"Israel must be wiped out" What gives?

[Carrera]

Melenie Phillips makes the following comments withg regard to the president of Iran's speech:

"The Iranian president sees his country as part of an epic fight between the world of Islam and the rest of us. Because the world of Islam has lost out to the west since the Enlightenment, this is portrayed as an assault by the west upon the Islamic world. The failure of that world is thus presented as a defeat by a west that set out to destroy it. The idea that Islam was actually the last thing on the west’s mind while it just got on with inventing capitalism, while the Islamic world lost out simply because of its own inherent weaknesses, is not even considered. The west is a priori an aggressor. So it follows that Israel, which is composed of Jews who is the west’s beachhead in its diabolical intention to destroy the Islamic world. Of course, the fact that the Jews did not come from ‘far away’ but were a nation in Israel long before Islam was even invented, and retained an unbroken link with and residency in that country through waves of successive invasions and colonisations — notably by the aggressive Islamic world — is utterly denied. The fact that Israel palpably has only ever wanted its own self to exist and has never had aggressive designs on any other country is also denied. Instead, the mad logic of fanatical victim complex means that Israel must be destroyed, and the jihadi tells himself that the destruction of the west in turn is likewise an act of self-defence."

 

[ptlwp]

Melenie Phillips makes the following comments withg regard to the president of Iran's speech:

"The Iranian president sees his country as part of an epic fight between the world of Islam and the rest of us. Because the world of Islam has lost out to the west since the Enlightenment, this is portrayed as an assault by the west upon the Islamic world. The failure of that world is thus presented as a defeat by a west that set out to destroy it. The idea that Islam was actually the last thing on the west’s mind while it just got on with inventing capitalism, while the Islamic world lost out simply because of its own inherent weaknesses, is not even considered. The west is a priori an aggressor. So it follows that Israel, which is composed of Jews who is the west’s beachhead in its diabolical intention to destroy the Islamic world. Of course, the fact that the Jews did not come from ‘far away’ but were a nation in Israel long before Islam was even invented, and retained an unbroken link with and residency in that country through waves of successive invasions and colonisations — notably by the aggressive Islamic world — is utterly denied. The fact that Israel palpably has only ever wanted its own self to exist and has never had aggressive designs on any other country is also denied. Instead, the mad logic of fanatical victim complex means that Israel must be destroyed, and the jihadi tells himself that the destruction of the west in turn is likewise an act of self-defence."

When will the messiah of Islam come forward and say; love thy neighbor, jihad no one and be forgiving of all?

Has no one in the Islamic world have a mind unbent with hatred? Where is the love for mankind in this scheme of this, never mind all the bad things that people do...for if religion begs for violence, how can we ever hope for a true peaceful world, in THIS world?

 

[Wurm]

When will the messiah of Islam come forward and say; love thy neighbor, jihad no one and be forgiving of all?

Ain't gonna happen, not as long as they take their marching orders from the Quran with those 3 or 4 passages of "kill the infidels" propaganda.

You would think that in the modern Arab world, some one of the mullahs, imams, and ayatollahs would have figured out that the old text was written in the context of the warring factions of the day, and that perhaps the old hate speech isn't applicable today.

 

[darkboong]

Melanie Phillips of the Daily Mail reproduces the full text of Ahmadinejad’s speech. Here it is:

"We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years. In this historical war, the situation at the fronts has changed many times. During some periods, the Muslims were the victors and were very active, and looked forward, and the World of Arrogance was in retreat. Unfortunately, in the past 300 years, the Islamic world has been in retreat vis-à-vis the World of Arrogance...
During the period of the last 100 years, the [walls of the] world of Islam were destroyed and the World of Arrogance turned the regime occupying Jerusalem into a bridge for its dominance over the Islamic world...

This occupying country is in fact a front of the World of Arrogance in the heart of the Islamic world. They have in fact built a bastion from which they can expand their rule to the entire Islamic world... This means that the current war in Palestine is the front line of the Islamic world against the World of Arrogance, and will determine the fate of Palestine for centuries to come.

Today the Palestinian nation stands against the hegemonic system as the representative of the Islamic Ummah [nation]. Thanks to God, since the Palestinian people adopted the Islamic war and the Islamic goals, and since their struggle has become Islamic in its attitude and orientation, we have been witnessing the progress and success of the Palestinian people."

Short speech and I don't seen anything about wiping Israel off the map. Yet more hysteria or are people doing a bit of Creative Translation to further their agenda ?

 

[Wurm]

It's "hard work", that translating gig...'specially from Arabic to English.

 

[darkboong]

Ain't gonna happen, not as long as they take their marching orders from the Quran with those 3 or 4 passages of "kill the infidels" propaganda.

You would think that in the modern Arab world, some one of the mullahs, imams, and ayatollahs would have figured out that the old text was written in the context of the warring factions of the day, and that perhaps the old hate speech isn't applicable today.

That's the point, most of them have made that call. A lot of stuff goes on outside in the real world that the Daily Mail doesn't tell you about. Consider this : Does Bush speak for you when he talks about invading countries and branding entire religions and nations as Evil ? He doesn't speak for me, yet I am a "Westerner". By the same token I the Iranian president and the hardline clerics do not speak for all Muslims.

Also another point to consider is that Muslims come from every background and nation. They aren't one homogenous mass, yet that is precisely how the press presents them and that is precisely the way some posts talk about Muslims (including the one I'm responding to). I don't see folks making the same mistake with say Irish Catholics and West Indian protestants, in fact I see them *emphasizing* the differences.

Also at the end of the day the Iranian President ain't saying anything that America and Israel haven't already said about Iran over the last 25 years or so anyway. At the end of the day being quiet and keeping their noses clean hasn't really worked for Syria. Israel has not only attacked Syria (repeatedly) without censure and the US is asking for suggestions on who the next president of Syria should be. Go figure.

Clearly they have given up any pretence of promoting Democracy.

 

[FredC]

That's the point, most of them have made that call. A lot of stuff goes on outside in the real world that the Daily Mail doesn't tell you about. Consider this : Does Bush speak for you when he talks about invading countries and branding entire religions and nations as Evil ? He doesn't speak for me, yet I am a "Westerner". By the same token I the Iranian president and the hardline clerics do not speak for all Muslims.

Also another point to consider is that Muslims come from every background and nation. They aren't one homogenous mass, yet that is precisely how the press presents them and that is precisely the way some posts talk about Muslims (including the one I'm responding to). I don't see folks making the same mistake with say Irish Catholics and West Indian protestants, in fact I see them *emphasizing* the differences.

Also at the end of the day the Iranian President ain't saying anything that America and Israel haven't already said about Iran over the last 25 years or so anyway. At the end of the day being quiet and keeping their noses clean hasn't really worked for Syria. Israel has not only attacked Syria (repeatedly) without censure and the US is asking for suggestions on who the next president of Syria should be. Go figure.

Clearly they have given up any pretence of promoting Democracy.

Let' face it. The Daily Mail can't even report events in this country, never mind elsewhere in the world without a substantial unfounded bias (re Crapera)
George seems to have stopped the comic-book description of 'Evil Empires' on his list.
George seems to target all Moslems, guilty or not. Whereas the Islamic fundamentalists target all Americans. That's about the right balance in my book.
As for SOI it has no practical function in general to the world wide Jewry, and subsequently causes trouble.
Lim, others, and I have done this subject to the point of exhaustion.
The basic point is that even before 1948 Zionist Fundamentalists were causing mayhem. They did have opportunities to alleviate some of the holocaust, but didn't bother. All in all you will find that successive governments from 1948 consisted of Zionist Zealots, and it is still the same situation today. The Knessett is not a democracy but a theocracy, and the Yanks are still falling for the three card trick paying $14 Billion a year for the privilige. For people that are unaware that sum of money that represents 80% of the income for the SOI.

 

[limerickman]

With all due respect, the Daily Mail is bogroll.

As Fred C points out, without USA funding Israel, it (Israel) could never survive.
Therefore, the situation in the Middle East is precarious.

It might well be the case that Israel could be directed by it's paymaster to carry out an attack, on it's paymasters behalf.
We live in dangerous times.

 

[FredC]

With all due respect, the Daily Mail is bogroll.

As Fred C points out, without USA funding Israel, it (Israel) could never survive.
Therefore, the situation in the Middle East is precarious.

It might well be the case that Israel could be directed by it's paymaster to carry out an attack, on it's paymasters behalf.
We live in dangerous times.

It's all rather becoming a bit Gilbert and Sullivan again. The road map to peace has never been mentioned for a long time. The 'freedom' of the Gaza is, or rather was an excuse to get rid of Hamas. Of course something had to give way. The Zealots wanted to stay, and fought against their own internal forces to remain thus. Using Apache gunships the hierarchy of Hamas were murdered. The zealots were physically removed after some tokenistic resistance. Then what's the next move? Other representatives of a new Hamas got slaughtered in the same way without an opportunity of any dialogue. Of course this type of behaviour is condoned by USA. A recent suicide bombing in Hadera has resulted in Sharon cutting, or delaying talks with the Palestinians, just another excuse.
Not too long ago a lot of Israeli soldiers were blown up in Tel-Aviv. Sharon blamed every surrounding country for the terrorists. Eventually it was proved that bombers were indeed Israeli citizens.
It is indeed difficult to have our country labelled as a puppet of the USA, when it is blatantly obvious that there are far better candidates.

 

[EoinC]

That's the point, most of them have made that call. A lot of stuff goes on outside in the real world that the Daily Mail doesn't tell you about. Consider this : Does Bush speak for you when he talks about invading countries and branding entire religions and nations as Evil ? He doesn't speak for me, yet I am a "Westerner". By the same token I the Iranian president and the hardline clerics do not speak for all Muslims...

I agree, DB. I live and work in a Country (Malaysia) where the majority of the citizens are Muslim. There are a few fundamentalists bouncing around in the Northwest, but they do not find much favour amongst the general population. The people I have worked with (and ridden with) over the last 3 or so years have been fine examples of caring humanity.
If you want to find religious / philosophical extremists, you can look in almost any Nation in the World and discover examples who could bring shame upon whichever mainstream religion / philosophy they claim to represent, if you were to argue the falacy of hasty generalisation.
Axis of Evil? Let he who is without WMD's cast the first stone...

 

[limerickman]

I agree, DB. I live and work in a Country (Malaysia) where the majority of the citizens are Muslim. There are a few fundamentalists bouncing around in the Northwest, but they do not find much favour amongst the general population. The people I have worked with (and ridden with) over the last 3 or so years have been fine examples of caring humanity.
If you want to find religious / philosophical extremists, you can look in almost any Nation in the World and discover examples who could bring shame upon whichever mainstream religion / philosophy they claim to represent, if you were to argue the falacy of hasty generalisation.
Axis of Evil? Let he who is without WMD's cast the first stone...

I agree.

Our own country (Ireland) has in the last few years only been exposed to net immigration and we have people from a variety of countries and beliefs now living among us.
99.999% of those people - are fine, hardworking people who simply want to get ahead.
Many of them are Muslims.

 

[Carrera]

"By the same token I the Iranian president and the hardline clerics do not speak for all Muslims."

Hold your horses, darkboong. Nobody ever said all moslems are bad, not the Daily Mail nor even Tony Blair. And the point about Malaysia, well, Malaysians are, so far as I know, fairly moderate. I used to take biology class with a Malaysian and he was terrific, a hard-working student.
Nope, let's be clear here. I don't set out to say Islam is the enemy. The fact is only a particular facet of Islam represents a danger.
I'm aware Islam or Christianity are open to interpretation so there is David Koreshs's version of militant Apocalyptic Christianity and that of the Catholic Church. Likewise we have Muhammad Ali's version of peaceful Islam and that of Bin Laden?
No, when I seem to attack Islam I refer to the political, jihadist, intolerant strain of the religion that seems to be spreading its tentacles throughout Asia and Europe. My belief is this phenomenon does represent a real and serious danger and politicians fail to take it seriously. In fact, Bush made some capital gain out of peoples' fears by playing on 9/11 which now makes it far harder to take action against real terrorist or militant threats.
Another point I'd like to make is I happen to be secular. I don't believe in this idea of God or Allah solving all our problems (sickness, war, famine e.t.c.). I don't mind people practising religion in a free society or openly expressing beliefs, but I strongly object when, all of a sudden, I myself am supposed to accommodate all of these beliefs into my lifestyle. Or maybe I decide to write a book or article criticizing religion and the result will be thousands of irate crowds tearing the book to bits and shouting "blasphemy!".

That's the point, most of them have made that call. A lot of stuff goes on outside in the real world that the Daily Mail doesn't tell you about. Consider this : Does Bush speak for you when he talks about invading countries and branding entire religions and nations as Evil ? He doesn't speak for me, yet I am a "Westerner". By the same token I the Iranian president and the hardline clerics do not speak for all Muslims.

Also another point to consider is that Muslims come from every background and nation. They aren't one homogenous mass, yet that is precisely how the press presents them and that is precisely the way some posts talk about Muslims (including the one I'm responding to). I don't see folks making the same mistake with say Irish Catholics and West Indian protestants, in fact I see them *emphasizing* the differences.

Also at the end of the day the Iranian President ain't saying anything that America and Israel haven't already said about Iran over the last 25 years or so anyway. At the end of the day being quiet and keeping their noses clean hasn't really worked for Syria. Israel has not only attacked Syria (repeatedly) without censure and the US is asking for suggestions on who the next president of Syria should be. Go figure.

Clearly they have given up any pretence of promoting Democracy.

 

[darkboong]

"By the same token I the Iranian president and the hardline clerics do not speak for all Muslims."

Hold your horses, darkboong. Nobody ever said all moslems are bad, not the Daily Mail nor even Tony Blair. And the point about Malaysia, well,

Actually they do on occasion. When it suits their agenda they fail to make a clear distinction. In the case of Wurm's post he certainly used that very same over-generalisation.

I leap on it because that kind of sloppyness has a habit of festering.

 

[Wurm]

In the case of Wurm's post he certainly used that very same over-generalisation.

Concerning what?

 

[EoinC]

Actually they do on occasion. When it suits their agenda they fail to make a clear distinction. In the case of Wurm's post he certainly used that very same over-generalisation.

I leap on it because that kind of sloppyness has a habit of festering.

I agree, DB. Sometimes, whether through intent or ignorance, the generalisation is made through omission of clarifying detail. I don't remember the media using expressions like "Christians are holding hostages at..." when speaking of extremists from within that religion. They (the media) tend to be much more specific in seeking to reiterate that such extremists are not representative of the mainstream religion in such cases.
In the West, many seem to think that Muslim and Arab are synonyms. I understand that only around 20% of Muslims are of Arab descent. Likewise, there are many Arab peoples who are not followers of Islam.
Whilst there are definitely some very dangerous factions out there, we do ourselves, and the vast number of peaceful, law-abiding Muslims, a disservice when we try to argue guilt by association. I don't recall the media claiming that all of the World's Roman Catholics were responsible for the actions of the IRA, nor that all of the World's Protestants were responsible for the actions of the Orangemen.

 

[darkboong]

Concerning what?

Over generalising with respect to Muslims. Actually I should pick up ptlwp on that charge too. Posts #23 & #24 if my memory serves. I would welcome the same kind of fairness nit picking on my posts too.

 

[ptlwp]

don't recall the media claiming that all of the World's Roman Catholics were responsible for the actions of the IRA, nor that all of the World's Protestants were responsible for the actions of the orangemen.

This is true, but The Catholics and Protestants kept their furor and destruction, mostly home grown. They didn't attack the world trade center, to my recollection!!!

So it goes.......and the Israeli's, contrary to Muslim spinning, of course, had nothing to do with the event either......just the same scapegoating as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".......

 

[darkboong]

don't recall the media claiming that all of the World's Roman Catholics were responsible for the actions of the IRA, nor that all of the World's Protestants were responsible for the actions of the orangemen.

Indeed that's the point I'm making.

This is true, but The Catholics and Protestants kept their furor and destruction, mostly home grown. They didn't attack the world trade center, to my recollection!!!

Your recollection is blatantly wrong in that case. Going way back, the Crusades, and in more recent times the IRA attacked civillians on the British Mainland.

So it goes.......and the Israeli's, contrary to Muslim spinning, of course, had nothing to do with the event either......just the same scapegoating as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".......

No idea about that stuff, but on the otherhand you're saying "Muslim spinning" which suggests that all the Muslims in the world are doing that. I know that is simply not the case. There is a plethora of work out there, written by Muslims, that discusses the whys and wherefores and of 9/11. I have not seen a single one of those sources claim that Israel, or agents acting on behalf of Israel were responsible for 9/11.

OTOH Sharon did say that 9/11 was good for Israel, so the man has admitted a motive already... Oh and there was those Israeli agents who were dancing in the streets as the buildings burnt... Maybe you're thinking of those events - which were in fact well covered in the mainstream US media...

Next you'll be telling me that more Israeli civillians are being killed than Palestinian civillians in the Intifada...

 

[Wurm]

Over generalising with respect to Muslims...Posts #23 & #24 if my memory serves.

I meant that in terms of the radical elements in Islam, not towards the entire population, although I wonder sometimes if the greater bulk of Islam hasn't been somewhat "radicalized" due to the Bush junta's (and Blair's) actions.

 

[darkboong]

I meant that in terms of the radical elements in Islam, not towards the entire population, although I wonder sometimes if the greater bulk of Islam hasn't been somewhat "radicalized" due to the Bush junta's (and Blair's) actions.

You may well have meant that, but reading that post and the one you responded to didn't give any clue of that whatsoever. Careless talk costs lives.