Bjørn Stærk blog - Anti-Islamic views

a Reader | 2004-08-20 04:18 | Link

Have a kid, raise the kid, sacrifice for the kid. Then have the kid convert to Islam in his teens, and watch while he instantly becomes an admirer of Osama bin Laden, an apologist for slavery, an apologist for the rape of non-Muslim women, an apologist for dhimmitude and Jim Crow laws applied to non-Muslims, including, of course, your good self, and all of your relatives who sacrificed for that kid for 15-20 years) and all the rest. . .then you'll "GET IT". Until then, I guess you should forget it. You don't know what you are bloody talking about.

Anton V, USA | 2004-08-20 04:42 | Link

Great post! I think your position will appeal to a lot of people who've been concerned about both Islamism and reactions to it excesses. Bear with me a minute: I'm a veteran reader of LGF and am proud to have donated a small part of a paycheck to Charles Johnson. Long before 9/11 or Intifada 2000, I came to regard Islamism as a threat to my safety and liberty; and I've had the misfortune to lose longtime Muslim friends because of heated debates over the morality of Islamist ideology. Usually the argument would boil an argument over how Islam, Israel, and US foreign were portrayed in Western media. They could always cite Chomsky, Said, etc while I found I could do no better than to lamely appeal to my personal observation that even the most well-read Westerners were broadly unaware of Islamist bigotry, fascistic triumphalism, fetishization of violence, tyranny of the mind, etc.

Until people like you and Charles began posting on the web, it was frustrating to see the dominant (soft-left) discourse casting Islam as a "religion of peace" and leaving it at that. To this day, even after 9/11 and the chain of smaller atrocities, the analysis of Islam's political component remains superficial.

On the other hand I find it dismaying that voices critical of Islamism seem to attract and sometimes countenance intolerance. Therefore I'm glad you've spoken out and I hope your post catalyzes introspection among LGFers. We are, after all, the good guys.

As for me, I'll probably vote Kerry (for his domestic platform) and make amends by sending LGF $100.

jimmytheclaw, earth | 2004-08-20 05:00 | Link

good post i tend to forget that its hate the hate not hate the hater.

Salahudin | 2004-08-20 12:27 | Link

It always amazes me to see how naive those Islam bashers are, they want you to believe that muslims hate the west just because it is west or because the west in infidel !! this is of course great fallacy otherwise how can you explain the fact that Muslims dont hate the chinese for example ? arent the chinse infidels as well ?

Why Muslims dont hate the latin Americans for example ? they are infidel, are they not ?

Why the so called muslim terrorists dont threaten and attack peaceful neutural countries such as Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Iceland..etc ? arent these states western and infidel ??

The reason why muslims hate America and some AGGRESSIVE terrorist western countries is because they kill, oppress and terrorize muslims.

Let us read together what Bin Laden said in his latest audio speech:

Quote:

''What happened in September 11 and March 11 is your own merchandise coming back to you. We hereby advise you ... that your definition of us and of our actions as terrorism is nothing but a definition of yourselves by yourselves, since our reaction is of the same kind as your act. Our actions are a reaction to yours, which are destruction and killing of our people as is happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine.
By what measure of kindness are your killed considered innocents while ours are considered worthless? By what school [of thought] is your blood considered blood while our blood is water?
Therefore, it is [only] just to respond in kind, and the one who started it is more to blame...

When you look at what happened and is happening, the killing in our countries and in yours, an important fact emerges, and that is that the oppression is forced on both us and you by your politicians who send your sons, against your will, to our country to kill and to be killed.
Therefore, both sides have an interest in thwarting those who shed the blood of the peoples for their own narrow interests, out of vassalage to the White House gang...''

Osama Bin Laden April 15, 2004

End of Quote.

It is very clear that the war Bin laden is waging against America and NOT against ALL the west or the Infidels is due to HALF CENTURY American and some western aggression against Muslims.

You guys need to get out from your hole and dump this self denial nonesense, dump this far right christian evangelical bullshit about infidels, 72 virgins, martyers...etc you need to acknowledge what your evil governments had done against Muslims.

To put it clearly: As long as Muslims are killed in their thousands in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan by America and its terrorist allies, America, Americans and citizens of western countries that participate in the killing of muslims will be the target of those muslim extremists.

American Terrorism against Muslims before 9/11

WARNING ! WARNING ! below there are graphic pictures, DONT SEE THEM if you have weak heart or in the presence of childern!!

The following pictures reveal the truth about the barbaric attacks that were done by the United States of America's Armed forces against the Muslim Iraqi civilians in Southern Iraq. The United States used what is called "Uranium Bombs" against the unarmed Iraqi Civilians. The Deplete Uranium Bombs are exactly small Atomic Bombs!!.

The Iraqis did not have nor used any Nuclear Weapons against the US and its Allies. I am not in anyway defending Saddam Hussein and his barbaric regime. But why did the ''Civilized '' United States decide to attack the innocent IRAQI CIVILIANS with Nuclear Weapons??!!

In an act of stark cruelty, the US dominated Sanctions Committee refuses to permit Iraq to import the clean-up equipment that they desperately need to decontaminate their country of the Depleted Uranium ammunition that the US fired at them. Approximately 315 tons of DU dust was left by the use of this ammunition.The Sanctions Committee also refuses to allow the mass importation of anti-cancer treatments, which contain trace amounts of radio-isotopes, on the grounds that these constitute '...nuclear materials..' (Ross B. Mirkarimi)"

And why is the Civilized United States prevented Iraq from importing the "clean-up equipment" to clean its region from the Nuclear Radiation that is causing thousands of Iraqi kids to be born with its infection as shown below??!!

THE PICTURES:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq8.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq6.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq12.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq13.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq11.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq1.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq2.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq3.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq4.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq5.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq7.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq16.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraq19.jpg

http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraqi_torture.htm

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-20 13:25 | Link

Salahudin: "It always amazes me to see how naive those Islam bashers are, they want you to believe that muslims hate the west just because it is west or because the west in infidel !!"

Are you saying that "Muslims" do hate the West, then? All, most or some? What do you base that on? And do you include yourself with those Muslims? I note that you quote bin Laden to justify this hate. Do you agree with his reasons for hating the West, and do you agree with his methods? Let's come clean on where _you_ stand in all this, and what you really mean when you say "Muslims".

"It is very clear that the war Bin laden is waging against America and NOT against ALL the west or the Infidels is due to HALF CENTURY American and some western aggression against Muslims."

Ok, so you're saying there's a proportional relationship between the amount of harm a country does to Muslims, and the amount of hatred Muslims direct towards that country? The more harm, the more hatred, and the less harm, the less hatred? Let's test that theory. In the 1980's, the US helped Muslim rebels in Afghanistan fend off and later chase out the Russians. Afterwards, some of those rebels formed al-Qaeda. In the 1991, a large US-led coalition chased Saddam out of Kuwait, a Muslim country. Two years later al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center for the first time. Throughout the rest of the 90's, the US intervened on behalf of Muslims in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo. Meanwhile al-Qaeda stepped up its terrorist campaign against the US - the embassy bombings, USS Cole, and eventually 9/11.

After 9/11, the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, removed two authoritarian regimes, one secular, and another which followed a hateful and unpopular interpretation of Islam, and both of which had done immense harm to Afghan and Iraqi Muslims. In their place the US attempted to build Muslim-friendly democracies. I see no sign of al-Qaeda hating the US any less for this.

But perhaps your definition of "doing harm to Muslims" is different from mine?

"The United States used what is called "Uranium Bombs" against the unarmed Iraqi Civilians. The Deplete Uranium Bombs are exactly small Atomic Bombs!!."

No they're not. There's some disagreement over how dangerous depleted uranium ammunition is, and I'll let more qualified readers discuss the details. For now I'll just point out that DU is not in any way "exactly small Atomic Bombs", and start the debate by referring to this Wikipedia article on the subject, which concludes:

These facts together may indicate that DU ammunition is actually quite a health problem and endangers the civilian population if left on the battlefield. However, other studies have shown that DU ammunition has no measurable detrimental health effects, either in the short or long term. Critics of these studies point to the fact that they come primarily from the US and UK -- both supporters of DU. However, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency also reports, "based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts." The US military watchdog group Federation of American Scientists has come to similar conclusions.

If you believe that DU is harmful, you'll have many scientists with you, (and many against). But to say that the US attacked "innocent IRAQI CIVILIANS with Nuclear Weapons" is just dishonest.

Salahudin | 2004-08-20 15:06 | Link

Re: Bjørn Stærk

You wrote:

''Are you saying that "Muslims" do hate the West, then? All, most or some? ''
================================

First you have to define what constitute ' west '? Muslims DONT hate the west as general if you mean by the west the countries that geographically situated on the west of the muslim world.

Muslims hate and resent AMERICA first and formost for its support for terrorism (Israel ) and its aggression and killings of Muslims.

Any western country that kill or participate in the killings of muslims join the club.

You wrote:

''What do you base that on?''
==============================

On ONE CENTURY of oppression, killing and terrorism against Muslims, do you want details ?

You wrote:

'' And do you include yourself with those Muslims? ''
=============================

Yes, I am with those muslims who resent and hate AMERICA first and formost for what it did and doing right now in many parts of the muslim world.

You wrote:

''I note that you quote bin Laden to justify this hate. Do you agree with his reasons for hating the West, and do you agree with his methods? ''
=============================

There are 2 reasons why I quote bin laden:

1- because he is the leader of Alqaeda and thus the only one who can tell us why he is doing what he is doing.

2- to show those islam bashers and those 'liars' who want to blame Islam and its doctrine, rather than their own evil actions, for the current terrorism that bin laden is not attacking the west as a whole, he is NOT attacking the west because the west is infidel, he is attacking the countries that kill muslims.

No one answered me: why those muslim extremists are not attacking CHINA ? why they are not attacking Switzerland ? why they are not attacking BRAZIL ???? etc can anyone answer ?

Bin laden grievances are shared by nearly every muslim on earth, his cause is endoresed by nearly every muslim on earth but his METHODS are REJECTED by nearly every muslim on earth.

I dont condone killing innocent Americans, I condemn terrorism in very strong term.

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com

You wrote:

''Let's come clean on where _you_ stand in all this, and what you really mean when you say "Muslims". ''
==============================

Indeed, As Muslim I support the causes of muslims in their pursuit to live FREE from American oppression. after all you will not like seeing American F16s and American tanks bombing OSLO or any other Norwiegan city and killing 30,000 innocent Norwiegans as the case in Muslim Iraq now, will you ?? will the Norwiegan people sit idle watching American soldiers killing them ??????????????

You wrote:

''Ok, so you're saying there's a proportional relationship between the amount of harm a country does to Muslims, and the amount of hatred Muslims direct towards that country? The more harm, the more hatred, and the less harm, the less hatred? ''
============================

Exactly.

You wrote:

''Let's test that theory. In the 1980's, the US helped Muslim rebels in Afghanistan fend off and later chase out the Russians.''
============================

You got that wrong, the US helped the Mujahideen fight the ''SOVIET UNION'' not for the sake of the muslims but for the sake of weakning and defeating the SOVIETS.

You wrote:

'' Afterwards, some of those rebels formed al-Qaeda. In the 1991, a large US-led coalition chased Saddam out of Kuwait, a Muslim country.''
================================

Again, the USA chased saddam out of Kuwait not for the sake of the poor muslim kuwaities but for the sake of the OIL, otherwise how do you explain the fact that the US did not chase saddam out of Iran when he invaded it in 1980?

Also how do you explain the fact ( supported with this video ) that The US helped saddam against another muslim country, Iran:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2038.htm
Shaking Hands with the enemy," Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

Can you tell me what Rumsfeld is doing then knowing that Saddam was massacring his own people and indeed using WMD against Iran ???

You wrote:

''Two years later al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center for the first time. Throughout the rest of the 90's, the US intervened on behalf of Muslims in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo.''
===========================

Not true, the US went to Somalia thinking they can ' finish off the fuckers' as Clinton put it, they massacred so many muslims in Somalia and then they were humiliated and kicked out by the very somalies the Americans 'allegedly' came to help.

As to Bosnia, it is well known fact that the US only interfered when tens of thousands of muslims were slaughtered and massacred by christian serbs, and when thousands of muslim mujahideen started flocking into Bosnia and when the war started to go in MUSLIM favour, the US fear the establishemnt of an islamic state at the heart of Europe and so 'Dayton' agreement was quickly signed.

You wrote:

'' Meanwhile al-Qaeda stepped up its terrorist campaign against the US - the embassy bombings, USS Cole, and eventually 9/11. ''
=============================

Meanwhile 1.5 million inncoent Iraqi MUSLIM childern died under brutal American sanction.

and another 2-3 thousand Palestineans died at the hand of the Israeli jewish terrorists using American weapons and money:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org

You wrote:

''After 9/11, the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, removed two authoritarian regimes, one secular, and another which followed a hateful and unpopular interpretation of Islam, and both of which had done immense harm to Afghan and Iraqi Muslims.''
================================

It is worth to note that NOT a single Afghani nor a single Iraqi was involved in 9/11 !!

invading Iraq and Afghanista resulted in the death of some 50,000 INNOCENT MUSLIMS combind ! what do you call that ? dont you call it TERRORISM or is it 'collateral damage ' since the victims are muslims ??

I have something will really surprise you, it is from today's famous British Newspaper, The Guardian:

Mike Scheuer, a senior intelligence officer ( at the CIA )who led the Bin Laden station for four years published a book-length attack on the establishment. His book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror :

He describes the invasion of Iraq as "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantage". He even goes so far as to call on America's generals to resign rather than execute orders that "they know [...] will produce more, not less, danger to their nation".

NOTE WHAT HE WROTE HERE:

Quote:

'' Bin Laden,is not a lonely maverick, but draws support from much of the Islamic world, which resents the US not for what it is, but for what it does - supporting Israel almost uncritically, propping up corrupt regimes in the Arab world, garrisoning troops on the Saudi peninsula near Islam's most holy sites to safeguard access to cheap oil.
"America ought to do what's in America's interests, and those interests are not served by being dependent on oil in the Middle East and by giving an open hand to the Israelis," Scheuer argues. "If we're less open-handed to Israel over time we can cut down Bin Laden's ability to grow. ''

End of Quote.

Source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1287015,00.html

tell me, Who will pay for the killing of this innocent Iraqi Muslim girl ?

GRAPHIC PICTURE:

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterr...

Read what the some of the American barbaric soldiers in Iraq said:

'' We had a great day. We killed a lot of people. We dropped a few civilians, but what do you do? I’m sorry but the chick was in the way.”

— Sgt. Eric Schrumpf
cowardly sniper
with the Fifth Marine Regiment
March 29, 2003

Sgt. Schrumpf wasn’t sorry at all, of course. He was boasting about murdering people, including a woman, or “chick”, he claims was standing near an Iraqi soldier.

“I think they [Iraqi people] thought we wouldn’t shoot kids. But we showed them we don’t care. We are going to do what we have to do to stay alive and keep ourselves safe. I did what I had to do. I don’t have a big problem with it but anyone who shoots a little kid has to feel something.”

— Private Nick Boggs
U.S. Army psychopath, war criminal

Private Boggs was referring to his cold-blooded murder of a 10-year-old boy. Boggs fired his machinegun at the boy who fell dead on a garbage-strewn stretch of wasteland in Karbala, Iraq. Another little Iraqi boy of the same age was hit but not killed, and he dragged his friend’s dead body away.

Boggs is a 21-year-old former hunting guide from Alaska. He claims the boy was reaching for a rocket propelled grenade.

Nick Boggs is a goddamned filthy war criminal. If the stupid jerk wants to “stay alive and keep himself safe” he shouldn’t be invading other people’s countries on behalf of the oil companies. Then he wouldn’t have to murder 10-year-old boys and make excuses for it.

“The Iraqis are sick people and we are the chemotherapy. I am starting to hate this country. Wait till I get hold of a fuckin’ Iraqi. No, I won’t get hold of one. I’ll just kill him.”

— Corporal Ryan Dupre
U.S. Army psychopath, war criminal

here are some pictures of INNOCENT IRAQI MUSLIMS killed by the American ''terrorists'' :

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=84

And you still wondering why some Americans get 'beheaded' ???????

You wrote:

'' In their place the US attempted to build Muslim-friendly democracies. I see no sign of al-Qaeda hating the US any less for this. ''
============================

Do you really buy this ? building democracies ? only when pigs start flying.

you wrote:

''But perhaps your definition of "doing harm to Muslims" is different from mine?''
===========================

Indeed because you are not Muslim nor you lived in muslim land nor you saw what I saw.

You wrote:

'' "The United States used what is called "Uranium Bombs" against the unarmed Iraqi Civilians. The Deplete Uranium Bombs are exactly small Atomic Bombs!!."
No they're not. There's some disagreement over how dangerous depleted uranium ammunition is, and I'll let more qualified readers discuss the details. For now I'll just point out that DU is not in any way "exactly small Atomic Bombs", and start the debate by referring to this Wikipedia article on the subject, which concludes: ''
====================================

Depleted uranium is a by-product of the processing of natural uranium into reactor fuel. Using a mass spectrometer, the natural uranium (uranium obtained from mining operations) is separated into U235 and U238. The U235 is then mixed back into the U238 to obtain a specific concentration, that concentration being higher than the concentration in natural uranium. As a result, large quantities of U238 are left over. This U238 is called depleted uranium.

Until recently, a practical use for the growing stockpile of U238 was not known. But U238 has chemical properties that make it useful for the
military. Uranium burns easily in air. Uranium is dense, which gives bullets great penetrating power. As a result, depleted uranium is used as
armor shielding in the newest generation of tanks and in various bullets, from large shells to small arms fire.

You wrote:

''What is important is to know that depleted uranium is not a nuclear weapon.''
=====================

Indeed, maybe I used the wrong word but can you explain why then 1.5 million Iraqi childern died many of them died with 'strange' cancer ???

You wrote:

''These facts together may indicate that DU ammunition is actually quite a health problem and endangers the civilian population if left on the battlefield. ''
=============================

Can you tell me why it is banned then ??? and why the American criminals used it in the first place ??

You wrote:

''If you believe that DU is harmful, you'll have many scientists with you, (and many against). But to say that the US attacked "innocent IRAQI CIVILIANS with Nuclear Weapons" is just dishonest. ''
============================

I am not qualified to determine what DU constitues but I will let the scientists to judge.

Peace be with you.

Colt | 2004-08-20 15:46 | Link

But try applying that statement to anti-Americanism or anti-Israelism. When Europeans become excessively critical of the US or Israel, should we look for the cause in something the US and Israel has done to Europe, or primarily inside Europe itself?

It's a false comparison. There are genuine evils (and I don't use that word lightly) within Islam, the Islamic world, however you want to put it. A more accurate comparison would be to virulent anti-Nazis.

Assume for a moment that LGFers, and those like them (us), are rational sane individuals. I've been posting there for what must be two years now, and they are not irrational haters. There are some, of course.

What seems to have been forgotten in the scrum to condemn 'extremists' is the possiblity that al-Qaeda, et al, are acting in a wholly Islamic fashion. If that is the case, as many LGFers believe, is our anti-Islamic sentiment irrational, or extremist?

Sorry to babble, BTW. I'm usually more coherent :-)

Herbie, NY NY | 2004-08-20 16:14 | Link

Reading Salhudin's comments is a fascinating experience. The entirety is woven through with the fact that Moslems are victims. They never take responsibility for their own predicament. It is not the West or the US that has kept them down. To the contrary any capitalist system would seek to increase the net worth of market participants in order to enable them to buy more products. Second, not one Moslem country approaches a democracy. Indeed some 60% of women in Moslem countries are, according to the UN illiterate. Certainly the Moslem brotherhood which is the spiritual foundation of terrorist thought regards the West as a whole as a Satan

Evil Paul | 2004-08-20 16:29 | Link

Salahudin, I am sure there will be elaborate replies to your post, meanwhile find my brief comments:

Salahudin: "Indeed, As Muslim I support the causes of muslims in their pursuit to live FREE from American oppression. after all you will not like seeing American F16s and American tanks bombing OSLO or any other Norwiegan city and killing 30,000 innocent Norwiegans as the case in Muslim Iraq now, will you ??"

You do not seem to care too much about Muslims who lived under Saddam's oppression? And as a Norwegian, if we were under a tyrant's rule, someone capable of putting thousands of Norway's inhabitants to death by use of lethal gas, and ourselves not being capable to get rid of this regime - then certainly I would be among those welcoming American intervention.

Salahudin: "You got that wrong, the US helped the Mujahideen fight the ''SOVIET UNION'' not for the sake of the muslims but for the sake of weakning and defeating the SOVIETS."

Naturally, yet it still served the muslims' case, did it not?

Salahudin: "Also how do you explain the fact ( supported with this video ) that The US helped saddam against another muslim country, Iran"

Perhaps because Iran had a leadership even more nasty than what Iraq had? Makes perfect sense to support the bad guy instead of the really bad guy, does it not?

Salahudin: "... the US went to Somalia thinking they can ' finish off the fuckers' as Clinton put it, they massacred so many muslims in Somalia and then they were humiliated and kicked out by the very somalies the Americans 'allegedly' came to help."

So what you are saying is that the US went to Somalia simply to kill people, to "finish off fuckers"?

Do you think there may be more substantial reasons, which would warrant risk of American lives in a country like Somalia? Does protection of food supply and relief agencies ring a bell? Was UN in some way involved?

Your account of historical events is untrue.

Salahudin: "As to Bosnia, it is well known fact that the US only interfered when tens of thousands of muslims were slaughtered and massacred by christian serbs, and when thousands of muslim mujahideen started flocking into Bosnia and when the war started to go in MUSLIM favour, the US fear the establishemnt of an islamic state at the heart of Europe and so 'Dayton' agreement was quickly signed."

Unlike other nations, Europeans included, the US did actually interfer. This stopped large-scale killings, but even though it saved Muslim lives it seems hard for you to acknowledge this.

There are several answers to your question of why countries such as Brazil are not targets for terrorism.

Here is one obvious: unlike the US, Brazil does not actively resist terrorism, Muslim fundamentalism, and cruel regimes such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Brazil does not actively promote democracy in the way done by the Americans, and is therefore not a target for those opposing implementation of Western-style democracies.

And Salahudin, while on the topic, and Americans and their methods aside, what is your view on democratisation of Muslim nations?

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-08-20 16:46 | Link

Salahudin: "On ONE CENTURY of oppression, killing and terrorism against Muslims, do you want details ?"

No, I meant what do you base it on that Muslims hate America? And again, what do you mean by "Muslims"? You're essentially signing up 1.3 billion people here for your own particular interpretation of history. I'd like to see some evidence to back that up.

"Bin laden grievances are shared by nearly every muslim on earth, his cause is endoresed by nearly every muslim on earth but his METHODS are REJECTED by nearly every muslim on earth."

Perhaps, but you're still a bin Laden apologist. You're making excuses for his hatred, defending it as reasonable in light of America's evil behavior. That's just not good enough. You can't reject bin Laden's methods but defend his hatred, the one is a product of the other, like the Holocaust was a product of Hitler's hatred of Jews. Such irrational hatred inevitably leads to evil behavior. We need to confront both the evil behavior and the hatred. You may not be a terrorist, but you're helping to create an environment terrorism can live in.

"You got that wrong, the US helped the Mujahideen fight the ''SOVIET UNION'' not for the sake of the muslims but for the sake of weakning and defeating the SOVIETS."

Ah, now you're revising your theory. Now it's no longer about whether the US helps or harms Muslims, but whether they help them for the right reasons. So let's restate your theory: The more harm the US does to Muslims, with the intent of harming Muslims, the more Muslims hate America, and the more the US helps Muslims, with the intent of helping Muslims, the less Muslims hate America. Agree?

Your new theory puts Afghanistan in a gray area. As you rightly point out, the welfare of Muslims was not a concern in that war, the Mujahedin were only a tool for fighting the Russians. And when the Russians were gone, the Americans abandoned Afghanistan, and let it fall into chaos, leading to the Taliban and 9/11. In the short term, however, the American aid did help Muslims, and they had no deliberate intention of harming them. So it's a gray area, falling outside the domain of your theory.

Kuwait also becomes cloudier. The intent was to check the growing power of Saddam, who would likely have invaded all the small Gulf states, then Saudi Arabia, possibly Iran, if the Americans hadn't stopped him. So the intent was not just to fight Saddam, but to maintain peace and stability in the region, which benefited both the West and the Arab states. This was reflected in the massive Arab support for the war. It wasn't a purely idealistic war, but it was still fought for the sake of providing Muslims with peace and stability. Then again stability in the Middle East means prolonging the oppression of Muslim civilians by evil dictators. So that too may or may not fall outside the domain of your theory. Feel free to revise it to accommodate for Afghanistan and Kuwait.

Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq remain on the list, however. In three of these cases, (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo) helping Muslims was the primary objective of the intervention. In the last two, liberating Muslims from evil tyrants was the secondary objective of the invasions. These were all interventions with the intent (among other things) of helping Muslims. According to your revised theory, this should translate into less hatred of the US, not more. So where is your theory wrong?

"otherwise how do you explain the fact that the US did not chase saddam out of Iran when he invaded it in 1980?"

But Iran also has oil. The reason the US did not intervene was 1) that it considered Iran to be the most dangerous regime in the Middle East, and Iraq a convenient counter-balance, 2) that it was too soon after Vietnam for the US to have regained their military self confidence, 3) that all foreign policy took place in light of the Cold War, and 4) that they didn't much care. Rumsfeld's visit (as a private citizen, only temporarily employed by the Reagan administration), and the subsequent playing down of the Kurdish genocide, was a reflection of point 4. It should be pointed out that the US first began to support Iraq in the mid-80's, so the friendship was a short-lived one. It's also worth pointing out that US foreign policy has grown increasingly idealistic ever since the fall from power of Henry Kissinger in the 70's.

"Meanwhile 1.5 million inncoent Iraqi MUSLIM childern died under brutal American sanction."

No, they did not. Matt Welch researched this thoroughly for this Reason article, and cites figures of 100-300 000 deaths. That's bad, but no excuse to pull numbers out of the air.

You continue with a long rant against the Afghanistan and Iraq wars where I don't see the relevance to what we're discussing. You had a theory that the more Americans harmed Muslims, the more Muslims would hate America, and the other way around. I've given you a lot of examples that proves the opposite. The Mike Scheuer quote just shows that there are some Americans who think it was foolish and counterproductive to help these Muslims in that particular way. The soldier quotes (if real) just shows that there are American soldiers who are callous and evil. This is no secret. I've written about that before.

But what we're talking about (especially after you revised your theory) is the intentions of the Bush administration, and the vast majority of Americans and American soldiers. The amount of evidence is overwhelming: Americans believe they now have an obligation to help Iraq and Afghanistan become peaceful, free, Muslim democracies. They could have maintained the Iraqi army, installed a US-friendly dictator, and left in a hurry last summer if they'd wanted to. But they chose to stay, at the cost of many hundred American lives, so they could leave behind a peaceful, democratic Iraq. This isn't just some wacky theory I'm stating here, this is the official policy of the Bush administration, and what a lot of American readers here will tell you if you ask them.

My whole purpose with these examples is not to show that the US has done everything right, or that it always acts primarily from idealistic motives, (who does?), but only to test your theory that anti-American hatred among Muslims is proportional to the harm Americans cause Muslims (intentionally, in the revised theory). So far it's not looking good.

"Indeed, maybe I used the wrong word but can you explain why then 1.5 million Iraqi childern died many of them died with 'strange' cancer ???"

Earlier you said 1.5 million Iraqi children were killed by the UN sanctions. Make up your mind. And what is "strange" cancer? How many (exactly) did it kill? Where is the proof that this was caused by DU? Remember - you have to prove that there is a relationship, I don't have to prove that there isn't.

"Can you tell me why it is banned then ??? and why the American criminals used it in the first place ??"

Some people believe it is somewhat harmful. Not very, but a bit. Others disagree. The reason the Americans want to use it is that DU ammunition is extremely effective against armor. This has nothing to do with it being dangerously radioactive or toxic. Those are just potential side effects, questioned by many scientists.

"I am not qualified to determine what DU constitues but I will let the scientists to judge."

I agree. Earlier you called DU ammunition a nuclear weapon. Perhaps you should take that as a sign that you shouldn't always trust what people tell you about the US, and that it's always a good idea to check your beliefs against reliable sources. Try that with some of the other things you've written here.

Andrew X | 2004-08-20 17:20 | Link

Salahudin -

Why exactly are Muslims in conflict with....

Eastern Orthodox Christians in Chechnya and Kosovo, Western Catholic Christians in Bosnia, Europe, Africa, the US, and the Philipines, secularists in Europe and the US, Hindus in Kashmir, Jews everywhere on planet earth, and atheists in general?

To parphrase a sign I have seen.... "Why are you hated so?"

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2004-08-20 17:20 | Link

Salahudin wrote:

Now, fortunately it's been a long time since Norway was occupied. It is considered bad form to bring in the second world war and Hitler in discussions, but in this case it is relevant.

Norway was occupied by germany during WWII. During that time, allied forces - mostly Britan - sent several air raids against german forces in Norway - killing both germans and norwegians.

I come from a town called "Kvinesdal" in Norway. During WWII, there was a molybdenium-mine at a place called Knaben in Kvinesdal. It was bombed twice during WWII, killing both innocent norwegians, germans, several POWs the german used as labour, and so forth.

There was some resentment against the brits, as they targetted a civilan installation with military interests. However, even so, it was viewed as the 'right thing'.

The Brits also did other bombing raids in Norway. Still - they were not hated for it. They were not the oppressors.

Enter Saddam Hussein. Enter Taliban. Both oppressive regimes. The US has _helped_ liberate muslims by removing those regimes. Why do muslims continue to hate their liberators?

Herbie, NY NY | 2004-08-20 17:41 | Link

I read Salahudin and am reminded of the old Russian proverb where a serf is told by God that he may have anything he wishes, but that his neighbor will have twice as much. The serf, after thinking a moment, says make me blind in one eye.

Salahudin | 2004-08-20 18:12 | Link

Re: Herbie, NY NY

You wrote:

''Reading Salhudin's comments is a fascinating experience. The entirety is woven through with the fact that Moslems are victims. ''
=============================

What do you call the 30,000 innocent iraqi Muslims killed so far by your 'terrorist' army ?? arent they victims ? or arent only victims when they are Americans ????

How about the 15,000 innocent Afghani Muslims who were killed by your 'barbaric' army, arent they victims ????

How about the thousands of Muslims killed in Palestine by jewish terrorists using your weapons ? arent they victims ?????

You wrote:

''They never take responsibility for their own predicament. It is not the West or the US that has kept them down.''
==============================

Oh I see, I think you mean the Iraqis should take blame for the invasion of their country, right ? and the same applie for the Afghanis ?

and since we are at it, How about the Palestineans taking blame for the HOLOCAUST and the establishement of the terrorist state of Israel on their land ???

You wrote:

'' To the contrary any capitalist system would seek to increase the net worth of market participants in order to enable them to buy more products.''
===========================

Oh yeah, we have seen the example of Argentina and how they tried to follow the blood-sucking capitalist system just to end up nearly bankrupt.

you wrote:

'' Second, not one Moslem country approaches a democracy.''
================================

First democrasy is the rule of the mob where 51% can dedicate on the 49% what to do.

Secondly, Democrasy was invented in Greece where slaves and women were not allowed to vote, so keep it there, we are not interested in western-style demon-crasy, we have our own form of democrasy called 'shoura'.

sadly some muslim states like Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia and others are applying fake western style democrasy but the aspirtations of the majority of muslims is to have our own shoura.

You wrote:

'' Indeed some 60% of women in Moslem countries are, according to the UN illiterate.''
============================

Indeed 75 % of Americans (men and women ) are functionally ILLITERATE:

Source: Tamara Henry, "Literacy Skills Require Upkeep," USA Today, December 11, 1997.

And since we are talking about Muslim woman, it is amazing to note that the president of the largest muslim country in the world is Muslim woman, president Meqawati of Indonesia, can you tell me when, IF EVER, your free civilized country will elect its first woman president ???

You wrote:

'' Certainly the Moslem brotherhood which is the spiritual foundation of terrorist thought regards the West as a whole as a Satan''
==========================

Proof ???

| 2004-08-20 18:19 | Link

Re: Andrew X

You wrote:

Salahudin -

''Why exactly are Muslims in conflict with....''
============================

With aggressors, killers and invaders...you know who I am talking about !

Herbie, New York | 2004-08-20 18:34 | Link

I rest my case on Salahudin's response to my last comment. One thing sadly lacking in Islamic thought is the ability to be rational

Salahudin | 2004-08-20 19:01 | Link

Re: Evil Paul

You wrote:

''You do not seem to care too much about Muslims who lived under Saddam's oppression? And as a Norwegian, if we were under a tyrant's rule, someone capable of putting thousands of Norway's inhabitants to death by use of lethal gas, and ourselves not being capable to get rid of this regime - then certainly I would be among those welcoming American intervention.''
===================================

Can you tell me who was supporting saddam and shaking hands with him in 'this video' taken in 1983 knowing very well he was massacring his own people ?

The Video:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2038.htm

You failed to answer my question:

Will the Norwegian people sit idel watching American F16s bombing and killing them ?????

Did the Norwegians sat idle when between 1716-1718 Sweden attacked them ????

You wrote:

''Salahudin: "You got that wrong, the US helped the Mujahideen fight the ''SOVIET UNION'' not for the sake of the muslims but for the sake of weakning and defeating the SOVIETS."
Naturally, yet it still served the muslims' case, did it not?''
================================

It served us because we were FIGHTING not the Americans.

You wrote:

''Salahudin: "Also how do you explain the fact ( supported with this video ) that The US helped saddam against another muslim country, Iran"
Perhaps because Iran had a leadership even more nasty than what Iraq had? Makes perfect sense to support the bad guy instead of the really bad guy, does it not? ''
================================

So you admit America supported BAD GUYS regardless of HUMAN RIGHTS and Democrasy and all this CRAP some Americans like to talk about all the time ???

The issue is this: AMERICA knew saddam was killing his OWN people and yet they helped and kept supporting him, any comment on this ??

You wrote:

''So what you are saying is that the US went to Somalia simply to kill people, to "finish off fuckers"? ''
============================

The US had strategic interest in the Horn of Africa, do you think they give a damn about the somalies ?????

You wrote:

''Do you think there may be more substantial reasons, which would warrant risk of American lives in a country like Somalia? Does protection of food supply and relief agencies ring a bell? Was UN in some way involved? ''
===================================

Let me remind you that for half a century, Muslims in Palestine were being killed at the hands of the jewish terrorists, why America did not interfene ?????

You wrote:

''Your account of historical events is untrue. ''
================================

I suppose your account is true, right ?

You wrote:

''Salahudin: "As to Bosnia, it is well known fact that the US only interfered when tens of thousands of muslims were slaughtered and massacred by christian serbs, and when thousands of muslim mujahideen started flocking into Bosnia and when the war started to go in MUSLIM favour, the US fear the establishemnt of an islamic state at the heart of Europe and so 'Dayton' agreement was quickly signed."

Unlike other nations, Europeans included, the US did actually interfer. This stopped large-scale killings, but even though it saved Muslim lives it seems hard for you to acknowledge this.''
=============================

It saved SERBIAN lives not Muslim lives, Muslims were already ethnically cleansed and uprooted from their homes, get your facts straight.

In fact, zionist countries like HOLLAND abandonded the Muslim city of srebrenica when they were in charge under the UN to let the christian serbs come and KILL thousands of Muslims there:

The Srebrenica Massacre, July 1995

http://www.gendercide.org/case_srebrenica.html

You wrote:

''There are several answers to your question of why countries such as Brazil are not targets for terrorism.
Here is one obvious: unlike the US, Brazil does not actively resist terrorism, Muslim fundamentalism, and cruel regimes such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Brazil does not actively promote democracy in the way done by the Americans, and is therefore not a target for those opposing implementation of Western-style democracies. ''
================================

The reason you gave cant even accepted by 6 year old kid ! who are you kidding ?????? are you saying America is attacked because it promotes ' democrasy' ??? this is PATHETIC.

Beside, who appointed America the policeman of our world ?? who gave America the right to tell me as Muslim how should I live my life and who should govern me ???

I wish to live the life I WANT, I wish to be govern by ISLAM, ist America's business or right to change my will ????

You wrote:

''And Salahudin, while on the topic, and Americans and their methods aside, what is your view on democratisation of Muslim nations?''
============================

We dont want democratisation, democrasy is WESTERN invention developed as a result of certain social, cultural and economical developemtns took place in the west which did not take place in the muslim world.

We have our OWN form of democrasy, we have the Islamic shoura. beside, why you guys are so concerned about the muslim world, isnt better to sort out your own problems in your own states first ????

Peace be with you.

| 2004-08-20 19:07 | Link

Re: Herbie, New York |

''I rest my case on Salahudin's response to my last comment. One thing sadly lacking in Islamic thought is the ability to be rational ''
=================================

Truth is, you're always going to lose when you play a game of cat and mouse with the cat. :))))

| 2004-08-20 19:11 | Link

Re: Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo

You wrote:

''Enter Saddam Hussein. Enter Taliban. Both oppressive regimes. The US has _helped_ liberate muslims by removing those regimes. Why do muslims continue to hate their liberators? ''
========================

It is worth noting that both these regimes were nourished and supported by the USA and both were KILLING their own people.

We dont look at the Americans as liberators but as killers and terrorists specially their blind support for the terrorist state of Israel.

I think you need to be Muslim, you need to live in the Middle East to understand why America is SO MUCH HATED there. in fact, thanks to GWB America is now hated all over the world.

Harald | 2004-08-20 19:14 | Link

Is there such thing as a "moderate muslim"? And what what would being a "moderate muslim" entail?

It seems to me like a lot of westerners base their views on Islam (and the possibility of its reformation) on their experiences with Christianity - a religion that somewhat allows you to pick and choose whichever parts of it you want to believe. In the western sphere, the less you believe in the bible, the more moderate you are percieved.

Some christians don't believe in hell, don't believe in speaking in tongues, don't believe sex before marriage is a sin... Heck, some modern day christians don't even believe in Jesus!

In this sense, a "moderate muslim" would be one who denounces the parts of the muslim faith that collides with the western-humanistic values.

Question is, is this possible to do while still remaining a muslim? To my knowledge, it is not. The ones who try gets killed.

Herbie, NY NY | 2004-08-20 19:21 | Link

I would argue that under no circumstances should Islam be banned. Former Justice Barndeis of the US Supreme Court once said in a famous opinion that "Sunlight is the best of disinfectants” Under that analysis, if Salaludin is representative of the Islamic thought process, it would pay great dividends to the West to have his views as widely spread as possible

Ali Dashti | 2004-08-20 19:29 | Link

Here we go again. I will repeat some of the points I have made before, simply because I believe they are correct, important and haven't been refuted by anybody here:

Islam only gives you three options:

1. Convert to Islam.

2. Accept a position as "dhimmi", second - or third rate citizen in your own country, with severe restrictions on your freedoms, subject to Muslim rule and humiliation and paying a somtimes crushing "punishment tax" called Jizya. This option, already not that great, is only available to the "People of the Book", which means other monotheists such as Christians or Jews. This is what too many in our growing Muslim communities in the West want to turn us into: Second-class citizens in our own home. That is what the fuzz is all about with screams of "censorship" from the 2% Muslims in Norway, who think the native 98% of the population shall submit to their rule. Just like the persecuted Christians do in Pakistan, Egypt etc.

3. Die. All those not belonging to the two first categories - Muslims and discriminated monotheists - shall be killed. Buddhists, Hindus, Bahais, animists, agnostics, atheists etc. This is not "extremism", it is ORTHODOX ISLAMIC TEACHINGS, and always has been so in every single important Islamic school of thought since the early Middle Ages. Now Bjørn, since you are not a religious person, Muslims have a God-given right, some would say duty, to kill you. This is not paranoia, it is the sad and horrible truth.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.012

When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.004

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.123

O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.028

Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.033

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.059

Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

Now, as an Atheist or non-religious person, I am very much included in the "Unbeliever" category of people that the KORAN ITSELF demands should be killed, mutilated etc. These passages - and many more like them - will still be there, regardless of how you "interpret" them. Why the hell am I supposed to be understanding towards an ideology that wants me dead???

Orthodox Islam wants me dead. Now, "Reformist Islam", does it only want me slightly dead? Badly beaten, but still alive? In a coma, perhaps? Can Bjørn please tell me the Reformist, Peaceful and Secular way of chopping my head off, as 47.7 (and other verses) clearly demands, and which is in fact a direct order from Gods himself?

Yours in Reformist anticipation, Ali Dashti.

Herbie, New York | 2004-08-20 20:01 | Link

Given Salahudin’s mind set, the best thing that could happen is that Islamic men be required to wear a veil and Islamic women go about unveiled and educated. Further, as regards marriage, each woman should be entitled to 4 husbands provided she treats each fairly and equally.

Salahudin | 2004-08-20 20:31 | Link

Re: Bjørn Stærk

You wrote:

''Salahudin: "On ONE CENTURY of oppression, killing and terrorism against Muslims, do you want details ?"

No, I meant what do you base it on that Muslims hate America? ''
=============================

On American support for anti muslim terrorism ( Israel ) and the killing and the oppression of Muslims.

You wrote:

''And again, what do you mean by "Muslims"? You're essentially signing up 1.3 billion people here for your own particular interpretation of history. I'd like to see some evidence to back that up.''
===================================

first, Muslims are now 2 billion not 1.3 billion, secondly, Muslims are those who believe in the oneness of God ( Allah ) and who consider prophet Muhammad(pbuh) the last prophet sent by God to all mankind.

True, I dont speak on behalf of all Muslims, but I am well qualified to know the general feeling among them:

here are some facts as you requested:

From the Arab American Institute:

http://www.aaiusa.org/PDF/Impressions_of_America04.pdf

You wrote:

"Bin laden grievances are shared by nearly every muslim on earth, his cause is endoresed by nearly every muslim on earth but his METHODS are REJECTED by nearly every muslim on earth."

Perhaps, but you're still a bin Laden apologist. You're making excuses for his hatred, defending it as reasonable in light of America's evil behavior. ''
==================================

Bin laden hatred is the general muslim hatred, I am not even apologizing for his ' justified ' hatred, I am explaining it. I disagree and I condemn his methods of dealing with America and the other agressive western countries, I dont think it is Islamically acceptable to kill innocent civilians even though the barabric americans are killing innocent muslims.

You wrote:

''That's just not good enough. You can't reject bin Laden's methods but defend his hatred, the one is a product of the other, like the Holocaust was a product of Hitler's hatred of Jews.''
============================

Not necessarliy, I hate America as much as he does, but I will never ever resort to his murderous ways in expressing his hatred.

You wrote:

'' Such irrational hatred inevitably leads to evil behavior. We need to confront both the evil behavior and the hatred. You may not be a terrorist, but you're helping to create an environment terrorism can live in.''
========================

Is there any hatred without reason ?

As to creating environment terrorism can live in, I think this statement hold no ground for any muslim specially after seeing thousands of my own brothers and sisters massacred by the Americans ( I already posted you some pictures )

Beside, shall we first define what terrorism is ???

You wrote:

"You got that wrong, the US helped the Mujahideen fight the ''SOVIET UNION'' not for the sake of the muslims but for the sake of weakning and defeating the SOVIETS."

Ah, now you're revising your theory. Now it's no longer about whether the US helps or harms Muslims, but whether they help them for the right reasons. ''
=================================

They NEVER helped us for any reason that might benefit us, they helped us to HELP THEMSELVES.

You wrote:

''So let's restate your theory: The more harm the US does to Muslims, with the intent of harming Muslims, the more Muslims hate America, and the more the US helps Muslims, with the intent of helping Muslims, the less Muslims hate America. Agree?''
==========================

No, I disagree, America has NO intenet of helping muslims at all, America want 2 things:

1- The Oil and

2- protecting the terrorist state of Israel.

You wrote:

''Your new theory puts Afghanistan in a gray area. As you rightly point out, the welfare of Muslims was not a concern in that war, the Mujahedin were only a tool for fighting the Russians. And when the Russians were gone, the Americans abandoned Afghanistan, and let it fall into chaos, leading to the Taliban and 9/11. In the short term, however, the American aid did help Muslims, and they had no deliberate intention of harming them. So it's a gray area, falling outside the domain of your theory.''
==============================

Dont you think abandoning Afghanistan by the US after the Soviet defeat is not an act of deliberate harm against the muslims there ????

You wrote:

''Kuwait also becomes cloudier. The intent was to check the growing power of Saddam, who would likely have invaded all the small Gulf states, then Saudi Arabia, possibly Iran, if the Americans hadn't stopped him. So the intent was not just to fight Saddam, but to maintain peace and stability in the region, which benefited both the West and the Arab states.''
==============================

Do you really think the US was concerned about the 'peace' and 'stability ' or about the OIL supplies ?????

You wrote:

'' It wasn't a purely idealistic war, but it was still fought for the sake of providing Muslims with peace and stability.''
==============================

I disagree here, because let us remember it was the ARABS who paid the bill of this war not the Americans.

You wrote:

'' Then again stability in the Middle East means prolonging the oppression of Muslim civilians by evil dictators. So that too may or may not fall outside the domain of your theory. Feel free to revise it to accommodate for Afghanistan and Kuwait. ''
================================

I already disagreed with your tailored made theory.

How about Peace and Stability in Palestine ?? why the US did not nothing to help the Palestineans ??

I already showed you what this senior CIA officer said about the reason Muslims hate America:

He wrote:

'' Bin Laden, he believes, is not a lonely maverick, but draws support from much of the Islamic world, which resents the US not for what it is, but for what it does - supporting Israel almost uncritically, propping up corrupt regimes in the Arab world, garrisoning troops on the Saudi peninsula near Islam's most holy sites to safeguard access to cheap oil.
"America ought to do what's in America's interests, and those interests are not served by being dependent on oil in the Middle East and by giving an open hand to the Israelis," Scheuer argues. "If we're less open-handed to Israel over time we can cut down Bin Laden's ability to grow ''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1287015,00.html

The fact the US continue to blindly support the terrorist state of Israel and its barbaric terrorism against the Palestineans is at the heart of muslim hatred toward America.

I wish we can have seperate debate about PALESTINE.

You wrote:

'' Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq remain on the list, however. In three of these cases, (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo) helping Muslims was the primary objective of the intervention. ''
==============================

I disagree, only after muslims were slaughtered in their thousands did America get involved.

You wrote:

''In the last two, liberating Muslims from evil tyrants was the secondary objective of the invasions. These were all interventions with the intent (among other things) of helping Muslims.''
=============================

Helping muslims starts in PALESTINE, the fact that PALESTINE was bleeding for half a century under jewish brutal terrorism with the support of America removes any doubt about America's real intentions.

You wrote:

'' According to your revised theory, this should translate into less hatred of the US, not more. So where is your theory wrong?''
===================================

It is your assumptions which are wrong, you assume things as FACTS and you want to build theory based on these PERCIEVED facts ! it does not work this way.

You wrote:

"otherwise how do you explain the fact that the US did not chase saddam out of Iran when he invaded it in 1980?"
But Iran also has oil. The reason the US did not intervene was 1) that it considered Iran to be the most dangerous regime in the Middle East, and Iraq a convenient counter-balance, 2) that it was too soon after Vietnam for the US to have regained their military self confidence, 3) that all foreign policy took place in light of the Cold War, and 4) that they didn't much care. ''
==================================

So no consideration for the fact that Saddam was killing his own people, it is ok, America still supported him, after all he was keeping an eye on the mullahs in Iran, and you are talking about helping muslims !!!!!!! I found that breath-taking.

You wrote:

''Rumsfeld's visit (as a private citizen, only temporarily employed by the Reagan administration)''
=================================

WHAT ??? private citizen ?? are you joking ??

Rumsfeld was then the special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, he was not private citizen and he was no temporarily employed by Regan, Can you please be more appreciative of our intelligence ?

The issue is not who went, the issue is WHY America was supporting Saddam knowing very well the appalling massacres he is inflicting on his own people ????

You wrote:

"Meanwhile 1.5 million inncoent Iraqi MUSLIM childern died under brutal American sanction."

No, they did not. Matt Welch researched this thoroughly for this Reason article, and cites figures of 100-300 000 deaths. That's bad, but no excuse to pull numbers out of the air. ''
==============================

Who is Matt Welch, another American ???

An estimated 1.5 to 3 million Iraqis have died as a result of the sanctions.

Source:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/073000-104.htm

Iraqi Sanctions: Myth and Fact

by Jeff Lindemyer, Swans Commentary:

September 3, 2001

http://www.swans.com

Genocide by Sanctions - a video illustrating conditions in Iraq by former Attorny General Ramsey Clark, made in 1997 - Conditions are worse now (late 1999).

THE VIDEO:

http://www.freespeech.org/ramfiles/genocide.ram

Items Banned by the Americans during the sanctions :

agricultural pesticides
all electrical equipment
all other building materials ambulances
baby food
badminton rackets
bandages
blankets
boots
cannulas for intravenous drips catheters for babies
children's bicycles
children's clothes
chlorine and other water
purification chemicals
cleaning agents
cobalt sources for X-ray
machines
deodorants
dialysis equipment
disposable surgical gloves
drugs for angina
ECG monitors
erasers
glue for textbooks
incubators
leather material for shoes lipsticks
medical gauze
medical journals
medical swabs
medical syringes
medication for epilepsy
nail polish
nasogastric tubes
notebooks
nylon cloth for filtering flour
other adult clothes
oxygen tents
paper
pencil sharpeners
pencils
ping-pong balls
polyester & acrylic yarn rice rubber tubes
school books
school handicraft equipment
shampoo
shirts
shoe laces
shroud material
soap
sanitary towels
specific granite shipments
specific umbilical catheters
steel plate stethoscopes
suction catheters for blockages surgical instruments
textile plant equipment
thread for children's clothes
tissues
toilet paper
tooth brushes
toothpaste
various other foodstuffs
wool felt for thermal insulation
X-ray equipment
X-ray film

source: The Scourging of Iraq : Sanctions, Law and Natural Justice by Geoff Simons, St. Martins Press .

''We call on the president of America, the vice president and the congressmen to come to Iraq and see the little children and Tony Blair, the U.K. government and Kofi Annan to come and to go to the cancer ward and give us an answer...what was their crime?" -Nobel Peace Prize laureate Adolfo Perez-Esquivel of Argentina who traveled to Iraq in March (AP, March 9, 1999)

"I asked myself many times where do the rights of children fit in here? Why should any, but especially children under the age of five, suffer so much and die in such numbers? Sadly, I had to witness ever repeated scenes of children dying as I walked through hospital wards...." - Margarita Skinner, UNICEF Health Coordinator in Baghdad from 1991-1992, excerpt from her 1998 book 'Between Despair and Hope. Windows on my Middle East Journey 1967-1992'. The Radcliffe Press . London and New York 1998.

"Even the most conservative, independent estimates hold economic sanctions responsible for a public health catastrophe of epic proportions. The World Health Organization believes at least 5,000 children under the age of 5 die each month from lack of access to food, medicine and clean water. Malnutrition, disease, poverty and premature death now ravage a once relatively prosperous society whose public health system was the envy of the Middle East. I went to Iraq in September 1997 to oversee the U.N.'s "oil for food" program. I quickly realized that thishumanitarian program was a Band-Aid for a U.N. sanctions regime that was quite literally killing people. Feeling the moral credibility of the U.N. was being undermined, and not wishing to be complicit in what I felt was a criminal violation of human rights, I resigned after 13 months." --Denis Halliday, former humanitarian aid coordinator for Iraq (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, February 12, 1999)

"You kill people without blood or organs flying around, without angering American public opinion. People are dying silently in their beds. If 5,000 children are dying each month, this means 60,000 a year. Over eight years, we have half a million children. This is equivalent to two or three Hiroshimas."-Ashraf Bayoumi, former head of the World Food Programme Observation Unit, in charge of monitoring food distribution in Iraq (Al-Ahram Weekly, 24 December 1998).

"Malnutrition was not a public health problem in Iraq prior to the embargo. Its extent became apparent during 1991 and the prevalence has increased greatly since then: 18% in 1991 to 31% in 1996 of [children] under five with chronic malnutrition (stunting); 9% to 26% with underweight malnutrition; 3% to 11% with wasting (acute malnutrition), an increase in over 200%. By 1997, it was estimated about one million children under five were [chronically] malnourished." --Situation Analysis of Children and Women in Iraq, UNICEF Report, 30 April 1998, pg. 23 and 63.

You wrote:

''You continue with a long rant against the Afghanistan and Iraq wars where I don't see the relevance to what we're discussing. You had a theory that the more Americans harmed Muslims, the more Muslims would hate America, and the other way around. I've given you a lot of examples that proves the opposite.''
==================================

Your examples dont hold any ground because they are based on PERCEIVED assumptions which are ( as far as muslims concerned ) are false.

You wrote:

'' The Mike Scheuer quote just shows that there are some Americans who think it was foolish and counterproductive to help these Muslims in that particular way. The soldier quotes (if real) just shows that there are American soldiers who are callous and evil. This is no secret. I've written about that before. ''
=====================================

This is very funny, we are talking here about SENIOR CIA intelligence officer not about anyone.

I dont think you have 1% knowledge of what Mr Scheuer have about America, the Muslim world and terrorism, after all, we are reading what an EXPERT is writting, dont you think we should put our hubris aside and LISTEN to him ? or do you think you will listen to him only if he says something suits your percieved assumptions ??

I mean come on....he know it all.

You wrote:

''But what we're talking about (especially after you revised your theory) is the intentions of the Bush administration, and the vast majority of Americans and American soldiers. The amount of evidence is overwhelming: Americans believe they now have an obligation to help Iraq and Afghanistan become peaceful, free, Muslim democracies.''
================================

what theory ?? the one based on your percieved assumptions ?

As to the americans and their obligation, who gave them the right to have any obligation in regards to muslims in the first place ??

You wrote:

'' They could have maintained the Iraqi army, installed a US-friendly dictator, and left in a hurry last summer if they'd wanted to. But they chose to stay, at the cost of many hundred American lives, so they could leave behind a peaceful, democratic Iraq.''
================================

Very funny and absurd at the same time.

Let us read what BUSH'S OWN ADVISER said about the reasons behind the Iraq war:

Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5965.htm

And oh, what about the WMD ?? I thought this was the MAIN REASON for invading iraq as always illustrated by the American war criminals??

''We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat. ''- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

''Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. '' Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

''Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. ''- George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

''No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.''- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

''The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.''- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002

''If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.'' - Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

''We know for a fact that there are weapons there.'' - Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

''What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.'' - White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

''Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent…. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'' - George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

''We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.'' - Colin Powell, remarks to UN Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

''We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.'' - George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003

''If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since [UN Resolution] 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us.''- Colin Powell, interview with Radio France International, Feb. 28, 2003

''So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad?….I think our judgment has to be clearly not.'' - Colin Powell, remarks to UN Security Council, March 7, 2003

''Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.'' - George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

''The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.''- George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003

''Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly…..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.'' - Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003

''There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And….as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. - Gen.'' Tommy Franks, press conference, March 22, 2003

''I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.-'' Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman, The Washington Post, March 23, 2003

''One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.'' - Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clark, press briefing, March 22, 2003

''Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find - and there will be plenty.'' - Robert Kagan, The Washington Post, April 9, 2003

''But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.'' - Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003

''We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.'' - George W. Bush, NBC interview, April 24, 2003

''There are people who in large measure have information that we need….so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. ''- Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing, April 25, 2003

''We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so. ''- George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003

''I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now. ''- Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003

''I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein – because he had a weapons program.'' - George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003

Can you tell me where are these WMD now ????

You wrote:

'' This isn't just some wacky theory I'm stating here, this is the official policy of the Bush administration, and what a lot of American readers here will tell you if you ask them. ''
===========================

Offical policy ?? hmmmmmmmm

''The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.''- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002

You wrote:

''My whole purpose with these examples is not to show that the US has done everything right, or that it always acts primarily from idealistic motives, (who does?), but only to test your theory that anti-American hatred among Muslims is proportional to the harm Americans cause Muslims (intentionally, in the revised theory). So far it's not looking good.''
==================================

As I said you are building your conclusions on PERCEIVED assumptions which are NOT true, they are from your own immagination.

You wrote:

''Earlier you said 1.5 million Iraqi children were killed by the UN sanctions. Make up your mind. ''
===========================

Indeed, I stick to what I wrote, I already supplied you with evidence, scroll up.

You wrote:

''Some people believe it is somewhat harmful. Not very, but a bit. Others disagree. The reason the Americans want to use it is that DU ammunition is extremely effective against armor. This has nothing to do with it being dangerously radioactive or toxic. Those are just potential side effects, questioned by many scientists.''
============================

I see, you still did not answer, DU is internationally banned weapons, why the Americans used it ???

You wrote:

" Perhaps you should take that as a sign that you shouldn't always trust what people tell you about the US, and that it's always a good idea to check your beliefs against reliable sources. Try that with some of the other things you've written here. ''
=================================

Thank you for the advice but I dont take my information from what people say, I form my information from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE and from interacting with muslims all over the world.

Why you dont ask a Palestinean for example how they feel about the USA ? you should try that and then come back to me with your impression.

Peace be with you.

Salahudin | 2004-08-20 20:37 | Link

Re: Ali Dashti

''Here we go again. I will repeat some of the points I have made before, simply because I believe they are correct, important and haven't been refuted by anybody here:''
=================================

Before you ask for refutation to your lies ( very easy to refute since they are lies ) why not refute the links I gave you in another thread about the SPREAD OF ISLAM all over the world ??

If Islam was that bad how come thousands of westerners convert to islam every year ? are they all fools ??? :))

Here are the links again, you ran away from the other thread, so I caught you here, will you refute them or will you run away as before ? ??

Islamic Britain lures top people

Sunday Times 22 February 2004
MORE than 14,000 white Britons have converted to Islam after becoming disillusioned with western values, according to the first authoritative study of the phenomenon.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/649424.asp

-'' Indeed, Islam is the world's fastest growing religion in the world'' The Economist, London Sept 2003

-BBC: Thousands of Asutralia's Aboriginals are converting to Islam:

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2902315.stm

-Islam is spreading so fast in Mexico:

http://www.finalcall.com/international/mexico07-02-2002.htm

http://www.racematters.org/islamtakesrootinmexico.htm

- EVEN IN HAWAII, MORE AND MORE ARE CONVERTING TO ISLAM:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Nov/11/ln/ln06a.html

-In South Africa, so many blacks are converting to Islam:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0110/p13s1-woaf.html

-Thousands in Rawanda-Africa are converting to Islam every year:

http://www.xamarcadde.com/rawanda.html

- Hindus in india are converting to Islam in their masses:

http://www.milligazette.com/Archive.../0111200275.htm

- Islam is back to Spain after 500 years:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1002/p07s01-woeu.html

- More and more americans are converting to Islam specially after 9/11:

http://www.yorknewstimes.com/stories/042702/neb_0427020012.shtml

- NEW YORK TIMES: ISLAM ATTRACT THOUSANDS DRAWN BEFORE AND AFTER 9/11:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D13FA345A0C718EDDA90994D9404482

- The Canadian Globe and Mail: Islam is now the fastest growing religion in Canada:
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030514/UCENSN/TPFront/TopStories

Islam: The Next American Religion?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/69/story_6982.html

Catholic World News: Exhilarating Time To Be Christian," But Islam Grows Faster

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=16311

U.S. Department of State for International Information programes: Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in America:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/muslimlife/

Muslims outpace Anglicans in UK

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/444572.cms

A Spanish bridge to Islam:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1002/p07s01-woeu.html

Britain Elites are converting to Islam:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/03/286384.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1096872/posts

http://www.lightuponlight.com/islam...ws&new_topic=14

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/artic...erahIslam.shtml

-Islam is also spreading in Ukraine:

http://www.crimeatau.org.ua/project/islam/itriu.html

An Icelander’s Journey to Light :
By Anna Linda Traustadóttir
10/08/2004
Reykjavík, Iceland

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=219

Illinois residents find faith in Islam:

Daily Herald - 8/16/2004
http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=226

Islam First Religion in Amsterdam

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=194

and here is nice SHOCK for you Mr Ali Islamophobe:

Turning Muslim in Texas:
George W Bush may be backed by Christian fundamentalists but in his home state of Texas, Islam is the latest big draw. The Bible belt is transferring its allegiance to the Qur’an:

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/believeitornot/texas1.html

Minarets Rise in Germany

Gulcek's mosque is part of the surge in Islamic construction sweeping Germany. The number of traditional mosques with their distinctive minarets nearly doubled in Germany from 77 in 2002 to 141 in 2003, according to Islam Archive, a Muslim research group in the city of Soest. An additional 154 mosques and cultural centers are planned, many of them in the countryside.

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=195

DONT RUN AWAY :)))))

Colt, U.K. | 2004-08-20 20:47 | Link

If Islam was that bad how come thousands of westerners convert to islam every year ? are they all fools ??? :))

Yes.

H. Polonski | 2004-08-20 21:19 | Link

Apparently Mr Staerk is really confused. Bjorn, would you rather live in a country where there is a state church, or in a country where church and state are separated? I'm asking, because separation of church and state requires religions to submit to the laws of the land. Those that do not must be banned.

jimmytheclaw, earth | 2004-08-20 21:55 | Link

Bjorn 2 quick links to check out the first one is on jihad

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14744

the second is on the Islamic Human Rights in response to the human rights thing with the un

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/ohmyrus30816.htm

salahudin feel free to respond to these two articles

Salahudin | 2004-08-20 22:05 | Link

Re: Colt, U.K.

''If Islam was that bad how come thousands of westerners convert to islam every year ? are they all fools ??? :))

Yes.''
================================

Italy's ambassador to Saudi Arabia has converted to Islam

ROME, Nov 26 2001

Italy's ambassador to Saudi Arabia has converted to Islam, the second time in seven years that an envoy of Rome to Riyadh has adopted its religion.

Torquato Cardilli, a career diplomat from overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Italy, revealed his decision to Saudi newspapers on Saturday, his 59th birthday. Italian diplomatic sources confirmed the announcement on Monday. His official conversion was made on the eve of Ramadan.

http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/27/int15.htm

ENJOY :))

Salahudin | 2004-08-20 22:08 | Link

Re: jimmytheclaw, earth

''salahudin feel free to respond to these two articles''
============================

Both from well known anti muslim christian hate sites, I dont entertain bigots and Islamophobes.

Do you have anything from NUETURAL SOURCES ???

I mean cant you see the amount of hate and Islamophobia in these sites ?????

Sha, NYC | 2004-08-20 22:24 | Link

As an American who happens to be Muslim, I do not at all agree with Salahudin comments, but, from what I know of relatives in the old country, they are certainly widespread.

I find myself in this quandry all the time; when debating cousins, who refer to the tyrannical Americans, how does one respond to a picture of an Iraqi child burnt to a crisp? Knowledge of geo-politics and strategic interests fall to such base emotional appeals. When I talk of the tyranny of the Muslim dictators, the response, inevitably, is "well, they were U.S. backed."

On the other hand, it becomes harder for so-called 'moderate Muslim' to want to air their views when one comes across the LGF credo of "All Muslims are Scoundrels/Kill them all." By voicing my opposition to the Islamists, I do not want to give support to the other extreme.

I also believe Israel has unjustly oppressed Palestine, and see no substantial difference between the situation there now and apartheid in South Africa. I also disagree with my country's policy in that region to blindly support Israel.

So, I am neither here nor there.

But this is my country and I love it and we are at war with the Islamists. What more can be said?

Raging Bee, USA | 2004-08-20 22:38 | Link

Wow, the joint's jumpin' today. Here's what I said on "Secular Blasphemy" on the same subject:

"...When bigots fight bigots, bigots win - and the rest of us lose.

"It seems to me that Islam today is in a similar position to that of Christianity during the Inquisition and the Burning Times: there were plenty of Christians back then who knew as well as we do that the killings and pogroms were not at all in line with the teachings of Jesus; but the political climate then was one of hysteria and intolerance, they didn't have viable democratic institutions, and there was simply no way for those 'moderate elements' to speak out safely, let alone put a stop to the extremist policies.

"...'lack of hate' makes perfect sense to me; defend what is under attack, attack when we must, and in general wait out the madness."

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!

Iron Fist | 2004-08-20 23:01 | Link

On the other hand, it becomes harder for so-called 'moderate Muslim' to want to air their views when one comes across the LGF credo of "All Muslims are Scoundrels/Kill them all." By voicing my opposition to the Islamists, I do not want to give support to the other extreme.

Yeah, I see how condemning something trivial like beheading Americans could be a problem when faced with the awful rhetoric at LGF. I mean, those LGF'ers get so pissed off every time a Muslim beheads somebody, and, G-d, if a Muslim blows up some Jewish kids, watch out!

[/Sarcasm]
Sorry, holmes, but that dog won’t hunt. It’d be like me saying that “Yeah, the Ku Klux Klan sucks, but if I condemn them, it is like supporting General Sherman as he burns Atlanta, so I just got to keep my mouth shut about the Klan!” Sounds pretty asinine, when you sum it up like that, doesn’t it?

Get back with me when an LGF'er beheads somebody on videotape. 'Til then, what your really saying is that harsh language from people who should be good dhimmis is worse than Muslim atrocities. Get a clue. I’ve spent the last 30 years watching Muslims scream “Death to America!” I’ve spent 30 years watching Muslims blow up Americans and Israelis for the crime of being American or Israeli.

And I’ve spent 30 years watching people like yourself sit on the fence.

But this is my country and I love it and we are at war with the Islamists. What more can be said?

Time to decide which side you are on. If you consider that “hate”, so be it.

| 2004-08-20 23:12 | Link

"Yeah, I see how condemning something trivial like beheading Americans could be a problem when faced with the awful rhetoric at LGF. I mean, those LGF'ers get so pissed off every time a Muslim beheads somebody, and, G-d, if a Muslim blows up some Jewish kids, watch out!"

This is exactly what I mean. Because I've told you I'm Muslim, you require me to explicitly condemn beheadings of civilians. To civilized people, that should go without saying; but, apprently since I'm Muslim, I'm not civilized.

To hell with that. Islamists must go, but Islam, my friend, is here (in America) to stay. Deal with it.

"Time to decide which side you are on. If you consider that “hate”, so be it."

Buddy, I'm on the opposite of whatever side you say you're on.

Ali Dashti | 2004-08-20 23:12 | Link

Raging Bee: "there were plenty of Christians back then who knew as well as we do that the killings and pogroms were not at all in line with the teachings of Jesus"

Bingo! And as a non-Christian, I would like to point out that this is NOT the case with Islam, where killings and pogroms are integral parts of Muhammed's personal example, his Sunna. Do a Google search on names like Asma bint Marwan and Banu Qurayza, and you'll see the difference between Jesus and his disciples, and Muhammed and his band of murderous thugs. That's why Christianity could be reformed, and Islam cannot. It just has to be removed, one way or the other.

Salahudin: I'm not interested in reading your zillion links. I've actually read most of them before, anyway. I want YOU, personally, to tell me why Islam is such a great religion. Please tell me why I should follow the moral example of a 54 year old man who had sex with a 9 year old child. I'm waiting.....

James PA.,USA | 2004-08-20 23:34 | Link

Nah, Sha,

You can be a relaxed Muslim only if you are far enough away from the umma that they don't see your lapse.

The Muslim truth is total submission to Allah, not an allegiance to a western style democratic state that separates religion from governance.

You guys are the ones who say there is no halfway.

Iron Fist | 2004-08-20 23:52 | Link

Sha,

You make the mistake of assuming that I am civilized. I was giving you the oppertunity to explain to me why I should be.

Buddy, I'm on the opposite of whatever side you say you're on

Way to pass up an oppertunity.

That little threat should make me more tolerant of Muslims, why?

Rene´, DK | 2004-08-21 02:43 | Link

Where are those people who believe in Islam but are not Islamists?

I know a number of Muslims who don’t really believe in Islam and are ‘cultural Muslims’ just as most European are ‘cultural Christians’ but Muslims who truly believe in Islam seems to me to be Islamist.

Rene´, DK | 2004-08-21 02:44 | Link

Where are those people who believe in Islam but are not Islamists?

Lydia | 2004-08-21 06:32 | Link

Salahudin is a prime example of the effects of the Arab Neurosis: blame everything on the West, yet have eyes only for the West, because the West is deemed as validating the existence of Arab culture.

If only Arab culture had something to offer to the West, other than oil. Yet it does not. Arabs are painfully aware of this, and wind up spending time thinking of new ways to become victims of the West, in order to be noticed by it.

jimmytheclaw, earth | 2004-08-21 07:09 | Link

ahh words of wisdom from iron fist. ok 1 more link to memri

The Majority of Revolutions, Coups D’etat, and Wars ... are Almost Entirely the Handiwork of the Jews

“The majority of revolutions, coups d’etat, and wars which have occurred in the world [in the past], those that are occurring, and those that will occur, are almost entirely the handiwork of the Jews. They [the Jews] turned to [these methods] in order to implement the injunctions of the fabricated Torah, the Talmud, and the ‘Protocols [of the Elders of Zion’], all of which command the destruction of all non-Jews in order to achieve their goal - namely, world domination.”

“In addition, they aspire to dominate the world in material, cultural, and spiritual terms in order to annihilate it. They own property and gold and they control the banks and other financial institutions, which [in turn] control the economies of the powerful countries. In this way they controlled the most [influential] people in the world, in whose power it was to entangle their countries in wars that resulted in benefits only for the Jews. Among the enticements [which the Jews used] were: 1) cash incentives; 2) offering jobs; 3) the introduction of religious elements into terrorism.”

“The Jews managed to receive the support of groups of individuals in the world through the means of religious distortions, whereby they deceived their victims [into believing] that they are the chosen people and that God wants them to once more take possession of Palestine, the promised land. [The Jews] also conduct acts of terror and assassinations against the world’s politicians who oppose them, as in the case of the assassination of Count [Folke] Bernadotte, who was sent by the U.N. in 1948 to serve as a mediator between the Arabs and the Jews to solve the problem of Palestine. The Jews got mad at him, killed him in that same year, and acted to exonerate the murderers on the pretext that they were insane.”

“[Another example] is the assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme, who attempted to prevent bloodshed between Iraq and Iran. He learned Islam and was quite interested in it, started several Islamic study groups in Stockholm, and encouraged the Swedes to familiarize themselves with Islam. When the Jews came to the conclusion that his behavior and policies were not in accordance with their evil goals, their intelligence assassinated him. No leads were found for this crime except for a bullet which the Zionist intelligence is known to use.”

...

The Jews Created Every Scientific or Philosophical Principle or School

“Every scientific or philosophical principle or school was either created by Jews, or else Jews were behind them:

“The Jew Karl Marx was behind communism and socialism which destroyed human nature.

“The Jew [Emile] Durkheim was behind the science of sociology which destroyed the family unit.

“The Jew [Jean-Paul] Sartre was behind licentious existentialism.

“The Jew [Sigmund] Freud was behind psychology which established the principles of wild sex and immorality.

“The Jew [Benjamin] Disraeli was behind the policy of ‘the ends justify the means.’

“The Jew [Rene] Cassin drew up the program for human rights.

“The Jew Leon Pavlovski drew up the Charter of the League of Nations. The Jews established the League of Nations in order to ratify the Balfour Declaration and to impose the British Mandate on Palestine as a preparatory measure to the founding of Israel. In addition, they established the U.N. in order to declare the founding of Israel, to protect it, and to expand it."

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP76804

read it all and dont say minority crap. imho anything comming out of mecca has the authority of the holiest place in islam. and it is beyond hateful. this is not a one time thing i read things like this daily. funny how in 3 years ive learned all kinds of foriegn words dhimmi jizya taquiya kitman and so many other things.

FelixUSA | 2004-08-21 07:14 | Link

Great post, Bjorn. I agree wi