Well, ok, I see what you are saying (reaction to Noise posting in the planes thread 11 august 12:37). But how does what you are suggesting (which I believe is entirely true and legitimate) deny that CERTAIN people have a CERTAIN agenda? I would say: it doesn't. It can't. Certain people - no, true, not "all Arabs" or "all Muslims" (yes, I know that people use these terms too loosely without knowing enough about what they actually refer to) - DO have a certain agenda. The U.S. as well as those commonly referred to as terrorists, as well as certain countries, groups, etc. all have agendas.
WHAT certain people actually want is best explained by actually looking at some quotes. MEMRI is an interesting source, which I am sure you are all familiar with.
Here are some quite famous quotes:
February 23, 1998 (Al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper) from The Declaration of the World Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and the Crusaders:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.
...
We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.
From Mr. Ahmadinejad's letter to the US (spring 2006):
Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the
phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them. Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times. Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist. The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.
I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII,
which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly
disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront
defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six
million people that were surely related to at least two million families.
Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the
establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can
this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?
...
Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of
humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the
sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic
systems. We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point – that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to
join them?”
Mr President, Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.
Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda
Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Ahmad Alhariri (Syrian diplomat), UN Security Council Meeting, May 30, 2006:
If there is suffering in the world, it is
because of Israel. In his statement, the representative of Israel spoke three times of a third world war. The Constitution of UNESCO tells us that “wars begin in the minds of men”, and it appears that this is what is in the mind of Israel. If we think about this, we will find the reasons for both the First and the Second World Wars.
Quote by Abu Hamza from a fansite
Jihad is their fight and it is also an obligation. But some people call this terrorism. Jihad is the only way to protect believers. Jihad comes first.
Abdurahman and Maha Khadr in an interview:
My father really respects Osama and Osama really respects my father.
...
"They had their differences," Maha says. "But he respected him as a person, that is standing up for something he believes in and is willing to sacrifice for it, a man who is doing a lot of good for people who are helping him, these people who are keeping him in their country and he is helping them doing many things, so he respected him as a person and as a leader of his group or whatever he believes in. But we were never part of them.
Toronto Muslim cleric Aly Hindy after the arrest of 17 people:
The government and the people keep saying that we should not make our young people radical. CSIS is the one radicalising the youth.
and on goes the list...........
What about all that? I am sure some would be very quick to :
a) point out that all those quotes are of course made up by Mossad, CIA or whomever (an opinion which is widespread in the Arab world btw with regards to terror attacks)
b) find similar quotes made by Bush & Co like "with us or against us, axis of evil" (which in no way by itself can change the existence or the impact of these quotes here.
c) find some excuse for all of these things
most likely an excuse like:
"But it's the West's fault because we did XYZ."
Right, ok.
Some 'condition' or another is found to be a legitimate reason to have attitudes like those listed in this post (and other ones which can be found on the net).
You might still find what they (whoever "they" are, I am speaking very broadly here...) say or do (let's call this "C") extreme or bad (or whatever), but you will STILL find an excuse for 'it', or an explanation, like: We oppressed them or something like that. (let's call this "B")
Some of you might also say, that certain groups are not the only / real terrorist, but that actually the US / Israel is.
Some might say, BECAUSE the US / Israel is doing XYZ, this is why they are sort of legitimate to think / do ______ (whatever).
So by examining the "why" of actions, what anybody /"they" does/do can become at least understandable and bearable and sort of rational and maybe even legitimate, right?
As soon as the "why" is found, you will most likely say, "It's bad what's going on, BUT there are social conditions (whatever, whatever), so we should rather blame somebody else (us), rather than the actual perpetrators".
If you all agree so far (which I'm sure some of you don't) then what we have is this:
B : U.S. (or the 'the West') does something
this causes, provokes or explains
C : somebody else does something
Okay, but now the questions are:
why does B not need to be explained?
what makes it such that B can exist as an absolute rather than as a relative entity?
why is B inherently bad?
C seems to be bad as well, right (e.g. killing people etc.)?
so if C - something bad - can get an explanation,
why does B - something bad as well ('hegemonic oppression' as some say) not get an explanation??
where is A?
if there is A, how do you explain what caused A (Z?) ?
this scheme which would of course lead to a an endless chain, is of course rather futile.
but is it not equally futile to stop the chain neatly at B, so that A can just be left in the dark and never needs to be spoken about?
why does the chain stop at B?
furthermore, why is this constant explanation chain even necessary?
instead of:
always making the connection from C to B and then stopping there
OR
instead of having an endless chain consisting of cause and consequences,
why is it not an option to just NOT make the connection between C and B in the first place - and to consider things on their own without constantly having to justifying, explaining, excusing etc.?
Is that not a contradiction, a double standard?
fyi, the original post:
quote:
Winnie: if you notice not one of those points hold water. As always with the line of thought it's entirely with us or entirely against us.1. There has never been an attempt to force Shiriah law over Western population. What are you on? It's been us attacking and enforcing our views upon them.
2. So do you include the Sunni Muslim population that is exceedingly anti-Hizbollah (atleast the canadian ones?) Oh thats right, you still think an Arab is an arab is an arab don't you? Geez, could you imagine if the entire arabic world thought all of us were identical to Pat Robertson?
3. You speak of Islam law vs homosexuality as if it's different from American law.
4. Good generalization there. In Afghanistan, a Canadian female reporter in a small afghan town was taken by the locals out of town so she could remove her headdress and they could listen and bop around to their music. Oh whoops, I fergot that their all islamo-facsists.
5. Once again showing your sheer ignorance. Shi'a, in specic Hizbollah, HATE OSAMA BIN LADEN, condeming his attacks and condeming him. Al Qaeda offered them support, and Nasrallah rejected it entirely saying it adds credence to dispshits like yourself that still think all Arabs are the same.
[ 11 August 2006: Message edited by: winnie ]
Email this thread to someone!
posted 11 August 2006 03:00 PM
