Megawati applauded Mahathir attack on Jews

[drdon326]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/17/1066364483615.html

The Indonesian President, Megawati Soekarnoputri, joined a standing ovation for her Malaysian counterpart, Mahathir Mohamad, after he called on Muslims to consider Jews as their enemy, it has been revealed.

All 57 leaders at a Conference of Islamic Nations summit applauded the comments, which have renewed regional tensions ahead of next week's APEC leaders' conference. Among them were several key figures in the post-September 11 world, including Ms Megawati; the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai; President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Dr Mahathir's speech was met with a chorus of condemnation from leaders of non-Islamic states yesterday, including the Prime Minister, John Howard.

The Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, last night snubbed Malaysia's Foreign Minister, Syed Hamid Albar, declining to invite him to a dinner to discuss Islam and the fight against terrorism at the Australian ambassador's residence in Bangkok.

.....................................................................
All 57 leaders at a Conference of Islamic Nations summit applauded the comments???

so sad...

[Muddleoftheroad]

1. Anyone else doubt that this is a war?

'Nuff said.

[Darranar]

2. I'm a doubter...

did you even read his speech? Or only the cited tidbits?

[Cassandra]

14. He had some useful things to say about Islam,

too bad he had to prove his Muslim bona fides by his anti-Semitic comments.
Consider how the Muslim leaders present would have received his speech if he hadn't indulged in Jew-bashing. Would they have been as receptive? I think not. BTW, just because someone has a serious problem with part of a speech or article, doesn't automatically mean they haven't read the whole thing. You could ask that without being condescending about it.

[Darranar]

15. Look...

Muddle said: Now, does anyone doubt that we are at war?

Had he read the speech, he would have known that the speech advocated non-violent means of becoming more powerful. It advocated an end to worthless vengeance that just kills more people. It advocated a peaceful doctrine. Yes, he made anti-semitic reamrks. Yes, he shouldn't have said them. Yes, he should be criticized and condemned for it. But how the speech incited war, or proved that we are at war, is beyond me.

[rini]

16. Mr. Muddleoftheroad

meant a cultural war that is being waged in conjunction with terrorism. At least that is how I understood it. Mr.M, if I am wrong I apologize.

I see violence used as a means to an end.

[Darranar]

17. How is this war a cultural war?

Are you saying that Arab culture, which is repsonsilbe for the academics of our society, is bad?

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Actually

I meant cultural, military, economic, the whole ball of wax. That was certainly what the PM was advocating. He wanted Muslims to get stronger so they could "counter-attack."

[Darranar]

24. Did you hear how he said they should counter-attack?

We know he and his early followers were oppressed by the Qhuraish. Did he launch retaliatory strikes? No. He was prepared to make strategic retreats. He sent his early followers to a Christian country and he himself later migrated to Madinah. There he gathered followers, built up his defence capability and ensured the security of his people. At Hudaibiyah he was prepared to accept an unfair treaty, against the wishes of his companions and followers. During the peace that followed he consolidated his strength and eventually he was able to enter Mecca and claim it for Islam. Even then he did not seek revenge. And the peoples of Mecca accepted Islam and many became his most powerful supporters, defending the Muslims against all their enemies.

That briefly is the story of the struggle of the Prophet. We talk so much about following the sunnah of the Prophet. We quote the instances and the traditions profusely. But we actually ignore all of them.

If we use the faculty to think that Allah has given us then we should know that we are acting irrationally. We fight without any objective, without any goal other than to hurt the enemy because they hurt us. Naively we expect them to surrender. We sacrifice lives unnecessarily, achieving nothing other than to attract more massive retaliation and humiliation.

It is surely time that we pause to think. But will this be wasting time? For well over half a century we have fought over Palestine. What have we achieved? Nothing. We are worse off than before. If we had paused to think then we could have devised a plan, a strategy that can win us final victory. Pausing and thinking calmly is not a waste of time. We have a need to make a strategic retreat and to calmly assess our situation.

Not through worthless revenge, but through efforts at thought and calmness. Counter-attack, yes, but not slaughter. That is what he is advocating here.

And how are we fighting a cultural war with the Muslim world? Or an economic one? We dominate them economically. Any move they make to try and stop that will be met with curshing force.

[drdon326]

26. Who do you think....

he was talking about when he said these magic words.
Darranar??

"Some even see our enemies as their enemies. Even among the Jews there are many who do not approve of what the Israelis are doing."

I think i understand why you appreciate this speech so much.

[Darranar]

27. Okay, I got it...

now I'm a traitor, too.

I'm not sure about the context of that statement.

[bluesoul]

28. Traitors

We're all traitors. ;)

[Darranar]

29. Yep...

we're all anti-American, anti-semitic, pro-terrorist, jihadofascist traitors.

[sushi]

42. He said

"Even among the Jews there are many who do not approve of what the Israelis are doing."

Is this a true statement or isn't it?

[sushi]

41. Malaysia's PM Mahathir just wants

the Muslims to take their rightful place in the world. If they do study the right things instead of only religion, they should be, will become, a force to be reckoned with. Right now the extremists among them are giving them a bad name. As usual, we only hear about the bad guys. The overwhelming majority is like the people of other religions, decent and peace-loving.

[sushi]

40. You are right

Malaysia's soon to be ex-PM wants Muslims to get stronger. What's wrong with that? There are 1.3 billion of them in the world. Instead of studying religion only he wants them to concentrate on science, IT, etc. so that they can balance the West, NOT counter-attack.

Mahathir also thinks the Jewish influence is far too big considering its size, 6.5 million. So he doesn't like the Jews. Isn't he entitled to his opinion? Many Europeans don't like non-Europeans, many Americans don't like non-Americans. Keep your ears open. The Chinese think they are numero uno, so do the Japanese, the British squeezed their colonies dry, but, when the time came to leave the colonies, were very reluctant to give people they occupied passports to Britain, the Asians think Westerners are a promiscuous lot, the French think...etc.etc.

Do you like everybody? I don't, but we're in this world together and should learn to tolerate one another.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Did YOU read the speech?

What about that counterattack section?

[Darranar]

23. Yes, I read the speech...

the whole thing, every word.

It was calling for a non-violent counter-attack. How that makes a war is beyond me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Why do you think it was non-violent

Perhaps you should read it again. Some excerpts will follow here, but he is simply calling for a new more coordinated strategy and a pullback to get their houses in order. He isn't calling for peace, he's calling for total coordinated war.

Excerpts:

We are enjoined by our religion to prepare for the defence of the ummah. Unfortunately we stress not defence but the weapons of the time of the Prophet. Those weapons and horses cannot help to defend us any more. We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships for our defence. But because we discouraged the learning of science and mathematics etc as giving no merit for the akhirat, today we have no capacity to produce our own weapons for our defence. We have to buy our weapons from our detractors and enemies.

But is it true that we should do and can do nothing for ourselves? Is it true that 1.3 billion people can exert no power to save themselves from the humiliation and oppression inflicted upon them by a much smaller enemy? Can they only lash back blindly in anger? Is there no other way than to ask our young people to blow themselves up and kill people and invite the massacre of more of our own people?

It cannot be that there is no other way. 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way. And we can only find a way if we stop to think, to assess our weaknesses and our strength, to plan, to strategise and then to counter-attack.

In any struggle, in any war, nothing is more important than concerted and coordinated action.

[Darranar]

31. He encouraged calm thinking...

and discouraged revenge. He encouraged building defense forces but discouraged heated and deadly action. Whether or not he actually said the word non-violent, non-violence is a logical consequence of actually listening to what he was sayinng and believing it.

[The Magistrate]

32. Not Necessarily, My Friend

Calm is a great asset to successful strategizing, and to success in violence: the man with a cool head will generally come out on top of the fellow who sees red.

[Darranar]

33. My post wasn't very clear...

calmheadedness can indeed lead to violence, but not to the sort of reckless violence that seems to be plaguing the world today. I find the first much preferable to the second.

His speech, instead of a plea for non-violence, would better be described as a plea for a shifting of policy towards the thinking side - almost always a good thing. Though, of course, it is most likely a load of rhetoric, whatever his point was. The paths of the Arab leaders aren't going to change, and neither are the policies of the US. Hence, more terrorism, extremism, and bigotry is on the way.

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. His plea was to organize and counterattack

but on every level not just military.

It was a rallying cry for world war.

[Darranar]

35. No it wasn't...

it was a cry for re-making the Muslim world into a worl power - something that, IMO, is likely to happen if the Muslims do exactly what he suggested. The problems with his speech were hisn generalizations about Jews and Europeans and his failure to recognize the fact that throwing off their oppressors meant not only rebuking the USA but also throwing out many of the US-supported tyrants that were present at his speech.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Not A, THE World Power.

Again, scary that so many in the Muslim world agree to this. Maybe the non_Muslim world needs a similar conference.

[Darranar]

37. Uh, no...

he wanted to empower the Muslim world. He never said anything about eliminating everyone else, only about stopping their oppressors.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Their oppressors

Seem to include pretty much everybody else, so again it's THE not A world power.

[Darranar]

39. Throwing off one's oppressors does not mean destroying them...

when the slaves were freed after the civil war, were the whites who had enslaved and oppressed them slaughtered?

I admit that there were parts of his speech that went too far; he seems to be advocating a bit too much.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. A bit too much?

Like I said before, it's time for the non-Muslim nations to start holding meetings to deal with a threat like this.

[Darranar]

50. This "threat" doesn't exist...

if you looked at actions and not words, perhaps you would better understand this fact.

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. It sure as hell does

No, not a current threat from many Muslims, but a worldwide organized threat by the fringe elements of Islam does indeed pose a threat to all non-Muslim nations.

[Darranar]

53. well, we can argue about how much of a threat it actually poses...

but that's not the point.

The threat of the Muslim nations joining together against everyone else is nil.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. You mean like OPEC?

Which originally was almost entirely Muslim/Arab nations?

People learn. Nations learn.

[Darranar]

55. OPEC has nothing but a bit of economic power...

there currently exists a balance of power in the middle East, and the Arabs won't dare tip it, for fear of being the next targts in the war on whoever Bush* dislikes or whoever inconvieniences corporate interests.

OPEC actually doesn't have much power; if it did, the world would be a different place.

Do you think we should start attacking nations that band together for their own benefit?

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. You said the threat was nil

I proved that you are already wrong.

Power changes over time. Perhaps you are too young to recall the oil crisis. I am not. I remember how OPEC wielded a great deal of power.

Separately, the Muslim nations would have to fear the U.S. Together much less so.

I am not saying we have to attack anyone. But if they are making a major power play, it impacts everyone else. We need to be prepared.

[Darranar]

57. If we reduced our dependence on oil...

OPEC wouldn't matter much, would it?

No oil eembargo can last so long. The regimes need the money.

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. I agree in part

Yes, let's reduce our need for oil. I am all for that. But they have tons of money and could survive for a while without selling if it stuck it to the man.

[Darranar]

59. But not for too long...

in essence, an embargo on us is an embargo on them...

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. I think you are too trusting

In a region where people regularly blow themselves up to get at their enemies, it is silly to assume governments won't harm themselves to do the same.

[sushi]

64. You are such a pessimist, Muddle

and forever on the warpath. It doesn't have to be "us" or "them."
What should happen is that we have good relations with everybody, but the US foreign policy of trying to dominate by bullying and bribing, makes it practically impossible.

Another thing that is necessary and should happen is for the West, which is only 13% of the world's population, and specifically the US, to reduce its consumption of the world's resources!

And what's wrong with OPEC? It stops the price of gas going too high or too low. It's done in other industries.

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. Again, I didn't write the damn speech

I am not the one calling for 1.3 billion Muslims to work together, build their forces and counterattack.

It has to be "us" or "them" when they make it so.

Well, I'm for reducing oil consumption by coming up with alternative energy. The net result of that will still probably be a major war. How will oil-producing nations like it if America creates cheaper hydrogen power and puts their economies out of business?

OPEC was proof of Muslim nations working together.

[sushi]

69. You're overreacting

I like people who speak their minds, instead of beating around the bush. Mahathir is not making it "us" or "them." You are! All he wants is for his fellow Muslims to progress. What's wrong with that?

And why shouldn't they work together. The European nations are also working together - well, they're trying to. Britain, Sweden, and Denmark haven't accepted the Euro yet. It will take time. Btw, not all OPEC members are Muslim countries.

As for Muslim nations working together, that will take time too, a long time I think, because although they are all Muslims there are big differences. The Muslims of the Middle East are different from the Muslims in Southeast Asia, for example. I suspect that Washington will try to benefit from a divide and conquer policy. If the Muslim countries are silly enough to let the US get away with it that is their problem.

The oil-producing Muslim nations are all well aware that their oil won't last forever. They're not stupid. They have made wise investments in the West.
If America creates cheaper hydrogen power (I hope it's soon!) we will all welcome it, and the oil-producing nations will have to sell their oil cheaply, so we all benefit. That's something to look forward to.

Whether there will be war depends on the leaders. IMO, some current leaders need replacing. I certainly don't think we are safer now.

[Muddleoftheroad]

72. Speaking his mind

Oh he was certainly speaking his mind. I'm glad of it actually. I like my enemies to come right at me and not skulk around and stab me in the back.

He doesn't just want Muslim progress. He wants to build and then counterattack. It's a classic military strategy, regroup, become stronger and then go at your enemies full bore.

European nations are working together because of geography. He is proposing a worldwide religious alliance. If you don't see that as a threat, then you are being naive.

OPEC was basically an Arab/Muslim entity when it slammed the West in the '70s. It was an example. Nothing more.

I doubt seriously that the oil-producing nations would welcome an end to their monopoly and an end to their economies. Maybe they made investments that were wise, but there is not much else going for their nations other than oil wealth.

As for war, there is always war. What concerns me is a call for a worldwide religious war. We haven't seen that since the crusades and that was long before modern weapons.

[sushi]

73. Seems to me

that you prefer Malaysia and other "developing nations" to stay "backward" so that they're not a "threat" to the West, so that Christianity "rules." We have no right to demand that. Besides, they're not listening. Why should they!

The West has occupied, often ruthlessly, and for a long time, so many countries that are now called "developing nations," or "The Third World." Colonialism is over. We have no right to demand that they don't assert themselves. We just have to learn to live together, because we own the world together. It shouldn't be a confrontation. We need leaders to lead us to live together peacefully with people who are "different." A few of the current leaders are not fit for that role!

You see it as a threat because you want to make it a threat. You seem to think that there is a military solution to everything. The US has troops stationed in 120(?) countries around the world. If that is for self-defense please explain it to me. Many countries see it as trying to dominate others, so that you can keep the American lifestyle. I could go on and ask which Americans' lifestyle, the corporate guys or those who have no health insurance?

You call me naive, but I'm forward-thinking. You can't push them off the planet or stop them from studying to progress. You can't kill 1.3 billion people, or is that what you would like to do? If you're a Christian you certainly don't sound like one.

Of course the oil-producing nations won't welcome their oil running out, but they know it's coming, and will deal with it. I understand the UAE has already gone into tourism in a big way. Tourism makes pots of money - ask the tiny, city state of Singapore.

As for a religious war - there is already a kind of religious "war" going on. Think of all the missionaries who are in third world countries posing as teachers, aid workers, etc. trying to convert Muslims, and think of all the Muslim families who demand that Christian men who want to marry their daughters convert to Islam.
My own brother converted to Islam to marry a Muslim girl - it didn't last long, they divorced, and now he takes their two daughters to church!

Btw, you worry about Mahathir and not about Robertson and Fallwell?
Mahathir is "a secular," the other two are fundamentalists!

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. Wow, everybody wants to put words in my mouth

I think the more the world develops and advances is generally good for everybody. And I have never called for the rule of Christianity. In fact I don't see any organized attempt by "Christian" nations to work together. But I do see an organized attempt by Muslim nations to do that.

I agree we need to live together. Perhaps you ought to tell Mahithir that.

I see it as a threat because that is exactly what it is. Walks like a duck, wants to build a military like a duck, wants to counterattack like a duck, hates Jews like a duck, etc. And I never called for a military solution to this. But the West better wake up. If the Muslim nations are choosing teams, we better be able to do the same. Wars have a nasty way of choosing you whether you want them to or not.

The U.S. is the world's only remaining superpower. I see very few instances of people calling for us to pull troops out. Instead I see people wanting us to put troops in, like Liberia or Eastern Europe. Personally, I'd be happy to bring some of them home.

You endlessly prattle about me wanting to kill the Muslims. Since I don't want to do so, it's an awful waste of breath.

What is happeneing is that there is big talk of a worldwide political/social/economic/military/religious alliance among a group that doesn't much like us or the rest of the West. That gives me a lot more than pause, but it doesn't mean we go charging in and lay waste to, what, 50 countries?

I only hope your optimistic view of the changeover from oil is correct. I don't think history would be on your side. Nations in power tend to not give it up willingly. Oil is power. Soon that might not be the case.

So it's religious war to try and voluntarily convert people? I don't think so. I think it's free choice -- any direction. Christian to Muslim, Muslim to Jew, Hindu to Christian, Everybody to atheist. As long as it's voluntary, who cares? Well, the Muslim nations that don't much like it. Remember how the Taliban treated the missionaries prior to the war?

I know lots of religious converts. Most are former Christians who married into the Jewish community. They didn't care and their new spouses did. I see nothing wrong with people making such free choices. I only see it as a problem when such choice is prevented or mandated.

I worry about Mahithir because he is a national leader calling on a worldwide organization of Muslims. He wasn't much rebuked for his insanity, he was applauded. The folks who gave the applause are not our friends.

[sushi]

97. It's only human

to want to "get rid" of people you feel threatened by. Admit it, you'd rather they went away before they threaten you. Scary, isn't it, but this is what the West has done to them for a very long time!
Occupy their countries, and now that they're independent, try to dominate them, and own them economically.

Since we can't "get rid" of them, we have to learn to live with them.
Christians do "rule," Muddle, and you know it. It's totally understandable that the Muslims want to have their turn. And they have big families, while in the Western world couples don't even replace themselves. I understand that the more people progress the smaller their families, so we should want them to progress, and people in the West should have more children.

Missionaries and Muslim religious leaders are definitely competing, who can convert more people. It IS a kind of war. Yes, I do remember the Taliban and missionaries who denied they were missionaries. I vaguely remember reading an article about how the missionaries work. Before the "pagans" knew what's happening they've been christened. Something like that.

I agree with you (never thought this could happen!) that people should be free to choose their religion, but very religious people, on both sides, are always trying to convert others.

Finally, Dr Mahathir is far from insane, and, if you stop and think, there's nothing wrong with wanting Muslims to study, get very smart, and unite. Not that it's going to happpen anytime soon, and they don't have to unite to cause damage. Look at 9/11 and Bali, etc.

To avoid getting a taste of its own medecine, the West must make big changes, like fighting poverty and diseases (much more effective than military attacks), and reducing its consumption of the world's resources, IOW, there should be more sharing and caring.

PS
I prefer nice Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc., to crummy Christians!!!

[Violet_Crumble]

74. OPEC had nothing to do with religion...

So you didn't prove anything, Muddle...

If the predominant religion of a nation is such an issue for you, then wouldn't that make the WTO and the IMF non-Muslim organisations that have been making major power plays for a long, long time?

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. OPEC

At the time OPECE stuck it to the West, it was mostly an Arab and, by consequence, Muslim group.

I only care about the religion of nations when they are talking about banding together based on that and going after their enemies.

[Violet_Crumble]

82. Again, OPEC had nothing to do with religion...

Obviously by talking about OPEC as a Muslim group, you do care about the religions of nations even when they're not talking about banding together based on religion and going after their 'enemies'. OPEC had about as much to do with religion as the IMF, World Bank, and OECD do. The formation of OPEC sounds like it had to do with oil-producing nations in a region joining together because they're all oil-producers. Are you similarly obsessed with the religious make-up of nations that form other regional groupings, or is it just Muslims?

Violet...

[bluesoul]

83. oh my

Obviously it's a problem if Muslims join together and form a powerful association, but when Christian nations do it, it's something completely different. Ah..:eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

84. De facto

Whether or not it had something to do with religion, it still showed Muslim nations working together. Since I was told that won't happen, I used it as an example. When OPEC tangled with the West in '70s, it was clearly the Arab world doing so.

[Violet_Crumble]

86. So it's okay for the Christian nations to work together?

Seeing as how you appear to be confirming that you think religious make-up of a nation is of the utmost importance and puts regional economic interests in the shade, I assume you have the same problem with Christian nations working together in groups such as the OECD, World Bank etc? If not, why not?

The Arab world is NOT the Muslim world, Muddle. You seem to interchange them frequently, and they are not the same thing at all...


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

87. At issue

Is the international cooperation of a group of nations based on religion, not other reasons.

No the Arab world is not the Muslim world. Iran for instance isn't truly Arab but is Muslim. Pakistan isn't vaguely Arab, but is massively Muslim, etc.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. If that's what's at issue...

...then OPEC is not an example. Do you agree?


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

93. It was at the time

nt

[Violet_Crumble]

94. No, it wasn't...

You claimed what was at issue was the international cooperation of a group of nations based on religion, not other reasons. OPEC was formed for other reasons, not religious ones. Also, if you knew anything at all about OPEC, you'd know Venezuela was a founding member. Seeing yr so focused on the religious make-up of a nation rather than its economic interests, I'm interested to see how you can work a country that's 96% Roman Catholic into yr theory that OPEC was formed as a group of those darn pesky Muslim nations based on religion to obviously try to take over the world ;)

Violet...

[number6]

67. the old us against them bit...

get that one guy to chair the meeting ...wats his name
Lt. Gen. Boykin

[rini]

61. that was funny

I remember a history teacher of mine who said "Hitler just went a bit overboard."

[sushi]

48. Thinking non-Muslims

are also for Muslims progressing. Mahathir is a very educated man, a doctor who went into politics. Under his leadership Malaysia has come a VERY long way. Have you ever been there?

For the umpteenth time, Muslims are like you and me, normal people. It's just the extremists among them who are making a lot of noise at the moment. Don't forget there are extremist Christians too. The only thing Muslims have that we don't is suicide bombers! Maybe the non-Muslim world needs suicide bombers. That should stop the nonsense going on now.

[sushi]

45. You are correct

Mahathir would love to see the Muslims become a world power, and it will happen if they do as he suggests. Less religion, more science.
There is nothing wrong with his thinking that 1.3 billion people, that is one sixth of the world's population, can get there. It's really up to them.

FYI, my brother-in-law is a Muslim, one of four brothers, two engineers, one geologist, and one architect. Brilliant, educated, successful, well-read and well-travelled, multi-lingual guys.
When I think of many ignorant Westerners thinking "oh, a Muslim... terrorist," it really makes me laugh. It also makes me think of the Christian priests who are pedophiles.

[sushi]

44. Stop it, Muddle

Your aggressive side is talking again.

[sushi]

47. Wrong!

It wasn't a rallying cry for world war. Not that kind of war. He just wants Muslims to get away from religious books and study science.
Anyway, you should be happy that Mahathir will go soon. His deputy, Badawi, who will replace him, is less outspoken. More of a diplomat, but if he didn't agree with Mahathir he wouldn't have become deputy!

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. War

It was a rallying cry for total war -- economic, political, social, scientific and indeed military.

That's enough for me to see the writing on the wall.

And whether he is outspoken or not, Mahathir received a lot of support.

[sushi]

68. Yes, he has a lot of support

from Muslims AND non-Muslims.

As a non-Muslim I much prefer Muslims to study science and become smart moderates instead of concentrating on religion only and possibly becoming extremists, don't you? It isn't fair for you to want them to stay backward so you don't feel threatened! Anyway, it won't happen. They are progressing. The world is changing. The US is the strongest nation on earth. What does it take for you to feel safe?

Okay, Dr Mahathir's speech wasn't very diplomatic, but what is wrong with him encouraging his fellow Muslims to study science? As for his dislike of the Jews, well, why do you expect him to feel guilty about what the Jews went through at the hands of Hitler? I can understand the Germans of today feeling guilty, but, imho, even they shouldn't feel guilty anymore, because it wasn't them that did the bad things, but the Germans of decades ago, who are now gone.

You should visit Malaysia. Lovely place with very friendly people, and nice food. The West should look forward to people in developing nations progressing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

80. Study

Studying science is great unless you are doing so to make war, which is certainly what he is advocating.

I can't believe so many here want to give this asshole a pass on being a card-carrying bigot who wants war with Jews because they are Jews.

[sushi]

96. You said

"Studying science is great unless you are doing so to make war, which is certainly what he is advocating."

In that case what do you think of Americans who have used their knowledge of science to make all these fancy weaponry and use it to bully and attack weak nations? Didn't Israel kind of advocate the invasion of Iraq?

Dr Mahathir doesn't want war with Jews because they are Jews. That's a very bad way to put it. He is against the West dominating weak, developing nations. I also think he can't forget Malaysia's currency badly devalued by the actions of a Jew, and he sees the US backing the Jews against the Palestinians, his fellow Muslims.
Pretend you're a (Malaysian) Muslim for a minute, and you will understand him! I usually do that, put myself in another person's place and see what I then think. Before you say it, yes, I have pretended to be a Jew, living in Israel!

[sushi]

43. I have been reading

Mahathir's speeches for quite some time. He is encouraging the Muslims to study and progress to rival Western knowledge, and they can, if they stop spending so much time on religious stuff. He was very upset when George(?) Soros, who is a Jew(?), caused the Ringgit (Malaysia's currency) to fall. Mahathir can't stand Westerners manipulating the East. Can you blame him?

A former Australian PM once called Mahathir 'recalcitrant.' Westerners can't stand, are not used to, Easterners speaking their minds. They prefer the usual Eastern attitude, as displayed by Indonesia's President Megawati Sukarno, who usually smiles politely, but you have no idea whether she agrees with you or not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. I read it all and took notes if you bother to look at the other thread

nt

[bluesoul]

3. War?

What war do you have in mind? Muslims vs Jews/Christians? Are we back to that again? Or did you have something else in mind and I am going the wrong direction? :shrug:

[sushi]

46. The "war" everybody is talking about

is already "on," thanks to the extremists on BOTH(!) sides. It's totally unnecessary. There is no need for one to defeat the other. There should be room for everybody, minus the extremists on BOTH sides.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Lt. Gen. William Boykin said that it is a war, and...

that his Gawd is bigger than anyone else's.

Rather than wringing our hands in despair, perhaps we should take a closer look at how our blind obedience to political and religious ideology makes us support policies that, in addition to perpetuating injustice, feed the anti-Semitism beast.

As an American, I have long advocated a de-coupling of US foreign policy from supporting Israeli interests in the region. We must follow what is in our national interests which are at odds with Israel's interests. The US should stop playing the role of colonial power in the Middle East, and we should withdraw altogether from the region.

As a Marxist, I accept Lenin's words that "religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man."

[rini]

9. This is a war of cultures, not religion.

Perhaps of centuries may be a better way of putting it.

[Darranar]

11. What in the world?

if you look at it that way...

Which culture is more depraved? The one that was slaughtering its own people in religious wars, or the one that was advanced in the arts and sciences and practiced tolerance?

Which culture was more advanced? The one that was inventing and learning and building and designing, or the one that was stuck in the Dark Ages due to the religious power's fear of learning?

Explain it away...

[rini]

18. come out of the 12th C please

[Darranar]

25. So?

What new things do I see now?

I see corruption and I see intolerance in the Arab world - and I look at the US, and see it there too.

But no, some say! We are a democracy, they cry!

American democracy died the moment SCOTUS legally affirmed Bush's coup. It had been dying long before then.

Pragmatically, I cannot agree with Nader. The Democrats are currently the best means to the ends I wish for. However, the truth is that he was somewhat right. The opposition to the corporate establishment has been fading as elemnets become part of the corporate establishment.

It wasn't a Republican administration that brought us NAFTA. it wasn't a Republican Administration that kept Iraqi sanctions throughout eight years.

Admittantly, Clinton was a fantastic president. The years of peace and prosperity he brought were needed, and his policies managed to turn back some of the junk that had been pumped into our society by such fools as Reagan and Bush. That is why the Right hated him.

But all this is just backround. it isn't the point.

The truth is very simple; however much the illusion stands, the US is not much better than those Arab countries you and I deplore. In some areas, the US is worse.

I don't see multinational corporations based in Saudi Arabia inflicting slavery on thousands of workers across the world. I don't see Iran inflciting sanctions on another country and doing little as the people within starve. I don't see Egypt going on a war against someone's culture.

Addmittantly, had they had the power to do such things, they perhaps would. But their people don't seem to believe that they're a bunch of angels.

Call me anti-American. I've heard it all already. Demonize me, accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist, do as you wish. It won't change the facts.

[rini]

62. actually

I wish you to go live, for a year or three, in those Arab countries you so adore, Saudi, Iran, Syria. Of course, if you really are Jewish, you would not be allowed there to begin with, and if by some chance you were allowed in, if you publicly disagree with any of their policies you would die! Not prison but death. But of course they are so much better than the US. Naivte goes so far and then it's wake-up time.

[bluesoul]

63. Real life experience

Hey I lived in Iraq for 4 years (1982-1986) and I have only pleasant memories of the time. I don't remember any of us Europeans, Christians, Jews, atheists, non-believers, Americans, westerners had ANY trouble whatsoever with the locals. Funny, that Arab "threat" and "hostility" towards non-Muslims. I wouldn't have been alive today if it is as horrible as you want it to look like..

[Darranar]

66. Okay...

first you doubt that i'm jewish. Next you ignore every point I've made.

Just so you can prove your point about how islamic culture is so evil?

[sushi]

70. You're wrong, Rini

I have lived in an Arab country, for seven years. Loved it very much! So much to see and experience and absorb. No, I didn't have to cover up - I understand Arab women have good skin because of it.

Like Scott Ritter, I fell in love with the desert. I used to stop at the supermarket after tennis, in my tennis clothes. Never had a problem. Okay, some (Arab) men will try to pick you up, but that happens everywhere. If you love shopping, they have beautiful malls
with imports from everywhere, and most of the food is also imported from all over the world, but I used to pick dates fresh from the date palm!

Only in Saudi Arabia is it very restrictive, but that will change in a generation or two! As long as you practice "When in Rome.......," you should be fine everywhere.

So many people in the West have a very low opinion of the Middle East, because they're ignorant. You find the same kind of people in Arab countries as in every other country. Stupid ones, educated ones, religious, modern, fashionable, loud, polite, rude ones, good-looking ones and ugly ones, those who live in the past and forward-thinking ones, etc. etc.
All you read about and see on TV are the extremists. Believe me, that is not the whole story.

If all countries become "like the West," the world would become boring and travel not much fun.

[rini]

78. Actually I'm not

I was refused a job for which I was very well qualified in Yemen because I refused to state atheist when asked to put down religion. My friend in Yemen had to do some fast talking when a sheik offerred 10 camels for his wife. Another friend and his wife had to be locked in the bathroom of a plane that did not list them as passengers because they are Jewish. My Iraqui friend told me stories about why she did not want to return to Iraq and it had to do with NO RIGHTS for her or her daughter and Iraq is a fairly modern country as far a women's rights go.

You may be ignorant of the Middle East outside of the westerners compounds or a few malls, I am not. Actually that statement is not a put down, I know so many Americans who lived in South America and had no idea of the real people and their problems. They only knew the wealthy, or the servants who on pain of being fired said nothing. I've made some wonderful friends over the years, and know quite a bit about the people in various countries. Let me tell you something. As a whole most Arabs are wonderful people, fun and smart and a joy to be with. Their greatest resentment was against Christians who tried to convert them. There was a lot of anger there. Much more than against Jews.

Of course Iran is not an Arabic country, I was talking about Muslim countries as a whole.

[Violet_Crumble]

85. It seems you are...

The first tip-off for me was that you ignored where Sushi pointed out that they'd seen and experienced a lot in the Arab nation they lived in for seven years, and you respond by telling them they haven't seen life outside a Western compound. Strange, seeing how they'd also said they'd seen the desert...

The second was that if someone did indeed tell you that about Iraqi women, they were pulling yr leg big-time. Having no rights had zero to do with their gender, and everything to do with Iraq having been a SECULAR dictatorship. There was no gender bias when it came to denying rights to Iraqis....

Another reason I'm highly doubtful of yr claims in this post is I just looked at a visa application form for Yemen and they don't ask for a persons religion. Maybe you could point it out to me where you had to answer a question about religion on the application? http://www.travisa.com/Yemen/yemen_visa_form.htm And don't try and tell me you were asked verbally. I've got some experience with visa applications and they don't work like that...

Violet...

[rini]

89. Bless your heart

#1 who said anything about a visa, it never got that far
#2. hate to be the one to break it to you, the mid east is mostly desert and trips are always organized to take people there for a tour/picnic
#3. So my Iraqi friend who was desparate to stay was lying.......actually you know her country and the laws there so much better than she does. What I think of you and your analysis can't be written or spoken

[bluesoul]

90. Iraq

Well Rini, I lived in Iraq for 4 years and all I can say is that Violet is right ;)

[Violet_Crumble]

95. Gawd bless yr heart too, rini...

Gotta be quick. Got a date with the telly in a minute...

#1 You claimed Arab nations don't allow people in if they're Jewish. So what has yr anecdotal story got to do with that?

#2 Sushi confirmed in a later post that they'd not been stuck in some Western compound the entire time....

#3 If yr Iraqi friend indeed made that claim, then yes, she was full of shit. Of course if there were these laws that discriminated against and persecuted people based on their gender, where's a link to them? I'd hazard a guess that they don't exist because if they had, women's groups would have been all over them the same way they have been about the mistreatment of women in other countries....

Why can't what you think of me and my analysis be written or spoken? Is it that it would involve copious amounts of badly spelt insults? Damn, I was so looking forward to trying to get out a halfway sincere-sounding 'ouch!' ;)

Violet...

[sushi]

91. I think we can agree

that there's all kinds in every country! I assure you, Rini, I'm certainly not "ignorant of the Middle East outside of the westerners." I didn't exactly lead a "separate life" from the locals. I had friends among the locals, went to their weddings, my Arabic teacher was Arabic, my bridge friend was Arabic, I had the wife of an Arab among my tennis friends, etc. I've also read a whole lot of books about the Middle East and am still buying them! I'm just disappointed that I only read the unkind stuff about the Middle East here. I just had to point out that the people celebrating suicide bombing on TV is not the whole story of the Arabs.

I also know quite a few Americans who lived in the Middle East and preferred to stay separate - they weren't in the least interested in the local culture.

Have to go now. Might add to my post later.




:)

[rini]

92. In another posting

I mentioned that as well. How much I liked my Arab and Iranian friends. They were often guests in our home and we had some wonderful discussions about everything. It was an Iranian, as a matter of fact who saved my son's life when he almost drowned, he never hesitated. Oddly enough I had to defend Christians because as a group, they were extremely disliked because they try to convert people.

later

[Violet_Crumble]

75. Iran's not an Arab country...

And I think you got it wrong when you claimed those three countries don't allow people in if they're Jewish. I know people who've worked in Saudi Arabia and they never mentioned being asked if they were Jewish before they left to work there...

Violet...

[bluesoul]

12. Cultures?

War of cultures? I thought that was the textbook of neocons and PNAC types. I never thought I would hear it here, but what do you know...

[Darranar]

13. Imperialism and arrogance snakes its way everywhere.

n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Don't look at me

I didn't give the speech. Look to those who support it.

[Equinox]

79. Muddleoftheroad.....

to paraphrase:

I am shocked that after...years of war (following a worldwide Holocaust) that some Malaysians have developed bigoted attitudes toward their neighbors. Maybe if so many of their neighbors didn't hate them, that would be surprising.

Still it is sad.

Edit: Sound Familiar?

[cliss]

4. uh-oh.... this is not good...

I thought the Bushkids felt they could count on the Indonesia as "good muslims" versus "bad muslims" in the Middle East. After all, there are 1.5 billion muslims in the world. Compare that with the US 330 million. That's about 4 muslims to every 1 american. Don't fight battles you can't win. Conquer and divide if you must.

To the muslims, however, we are still the enemy. Our policies are clearly hostile to muslims, no matter how much we sugar-coat them.

[sushi]

71. "To the muslims, however, we are still the enemy."

You forgot one word. To the EXTREMIST Muslim we are the enemy. But then the moderate Muslims are also their enemies.

US foreign policy is hostile to Muslims AND non-Muslims of many other countries. No, the US can't count on Indonesians to be "good Muslims." Opinion of the US, especially the current leadership, in Indonesia is very low!

[DulceDecorum]

77. God Works in Really, Really Mysterious Ways

.......All of the above is of course subject to serious reconsideration if it should ever turn out that Boykin and Bush actually have been channeling God. While waiting, though, I wrote this poem.

How odd of God
To choose to use
Boykin and Bush
To air His Views.


— by PFC Jerome H. “Jerry” Doolittle (USA, ret.)
http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/000765.html#000765

[DulceDecorum]

5. Equal and opposite reaction

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended a US general who portrayed the war on terrorism in talks to church groups as a spiritual battle by Christianity against Satan.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031016/pl_afp/us_iraq_general_031016172420

Rumsfeld on Thursday declined to criticize Boykin's remarks and praised the three-star general's military record, and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he did not think Boykin broke any rules.
NBC News this week broadcast videotapes of Boykin, an evangelical Christian, giving speeches while wearing his Army uniform at Christian functions around the country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42174-2003Oct17?language=printer

Boykin's church speeches, first reported by NBC News and the Los Angeles Times, cast the war on terrorism as a religious battle between Christians and the forces of evil.
Appearing in dress uniform before a religious group in Oregon in June, Boykin said Islamic extremists hate the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian. ... And the enemy is a guy named Satan."
Rumsfeld on Thursday repeated the Bush administration position that the war on terrorism is not a war against Islam but against people "who have tried to hijack a religion."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=6&u=/ap/20031016/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/general_religious_views

And speaking of hijacking a religion:
Gen Boykin has repeatedly told Christian groups and prayer meetings that President George W Bush was chosen by God to lead the global fight against Satan.
He told one gathering: "Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."
In January, he told Baptists in Florida about a victory over a Muslim warlord in Somalia, who had boasted that Allah would protect him from American capture. "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real god and his was an idol," Gen Boykin said.
He also emerged from the conflict with a photograph of the Somalian capital Mogadishu bearing a strange dark mark. He has said this showed "the principalities of darkness. . . a demonic presence in that city that God revealed to me as the enemy".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/17/wboyk17.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/17/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=15391

Sympathy for the Muslims' plight must not be confused with the acceptance of racism. Most Muslims have indeed been shoddily treated — by their own leaders, who gather at feckless summit meetings instead of offering their people what they most need: human rights, education and democracy.
The European Union was asked to include a condemnation of Mr. Mahathir's speech in its statement yesterday ending its own summit. It chose not to, adding a worry that displays of anti-Semitism are being met with inexcusable nonchalance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/18/opinion/18SAT2.html?ex=1067494807&ei=1&en=9f4f923c154af6af

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
-- Isaac Newton

[rini]

6. that is it exactly

the Czars did it also. Treat your own people like dirt and then blame the poverty, lack of education, etc on the Jews.the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Darranar]

10. What if the people scapegoated...

are actually responsible in part for the regime? Not talking about Jews here; I'm talking about the US and the Western world as a whole.

[bluesoul]

7. Amen

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Very true, as the above case proves...