MSA Student Would Prefer Second Holocaust

[GeoffP]

You're right. The fact that mummies are similar to modern Egyptians but not other peoples has nothing to do with population genetics. Like I said, its a combination of factors which shows how indigenous peoples are to a region. Its not just one odd gene marker here and there.

My God, but you're ignorant, aren't you? What's the strength of the link? How many unique alleles? What proportion of mummy alleles are found in modern Egyptians? If only a few percent of Egyptians carry those alleles, what is the real relation of Egyptian mummy samples to modern Egyptians. God, it's hard to argue with the willfully ignorant.

Now, back to the topic: do you, Sam, vote yes or no to Dr. Horowitz's question?

Neither of course, its a bullshit question.

Of course, it isn't. The question was: should Jews gather in Israel to save Nasrallah - and radical Islam in general - from hunting them all down? It's a fairly simple question, and there's no excuse for not reading it or misinterpreting it. So, either your reading comprehension has gone, or you prefer not to answer. You may now pick from those two options.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

What does food and mummies have to do with anything?

Its very obvious that the OP was never discussed either in regards to free speech or by what criteria do we find it necessary to scrutinize a university organization or why Horowitz is convinced the MSA is a hate group or anything. No one seems to have payed attention to the fact that this has to do with the MSA in US universities.

We've had discussions on Palestine and Israel when neither the student or horowitz are either palestinian or Israeli and neither of them mentioned anything about said subjects.

We've had discussions about whether jews really represent a people. And now we are discussing mummies and hummus.

Either someone close the thread or quickly re-direct.

 

[GeoffP]

Quite so. I've formally asked Sam to get back on track; let's hope that pans out.

So: is there any question in anyone's mind - and I guess I'm thinking of a specific poster here - as to the question Dr. Horowitz was asking? Do we need it posted...again?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Well maybe you can frame the his question. I mean it seems to me that there has been very little discussion giving evidence, outside of that particular student, as to why Horowitz is so concerned about the MSA. As we know London University, for example, has become a place where seemingly benign muslim organizations have radicalized students to the point of them taking dangerous action. We have yet to see any evidence of that coming out of the MSA but because some of these organizations can become a platform for radicalization I don't think there is anything wrong with scrutiny whether it be with them or any other group. The video doesn't state exactly what it is that Horowitz thinks he's looking at in terms of the MSA.

Also this brings up issues surrounding freedom of speech in a university setting. Is Horowitz attempting to silence them? What is the role of the MSA at the various universities where they are now represented?

 

[GeoffP]

Well, the MSA has been a particularly stinky fish for some time. They were founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, if that gives you a hint as to why. Check out some of their members at the end of the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Students'_Association

The USC chapter also used to post one of the more popular (almost every Muslim I ever met online referenced it, including Sam) directories of hadith and Sura; one of them had an absolutely horrifying interpretation of 9:29 - straight out of Mein Kampf, essentially. That's been taken down long since, which is too bad because it gave you kind of a hint as to their real inclinations. I'd recommend searching online to see if it's back up - people get stupid about these sort of things, and they forget.

 

[nirakar]

Now, back to the topic: do you, Sam, vote yes or no to Dr. Horowitz's question?

Neither of course, its a bullshit question. I need a third option

3. Its a bullshit question.

Yes it is a Bullshit question. It is done in the style of David Horowitiz which is in turn the style of lawyers. That style is why the people hate Lawyers. They are clever, proud of being clever, disrespectful, obstinate, self righteous, frustrating and dishonest and seem to think the ends justify the means.

I am not pure; I have some ugly lawyer like behaviors and attitudes in me also.

From http://yesbuthowever.com/muslim-david-horowitz-9000004/comment-page-1/

Horowitz: “Okay, I’ll put it to you this way. I am a Jew. The head of Hizbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn’t have to hunt us down globally. For it, or against it?”

Young Woman (solemnly leaning into the microphone): “For it.”

This brief back-and-forth has unleashed a firestorm on the Internet, with conservative blogs and websites condemning the young lady (who was soon identified as Jumanah Imad Albahri, a UC San Diego student and former communications director of the UCSD Muslim Student Association), and Islamic blogs and websites (and at least one fellow UCSD student) defending her (generally, the defense has been the same – Ms. Albahri was “set up” or “provoked” by Mr. Horowitz into saying something stupid). On May 14th, the UCSD Muslim Student Association felt the need to issue a non-specific “clarification” stating that it does not condone the killing of civilians (the “clarification” made no specific mention of the Horowitz/Albahri exchange).

A Facebook page has also been created, seeking Ms. Albahri’s expulsion from the university.

In an early Sunday morning blog post – almost six days after the incident in question – Ms. Albahri attempted to give her side of the story.

Ms Albahri was more than a little stupid; she failed miserably. Remember she came to clear the MSA from the accusation that they support terrorism and are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.

from: http://fortruthforjustice.wordpress...lim-student-responds-to-david-horowitz-event/

UCSD Muslim Student Responds to David Horowitz Event
Posted on May 16, 2010 by fortruthforloveforjustice

To the General and Campus Communities:

As you are all well aware, I am the one who spoke at the David Horowitz event this past Monday May 10, 2010.

Allow me to begin by stating that I do NOT condone murder, I do NOT condone genocide, and I do NOT condone racism under any circumstance whatsoever against Jews or anyone else. These accusations are lies that I refuse to allow David Horowitz and his allies to perpetuate in their irresponsible and hateful smear campaign against those who disagree with or differ from them.

On April 19, 2010 I volunteered to speak at the Racism/Genocide Holocaust Event last April only because of my strong convictions against genocide like the Holocaust. I was there every step of the way during the protests denouncing racism on campus last quarter—from the very beginning to the very end. Never have I uttered a negative syllable towards or about any person because of their ethnicity or religion on campus or otherwise, Jewish or otherwise. Regardless of my participation in these events, for Mr. Horowitz to insinuate that I am anti-Semitic is ridiculous; I am a Semite.

I attended the event as an individual, not as a representative of any organization, least of all the MSA. My presence was solidly founded in my academic and personal quests to hear diverse viewpoints. Unfortunately, Mr. Horowitz is a seasoned polemicist whose intent is not to encourage academic discussion by expounding his arguments or even supporting his positions with hard facts, but to excite the passions of an audience. Mr. Horowitz spent an hour indiscriminately attacking liberals, students, Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians, utilizing verbiage that completely departed from an academic tone and delved into hate speech—especially labeling groups and individuals that support Palestinian rights “terrorists.”

Insofar as my references to Hitler and the Nazi Youth programs: it was Mr. Horowitz who spent a substantial amount of time referring to the MSA as the “Hitler Youth” and its Justice in Palestine Week as “Hitler Youth Week”— pejorative titles that as a human being, a student of history, and a person of faith, I find disgusting. I uttered them in a sarcastic manner only to point out the ridiculous and slanderous nature of Mr. Horowitz’s labels—Nazis sought the extermination of anyone who was not “white,” and this racial category excludes the vast majority of the Muslim population.

I asked Mr. Horowitz to explain the purported connection between UCSD’s MSA and “Jihadist Terrorist Networks.” His pamphlet did not mention the organization; rather it focused on other groups like UCI’s MSU and Berkley and LA’s MSA chapters, and offered supporting grounds that can be characterized as shaky at best, with sources that had little credibility. He chose not to engage my question (his opening arguments were the verbatim generalizations made in the pamphlet, though my question asked for specifics) but instead decided to subject me to an interrogation because of my headscarf and Palestinian kuffiyeh. The fact that Mr. Horowitz claimed on a respected national cable news network that the MSA receives forty thousand dollars to put on Justice in Palestine Week, speaks volumes to his status as a gross exaggerator who should not be trusted to deliver opinions on anything. The information can be found here on UCSD’s official website http://as.ucsd.edu/finance/sofr_view_program.php?id=710.

Towards the end of the exchange, I became emotional. I could no longer hear Mr. Horowitz speaking and so did not even hear his injection of Hezbollah’s credo of “rounding up” Jews in his last tangent. I could no longer contain my anger at being implicitly and improperly labeled a terrorist, an anti-Semite, and a proponent of genocide. The answer I was coerced into giving grossly misrepresented my beliefs and ideologies.

My answer, “for it,” in the context in which it was said does NOT mean “for” genocide. I was referring to his initial question that asked me for my position on Hamas, a topic that for his own political reasons he was relentless in pursuing. “For it” was not a legitimization of Hezbollah’s or anyone else’s credo for that matter that Jews should be exterminated. In fact, Mr. Horowitz’s intent was to entrap me with his barrage of questions so that he could avoid answering my question, and construe any answer that I would provide as anti-Semitic, genocidal hate speech in order to further his political agenda.

I am not a member of Hamas, nor have I ever given support to Hamas, nor do I agree their actions or stances wholesale, but I refused to offer Mr. Horowitz a blanket condemnation of Hamas that night. I felt that doing so would be a blanket condemnation of the Palestinian cause. I refused to throw the baby (the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people) out with the bathwater (Hamas.) In addition, Mr. Horowitz asked me to condemn Hamas as a genocidal organization; which to my limited knowledge on the subject, is another unsupported claim made by Mr. Horowitz.

My opinion of Hamas is not as simple as condemn or condone, “for it” or “against it.” I firmly believe that the killing of civilians, even as “collateral damage” regardless of creed, politics, sexuality, nationality, or ethnicity is one of the highest crimes in the eyes of God and is morally reprehensible and abhorrent. But I condone Hamas in its ambition to liberate the Palestinian people. I condone Hamas as the duly elected representative government of the Palestinian people granted governance in an election overseen by our ex-President Jimmy Carter; and characterized as fair, open, and fully democratic. I condone Hamas in its desire to end the inhumane siege of the Gazan people. I condone Hamas in its struggle to free the 10,000 Palestinian men, women, and children unjustly locked away in Israeli prisons. It seems that in Mr. Horowitz’s logic, my support of freedom, peace, and justice makes me a “terrorist.”

David Horowitz can try to erase my history, the history of my grandparents, the history of the Palestinian people, he can call me a terrorist, he can mischaracterize my faith as bloody, and my God as false, but I will NOT allow him to vilify me as a racist or a proponent of genocide and remain silent.

For Peace, For Love, For Justice,

Jumanah Imad Albahri

I oppose and accept Hammas, Hezbollah,Israel and Israel equally. All three engage in criminal reactions to older crimes. It is only the triumph of dishonesty in support of Israel within the USA and Israel's relative strength which enables it to be the bigger criminal that makes me temporarily lean towards Israel's enemies and lean against Israel.

It turns out (no surprise) That Horowitz's Hezbollah quote is another lie.

From: http://www.kabobfest.com/2010/05/da...ide-lie-islamophobia-rears-its-ugly-head.html

Horowitz’ great feat apparently is that he managed to get a student to align herself with a genocidal agenda that does not even exist. Horowitz tells the student that “the head of Hizballah has said that he hopes we [the Jews] will gather in Israel so he doesn’t have to hunt us down globally.”

The quotation, which has made many rounds and is often cited by neoconservatives, traces to an article by Badih Chayban in the English language Daily Star, October 23, 2002. However, in no place in the speech does Nasrallah express the “hope” that Horowitz attributes to him (audio recording here, transcript here). The closest expression is an eschatological re-interpretation of the State of Israel’s creation, juxtaposed to the Christian Zionist version (gathering of the Jews in the Holy Land will bring the Messiah’s return).

According to my translation — please correct it if you see a problem — Nasrallah actually says, according to “some Islamic prophecies,” the State of Israel’s creation and the gathering of the Jews are “not so that their false messiah will rule the world, but because God wants to spare you from going to them in all corners of the world. Thus they gather in one place, and it will be the conclusive, decisive battle.” While the number of problems with such a statement cannot be understated, he is talking about the apocalypse, not a genocide he intends to orchestrate. (Click here for Arabic, feel free to offer a full/more accurate translation.)

From my perspective, the actual quotation, far from doing anything to vindicate Nasrallah, demonstrates the problems associated with analyzing real-world political and historical processes and conflicts in terms of religious prophecies. Strange here that interpreting Israel’s creation in this way differs only in quality from Zionist interpretations reading it as miraculous. Such views deny the organized human activity behind historical developments, writing it all off instead to divine providence. You get either the idea that God created Israel because he has chosen the Jews; or because the Messiah will not return until the Jews have returned to the Holy Land; or because the gathering of the Jews will facilitate the final battle between God’s believers and his unbelievers. In my eyes all positions are equally absurd and useless.

But their absurdity doesn’t save Horowitz from the fact that, despite what he claims, Nasrallah nowhere expresses a “hope” for that outcome, nor is it even the expression of some desire or plan. It is just a rote religious recitation about the end times. White American Christians associated with Christian Zionism openly discuss such apocalyptic battles, but these prophets Horowitz and the State of Israel are happy to have as allies.

The double standards at play, the kind of deception and misinformation involved in Horowitz’ rhetorical sleight of hand, are part and parcel of a deliberate agenda to enable U.S. and Israeli foreign policy interests in the Middle East by demonizing Arabs and Muslims.

That agenda inheres in Horowitz original question: “Will you condemn Hamas?”

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

Allegations of racism

Chip Berlet, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), identified Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture as one of 17 "right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable."

To me David Horowitz is exactly what he accuses the MSAs of being. He is a promoter of hate and a defender of Israeli terrorism. But he thinks the hate he promotes and Israel's terrorism are just and righteous hate and terrorism that defends the people in need of defense from their hateful dangerous enemies, which is no different from what those promoting hate for Israel and defending Hamas's terrorism believe about their hate and their defense of Hamas's terrorism.

 

[GeoffP]

I rather suspected she'd take that tack: "I was too angry to hear the question". Maybe she was. Maybe she wasn't. Impossible to say for sure now, but she seemed perfectly in commaned of her faculties and stone-cold, not hot, in her response. (It was quite a solid and controlled "For it".) I'm sorry it's blown up in her face now, and that she didn't know she was being videotaped. But there it is. I note that she also trots out that old one-liner about how the Arab half of Semites just can't be anti-Semitic...because that's what we are! Nudge nudge, wink wink, retch retch. it's a slight of hand so unconvincing that Gomer Pyle could see through it, and that's where it lies: OK, Ms. Albahri, you're not an anti-Semite. OK? You just hate Jewish Semites. Fair enough? I could go on.

But the question itself was - obviously - perfectly legitimate, and there was no leap from the prophecy to Nasrullah's earnest desires, unless he was relating the tale as a funny story he heard on the way to work that morning. His recitement of the claim - and, in point of fact, the claim itself - are hateful, racist and anti-Semitic in a way even surpassing the worst that most other religons have to deliver. Leviticus commands people to stone homosexuals - another place that text and I diverge - but this is the proclamation not of Godly punishment for wearing a kippa, but of wholesale massacre because "Joos is bad". It's no better than anything a hood-wearing redneck might cook up, and there's no excuse for it to be recited except as hateful propaganda, or maybe as comedy material. So, it's not a viable dodge. Nor can you or Sam call the question bullshit, even if she really didn't hear it - it clearly isn't bullshit. It was phrased correctly and asked fairly. She wasn't asked to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", and instead of explaining flat-out that she didn't hear the question, she deflects and then goes on the attack.

So there we are. Two days older, and nothing much has changed.

 

[nirakar]

Maybe if you break the question into its parts it won't be Bullshit. What exact question is your poll asking? I can't tell.


To condemn Hamas and Hezbollah without condemning Israel is wrong in the context of Israel versus Palestinians and Lebanese Shia or in the context of Islam haters versus Islam defenders. This is why more specific questions are needed.

It is easy to condemn genocidal intent if that is the question. But that question was not asked.

The question asked might be "do you condemn genocidal intent and condemn opposition to Israel's behavior". If the question is unclear and is intended to be a rhetorical trap then the question is Bullshit.

I don't want to condemn Israel's victims and their sympathizers misguided attempts to defend themselves unless Israel and it's sympathizers misguided attempts to defend itself and acquire the "promised" land is also condemned.

If you were specific I could probably agree with you about condemning something.

What was the question? Condemn Hamas? Condemn Hezbollah? Condemn the the young woman? Condemn the pro genocidal statement that Nasrullah did not make? Condemn the end time prophecies of the the Abrahamic religions?

I won't agree to a blanket condemnation of Hamas, Hezbollah, Narullah, Israel, or the young woman.

I can condemn the statement that Nasrullah did not make. I can condemn anybody who supports genocide.

The end time beliefs of the Abrahamic religions seem to cause more problems than they are worth and I don't think they are true. If I fault Nasrullah for liking Islamic end time prophesy then I should also fault all Christians, Jews and Muslims who like their end time prophesy.

 

[GeoffP]

Maybe if you break the question into its parts it won't be Bullshit. What exact question is your poll asking? I can't tell.

Are you serious? You even cited the Nasrallah comment's. My question is the exact same thing. I even stated that. It's even in the fucking poll question.

To condemn Hamas and Hezbollah without condemning Israel is wrong in the context of Israel versus Palestinians and Lebanese Shia or in the context of Islam haters versus Islam defenders. This is why more specific questions are needed.

She could as easily - as anyone - have specified, or done as the MSA president did earlier and said it was more complex. She didn't.

It is easy to condemn genocidal intent if that is the question. But that question was not asked.

It certainly does. This is absurd. I suspect we're done. Rhetorical traps and uncertain questions my ass.

 

[nirakar]

Well, the MSA has been a particularly stinky fish for some time. They were founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, if that gives you a hint as to why. Check out some of their members at the end of the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Students'_Association

The USC chapter also used to post one of the more popular (almost every Muslim I ever met online referenced it, including Sam) directories of hadith and Sura; one of them had an absolutely horrifying interpretation of 9:29 - straight out of Mein Kampf, essentially. That's been taken down long since, which is too bad because it gave you kind of a hint as to their real inclinations. I'd recommend searching online to see if it's back up - people get stupid about these sort of things, and they forget.

The discussion page alleges the page is biased and written by the smearers.
the footnotes lead
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12823-2004Sep10?language=printer
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/chi-0409190261sep19,0,4605917,full.story
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121391832473590285.html

The allegation of connection to Muslim brotherhood looks stronger in the Wiki page than it does in the Wiki pages sources. The Wiki pages sources could use footnotes.

 

[Tiassa]

A few thoughts on the issues

The last thing it seems some people want in this discussion is nuanced, human insight. Heaven forbid this be anything other than the simplistic mess it is painted to be by a known racist and his merry bandwagon. If anything, the transcript makes clear Horowitz is attacking the young woman as a means to avoiding a question; her role in that exchange nonetheless brought a particularly disappointing result. One need not be da Vinci in order to see the politic afoot.

To the one, I think this is a bunch of manufactured bluster. To the other, sure, whatever. If you're going to have your little war, have it in one place, and not all the fuck over. You know, if I felt particularly ornery a patriot today I might suggest there is, after all, a reason the United States is fucking shit up six ways from yesterday. We were given the opportunity to, damn it. People don't like the way we play? They ought not invite us. Sad, but true.

Meanwhile, if these two communities are determined to have a war, it would suit them to keep it to themselves. Okay, we're going to deny Israel's nuclear capacity until after the mushroom cloud has settled, and then Jerusalem will be turned into some order of smoking hole one way or another, and if that's as far as it goes, fine. Leave the rest of us out of it.

And that inclues the money. If you want to support one side or another in that war, go support it. Don't be dragging the rest of our asses into this. Everybody knows the West fucked up Palestine. Everybody. Get it? There's nobody left to convince. The only question is whether anybody cares, and the majority answer right now seems to be, "No." And resoundingly so. Which leaves us with a very simple set of alternatives:

(1) Settle it among yourselves, now.

(2) Let the international community—led, as usual, by the West—settle it. That's right, baby, we'll fuck it up six more ways from three Sundays ago last Tuesday. Trust us. That's the one constant in all of this. The more the West gets involved, the more screwed up the whole fight will get. So just remember that. We're here. And we've got a huge stake in over there. And look at what has become of it.​

There are, of course, alternatives, but anything is a matter of will. Get the Israeli colonists out of Palestine. Or let them join Palestine. End the holy wars against Israel, be helpful in finding and prosecuting those who won't let it go. Normalize trade. Normalize human rights. Take the long, slow, painful, costly route that doesn't involve willfully being long, slow, painful, and costly. All things must end, someday. And that includes war. So what will it be? Smoking holes or shiny happy?

Either way? Yeah, keep it to yourselves until you get there.

 

[spidergoat]

Tamahto, tomayto. You identify with a racial group that gives you right to citizenship in a Middle Eastern land based on mythology, not culture.

No, the right to settle in Israel is based on the establishment of Israel as a refuge for Jewish people, who were often oppressed no matter what degree of religiosity they expressed. The fact that Palestine was already a home to Jews, and the traditional homeland of Judaism in general is not a myth, it's a fact.

You are not Palestinian. Or Arab or Middle Eastern. You are not even of the same faith, forget culture.

Jewish culture is not the same as "middle eastern" culture.

You are a westerner who clings to a distilled Judaism, based on what? a couple of recipes? A celebration of myths based on fiction, like Passover and Exodus?

This is not "culture":

I don't cling to it, It's not something that one can give up deliberately, I was born into it. I know that in spite of being possibly atheists, people of Jewish descent have historically been targeted for attack, and that's a logical reason for Jewish people regardless of their particular attitude towards religion, to come together in their own defense.

You support Europeans colonising Palestinians in the Middle East because of beliefs that they are "your people". Thats racism.

The Jews were refugees, and I support Israel on that basis. They needed a place to go, and they went to their ancestral home, where there were already Jews. They didn't get along with the Muslims because Islam is an inherently intolerant religion.

If it was culture you would support the Palestinians, who are the descendents of Judaic culture and who follow, even today, customs that are written about in the Old Testament. But that is alien culture for you, isn't it?

No, they are not. They follow Islamic traditions. My shared culture only helps me identify with the Jews as an oppressed people. My basis for supporting Israel is entirely secular.

Not according to the Geneva conventions which does not oppose resistance and which does oppose replacing occupied peoples with peoples of the occupier. Even by international laws, the Palestinians are victims with the right to resist and all settled Jews are occupation.

They do not have a right to commit terrorism.

Every single Jew who has displaced a Palestinian is in contravention of the Geneva convention. Every single Palestinian who has been displaced has the right to resist.

That is a novel interpretation of the conventions that I wager most members the UN do not agree with.

 

[spidergoat]

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here's how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77..5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons...

 

[Bells]

That would have to be some of the most bigotted and racist things I've read Spider. You've actually surprised me.

I'd expect stuff like that from sandy. But from you? I never would have thought it possible. I have to say, I am disappointed. I thought you were above that. It is a shame that you are not.

 

[nirakar]

Are you serious? You even cited the Nasrallah comment's. My question is the exact same thing. I even stated that. It's even in the fucking poll question.

Not exactly.

She could as easily - as anyone - have specified, or done as the MSA president did earlier and said it was more complex. She didn't.

She apparently could not do anything coherent after she got off of her planned question.

I remember a time when I had 30 seconds at a public hearing and did not do a good job. But wow she failed big time.

It certainly does. This is absurd. I suspect we're done. Rhetorical traps and uncertain questions my ass.

You are right. Sorry. Your poll question was not that unclear and was not a rhetorical trap. I would have preferred "Do you hope that Jews will gather in Israel so they don't have to hunt us down globally to be killed" as the poll question so that it does not get confused with do you agree with Albahri because I think I do think I agree with what she intended to do.

 

[spidergoat]

That would have to be some of the most bigotted and racist things I've read Spider. You've actually surprised me.

I'd expect stuff like that from sandy. But from you? I never would have thought it possible. I have to say, I am disappointed. I thought you were above that. It is a shame that you are not.

I am not above pointing out the dangers of religion, Islam in particular. I am not bigoted against any particular Muslim person. Sure, it's a lazy cut and paste hit job on Islam, but it should stimulate a few comments.

 

[GeoffP]

The discussion page alleges the page is biased and written by the smearers.

That's nice, but anyone supporting the Brotherhood would say the same.

the footnotes lead
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12823-2004Sep10?language=printer
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/chi-0409190261sep19,0,4605917,full.story
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121391832473590285.html

The allegation of connection to Muslim brotherhood looks stronger in the Wiki page than it does in the Wiki pages sources. The Wiki pages sources could use footnotes.

I checked out those footnotes and a few others, and it seems quite final: the MSA was founded by the Brotherhood, and the Brotherhood is not too nice. Sort of a gang of freaks. I don't know how much more nuanced I could be about this. :shrug:

 

[Bells]

I am not above pointing out the dangers of religion, Islam in particular. I am not bigoted against any particular Muslim person. Sure, it's a lazy cut and paste hit job on Islam, but it should stimulate a few comments.

Yes, of course you're not above pointing out the dangers of Islam. I am just surprised you left out the 'they're coming for our women and precious metals'. That was about the only thing missing from what you pasted.

I'd be quite interested in your source.

Care to share the link to the racist vitriol you just pasted for the supposed purpose of 'stimulating comments'?

 

[GeoffP]

The last thing it seems some people want in this discussion is nuanced, human insight.

I quite agree.

Heaven forbid this be anything other than the simplistic mess it is painted to be by a known racist and his merry bandwagon.

Her, I think you must mean. Nonetheless, carry on.

If anything, the transcript makes clear Horowitz is attacking the young woman as a means to avoiding a question; her role in that exchange nonetheless brought a particularly disappointing result. One need not be da Vinci in order to see the politic afoot.

Eep, full stop. (And: 'Disappointing'?)

Now, there's been some speculation by you and Nirakar that Horowitz is a racist. First, I haven't seen what that refers to; if so, fine. But, second: that's not the issue.

No one really doubts what the MSA is about. Like a rat is a dog is a boy, MSA is ISNA is CAIR. Not really any question about it, and I think we all recognize that. I can't say for certain what the original original OP starter's point was, but I can say that in my case it's not an unnuanced attack on all Muslims or whatever the next lines of Tiassa's post make it out to be. In fact, it's not an attack on Muslims per se at all. What it is, is simply a short dog-and-pony show about what MSA is, and thus what ISNA and CAIR are. We could argue origins and should-have-beens for a few more pages, but we have to be honest in saying that almost all Islamic advocacy groups (or at least the big ones) in the US and Europe right now are a few parasols dimmer than 'shady'. I do give credit to the MSA president cited by Horowitz earlier in saying that the issue was 'too complex'. It is. But the MSA as a whole might lean towards this twerp's little speech, and that's a bad thing.

The next argument will be that the girl doesn't represent the MSA, and so forth: she does and she doesn't. Anyway, if we blow off the source as of no value because of the old 'isolated case' argument, then we'd better do the same for all almost all issues everywhere. There's reason enough to think from the history of the MSA as a group that it's a little more radical than the hopeful like to pretend.

Meanwhile, if these two communities are determined to have a war, it would suit them to keep it to themselves. Okay, we're going to deny Israel's nuclear capacity until after the mushroom cloud has settled, and then Jerusalem will be turned into some order of smoking hole one way or another, and if that's as far as it goes, fine. Leave the rest of us out of it.

Well, whichever way it goes, my suspicion is that we'd be dragged into it tighter than Tony T's piano wire around Carlito's balls by a little thing called fallout. I think it behooves us to be proactive here.

There are other reasons to give a shit, of course: human rights for Israelis and Palestinians, the smoking hole of the West Bank, the ever-ready threat of fancy new genocide. And this is no small deal. This is the reason Israelis laugh when they hear the phrase "one state solution", because to them it reads "Final Solution, Mark II". No one can really blame them for that one; and the history of the ME prior to 1948 underscores that in the fancy rouge that we save for midterm exams and placement tests. (This is where a lot of people sign off from ye olde Abrahamism: happy, vindicative genocide tends to suggest a detour. I stick with it because I like the choral music. I wonder if Abraham ever knew what he was getting us all into.) Despite that, the situation is unbalanced, and horribly so. I think there's a pretty strong case to say "tough shit" at this point given, again, the history of the last 1400 years pre-Israel, but that is less helpful than a cat flap in an elephant house and less humane for all the people living inside. So, short and sweet, something has to be done. Right now, the ball is in Israel's court with this building phase. It could be argued that, again, long history says "don't want no shit don't start no shit", but, as I mentioned, that isn't helping.

Thanks to Tiassa for bringing up the 'nuance' issue.

 

[pjdude1219]

I am not above pointing out the dangers of religion, Islam in particular. I am not bigoted against any particular Muslim person. Sure, it's a lazy cut and paste hit job on Islam, but it should stimulate a few comments.

Your right your not bigoted against any particular one your bigoted against all of them. Funny how the only religion you point out the "dangers" of is the one of the people you say have no right to their own property if people of your religion want it.