OIC opens with call to unite against Jewish 'control' of world

By The Associated Press

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia - The biggest summit of Islamic
leaders in three years opened Thursday with calls
for the world's 1.3 billion Muslims to unite
against "a few million Jews" who allegedly rule
the world by controlling the world's major
powers.

<snip>

"We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes,
tanks and warships for our defense," Mahathir
told leaders from 57 nations gathered for a
summit of the Organization of the Islamic
Conference.

"But because we are discouraged from learning of
science and mathematics ... today we have no
capacity to produce our weapons for our
defense," he said.

Malaysia, a moderate, mostly Muslim nation in
Southeast Asia, has long been a longtime critic
of Israel's occupation of Palestinian
territories and of U.S. policy in the Middle
East, including its strong backing of Israel.

<snip>

"The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12
million, but today the Jews rule the world by
proxy," Mahathir said. "They get others to
fight and die for them."

"We are up against a people who think. They
survived 2000 years of pogroms not by hitting
back but by thinking," Mahathir said. "They
invented Socialism, Communism, human rights and
democracy so that persecuting them would appear
to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal
rights with others."

"With these they have now gained control of the
most powerful countries and they, this tiny
community, have become a world power."

Mahathir said that "1.3 billion Muslims cannot
be defeated by a few million Jews. There must
be a way."
continued...

Most telling and does not augur well for peace.

I agree. This is not the way to peace. Quite the contrary. Extremes on both sides should be marginalized and not those making the final decisions...

the "Jews rule the world by proxy" line is just stupid, but he also suggested combating Israel with something other than muscle/violence. He's certainly retiring, spitting heresies from both sides like that. There were other remarks from him of a much more sound perspective, but those will go more or less unnoticed.

That the Butcher of Grozny was even invited to this summit gives an idea of the (sub-)standards required at the door to get in.

it never ends.

What he SAID was that there are all these billions of Muslims and is the only thing that they can do to strike out blindly and send their young people to blow themselves up when there are so many of them and so few Jews.

Now before you get your panties all in a wad over the Jews control the world thing, remember that this is MAHATIR, who goes off his meds every other week, don't tell me you don't remember the famous "European race" speech?

He is an old man, and for the last few months, he has periodically come out with bursts of nonsense inserted into his generally very sensible exhortations to nonviolent solutions.

By now he has said stupid stuff about just about everybody.
If he left Jews out, you would have every reason to accuse him of blatant discrimination.

As with this speech, the European race speech went on to say very sensible things about situations and policies - and this is the guy that has been going around for 2 years, even before he started having his spells, very quietly trying to convince countries in Asia and the ME to chill on the Jihad stuff and just discretely change over from the dollar to the Islamic dinar.

Stuff about entire races of people, or calling wealthy individuals with common economic interests and/or imperialist ideologies "Jews" is just absurd. There are some Europeans who are pro-Crusade, but it has nothing to do with their race, and there are some Jews who have been sitting on the stool with mouth wide open under the cash cow of ME conflict for decades, but it has nothing to do with religion, and in fact, many captains of the arms industry are not now and have never been Jewish.

Doesn't sound like just an ordinary meeting. Every major news outlet has picked up the story and is offering quotes.

It consists mostly of old fart dollahos who sit around and issue these fine sounding statements and then go back home and torture anyone the bush regime tells them to, and any of their own citizens who dare to express opposition to the bush regime, or the sharon regime's crimes against the Palestinians.

People (like Mahatir) go there to be featured speakers and they have press conferences and the media reports on it as if it were a significant event. It is not.

f the OIC were anything remotely effective or useful, believe me, the world situation would be somewhat different.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

like Mahatir or Ariel Sharon are, unfortunately everywhere. What I have a problem with is backing up Ariel Sharon's terrorist lunacy with billions and billions every year in everything he needs to wage his religious jihad against an innocent civilian population.

Do you get it now?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:eyes:

have I heard this kind of garbage from Sharon, Arafat yes, certain Europeans living and dead yes, David Duke yes, but Sharon, no.

You mean garbage like this:


"I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."
Ariel Sharon, In an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956.

"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian childs existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger."
Ariel Sharon, In an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956.

Sharon is no stranger to disagreeable remarks, but tends to mind his tongue with respect to anything really crazy like that.. certain of his actions are light years more atrocious than any of his words.

I'd say look more towards Avigdor Lieberman or Ovadia Yosef (or the Hebron loons, but they're too easy a target for this stuff) for something comperable or more hair-on-the-neck-raising.

but however stupid the remark of Mahathir's that's acting as a lightning rod was (and it is), the point he was labouring to make is beyond it.

How do you know if it's a fake? It's been quoted in numerous sources not related to Palestinians or Arabs and I would find it quite strange that serious info sources would quote if it was indeed a fake.

so take it with a grain of salt if you wish, but I remember that somebody tried to look up the source for the remarks, and found that the interview didn't actually exist. There is a saying that lies can circle the globe before truth can lace its boots up..

Sharon tends to let his actions do the talking, and those are usually more troubling than any string of words can be.

General Ouze Merham?...

do any of your serious info sources provide a bio?...

Are kind of hard to disprove. That interview should be located if it exists. Quote date and publisher to make it authentic. Otherwise it's only hearsay and highly suspect.

One could remove the original source when realising how damaging it may be to the person being quoted...

I searched Google for Ouze Merham without the word Sharon, and came up with nothing but foreign language sites that spelled Sharon differentally. Unless there are alternate spellings of his name, that simply makes everything look fishier...

I was agreeing with you right up to the last few words of your last sentence. I was let down....I really thought that this would have been a first. I was feeling fuzzy inside, even.

The thing I have issue with is this:

"reflects the attitudes of an entire major group"

Why did you feel the need to say this? Do you know this for certain?

I mean, I don't believe this guy should spout off about a "Jewish Conspiracey" any more than you do. But to say that this "reflects the attitudes of an entire major group is a gross generalization that just left a sour taste in my mouth. To think, I was getting sweet on you until that last part.....well...maybe there's still hope for you.

:shrug:

"The biggest summit of Islamic leaders in three years?" That's what I meant by an, "entire major group."

just because these statements appear to be mainstream doesn't mean that they are.

I didn't make this event up. Nor did I manufacture the speach. I think is what it is, a major Muslim organization with a major speech calling for war against the Jews.

so now it is common sentiment in Israel to expel the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza and drown the palestinian prisoners.

I don't know about you, I'm talking about the article above which said:

"The biggest summit of Islamic leaders in three years opened Thursday with calls for the world's 1.3 billion Muslims to unite
against "a few million Jews" who allegedly rule the world by controlling the world's major powers."

How can you NOT see this is huge?

The Moeledet party favors ethnic cleansing - it is part of Sharon's coalition. Does that mean that Israelis support ethnic cleansing, or even that it is general sentiment in the Knesset?

No. So why does the fact that someone said this at a speech mean that it is general sentiment among those listening?

among the kings, presidents, sheiks and emirs listening was a standing ovation...

He seems like an old fool to me, and they're probably used to his rantings.

For my doubt that it was those portions of the speech appealing to you that produced the ovation from the audience.

These sentiments really are not that outre in the Islamic world today. They were not, for that matter, outre in Christendom until about a half century ago. Large portions of this speech could have been taken as easily from an anti-Dreyfusard diatribe against "The Syndicate" at the start of the last century, or from a tract by Henry Ford during the Depression. They could be lifted just as readily from a contemporary tract of Islamic fundamentalist radicals: within blocks of my home are bookstores full of the stuff, and in English.

It is very hard for a people with a proud history to come to terms with present-day defeat and impotence; this is one of the sturdier straws to grasp at in such a sea.

It does no more good to downplay the influence of such sentiments in the Islamic world than it does to downplay the influence of racist attitudes in the United States. Rather than seek to minimize them, or explain them away, progressives ought to denounce and oppose them, whenever or by whomever they are expressed.

my point was that this man is not a primary example of Muslims in the Middle East.

As has been pointed out above, he has never hesitated to make racist remarks; it does not seem to me that Jews are the only one subject to this. It is simply impractical to believe that racism of such an extreme that he seems to believe is mainstream throughout the Middle East.

The racist attitudes in both the US and in the Middle East seem to be tools of the ideologically uncaring in power; they help keep the population united in their hatred. This happened similarly with Stalin and others in Soviet Russia.

These ideologically uncaring people are among those responsible for the present defeats in the Middle East. It is important to note that there was a time when the Middle East was flourishing with trade and the arts and sciences. This ended due to violence, intolerance, and oppression - which is stregthened by the people who currently rule them. Thus the cycle continues; and, of course, the situation is not at all helped by oil corporations supporting tyrannical regimes and ventures into countries based om lies.

This further stregthens the need to do as you suggested, which is of course to shout them down and condemn them.

..bin Ladin, too. Does that mean he wasn't dangerous?

he hasn't been caught yet.

The Crusader's native overseer group are getting a seat in the OIC, if they haven't already.

The OIC ain't nuthin but shit, Muddkins!

n/t

you are in the wrong century. I can see you in Germany about 1933 on saying "this is a fringe group of lunatics, we have nothing to worry about. If those low class Poles had't come here, this would never have happened. The crowds and the shouting and the laws, not true, a temporary thing." I aways wondered how I would react to those German Jews, now I know, pity and anger.

Yah, I can see. I can see perfectly well. I can see clealrly the problems our country, and the world, are facing. Islamic extremism is but one facet of them.

I watch and see the Consitution being torn apart in front of our eyes.

I watch and see our country go on war after war with little regard for "collateral damage", ie the deaths of innocent men, women, and children.

I watch and see our country hand out tax cuts for the rich while ignoring the vast poverty of our nation's poor.

I watch and see our country hand out billions of dollars in aid to a war criminal while children starve from lack of food in Africa.

I watch and see powerful corporations dictating our domestic and foreign policy.

I watch and see racism against Arabs being accepted in our society.

And yet you and others ramble on about Islamic extremism.

Let me ask you this: Do you know why Islamic extremism exists?

It's a cycle of oppression andsuffering and intolerance. The corruption of the Ottoman empire started it, tunring what was once a free society into a corrupt one. Then came the British and the French after World War I, who didn't help a bit with their conlonizing. Then came the US, dominating the region economically if not politically.

American foreign policy strengthens this cycle.

The war in Iraq furthered this cycle. The war in Afghanistan furthered this cycle. We are using military means to stop a doemstic/political problem, and hence we fail to do much but kill.

Of course Islamic extremism is a threat. But one thing you should learn if you ever decide to study history is that military means are often not the best ways to go.

Yes, these wars were wars for oil! Which corporation gained the rights to Iraq's energy? Haliburton. And even with this new resolution, that won't change.

I don't see much nation-building being done in Afghanistan. It's faded into the backround, and it's fallen into rampant chaos.

In the face of all this, why am I supposed to support Israel's military actions, which, too, keep the cycle going? Islamic radicalism is a problem, but it isn't the problem.

They fight in Russia, they bomb in Palestine, they attack in Europe, they murder in the Philippines, they butcher in India. In short, it's NOT the U.S. that they are at war with, it's pretty much everybody that dares disagree with them.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

why was this so quickly removed?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to rectify our corporate foreign policy.

Is it a coincidence that in every last one of those cases, Muslims have been facing severe domestic problems? And in every one of those cases, these problems are far from only internal?

Look at Africa. There are millions and millions of poor black people there. Have they resorted to worldwide terrorism? No.

So I won't excuse Muslim extremists for doing so.

Or ever have? I think we disagree there.

Around the world is the same. Sure some in Africa have fought, etc. but it is nowhere near the same.

and you're wrong in it. Sorry, but you are.

Killing whites who were in their land was not an uncommon practice among those fighting for freedom from colonial imperialists. Africa's problems may well explode in the world's face, and they may not. The situations, as I said before, are different.

That radical Islam is at war wherever they are located? (Again, for all concerned note the term, "radical.") Well, they are.

are Muslims who are at war wherever they go, yes.

Israel can do no right and the terrorists can do no wrong.

And to some Palestinians can do no right and Israel can do no wrong. Two way street...

luckily enough, none of them post here.

Hmm not sure about that Darranar.

there's been only one poster who has failed to condemn suicide bombings who hasn't been banned.

I think that a condemnation implies that you think the terroirsts are doing wrong.

all you have to judge is their posts.

Europe?!? Where in Europe? You mean Bosnians defending themselves from genocide? Or are you talking about someone else?

They were slaughtered, their cities bombed into rubble.

I guess that is OK with you since they were "Muslims", and according to your logic, are thus inherently more evil than other people, and serve to be killed by the brave and noble government of Mr. Putin.

God help us all!

You can come up with an explanation for every conflict in the world, but how come so many of them right now include radical Islam?

before being so rudely interupted with a disappearance.

I don't think you really understand the actual origins of the things you refer to.

Surely it's just a coincidence that they're butchered by the thousand in Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir, the Morolands, etc, and have for hundreds of years..it must be their own faults for dying. Go back more than a couple years and it appears more like the war was taken to them, and you blame them for defending their existance but refer to it as "radical Islam" to justify mass slaughter. As time progresses, and as this policy of colonization and suppression continues with total impunity and escalating brutality, that a more consistant radicalism sets in is only natural regardless of what political or religious (redundancy..) ideology they exist with.

That they don't have the good sense to pour money into PR firms to sell some simple and dumbed down version of their story seems to be the real problem here. Look at the Chiapas, Bolivia right now and all of Latin America across decades as counter-examples to your ridiculously oversimplified platitudes. Nothing you refer to is so simple that it can be nailed down in a sentence or two as you have, much less lumped together and catagorized with some amorphous catch-all label.

Instead you prefer to turn history on its head and be meticulously selective and dishonest in dealing out blame on subjects you don't appear to understand too well beyond platitudinous and ahistorical soundbytes.

I don't think you really understand the actual origins of the things you refer to.

People are butchered by thousands and have been for thousands upon thousands of years. It has happened to pretty much every group in the world. Many more than once, some, like the Jewish people, a hell of a lot more than that. But much of the civilized world now finds itself contending with EXTREMIST Islamic terror or insurrection. This is not a coincidence nor, from my read of such things, does it have anything to do with the Koran or mainstream Islam. But it is still the case.

Despite your attempts to rationalize reality, I will give you props for the phrase, "platitudinous and ahistorical soundbytes." That's quite special BS. Really.

on the shallowest and superficial of grounds, bordering on that bigotry you always deny (Yang should give you his speech about that).

do you happen to really know the background histories of the situations in the Philippines, India, Russia, etc.. as you allude to? I'm assuming not, for any really detailed study tends to suggest something more resembling a contrary position to the conclusions you jump to. And anyway, "terror"/"extremist"/etc are all rubbish, oversimplified and loaded terms that have no decent use outside the demonization process. Dumbing down discussions of several very complex subjects, incomperable in some senses, to a recital of "soundbyte"-level generalities and sloganish concepts does a greater disservice to things than the convience such a process may appear to bring.

In case I was unclear on intended meanings to a few particular things, as none of it was intended to be "special BS":--

------

Main Entry: plat·i·tu·di·nous
Pronunciation: -'tüd-n&s, -'tyüd-; -'tü-d&n-&s, -'tyü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: platitude + -inous (as in multitudinous)
Date: 1862
: having the characteristics of a platitude : full of platitudes <platitudinous remarks>

------

Main Entry: plat·i·tude
Pronunciation: 'pla-t&-"tüd, -"tyüd
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from plat flat, dull
Date: 1812
1 : the quality or state of being dull or insipid
2 : a banal, trite, or stale remark

------

Main Entry: ahis·tor·i·cal
Pronunciation: "A-his-'tor-i-k&l, -'tär-
Variant(s): or ahis·tor·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
Date: 1945
: not concerned with or related to history, historical development, or tradition

------

I can't find a decent definition of "soundbyte", basically oversimplifying something down to sloganized platitudes, in this case things I find to be violently clashing with the record of events being spoken of.

It seems much of a burden for me to stand against as much of the past and present as I do, but it keeps things interesting. Or perhaps I'm just as pretentious as Tarantino (if such a thing is even possible to reproduce) but without his talent for entertainment. I don't know, many of the subjects you refer to here happen to be of interest to me and I resent seeing dishonesty (even if unintentional) sit undisturbed. :shrug:

You are quite correct that these various conflicts all have seperate origins, and long-standing histories, that have nothing to do with the modern phenomenon of radical Islamic fundamentalism in arms. The Bosnian matter is that most familiar to me: at the death of Tito, it would have been hard to find on this earth a more thoroughly secularized Moslem community than that one. What radicalism eventually appeared there was purely the result of the Serb and Croatian murder campaigns. Matters like Chechnya and the Phillipines are long colonial struggles, that would certainly be occuring without any organized form of Islamic radicalism in the world. The matter of Kashmir is somewhat more debateable, as that region has been a long hot-bed of jihadism, before even the appearance of the English, and is one of the principal birthing places of the modern radical Islamic fundamentalist movement.

Nonetheless, it seems clear enough to me that these radicals do move in and "piggy-back" on these conflicts, in some instances exacerbating them, and rendering them even more intractable. They fit them into a world view of a coordinated assault by un-believers against Islam, which is as a-historical and platitudinous as the belief that all Islamic resistance is the coordinated product of these radicals. The circumstance seems to me somewhat analogous to some elements of Communist activity during the Cold War: Communists, on direction from Moscow or Peking, were never the cause of the various revolutionary movements, but did move in and parasitize them toward their own purposes. In some instances, the supply of arms and trained personnel thus secured was instrumental in the success, or the great prolongation, of such movements, and the Communist presence always clouded the situation, giving reason for the revolution to be treated as something worth opposing by opponents of totalitarian rule, even if there was real justice behind the revolutionary movement. For in no case where there was material Communist support, was success by the revolution followed by anything but a Communist dictatorship.

we're currently witnessing something much like this in Iraq, with the local revolutionaries being helped by foreign fighters.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the reference was to oversimplifying something and what is lost in the process, not anything regarding a lack of or surplus of intelligence. I don't like the "my way or the wrong way" type arguments and would not purposely use it (I may do so anyway, in which case it should be held against me). The snobbery charge is probably fair, perhaps even too kind to me.

When I wake up in a few hours I'll digest my hypocrisy a bit more. I'd apologize for being a fair bit <insert adjective of choice, I can't settle on one for myself> above, but I feel too comfortable sitting out on a limb (except the occasional snapping variety) to swear it off so instead I'll just feel bad for it, look bad for it, and remind myself to learn enough from it not to repeat the mistake. (NOTE TO MODS:--let his harsh remarks to me stand, as I don't mind any valid dart, especially when it advances the subject at hand.. and, fair is fair.)

As for other things..

All things considered, I think "radical Islam" is given more credit than its due. The terms that various demagogues refer to their situation in are essentially the same, but with local variations on specifics and of course language dialects. That a particularly dreary position leads to a radicalization of a whole or part is a more or less predictable and natural reaction to a hostile environment, and on the contrary is wholly comperable to similar situations elsewhere, the latter of which in past years was referred to in eerily similar terms. That last bit is a part of what especially bothers me. I get the idea that there is a dedicated effort from certain sources to present the matters within a particular formula for reasons that have only a minor attachment to the situations themselves (specifically, as a plank of the "Global War on Satan {previously 'Terra'}" and what shady business goes along on the underbelly of it).

Going back to what I was particularly drawn to:--

They fight in Russia, they bomb in Palestine, they attack in Europe, they murder in the Philippines, they butcher in India. In short, it's NOT the U.S. that they are at war with, it's pretty much everybody that dares disagree with them.

The first part of the 2nd sentence is a true enough fact, but the rest (with the exception of India, that's a whole other reciprocal kettle of fish and one that I routinely won't touch on except with a few particular aspects of Kashmir) appears as consistantly and IMO irrationally siding against particular people who are made to be interchangeable and collectively at fault, by default, and on the side held to a standard that doesn't seem to be applied to others. Fuck me, fine, but in certain respects that strikes me as a similar sort of bigotry that some asshole(s) may show to you (and on the side, fuck them for that).

That the people in 3 of those places (I duck out on the matter of India as above, don't quite understand the reference to Europe) respond to a historical pattern of virtually genocidal force in two of the situations with force of their own can hardly be held against them (except by the opponent that believes itself the sole legitimate "force giver" of the equation) in my opinion, and hasn't any uniquely conspiratorial bent but rather a rational pattern to it.

At least I recognize my faults, in fact rather prefer them pointed out (awkward on occasion, but instructive). On the other hand Tarantino is a richer and spends more time around Uma. Hm..

I don't think the preceeding post shouldn't have been canned..
it was directed squarly at me and I didn't mind it (no alert from me), for the worst of it was at least true.. :shrug:

It is much appreciated, my friend.

My previous version of this post was deleted because I used bad words to express the sentiment that I think all black men would feel at being called a racist by someone who doesn't know squat about me.

Here is the post in it's edited entirety:

I rarely see so much smackdab in one post. In essence, agree with you or we all must be dumb mofos. Sure, whatever.

As for "bordering on bigotry," who the hell are you to judge? You want to know about bigotry? Live life in America as a black man. Get pulled over for DWB sometime and get back to me. If you are black, then you must have forgotten what it's like to live in the less fun parts of the world.

I actually know a fair amount about the various histories I referenced. Am I an expert? Hell no. I doubt anyone here is, including you. The difference is, I also call things the way they are, not how I would like them to be.

All of these situations are indeed complex. But you can't for one moment believe that it is just a coincidence that radical Islam has cropped up in all of these diverse and violent situations, can you?
I understood the meaning of your comment, but my explanation was more succinct and accurate.

And no, you are not as pretentious as Tarantino. That IS a high standard.

bigotry, usually are the bigots.

Does that mean you think US troops in Iraq are all about radical Christianity? Or that resistance to Indonesia in East Timor was more radical Christianity? If we're going to focus solely on the religion of those who commit violence, let's call the Mafia what they are - Catholic extremists ;)


Violet...

is the cover story.

The Sepoy rebellion was mostly fought over religious issues (the rebellion staretd because of the issue of Beef/pork fat on bullets, both anathema to the Hindu and Muslim faiths of the soldiers). However, your main point is still correct as no major war has been fought over religion since then.

except the beef and pork fat was done (if memory serves) deliberately by the British in order to keep power and control.

not to see the problems the US faces. That was not my message to you. I advise you to look at the 3rd son in the Haggada, that sir is you. No one is aking you to support Sharon, just don't be the 3rd son or you will be like the German Jews who said completely unaware as they marched into the gas chambers "but I'm a German."

You, who think America can do no wrong, and attack those who criticize it, really shouldn't be talking about ignorance.

Let me ask you a question: Who is responsible for more deaths? George W. Bush, or Osama Bin Laden?

The third son in the Haggadah represents those who pay no attention to the outside world. He is represented in the thousands of Americans who think America is a greatand perfect country who can do no wrong. I, ma'am, am nothing of the sort.

Islamic radicalism and fundamentalism is a threat - as is every other form of religious fudnamentlaism in the world. But you think that that's all there is to it. It's a threat, and therefore all we need to do is shoot it and tear it apart with bombs, and everything would be better.

Nothing could be more untrue.

I mean all Jews who as in the Haggada say "you instead of I" therebye turning their backs on their own people.

To say I dispise (sp) Dubbya as a governor and president is an understatement. To say this country is perfect is a joke, but to even hint there is another better is foolish to say the least.

One thing I do know, is Am Yisroel Chai regardless of how many enemies or 3rd brothers are around. Yisroel and it's people are my people, I fight from within and keep critisism to outsiders at a minimum.

Let me ask you a question, do you agree that the Czechoslovakian (sp) Chamberlain give away secured peace? Is kneeling at the feet of murderers and tyrants the way to acheive peace? Do you sincerely believe that? If a man rapes your wife and daughter,(G-d forbid) do you really want to understand him, or stop him from ever doing it again?

I understand anti-semites, I don't understand (Getto Jews as my husband calls them) who think being a good little Jew, being quiet, cause no trouble, after all it's the fault of those other Jews, will save them. History shows the opposite.

I don't make peace with murderous tyrants. You wonder why I attack Bush so much? Stopping the oppression of innocent people isn't making peace with tyrants; it's stopping a devestating war that has caused intense harm to innocent people.

Like it or not, the world is a different place then it was in the 1930s. Yes, Hitler could have, and should have been, stopped as soon as the demoracy in Germany collapsed. But that doesn't apply tothe current world situation.

There was not been another Hitler in many years; there likely never will be another. Foreign polciy works differently these days.

Yes, the people of Israel survive today.

who think being a good little Jew, being quiet, cause no trouble, after all it's the fault of those other Jews, will save them.

I think nothing of the sort, ma'am. When I see injustice, though, I speak out against it. What the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians is despicable, and it is made even worse by the fsact that there are other, peaceful, ways to stop terrorism.

Hitler wasn't a terrorist in the current sense of the word. Comparing Hitler to someone or soemthing, btw, is forbidden on this forum; see the rules.

and we both know it.

If someone did the same for Sharon or even Israel they would be screaming. But somehowe demonizing Palestinians is just fine in their minds..

comparison, well that is you.

Sorry, but you are glossing over a major statement by a Muslim leader that reflects the attitudes of an entire major group.

How can you say that? Do you believe that what Moledet says reflects the attidute of Israel, or Jews around the world?

say things that are just as ridiculous all the time, and they do not insert it like a Tourette nugget into a call for nonviolence and a condemnation of Israeli Occupation force crimes against Palestinians.

I think what has people upset about Mahatir is not the thing about the Jews ruling the world or whatever it was this time.

What scares the bejeezus out of bush and sharon regime loyalists is that most of what he says is about 2 billion people coming to an agreement on concrete nonviolent actions that can be taken to stop the gravy train and convert it into something that will make life better for 6 billion people :)

Why else would he open, "The biggest summit of Islamic leaders in three years?"

Let me try it this way.

The OIC is even more ineffectual, old fart n' dollaho infested than the Arab League.

And the reason he opened the summit is because it was held in Malaysia and he's Malaysia's PM....

You think what he said was 'big'. I think it was quite understated considering the bigoted comments he's made in the past about my country....

On edit: not just my country, though we've been called Asian white trash and other lovely things only a bigot looking for a headline could come up with, and we probably still rank #1 on Mahatir's list of things to obsess over. Mahatir accused Japan of turning blonde because of its trade agreements with places like Europe and the US....

Violet...

If you are talking about the AU-NZ complex, I have always had a suspicion that Pauline and co spend hours huddled in locked rooms drawing endless diagrams trying to figure out if they could hire a really big boat to haul the whole continent up by England ;)

Please check your inbox.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground

nt

Even though a conference of this sort doesn't "do" anything, it sets a tone for the attitudes of the participants. The people on the streets who read newspapers or watch the televised reports (as were broadcast around the world) are affected. Children hear the attitudes and espouse them. It is the general feel of the conference that is most important.

He said words that are complimentary, but the final tone, the urging of using the brains to conquer the world through warfare, stands, despite denials. The focus on Israel is strong, for a country in the far east. The call for a common ground among Muslims in order to fight the western nations,(and Israel is the major factor here) rather than working for peace is the impact. Did others in the conference follow this lead, or did they promote peaceful co-existence as the goal for Moslems? It is a regrettable occurrence. Even though Malaysia has apologized to Israel, the damage has been done, and the underlying feelings exposed.

It has nothing to do with my underware, and I won't give this much futher thought, it only confirms the already existing attitudes of the Muslim world.

like that instead of Jews, you'd be screaming from the rooftops. And you wouldn't be saying that it really didn't matter.

Mahathir is expressing sentiments that are little different from the Islamaphobes among Chiristian fundamentalists in this country.

As one who supports the concept of a free and independent Palestinian state coexisting with Israel, I can do without this kind of anti-Semitic claptrap. The progressive movement is about getting people to live in peace in spite of their differences, not about stamping out another ethnic group because some members of it frustrate the aspirations of others within one's own group. That's just racism in drag.

His remarks are inconsistant with progressive goals. There is no reason for progressives to embrace them and every reason for progressives to denounce them. Mahathir's sentiments are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Not only have the CrusaderNets been bouncing and shrieking with especially shrill glee over Mahatir's latest belch, but while the Malaysian Foreign Minister promptly issued an apology for any offense caused and a reiteration that Mahatir's remarks do not reflect the position of the Malaysian government, the US response to Gen BoykX has been amusingly hemhawish and defensive, which in a way, is a good sign, since I believe that they should just go ahead and say that yes, they agree with the General and the US is indeed involved in a Crusade against Islam and you are with us or against us, but try as I might, I cannot help but notice that while the US is currently occupying 2 Muslim nations, threatening several others, and running puppet governments in a whole bowlful, and not a day has passed for over 2 years that has not seen Muslims lose their lives as a result of US aggression, the number of Malaysian tanks occupying the streets of Tel AViv is holding steady at zero.

It's not glee, it's relief. Finally, we can point to someone involved in a major Muslim ORGANIZATION (Note to all, I restate that this and my previous post both impugn radical Islam and not all of Islam) who is getting worldwide press and who has major stature for hating Jews. This attitude sure as hell doesn't represent all Muslims, but it sure as hell DOES represent a lot of them.

And, no, the U.S. is not crusading against Islam. Because if it were, we'd be doing a whole hell of a lot more both internally and externally about it.

Now, is radical Islam at war with much of the world? Yes. They are taking that war to India, Israel, Russia, China, Asia, Europe, the rest of the Mideast and the U.S. Just because there are no Malaysian tanks in Tel Aviv, doesn't mean the war is not real.

there are no tanks - yet - in Bali doesn't mean that America isn't crusading against Muslims.

You know what doesn't help stop radical Islam?

1. Sending troops on a war for oil and political gain

2. Avenging the blood of innocents with the blood of more innocents

3. Supporting and funding the continued Israeli occupation of the Palestinians

4. Doing essentially nothing to combat anti-Arabism within society

The list goes on.

Yes, there is a lot more we could do to combat terror in the world.

I agree Iraq was stupid. Hell, we could have gone to war with either Saudi Arabia or Syria with a lot more justification. No, I'm not advocating it, but Iraq was a big stretch.

You talk about avenging blood of innocents with more blood. But if you don't do anything, you get more blood too. Catch 22 for Israel. They can't let the terrorists operate without trying to stop them because who knows what Hamas and their thug buddies would do then. But if Israel does go after them, inevitably some innocents die.

The occupation of Palestinians will end when their leadership offers peace. Sounds like a fair trade to me.

Actually, as much as I can't stand *, I think he HAS done a little to combat anti-Arabism in America. Not enough, but some. The problem is that he hasn't done enough to combat radical Islam in America either.

though it applies there, too.

Atrocities don't justify atrocities. Two wrongs don't make a right. I won't say that it is that simple, because it isn't. There's a lot more to it.

To both sides of the conflict, the other side's atrocities justify theirs. And that is why the cycle of violence continues.

For instance, you or another poster can say: "The settlements should not be removed, because that would only encourage terrorists."

Similarly, a Palestinian could say: "The suicide bombings should continue, because if they stop, that would only encourage more settlements and more incursions."

I know what you might say to that. "There is no moral equivalency," perhaps. That, too, I have an answer to.

Firstly, a case can be easily made that there is no moral equivilancy - but the other way around, being that the Israeli atrocities are worse then the Palestinian ones. After all, how many settlements have the Palestinians built on Israeli land? How many houses have they bulldozed? How many people have they dislocated? How many walls have they built? The only area in which the Palestinian atrocities actually can compete, which is in civilian deaths, the total Palestinian non-combatants killed still surpasses - and by quite a margin - the number of Israeli non-combatants killed.

Yes, that case is flawed. It ignores the suicide bombings that the Israelis have foiled, and it also ignores the statistic that the ratio of non-combatant to combatant killed is much lower on the Palestinian detah toll (approx. 1:1) then on the Israeli death toll (approx. 3:1.) That doesn't change the fact that that case has its merits, though.

Secondly, it doesn't matter one iota whether us people sitting here on our computers in the US (or Australia) think about the conflict. My whole argument is about what those involved think about the conflict.

And I completely disagree with you about Bush. His welcoming and respect shown to bigoted Christian fundamentalist whackos shows his true amount of respect for Muslims. And there are dozens of things that could be made better and would save far more lives then combating whatever Islamic radicalism that might exist in the US.

it was stupid, but he was leading up to something else far more radical with the bit about Jews. First of all, from a psychological aspect, they ascribe superhuman qualities to Israel just to rationalize to themselves their own failures in combatting it. As for this itself, he said that "the Jews" got to where they were by using their minds rather than force, and that's something they have to start doing as well instead of force, which he more or less dismissed as 50yrs of futility. That's a radical heresy as far as official policy goes (which is not new to him, before he stood with Israel in denouncing the humanbombs as "terrorism"), that he was even clapped for that shows that even the desperate whores are looking for a career change.

A stupid parable, par for the course for Mahathir's occasional bursts and Jewish people could perhaps feel bad for being left out until now, but the wrong part of it is getting the attention in the yellow press (big shock). At any rate, that "conference" was a collection of neutered puppets trying to convince themselves they're not really bound by the strings sewn into their backs, and has about as much force behind it as a pillow stuffed with hummingbird feathers. As DuctapeFatwa put quite well above in this thread among other things, if that was not the case the world would be a great deal different. I'll say again, that the Butcher of Grozny was even invited to this is somewhat indicitive of the standards required at the door to get in.

As for the last bit in your post, that's a very inaccurate portrayal of the conflicts you are alluding to. It may represent a reproduction of the official line of "history" that someone like Winston Smith may "correct" on occasion as new state policy demands a new misinterpretation to gain a footing, but they're also wrong about a ton of other things as well and I don't think should be relied on for any serious grounding.. And at any rate, those you refer to really cannot compare on any remotely consistant scale with the force of death and damage that their opponents deal out to the world with impunity on fairly frequent occasion, but then contradictions like that are also never allowed get in the way of the hook & sinker of a skilled con man's story..

What is your reaction to Boykin's various remarks, by the way? The differences in response are indeed interesting, I'm really quite disappointed in myself for thinking of that until JR mentioned it below this. Especially considering Boykin's high ranking position and favoured role in leading operations against Muslims.

General Boykin's remarks might be seen as a red herring in terms of Mahathir's. Certainly, one person's revolting remarks do not pardon another's.

However, Mr. Fatwa is intrigued by the difference in the reaction. We seem to gloss over Genreral Boykin's bigotry. Perhaps we are just used to it. We hear it from Pat Robertson, we hear it from Franklin Graham, to a lesser extent we hear it from members of the junta, and we hear it from our friends and neighbors. They hate us. They are not civilized. They need to be taught how to think and act correctly. Pick up the white man's burden and all that rubbish.

When they speak of us in similar terms, we feel threatened. However, we don't feel threatened when somebody like Boykin talks like that, even those of us who are revloted by it. On the other hand, they do.

That might be something to consider when chosing how to properly phrase one's case. There is much to be said for embracing cultural relativism. What is different is not necessarily a question of being right or wrong. One needn't be a Jew to be revolted by Mahathir's remarks. One needn't be a Muslim to be revolted by General Boykin's. One need only be of goodwill to be revolted by both.

What Matahir said is said every day by people without his excuse of either age or Tourettoid verbal seizures.

One of the most annoying aspects of being a part of the Palestinian resistance or the are the intermittent approaches of idiots who seek to use that cause to further their Jewscontrolthemediajewscontrolthebanks delusions by hitching like crazed leeches onto that or other movements that have to do with self determination, human rights, or getting rid of the PNAC regime.

And if anyone has any doubt that anti-Muslim sentiment is endemic in the US, I invite you to put on eastern dress and stroll down to your local mall.

There are people in the east who are not Mahatir who think that stuff, but like their western anti-Muslim counterparts, it is not a real opinion so much as an unthinking reaction and attempt to fill the urgent psychological need to manage their fears.

When we are afraid of something that we don't understand, if we have the necessary abilities, skills, and access to resources, we can study, we can learn, we can reason, and while we may still be afraid, we can get a better handle on what it is we are afraid of, and identify our enemy instead of just creating a sort of fetish to represent our enemy and kicking at it.

This is why so many Americans who would tell you they are firmly committed to human rights and the rule of law have no problem with the atrocities committed in Guantanamo, in Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq - because all the people there REPRESENT to them the "9-11 killers" just as people who have suffered from western imperialism for decades, even centuries, find it much handier to scapegoat "the Jews"

The fact that to date, while no one knows who planned the 9-11 events, we can be reasonably certain that neither Bedouin tribes nor Afghani sheep farmers nor Little Ali's thousands of companions in limblessness have ever had the kind of resources to cause commercial airliners in the US to fly into buildings.

And while you can't really blame anybody for sometimes wondering who is who's marionette in the US-Israel symbiosis, you can consider history, and there is enough stuff that is public record, and obvious facts on the ground and in your face and in your shoes and caught in the folds of your sheets and in between your teeth to know that while some of the players, and some of the played are indeed Jewish, others are indeed Presbyterians, agnostics, and assorted lapsed whatever, but all are sincerely dedicated to increased revenue channeled into their bank accounts.

And governments in both east and west actually benefit from all this - people who are busy blaming one or another religion for everything are much less likely to peer too closely into the identity of the real culprit ;)

:toast:

you expressed my thoughts in a way better then I ever could.

:toast:

!!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What Jews run the world?

the point was to show the stupidity (and more borderline racism) in your own statement which was "This attitude sure as hell doesn't represent all Muslims, but it sure as hell DOES represent a lot of them."

Saying that a lot (i.e., many or more than a few) Muslims support this is pretty obvious. There is a core group of radical Isalm that believes this way. How many mainstream Muslims agree I have no idea, nor do I conjecture about that. But the number is still, "many."

Note that I don't believe this myself, but I'm only using yr logic to show you why what you said was wrong...

Lots of (i.e. many or more than a few) Israelis support forced expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza...

Lots of (i.e. many or more than a few) Christians in the US support the murder of doctors who perform abortions....

Lots of (i.e. many or more than a few) Americans support nuking the Middle East in their quest for 'peace' for Israel, not being aware of geography and the impact this would have on Israel...


Violet...

At this point I think lots of Israelis do support expulsion. Far from a majority but yes.

I do not think many Americans support the murder of abortion doctors or nuking the Middle East. (it would have fairly large ramifications, besides from the immorality of it.)

You defined 'a lot' as many OR more than a few, so using yr application of the word, you'd have to believe all those statements to be true, not just when it comes to Muslims...

Violet...

And let's also claim that many black people commit crimes.

Doesn't that sound racist?

Do you even have proof that so many Muslims are this way?

And they should be aware that the regime is efforting with all due haste to fulfill that desire.

Personally, I don't care what religion they happen to be. But somehow, a huge chunk of them happen to belong to radical Islam. They attack all around the world, but we are supposed to be blind to that.

unfortunately your oh so true and concise message will fall on many a deaf ear. Thank you anyway for stating the truth.

when you both have obviously been raised on the same fairy tales

nor did the Malaysian government disavow what he said, just that he said it. As for the General, he has been reprimanded.

The OIC should be severely chastised by the world body for allowing and welcoming such bigoted comments to go unchallenged in it's public statements. I am happy to see sharp rebukes by several European countries, though I am sad that the US has chosen silence.

This type of thinking is several steps to the past, not to the future. The rise of fundamentalism in Malaysia has already started to radicalize the political debate in that country. Mahathir obviously is forgetting that Malaysia built its economic and fincancial success through tolerance of both ethnic and religious minorities, both anathema to any type of Fundamentalism. The big incongruity to the very weapon he wishes to be used to gain world respect is undermined by the type of intolerance he espouses.

Progressives need to push this point forward that the greatest economic and social gains have risen as a result of the promotion of tolerance and working for the common weal, not the result of self-centered zealotry.

how about we just arm Mahathir to the teeth so that he can wage whatever war the hell he feels like. We'll send him billions in military gear, economic assistance, free loans that we'll forgive so he'll never have to say he defaulted on a loan, and anyone who dares criticize our policy towards the jerk will be shouted at as "anti-Muslim".

Oh dear, does someone object to my idea? If you do, ask yourself, why do we arm the extremist Ariel Sharon - who has time and again proven himself capable of racist policy and terrorist aggression against a civilian population?

Just as Arafat is not the Palestinian Authority and Sharon is not Israel. All are indicative of specific problems in the countries, but are far from being wholly representative of their respective countries.


L-

Let alone representative of a WHOLE religion!

I did represent the OIC by being their speaker.

And he didn't represent the OIC at all. He was there speaking as the Malaysian PM. And as has been pointed out by Lithos, Mahathir isn't wholly representative of Malaysia, and I'll add that neither is he of Islam...

Violet...

What do folks drink Down Under? Foster's? I think I need one.

It didn't. Plus even if he was, that doesn't mean he's a representative of the organisation. I've been to conferences where the main speaker isn't a representative of the organisation I work for. Trying to portray Mahathir as a religious leader rather than a boorish, bigoted, Malaysian PM who's retiring in around two weeks and is going to go out with a bang makes no sense at all...

And no. Fosters is total crap and is only useful to be exported to the gullible US market who'll drink any old crap and call it beer ;)

Violet...

They put prominent speakers first to set the tone for the whole event. He set the tone alright. It was a typical tone.

I don't try to portay Mahthir any way other than reality. He was the main speaker for the OIC. THEY gave him the status, not me.

OK, then what beer do you recommend?

x( ;-)

Well if Sharon represents Israel as a whole, then I'll need a quick one too, cause there aint gonna be peace with people like him...

The issue I have with the OIC is they've not attempted to distance themselves from the bigoted aspects of Matathir's speech. This tells me this group has a long way to go before it is truly a respectful world body.

L-

bigotry and intolerance are two of the major forces working against real progress in our world - and especially in the Middle East, in regard to both the Arabs and the Israelis.

Waking up to disgusting comments like the one that motivated this thread.

I am an atheist, but let me say this...

God help us all!

n/t

provided by drdon in another thread--
http://thestar.com.my/oic/story.asp?file=/2003/10/16/oic/20031016123438&sec=%20OIC

The full & original is much more interesting than the bits and pieces the yellow press ran with (but to be fair, the bits about Jews seem just as strange within the context as they did without).

But that doesn't mean that Israel is in the right.

There goes the imperfect - should be perfect dichotomy.