"Islamic Fascism" and History

by **yathrib** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:47 pm

Okay... The present rulers of Iran are disciples of Haj Amin al Husseini? Wasn't HAaH a Sunni, while the Iranians are devout Shiah, with a parallel tradition stretching back a millennium or more? And HAaH was the creator of the Final Solution? That stretches credibility, to say the least. Plenty more here to nitpick at, but I'll leave it to others.

by * » Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:02 pm

A trailer-esque montage spectacle of Hollywood's relentless vilification and dehumanization of Arabs and Muslims. Inspired by the book ... all » "Reel Bad Arabs" by Dr. Jack Shaheen <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-600397827976179049">Planrt of the Arabs</a>

by **dude h homeslice ix** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:10 pm

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_naming_dispute">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira...ng_dispute</a> In 1935, Reza Pahlavi announced that all Western countries should use the name of "Iran" in their languages too. Opponents claim that this act brought cultural damage to the country and separated Iran from its past in the West, and caused many people to confuse it with Iraq (an Arab state west of Iran). During World War II, in fact, Winston Churchill ordered that the name "Persia" be used for all government documents so as to avoid this confusion. For many westerners, "Persia" became a dead empire that does not exist anymore. Members of the Persian intelligentsia were not happy with this decree either, because of the pro-Nazi incentive behind it. After Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, the Nazi Economics minister, commented on the Aryan origin of Persians, Reza Shah's ambassador in Germany encouraged him to issue the above mentioned decree asking all foreign delegates to use the word "Iran" (meaning "Land of the Aryans") instead of "Persia" in formal correspondence.(The History of Iran, Elton Daniel, p.3) As The New York Times explained at the time, "At the suggestion of the Persian Legation in Berlin, the Teheran government, on the Persian New Year, March 21, 1935, substituted Iran for Persia as the official name of the country. In its decision it was influenced by the Nazi revival of interest in the so-called Aryan races, cradled in ancient Persia. As the Ministry of Foreign Affairs set forth in its memorandum on the subject, 'Perse,' the French designation of Persia, connoted the weakness and tottering independence of the country in the nineteenth century, when it was the chessboard of European imperialistic rivalry. 'Iran,' by contrast, conjured up memories of the vigor and splendor of its historic past."[1] The defenders of this name point out that the designation Iran was used by the Greek historian Eratosthenes and derives from the old Persian word ariya, akin to the Sanskrit Aryavarta. The Sassanids also called their empire Ēran-shahr ("empire of the Iranians") or Ēran-zamin ("land of the Iranians"). Subsequent and modern usage derives from this precedent.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:32 am

Dream's End, you are questioning whether zionism is racist; I believe that both 'secular' and 'religious' zionism are racist, and that those who believe that either is not, are kidding themselves (like the author of the first article). <blockquote>Quote:<hr>A Solution to Israel’s Demographic Peril by Larry Derfner When Israeli Arabs protest that talk of the “demographic threat” is racist, can Israeli Jews blame them? If non-Jewish professors and politicians anywhere on earth spoke of a Jewish demographic threat to their countries, what would Jews call it? What, for that matter, would decent non-Jews call it? Raising the specter of the Arab demographic threat to Israel is, in fact, racist — if you believe that Zionism is racism, that a Jewish state is a racist state. I don’t believe that (even while I know there is no shortage of Jews whose Zionism doesn’t amount to anything more than racism). Although the Jewish state by definition “belongs” to the Jews more than it does to its non-Jewish citizens, I don’t consider it a force for racism, but the opposite: Whatever racism exists in Israel, the Jewish state came into being as an answer to racism of a rather larger magnitude — the habit of anti-Semitic oppression. And however unjust a Jewish state is to its Arab citizens, if Israel stops being a Jewish state it will start being an Arab state, and I think the injustice to the Jews that would result from that is worse than anything Israeli Arabs have to endure. So I don’t think it’s racist or anti-democratic or unfair to want a Zionist future for this country. And while Zionists are known to argue over what makes a Jewish state, I’d say the absolute minimum, the point every Zionist can agree on, is that it must have a solid Jewish majority. How much is solid? Eighty percent, the current figure (including the Russian immigrants who think of themselves as Jewish, even if the religion does not), is solid. But I’d say that once the figure drops below 75 percent, which leading demographers predict will happen in about 20 years, the viability of a Jewish state with an Arab minority in the Middle East starts coming into question. And the way things are going demographically, it’s downhill from there. Obviously, Israeli Arabs, and not just them, take all this in as racism. But as it turns out, the project to solidify Israel’s Jewish majority serves not only the purpose of preserving the Jewish state, but also — despite all the Jewish racists — of protecting the democratic rights of Arab citizens. There’s no way to avoid it — the more Israeli Jews feel their majority threatened, the more hostile, fearful and punitive they will become toward Israeli Arabs. It can already be felt: in the denial of citizenship to Palestinians marrying Israeli Arabs; in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s boast that his child welfare cuts brought down the Israeli Arab birthrate; in the growing Jewish majority telling opinion polls that the government should “encourage” Israeli Arabs to emigrate. None of this would be happening, I don’t think, if the 80 percent Jewish majority were secure; if Israel weren’t inching steadily toward a demographically binational state; if its foundation — its citzenry — weren’t headed for a “tipping point.” Demography is a dirty business. I don’t like dealing with it. I don’t like knowing that if an Arab friend has a baby, I’m of course happy for him personally, but in the abstract, as a Zionist, as an Israeli thinking about the national interest, I have to say that such a birth is bad news. This is a miserable state of affairs. And it wouldn’t be if demographic trends showed Israel’s Jewish majority holding at 80 percent, or even a little less, for generations to come. In the name of the national interest, Zionists could celebrate the births of all the Israeli Arab babies just as much as the births of all the Jewish ones. (More than a few Zionists, I’m sure, would still refrain.) So for the sake of Israel’s Jewish character and democracy, the demographic threat has to be overcome. There have been all sorts of suggestions, some of which are truly malevolent, such as Netanyahu’s stated motive in cutting child welfare, and the idea of encouraging Arab citizens to leave the country — to coerce them into leaving, to bring about “voluntary transfer,” to make Israeli Arabs’ lives so daunting that they will “choose” emigration. And if these are the only ways to preserve Israel as a Jewish state, then let’s leave it for the Arabs and the Jewish racists and help the decent Jews find a better place to live. Then there’s the idea of cutting out a heavily Arab section of the Galilee and joining it to a Palestinian state in the West Bank, maybe in exchange for Israel’s annexation of the West Bank settlement blocs. There are a couple of drawbacks here: One, who wants to give up the heart of the Galilee? Two, the Arab citizens in the Galilee don’t want to become part of Palestine, so you can’t force them. (Incidentally, you can force Jewish citizens out of Gush Katif, because Gaza, unlike the Galilee, doesn’t belong to sovereign Israel.) A couple of other notions to bolster the Jewish majority involve easing the conversion process for interested gentiles, and pushing aliyah with more enthusiasm and marketing skill among the 5 million to 6 million American Jews. There’s nothing objectionable about either of these ideas, I just don’t think they’re mass-scale solutions. I don’t think they’re going to get enough takers to make a dent in the demographic threat. So here’s my idea: Secular Israeli Jews have to start making more babies, say one more per family. If the religious also want to have more babies, that’s, of course, just as good, but I mention the secular, because they only have an average of about two children per family, while the religious have more, often many more. In the pioneering era, when there weren’t that many Jews here, Jewish fertility was an overt Zionist value. Among the secular, it’s long forgotten, and I think it’s time to remember it again. The biological clock is ticking for the Jewish state — and for its democracy. Larry Derfner is the Tel Aviv correspondent for The Jewish Journal. <a href="http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=14386">www.jewishjournal.com/hom...p?id=14386</a> <hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Foundations of a Political Messianic Trend in Israel written by Uriel Tal published in The Jerusalem Quarterly Number 35 Spring 1985 ISSN 0334-4800 This study sets out to present a critical analysis, based on primary sources, of a political messianic trend in Jewish religious nationalism in Israel. The basic premise underlying the dogma held by this trend maintains that since the beginning of the Zionist enterprise, and particularly since Israel's victory in the Six-Day War, the country has lived in a political reality which is transcendental. Accordingly, the military conquest in the Six-Day War is evidence of the state of metaphysical transformation in which the political reality finds itself—to a degree that the holiness of the Land of Israel, as stated by Rabbi Shmaryahu Arieli in The Law of War, extends even to conquered foreign lands, including the Sinai Desert, Sharm el-Sheikh and the eastern shore of the Suez Canal. This is not the beginning, but rather the midst of a messianic era, in which the Land of Israel is liberated not only from political adversaries, but also...from a mystical force which embodies evil, defilement and moral corruption, and we are thus entering an era in which absolute sanctity rules over corporeality. ... Nachmanides writes: "We are commanded to take possession of the land given by the Lord to our forefathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and we will not leave it in the hands of any other people or allow it to lie waste. And he said unto them (Numbers 33:53): 'You must take possession of the land and settle there, for to you I have given the land to occupy.'" This commandment, Nachmanides continues, was specified for us in its particular boundaries: "and go to the mount of the Amorites, and unto all its neighboring places, in the plain, in the hills, and in the vale and in the south, and by the seaside, to the land of the Canaanites, and unto Lebanon, unto the great river, the River Euphrates" (Deuteronomy 1:7), and this, Nachmanides claims, "lest you yield from any place." Place is sanctified by total holiness, and that is why we were commanded to kill those nations, the seven peoples and Amalek—in order not to place the Land in their hands. From this point of departure an explicit policy is now entailed: relying on these sources, the Chief Rabbinate issued Halakhic rulings concerning the holiness of the territories—and due to this, the sanctity of their borders and of the political sovereignty over them which proclaim the existence of a religious duty, to be put into effect by political action. The Chief Rabbinate's decision of 22 Adar 5736 (1976), for example, states the following: "The Temple Mount is Mt. Moriah, the site of the Temple and of the Holy of Holies, the place where the Lord God of Israel chose to house His Name, which was sanctified by ten holy blessings by David, King of Israel: the Jewish people's right to the Temple Mount and the site of the Temple is an eternal and inalienable divine right, over which there can be no concessions." In light of this sacredness, there is no room for any compromise: neither with regard to time, i.e., concessions at least for the time being, for a year or a generation, nor with regard to place. Another decision concerning the prohibition of handing over an part of the Land of Israel to the gentiles, dated 21 Iyyar, 5739 (1979), forbids the transfer of any territory, including that which was conceded to Egypt in return for peace: "According to our holy Torah and the clear and authoritative law, there is a strict ban on transferring ownership to the gentiles" of any single part of the Land of Israel, because it is sanctified by the sacredness of the biblical "Covenant between the Pieces." This invocation of the Covenant of Abraham elucidates how an archaic and primordial symbol of the slaughtering of animals, used by primeval tribes as evidence of political union, becomes a source of authority for contemporay political policy. Returning the territories, the chief Rabbinate ruled, would constitute a violation of the commandment, "and though shalt not show mercy unto them" (Deuteronomy 7:2): the gentiles should not be given the right of encampment on the soil of the Land of Israel, "and no argument of the saving of lives (pikuach nefesh) can invalidate this severe prohibition." From everything said so far, the concrete implications of the political messianic outlook concerning human rights can be discerned: If time and place are categories of existential totality, then there cannot possibly be a place for gentiles here. As we have seen, we are not dealing with a band of crazy prophets, nor with an extreme minority on the fringe of society, but with a dogmatic school of thought and methodical doctrine, which inevitably leads to a policy which cannot tolerate the concept of human and civil rights, because the conception of the totality of the dimensions of time and place leaves no room for tolerance. It is a movement which possesses great inner powers of mystical belief, and in light of the analysis of its ideological foundations, we find ourselves confronted with a structure familiar to us from twentieth-century political messianism. There is as yet no place for comparison of content, but with regard to the structure of the conception—as distinct from its content—it is impossible not to notice an analogy to totalitarian movements of this century. The conclusion which follows from the epistemological structure of the dimensions of time and place as described above, emerges in the form of three positions concerning the question of the non-Jew's human and civil rights, somewhat like three possible degrees of a solution: the restriction of rights; the denial of rights; and in the most extreme case—the call for genocide based on the Torah. Every one of these positions has been expressed in the sources under discussion. The first degree is still relatively moderate: it states that equality of the rights of citizen and man is nothing but a foreign democratic principle, alien and European, which existentially alienates us from the Holy Land. Therefore, the principle of equal rights is not binding in our dealings with the Arab residents of the country, and their status can only be that of foreigners (gerim). ... The second position already leads to the denial of human rights, because the actualization of our existence in the Land of Israel depends on the Arabs' emigration from it. This matter has frequently been discussed in Nekuda, to the point that some people within the movement have said that as the Torah speaks in communicable language, and one should not "utter the unhearable," i.e., as the issue would shock the public at the moment, one should try to refrain, as a temporary measure, from explicitly talking about the expulsion of the Arabs; yet the attitude in principle is that there is no place for Arabs in the land. Therefore, the differentiation in time of war between citizen and soldier, as accepted in enlightened countries, is unacceptable because both of them, the citizen and the soldier, belong to the category of population which a priori has no right to be here; both of them are enemies of Israel. The commandment to conquer the land "is above the human and moral considerations of the national rights of the gentiles to our land," as Rabbi Shlomo Aviner claims in his article, "The Messianic Realism" (Morasha, Vol. 9). Indeed, Israel was commanded in the Torah that "thou shalt be holy," but we were not commanded to be moral; and the general principles of morality which have been accepted by mankind, in principle at least, do not commit the Jew, for he was chosen to be beyond them (Nekuda, No.43). The third position concerning the question of the non-Jew's human rights is based upon the positive commandment from the Torah of the eradication of any trace of Amalek, i.e., actual genocide. This solution was suggested by Rabbi Israel Hess in his article, "The Commandment of Genocide in the Torah" (Bat Kol, the student journal of Bar Ilan University, Feb. 26, 1980), and apart from several colleagues such as Uriel Simon and other members of Oz ve-Shalom (the dovish religious group), we do not know of any dissenting reaction on behalf of the rabbinical teachers of this trend. Their silence is particularly significant in this instance, as we are dealing with a community for whom, because of its political structure, its leadership is not just the guide but also the one who grants absolution, because according to their outlook, the function of the Chief Rabbinate and heads of the yeshivot is to react to reality and to demonstrate to man the error of his ways (the rabbis in the yeshivot are thus called mashgichim—'supervisors'). Rabbi Hess proclaims that "the day will come when we will all be called to fulfill the commandment of this religiously commanded war, of annihilating Amalek"—the commandment of genocide. The manner of carrying this out is described in I Samuel 15:3: "Go now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him but kill man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and ass." This duty of carrying out the annihilation of Amalek is based, according to Rabbi Hess, on two arguments: the one concerning racial purity, and the other concerning war. The racial justification is as follows: according to Genesis 36:12, Amalek is the son of Timna, who was Eliphaz's concubine. Yet according to I Chronicles 1:36, the same Timna was the daughter of Eliphaz and thus Amalek's sister. Rabbi Hess thus concludes that Eliphaz cohabited with his wife (who herself was somebody else's wife), begat his daughter Timna by her, took his daughter as a concubine, cohabited with her, and thus Amalek was born. Thus, the rabbi tells us, it is impure blood which flows in Amalek's veins and in the veins of Amalek's descendants for all time. And as for the second argument—Amalek is the enemy who fought against Israel in a particulary cruel manner, Hess says, personifying boundless evil, because when the Children of Israel were walking along their way, exhausted, Amalek attacked and killed them, man, woman and child. According to this conception, in the opposition between Israel and Amalek there appears the opposition betwen light and darkness, between purity and contamination, between the people of God and the forces of evil, and this opposition continues to exist with respect to the descendants of Amalek for all time. And who are his descendants for all time? These are the Arab nations. ... In conclusion, we are presented with a political messianism in which the individual, the people and the land arrive at an organic union, bestowed with absolute holiness. It is based on a metaphysical comprehension of political reality, which is expressed by a conception of the totality of time and place. The danger of this totalistic outlook lies in its leading to a totalitarian conception of political reality—because it leaves neither time nor place for the human and civil rights of the non-Jew. <a href="http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/messianic_trend.html#contents">www.geocities.com/alabast...l#contents</a> <hr></blockquote> And another point of view: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Murder Under the Cover of Righteousness There Is No Fixed Method for Genocide By SHULAMIT ALONI Dr. Ya'akov Lazovik writes ("Academic Genocide", "Ha'Aretz", 4 March) that in the State of Israel it is impossible that the regime and the nation will plan and commit a genocide. It is difficult to determine if this is naivety or self-righteousness. As we know, there is no single fixed method for murder and not even for genocide. The author Y. L. Peretz wrote about "the righteous cat" who does not spill blood, but only suffocates. The government of Israel, using the military and its instruments of destruction, is not only spilling blood, but it is also suffocating. What other name can be given to the dropping of a one-ton bomb over a dense urban area, when the justification uttered is that we wanted to murder a dangerous terrorist and his wife? The rest of the citizens who were killed and injured, among whom are children and women, do not count, of course. How is it possible to explain the expulsion of citizens from their homes at three o'clock in the morning on a rainy night, then depositing bombs in the house and then departing without warning? When those expelled returned to their home, the bombs were exploded and a brutal murder and destruction of property was thus committed. And what is the justification for what happened in Jenin? We did not destroy the whole neighbourhood, just 85 houses; it was not slaughter, we killed only 50-some citizens. How many does one need to murder and destroy for it to be a crime?--A crime against humanity, as determined by the Laws of the State of Israel, not only the laws of Belgium. And more: A curfew and closure of an entire city so that a few celebrants from the racist bunch in Hebron could walk to the Cave of the Fathers, and tanks destroying fruit and vegetable stands, and bulldozers that destroy houses, and Generals who, in their arrogant hubris, are willing to destroy a whole neighbourhood for the convenience of a group of settler hooligans. Curfew, closure, brutality, murder, destruction of homes of suspects, while we keep parroting the incantation that a person is innocent until proven otherwise (as in the case of our Prime Minister and his sons). The order that Ariel Sharon gave to the soldiers who went to wreak revenge in Qibiah: "Maximize losses in life and property", has not been forgotten. Today Sharon, Mofaz and Yaalon, the three Generals who manage the policy of this government, behave like that self-righteous cat--suffocating all the time. Curfew and another curfew, arrests and more arrests, destruction of roads, brutality to the residents at road stops. Benny Alon, (a minister in the present government), already said: "make their life so bitter that they will transfer themselves willingly". This is done on a daily basis, in addition to the destruction. The Chief of Staff, Yaalon, already announced that he is "destroying for re-building". One can understand from his moves that the "building" is building of more and more settlements. So that they will not be obliged, as military rulers, to take care of the residents' well-being, the army uses sorties, followed by retreats. They enter a village, they kill, they destroy and they arrest, and then they retreat. Those who remain on the ashes and the ruins will take care of themselves. Many of our children are being indoctrinated, in religious schools, that the Arabs are Amalek, and the bible teaches us that Amalek must be destroyed. There was already a rabbi (Israel Hess) who wrote in the newspaper of Bar Ilan University that we all must commit genocide, and that is because his research showed that the Palestinians are Amalek. The nation is not planning to commit genocide; the nation really does not want to know what's happening in the territories. The nation is following orders given by the legitimate representatives of the regime. After the legitimate Prime Minister who wanted to bring peace was murdered, the hand is loose on the trigger, greed is paramount, and there is always some reason to brutalise all of the residents of a city that number tens, if not hundreds of thousands, because there are always people there who are on the "wanted" list. It is sufficient that one person is wanted to bomb and kill, by mistake, of course, also women, children, workers and other humans--if indeed we still count them as humans. Of course with our self-righteousness, with our self-adoration in our "Jewish ethics" we make sure to advertise how beautifully the doctors take care of Palestinian victims in the hospitals. We do not advertise how many of those are executed in cold blood in their own homes. So it's not yet genocide of the terrible and unique style of which we were past victims. And as one of the smart Generals told me, we do not have crematoria and gas chambers. Is anything less than that consistent with Jewish ethics? Did he ever hear how an entire people said that it did not know what was done in its name? Shulamit Aloni was an Member of the Kenneset and served as a Minister of Communications and the Arts, Science and Technology. <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni03072003.html">www.counterpunch.org/aloni03072003.html</a><hr></blockquote>

by **AlicetheCurious** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:40 am

Ooops! Sorry, that last post should have been put in the 'other' thread, Zionism & History, but I'm not surprised I got confused, in many ways they're indistinguishable and should have comprised one thread. I did want to point out that the above are not mere quotes, they are analyses of actual policies carried out either by the Zionist state itself, through its official apparatus, or by the extremely powerful religious settler movement, which is armed and protected by the Zionist state, and let loose on the defenceless Palestinian civilian population to commit murder and other crimes with impunity.

by **Dreams End** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:40 am

No, Alice, you have your response in just the right place, because whenever the fascist elements within Arab nationalism are raised, it is typically a litany of Jewish evil that is offered as counterargument. No different here. I have no idea how big an influence the radical rabbis are on Israeli policy. They sound a lot like our own fundamentalists here in the U.S. Maybe we can return this thread to its original topic. I've yet to see anyone really question the history here, other than the "nitpicking" by yesferatu (which is not unreasonable). The idea is that the leader of the Palestinian uprisings leading up to Israel's declaring independence, was an avowed and official nazi who admired Hitler and wished to be part of the "final solution". Would anyone here like to offer evidence that this was not the case? Does it make no difference in your interpretation of what happened leading up to the 1948 war was led by a Nazi? In addition, it is quite clear that large segments of the Reich went underground. I'm just swamped now with work so I've had to suspend a lot of my reading unfortunately, for a bit. But I had already learned about the Mufti's leanings and also the role of "former" Nazis in helping, at the request of CIA, Nasser set up security...only to turn on him as he got to pro-Soviet and side with the Brotherhood. I also know for a fact that the British, supposed enemies of the Arab nationalists (who did, indeed, use the language of "British imperialism" often when speaking of their opposition to Israel), aided, abetted and supported the Arabs in their opposition to Israel. I haven't had time to post about that yet, though. Like I said, it's a complicated world and I guarantee our elite rulers do not think in black and white..it's all gray to them. So playing both sides is quite common...or switching sides or whatever. But I'd like to see this thread be about fascism within Islam and, if I ever have time, to look at how much, if any, continuity there is between the current leaders and the Nazi leadership of Arab nationalism in the past. Finally, this should go without saying, I don't assume that Arab nationalism somehow inherently must be Nazi. My own view is that the very reason Britain and the US supported those reactionary forces within the Arab world is to forestall any left opposition developing there. Arab fascists, like their German friends, were quite happy to kill Arab communists. I think this is demonstrated quite clearly by the way the CIA/Gehlen types swapped sides in reference to Nasser. As soon as there was any sort of pro-Soviet tilt, it's time to bring down the hammer. There is absolutely nothing unique about this. You see this very same pattern all over the world, particularly in Central and South America. There is no reason the Arab states would be immune to this. We also understand that "pro-Soviet" could mean literally allying with USSR or just having left politics. Ah...the heady days of the cold war. So it is deliberate policy to eliminate nationalism that has any "taint" of leftism. I also wonder if the US, then, has encouraged or supported the rise of the Israeli right. This makes sense to me, but I don't know enough about it yet and anyway, it's off topic here. Sorry for just offering opinion at this point...I don't have much time at the moment, but I think it will at least help put this back on topic.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:44 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'd like to see this thread be about fascism within Islam and, if I ever have time, to look at how much, if any, continuity there is between the current leaders and the Nazi leadership of Arab nationalism in the past.<hr></blockquote> I'm sure you would. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> But at a time when the US and Israel are occupying Arab lands, committing massacres and other war crimes against defenceless Arab civilians, and justifying their crimes, first by coining and then by invoking the "Islamo-fascist" label, frankly, I can't help but wonder about your motivations. And I don't think you're having much success in getting others here to dance with you, either. They're too smart, and they know too much... There are many right-wing or Zionist websites that will provide you with all kinds of incendiary quotes (many will be mistranslated or taken out of context, but who cares?), as well as a pre-approved reading list by Middle East "experts" and "scholars". Why are you pushing your agenda here?

by **dude h homeslice ix** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:14 pm

why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? im antizionist and i dont give a damn if people think i am antisemitic as a result. i started this thread because i am interested in the blood on the other hand, the shoe on the other hegelian foot, etc etc. the nazis either propped up and supported arab nationalist movements or they did not. that either has implications for their relationship with the jews or it does not. no matter what the conclusions, i am not gonna change my mind and suddenly see israel as the bastion of goodness and wholesomeness if it turns out their enemies are also a little despicable. and i am secure enough in my own skin to be able to consider the villany on both sides of the conflict. what the hell is wrong with that? you know you point out that americans and israelies are occupying foreign territories...what if nazis are occupying a whole religion of over a billion people and steering it in a bad direction?

by **AlicetheCurious** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>you point out that americans and israelies are occupying foreign territories...what if nazis are occupying a whole religion of over a billion people and steering it in a bad direction?<hr></blockquote> Well, I'm not sure what you mean by 'occupying a whole religion' - I think American and Israeli occupations are pretty clear-cut. If you're suggesting that there are some agents provocateurs who have infiltrated some legitimate national liberation and/or religious movements to sabotage them from within, then I agree with you. If you're suggesting that yes, indeedy, there are assholes among Muslims, then I agree with you, there, too. But if you're saying that 'someone' is occupying Islam and steering 'a billion people' in a bad direction, then you've lost me. There are 1.5 billion Muslims, not 1 billion, and only if you get your information from hostile or propaganda sources can you possibly believe that anyone can 'steer' them. Could you imagine someone saying the same about Christianity? Heck, I wouldn't even say that about Catholics, and THEY have a Pope! You can talk about certain movements within Christianity, such as the right-wing Christian Zionists, as being 'steered in a bad direction', but how could you lump them in with, say, Anglicans, or Greek Orthodox, or Quakers? It wouldn't even make sense to tar all Americans with the same brush, even if there are some seriously scary people there. One thing I've objected to in Dream's End's posts, is his attempt to imply that Arab Nationalism is no better than Zionism, by linking it with Nazis/Fascists. But while Zionism emerged out of anti-semitism, it sought to 'liberate' Jews at the expense of another people's freedom, of another people's human rights. Arab nationalism arose out of colonialism and foreign occupation, and sought (and seeks) to be free of domination by colonial powers who impose their will through force and oppression. In the first case, Zionism's aims are achieved ONLY if the human and legal rights of the native people of Palestine are violated. The Nazis also sought to "liberate" Germany by denying human and legal rights to those it considered enemies. In the second case, most Arab nationalists, particularly Palestinian nationalists, would consider that their aims have been achieved ONLY if everybody's human and legal rights are defended. Zionist propaganda implies that when Arabs say they want Israel to disappear, or that they refuse to recognize its legitimacy, that they are advocating a Nazi-type genocide, deliberately distorting the decades-long Arab nationalist call for a secular, democratic state not built on the domination of one ethnic or religious group by another. In fact, many people consider the Zionist state to be no better (in many ways much worse) than South Africa's apartheid state, and no more worthy of preservation. That's a really, really, important distinction...

by **yathrib** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:48 pm

...about the Israeli/South African thing. Hearsay, but interesting nevertheless. I knew a gentleman from South Africa who claimed to have been an ex-Neo-Nazi and an ex-South African agent/assassin. According to his account, he was sucked into the SA secret services as a result of his involvement in the Neo-Nazi groups, in itself a very interesting story in its details, especially as it involves what we would take to be "mainstream" evangelical churches in the U.S. But here's the interesting part: In his training, he claims that he and the other Neo-Nazis recruited with him were trained in some "skills" by current or former Mossad agents. "Weren't you antisemitic?" I asked. "Well yes..." he answered "but I guess we didn't think about it." Make of it what you want...

by * » Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:50 pm

It's ALL CIA/MI6 etc. We be the pawns on the grand chessboard from <a href="http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:U4YShztVJjYJ:www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm%3Fchannelid%3D39%26contentid%3D2625%26page%3D2+CIA+Moslem+Brotherhood&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=36&client=firefox-a">William H. Carr:</a> "..Respected CIA agent, Robert Baer, author of SLEEPING WITH THE DEVIL: HOW AMERICA SOLD ITS SOUL FOR SAUDI OIL, chronicles the relationship between the CIA's chief spy, Thomas Tweeton and Buck Revell. Both men helped orchestrate the CIA and FBI connection/s to the Iran Contra drugs-for-weapons-for-hostages fiasco. According to Baer, Tweeton's son-in-law, Matthew Gannon...also a CIA agent, was on his way back to the USA from the Middle-East on December 21, 1988 to ask the CIA why field agents had NOTHING on the Moslem Brotherhood...the organization which spawned Al Qaeda. The Brotherhood started in Egypt, ventured through Syria where it was squelched by Assad and ended up in Saudi Arabia where it nurtured by the Saudi Royal Family and used across the Middle-East to do CIA dirty work...a fact known only to the CIA and FBI within the CIA and FBI....which is why those organization are now in an ideological morass. .." from <a href="http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:LcbBn9c8joAJ:www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Fascist%2520Roots%2520of%2520Al-Qaeda.html+CIA+Moslem+Brotherhood&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=46&client=firefox-a">John Loftus:</a> "..Let me give you an example. This year a friend of mine from the CIA, named Bob Baer, wrote a very good book about Saudi Arabia and terrorism; it's called Sleeping with the Devil.1 I was reading the book and I got about a third of the way through and I stopped. Bob was writing about when he worked for the CIA and how bad the files were. He said, for example, the files for the Muslim Brotherhood were almost nothing. There were just a few newspaper clippings. I called Bob up and said, "Bob, that's wrong. The CIA has enormous files on the Muslim Brotherhood, volumes of them. I know because I read them a quarter of a century ago." He said, "What do you mean?" Here's how you can find all of the missing secrets about the Muslim Brotherhood—and you can do this, too. I said, "Bob, go to your computer and type two words into the search part. Type the word 'Banna', B-a-n-n-a." He said, "Yeah." "Type in 'Nazi'." Bob typed the two words in, and out came 30 to 40 articles from around the world. He read them and called me back and said, "Oh my God, what have we done?" What I'm doing today is doing what I'm doing now: I'm educating a new generation in the CIA [about the fact] that the Muslim Brotherhood was a fascist organisation that was hired by Western Intelligence and evolved over time into what we today know as Al- Qa'ida [Al-Qaeda]..."

by **dude h homeslice ix** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:45 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> New Post Re: Zionism = Racism Quote:you point out that americans and israelies are occupying foreign territories...what if nazis are occupying a whole religion of over a billion people and steering it in a bad direction? <hr></blockquote> there have been some muslim voices, some female muslim voices especially, and other more moderate people who have been saying "this isnt what we are really about." they have also said that their religin is being hijkacked and used for nefarious purposes. its not just nationalism, its the caliphate. i recall the leader of the muslim students organization whom i spoke with at length, who tried to convert me to his faith, tell me of the grand vision of a sort of "one world govt" for the ummah. this was before 911. it was beyond nationalism then and it is now. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Well, I'm not sure what you mean by 'occupying a whole religion' - I think American and Israeli occupations are pretty clear-cut. <hr></blockquote> for the purposes of this thread--who cares? ive been on and on about american and israeili issues for years, ok? again, like has been said over and over again on this thread, yes yes yes i know about all this. i want to look at the other side, sorry if thats a problem, you are welcome to argue with me and whomever else if it pleases you. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> There are 1.5 billion Muslims, not 1 billion, and only if you get your information from hostile or propaganda sources can you possibly believe that anyone can 'steer' them. <hr></blockquote> all sources are hostile to someone, and "non propaghanda source" is an oxymoron. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Could you imagine someone saying the same about Christianity? Heck, I wouldn't even say that about Catholics, and THEY have a Pope! <hr></blockquote> yeah, well, i would. i would damn sure say that sbout xtianity, that shits been hijacked too,a t least here in the states. check in with the jesus camp thread for one example. check in with the fellowship at ivanwald. check in with rev moon. again, ive been over this for years and i get it. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You can talk about certain movements within Christianity, such as the right-wing Christian Zionists, as being 'steered in a bad direction', but how could you lump them in with, say, Anglicans, or Greek Orthodox, or Quakers? It wouldn't even make sense to tar all Americans with the same brush, even if there are some seriously scary people there.<hr></blockquote> no, it doesnt neccessarily make sense. but the quakers are losing their sweet charitable asses in this sipritual civil war, and the evangelical pentecostal charismatic who-would-jesus-nuke crowd is winning--just like in all the abrahamic faiths of late. the rest of your pst talks about dreams end and his views. and compares zionism and arab nationalism side by side. i really dont care to go there as the point of this thread is to talk about the nazi roots of pan-islamic movements, both in arab countries and out, like iran, thats not an arab country but was courted by the nazis. they straight up renamed their country "aryan" as a result of their contact with the latter. sorry if i was too focused on the arab side of it, thats really not the point to me. flame on!

by **Dreams End** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:52 pm

Alice, you disappoint me. You hint that you have knowledge of substance but you provide none. I WANT you to provide factual responses. As for your question about pushing my agenda here...good god. I have a fairly long history of posting here and my thought has evolved along the way. I have discovered things here and shared them. I have done complete about faces on certain topics and though I didn't post on Israel much originally, Israel, is in fact one of the issues I've changed my opinion about. I will admit, when I get into these discussions it usually takes less time for someone to accuse me of pushing an agenda. Whatever. Anyone can look at the posts I've made and see that I have gone much further than most, including you, Alice, in providing a factual basis for my responses as best as possible. Other than the timeline you posted, which I have yet had time to get to, you've posted little but rhetoric. You've been unable to offer any refutation whatsoever to the information on this thread, which, I point out, was started by "dude" and not me, so you may ask him what his agenda is if you like. Or we could ask what your agenda is. Or, we could have different points of view and not be babies when someone disagrees with us. I WANT you to provide factual responses. I have invited you to and urged you to. It helps me sharpen my understanding of your perspective and also points to areas I can research. The world is just not as simple as you want it to be.

"Islamic Fascism" and History

Iran....

Planet of the Arabs

Re: Planet of the Arabs

Re: Planet of the Arabs

Re: Zionism = Racism

Re: Zionism = Racism

Re: Zionism = Racism

Re: Zionism = Racism

Re: Zionism = Racism

An anecdote

Re: An anecdote

Re: Zionism = Racism

Re: Zionism = Racism

Who is online