Accepting the reality of Islamic anti-Semitism

[drdon326]

http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ViewsPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El2899&enZone=Views&enVersion=0&



Jews have known about Islamic anti-Semitism for decades: Saudi royals routinely hand out The Protocols to visitors of the Kingdom; the Syrian Defense Minister Mustapha Tlass published a book offering "evidence" Jews use blood to make matza. Throughout the Oslo years, the Palestinian Authority taught children that Jews are less than human, have no right to self-determination, and deserve to be killed. Egypt's government-controlled television last year aired a series based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It was broadcast throughout the Islamic world. The Saudis fund the teaching of Jew-hatred in Wahabi mosques and schools throughout the Islamic world.

The increasing Muslim immigration to Europe and America raises concerns that some of the new arrivals will bring with them the culture of anti-Semitism so prevalent in their home countries.

Indeed, the Jews of Europe, now dwarfed by the Muslim immigrants, are under significant stress. Synagogues and cemeteries and Jews themselves are attacked. Some Jews in France are contemplating leaving their country.

Even in America, the Washington Post revealed that Muslim schools in Virginia teach that Judgment Day will come when Muslims kill Jews and Christians. Steven Emerson has secretly filmed meetings in several American cities where Muslim leaders call for people here to kill the Jews.

The problem of Islamic anti-Semitism is one that the Jewish community has largely ignored over the past decade, although it recently has been getting more attention.

...................................................................

[Trajan]

1. Accepting the reality of Semitic Anti-Islamicism ...

Oh .... but that would be another thread ....

[rini]

3. that thrread would be

"Fairy Tales and other Myths"

[drdon326]

5. You notice....

its the "they do it too" syndrome.

of course, empty words with no proof.

[bluesoul]

7. Hold on

You mean to say there is not Anti-Islamism around the world? Good morning!

[Jim Sagle]

8. and a very lame one at that.

[rini]

2. learned hatred

"Hatred of Jews is widespread throughout the Muslim world. It is taught in the schools and preached in the mosques. Cartoons in Muslim newspapers routinely portray Jews in blatantly anti-Semitic terms."
a June 2002 interview on Saudi TV with a 3-year-old girl named Basmallah, made available by the Middle East Media and Research Institute:

Anchor: Basmallah, are you familiar with the Jews?
Basmallah: Yes.
Anchor: Do you like them?
Basmallah: No.
Anchor: Why don't you like them?
Basmallah: Because . . .
Anchor: Because they are what?
Basmallah: They're apes and pigs.
Anchor: Because they are apes and pigs. Who said they are so?
Basmallah: Our God.
Anchor: Where did he say this?
Basmallah: In the Koran.

The little girl is wrong about the Koran, but her words show that, contrary to Rice's analysis, Muslim anti-Semitism extends even to the youngest children.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1294#comment

http://www.imra.org.il/ check this out as well.

[Trajan]

6. Anyone who would promote the virulently anti arab Daniel Pipes ...

In DU ......

Tsk Tsk .....

The Democratic Party and most liberals and progressives support the rights of both arab and jew to live in peace and dignity .... equally ...

Not that you would understand that .....

[drdon326]

9. Well, rest assured....

I support the rights of both arab and jew to live in peace and dignity .... equally ...

but i dont support anti-semitism and its supporters.

[Gimel]

92. Although it matches some anti-Israel

content that was posted at one time or another, one shouldn't become obsessed with this stuff. It may be actual, or it may be a set-up. I'm not sure, so I won't get overly antagonistic about it.

We know that anti-semitism has increased since 9/11. It cannot be denied or ignored. Anti-semitic incidents surface on the streets of cities in Europe. Desecration of graves, etc.

Ignoring the problem is not good either. There is obvious hatred, and some of it is taught to the children. This makes it particularly difficult to expect peace and good relations between the two people in the next generation.

[edzontar]

71. Daniel Pipes is a bigot, Islam-hater and Repuke Neocon...

Of the very WORST sort.

He hates Democrats and the DP too.

Why do you post his swill here?

[drdon326]

72. Whats "DP"?

.

[edzontar]

73. The Democratic Party.....

Pipes is a Puke.

A really vicious, far-right, fascistic, Neocon, bushoid Repuke.

Get it?

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[edzontar]

75. It is sad, really, that such attitudes can flourish....

On a Democratic Party board.

Bigotry, hate, oppression, terrorism, murder, exploitation--these are the things we should oppose.

What we should try to support is understanding, reconciliation, and peace.

I am sick of the anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, Kill-them-ALL, guilt by association posts that are poisoning this site.

"You are either with us or against us"--that is the kind of thing i expect from Bush-droids.

NOT from Democrats, progressives, liberals, and people of good will.

I cast these words into the wind.....

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. Hmmm awful short list there

What about anti-Israel, anti-Semitic posts? Do you have problems with them as well or just anti-Muslim posts.

[edzontar]

77. Yes- I DO have a problem with them.

Though it seems to me that Anti-Semitic statements here are usually posted from the lips of various lunatics and fanatics by pro-Israel folks.

Obviously we need to know about this stuff, since these attitudes are, as you rightly observe, a really major problem in this world.

But I fear that many times these are being posted here to be spun for maximum impact by those, such as yourself, who are, shall we say, less than supportive of the Palestinian's right to self-rule, and also to provide justification and excuses for the expansionist and colonialist policies of the present Israeli administration.

I also note that you yourself have, on more than one occasion, crossed the line to defend or at least express "understanding" for anti-Muslim or anti-Palestinian bigotry, and have been known to essentialize "Palestinians" or "Arabs" into a monolithic group in a manner that is just as hateful and unhelpful as the anti-Semitic remarks about "Jews" and "Israel" that you so rightly decry.

So pardon me if I speak out AGAINST Hate (on both sides) TERROR (on both sides) and REPRESSION (mostly on one side)....

[GabysPoppy]

78. Excuse me

"Though it seems to me that Anti-Semitic statements here are usually posted from the lips of various lunatics and fanatics by pro-Israel folks."


In the words of young Mr. Darranar, link please.

[edzontar]

80. I found a few....

OK-Here goes:

I was thinking of stuff like this:

Quoting Steyn:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=25492

And these-Magawaty and the leg-brandishers.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=22575

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=23933&mesg_id=23933

[GabysPoppy]

81. Now explain each of the links you provided

You seem to be accusing DrDon of anti-semitic remarks - back them up please.

He has posted three articles and has one facetious comment. You have made a slanderous charge with no basis of fact.

[edzontar]

82. No I'm not...I am saying that DR posted some EXAMPLES of it...

With the obvious intent to point out Anti-Semitic attitudes in the statements of others.

Which DR obviously opposes...DUH!!!

I certainly don't think DR is an Anti-Semite--JEEZ is THAT what you thought!?!!!

I'd say that DRDON is an avid defender of what he/she perceives to be the best interests of Israel.


So let me clarify--I am saying that I don't think there is very much DIRECT expression of Anti-Semitism on this board, by OUR POSTERS


What we get are EXAMPLES of AntiSemitism culled from the news, websites, etc., which are mostly posted by those who want to argue that this form of hatred is a real threat in the world.

WHICH I AGREE WITH!

OK?

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. Nice personal attack

I understand lots of things in the world, it doesn't mean I condone them. I understand gangbangers on the streets of our cities selling drugs and destroying their own people. I understand hatred and bigotry on both sides of the coin. Again, I don't condone it.

Let's be honest, both sides here try and post things that support their own arguments. Is that a surprise?

Now a major correction to your comment: "But I fear that many times these are being posted here to be spun for maximum impact by those, such as yourself, who are, shall we say, less than supportive of the Palestinian's right to self-rule, and also to provide justification and excuses for the expansionist and colonialist policies of the present Israeli administration."

Actually, I am a big time supporter of Palestinian self rule and, as has been discussed her before, I don't support a limited state. However, there is a price entering the community of nations, and that is acting like you belong there. If the PA will do that and shut down the terrorists, then they will gain themselves a nation.

[edzontar]

83. I don't get how this is a PERSONAL attack.....

I am criticizing what I interpret as your position on the issue.

Nothing personal intended.

Really.

[The Magistrate]

84. To Be Clear, Mr. Zontar

The practice of placing before us the extremer views of the opposing side is hardly confined to Dr. Don, or to "Team Israel" in these precincts. Mr. Fatwa in particular used to frequently provide connections to the National News, and more extreme publications than even that, to put before us choice nuggets of outrageous comment from the Israeli and Jewish right. It did not occur to anyone to charge that in doing this, he was attempting to foster Anti-Semitic feelings, and there seems to me no reason to charge Dr. Don with either displaying or promoting hatred of Arabs or Islam when he places before us the comments of extremists among them. These people are an unfortunate and influential part of the problem, and it has always seemed to me that a real service is done by exposing their views.

[edzontar]

85. I didn't mean to imply anything of the sort....

I was really just trying to point out that most of the really bad stuff I've read here was thrird-person, insane stuff like the vivious remarks out of Maylasia.

I consider drdon to be an avid opponent of antisemitism--and hardly a practioner of it--as was suggested, by honest mistake, above.

NOR I am acusing of him of being anti-Arab.

I may disagree with some aspects of the so-called Israel-line, but this is a misunderstanding which I have already addressed personally to him.

So have a good night, and hope for peace.

[The Magistrate]

86. We All Hope For Peace, Sir

On that, at least, we are all in agreement here. Mr. Zontar.

[edzontar]

87. Good--and I mean peace, NOT victory for either side.

I mean a genuine, fair, and enforceable peace.

[The Magistrate]

90. Indeed, Sir

A peace of compromise is greatly to be prefered to one imposed by victory.

[edzontar]

91. Right--and so we agree....

I never know what to expect form you, y'know

...except that quirky "Sir" bit...What's THAT all about, if I may be allowed to inquire?

[sushi]

93. Like you

I'm for a peace of compromise, but, I'm afraid, if Hamas gives up arms, which is what Israel demands before it wants to negotiate peace, and the danger of suicide bombings is gone, the kind of state Israel might offer the Palestinians, which I don't think would be anytime soon, if they do it at all, will be very limited, and, obviously, not acceptable.

[The Magistrate]

94. We Might Be In Agreement On The Point You Urge, Ma'am

If it seemed to me that Hamas, by its use of arms, had any ability to prevent any Israeli action today. It does not: by real measures, Hamas has no military capability whatever. Its actions do nothing but preserve in power the most reactionary and expansionist elements of the Israeli polity.

Arab Palestine would be far better served by the concentration of all armed power under the control of the Palestine Authority, the nearest thing to a state apparatus possessed by that people. Complete disarmament of the Palestine Authority is not insisted on as a prior condition for negotiation, though foreswearing the use of such power for attacks aimed at killing Israeli civilians is.

My own view is that it is perfectly possible to talk while fighting, and that that ought to be the course pursued by the legitimate authorities on both sides. As Duke Mantee said to Leslie Howard's wanderer in The Petrified Forest: "You can talk sittin' down: I seen ya doin' it...."

[sushi]

96. Of course

Hamas has no military capability whatever, but if you're a member of Hamas I think you'd also prefer to keep your weapons. Besides, isn't having weapons, like in the US, part of their culture? I'm thinking, for example, that they fire into the air during weddings to celebrate.
I have also often read that Hamas doesn't agree with, and doesn't trust, the PA, and ignore Arafat.

Of course it's possible to talk while fighting, and I remember reading that Arafat is ready to do that, but the Israeli PM avoids negotiations! I want to repeat here that I think Israel's PM doesn't want to talk because talking could lead to an agreement that involves dismantling settlements, as demanded by the roadmap, and that is something that he really doesn't want to do.

Just 'scanned' the papers and will go back to reading them later, but I think I read that Israel has "legitimized" (some) settlements. Not sure what it means.

[The Magistrate]

97. Sharon Certainly Does Not Seem Desirous Of Negotiation, Ma'am

And can be counted on to come up with some objection, no matter what.

You may forgive me, Ma'am, but the comfort of any Hamas member is of no concern to me. The organization must be liquidated, and the sooner, the better it will be for all concerned. Those members of it who insist on maintaining weapons are welcome to bear them to their graves, in my view, and that as speedily as can be contrived. They have done incalculable harm to the legitimate aspirations of the people of Arab Palestine through their murderous and reactionary religiousity.

[sushi]

98. We all want

extremists of any kind to disappear, but they're not cooperating. We should ask ourselves why, and address the reasons. In the Palestinians case, could it be that waiting patiently for a state for decades hasn't helped and this is the reason the extremists among them started these murderous groups.

Are you suggesting we try to convince them that regular silent, peaceful demonstrations is going to give them the kind of state they want? They know that going to the UN isn't much help because Israel ignores the UN, and they also know that the US backs Israel.

I don't know why so many posters still go on about the extremists wanting to drive Israel into the sea. Yes, it is what the extremists among them would like, but they also know, we all know, it can't be done. I heard Hamas' Rantissi admit that himself.

What, in your opinion, is the best way for the Palestinians to get the kind of state that is acceptable to them and not unacceptable to Israel? Thank you.

[The Magistrate]

99. In The Case Of Hamas, Ma'am

There will have to be ample use of violence to liquidate the organization. The only question is whether that violence will be provided by the Israeli military, or the Palestine Authority. The quantity of violence needed will be less if the state of Israel makes certain concessions at the start, noteably by beginning to liquidate the settlements on ground over-run in '67.

The best way for the Palestine Authority to exert influence in the direction of such a development is two-fold. First, to actually begin a program of effective action against Hamas, and other jihadi organizations, and second, to make clear that cash compensation, rather than repatriation, is to be the principal form of settling claims arising from the flight from war in '48. It would be somewhat dangerous for the Palestine Authority to do this, but there is no help for it. Arafat's leadership has been extraordinarily poor, and by focusing on maintaining his own prestige and power, has brought his organization to a damned poor position vis. a vis. Israel, and the more radical elements of Arab Palestine.

The real, most recent mistake, was to launch the current period of active hostilities in the wake of President Clinton's negotiations. This has brought to power, and maintained in power, the rejectionist bloc in Israel, and destroyed any great quantity of sympathy for Arab Palestinians within the Israeli polity. This latter was a potent political force in Israel during the last decade of the recent century. The actions suggested above are the only means by which the electoral hold of the Israeli rejectionist bloc might be broken, and an accommodationist tendency be reconstituted there.

[Muddleoftheroad]

88. Well your misinterpretation was personal

If you had said that you infer I am an ax murderer, that also would be personal.

See above for the rest of my comment about your post which you did not address.

[edzontar]

89. I did not infer any such thing....

I am just questioning your analysis of events, and especially your thesis that the right to self-determination has to be "earned"--we have debated this before.

I can think of lots of countries whose governments or members of their populations have done terrible things-Russia, Germany, China, Britain, USA, etc.

And plenty of resistance movements thta use terorism tactics against occupiers, like the French, Italians etc. under the Nazis, the Vietnamese against the French and the US, Afghans against Russia, Algerians vs. The French, etc, Irish against the Brits, Israeli insurgents against the Brits, etc.

In no cases that I am aware has anyone argued that these acts disqualified these people from the right to self-governance.

Heck, even the Iraquis are supposed to get THAT.

So I do indeed question your premise and its logic--but that is not PERSONAL, it is political!!!

[La_Serpiente]

4. I have heard

that there are quite a bit of Wahaabi schools here. That was the whole thing with Norquist. He was accused of supporting an organizations that wiped out all the moderates and liberals here in the US and only forwarded the ultra-fundi train of thought.


But whether it is true or not, I am not sure. I don't have any firsthand experience nor have I seen other stories voicing the same scenario.

[rini]

10. I have heard the same thing

I saw an interview on CBS (?) with Islamic students who claimed they would fight against America. However, I refuse to believe that this is a majority. I am positive Americans are loyal no matter what their religion. I remember hearing the same slander against Catholics and Jews. I don't care who says it, against who, it's wromg to slander a whole group.

My problem is Whabbis poisoning the minds of children. They are IMO equal if not worse(because they have a bigger following with more authority) than the Kahanes, the Ann Coulters, and others who spew hatred.

[sushi]

95. How can you be positive

about people's loyalties? It would depend on how strong religion is in their lives. I would have thought that with pious Muslims and Jews religion comes first. Isn't dual loyalty common?

I also think poisoning children's minds is wrong, whether it's done by an influential group with a huge following or one person. Those who do it are small-minded extremists, and every religion has them. It's worrying that it's not only done by the ignorant. I used to think it's hard for educated, thinking, people to be extremists.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. Okay, ten responses into this thread and . . .

EDITED for typing

. . . and we have established that there is bigotry in the world and that it is not confined to a single group. We have established that this is true among the Israelis and Palestinians. We see many examples here of the logical fallacy ad hominem (tu quoque), where the argument is attacked by pointing out that others are not so virtuous, and even one attempt at denial in the face of evidence to the contrary; someone gives the example of Dr. Pipes and anyone who wants to dismiss Jewish Islamaphobia as a myth or fairy tale should take a look at his droppings.

Hatred is a universal phenomenon. Perhaps we should view it from that perspective. It is a disease to which no person -- let alone group of people -- is immune.

[bluesoul]

12. Amen

Exactly Jack Rabbit!

[rini]

13. take two aspirin

and write in the morning! My goodness!

[drdon326]

14. No, Jack, I'm sorry to disagree with you...

Dismissing this NEW antisemitism is exactly what the
perpetrators of this want.

This NEW anti-semitism appears to be a whole lot more than one
person but rather a seemingly pervasive sentiment that clearly has implications for the mid-east, almost assuredly for europe and potential implications for the US if its true that schools/madrassas
in the us are training students to hate jews.

if (g-d forbid) you replace the word "jews" with african-americans
or gays(g-d forbid) in the above article, you wouldnt say dismiss it as just "bigotry in the world". And rightfully so.


This New anti-semitism wants people not to know it even exists.


(btw...no bs...I really dont enjoy disagreeing with you lately and
its kind of upsetting in my gut that we are disagreeing)

edit for sp

[Darranar]

15. I think Jack Rabbit's right...

because you know what the purpose of this myth of "new anti-semitism" is all about? It's about demonizing pro-Palestinians and anti-Zionists as anti-semitic.

Of course anti-semitism still exists. I'm not one to dispute that. However, just because old anti-semitism has taken up the banner of the Palestinian cause for propaganda purposes does not mean that it is NEW anti-semitism. it is the same breed of anti-semitism that existed years ago.

[drdon326]

17. You know whats funny...

I swear, I thought of you,Darranar, when I posted it.

[Darranar]

18. I would like to have a rational discussion, drdon...

please post a real reply.

[Forkboy]

40. I wouldn't feel bad darranar

I think of these two whenever I lurk at FR.

[rini]

19. I though of him also

[bluesoul]

16. Drdon

One only needs to go through several right wing sites and forums and sees the mirror image of that anti-semitism, only this time being anti-Islamism, all the hatred concentrated towards Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims in general, so one could make pretty much the same point of the hatred concentrated towards the other side. Just type in Muslim in FR and you already know what you will get. I see that just as much dangerous as anti-semitism, don't you?

[drdon326]

20. Well....

Silly me...I havent seen:

israels routinely hand out The "Islamic" Protocols to visitors of the israel or the US.;

the Israeli Defense published a book offering "evidence" arabs use blood to make whatever.

the israels taught children that arab are less than human, have no right to self-determination, and deserve to be killed.

Israels government-controlled television last year aired a series based on the Protocols of the Elders of islam.

The Israelis fund the teaching of arab-hatred in temples and schools throughout the jewish world.

......

how the hell did i miss that?

[zubeneshamali]

21. Good news is Mahathir is imploring terrorists to stop throwing rocks...

The bad news is that he wants them to pick up bombs and rockets instead to use against Israel and, by proxy, her allies including the United States.

Our traditional allies not only aren't supporting us, but they are not supporting the Iraqi people who are no longer being brutalized by Saddam Hussein.

Ayad Allawi, the current head of Iraq's governing council, had this to say about the refusal by our "allies" to pony up aid for Iraq:

"As far as Germany and France are concerned, really, this was a regrettable position they had. I don't think the Iraqis are going to forget easily that in the hour of need, those countries wanted to neglect Iraq."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/23/sprj.irq.main/index.html

Our allies appear to wish that Hussein was still in power. Perhaps it's not simply an appearance.

[Darranar]

22. So you supported the Iraq war?

[zubeneshamali]

24. Which one?

The first one, when they invaded Kuwait? Of course.

The second one, when they didn't abide by the conditions ending the first war? I think many supported that war, including quite a few in Congress and the Senate - a few of which are running for president. Not all of them have waffled though.

Some candidates opposed it then and still do. Others supported it then and continue to. It's a big tent, after all.

[drdon326]

25. Speaking for Darranar and myself...

Welcome to DU/I/P

:toast:

[zubeneshamali]

39. Thank you...

But I hate to argue with people who are, in the big picture, on our side.

It is apparent to me that the Islamic terrorists in general are turning their wrath against Israel toward her allies, and there aren't many of those. It seems strange when our allies France and Germany don't support us, but historically was there ever a time that they were on the record supporting the Jews? Maybe it's not such a surprise after all, you think?

[bluesoul]

41. For Zubeneshamali

I support Jews/Israelis. I support Gush Shalom, the refuseniks, Uri Avnery, Amira Hass, Noam Chomsky and all those that want to make a difference. I just don't support Sharon and his policy, thats all. I don't hate Israel or the Israelis. I never did. My grandfather shared the same destiny as many of them in Dachau in WW2. I just cannot relate to a certain policy ...

[bluesoul]

26. well

You didn't answer for the current war? Did you or did you not support?

[zubeneshamali]

28. Do you think that the people of Iraq would be better off with Saddam

and his sons Uday and Qusay still in power? Is that the kind of Iraq you wish still existed today?

[Darranar]

29. It's better than them dying in droves...

due to US invasion, yes.

The Iraq war was a crime against the people of Iraq.

[zubeneshamali]

36. If the intelligence was wrong, you might have a point

In its report leading up to the war the CIA made a number of statements supporting the cause for going into Iraq which are still on their web site, including:

"Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." - CIA

"Iraq repeatedly has rejected the return of UN arms inspectors and claims that it has satisfied all UN resolutions relevant to disarmament. Compared with UNSCOM, 1284 gives the UNMOVIC chairman less authority, gives the Security Council a greater role in defining key disarmament tasks, and requires that inspectors be full-time UN employees." - CIA

"In the absence of inspectors, Baghdad's already considerable ability to work on prohibited programs without risk of discovery has increased, and there is substantial evidence that Iraq is reconstituting prohibited programs." - CIA

"Iraq has been able to import dual-use, WMD-relevant equipment and material through procurements both within and outside the UN sanctions regime. Baghdad diverts some of the $10 billion worth of goods now entering Iraq every year for humanitarian needs to support the military and WMD programs instead." - CIA

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

In light of the intelligence available to the decision makers the decision to enforce the U.N. resolutions was correct no matter how many Monday morning quarterbacks come out of the woodwork.

It's over and done with. It's Monday afternoon and time to rebuild a nation.

[Darranar]

37. The intelligence WAS wrong!

BUSH LIED. This war was a fraud.

Where are those WMD now?

[bluesoul]

38. Even the CIA knew

Actually even the CIA knew there was no WMD or any kind of threat from Iraq, but Bush simply ignored that. Tenet had many interesting things to say and the dispute between the CIA and those eager to go for war regardless of the existing WMD is not a secret. The administration simply lied to the US public and the world and because of those lies more then 300 soldiers had to die and several thousand Iraqi civilians were killed. And no WMD was ever found. So much for the "intelligence" and "proof"..Give me a break

[zubeneshamali]

44. To see how wrong that is,

review the link I posted in msg 36. If, as you say, "even the CIA knew there was no WMD or any kind of threat from Iraq," then why did they post a web site that stated exactly the opposite opinion?

:tinfoilhat: :hi:

(Edited to correct # of referenced message)

[Darranar]

46. Because their website is administration propaganda!

As are all the other websites of agencies and institutions related to the Bush Administration!

[bluesoul]

47. CIA

There are many claims that date back to more then 10 years ago before much of it was destroyed under UN supervision. The US actually used old data about Iraq which was defunct by now. There were other reports (updated) that clearly stated quite the opposite.

[zubeneshamali]

50. But the CIA conclusions, quoted above, are not 10 years old.

They were formed only just last year. Now, perhaps they are based on intelligence that was 10 years old - I don't know.

But if that is so, the question then becomes, what in the world have they doing for the past 10 years instead of doing their job?

[The Magistrate]

57. In All Honesty, Sir

You do not really expect the public site of the C.I.A. to reflect the actual state of the information available to it, and the conclusions drawn by its analysts for policy-makers' consumption?

To my mind, the conduct of the invasion of Iraq is clear proof no one considered there was real danger of "un-conventional weapons" being present in any quantity and useable form. If there had been, the attack would not have been led by a mere armored infantry column: not a soldier would have set foot into the place until the Air Force had been making the rubble bounce for months. Men would not have been seen out of chemical suits within twenty-four hours of the border's crossing. Mustards might have been thus risked, perhaps, but not nerve toxins or respiratory anthrax.

[zubeneshamali]

60. True, undoubtedly there is much more information than that made public on

the CIA's web site. However, I assume that information is classified and therefore is not part of the record of this discussion. We are unfortunately limited to seeking answers in the published cleartext.

I think that if indeed no one considered there was any real danger of chemical weapons, the troops would have been much cooler during that first week in shortsleeves and shorts than in their buraqesque chemsuits.

It would have been foolhardy to send them in in anything less. Especially with UNSCOM on the record saying it wasn't convinced that Iraq had disarmed its WMDs.

[The Magistrate]

62. Regarding The Suits, Sir

There were men out of them, exposed to air and dust, within twenty-four hours of crossing over. Even in the second wave, the danger of biological contaminants would remain high, if they were actually to be present. The simplest delivery for anthrax is to use it rather as a minefield, only with delayed impact, by scattering it onto soil, and relying on natural disturbance as soldiers and vehicles pass over it on expected routes. The pattern of attack was not compatible with any real fear of the sort of weapons it was claimed were present. It is certainly true none have been found. It is also true that when the boss has already made up his mind, people tend to tell him all he needs to hear to be sure he made the right choice.

[zubeneshamali]

42. By proxy you mean. It's Bush's CIA, therefore....?

In my opinion the CIA also has a lot to answer for. After all, it was their intelligence that led the Senate to authorize war, remember?

[Darranar]

43. Under tremendous pressure from Bush!

That evidence was manufactured at the order of the Administration.

The Iraq war was a fraudulent war with despicable motives.

[Gimel]

69. Before Gulf War I

Saddam threatened to bombard Israel with deadly poison. While he did bombard Israel, there were no biological or chemical warheads to be found. None-the-less, Israelis sat in sealed rooms, with gas masks in place for hours during each attack. A few deaths were reported due to misuse of the equipment.

You can conclude that Saddam was using false claims, or that something prevented him from carrying out his threat. Maybe it was the knowledge that no real harm would result from the use of the unconventional warheads due to the high level of preparation by the Israeli homefront.

Maybe it was an over-reaction, but the preparations were done again for Gulf War II. However, no one even put on a gas mask. 6.5 million people were prepared, however, at a rather great expense.

I think it was better to eliminate Saddam before he rebuilt his arsenal, than waiting until he was armed to the teeth. You could never tell with Saddam. He is that kind of a weasel.

[bluesoul]

30. Iraq

So you have no problem with a war based on lies, deception, propaganda? BTw a lot of countries have dictators leading them,why not occupy all of them as well? And as far as I know Iraqis are NOT any better of as they were before. The crimes has gone up, people are daily killed, not even mentioning the occupation and hostile feelings of the locals towards the occupiers that daily lose their soldiers. Is this the Iraq you wish?

[rini]

33. Hello

Welcome to I/P

[Jack Rabbit]

45. Ah, another logical fallacy

This one is called the false dilemma or the black-or-white fallacy. It assumes that there are only two choices, when in fact there are many. The best known operative example nowadays comes from your favorite Frat Boy and mine, who says that one is either with him or with the terrorists.

The remark "Do you think that Iraq would be better off with Saddam" in the present context suggests that if the al-Tikriti clan had not been brought down through Mr. Bush's illegal, colonial and poorly planned invasion, they might never fall. This does not consider that there might have been other ways to bring down Saddam that would not leave US troops facing a population that regards them as imperialists rather than liberators, would not have tied down half of the US army's combat divisions in Iraq indefinitely (which at least has the benefit giving the Frat Boy and his aides pause before starting the next PNAC-designed pre-emptive war), would not have nakedly enriched Mr. Bush's cronies (thus giving some weight to the hypothesis that invasion and occupation of Iraq is colonialism and not liberation) or would not have necessarily killed thousands of people.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe that was the best way to bring them down.

On the other hand, a post about the best way to have brought about Saddam's downfall on a thread about anti-Semitism in Islamic nations is itself an example of another logical fallacy, the red herring.

[zubeneshamali]

51. Ah, one fallacy begats another

This one is called "use of loaded words." For example one might say, "illegal, colonial and poorly planned invasion" when one word "invasion" is sufficient.

[Jack Rabbit]

52. Granted

Just because the invasion was illegal, colonial and poorly planned, doesn't need I need to call it that.

[zubeneshamali]

53. You have a point

if that was the case. However, the U.N. as well as both houses of congress approved the use of force, so it was legal. Can the tripod stand on its two remaining legs?

[Darranar]

54. The UN didn't approve of the war...

and just because spineless, hawkish Democrats voted in support of the Iraq war resolution doesn't mean that it was legitimate - especially since the president who signed it is an unelected fraud.

[zubeneshamali]

55. "severest consequences" if Iraq fails to comply

means what, that someone might tell their ambassador to come home?

Ouch!

[Darranar]

56. And how exactly did Iraq fail to comply?

By not letting the inspectors find WMD, when there are still none found?

[zubeneshamali]

58. I posted a link in this thread with the information

One of the conclusions reached was in turn based on the UN's assessment:

"Baghdad did not provide persuasive evidence to support its claims that it unilaterally destroyed its BW agents and munitions. Experts from UNSCOM assessed that Baghdad's declarations vastly understated the production of biological agents and estimated that Iraq actually produced two-to-four times the amount of agent that it acknowledged producing, including Bacillus anthracis?the causative agent of anthrax?and botulinum toxin."

Aside from WMDs, there have been other violations that have been documented. Remember this one?

"Iraq continues to work on UN-authorized short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs)?those with a range no greater than 150 km?that help develop the expertise and infrastructure needed to produce longer-range missile systems. The al-Samoud liquid propellant SRBM and the Ababil-100 solid propellant SRBM, however, are capable of flying beyond the allowed 150km range. Both missiles have been tested aggressively and are in early deployment. Other evidence strongly suggests Iraq is modifying missile testing and production facilities to produce even longer-range missiles."

This has been confirmed.

[Darranar]

59. So WHERE is all this stuff?

And the CIA website is propaganda.

[zubeneshamali]

61. I wish that I knew

:shrug:

So do lots of other folks. :hi:

:shrug::eyes::smoke::shrug::crazy::shrug::crazy:

[The Magistrate]

63. It Can Be Found In Press Releases, Sir, And Administration Speeches

That is the best place to look....

[tinnypriv]

66. "The UN authorised the use of force"

Incorrect.

[Jack Rabbit]

70. "Severe consequences"

"Severe consequences" is short of war.

If they were talking about war, the proper UN diplospeak is "any means necessary."

[newyorican]

100. Your quote is in error

the actual words used were "serious consequences".

[Jack Rabbit]

64. As Mr. Darranar points out (number 54)

As Mr. Darranar points out, the UN did not approve the war. The resolution authorizing force was withdrawn when it faced certain defeat, even without French, Russian or Chinese vetoes. The fact is that a majority of the members of the sercurity council say through the lies and rejected Bush's case for war.

Both houses of Congress approved the war on the condition that Bush seek international approval and a UN resolution. The so-called coalition that Bush put together was a joke and the UN resolution was not something he seriously pursued. While going through these motions, Bush continued to assert that it was unnecessary. In my judgement, it was a halfhearted effort that may as well have been no effort at all.

Both houses of Congress also approved the resolution on the basis of false intelligence provided by the administration. On this, our representatives have little to say for themselves. It was known a year ago that intelligence was being cooked in order to drum up support for the war. Also at the time, Scott Ritter, the former UN chief weapons inspector and no left-wing kook, was telling anybody who would listen that almost all of Saddam's biochemical weapons were destroyed by the time the inspectors left in late 1998 and that what materials were left was by now passed their expiration date. Congressional committees holding hearings on the IWR, however, excluded Ritter from the witness list. They didn't want to hear what he had to say and relied on witnesses with less hands on knowledge of Saddam's capabilities who supported the party line. Unfortunately, we pay our congressmen to be better informed than that. They should have raised questions and did not.

Meanwhile, Colin Powell was getting ready to go to the UN with his presentation. In that presentation, he was perfectly willing to rely on the documents of the tesitomony of the late General Hussein Kamel where it supported a case for war, but never mentioned to any one that the same documents also contained General Kamel's that he had ordered the destructions of all of Iraq's chemical weapons some time after the 1991 war.

The fact that somebody in the White House knew that the Niger document was a forgery well before the State of the Union message that cited its information to justify the war, and we have a clear pattern of behavior. The administration was cooking intelligence to justify its case for war, releasing only the tidbits that would justify the war and withholding any evidence to the contrary. It is disengenuous to rely on released intelligence documents for that reason, including those you cite on this thread. They are worthless.

Simply put, the lying and deception was deliberate. The Bushies knew or had reason to know that Saddam was a paper tiger and nothing more; they knew or had reason to know that there was no solid association beween the Iraqi regime and al-Qaida. For my part, I marched against the invasion ahead of it not as a kneejerk pascifist, but as an informed citizen. Granted, that information came from sources beyond the American mainstream media, sources like the British press, alternative press web sites, Pacifica Radio and what I call fringe establishment media, which is to say what little is left of liberal opinion in mainstream journalism. Those who were relying on CNN and the New York Times for their news were probably misinformed.

In any case, the information was available to me and, if it was available to me, it was available to every member of congress. About three weeks before the war, I wrote a piece that appeared on the front page of this web site giving my reasons for opposing the war. Unlike members of the administration and others who bought into the lies about Saddam's biochemical arsenal and the immanent threat he represented to the US, I don't think I have to change anything I said. Can Colin Powell make that claim?

[Classical_Liberal]

68. I think our installed puppet Chalabi will be no better than them

and will sell their assets to Bush chronies.

[bluesoul]

23. BS

What Iraqis really think about the occupation is seen daily. Allawi is a puppet just as Chalabi. Others just don't want sending their soldiers to die because of the Bush lies and continue foreign occupation. Saying that they wan't Hussein in power for not agreeing with Bush and his policy (occupation) is ridiculous.

[Classical_Liberal]

67. Citation of Mahathir call to pick up bombs and rockets please

? Specific quote would be appreciated.

[Jack Rabbit]

32. Response

First, I don't think there is anything "new" about this so-called "new" anti-Semitism. It looks like the same old shit to me.

Second, that one is a victim of racism does not mean that one cannot be a racist oneself. Afro-Americans, like Jews, have been longstanding victims of racism. That does not prevent Louis Farrakhan from being a racist. In fact, he's an anti-Semite.

Bigotry is rooted in fear, which is necessarily universal. One who lives without fear does not live long. A child must fear a hot stove or he will be burned. However, human beings are also capable of manipulating abstract symbols. This involves complex mental processes that also allow for the projecting of fear onto objects, other people or groups of people that aren't necessarily related to the fear itself. When one projects his fears onto groups of people, one is demonstrating the phenomenon known as bigotry. It is universal. That doesn't excuse it. It is sick.

My reaction expressed in post 11 was not to the article. Although I do not agree with all of it, the piece has a number of good points. I have had my say about Prime Minister Mahathir's comments elsewhere; I would hardly deny that there is anti-Semitism among Muslims; and I would agree that, unfortunately, we are witnessing "the end of the post-Holocaust respite, where Jew-hatred as a mobilizing force was put on the shelf." There have been a number of dribblings in the leftwing press in the last several years that, in my judgment, cross the line from legitimate, thoughtful criticism of current Israeli policy and leadership into the realm of anti-Semitism. As a political progressive, I find that embarrassing.

My reaction was to the posts on this thread. Many are logically fallacious or just ludicrous. Those fallacies are not the exclusive province of one side or the other. They came from both sides.

[The Magistrate]

48. Indeed, My Friend

You have put the proposition very well. There are some things to be said on it beyond the individual level, as well.

Most broadly, all groups are formed in part by a process of exclusion. How do you know you are in, after all, if you cannot point to someone who is out? All societies have engaged in this, manufacturing out groups to promote a closer solidarity among the great mass of the population, using things like a disfavored but still necessary trade, or a sexual preference, where there is no obvious ethnic or religious or racial minority to work with.

When groups are at war, it is an essential part of the business to inculcate a view of the foe as no human in each of the contending groups, for without this, it is difficult to get people to kill other people. Further, in war the enemy will prove to be indeed dangerous, cunning and cruel, a thing to be feared above all, for that is also in the nature of the business. In this particular matter, it would be pointless to expect Jews and Arabs not to perceive themselves at war with each other, for that is the best description of their present relations, and their relations for many decades. It is true that, for Jews who do not live in Israel, and for many Arabs, who live in lands that do not directly conjoin Israel, this relation is largely theoretical, but the demands of group identity enforce it nonetheless on many. Israel benefits to a degree by such feelings among Jews of the Diaspora, and many Arab governments in particular find it useful to focus the discontent of their populations away from themselves and towards the group enemy, for otherwise they might face well-deserved revolution.

Further, and most delicately, religious texts often offer grounds for sacralizing these group hatreds. All these texts were composed in historical times, and spoke to the times they recorded: as these were violent and marked by group conflicts, evidences of these remain among their verses. When the texts become viewed as absolutely true, and detached from the circumstances in which they were set down, these verses remain, for people to do with as they will. Thus passages of a text relating to some war west of the Jordan nigh three millenia ago can be cited as a guide to viewing some enemy group of persons today as foes of the very diety, and so can passages of a text relating to incidents of betrayal and war in the vicinity of Medina nigh on a millenia and a half ago be cited as a guide to viewing some enemy group of persons as the foes of the very diety. So powerful a propaganda tool as that will certainly be grasped by some combatants where it is so ready to hand.

[drdon326]

65. Jack.....my "gut" is better.

intelligent well thought out post....as usual.

[LARED]

27. I think you missed the larger point

Which is that in many parts of the Arab world, anti-Semitic ideology is sponsored and promoted by the state. The children are taught to be anti-semites from the day they are born.

No nation that I am aware of teaches anti-Islamism as public policy.

[rini]

31. uh oh

you spoke truth, you're in deep doo doo now!

[bluesoul]

34. Oh please

"The children are taught to be anti-semites from the day they are born. "

That is just BS. If you really believe that, then you are part of the problem. The truth my ass...

[LARED]

49. Really?

You deny that in many Arab states anti-semitism is state policy? Ever read an Egyptian, Saudi, or Palestinian newspaper, others? Last time I checked newspapers in these countries are instruments of the state. What about Saudi Wahhabism. The state religion of Saudi. Are you trying to tell me Wahhabi mosques don't preach anti-semitism? Ever speak with someone from Nigeria?

Don't tell me I'm part of the problem. The problem are states that promote anti-semitism. It is a fact that this is occurring. Deal with it.

The fact that this hatred exist and is sponsored by the state does not in any way justify anti-Islamic ideology wherever it comes from.

[Jack Rabbit]

35. I think you missed the point of the post

It was aimed at the debate on this thread.

See also post 32.