Nutty Islamists pray for God to destroy their enemies and to burn them in lakes of fire. Nutty Christians believe that the Ten Commandments should be on the courthouse steps, even if the Constitution says otherwise. Nutty Islamists believe that the Koran should be the Constitution.

Hosni Mubarak was asked what percentage of Muslims he thought were radical Islamists. He said not that much, probably only about 1%. When the person pointed out that 1% of a billion is an awful lot of people, he said he had never thought of it that way before.

[Al Mirpuri]

Also, in the Third World, away from the media glare, Christians commit atrocities. Hindu fundamentalists commit atrocities against Christians and Muslims in India. Does that condemn Hinduism as a philosophical/religious system? Answer: NO.

EVERY IDEOLOGY HAS TO BE JUDGED BY ITS SCRIPTURES/TEXTS AND NOT BY ITS ADHERENTS.

[Al Mirpuri]

Because the adherent of a faith does something, it does not mean it is advocated by that faith.

Hell, Christianity does not advocate lying and cheating, but Christians are no more immune to lying and cheating that the rest of us.

Moreover, in World War One, British Propaganda, had it that German troops were bayonetting Belgian babies to death. Even if the Iraqi troops did not do what your post suggests they did the govt would still have put out the same propaganda to justify the war.

[Al Mirpuri]

because napalm as a gas kills indiscriminately and when dropped on Vietnamese villages killed men, women and children.

I love Elvis, I play poker, I eat in Maccy D's but US hyprocrisy makes my stomach churn.

[MMMMMM]

The numbers of nutty Christians killing abortion doctors is very few. The number of jihadists is huge by comparison.

However you do have a point that the scriptures merit examination.

Do you know that the scriptures call for the killing of infidels (nonbelievers) who refuse to convert to Islam or to submit to Islamic rule and pay the poll tax (levied only on non-believers)? Have you actually read the parts where Muslims are encouraged to smite the necks of unbelievers, pour boiling water down their throats, torment them with hot irons...but if they convert to Islam, all is forgiven, for surely Allah is most merciful and wise? No, I'm not making it up. You can read it here, translated by three different Muslim scholars: just click on the links, and read what these scriptures say. Also note that while much of the Bible is given in a historical sense, the Koran is considered by believers to be the word of God delivered directly to Muhammad and thus is good for all time...and that it applies directly to each reader. In other words the reader is being enjoined to these practices.

In particular I would call your attention to the many cited verses which are classified under:

The Quran calls on Muslims to wage war against Non-Muslims and

The Quran promotes war against Non-Muslims by glorifying it.

http://www.geocities.com/islamic_monitor/intolerance.htm

[ACPlayer]

Just three examples, i could come up with more:

The arian christian visigoth's of spain ruthlessly murdered all non-christians especially the Jews (the sephardic jews trace their history to this period).

Hitler used christianity to incire the masses to kill the godless jews as a way of diverting attention from the economic problems (probably a consequece of the treaty of versailles).

The settlers in this country used religion as one of the justifications for killing the native americans.

Politicians use religion to meet their goals. The Hamas/Al Aqsa types use it in Palestine, the settlers use it in Israel, Bush uses it in the US. They all use it as a resource based on their means.

As mentioned by Karen Armstrong in her books, we are in the midst of the pendulum going from secular values to fundamentalism (across the globe btw). The pols all use it as a means to their ends. This trend is global - Middle East, India, America, Israel

Islam per se is not the problem. It is how it is being used. Although as an avoid atheist I would actually say that ALL religions are the problem.

Incidentally, if Islam itself is the problem the west is doomed by the demographic trends around the world. Islam is largest and fast growing religion around the world. Other than in the middle east Muslims generally live peacefully (and there are far more Muslims in the rest of world than in the middle east).

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
well we know that in first gulf war the iraqi troops took babies out of incubators and threw them on the ground. (in kuwait).

[/ QUOTE ]

Better check that out Brad, Even though the Iraqis did a lot of horrible things in Kuwait from what I understand this accusation was later found to be propaganda.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

I agree that much of the problem is how Islam is being used. Also, however, it is the one major religion which if taken literally intends to dominate the world by force.

Historically Christianity has at times been subverted by rulers for conquest. However the New Testament itself does not call for actual conquest of the world by force. The Koran does. So there are some very basic differences, and the absolute nature of the Koran makes it easier for the radical elements to find support for their actions in scripture. As Ibn Warraq says, there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.

I have also read disputes as to whether Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. I didn't save the links, and I don't really recall the argument, but it may have had something to do with Latin America and either Catholicism or Christianity. Perhaps it is a case where by one measure Islam is the fastest growing religion, but by another measure it isn't.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
it is not the palistinians that want to have a country to call their own or a safe place to live. its the nutty ones that want an end to all living beings that dont practice their religon. these cannot be reasoned with and have to be dealt with sooner or later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read Palistinian text books that they use to instruct thier children. Eventually there all going to be nuts.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

"Read Palistinian text books that they use to instruct thier children. Eventually there all going to be nuts."

...and Chris Alger, Cyrus and Boris think I am being racist for criticizing their culture. Don't worry Stu you'll be next on the PC-correct hit list;-) Yes, the textbooks are a bad thing, and across much of the Arab world it is a similar story. This is a problem that if ignored will not get better all by itself anytime soon.

[Gamblor]

Anyone who believes the Palestinians are simply interested in sovereignty and control of their own affairs is as deluded as they are.

Any Palestinian map, any Palestinian school textbook, any Palestinian world view has Israel completely and utterly obliterated. They do not recognize Israel as a state - instead referring to the entire area from Metulla and Kiryat Shmona in the Golan down to Eilat in the south as "Occupied Territory".

Do you believe that if the Israeli government truly believed that if they gave up the West Bank and Gaza, that the bombings would stop, and more important the entire Arab world would recognize Israel's right to exist, they would give it up in a second?

This problem stems much farther back than Israel's creation or even the Nazi Holocaust. This stems from a Jewish persecution complex (can you blame them? 5000 years of fighting for survival from Egyptian slavery, through Roman times, Greek colonists, Crusades, Holocaust, Munich Olympics, to name a few.). Jews, by nature, I have realized, are overtly preoccupied with survival. Issues such as intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews are dire in the community today.

So, given the 6 major wars in 1948, 1952, 1961, 1967, 1973, 1982, (generally, although not exclusively) initiated by Arabs, upon capturing the West Bank in 1967, Israel took their newfound natural defense (the Jordan River) very seriously. Settlements, Checkpoints, all of it stems from this fear that the world is out to get them, and given Arab-Israeli history, is a well-grounded fear.

So, for Israelis, this is not about giving up a piece of their land for Palestinian sovereignty. This is about a continued Arab demand that Israel cease to exist, that the Jews who live there be dispersed and Islam control the entire region as they did for the most recent millenium. Handing the palestinians a state would simply amount to a slow death one piece of land at a time rather than the quick one the Arabs have realized will not happen with $3 billion in US military aid per year.

Sympathetic and biased as I am to the Israeli and Jewish plight, the ultimate fact remains: the only thing rewarding terrorism does is induce more terrorism - because it works.

[Chris Alger]

Israel military forces and settlers have killed seven times as many Palestinian children aged 16 and under (688) than Palestinians have killed Israeli children (97) from 1987 until 7/20/03, a ratio figure that remains constant if we adjust the age downward from 13 and younger, according to a detailed breakdown by the prominent Israeli human rights group B'Tselem (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Minors_Killed.asp). This likely understates the disproportionality of the problem, given the "deliberate policy by the IDF of shooting people to maim them," especially by shooting rubber bullets directly into their eyes. (Physicians for Human Rights, "Blindness, Paralysis, the Cost of 'Eye for Eye,'" Boston Globe, 5/3/1). These statistics are further contrasted by the Palestinian Authority's denunciations of the child killers in its midst. Israel, OTOH, gives medals, promotions and pensions to theirs, hardly surprising given the Prime Minister's personal record for infanticide as commander of Unit 101 and architect of the 1982 Lebanon invasion.

This post is a perfect illustration of the point I was making below: it is absured to think that racism is a much greater problem in the Muslim world than here. B-Man's point, of course, is no different than arguing that "Judaism" of "Jewish culture" advocates "murdering babies" on the basis of accounts like this one:

"Nine young Jewish men were arrested recently on suspicion of planning and carrying out attacks against Palestinians. At least one of them is suspected of attempted murder, weapons violations, and planning a crime involving dangerous materials. All of the suspects are rooted deep in Yesha (the Hebrew acronym for the West Bank and Gaza) and its culture. All grew up on settlements and all are faithful sons - to the point of hallucinatory extremism - of the national religious Zionism of the post-Six Day War period. Some reside on outposts; some are the sons of well-known rabbis and others are the younger brothers of local leaders. ... So far, none of the leaders or rabbis of the Yesha Council of Jewish Settlements have condemned even the idea of a Jewish terror organization. On the contrary, most are demonstrating an understanding forgiveness for the actions attributed to the suspects." "Jewish Terror and Its Sources," (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/332489.html) Har'aretz, 8/24/03

But while "Judaism advocates murdering babies" would be rightfully dismissed as anti-Semitic, making exactly the same claim against Islam is perfectly acceptable under the racist mentality that pervades much of the U.S., virtually ubiquitous among "conservatives."

No wonder Israel can kills with impunity more innocent civilians during the same period that fractionally lethal Palestinian terrorism is denounced as the worst act imaginable. No wonder civilian deaths resulting directly from IDF policy and practices, even sniper killings and eyewitnessed executions, are dismissed as "unintended" or "collateral" while the Palestinian Authority is held responsible for any act of Palestinian terrorism, no matter how far removed from PA policy or control. No wonder U.S. pundits so blithely suggest that Palestinians should move elsewhere to accomodate the right of Jews from elsewhere to expropriate Palestinian land, water, and villages. No wonder Arab refugees are so often told by Americans to "put the past behind them" so that Israelis can recreate the country from which they were expelled in the second century A.D. No wonder Americans readily forgive and forget the terrorism of Begin, Shamir, and Sharon while arguing that Arafat's popularity proves a cultural tolerance for terrorists. No wonder people demand that Palestinians heartfully embrace a "right to exist" by Israel to the point of nullifying their own. No wonder that any anti-Israel violence or rhetoric is considered proof of mendacious intent to destroy Israel, while Israel's actual destruction of Palestine is lauded as one of humanity's greater accomplishments. No wonder so many become so irate upon hearing simple demands for roughly equal rights.

None of these phenonmenon could exist in the absence of a pervasive anti-Arab, anti-Islam and anti-Palestinian racism.

The ultimate recommendation of your writer is that we should wallow in a kind of go-nowhere refusal to do anything good until "things change." So while the U.S. and Israel presumably continue to have poltical rights worth pursuing, even violently, despite the terrorists and racists among them, the same standard doesn't apply to Muslims. "Killing Jews -- and by extension, Americans and other Westerners -- is doctrinally OK according to way too much of Islam. This is what must cease if ever there is to come a change for the better."

So instead of resolving politcal issues capable of resolution, or even making any "change for the better"[/b], we should watch the bodies pile up while we wait for the religious fanatics to go away some eons hence. That's persuasive.

One could make the same argument in support of Islamic terrorism, using the same facts to claiming that killing Arabs or Palestinians or Muslims or Iraqis "is doctrinally OK according to way too much of" Israeli, American, Western or even Jewish ideology, which must "cease" if there is to be "a change for the better." Racist double standards and rejection of poltical accomdation. That's what you get from the American right no less than you get from the most fanatical Muslims, although the former has far greater power to translate their sickness into suffering by others.

At least Muslims and Arabs are talking about terrorism, even if only a handful of their community commit it. (Your writer omits that the Soundview website where she claims that Muslims praised terror also contain many Muslim denunciations of it, obviously because it more accurately dilutes the ugly image she wants to instill).

No such dialogue occurs in the U.S. mainstream. Americans tend to flatly deny that the U.S. is or has ever been guilty of terrorism, even though their far more open, accessible and democratic governments have directly supported both wholesale and retail types for decades. Few Americans would connect "terrorism" to the words "Israeli" or "Israeli settler" anywhere near as often as they associate it with "Palestinian" or "Arab." Yet terrorism by, to take one example, Israeli settlers supported by Israel and the U.S. has been a staple of the occupied territories for years. As the late Israeil Shahak observed (http://ocean.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/theReligiousSettlers-AnInstrumentOfIsraeliDomination.htm) in 1994:

"Violent assaults upon the Palestinians in the territories are in the overwhelming majority perpetrated by Jewish religious settlers, and they have two peculiarities. In the first place, these assaults are overtly and avowedly aimed at innocent, randomly chosen individuals or groups of people. Their avowed "purpose" is either "to relieve the feelings of distress of the assaulters," or "to teach the Arabs a lesson," or somehow to "influence" the Palestinian population to prevent future violence. (The first of these rationalizations is recognized by the Israeli government as valid.) Regardless of whether the assaults cause injury to persons or "only" to property, they imply the recourse to violence against innocent bystanders for the sake of a political purpose. As such they can be regarded as acts of terror. The organizations responsible for these assaults are in my view terroristic organizations, even though they are perfectly legal and generously assisted financially and otherwise by the Israeli government."

Most Americans reading this would think "it's news to me." It's another way of saying that the atrocities that we so vehemently denounce when they're committed by others don't even penetrate our national consciousness when they're committed by us and those we support.

[Cyrus]

"Israel is a sympathetic figure because the Palestinians tend to targer innocents rather than leaders."

Israeli leaders have been targeting innocents, along with leaders, since the inception of the Israeli state. There have been far more Palestinian women and children murdered by Israelis, than Israeli women and children killed by Palestinians.

Which is no comfort, of course, to anyone. The two sides are equally reprehensibe in this criminal behavior. No matter who is more efficient in killing women and children. But Israel is "sympathetic" because it has the sympathy of the American media. The PACs see to it --- as a Republican congressman (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/155652482X/qid=1061885520/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-0088231-9927877?v=glance&s=books) found out to his detriment. One among many.

Interested in what he has to day?

--Cyrus

PS : Apart from this, you are making a number of valid points in your post, especially about Palestinian intransigence, with which I agree.

[Chris Alger]

"You would think that one of thier more intelligent leaders would realize this and act accordingly."

I agree. Few people have been as poorly served by their "leaders" as the Palestinians. There are a lot of reasons: corruption, the occupation, the diaspora after the nakba, poverty, late-blooming nationalism, clannishness, pan-Arabism, Israel's subversion of democratic efforts, Arafat's incompetence, etc.

On the other hand, most of the violence that Israel calls "terrorism" (and the U.S. calls the "other violence") occurs in the occupied territories. If the attacks in Israel stopped, the U.S. media wouldn't shift much in their overall emphasis on Palestinian violence versus Israel retalliation. For example, one pattern is for the IDF to go on some routine demolition exercise, the bulldoze houses and neighborhoods, which will pass without comment in the U.S. press (because, while utterly illegal under international law, the IDF does it all the time). Then, occasionally, someone will fire a mortar at the bulldozers or troops, or snipe at them. Then Israel will call in the tanks and gunships, shoot up a village, impose a curfew, kill a bunch of civilians, and this will be reported as "retalliation" against "Palestinian violence."

So despite the shortcomings of the Palestinian leadership, it's probably impossible for them to completely eliminate all violent responses from a very desperate population.

The US is perfectly capable of applying all the pressure it wants on Israel regardless of the amount of Palestinian terror and will have little more incentive to do so if all terror ceased. The U.S., like Israel, has never said that if the terror stops, that it will seek to enforce particular Palestinian demands. The Palestinians know this so well that traditional demands such as the removal of all settlements, right of return, and sovereignty over Jerusalem -- as opposed to outlying villages -- aren't even being pressed by the PA (and haven't been for years).

[B-Man]

But while "Judaism advocates murdering babies" would be rightfully dismissed as anti-Semitic, making exactly the same claim against Islam is perfectly acceptable under the racist mentality that pervades much of the U.S., virtually ubiquitous among "conservatives."

Chris, that's because with respect to Islam, it is true, and with respect to Judaism, it is not true (a few lunatics, such as in the example you gave, are not comparable to the thousands or millions of followers of militant Islam). Racism has nothing to do with it.

[Chris Alger]

No, that's absurd by it's own logic. In the first place, you have no evidence at all -- certainly none in your original post -- that all "militant" Muslims support terror (much less the actual assertion in the title of this thread). You're taking an extremely negative attribute and merely pretending that it applies to a large group, a blatantly racist practice.

But even if all militant Muslims supported not merely terrorism but "murdering babies," if there are "thousands or millions" of them, as you say, they would amount to a "few lunatics" within a worldwide group of about 1.4 billion Muslims. By your own definition of racism with respect to Jews, your statements are racist.

[brad]

yes i know it was totally fabricated it never happened.

thats my point its hard to know what is real and what is propaganda.

case in point, northern ireland - came out in british newspapers (bbc, etc.) that almost all of the terrorism there was carried out by british special forces, not the ira.

[brad]

dont kid yourself, there were assassination programs going on left and right. (phoenix program for example).

even that senator (kerry i think, who was special forces in vietnam) admitted to (basically war crimes) and assasination of non military people.

[Cyrus]

It's capped!

[Cyrus]

"Came out in British newspapers (BBC, etc.) that almost all of the terrorism there was carried out by British special forces, not the IRA."

Hold your horses. As it came out, and to no one's surprise, the British intelligence services (military espionage, police special units, etc) had infiltrated the IRA big time. There were moles who actually took part in executions of RUC people! But nothing close to "almost all of the terrorism", come on! The Irish did not need too much of a push to engage in terror, although a push they were most certainly provided with, by Her Majesty's obedient servants. Most of the beastly deeds in Ireland were done by Irish, thank you very much.

You have a sweet tooth for conspiracies and exaggeration, man. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[brad]

'The Irish did not need too much of a push to engage in terror,'

thats my point, the infiltrators were high level, they organized it, and they didnt stop it.

[nicky g]

"Most of the beastly deeds in Ireland were done by Irish, thank you very much. "

Now hold on, while you're right to curb the wilder ends of Brad's theories, this isn't quite right either. While most of the IRA's killings were indeed carried by the IRA without needing a push from the British (although Freddy Scapatticci, a British mole, was responsible for more than 50 deaths alone), I think you'll find a rather large majority of the "beastly things" to have happened in the history of Ireland were carried out by the British and pro-British Loyalists. Similarly, the Irish did not spend 600 years oppressing the British.

[Wake up CALL]

"British (although Freddy Scapatticci, a British mole, was responsible for more than 50 deaths alone),..."

Documentation please, the articles I read regarding this subject disagrees completely with your position.

[nicky g]

Storm grows as 'Stakeknife' to be quizzed over 40 murders (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1006811,00.html)

I was wrong to make the claim so definitive - the affair hasn't been properly invsetigated yet. But it certainly seems probable that Scappaticci was both the British agent Stakeknife and responsible for dozens of killings (though mostly of other IRA men). What are the articles you've been reading?

[Cyrus]

Although I was trying to talk about the "beastly deeds" perpetrated by the IRA, it came out all wrong. My mistake. I agree with you.

To wit, "while most of the IRA's killings were indeed carried by the IRA without needing a push from the British, ... a rather large majority of the "beastly things" to have happened in the history of Ireland were carried out by the British and pro-British Loyalists. Similarly, the Irish did not spend 600 years oppressing the British."

Absolutely.