Moslem Group Celebrates 9/11

Sofia, I think that the barmy bunny hit it right on the head with her comment about certain folks in the US needing an adversary. For many people the end of the cold war was sudden and unexpected, and the militaryand intelligence organizations were left scratching their heads saying "uh, oh...now how are we going to guarentee our snouts can stay in the trough?"
If you look at the folks who make up the current administration, the majority of them are holdovers from Reagan and Bush II, two of the most aggressive of the cold war presidents. Rice's specialty is even the Soviet Military threat! I don't find it at all odd that the ME and Islam have become the new Archons for these very Manichaean minded individuals. Certainly their close ties to the fundy "krischins" helps explain the new demonization of Islam in the west. The fundys need their armageddon to happen soon, and they need their "river'o'blood" in Israel,and if things are left to their own devices the people in the middle east may not oblige.
The problem with such thinking is that folks have been expecting the apocolypse since the second century BCE. The Christian version is just the latest iteration, and the Christians have been announcing that they are living in "end times" since 30-ish CE.
I'm sure the world wil get through this,and that saner heads will prevail, but I fear it will get a lot worse before it gets better. In the mean time, Canada and Europe are starting to look more and more appealing each day.

There is something very convincing about Monger's Nun With A Gun telling Frank what Passover is about!

Islamic extremists perpetrated 911, not Condi Rice.

We keep a tidy, well-fed military in peacetime.

We didn't film 911 on a soundstage.

Just read your post, dlowan. Very well put! I agree with just about everything you've said, but couldn't have expressed it nearly as well as you have.

ditto

Sofia said: "The 'balancing voice' thing is what bothers me, I guess. It sounds too much like apologising for, or supporting them. Not Moslems, in general, but the celebrants specifically. Its as if people don't trust others to respond correctly. This tack seems a bit elitist. (I.e. "I can't allow them to say that, or see pictures of that, because I can't trust them to respond correctly.") "

Hmmm - I guess it does sound a bit like apologising - if somebody actually WAS apologizing for them, then I would attack that apology with equal fervour! Odd things, humans.

I'm not aware that anyone was trying to stop the article from being read.

Re the elitist thing - hmmmmm - possible touche - are we all being elitist when we comment on each other's views, though? We are certainly trying to persuade each other - so I guess we all tend to think we hold the "correct" view.

The fact remains that the day is called PASSOVER -- and PASSOVER refers to a specific event.

The god of the Bible, who just a few pages earlier had created hundreds of billions of galaxies, most filled with hundreds of billions of stars, decides to free his Hebrews from Egypt. And the god does it by inflicting horrendous plagues on the common people of Egypt rather than simply freeing them in one of those miracles the Bible always talks about -- cetainly no hard feat for a god as powerful as the god supposedly is.

And all the while, the god is hardening the heart of Pharaoh -- making Pharaoh obdurate so that he would not let the Hebrews go until the god had done the thing he wanted to do right from the start -- SLAUGHTER THE INFANTS OF EGYPT.

The Bible indicates, in the conversations between the god and Moses, that the god was more interested in impressing and terrifying Pharaoh and the Egyptians than he was in freeing the Hebrews.

Now, of course, any reasonable person guesses this whole thing to be nothing more than a self-serving myth.

BUT PASSOVER SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO THE SLAUGHTER OF THE INFANTS -- and the fact that the god PASSED OVER the Hebrew homes.

Considering the charges Au is making against Arabs and Palestinians -- and considering the challenge Aug made -- this is a proper issue to bring up.

Sorry you and Craven and some others don't see it that way -- but I have to stick to my guns here -- even if I am alone.

Shalom!

At any rate, Frank, the Jews are celebrating being passed over, not the deaths of those who weren't Passed Over.

One would think that's fairly obvious.

Someone who says Jews are celebrating the deaths of Egyptian infants during passover is either ignorant of what it's about or is desperate for material to make their point.

Frank, it's an easy case to make that the god of the bible was cruel, but trying to turn the story around & use it to show how heartless the Jews were/are is just silly.

Frank
Oh hell why bother!

Frank,

Regardless of the details of the Passover /i ask again:

Do you really seek to equate the celebration of passover with the celebration of 9/11?

Craven, I will answer your question as thoroughly and honestly as I can -- and a simple "yes" or "no" will not do. I ask that you consider what I say here, instead of making a pre-conceived determination that I am being absurd or ignorant.

Au wrote:



I responded to that. My full response was measured -- not antagonistic. Read it over again! Here it is:



In my opinion, the slaughter of the babies was an act of terrorism. (I think it is a mythical, fictional act of terrorism, but that is besides the point.)

Now Au, Sofia, and Monger are saying that Passover celebrates the freeing of the Hebrews from captivity in Egypt.

But they are also saying that Passover celebrates the Hebrews "being passed over" -- not the deaths of the babies.

And by inference, I've been accused of being "ignorant or desperate" for making the argument I am making.

But, Craven, do you (or anyone else) think that the reason Pharaoh finally released the Hebrews was because the Hebrew homes were passed over? Or is it more reasonable to suppose that the point of the story is that Pharaoh released the Hebrews because of the slaughter of the babies???

If the "release" is being celebrated - the slaughter is being celebrated also - because that is what finally got the job done - not the "passing over."

The feast is Passover. It relates to a single, specific incident in a series of incidents that lead to the release of the Hebrews. It specifically refers to the tenth "plague" -- the slaughter of the innocents.

I was right to bring that incident up when Au presented his cocky challenge designed to bolster his inference that Arabs are somehow inhumane.

In effect, Craven, I am not saying anything about whether or not they are equivalent -- but that my response was a reasonable response to Au's challenge.

I understand that decent, well-intentioned, loving folks can strongly disagree with me.

So be it!

I think that incident -- which Jews claim actually happened -- is something to be ashamed of - not celebrated - equivalent to the shame decent Arabs should feel about other Arabs celebrating the idiotic and senseless destruction of property and lives on 9/11.

If you still have questions on this Craven, I'll respond to what you ask.

But I've honestly given up trying to be nice about this general issue. (Sort of like I've given up on being nice about my argument with Ican in that other thread!)

I am sick and tired of being sick and tired of this Arab/Israeli thing. I hate the idea that this country is involved in a mess that two sick societies have manufactured -- and I want us out of it.

I feel a tremendous amount of sympathy for the suffering the innocents on both sides are enduring -- and I think one of the things a decent human in America should do to help alleviate that suffering is to rein in American Jews and their insufferable arrogance in thinking that the Israelis are any less culpable than the Arabs in the Middle East mess.

Frank, I think that there are two sides. A response to the challence Au posited and the bigger picture.

Au's challenge was an attempt to portray the Arabs as backwards, primitive and uncivilized. To that challenge examples of other peoples acting in as base a manner was merited.

I believe your exampel is a bit of a stretch but that's not really my point.

My point is that there is no real moral equivalency.

Celebrating teh 4th of July is to indirectly celebrate the deaths from the war for independence. But the intent is quite different.

Au is trying to posit the celebratory acts of the few on the lunatic fringe to denigrate the arab community on the whole.

IMO examples that consider moral equivalency are a better tool.

I used an example of Israelis chanting for Arab blood. I'd not take Au's route and try to posit that Israelis are uncivilized but my point was to answer his challenge that there are plently of examples of isolated incidents in which people other than Arabs partake in acts with the same moral equivalency.

For this reason I ask if you think there is moral equivalency between celebrating passover and celebrating 9/11.

Sure, Au's challenge has logical holes. Celebrating death is a complicated issue and many celebrations can be characterized as celebrating death.

But I thought it more important not to prey upon his poor wording and to address the underlying charge he was making:

That Arabs are uncivilized and that the isolated incidents did not have a moral equivalent outside of the Arab community.

This is why I ask if you equate the two. I should have better clarified it as asking whether you equate the two morally.

Au's challence has thoudands (literally) of refutations with moral equivalency.

Heck he has to go no farther than A2K to see poeple celebrating deaths.

One point many here are trying to make (that is completely ignored by the "you guys are just too politically correct and don't want to deal with it" camp is that once people have an enemy the calamity of the enemy is often celebrated.

People here on these boards have celebrated the kilings of our enemies. If Osama were to die there would be many isolated incidents (so much that isolated might be a bad word) of celebration.

I do not equate Osama's death to the deaths of innocents in the 9/11 attacks but am only positing an example showing that the celebration of death and calamity is not a rare trait. It is one that is certainly not exclusive to a people.

Those that consider America their enemy sometimes celebrate America's calamity. I do not in any way justify this. I am here only to counter Au's implication that this article he posted is proof that arabs are uncivilized.

And frankly I am too pissed off at the efforts to portray any attempt at adding perspective as "justification" or "support" of those idiots to comment on it extensively.

Suffice it to say that the conflicting perspective is being posited to counter the notion that the uncivilized acts are exclusive to a certain people, not to counter the notion that these celebrations are disgustingly wrong.

One day I will post my rant about the anti-"PC" crowd and how they censor and censure just as much if not more than the "PC" crowd.

Islam's Threat to the West
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Thursday, May 9, 2002
WASHINGTON – "We do believe Islam is at war with the Christian West.”
With that comment, Paul Weyrich and William S. Lind have broken through a taboo in the entire discussion of the war on terrorism.

Those who say the threat comes only from "Islamic fundamentalism” or "Islamic extremism” miss the whole point of the terrorist attacks, Weyrich and Lind argue. In fact, those who believe the terrorist enemy is confined only to a few fanatics "misportray the nature of Islam itself.”

"War against the unbeliever is as central a doctrine and practice of Islam as the Virgin birth, the Trinity and Christ’s resurrection are central to Christianity,” declares the Free Congress booklet.

The study promises to stir up a new debate as to the very nature of the threat the U.S. is fighting. Among its findings:


Islam is simply "a religion of war." You may protest that your Islamic neighbor down the street could not possibly be a threat. Free Congress says you should bear in mind that "there are lax Islamics.” Or to put it another way, the peaceful individual Muslims are out of step with their religion. They are outsiders looking in.

The two principle sources of Islamic belief "ooze war and blood.”
The Koran includes such wording as defining war as "a religious obligation for the faithful” … "fight and slay the pagans,” meaning non-Muslims … "the punishment of those who wage war against God and his Apostle.”

The Hadith, a collection of sayings from Mohammed, quotes him as saying there is no deed "which equals Jihad" in reward … that "a single endeavour [of fighting] in Allah’s cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it" … that the only satisfaction a martyr could derive from coming back to earth would be "so that he may by martyred ten times because of the dignity he receives [from Allah]" … "Know that Paradise is under the shade of swords.” … that "exposing their [non-Muslim] women and children to danger” is justified because as "the prophet replied, ‘They are from them.'”

Presumably, that would explain present-day suicide bombings that kill innocents here and elsewhere.

Weyrich and Lind trace the violent history of Islam to Mohammed himself.

Mohammed Like 'a Mafia Don'

"Not only did he personally wage war,” they note, "he repeatedly called for ‘hits’ on anyone he did not like, in the manner of a mafia don.” For example:

"The apostle Mohammed said, ‘Kill any Jew that falls into your power.’ Thereupon Muhayyisa leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him.”

Nobel literature prize winner Elias Cannetti has defined Islam as "a religion of war – literally a killer belief.”

"Islam has made war on Christendom and Christians since it first swept out of Arabia to conquer much of the Christian Mediterranian world,” the Free Congress study finds.

And then, a brief synopsis of history bringing us up to the present day:

"As recently as 1683, the armies of Islam were besieging Vienna. After about 300 years on the strategic defensive, Islam has recently resumed the strategic offensive. It is now expanding outward in every direction: down both coasts of Africa, east through the South China Sea toward Australia, north into both eastern and western Europe, and west into the United States where the fastest growing religion is Islam. As has been true throughout its history, the expansion of Islam is not peaceful. More Christians are being martyred today than at the height of the Roman persecutions, and most of them are dying at the hands of Islam. Christendom is in peril.”

Quite simply, Weyrich and Lind view the present-day terrorism as an extension of a religious war. Islam, they explain, divides the world into two portions; the Dar al Islam, the world of Islam, and the Dar al Harb, the world of war. Peace is possible only within the world of Islam.

Islam is on the cutting edge of the new kind of warfare that does not involve easily identifiable nations or governments. Rather, there is a war of cultures, occurring not just "over there” but on American soil, a trend Free Congress says was observable "long before September 11.”

Newsmax...there is a brilliant, valid source.

Hobitbob
Everybody is entitled to an opinion. You don't have to agree.
Search: Islam's war with the west.

Search: AU hates muslims.

Great response.
Why don't you read several of the links and respond to them? What is your opinion is Islam at war with the west?

Equally silly searches that provide huge numbers of hits:Papist threatZionist Occupational Governmentsecular humanist threatyellow perilholocaust mythatheist threatjewish plotjesuit conspiracyprieure de sionchupacabra