reading aljazeera: stuff for thought

[Kurush]

Ummm...if you read the wikipedia article, I think you'll see that "overthrow a democracy and replace it with a dictator" is a the sort of simplification that abstracts a lot of salient point from the discussion, like, oh, say, the fact that Moussaddiq was propped up by the twin pillars of communists and radical islam

Sorry but you really don't know what you're talking about here. Mossadeq was not "propped up by" anyone, he was elected twice by a fair vote in Majlis. The groups you refer to were especially vocal in supporting the oil nationalization program because they were anti-colonial, and were angry that Britain was in effect looting Iran's oil fields.

rigged elections

You are also oversimplifying the vote issue, the vote to dissolve parliament (a referendum not an election) was rigged by both sides, and one side was more successful than the other.

failed to leave office when dismissed, and was beaten down in his own coup attempt, in defiance of the existing legal system of the time.

Again you just don't know anything about this event, so stop lecturing on it. The Shah was acting as a puppet of Britain in preventing the nationalization of Iran's oil fields simply because Britain didn't want to lose its free oil. There is simply no case to be made that the Shah was a legitimate head of state acting under the rule of law. After the coup, Reza Shah became a dictator and gave the oil fields to an oil consortium with ownership split between US and British oil companies. He later created his own secret police/death squad, the SAVAK, with the help of the CIA, which murdered and tortured thousands of political prisoners.

We and Britain screwed Iran over royally, and the Islamic Revolution was the unfortunate side effect. After the revolution, we gave poison gas to Saddam Hussein which he used on Iranian civilians. I've driven around the abandoned US embassy a few times; the outer walls are still covered in anti-US murals. There are other murals around Tehran, but there seem to be fewer every time I go. Most Iranians are over it, especially considering that most Iranians were born after the revolution, but they (and we) are still suffering from a bad revolution that we made necessary.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Hey, Kurush:

I'm just actually bothering to read and abstract from the article that YOU originally linked to, found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadeq

Every point I've made that you've taken exception to is found in that article.

Me: Moussaddiq was propped up by the twin pillars of communists and radical islam:

>>Wikipedia: ". Kashani's radical Muslims, as well as the Tudeh Party, proved to be two of Mossadegh's key political allies" (Tudeh = Iran's communist party)

Me: rigged elections

>>Wikipedia: "He set up a national referendum to dissolve parliament. The vote was clearly rigged, with Mossadegh claiming a 99.9 percent victory for the "yes" side"

Me: failed to leave office when dismissed,

>>Wikipedia: "To remain in power Mossadegh knew he would have to continue consolidating his power. Since Iran's monarch was the only person who constitutionally outranked him, he perceived Iran's 33-year-old king to be his biggest threat. In August of 1953 Mossadegh attempted to convince the Shah to leave the country. The Shah refused, and formally dismissed the Prime Minister, in accordance with the foreign intelligence plan. Mossdegh refused to quit, however, and when it became apparent that he was going to fight, the Shah, as a precautionary measure foreseen by the British/American plan, flew to Baghdad and on from there to Rome, Italy."

Me: was beaten down in his own coup attempt,

>>Wikipedia: "The military intervened as the pro-Shah tank regiments stormed the capital and bombarded the prime minister's official residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on August 19, 1953."


Me: in defiance of the existing legal system of the time.

>>Wikipedia: "The plot, known as Operation Ajax, centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh from office, "







-----------------------------------

You'll note that I have not at any point claimed that the US is pure and virtuous in any of these matters, nor have I claimed that the Shah was a nice guy. In fact, he was pretty nasty. But no matter how nasty he was, that doesn't automatically make Mossadeq a saint.

What I have pointed out is that there is more to the story than spin you applied to it in using the jingo "replaced a democracy with a dictatorship"

A realistic statement about the whole affair is that we played two factions of dubious merit against each other to our advantage, which is in and of itself a dubious act.


Oh, and for the record, nationalizing an industry is THEFT from the people who built and paid for that industry. The solution to redressing whatever legitimate grievances that might exist in contractual inequity is to renegotiation, not steal the factory, especially considering that the original 60 year oil concession upon which that company was based was due to expire in 10 years.

Oh, wait, there WAS a renegotiation:

Wikipedia: "The Iranian government wanted to take a significant share in the company, and would not negotiate when only offered a larger share of revenues."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iranian_Oil_Company




You: "Again you just don't know anything about this event, so stop lecturing on it."

Me: pronounced "phhhllbbt"

Edited to add:

Which I further clarify to mean that you may well have a lot more information on the event than I, but telling me in effect to sit down and shut up because I actually read the article you pointed to and took note of aspects of it you don't like is out of line.

 

[shermacman]

What geekWithA.45 said. Period.

The Shah was acting as a puppet of Britain in preventing the nationalization of Iran's oil fields simply because Britain didn't want to lose its free oil.

Any time some slob with a throne does a business deal with the West, we suddenly become the supporters of despotic regimes in the eyes of the nihilistic Left. IBM and Hitler, the Shah and BP; automatically the free world is a criminal. Life is complicated, we try, we sometimes succeed and sometimes fail. But we are not the force of evil that is National Socialism. Whether that National Socialism is Italian Fascism, the German Nazi party, Islamo-Fascism or communist China: we are right, they are wrong.

Period.

 

[Kurush]

(geekwitha45 explaining how he drew his conclusions)

I should have read the article more carefully before I linked to it, but it isn't so much misleading as incomplete. Mossadeq's sainthood is not at issue, there are no saints in politics (especially Iranian politics ) He was legitimately elected as prime minister, twice, by large margins, and the Shah took over the government by force (force provided by the US and Britain no less) against the will of the electorate.

Oh, and for the record, nationalizing an industry is THEFT from the people who built and paid for that industry. The solution to redressing whatever legitimate grievances that might exist in contractual inequity is to renegotiation, not steal the factory, especially considering that the original 60 year oil concession upon which that company was based was due to expire in 10 years.

So you think Iran should just let Britain drain their oil fields out because they bought the land before anyone knew it was an oil field? Come on. If the US won't even allow a chinese company to buy Unocal why on earth should Iran allow a British company to own ALL of its oil fields?

Oh, wait, there WAS a renegotiation:

Wikipedia: "The Iranian government wanted to take a significant share in the company, and would not negotiate when only offered a larger share of revenues."

AIOC wasn't paying even the royalties they already agreed to, who cares if they have to pay a higher percent if they aren't paying it in the first place. In any case Iran has no duty to allow AIOC/BP to own its oil fields.

Which I further clarify to mean that you may well have a lot more information on the event than I, but telling me in effect to sit down and shut up because I actually read the article you pointed to and took note of aspects of it you don't like is out of line.

Well, rereading my reply I was being a bit grumpy, it seems it was just an honest misunderstanding so I apologise.

ETA:Read the post immediately above this one and you'll see why I overreacted, every time I get in a discussion about this the Sean Hannity worshipping mouthbreathers come out of the woodwork.

 

[Delmar]

"Perpetual war benefits the small minority who sit atop the food chain. The poor and working class suffer and die while society's elite, wealthy leaders grow richer and more powerful."
And just who would that be-people like GW who is going to be out of office in a couple of years, or the King/Queen/Ruler of (insert middle east dictator of choice here)?

"While Arabs share in the responsibility for the conflict in the Middle East, much of the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the state terrorists who have operated from their command centers at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Pentagon. The so-called Arab "terrorism" is a reaction to years of victimization at the hands of the U.S. government and its proxies in the Middle East."
Just how many middle eastern countries have participated in the Bosnia operation, where US and NATO forces went in to protect the lives of Muslims from ethnic cleansing? Which middle eastern countries have hosted talks, peace treaties and whatnot to help in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

"The way to bring this phenomenon to an end is for the American people to engage in a non-violent revolution to replace the abhorrence in Washington which masquerades as a democracy, to withdraw from Iraq, to close U.S. military bases in the Middle East and around the world, to stop supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and to redirect this nation toward humanitarian objectives rather than military ones. 5% of the world's population does not need to account for 50% of the world's military expenditures.
Excuse me-what do you know about democracy, other than trying to crush the existing one in Israel, and feeding/clothing/housing and financing the murdering terrorists being fed in from the countries surrounding Iraq? If you want to gain peace in your section of the country, why don't you quit blowing up children receiving candy from American GI's and lets set down and talk some sense for a change?

"America simply needs to reduce its military to a force large enough to defend itself and scrap its imperial ambitions."
Your terrorists finally got our government to get off its dime and start kicking your teeth in because y'all don't have the first clue when it comes to acting humanely, and you want to direct OUR military? We don't want your land, and until your kind quit blowing up buildings, trains, embassies and nightclubs in other countries, get used to seeing the stars and stripes on your chest. If you're serious about changing a government's behavior, start with your own!

"A true victory for President Bush’s “war on terror” would involve eradicating the U.S. terrorist state and criminally prosecuting those who have perpetrated the associated war crimes. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and many others in that foul administration belong in Guantanamo Bay with those they have deemed to be “terrorists”. The most dangerous terrorists on Earth move about freely, wield great power, enjoy immense wealth, and reside openly in Washington. They represent a fraction of the U.S. population yet they harbor almost all of the power and wealth in the world's only remaining superpower nation. "
A true victory for the war on terror would involve eradicating the terrorists who murder women because their veil slipped in public, who push unarmed old men in a wheelchair off ships, who murdered 3000 innocent people trying to make a living in a couple of buildings, etc., etc., etc. In other words, a victory would be people respecting the lives of others, regardless of their personal/religious beliefs

"Arrests and prosecutions through U.S. and international courts, tax revolts, protests, nation-wide strikes/walkouts by union and non-union employees alike, massive consumer boycotts, increased education of the American public, increased unity amongst the proponents of social justice, and the emergence of a powerful spiritual leader whose true goal is to achieve social justice are needed to excise the cancer in Washington which plagues the world."
Who did you have in mind? Maybe Osama for President? This ain't Viet Nam, and you ain't Ho Chi Minh. You have absolutely NO clue what social justice is, and we are not going to tear our country apart for your amusement. We are a big family, and we will argue amongst ourselves, but we will never bow to the likes of you.

"Bush II edges the U.S. closer and closer to tyranny as he imposes the elites' Social Darwinism upon the poor and working class by butchering social welfare program budgets, weakening unions, lowering taxes on the wealthy, working to dismantle Social Security, protecting and empowering corporations, and deregulating businesses."
Really? Why don't you tell us all about your social security program, your workers unions and all of your major deregulated businesses? I'd love to hear it. That book would be about as thick as the one I am currently writing-"All I Know About Women.

"During the New Orleans debacle, the U.S. government's response revealed glimpses of a U.S. military machine prepared to employ state terrorism domestically. Katrina was a wake-up call for the people. Also Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers, his former personal attorney who has no experience as a judge, to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy continues an unprecedented pattern of incredibly corrupt cronyism. Miers' virtually assured approval by a Republican-controlled Senate will complete the trifecta necessary for Bush II to control each branch of the U.S. government.
Gee, where ARE you guys when it comes to natural disasters in the world? Your military must have stealth uniforms, because we never see you. Of course, most Americans see your rulers as major disasters in the first place. And by the way-our women can drive, hold high paying jobs in business and industry, and hold high office in our land. Please supply the names of all the women and christians who have held a position in your supreme court? Awwww, don't have one? How many female officers in your military? None? Okay-how many Jewish males in high office? Any other minorities?

"Justice and peace can still prevail, but the elitists hold a significant advantage in the struggle, and are strengthening their hand."
Here's a clue-there won't be any peace until there is justice, and you don't have any right now.

 

[dzimmerm]

Tin foil hat time

It occured to me that if the problem is "our oil" in the middle east, or to put it more clearly, "our need of oil" in the middle east, then one solution would be to develope energy sources that do not need oil.

Who would benefit from developing nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, ect. sources?

Not those who are currently in power.

It has been said that the USA can not be toppled by an external force due to our isolation by two large oceans.

It was added that the USA's destruction can only be done from internal forces.

That statement is a little bit out of date with the invention of ICBMs but let us not forget 911 was done with our own internal resources.

I think the USA public has been played for a fool by those who stand to benefit more from the Oil situation as it now exists.

I want flying cars and force fields. I want to be able to eat lunch on the moon and tour the depths of our oceans.

Research, technology, cooperation amongst all humans. That will get us to the stars and the depths of our own oceans.

War and strife only benefits small numbers of people in select positions.

I am a gun toting anarchist with libertarian tendancies, but my eyes are open and I can see when I am being played.

I don't like it, not when Islamic sympathizers do it, nor when Patriotic chest thumpers do it.

I appreciate THR for providing a forum where even whacko ideas like mine can be looked at and dismissed, .

dzimmerm

 

[Capteddie]

+1 dzimmerm

Capteddie

 

[silverlance]

+1

dizerrim

i agree totally. we are being played by wealthy power brokers. probably GW is being played, too. and come to think of it, very likely our "friends" on the other side of the trench are, too.

i was reading the other day reports on new technology alt power sources - did you guys know that solar is now a viable source, as is wind? but nobody wants to hear that.. instead everyone is fed the old statistics from the 60s and 70s about how they will never work.

 

[matis]

Israel doesn't help, either. Seizing Jerusalem in 1967 and turning it into the capital was pretty clearly land theft, and I'm amazed that more people don't recognize its illegitimacy.
__________________________________________________________________

Shootinstudent, in 1967 the Israelis were surrounded by the Egyptians, the Syrians and other Arab Armies. Once the fighting started they just about begged the Jordanians not to enter the fray. The Jordanians did, the Jews whipped them and took the part of Jerusalem the Arabs had controlled.

When the Arabs controlled this part of Jerusalem, the Jews were absolutely barred from their holiest site, the Temple Mount. Once the Jews took Jerusalem, they GAVE the keys to the WAKF to show good will (VERY stupid and short-sighted move!). The Wakf responded by barring the Jews from praying at their own holiest site. They now excavate the site illegally and destroy ancient Jewish artifacts from the Temple. And they falsify history and say the Jews never had a Temple there.

Jerusalem is mentioned many, many times in the Torah. It is mentioned only once, and that in passing, in the Koran.


The Arabs forced the 1967 war on Israel in an attempt to annihilate her and drive the jews into the sea. In spite of huge Arab advantages in men and materiel, the Israelis beat the sh/t out of them. Whatever land Israel took she won in a war forced upon her.

As soon as we give the Western US back to Mexico and the rest to the Indians, ONLY then should Israel relinquish land she bought with the blood of her defending soldiers and innocent citizens.

"Land Theft?" Your bias shows clearly and your quote above is way out of line.



matis

 

[Hacker15E]

As soon as we give the Western US back to Mexico and the rest to the Indians, ONLY then should Israel relinquish land she bought with the blood of her defending soldiers and innocent citizens.

Fantastic point...but, just because we're hypocrites doesn't make it correct.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Kurush said:

Well, rereading my reply I was being a bit grumpy, it seems it was just an honest misunderstanding so I apologise.

Fair enough.

I also apologize for my counter grumpiness.

{clinks glass with Kurush}

 

[shootinstudent]

As soon as we give the Western US back to Mexico and the rest to the Indians, ONLY then should Israel relinquish land she bought with the blood of her defending soldiers and innocent citizens.

"Land Theft?" Your bias shows clearly and your quote above is way out of line

If the US and Mexico is your best comparison, I don't see any imaginable way the Israeli seizure of Jerusalem couldn't be land theft. Good comparison, the US seizure of the wetsern states was illegal by even the laws of the time.

You're right that Israel was attacked from four sides. Yes, Israel has a right to defend itself. But there's a big difference between repelling attacking armies (which were invading a country founded in large part through anti-british terrorism in the 40's)...and repelling an army, then seizing its religious holy sites (the Al Aqsa mosque), and moving settlers in to repopulate and outvote the natives in the places you just took. In addition, renaming a piece of territory that has not ever been in the possession of your government as your capital smacks of an illegal land grab.

The fact that the arab states were behaving badly doesn't change the fact that Israel illegally seized Jerusalem. Neither do some quotes from the Torah. And the continued illegal occupation of the land seized in 1967 is a huge factor in fueling worldwide anti-Israel and anti-American sentiments...that was my point in posting.

 

[GoRon]

And when has there ever been a country called Palestine?

Land grab my a@@. The amount of leftist drivel including anti Israel pro Palestinian sentiment on THR amazes me.

 

[shootinstudent]

Land grab my a@@. The mount of leftist drivel including anti Isreal pro Palestinian sentiment on THR amazes me.

Let me clear: I'm not anti-Israel. I think it's the most democratic country in the region and that it offers people better lives than any of the arab states.


That said, yes, it was a land grab. Palestinian nationalism is new, but there were most certainly Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, and Lebanese states back then, and all lost land to Israel.

Saying "there was no palestine" doesn't change the fact that Jerusalem was illegally seized from another country in 1967 and converted into the Israeli capital. Sorry, but in the 20th century and especially now in the 21st, I don't think "but it was in my religious book!" is justification for annexing territory.

And to get it back on the thread...the US's support for the land grab has done much to fuel anti-US sentiment. Add that on top of US support for a series of dictators, and it's not so hard to understand how the Arab world has developed along such an anti-American path. Pretending that the formation of the Israeli state was all kosher, or that it doesn't matter anymore, is not going to help solve any of our problems.

 

[matis]

Quote:
The fact that the arab states were behaving badly doesn't change the fact that Israel illegally seized Jerusalem. Neither do some quotes from the Torah. And the continued illegal occupation of the land seized in 1967 is a huge factor in fueling worldwide anti-Israel and anti-American sentiments...that was my point in posting. (Shootinstudent)
__________________________________________________________________

Shootinstudent, arguing with you seems a waste of time. I just made the point that the Israelis did NOT illegally seize Jerusalem, which point you skim over with general remarks about the "...Arab states acting badly." -- and then you go right back to your original position.

It is NOT illegal to defend one's country when it is attacked and land thus acquired is NOT land-theft.




The huge factor in worldwide anti-Israel sentiment is the usual 2000 year old and world-wide anti-Semitism. The reasons for the anti-Semitism are not all the same as that for anti-American sentiment but they share certain very important similarities:


The main reason for anti-American sentiment is that America is the sole remaining world power. And America is the most successful nation ever, whatever parameter you care to examine. Whatever the US does will be twisted and everything bad will always be our fault. Winners are always hated and envied by their lessors. Certainly we are not perfect in our foreign (or domestic) policy. And we certainly pursue some unwise policies. But if we keep to ourselves, then we are accused of not caring and if we intervene we are ugly Americans. Every country must act in its own best interest and we are no different.


The Jews are hated for many reasons but where these are similar to the hatred for the US they are that Jews are also very successful!


Remove the boot from our necks and, because we are infused with Torah values, we quickly rise to become formidable competitors. This is true even for secular Jews. Their Jewish consciousness includes the Torah values of strong love of family, reverence for learning and hard work. Secular Jews may no longer care for their religion, but the values are a part of them, anyway.

If this were not true, then how to explain the Jewish rise to the top of every profession and field they enter? Do you think the Swedes are under the control of some Jewish cabal when they award so many Nobel prizes to us? Truth is there is more than mild anti-Semitism among the Swedes.

When Jews assimilate to the point where they are indistinguishable from others, they take on the parameters of the mainstream.

How many ultra-Orthodox and Orthodox Jews do you find among the ranks of alcoholics, drug addicts, violent criminals? What is their divorce rate? First generation assimilated Jews begin to slip toward the majority. Very assimilated Jews become almost indistinguishable along these lines.

Yet, even among very assimilated Jews, their success rate in their chosen field is higher. Don't even ask me how the Jewish IQ compares, because you'll call me racist when I give you the answer!

Not that I care. I see nothing wrong in being proud of who and what I am; political correctness be damned! And unlike certain other groups, we don't have to invent any of our glories, past or present.

Of course many assimilated Jews will argue vehemently against what I write here. I spent most of my life doing that, myself. So then how would one explain the difference in the social parameters of such Jews? Hatred of religion certainly can blind one to the facts.

{So don’t start with me, boychiklach -- I’ve been on both sides now (grin).}


It is commonly understood that one important reason the West is predominant is because her people embody the Protestant work ethic. I believe that this is true. But where did the Protestants get their ethic, if not from the Jews and their religion? Have you learned your American history? They don't call this culture Judeo-Christian for nothing, do they?


So both the USA and the Jews are hated out of envy. The deadliest of the 7 deadly sins.



Yet the Arabs have far outsmarted we smart Jews. They purposely kept and still keep millions of their brethren in abject misery in refugee camps so as to make them into the spearhead of their attack against Israel. And the other Arabs certainly don’t want the Palestinians. How many Arab countries have they been driven out of and with what bloodshed?


Approximately 700,000 Arabs became refugees at the creation of Israel. But when do you hear of the nearly 1,000,000 Jews who fled for their lives from the murderous, hatefulness of their Arab neighbors in the Arab lands where they once lived?

And now the Arabs in almost every one of their backward, violent and dictator-ridden countries are taught in their schools and in their media to hate Jews and to hate America and to hate all infidels. Certainly a useful tactic to distract them from their true oppressors, isn't it?

The poor, oppressed "Palestinians" are used to portray Israel as the aggressor when she defends herself against almost unremitting attack. And Arab oil-money, especially from Saudi Arabia is used everywhere to influence Western media with pro-Palestinian and pro-Arab propaganda. I just read that Saudi money has purchased a 30% interest in Fox News.

Not to mention that Saudi money regularly buys American politicians and hordes of lobbyists in Congress. James Baker and his American cohorts work diligently for the Arabs. And what about in England, France, Germany and so on?



Shootinstudent, you posted against America in our previous exchange and now you do it again, with the addition this time of your anti-Israel attack.

I wonder how many of your professors hate America and hate Israel? Do you get your ideas from them -- or do you just naturally hate the country you were so fortunate to have been born in?


matis

 

[shootinstudent]

It is NOT illegal to defend one's country when it is attacked and land thus acquired is NOT land-theft.

Yes, it most certainly is. You can attack and even occupy other countries to defend your own. What you cannot do is declare a major city in that other country your capital, and start moving your own people there as quickly as possible so that they can outvote any remaining natives whom you are forced to incorporate.

It's the difference between the US occupying baghdad to install a new government, and the US moving the Senate and House and President over to Baghdad, along with a few million american transplants to set up shop and turn Iraq into "New Texas", the 51st state. The first type of occupation can be justified; the second cannot. You didn't even make an argument about that, you just said "Israel was attacked!", as if that justifies any sort of response whatsoever. It doesn't, and being a country that was founded in large part through anti-British terrorism, it's especially dubious to claim a right to annex and re-populate land based on Israel's being attacked.

And now the Arabs in almost every one of their backward, violent and dictator-ridden countries are taught in their schools and in their media to hate Jews and to hate America and to hate all infidels. Certainly a useful tactic to distract them from their true oppressors, isn't it?

Exactly my point. Not only do our oil dollars pay for these oppressors, but support for the 1967 land grab has given them plenty of ammunition with which to shift the blame for their failures.

As for the rest, I'm glad you're proud of your heritage. But having a proud heritage doesn't justify annexing another country's cities and declaring it the capital of your country.

Shootinstudent, you posted against America in our previous exchange and now you do it again, with the addition this time of your anti-Israel attack.

Not once have I posted against America. Nor am I "against Israel." You don't have to hate Israel or the US to criticize their policies. Indeed, if I really hated America and Israel, I'd push for them both to become more violent and to seize arab land left and right...that's exactly what Al Qaeda wants, because it proves their propaganda right. Since I love my country and its freedoms, I feel more than free to criticize policies that endanger us and that are unjust. How's that for being pro-American?

 

[GoRon]

At some point the ME nations are going to have to take responsibility for their own state of affairs.

Once Iraq is stable and able to run its own affairs it will be an example of democracy to the other nations of the region.

Free or democratic countries have a good track record of not going to war against other free/democratic countries.

Once Iraqis are busy building schools, mosques and all the institutions of society, once they are busy working providing a better life for their family, enjoying the new prosperity and all the trappings of modern democracy, they will not have time to worry about the "zionists".

 

[longeyes]

Yes, it most certainly is. You can attack and even occupy other countries to defend your own. What you cannot do is declare a major city in that other country your capital, and start moving your own people there as quickly as possible so that they can outvote any remaining natives whom you are forced to incorporate.

Is this thread about Los Angeles...?

Or maybe...Kosovo?

 

[shootinstudent]

Is this thread about Los Angeles...?

Or maybe...Kosovo?

Haven't read the news in the past hour, but I doubt Los Angeles has been bombed and invaded by uniformed troops of a foreign army and declared to be its territory.

Kosovo...maybe, that's a much more extreme example though. The Serbs were trying to kill all the men and rape the Muslim/albanians there out of existence. There was no such extermination or other similarly horrific plan in the cards for the Israelis.

 

[Jeff Timm]

Did I miss a sarcasm tag? What orifice was this pulled from?

The Koran.

Geoff
Who suggests you read an accurate translation.

 

[shootinstudent]

The Koran.

Geoff
Who suggests you read an accurate translation.

So that we don't hijack this otherwise good thread, how about you pm me those Koran citations and tell me how you go about finding an accurate translation?

 

[Derek Zeanah]

NON-thread-hijack...

Good translations:

• The Message of The Qur'an translated and explained by Muhammad Asad. Found this after reading some of Karen Armstrong's work and loved the way it came across. Kind of hard to find (read: not Amazon), but The Islamic Bookstore (online) has it.
• The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an by Abdulla Yusef Ali is pretty good (though not as good), and is cheap Published by the Amana Corporation, and IIRC really cheap on Amazon ($11?)

 

[shootinstudent]

NON-thread-hijack...

Good translations:

• The Message of The Qur'an translated and explained by Muhammad Asad. Found this after reading some of Karen Armstrong's work and loved the way it came across. Kind of hard to find (read: not Amazon), but The Islamic Bookstore (online) has it.
• The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an by Abdulla Yusef Ali is pretty good (though not as good), and is cheap Published by the Amana Corporation, and IIRC really cheap on Amazon ($11?)

Thanks. I use Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation; got a hardcopy version at half priced books for 12 bucks. For me, his explanations on translating arabic and notes on the historical context of the Surahs are easy to understand and informative. I'll have to look around for Muhammad Asad's translation now too.

 

[Solo]

Moslems are murdering devil worshipers. They MUST kill every non-moslem in the world. If they can't find any non-believers to kill, they kill each other and their own children.

Just like the Jews?

 

[Art Eatman]

shootinstudent said, "It's the difference between the US occupying baghdad to install a new government, and the US moving the Senate and House and President over to Baghdad, along with a few million american transplants to set up shop and turn Iraq into "New Texas", the 51st state."

Now, I've seen a bunch of bad analogies during the years, but that's nearly a record.

As far as Jerusalem and Israel and all that, the Arabs started the 1967 and 1973 wars. The aim was genocide (and still is). The Israelis won.

A better comparison of behaviors might be that the Arabs are like a bunch of little kids playing poker: When the game's over, they want back all their losses. Or, maybe, they could be compared to the kid who murdered his parents, and wants mercy because he's an orphan. (Which ahs less to do with the right and wrong of it all than it does my attitude toward whiny losers.)

As far as some parts of the western US, we didn't take those lands from "The Mexicans". We stole those lands from the thieves that stole them from the original inhabitants.

Art