Trending Topics:

Terrorism is an understandable response to west’s wars in Middle East, realist and left writers say

Opinion
on 162 Comments
It’s not quite the mainstream, but several realist and leftwing voices have been making the case in recent days that terrorist violence in Europe and the United States is an understandable and predictable response to all the western violence delivered to the Middle East. These writers tell us that bombing Syria will not achieve what we want it to, and even if we eliminate ISIS, some other force of violent resistance to the west will rise in its place. Just as ISIS replaced Al Qaeda.
Sadly, it is a reflection of the enduring power of neoconservatives and liberal interventionists that these arguments are not being reflected in the mainstream, let alone by our politicians.
All these writers remind us that the United States unleashed this violence when it wantonly broke Iraq apart. Steve Walt points out that we cannot assume an air of innocence when we have killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims, and Adam Shatz makes the point that the idea of fighting them there so we don’t fight them here is an illusion in today’s connected world.
Adam Shatz

Adam Shatz

Here is a summary of some of those voices.

Radical Islamist violence is not an expression of a clash of religions or civilizations, it is political violence, the realist thinker Steve Walt explained at Foreign Policy, in a piece titled, “Don’t Give ISIS what it wants,”

We cannot hope to reduce the danger from this sort of violent extremism if we do not understand and acknowledge its origins. Contrary to the writings of contemporary Islamophobes, jihadi violence is not intrinsic to Islam. The Quran explicitly forbids attacks on innocent noncombatants, and the vast majority of devout Muslims around the world utterly reject such actions….

Rather, jihadi terrorism is a political movement based on a minority’s narrow and fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. To some extent, the emergence of groups such as the Islamic State or the original al Qaeda is symptomatic of the broader legitimacy and governance crisis in the Arab and Islamic world. It is also, however, an unfortunate but understandable response to decades (or even centuries) of Western interference in the Middle East, and especially to the policies that have taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in the region.

To acknowledge this fact in no way justifies what happened in Paris, and I am most certainly not defending, excusing, or rationalizing what the attackers did last Friday or what other terrorists have done before. At the same time, to pretend that American and European actions have nothing whatsoever to do with this problem is to bury one’s head in the sand and ignore the obvious. To note just one example of the West’s own role in creating this problem: Had the United States refrained from invading Iraq back in 2003, there almost certainly would be no Islamic State today.

We have to face facts squarely: Decades of misguided U.S. and European policies have left many people in the Arab and Islamic world deeply angry at and resentful toward the West. Those policies include the West’s cozy coddling of various Arab dictators, its blind support for Israel’s brutal policies toward the Palestinians, and its own willingness to wage air campaigns, employ sanctions, or invade Middle Eastern countries whenever it thinks doing so suits its short-term interest. Consider how we would react if some foreign power had been doing similar things to us — and not just once but over many years. Unsurprisingly, among those many angry people are a few — fortunately, only a few — who decide to try to pay back the West for what they regard as illegitimate and murderous interference. Their response is morally despicable and will solve nothing, but it should not be all that difficult to fathom.

Walt said the US and France need to stay out of these battles because they can’t wipe out the Islamic State and if they do, another extremist jihadist force will just rise in its place.

The only long-term remedy to this danger — and remember the solution will never be total — is the restoration of more legitimate and effective state institutions in these regions. But as we have now seen repeatedly, creating the necessary institutions is not something an invading army can do, especially not one as tainted by history as the forces of the West. It can be done only by the people who live in these areas, and not by us. And that is why the main effort to deal with the Islamic State must be carried out by local actors, with the United States (and France) remaining as far in the background as possible. If our post-9/11 track record is any indication, however, we’ll probably do the exact opposite.

Walt famously concluded in 2009 that the U.S. had killed at the low end 200,000 Muslims in the Middle East in 2009, at the high end 1 million.

Obama stood firm against the temptation to use the shootings at a facility to aid the challenged as a pretext for war abroad…

Obama’s advice to the American public is to tough out these soft target attacks by sticking to our values and preserving our liberty, and by not being baited into big foreign military quagmires.Obama’s message is entirely plausible as a response…

Whether this message of patience and steadfastness will be enough to assuage anxieties is not clear. And more important than anxieties are the war lobbies, fueled by campaign cash to hawks in Congress, which demand really big wars that are good for their business.

Doug Bandow wrote a great piece at Forbes saying that terrorist attacks are simply a “weapon of war,” and inevitable against the U.S. if we continue to engage in wars in the Middle East. If we loose the dogs of war, we cannot be surprised when westerners get bitten.

The atrocities committed in the latest Paris attacks rightly horrify us, but they should surprise no one, least of all the French. …

There’s no mystery as to why [they attack us]. It wasn’t an attempt “to destroy our values, the values shared by the U.S. and France,” as claimed by Frederic Lefebvre of the National Assembly. Rather, admitted French academic Dominique Moisi, the Islamic State’s message was clear: “You attack us, so we will kill you.” By now every government should recognize what America learned on September 11, 2001. Wandering the globe bombing, invading, and occupying other states, intervening in other nations’ political struggles, supporting repressive governments, and killing residents for good or ill inevitably create enemies and blowback. Explanation is not justification. But any government that attacks the Islamic State should realize retaliation is likely, probably against people innocently going about their lives, as in Paris—and in Beirut the day before and Sharm el Sheikh a bit earlier still.

This kind of terrorism simply is another weapon of war. …

While President Hollande studiously ignored his role in the tragedy, the 129 people slaughtered on the streets of Paris ultimately paid the price of his government’s decision to go to war. Of course, those killed did not deserve to die. But said one of the killers, “It’s the fault of your president, he should not have intervened in Syria” and Iraq….

Western governments which loose the dogs of war should stop assuming that their own people will not be bitten. Being a liberal democracy does not turn bombing and killing into an act of immaculate conception. Instead of pretending that their nations enjoy immunity from the inevitable horrors of war, Western officials should make the case to their people that the likely costs are worth the benefits. In this case that includes the possibility, perhaps likelihood, of terrorist attacks at home. There are no certainties even for America, which has done surprisingly well since 9/11.

Which brings up the obvious question, why are the U.S. and its European allies involved “over there”?

There is much foolish talk, especially on the right, of the U.S. being involved in World War III or IV. For instance, desperate to catch up in the presidential race Jeb Bush argued that “Radical Islamic terrorists have declared war on the Western world.” Sen. Marco Rubio, who exhibits an astonishingly simplistic view of the world despite his claimed foreign policy credentials, similarly asserted: The terrorists “hate us because of our values.” Which raises the question why ISIL killed 43 Lebanese in a Hezbollah neighborhood in Beirut and 224 Russian passengers bound for Moscow. France, Russia, and Hezbollah were united not by liberal tolerance and Western civilization, but brutal combat: all were at war with the Islamic State….

Bandow noted the Republicans have collapsed on this issue. They’re captured by neoconservatives, when Republicans ought to be offering an isolationist response to Middle East violence.

[T]he Paris attacks encouraged Republican presidential candidates to become even more irresponsible, calling for more war against more people. Already some 3500 American military personnel are active advising and training Iraqi troops…

Terrorism is evil and awful. But the best tactic against it is to stay out of other people’s wars. That should be the principle lesson of Paris, like 9/11. With the U.S. election less than a year away, voters desperately need a candidate willing to put their interests before that of neoconservative ideologues and foreign monarchs. Until then Americans are doomed to fight more unnecessary wars and risk more unnecessary terrorist attacks.

Here’s Peter Beinart on the neoconservative braintrust advising Marco Rubio. Aformer liberal interventionist, Beinart has now adopted a realist tone:

Then there’s the end of Rubio’s statement: “[T]hey do not hate us because we have military assets in the Middle East. They hate us because of our values. They hate us because young girls here go to school. They hate us because women drive. They hate us because we have freedom of speech, because we have diversity in our religious beliefs. They hate us because we’re a tolerant society.”

This is simply false. The Islamic State may hate tolerance, liberty, and women’s rights. But that’s not why its cadres attacked Paris…the Islamic State fights those who block its path to power, whether they are liberal democracies or not. It attacked Russia because Russia joined the war in Syria on Assad’s side. Although Moscow has focused many of its air strikes on other Syrian rebel groups, the Islamic State evidently now sees the Russians as a battlefield enemy. That’s also how it sees France, which in September expanded its air strikes against ISIS from Iraq to Syria. Just last week, France announced it was sending an aircraft carrier to launch raids against the organization from the Persian Gulf. ISIS specifically cited France’s participation in the “Crusader campaign” in Syria in its statement claiming responsibility for the Paris attacks…

The United States and France are challenging that control, and as long as they are, the Islamic State will try to attack them. America’s domestic freedoms, precious as they are, don’t have much to do with it.

Adam Shatz in LRB makes the point that in an era of globalization, the terror attacks are not blowback, they are an inevitable tactic in a globalized conflict. There is no “there” and “here” anymore, and inequality is an important element of the conflict.

France has been using those weapons more frequently, more widely, and more aggressively in recent years. The shift towards a more interventionist posture in the Muslim world began under Sarkozy, and became even more pronounced under Hollande, who has revealed himself as an heir of Guy Mollet, the Socialist prime minister who presided over Suez and the war in Algeria. It was France that first came to the aid of Libyan rebels, after Bernard-Henri Lévy’s expedition to Benghazi. That adventure, once the US got involved, freed Libya from Gaddafi, but then left it in the hands of militias – a number of them jihadist – and arms dealers whose clients include groups like IS. France has deepened its ties to Netanyahu – Hollande has made no secret of his ‘love’ for Israel – and criminalised expressions of support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement...

In one of his last interviews, Tony Judt said:

“When Bush said that we are fighting terrorism ‘there’ so that we won’t have to fight them ‘here’, he was making a very distinctively American political move. It is certainly not a rhetorical trope that makes any sense in Europe, [where politicians recognise that] if we begin a war between Western values and Islamic fundamentalism, in the manner so familiar and self-evident to American commentators, it won’t stay conveniently in Baghdad. It is going to reproduce itself thirty kilometres from the Eiffel Tower as well.”

The French government refuses to accept any such thing. Most people in Paris were stunned by 13 November, but not those who were listening to IS. Weeks earlier, Marc Trévidic, a magistrate who specialises in terrorism cases, warned in Paris Match that France had become IS’s ‘number one enemy’ because of its activities in the Middle East…

The airstrikes France is conducting with Russian co-operation may provide the public with a taste of revenge, but airstrikes seldom turn people against their rulers and often do the opposite. In co-ordinating the strikes with Russia, Hollande is moving in a direction fervently advocated by the French right, which has been suffering from an acute case of Putin envy…

IS has managed to insert itself, with no small amount of cunning, and with acute sensitivity to feelings of humiliation, into two of the most intractable conflicts of our time: the relationship of European societies to their internal, Muslim ‘others’ and the sectarian power struggles that have engulfed the lands of Iraq and Syria since 2003.

In an earlier era, these conflicts might have remained separate, but they are now linked thanks to the very devices that are the symbol of globalisation, our phones and laptops. It no longer makes sense to speak of near and far, or even of ‘blowback’: the theatre of conflict has no clear borders, and its causes are multiple, overlapping and deeply rooted in histories of postcolonial rage and Western-assisted state collapse. The attacks in Paris don’t reflect a clash of civilisations but rather the fact that we really do live in a single, if unequal world, where the torments in one region inevitably spill over into another, where everything connects, sometimes with lethal consequences.

Eric Margolis at the Unz Review offers a neo-isolationist argument I wish we were hearing from some US politicians:

[W]hy should American stick its head again in this Mideast hornet’s nest?

To what gain? Can America afford such expensive imperial games when it is mired in debt? Or risk clashes with nuclear-armed Russia?

The imperialist camp will cry “stability,” that old code word for the Pax Americana. The neocons will howl that murderous ISIS must be stopped, ignoring that the US ally in Egypt, “Field Marshall” al-Sisi, killed more civilians in one day than ISIS did in Paris. No one will admit that most of ISIS’s attacks are revenge for US and French bombing of their towns and villages, nor that their gruesome executions of prisoners are meant to recall Guantanamo’s prisoners.

The American plan in Iraq and Syria is merely to kill as many “bad guys” as possible. Such sterile, juvenile strategy helped lead to America’s humiliating defeats in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. One would wonder what US special forces “trainers” have to teach Iraqis, Afghans and Syrians about war?

Arrogance and ignorance led the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Heedless of past mistakes, Washington is again rushing in where wisemen fear to tread.

Ira Chernus has an analysis up at Tom Dispatch on the grandiose mythologies that are fueling our country’s endless war against evil.

Call it blotting out history. We lose the ability to really understand the enemy because we ignore the actual history of how that enemy came to be, of how a network of relationships grew up in which we played, and continue to play, a central role.

The historical record is clear for all who care to look: The U.S. (the CIA in particular) was a key to the creation, funding, and arming of the mujahidin, the rebel fighters in Afghanistan who took on the Soviet army there in the 1980s, the men (often extreme Islamists) whom President Ronald Reagan compared to our founding fathers. From that situation came al-Qaeda.

George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq cracked the region open and paved the way for the Islamic State. The Bush administration tore Iraq to shreds and then demobilized Saddam Hussein’s army and dispatched its members to the unemployment lines of a wrecked country.

One of those shreds, al-Qaeda in Iraq, populated by disaffected officers from that disbanded army, would later transform itself into the nucleus of the new Islamic State movement. Indeed the U.S. nurtured the present leadership of that movement in American military prisons in Iraq, where we introduced them to each other, so to speak. The process was at least hastened, and perhaps ultimately caused, by the vehement anti-Sunni bias of the Shi’ite Iraqi government, which the U.S. installed in power and also nurtured.

To sustain our image of ourselves as innocents in the whole affair, we have to blot out this empirical history and replace it with a myth (not so surprising, given that any war against evil is a mythic enterprise). That’s not to say that we deny all the facts. We just pick and choose the ones that fit our myth best…

He also echoes the theme: bombing Syria is an act of war and will justify attacks on the west:

Every one of Washington’s words and acts of war, every ally like Great Britain that joins the bombing campaign against IS, only confirms the Islamic State’s message that Muslims are under attack by the West. All of it only plays into the IS’s own apocalyptic worldview.  Every step in the process makes the IS more attractive to Muslims who feel oppressed and marginalized by the West. So think of every threat uttered in the presidential campaign here and every bomb now being dropped as yet more global recruitment posters arriving “like manna from heaven” for that movement.  Each is an invitation to launch yet more Paris-style attacks.

Our blindness to them as human beings, and to all the ways we have influenced them, increases their power and undermines our power to shape the outcome of events in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere in the Greater Middle East. Ironically, we accept this loss of power willingly, even eagerly, because it allows us to hold on to what seems to matter most to us: our vision of a war against inhuman evildoers, which brings us to…

Finally, the realist Anatol Lieven made the New York Times with his recommendation for a “radical” new strategy for winning the war against ISIS, essentially a political solution engaging the Russians. Though he was a bit more warlike than the other voices I have quoted, he also sees US culpability in the violence visited upon the west.

[I]n both Syria and Iraq, it was to a very great extent the savage oppression of the governments based in Damascus and Baghdad that infuriated large sections of their Sunni populations and created the conditions for ISIS to take over the leadership of the Sunni resistance. Simply to restore the rule of the existing Syrian and Iraqi regimes over the whole of their territory would require prolonged and ferocious repression, leading to more waves of refugees and more Sunni Islamist revolts — revolts that would doubtless once more be backed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other Sunni states. Washington has realized this in the case of Syria, but not in the case of Iraq. Moscow, it seems, has not yet realized this in either case.

To create an effective strategy to defeat ISIS and Al Qaeda will require a radically new Western strategy, based on a new and truly international coalition backed by the United Nations. The first step toward this is to recognize — as an increasing number of American analysts have started to do — that the “Pax Americana” in the Middle East has now comprehensively failed, and that the United States has nothing to lose by seeking the help of Russia and other states to create an international solution.

The goal that we should be working toward is full military and political cooperation between the West and Russia in order to defeat ISIS and promote a postwar settlement.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

162 Responses

  1. pabelmont on December 10, 2015, 1:39 pm

    I agree that more bombing, etc., will not get for “us” what “we” want in the M/E. Perhaps this “we” and “us” meant people like me, but I doubt it. Speaking only for myself, I was thrilled with the now-generally-aborted Arab democracy movement, especially in Egypt. And I don’t like the dictatorships that the USA and UK and France have kept in place for so many years. I’ve got news for them: there is no longer a threat of international communism, and we needn’t suppress democracy in the M/E any more (at least not if the threat of communism is the only argument for colonial intervention).

    But the “we” and “us” who especially will not get what they want is the GoUSA, whose goals and policies have little to do with the goals of the American people. GoUSA wants to suppress indigenous resistance to imperialist and colonialist interventions. Very unlikely to work out, fellas.

    Myself, I don’t ever like or approve of fundamentalist religious regimes, especially violent ones, and ISIS and Taliban sicken me. But it hardly falls to the USA with its history of grotesquely damaging interventions to play the “White Knight” to save the Arab peoples from ISIS, Taliban, etc. We’ve blown it and should get out of the way of whatever comes next.

  2. oldgeezer on December 10, 2015, 2:09 pm

    Apparently Israelis don’t do terrorism. Amazing you say? Not in the minds of a racial supremacist zionist.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-home-mk-fatal-duma-firebombing-not-a-terror-attack/

  3. Krauss on December 10, 2015, 2:26 pm

    The line of “don’t give ISIS what they want” is a dumb one. It’s like saying, neo-Nazis don’t like income inequality(I’ve heard this line from the anti-Occupy Wall St crowd), thus everyone who embraces that language is implicitly doing their bidding. Sometimes Nazis were swapped out for some fringe communist group.

    What ISIS wants or does not want is irrelevant and it’s only use as a blocking tactic to prevent a real discussion of what needs to be done.

    U.S. intel agencies commissioned a report in recent weeks on ISIS. You can read the leaked conclusions here:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/06/us-intel-to-obama-isis-is-not-contained.html

    I’ll jump right to the point: if ISIS isn’t destroyed, there’s a very real chance that they will devour even more territory. Al-Qaida didn’t pose this kind of threat. ISIS is not really a “terrorist group”. It’s a de facto state as this point and I’m amazed how few are starting to understand this. Thus, comparing ISIS to Al-Qaida is daft, because the scale is vastly bigger and so are the ambitions in terms of what ISIS wants to be. Bin Ladin always saw his role as a guerilla fighter, who lured in great powers to greatly expend their resources(an efficient tactic) but it was always predicated on having a limited direct influence. ISIS is a far different beast.

    Further, if we are to take seriously the notion that muslim grievance is in part rooted in Western dominance of the Middle East(a notion I agree with), then there is no realistic way that will ever happen. The close alliance of the Gulf/Saudi monarchies with the West will persist simply because of oil. It doesn’t matter if Sanders goes into the WH. These things are of a strategic priority and will not change for many decades to come.

    Thus the entire discussion is in a way quite moot.

    Lastly, the radicalisation of the muslim world didn’t begin with Western intervention, even if said intervention has fanned the flames. The reactionary bigots like Qutb and the like do hate America for what it stands for. Go read his texts, I have. It’s pretty clear that this is not some misguided soul who just wanted freedom but is prevented to do so by the West.

    The Islamist uprising which has been taking place in the Middle East is rooted well over a hundred years ago. Western intervention has deepened it, but it has no caused it. Pulling out would never happen because of the oil interests, but even if it theoretically happened, the demonisation of the West would continue unabated. Perhaps less in less intensive forms, but the root hatred would persist. Bush was wrong to say that 9/11 happened because “they hate us for who we are”. No, it was for what you did. But the general hostility which became before that – and which is underlining this hatred – is traced back to the reactionaries like Qutb and his contemporaries almost a century ago and even before that. There’s been a general decline of intellectual and spiritual openess within the Islamic world, something most serious Islamic scholars (who are liberal) openly admit.

    That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t intervene less, we should, but I get tired of the un-nuanced analysis which places 100% of the blame on external forces and refuses to see the dramatic reactionary developments within the Islamic world itself.

    • oldgeezer on December 10, 2015, 4:07 pm

      I do agree ISIS needs to be confronted. No argument from me on that point. I do disagree that bullets and bombs will defeat them. Bullets and bombs may wnd up to be the part of some sensible plan but they are not a plan in itself which needs to not only defeat them but to restore order to that which is desired by the local inhabitants. An order which we might not prefer.

      I am not totally sure I agree with your analysis of the roots of hatred against the west. I would have to hear much more. I don’t think there can be aby reasonable question that we have more than just fanned the flames. No doubt some may hate us regardless. No doubt someone always will. Just as the west has it’s own menagerie who hate others. Thinking it will ever cease is a wonderful pipedream but a pipedream nevertheless.

      In a fair and just world… in a world where the flames aren’t being fed such people would be marginalized and sidelined. Ina world where we have interfered and slaughtered our way these haters gain currency and credibility.

      I really don’t have the answer. I really can’t say you are wrong. I can say that bullets and bombs as primary tactic is most likely an unproductive means. Witness I/P.

    • gamal on December 10, 2015, 4:19 pm

      “Lastly, the radicalisation of the muslim world didn’t begin with Western intervention, even if said intervention has fanned the flames. The reactionary bigots like Qutb and the like do hate America for what it stands for.”

      You are implying that Qutb, who lived in British ruled Egypt pre-dates “Western Intervention”, thats a howler boy, and renders all the rest pretty worthless,

      however as to ‘reactionary bigot” there’s a lot more to Qutb, have you read al-madina al-mashura, thorns, the whole of Social Justice in Islam? he was a secularist, essayist, literary man, like most of his generation western orientated and modernist, like many many 3rd world people WW2 was a seminal event, he discovered Islam as a culture, you may come across these writings in those texts you poured over, they were utterly alienated by the horrors of the camps, the eastern front, hundreds of thousands of their sons fought in Europe and elsewhere and saw modern war up close, many many people felt very alienated from Western Civilization by these horrors, and the open and contemptuous manner the British treated the King and state, after each public humiliation, like the Mahir affair, the King would go on embarrassing public binges, again you may come across this in those texts that predate Western intervention in the ME.

      lets recall that he was executed sometime ago, ’60’s, he may sound strange to a modern ear, however he was a good writer, interesting literary critic and he went to his death obdurate and brave, resisting western domination is not of itself bigoted and being an advocate of Islamic literary culture, not really popular with the people as a whole, does not automatically mark one as reactionary, it is true that he is not to my mind very good on religion, a bit Hegelian with all the beauty stuff, though he only read Arabic he was knowledgeable about Western Literary theory which he writes about extensively and very sympathetically.

      Your thesis is history teaches us that they hate us, really, because a hundred years ago we weren’t intervening and still they raged?

      hate is not a necessary condition for resistance, why don’t you lay out Qutb’s words and criticize them, that would be interesting.

      • diasp0ra on December 10, 2015, 5:56 pm

        @Gamal

        Just came to mention that Qutb lived all of his life under the heel of Western Imperialism, but you did a better job than I could have.

      • gamal on December 10, 2015, 6:05 pm
      • Mooser on December 10, 2015, 7:05 pm

        Thanx, “gamal”. And for some other times, too.

      • zaid on December 11, 2015, 1:45 am

        It does not matter if Qutob or others have radical views.

        Radical views exists and they cannot be eradicated because once an idea is produced it will live forever in books and media.

        The issue is why do young people follow these ideas, i am pretty sure the Paris and California attackers never read or heared of Qutob.

        The grievances (Israel/Iraq..etc) in the Muslim world pushes young to radicalization and that is the issue.

      • annie on December 11, 2015, 8:53 am

        The Power of Nightmares 1: The Rise of the Politics of Fear — my introduction to Sayyid Qutb (2:13 in the video)

        and i recommend the entire 3 part series.

      • Citizen on December 11, 2015, 1:59 pm

        I want to join Mooser in thanking you, @Gmal. We need to know this. Annie, you too.

      • irishmoses on December 12, 2015, 7:50 pm

        Gamal,

        Peter Bergen, in his The Longest War, says the rise or rebirth of the popularity of Islamic fundamentalism was a result of Israel’s overwhelming victory in the 1967 Six Day War. Others have said the same. Bergen calls it the Salwa or Awakening which called into question the then reigning orthodoxies of Arab nationalism and socialism. Qutb, although he was executed in 1966, provided the intellectual basis for the Awakening by showing how Muslims could resist the influence of the Western ideologies of socialism, capitalism, and secularism by adopting an Islam that informed every aspect of everyday life. Only then could they expect to vanquish the armies of the Zionists and Crusaders.

        To attribute Israel’s 1967 victory as the cause of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism may seem a bit of a stretch until you look at the physical and psychological extent of the victory. A tiny, newly created country defeats the entire Arab nation (6 directly involved, the rest provided some air support and supplies) which was over 100 times Israel’s size and over 25 times its population, and does so effectively in about 3 days.

        To understand the humiliation and psychological impact of such a defeat, it would be as if the Mormons of the state of Utah had raised an army and then whipped the entire army of the US and captured a major portion of the country in less than a week. Dumbfounded we would have been to suddenly find ourselves and our precious Judeo-Christian heritage vanquished by a pagan offshoot of our religion. God, certainly, would clearly have not have been on our side in that one.

        I suspect, liberal atheist though I profess to be, I would have headed back to daily Mass in sackcloth and ashes. Although, the idea of multiple wives might have attracted me to the faith of my conquerers (sort of a version of the 72 promised virgins).

        Humor, and missing quotes aside, I find it interesting that our current state of affairs can be attributed to the phenomenal success of Israeli militarism and (later) US support and US interventionism. In other words, the I-P conflict is part and parcel of and even causitive of our growing current conflict with Salafi-Jihadism, from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to Bagdahdi and his nascent Islamic Caliphate.

      • Mooser on December 12, 2015, 8:58 pm

        I find it interesting that our current state of affairs can be attributed to the phenomenal success of Israeli militarism and (later) US support and US interventionism.

        We helped, all we could.

      • gamal on December 12, 2015, 11:54 pm

        hey GaeilgeMoses,

        the defeat of Arab nationalism culminated in the ’67 six day war, other stuff had also been going on, the Aden rebellion, which Nasser supported, the NLF and FLOSY, it started in I guess 63 ish with attacks against the high commissioner Trevaskis, they assassinated off duty British soldiers, they also killed more of each other than the British managed, Internecine thy name is Arab. The NLF formed a government in ’67/8, Jumhūrīyat al-Yaman ad-Dīmuqrāṭīyah ash-Sha‘bīyah, Peoples democratic republic of Yemen, as one old Arab nationalist told me “Countries with Democratic in their name are always dictatorships”

        numerous other factors weakened Pan-Arabism and Pan-Arab Nationalism, it would take too long to go into all.

        It was the collapse of the USSR that killed it off, but not the anti-colonialism and anti-capitalism of the masses,

        Ignorami like Krauss love in particular 2 texts of Qutb signposts and sick singing, Qutb wrote signposts in prison being subjected to the CIA designed regime of torture, prior to his inevitable execution, Annies video above touches on it briefly.

        signposts was smuggled out of his torture chamber, now he was a poet and novelist not an Alim (Muslim scholar) so this work being produced while his body was being burned on the wrack, the gallows his obvious destiny, captures not only the Arab condition as such, imprisoned and tortured it has a fiery defiance is utterly uncompromising, this bookish little nebish while he was being ground to powder composed a truly incredible work, i find it attractive as neither religion nor politics, I would have been an object of derision to a man like Qutb, but it would not be mutual.

        and as a distillation of the spirit of resistance, even in hopeless situations, it has entered our blood, because in Arabic its intense and well written. I am very sympathetic to his anti-imperialism anti-materialism anti-commercialism, as he was being beaten he abandoned gradualism and education in favour of a disciplinarian approach, cometh the time cometh the text,

        The politicide the the west has consciously inflicted on the Arabs is going to provoke resistance..

        During Bloody Sunday there was a claim that the IRA had initiated the firing and when film was produced of an IRA man returning fire the British felt vindicated, till one Para pointed out that yes the IRA returned fire when the Para’s attacked the civil rights march, but that it was obviously just men grabbing whatever they had to hand and haphazardly returning fire, the man filmed for instance was firing a sawn-off 12 bore at troops vastly out of range,

        in the same way Islamism is the only weapon to hand right now for a lot of people, guys like Zaid and Diaspura would know far better than me how things now stand on the ground with the people.

        I spent the day driving through a flooded Ireland, its like its sinking and am in a Dublin airport hotel many miles from the Arabs, preparing to fly to a city that has just today apprehended two Arab ‘suspects’.

        A German woman I know who was also wearing a Kuffiyeh, warned me not to wear mine, last week, i am never without it, its cold at the moment, “No I told her I am going to wear mine like a flag” thats what I learned from Qutb, if we can’t have peace and freedom then let us fight.

        we should like to flip the finger to all those civilisors, crusaders, progressives who have all decided ‘ISIS’ must be destroyed, do Euro/Americans never learn.

        leave us alone, or interact within the bounds of the law.

      • Mooser on December 13, 2015, 11:46 am

        “leave us alone, or interact within the bounds of the law.”

        I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again; Thanks, “gamal” Thank you very much. I have no idea, none, what “Irishmoses” was trying to accomplish, but thanks, “gamal”.

      • just on December 13, 2015, 1:16 pm

        Thank you most sincerely, gamal.

      • irishmoses on December 13, 2015, 3:56 pm

        Hey Gamal.
        [This responds to your response to me below which no longer has a reply button.]

        GaeilgeMoses, I like that. Thanks for replying at length to my disjointed post. I always feel like another two layers of onion have been removed from an issue when you intervene, correct, elaborate, and clarify.

        As Mooser, and likely everyone else was clueless at what I was trying to accomplish in my post, let me try to clarify, hopefully briefly.

        My question was, or should have been, whether you agree that Israel’s 67 war triumph was the door that opened the rebirth and appeal of Islamic fundamentalism? In other words, do you see, as others do, a direct link between that victory and the rise and success of OBL, AQ, and now ISIS? I realize we are dealing with gradations of grey, and that decades of western imperialism played a major role in all of this, but is there something unique about the Zionist triumph in 1967 that made others conclude that only the single mindedness of Qutb’s approach would work? Was the totality of the defeat the psychological straw that broke the back of Arab secularism, nationalism, intellectualism (I’m struggling for the right term)?

        Is this link (if it exists) the key to where we are today? Krauss seems to feel our present state is a product of both Israeli and US actions and Qutb and his followers’ disdain for our values (or lack of). I think the latter stems from the former. To win the war you need purity of purpose.

      • Mooser on December 13, 2015, 4:23 pm

        “As Mooser, and likely everyone else was clueless at what I was trying to accomplish”

        Whoa! Stop right there “irishmoses”! I may be clueless, but for your own sake don’t assume that “everyone else” shares my cluelessness.
        You don’t want to start out by insulting your readers. My cluelessness in a class by itself, and, on nice days, outstanding in its field. Before they made it, they broke the mold.

        “To win the war you need purity of purpose.”

        Sorry, I must have lost track which “war” are they fighting?

      • gamal on December 13, 2015, 6:12 pm

        hi Irishmoses,

        I am cutting deals and dealing with a depressed khenpo school, while i do this, Connor Macgregor an Irish fighter, MMA, has just done an Ali ( Ali knocked Liston out, 2nd fight, in the same way) and beaten a very well respected fighter spectacularly, his franchise gym competes with us things looking pretty tough for us now, my Irish confreres hoped he might lose, we’ll manage.

        who says a man cant multitask.

        I think one of the Arab guys could probably answer better, but the idea that the Arabs were crushed by ’67, I am not so sure, anyone know the significance of 1798?

        ’67 was one of many,

        please allow me to reply as the westerner that I can become at any time.

        there is a lot more too all this firstly Islamism has become part of a class conflict in the mashreq, Saudi cynicism and money fuels a lot of it, but its much more complex than ISIS or modernity.

        Primarily Islamism has arisen because the West is intent on preventing any developments in the Arab world that may interfere in their untrammelled use of the regions resources, not just Oil, though primarily and other strategic issues for the west, and the failure of the left (that should sound familiar to us all in the west)

        Westerners keep acting surprised whats all this about they ask, well if they had been paying attention it would make a whole lot more sense to them.

        what we are seeing is the wind of change in reverse, Daesh (D from now on) are an astroturf outfit, like wahhabism, the first thing that struck me and the few Arabs i get to mail, mostly relatives, was the D’s logistical sophistication, anyway we all know they are getting state administrators etc from somewhere. Concluding deals with young Bilal Erdogan etc.

        people who are into fundamentalism are not interested in religion, quite the opposite in fact, they are political, their concerns are political and social.

        when that guy ate the soldiers organs, in contravention of quite a few Islamic notions, we all felt the same way, because we know what has been inflicted on these people over a very long time we felt oh they have finally run out of patience.

        Fundamentalism is an attack in some of its strains on the whole social structure that has failed to protect them, failed to provide them with anything other repression, has failed to achieve independence or development, the Saudi’s want to channel this resistance into the deadend of wahhabism.

        I dont accept the premise that the Arabs have opted for Islam as against “modernity”,

        (the guy who just brought us food is an Egyptian from Monufia in the delta, he has an engineering degree and masters, he is a waiter in a swiss hotel, he insisted on kissing me even though we are drinking a little complementary prosecco.

        so why not start from here, I dont think I have an answer, Gilles Kepel “Fundamentalism in Egypt” who became an anti-veil promoter and soldier of France against Islamism and Achars
        Marxism, Orientalism, Cosmopolitanism would be a place to start, frankly I dont know man, i think there is a lot more to all this, western perceptions being one thing you might want to struggle with.

        “Muhammad Abduh was amongst the first Arabic-speaking Muslims to travel to Europe. He, consequently, developed a deep and extensive knowledge of its social and political thought which played an essential role in his religious career. He was appointed Mufti of the Egyptian Realm in 1899. Yet nothing in Muhammad Abduh’s childhood would foretell such a brilliant future.
        He was born to a small family of farmers, in Mahallat Nasr, an Egyptian village located in the vast fertile Delta, that extends from the Mediterranean coast to Cairo. His father was able to hire a private Qur’an teacher, who helped him memorize the Qur’an, at the age of 12. Although, that was not considered a young age at the time, it enabled him to leave for Tanta, where he attended the great mosque school.
        He did not enjoy the way the teaching was done as students were not allowed to ask questions neither during the lesson nor after. He eventually ran away after 18 months, but a stepbrother returned him to Tanta. He fled a second time, and returned to his village. At that point, he had decided to become a farmer like his father. He also got married. Although he was only 16, that was considered a normal age at the time. After a 40-day honeymoon, he finally returned to finish his schooling in Tanta.
        Muhammed Abduh wrote later that he had not learned anything during the time he spent there and he complained that: “The teachers were accustomed to use technical terms of grammar or jurisprudence which we did not understand, nor did they take any pauses to explain their meaning.”
        When he was 17, Muhammad Abduh finally made it to the Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo, one of the leading centers of scholarship in the Muslim world. It gave a chance to poor students to follow higher studies and become scholars, teachers or judges.
        Muhammad Abduh’s stay at Al-Azhar was uneventful until he met the Persian Jamal Al-Din Al-Afghani who was tutoring privately a small group of students, including Saad Zaghlul who became one of Egypt’s most successful prime ministers. Both, Muhammad Abduh and Saad Zaghlul were happy with Afghani’s way of teaching. He discussed the texts with his students and encouraged them to ask questions and this was a novelty at the time.
        After he graduated at the age of 28, Muhammad Abduh taught at the Azhar for two years but according to the author, “his activities over the years following his graduation, however, had little or nothing to do with Islam. Although he would later become world famous as a religious figure, we catch only occasional glimpses of his own stance on religious questions during this period.”
        At about the same time, Muhammad Abduh joined a Masonic lodge, the Kawkab Al-Sharq (Star of the East). Its members included Prince Tawfiq, the Khedive’s son and heir, leading personalities such as Muhammad Sharif Pasha who had been a minister, Sulayman Abaza Pasha and Saad Zaghlul.
        Although most Muslims believe today that Freemasonry is un-Islamic, the Muslim elites in the 19th century did not share such views. Alexander Broadley, a Freemason and the lawyer, who defended Muhammad Abduh after the Urabi Revolt failed, wrote that:
        “The Egyptian patriots found a strange fascination in the mystic tie which was to unite all men in the common bond of liberty, and believed the same machinery which had helped the Italians in their struggle for freedom and unity would materially assist the Egyptian cause.”
        As a direct result of his political activities, notably, his participation in the Urabi revolt, Muhammad Abduh was exiled.
        After spending time in Damascus and Beirut, he joined Afghani and other exiled Egyptians, in Paris in 1884. Both published a newspaper, Al-Urwa Al-Wuthqa, between March and October 1884. This short lived publication was highly innovative at the time, and it is the first example of what is now referred as radical Islamist journalism, whereby Islam is also used for political ends.
        After the last issue of Al-Urwa Al-Wuthqa was released, Muhammad Abduh left Paris for Tunis where he wrote his last known letter to Afghani. He no longer wanted to participate in Afghani’s struggle against European power and any form of despotic rule. He wrote that “the interests of the Muslims have become inextricably interwoven with the interests of the Europeans in every country in the world” and believed that it was wiser to cooperate with Europe.
        He then returned to Beirut where he taught history and theology at the Sultaniyya School. The lectures he delivered there were published as Risalat Al-Tawhid which became one of his most celebrated work.
        Despite his success in Beirut, Muhammad Abduh was longing to return to Egypt. As a result of the Urabi revolt, the British occupied permanently Egypt and Sir Evelyn Baring, better known as Lord Cromer (after he was ennobled) was effectively, the most powerful man in the country. He made it possible for Muhammad Abduh to come back to Egypt. The Khedive Tawfiq still believed Muhammad Abduh was politically dangerous, and he sent him as a judge in the small rural town of Banha. His fate, however, changed for the best when Abbas Hilmi, the last khedive of Egypt succeeded his father. He chose, Muhammad Abduh, in 1893 as a member of a commission, whose aim was to propose a curricula reform for the Azhar, a task Muhammad had in mind since the time, he spent there as a student.
        Six years later, the Khedive appointed Muhammad Abduh, Mufti of the Egyptian Realm. From the beginning, the Azhar was hostile to him. He was also attacked in the press. Himarat Munyati, a publication, although short lived, blamed the Mufti for preferring to visit Europe rather than going to Makkah for the Haj.
        Moreover, Muhammad Abduh also had personal problems with the Khedive when he sided several times with the British. On one occasion, he accepted the British proposal to ban Egyptian participation in the annual Haj as a medical precaution because a cholera epidemic had spread in the Philippines. This was opposed by the Khedive, the rector of the Azhar and the prime minister. In the end, Egyptians participated in the Haj and brought cholera back to Egypt which caused 34,600 deaths. After the Khedive criticized publicly Muhammad Abduh, the mufti lost the little support he was receiving from students at the Azhar. Lord Cromer refused to accept the removal of Muhammad Abduh but the latter had already made up his mind to resign from all his duties and obligations.”

        http://www.arabnews.com/node/341054

        you will notice the fungibility of “UnIslamic”, who is to say anyway,

        did you notice the San Berdino hoax

        “Apparent hoax identifies Tayyeep Bin Ardogan as second San Bernardino
        Police have named a second suspect in the San Bernardino shootings, a 28-year-old Qatari citizen named Tayyeep bin Ardogan, according to Fox News”

        and

        “Breaking News: Third shooter identified as Mohamed al-Jihad bin Mubarak bin Baghdadi al-Emirati Ayatollah Khomeini.”

        and

        “Weird how the other two shooters’ names were Tayyip bin Erdogan and Ayatollah bin Khamenei, with Vladimir bin Putin driving the getaway car”

        as Zaid has already demonstrated dump becomes dumb, we have no p, the fact that any one could fail to notice these hoaxes does not bode well for western understanding of the Arab east.

        http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/california-shooting-misinformation-bin-ardogan-151203061101422.html

        I dont really have answer man because i don’t know wtf is going on.

      • irishmoses on December 13, 2015, 10:23 pm

        Hey Gamal,
        [this post belongs at the bottom on my replies]

        13 seconds! His opponent was eyes down from the moment he entered the ring. Lost the mental battle and only saw the punch.

        Once again, you’ve peeled several more layers from the onion and my simplistic view of the conflict. I’m left with the realization that I don’t know near enough to even be bloviating about it. The Western view is so much easier. A CNN paid hand’s summary is all you really need, at least until you come along and add nuance and complexity to what seemed like just a simple onion.

        Just read an interesting book from the American perspective: America’s Great Game: The CIA;s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East, by Hugh Wilford. It shows how there were pro-Arab advocates in both CIA and State (and influential outsiders like Dorothy Thormpson) who were trying to battle the Zionist, pro-Israel efforts and influence in American Middle East policy post WW2. Ultimately, they lost because of Zionist efforts but also due to the interventionist impulses of then secretary of state Dulles. A sad but fascinating tale centered around two of Teddy Roosevelt’s grandsons., Kermit and Archibald.

    • Sibiriak on December 10, 2015, 11:23 pm

      gamal: You are implying that Qutb, who lived in British ruled Egypt pre-dates “Western Intervention”, thats a howler boy…

      ———————

      Wow, indeed. Thanks for the post. And the links.

    • Sibiriak on December 10, 2015, 11:46 pm

      …even if it theoretically happened, the demonisation of the West Islam would continue unabated.

    • Donald on December 11, 2015, 12:07 am

      I don’t doubt that Islamic extremism has internal causes too, though I am personally too ignorant to say much about that, but as others have pointed out, it’s bizarre that you think that there was no Western intervention 100 years ago that might have helped trigger extreme reactions.

      • zaid on December 11, 2015, 1:47 am

        Donald

        Things are not black or white, yes there are some who have been brainwashed but the majority is just a reaction to western stunts in the ME.

      • gamal on December 11, 2015, 1:49 am

        If I can lay aside “extremism” for the moment there has been internal strife within Islam from day one, but the Prophet arbitrated and skillfully averted too much hasle, from the moment of his death to today Islam has been graced with numerous internal conflicts, pretty much like everyone else.

        Extremism, well you know that guy who wrote that letter Dr. Farid Esack that they inscribed on the wall in Palestine, he has a very interesting perspective on the Lal Masjid affair from a few years ago, he knew the main guy, here is something,

        ” “In the Western news media and even much of the Pakistani press, the story was framed as crazed radical Islamist forces challenging relatively restrained government forces. Indeed, the two brothers who ran the mosque preached an interpretation of Islam that was mostly reactionary and sometimes violent. None of us in the car — two Muslims and one Christian, all progressive in theological and political thought — supported such views.

        But there was more to the story. Farid Esack, one of the world’s foremost progressive Muslim theologians who was in Pakistan to teach and lecture, and Junaid Ahmad, a Pakistani-American activist and law student directing the lecture series, both pointed out that key social/economic aspects of the story were being overlooked.

        In addition to calls for shariah law under a fundamentalist Islamic state, Lal Masjid imams Abdur Rashid Ghazi and Mohammed Abdul Aziz critiqued the corruption of Pakistani political, military and economic elites, highlighting the living conditions of the millions of Pakistanis living in poverty. As in most Third-World societies, the inequality gap here has widened in recent years, as those who find their place in the U.S.-dominated neoliberal economic project prosper while most ordinary people suffer, especially the poor.

        “We can reject the jihadist and patriarchal aspects and still recognize that there is in this fundamentalist philosophy a call for social justice, a challenge to the power-seeking and greed of elites,” said Esack, the author of Qur’an: Liberation and Pluralism. “When I spoke with Ghazi, it was clear that was an important part of his thinking, and it’s equally clear that the appeal of this theology is magnified by the lack of meaningful calls for justice from other sectors of society.” ”

        http://www.commondreams.org/views/2007/07/12/lessons-lal-masjid-tragedy

    • Eva Smagacz on December 11, 2015, 2:45 am

      Qubt saw western influence on his society and hated that. You know what?

      I look at the way Hollywood and neocons infest Poland’s culture and politics, and I’m not happy at all.

      Try to wear miniskirt in some parts of Jerusalem and you will see hostile reaction.

    • gamal on December 14, 2015, 4:27 am

      I googled a review irishM, (do you know somerville and Ross’ comic novel “The Irish R.M” (Resident Magistrate) they made a TV series)

      from the review of Americas Great Game Playing Both Sides:

      ” “The genius of you Americans,” the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser teasingly told a senior C.I.A. official, Miles A. Copeland Jr., in the late 1950s, “is that you never made clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves.” “…….

      “What is most remarkable in this tale, though, is how quickly our three Arabists were willing to jump to the other side of the street, to go from identifying and encouraging progressive Arab leaders to trying to neutralize them, to go from deriding the client regimes left behind by the European powers to cozying up to them. Certainly the most infamous example was Kim Roosevelt’s intimate role in the 1953 coup that toppled the Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh, but there were many others: Copeland’s involvement in schemes to assassinate Nasser, Archie Roosevelt’s repeated efforts to overthrow the Nasser-aligned government of Syria. To say this all backfired would be a gross understatement; by the end of the decade, the United States was just as reviled in large parts of the Middle East as the European powers it had come to supplant.

      Obviously, this is a wonderfully rich canvas upon which to draw, but in his effort to do so, Wilford hobbles himself in two critical ways. The first difficulty is not entirely of his making. Denied access to the relevant C.I.A. documents, he has had to rely heavily on the published records and private papers of his three principal characters, but — perhaps to be expected of spies — none of these come across as particularly trustworthy. Immediately after Mossadegh’s overthrow, for example, Kim Roosevelt openly boasted of — and possibly exaggerated — his pivotal role in the coup, only to backpedal when the notion of the United States toppling democratically elected governments had lost some of its luster.

      Certainly, the greatest doubt falls on Copeland, a man for whom the term “congenital liar” might well have been coined. It’s to Wilford’s credit that he highlights the inconsistencies — and often, outright falsehoods — of his main sources, but the result is a pattern of presenting evidence in support of one version of events, then reversing to make the case for a wholly different version.

      What’s more, this fence-straddling occurs at almost every key juncture of America’s Great Game, leaving readers to ponder crucial questions on their own: In the 1949 coup that brought the Syrian colonel Husni al-Za’im to power, did the C.I.A. play a decisive role, a limited role, or no role at all? Did the agency help groom Nasser to seize power in Egypt, or was it caught completely by surprise? Stranded by his own diffidence on these points, Wilford has no choice but to move his thesis along by turning to the highly qualified assertion: “It is reasonable to assume” or “The story seems plausible enough.” On such tenuous foundations charitable readers might go along for the ride once or twice, but they are highly unlikely to do so for the innumerable times asked of them here.

      The second problem is downright baffling. A professor of history at California State University, Long Beach, Wilford clearly labors under the misconception that the landmark moments of 1950s Middle Eastern history are common knowledge (if the past half-century is any judge, they aren’t even common knowledge at the C.I.A.), and chooses to glide over them in favor of the trivial and obscure. As a result, the tragicomic details of the 1953 coup against Mossadegh, an episode that continues to color United States-Iran relations, are dispensed with in a short chapter, while the 1956 Suez Canal crisis, a seminal event that sounded the death knell for British and French influence in the region, is dismissed in a few paragraphs, with the observation that its ramifications are “world-famous.”

      In lieu of a reminder of those ramifications, the reader is then subjected to a 10-page disquisition on the organizational restructuring and revamped pamphleteering of the American Friends of the Middle East, an outfit most noteworthy, by all evidence, for its utter uselessness. This is history drained not just of its interesting bits but of its very import, and at such times Wilford seems less an inartful storyteller than a kind of lecture-hall ­sadist.

      That is a shame, because the period he set out to explore is one of the most vital and least explored epochs in contemporary American history, that brief moment when the United States was seen as a potential agent for positive change in the Middle East, a moment surely never to come again.”

      • irishmoses on December 14, 2015, 10:55 am

        A fair review. The book has all of those conflicts and more. I found it interesting because it showed that the Arabists were not just creatures of the State Department but also of the CIA and other non-governmental organizations, all of whom were working to keep Zionist Israelis from having too great an influence on US ME policy which all these Arabists felt was bad for the Arabs as well as bad for US ME interests.

        US “Arabism” was genuine but it all fell apart because of growing Zionist influence and political power, and because of Cold War paranoia and the influence of John Foster Dulles who felt any third world leader with liberal or socialist tendencies was a communist threat in the making. Imperfect people and and imperfect book but still a good and unusual read about US Arabists.

  4. Ossinev on December 10, 2015, 2:54 pm

    @oldgeezer
    They claim not to do terrorism but t are proud of their record of “temporary insanity”.

  5. MHughes976 on December 10, 2015, 4:12 pm

    It is possible that, as Krauss suggests, we in the West are unconditionally hated or despised by some in the Muslim world and that they set no limits on how to destroy us. The levels of violence originating from that world suggest that this is a real possibility. However, the very same evidence makes it even clearer that this is not the Muslim majority view. We need to retain the degree of goodwill we have within the Muslim majority.
    We will lose that goodwill steadily if we do not make it clear that their rights matter as much as ours, a truth we have been liable to forget.
    Nothing would provide a plainer example of our respect for their rights than a settlement in Palestine. Nothing would give the non-IS forces a greater success.

    • Mooser on December 10, 2015, 6:51 pm

      “Nothing would provide a plainer example of our respect for their rights than a settlement in Palestine.”

      A just settlement sure couldn’t hurt. And might help improve other situations.

      • MHughes976 on December 11, 2015, 1:39 pm

        Quite so, Mooser, absolutely. The amount of damage done by justice and fairness is really quite small.

      • Citizen on December 11, 2015, 2:15 pm

        I agree with Mooser and MHughes976, but the PTB jeer at this suggestion, turn it on its head, saying we are completely duped fools to think Israel is the cause of all this Arab unrest, of the terrorism coming out of the ME. That’s not what you’ve said at all, but that’s how they spin it. Way too many people agree & then embellish by saying we are picking on poor little Israel which is just trying to defend itself amid a violent sea of backward Arabs.

      • MHughes976 on December 11, 2015, 5:29 pm

        Well, we have to argue patiently that few things are more obvious than that conflicts spread and beget more conflict, thus that fair settlement of any high profile conflict is a contribution to peace more widely. So the continuation of the conflict surrounding Israrl causes danger to the wider region and to all of us.
        If they say that it doesn’t work like that in the ME because Arabs/Muslims will never relate in reasonable ways to others let them look at the millions who are living on perfectly reasonable terms with us in the West. Solid evidence right before their eyes, would they but look.

    • oldgeezer on December 11, 2015, 6:23 pm

      @MHughes

      The reality though is that they will make an argument similar, if not lime that. Another comment along those lines is the inability of arabs to accept a non muslim country in the region.

      If one argues that Israel has been avoiding peace and is using the situation to create facts on the ground the quick rebuttal is that Israel has always wanted peace and is prepared to give lad for it. Leaving aside the fact that Israel has never given up anything, except perhaps coveting the land of others, those treaties have been in place to the credit of the arab side as well showing their first argument to be false.

      The reality is that hardline radical zionists are not interested in a legitimate debate but merely obfuscation.

      • MHughes976 on December 13, 2015, 1:59 pm

        I agree that the Zionists will always bang on along those lines – ‘they will never accept us’ being a variant on ‘you cannot reason with them’. The presupposition here is that Israel is prepared to to be reasonable and ready to make some offer that a reasonable person would accept. I think that the reply to that is ‘Let the offer be stated for all to see, if it is so reasonable and Israel is so ready’.
        Even Cohen seems to sympathise with the ‘no partner for peace’ school of indefinite delay. It means ‘we don’t trust anyone on the other side even to receive our proposals’, mistrust of an absurd degree. This contradicts ‘we are ready to propose something’. How persistently the liberal Zionists cultivate the garden of fig leaves that the hardline Zionists use!
        The true expression of a genuine wish to pursue peace in the absence of an interlocutor is to prove your reasonable nature and your good faith by making your proposals public not by never putting anything clearly on the table.
        Well, the Zionists will not be convinced but newcomer, neutrals and waverers always may be.

      • Kris on December 13, 2015, 2:14 pm

        MHughes976, I always appreciate your comments, both for what you say and for how you say it.
        This is wonderful:

        “How persistently the liberal Zionists cultivate the garden of fig leaves that the hardline Zionists use! “

      • MHughes976 on December 20, 2015, 5:02 pm

        Sorry to have been slow in thanking you for kind words, Kris, They will not conquer for ever.

  6. wondering jew on December 10, 2015, 4:16 pm

    This shows the inherent partiality of headlines. One of the writers quoted by Weiss asserts that the attacks are despicable but understandable (or understandable but despicable). Weiss has place in his headline for “understandable” but not for “despicable”.

    • CigarGod on December 11, 2015, 10:46 am

      Probably because the hard little nut some call their brain cannot be examined by “despicable”, but can be by “understandable.”

  7. John Douglas on December 10, 2015, 4:17 pm

    An important element of this is linguistic. Whoever commits an act of terrorism is evil. The two terms “terrorism” and “evil” are linked so closely that to identify an act as “terrorist” requires no further proof that it, and its perpetrator, are evil, deserve death, do not deserve human rights, justifies killing the innocent to kill the terrorist. Once that’s established, all that’s necessary is to NEVER allow any of your own acts to be associated with the word, “terrorist”, no matter how many they kill and maim, no matter how many children are set afire or blown to bits. It’s not terrorism, it’s, well, collateral damage.

    Terrorism and collateral damage. Both kill and maim noncombatants, mothers, small children, grandparents, whole extended families. Both are done for military and political gain. In neither case is the misery of children and mothers a surprise, certainly not in terrorist acts where the victims tend to be physically closer to the perpetrator. But when a rocket propelled grenade is fired into a house containing several terrorists and an extended family, both known to be there, there is no surprise. The killing of the grandfather of that family is as intentional as a doctor’s sawing off a leg for a greater good. The main moral difference between collateral damage and terrorism is that the techniques of the former are so much more deadly. There is no way to calculate how greater is the misery caused by we non-terrorists over the misery caused by terrorists. We call a fourteen year old wielding a bread knife against a soldier in Kevlar a terrorist, and shoot the kid. But a drone operator who willingly kills a whole family to get one terrorist is a soldier. I may be proven wrong, but I’ve yet to see a good argument for the moral superiority of collateral damage over terrorism. Shouldn’t we just bite the bullet and admit that the tactics used in war by the west are terrorist? Or maybe it’s, collateral terrorism.

    • Citizen on December 11, 2015, 2:21 pm

      On a related note, Bibi Netanyahu has stated on the Phil Maher show that when one accuses Israel of disproportionate response, he looks at what the British and Americans did to Dresden.

  8. JLewisDickerson on December 10, 2015, 4:23 pm

    RE:“Ira Chernus has an analysis up at Tom Dispatch on the grandiose mythologies that are fueling our country’s endless war against evil.” ~ Weiss

    A MID-WINTER EVENING’S MUSICAL INTERLUDE, proudly brought to you by the purveyors of new Über-Xtreme Ziocaine™ Ultra CRTP (Sustained-Release Transdermal Patch): “Let The Good Times Roll!”

    Where do bad folks go when they die?
    They don’t go to heaven where the angels fly
    They go to the lake of fire and fry
    Won’t see them again ’till the fourth of July

    I knew a lady who came from Duluth
    She got bit by a dog with a rabid tooth
    She went to her grave just a little too soon
    And she flew away howling on the yellow moon

    Where do bad folks go when they die?
    They don’t go to heaven where the angels fly
    They go down to the lake of fire and fry
    Won’t see them again ’till the fourth of July

    Now the people cry and the people moan
    And they look for a dry place to call their home
    And try to find some place to rest their bones
    While the angels and the devils try to make them their own

    Where do bad folks go when they die?
    They don’t go to heaven where the angels fly
    They go down to the lake of fire and fry
    Won’t see them again ’till the fourth of July

    Lake of Fire – Nirvana (Unplugged)(HD)

    • JLewisDickerson on December 10, 2015, 4:50 pm

      P.S. Lake of Fire 2006 152 mins
      Director Tony Kaye examines the loaded issue of abortion in America in this evenhanded black-and-white documentary that explores the murders of doctors, uses footage from actual procedures and features interviews with a range of opinions. Cultural critic Noam Chomsky, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry and others lend their voices to the ongoing discussion in this blend of personal stories, political realities and philosophical debate.
      ENTIRE FILM @ YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4uNkpDVp7w

    • JLewisDickerson on December 10, 2015, 10:07 pm

      P.P.S.
      Lake of fire (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
      A lake of fire appears, in both ancient Egyptian and Christian religion, as a place of after-death destruction of the wicked. The phrase is used in four verses of the Book of Revelation. Such a lake also appears in Plato’s Phaedo, explicitly identified with Tartarus, where the souls of the wicked are tormented until it is time for them to be reborn, and where some souls are left forever. The image was also used by the Early Christian Hippolytus of Rome in about the year 200 and has continued to be used by modern Christians. Related is Jewish Gehenna which, among other things, like hell, is a valley near Jerusalem where trash was burned.

      Ancient Egyptian religion
      Richard H. Wilkinson has written:

      According to the Coffin Texts and other works, the underworld contained fiery rivers and lakes as well as fire demons (identified by fire signs on their heads) which threatened the wicked. Representations of the fiery lakes of the fifth “hour” or “house” of the Amduat depict them in the form of the standard pool or lake hieroglyph, but with flame-red “water” lines, and surrounded on all four sides by fire signs which not only identify the blazing nature of the lakes, but also feed them through the graphic “dripping” of their flames. Some temple texts and modern books have said that the Lake of Fire in the Egyptian Religion is the lake that Ra would pass through in his daily journey in the Duat. He goes in the west gate and exit through the east gate and after that, it would say that the boat was renewed.[1]

      An image[2] in the Papyrus of Ani (ca. 1250 BC), a version of the Book of the Dead, has been described as follows:

      The scene shows four cynocephalous baboons sitting at the corners of a rectangular pool. On each side of this pool is a flaming brazier. The pool’s red colour indicates that it is filled with a fiery liquid, reminding one of the “Lake of Fire” frequently mentioned in the Book of the Dead.[3]

      The 1995 edition of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says that the Egyptian lake of fire is too remote to be relevant to the use of “lake of fire” in the Book of Revelation.[4]

      “Lake of fire” in the Book of Revelation
      The Book of Revelation, written some time in the last half of the first century AD, has five verses that mention a “lake of fire”:

      – Revelation 19:20: “And the beast[5] was taken, and with him the false prophet[6] that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.”
      – Revelation 20:10: “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”
      – Revelation 20:14-15: “Then Death and Hades[7] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.”[NKJV]
      – Revelation 21:8: “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”[8]

      A commonly accepted and traditional interpretation is that the “lake of fire” and the “second death” are symbolic of eternal pain, pain of loss and perhaps pain of the senses, as punishment for wickedness.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] . . .
      SOURCE – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_of_fire

  9. ivri on December 10, 2015, 5:35 pm

    Condoning terrorism will only increase it. Its random nature – killing people that you don`t know, by chance, as an expression of political anger – is hugely problematic and goes beyond classical warring in ruining the trust between human beings (when the guy who assaults you just uses you and the act as an instrument for a broader cause).
    The coming world-war is apparently of this category, namely no tanks or infantry just individuals killing individuals at random. The countermeasures are countries using big tools to follow the organizational bodies behind terror albeit that would only have a limited impact when there are very many small cells that act independently (possibly guided in a general way through the Internet). So the real response is likely to be – as we already see now – is of the “collective punishment” type with sweeping antagonism and castigation of the ethnic groups or religion that are seem responsible. That in turn would create vicious cycles and hence the world-war categorization – it would inevitably lead to that.
    How this new world-war mode – which is not fought, as classical wars, between nations but within them – will evolve is not clear because it has no precedent in its today global scale and right now it is still in its infancy. One thing is clear – it will have fundamental impacts on ordinary life.

    • diasp0ra on December 10, 2015, 9:28 pm

      @Ivri

      Nobody is condoning terrorism.

      Understanding why something is happening does not mean that we are giving support to it. But it is foolish to look at events without asking why or looking at its historical context and roots and what brought forth this reaction from some.

      As for your world war comments, I have nothing to say. I don’t share your views and I think they are pretty far fetched, to say the least.

      • echinococcus on December 11, 2015, 6:54 am

        Zaid

        Nobody is condoning terrorism.

        I am, for one. And lots of other people, too.
        It’s a nonsense word first massively used by the Nazis to smear the resistance against their occupation.
        It was eagerly taken up by the Zionists, pupils and continuators of the former. Parroted and amplified by the US stooges of Zionists.
        “Terrorism” is just a tactic, used by both oppressors and oppressed.
        How else are we to fight? Writing letters to the NYT Editor?

      • ivri on December 11, 2015, 10:25 am

        @echino…. :””Terrorism” is just a tactic…”
        No, the random-killing nature of terrorism puts it apart – the fact that you don`t know who your target is makes a huge difference. And people understand that and respond accordingly.
        Bin-Laden tried it – using loaded airplanes as bombs and ruining towers with people from all over the world. That had put in motion what you now see – and is Very Big. In Israel it led to the re-occupation of the West-Bank after the Oslo accord and now, as it re-emerged, it will no doubt have meaningful implications too (prominently for Jerusalem). Europe will be fundamentally changed by it if terror continues there (which is likely) as you can easily conclude from what just happened.
        It is today`s Big Thing – replacing yesterday`s classical wars, between countries and with heave armament, and just like those changed the world in the big world wars so will do this new global warring mode.

      • Mooser on December 11, 2015, 11:42 am

        @”diasp0ra”

        You must know, of course, that a bad scare, or emotional upset can, unfortunately, bring on an attack of diarrhea?

        Well, when “Dabakr” gets all upset, he responds with an attack of logorrhea. Pretty much the same things, but when logorrhea strikes, it comes out his fingers, as well as his [….].

      • Mooser on December 11, 2015, 2:36 pm

        “Pretty much the same things…”

        I apologize for the unsuitable phraseology. Won’t happen again.

      • echinococcus on December 11, 2015, 4:12 pm

        Yarright. We’ll now get lessons about terrorism and its dangers from the No. 1 supporter, nay accessory to the worst terrorists, the worst criminals against humanity.

        So, Hibri… the massacre of over 2,500 civilians in Gaza, as the uprooting and the massacre of upwards of 50-70,000 in Palestine by your Zionist disciples of the Nazis was targeted, is that what you are saying?

        Incredible, some don’t even have enough upstairs equipment to know when to shut up. Where are the intelligent Zionist propaganda tools of yore? Did they all jump ship, leaving the likes of you and the other Narr?

    • zaid on December 11, 2015, 1:55 am

      Ivri

      this is not the first time you give stupid predictions.

      There will be no WW3 with Muslims, and your bible prophesies are nothing but BS.

      what will happen is that the US and some European countries will waste few years fighting an amature jihadists armed with AK-47’s and explosives made from shampoo and expired cereals , while China and other countries grow their GDP and in few years they will realize what happened and will just forget about the middle east and dump the abomination called Israel and the rest of the middle east and just stay out.

      Good luck then.

      • ivri on December 11, 2015, 6:35 am

        @ zaid: “Dump the … middle-east”
        Well, before you dump other people`s views consider yours.
        There is no dumping anymore of parts of the world – that`s what globalization is about. Any part of the world, if ignored, can risk the rest of it in all kinds of ways. As in: being rogue and having nuclear and missiles (Iran), broader hegemonic ambitions (Turkey and Iran), bases for terrorists that then go to other places ( Syria, Iraq , Libya and Yemen), flood of immigrants (Arabia and others), Energy needs (Saudi-Arabia and the other producing emirates) – and this is of course just a partial list.

      • zaid on December 11, 2015, 11:16 am

        You didnot understand what i meant by Dumb.
        I meant to be neutral to its internal conflicts (including Pal/Is) just like China, Latin america…etc, and to stop any military involvement or support to anyone there.

        Anyway Israel wont have any importance to the west.

      • DaBakr on December 11, 2015, 11:20 am

        @z

        strangely enough-i agree with your upper comment on the nature of the use of “terror” and why you ‘approve’ of its use-the word, I assume. Not always the action.

        Where we disagree is your immediate and reactionary connection is drawn between the 3rd reich and the Zionists fighting the British and Arab armies to retain the land they already owned and to secure the larger parcel they believed were promised them by a) british law and b) traditional religious law. i am not arguing here about the legitimacy of claiming or conquering land (post ww2) where some was empty but much was filled with Arab villages, cities and farms.

        There are so many valid comparisons to make between the way nazis used ‘terror’ and collective punishment to instill terror that the direct line between nazi and zionist is just another outlandish and crazed attempt to de-legitimaize what could not be beaten thru military action.

        there are also-SO many ways to implicate early Zionists in the acts of terror they did commit without the completely absurd parallels to nazis. There are maybe a dozen well known acts of out and out ‘terror’ committed by irgun and other offshoot groups. They are well documented. They were not specifically targeted at innocent civilians and when civilians were within target we have proof that warning calls were placed to give time for people to clear out. While the King Dvd hotel was a brutal effective act of terror-the death toll could have been much less had warnings been heeded and the attack targeted British command-not Arab civilians.

        If there is a continuation of the comparison of Zionism to the nazis then I would completely support the campaign to associate the Palestinians (via the mufti’s association with Hitler and his formation of Croation SS storm troopers who murdered Slavs, Jews and Gypsies) After all-whats good for the goose…. or… whats becoming more and more apparent is that everyone is a nazi in some way or another. As in: nazi is becoming a catch-phrase nonsense word just like ‘terror’.

        also: Just because China, India and the other Asian nations are rising does not mean that Israel will face any danger of being “dumped” as you may like to imagine. Israel has been shifting its fp away from the west for years and cultivating very productive and mutually beneficial relationships with these emerging super-powers. With weak foreign policy leaders like Obama the US may well continue to fall in stature but Israel will remain vital and relevant to the growth of the new super-=powers and is poised to capitalize on the shift. You can’t p[ossibly believe that bibi is so dumb as to not see the writing on the wall- that the US in its present track-will continue to decline in terms of international influence and that the ‘special’ relationship is only ‘special’ if it continues to be lucrative for the US arms conglomerates. I personally can not wait for the day when there will be a PM who has the guts to start severing many of the ties that bind both nations into too restrictive a relationship.

      • annie on December 11, 2015, 11:37 am

        If there is a continuation of the comparison of Zionism to the nazis then I would completely support the campaign to associate the Palestinians (via the mufti’s association with Hitler and his formation of Croation SS storm troopers who murdered Slavs, Jews and Gypsies)

        by completely “support” i suppose you mean making an argument for palestinian responsibility for murdering Slavs, Jews and Gypsies last century. not sure that will be too effective. why not try giving it a shot so we know what we’re up against. this should be interesting.

        also, could you copy/paste what particular nazi=zionism comparison in this thread you’re referencing. i couldn’t find it. thanks.

      • eljay on December 11, 2015, 11:26 am

        || ivri: … There is no dumping anymore of parts of the world … Any part of the world, if ignored, can risk the rest of it in all kinds of ways. … ||

        And that’s why the world must not dump or ignore the geographic region of Palestine. Justice, accountability and equality, universally and consistently applied. Even in the geographic region of Palestine.

      • zaid on December 11, 2015, 2:15 pm

        Dabkr

        Thanks for the detailed answer to a comment that no one gave!

        Anyway Zionism is Nazism.

        Now the relevant part:

        “also: Just because China, India and the other Asian nations are rising does not mean that Israel will face any danger of being “dumped” as you may like to imagine. Israel has been shifting its fp away from the west for years and cultivating very productive and mutually beneficial relationships with these emerging super-powers. With weak foreign policy leaders like Obama the US may well continue to fall in stature but Israel will remain vital and relevant to the growth of the new super-=powers and is poised to capitalize on the shift. You can’t p[ossibly believe that bibi is so dumb as to not see the writing on the wall- that the US in its present track-will continue to decline in terms of international influence and that the ‘special’ relationship is only ‘special’ if it continues to be lucrative for the US arms conglomerates.”

        Sorry but Israel doesnot have much to offer the rising super powers, actually it doesnot have anything to offer the current superpowers as well , and it is their political influence/media/lobby that aligned the west behind them and not their strategic importance which they have none.

        1-The rising industrial giants wants massive markets to sell their products and it is the 1.8 billion Muslims whom they have in their mind and not the 6 million Jew.

        2-The rising powers need energy (oil) and resources and here Israel in insignificant.

        3-The rising power have massive Muslim population( tens of millions in China and 200 million in India), with zero Jewish presence.

        4-Some of the rising powers will actually be Muslim countries.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Eleven

        5- The rising superpowers wont be interested in repeating the US mistakes and surrendering their foreign policy to Zios.

        6-Israel doesnot have political/Media/Lobbyl influence in those countries.

        In short Israel is too small to be important for them.

        Good luck then.

        By calling Israel (the parasite) to change the host it exploits when they decline, you prove how immoral and opportunistic the vile ideology of Zionism are.

        ” can not wait for the day when there will be a PM who has the guts to start severing many of the ties that bind both nations into too restrictive a relationship.””

        It is important for Americans/Europeans to read this.

        The world must understand and they differently will ,what kind of Ideology Zionism are and it shall be remembered no differently than Nazism.

        Those Leaches cannot and shouldnot continue doing that forever.

      • DaBakr on December 11, 2015, 10:54 pm

        @an

        yes-I do mean that. if there is a continued push to compare Zionism to Nazism then by all means I agree with comparing Palestinianism to the Mufti as the “father of Palestinian nationality” and his connections to the nazi murder machine.

      • annie on December 12, 2015, 1:38 am

        like i said “not sure that will be too effective.” and then i asked “why not try giving it a shot so we know what we’re up against. this should be interesting.”

        so you’re on. give it a shot. frankly, it doesn’t sound to scary.

      • zaid on December 12, 2015, 1:49 pm

        God bless the Mufti.

        Nazism is better than Zionism.

    • eljay on December 11, 2015, 11:23 am

      || ivri: Condoning terrorism will only increase it. … ||

      Correct. The world needs to stop condoning all terrorism – including “Jewish State” terrorism.

      (Acts of terrorism should not be condoned simply because Jews are the ones committing them.)

    • Kris on December 11, 2015, 11:38 am

      @ivri: “Condoning terrorism will only increase it.”

      Should state-sponsored terrorism, which has long been a specialty of Israel, be condemned, too?

      Israel has been candid about its disdain for International Humanitarian Law and the Laws of Armed Conflict:

      After ‘Operation Cast Lead’, Daniel Reisner, former head of the international law division (ILD) in the Military Advocate General’s Office, was frank about how he hoped things would progress.

      “If you do something for long enough, the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries….International law progresses through violations.”

      Similarly, in a “moral evaluation” of the 2008/’09 Gaza massacre, Asa Kasher, author of the IDF’s ‘Code of Ethics’, expressed his hope that “our doctrine” will ultimately “be incorporated into customary international law.” How?

      “The more often Western states apply principles that originated in Israel to their own non-traditional conflicts in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, then the greater the chance these principles have of becoming a valuable part of international law.”

      Now Israel’s strategy becomes clearer. At the February conference, Danny Efroni, the IDF’s Military Advocate General, acknowledged that “there is no substitute for LOAC” ((Laws of Armed Conflict)), but that its “interpretation and implementation must be in accordance with the imperative realities of the modern battlefield.”

      It is this “interpretation and implementation” that Israel hopes to influence, based on the way in which – as the Shurat HaDin conference material states – the “law of war is mainly unwritten and develops on the basis of state practice.”

      Israel’s assault on the laws of war takes aim at the core, guiding principles in IHL ((International Humanitarian Law)) – precaution, distinction, and proportionality – in order to strip them of their intended purpose: the protection of civilians during armed conflict.

      If successful, the victims of this assault will be in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, Lebanon – and in occupations and war zones around the world. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/debate/18415-when-law-is-the-target-israels-campaign-will-whitewash-war-crimes-everywhere

      • Citizen on December 11, 2015, 2:43 pm

        I wonder how Kasher’s and Efron’s POV fits in the Nuremberg & Tokyo Trials and their Geneva progeny?

        Bush Jr’s Iraq war was a unilateral preemptive war. It smelled exactly like Israeli custom. And how about Libya? US police departments are often now trained by Israelis.

  10. tokyobk on December 10, 2015, 5:40 pm

    The mainstream Muslim community is actually less parsing than many self described liberal writers these days.

  11. DaBakr on December 10, 2015, 9:32 pm

    “…not quite mainstream”. LOL. If this is “not quite” as in almost but not to the utmost then donald trump is not quite mainstream either. but is he ‘almost mainstream?

    this sniveling apologetic drivel is as outlandish as is trumps flawed suggestion as well. it seems like the intellectually elitist so-called ‘west’ [yes-the one that the increasingly discredited e.said turned into the single cause for the entire muslim worlds ills from the end of the arabs conquests thru to the end of ww2. ] one thing the world should have learned by now is that at NO time in the past has appeasement worked for anything but a very short term. that is why its called ‘appeasement’. its no solution.

    this ‘almost-but-not-quite mainstream opinion is not much different then stating it is ‘understandable that men rape women who have taunted them by flagrantly walking around in abominations like shorts. dresses. bathing suits. anyhthing that shows hair and sometimes even a face.

    what are these nincompoops going to write if some crazt Jews start to shot up schools, disabled people places and recruiting centers because they don’t like so-called ‘western’ policy or because they believe almost everything spoken or done in reference to Jews is HIGHLY offensive to delicate Jewish sensibilities.

    What religion, culture, people (except for possibly the first nations tribes kicked off their land with no ror) have a ‘special’ right to be protected from what many of their practionaers find ‘offensive’. not racist or bigoted mind you-simply offensive. e.g. if its even true-the news clip that the lawyer for the SB women shooter maniac is entitled to have her ;’islamic’ honor protected by banning the US press from publishing her uncovered face pics. hard to believe it true considering how many dead muslim women kids and old folks bodies proudly displayed by IS as well as iraqi-sunni/shi’a fighters.

    afaic-both pops (at least donalds views about muslim restrictions) are equally insane. as for “understandable” behavior-rarely has there been a more sniveling, apologetic, wimpish cowardly and arrogantly self-righteous statement as the frikkn so-called west [yeah-the one the increasingly questioned e. said made out to be the be all to end all of everything that ever happened to arabs and other near-east residents since just after the decline of the arab conquest. the ‘west’ “understandably” deserves terror then the arabs deserved everything that the europeans dished out from the 1st crusade to present. and the arabs deserve nothing more then what the UN offered post ww2 when 100s of millions of people were displaced and relocated -the bulk of whom recovered.
    If this attitude of moral equivalence were quashed after munich or after other ‘underdog’ palestinian planned attacks against israel by the oh-so-admiring American/EU intellectual elite embracing terrorists as the new ‘rebels’ there is a very good chance that the US, EU and other places would not be dealing with the now near impossible to counter individually planned (but sanctioned) attacks taking place now.
    like a mantra having to be repeated over and over since the thick skulled seem never to get it thru-‘appeasement has NO history of long term success’. ever. period. neither in the recent past-nor going back to the punic wars, the greeks/persians and probably even many dynasties back in egypt as well.

    while donald may be a crazy loon proposing such anti-constitutional lunacy-apologists for terror are as bad as the rebels in revolutionary france who all ended up on the same slab with the blade falling. they will not be saved from what is coming no matter how much they grovel and pretend to understand a culture steeped in death, misogyny, violence, courage, shame/humiliation vs. honour . and the sad thing is there are probably close to 3/4 of a billion muslims worldwide who do not practice islam anything like this.

    • diasp0ra on December 10, 2015, 10:14 pm

      @DB

      “increasingly discredited e.said”

      In your dreams. He’s more relevant than ever.

      As for the rest of your drivel, I’m not interested in engaging with it because I’d be here all night. I’m sure others will have a field day with it, though.

      • DaBakr on December 11, 2015, 12:16 am

        @d

        for left-wing elites he was always relevant, heroic and modern. I assume by “more” relevant you mean that less academically elite leftists are still discovering his brilliance as a writer and commentator on history.

        While I don’t deny his book was seminal and brilliant-it has reached the level of iconographic to the point where many more scholars of the Muslim world circa birth of Mohammed thru the Ottoman empire are more willing to take on Said’s premise that there the ‘west’ is responsible for almost every ill in the Arabic (formerly ‘oriental’ world), that B) are willing to take on that there was nothing particularly pejorative about ‘orientalism’ until Said wrote his tome. He had little to say about the equally unflattering stereotypes that Arab/middle easterners had of either Occidentalists or-even many of their own people. Like Swiss hate germans whop ‘hate’ french’ etc. egyptians ‘hate’ Lebanese’ (who claim they aren’t even arab but phoenecian) and Syrians hate iraqis .

        But he single-handedly made a generation of ivy league left-oriented historians look at the west- or I should say the ‘so-called’ west as the ‘west’ has come to been seen by more conservative historians as a misnomer and equally as perforative as ‘oriental’ ever was. If either were ever.

        But go ahead-enjoy Said. I didn’t say he is endanger of becoming irrelevant -I imagine he will remain so for a long time. But I said-much more increasingly are the formerly marginalized conservative historians (getting sick to death of the liberal-left wing strangle hold on US/EU academia) willing to take on Said’s argument as flawed, wrong-headed and in may instances as bigoted as the so-called ‘west’ or Occident he was trying to expose for their arrogance and mistreatment of the orient.

        As for my ‘drivel’. you won’t engage with it because a) you’d have to search whereas I pulled this out of late 90s lectures. But it is not controversial-except for bigoted idiots. its not some outrageous theory from left field. . therefore basically correct. though I can’t swear that I got every damn detail correct from memory . But I’ll stand by it. Historians are worse then baseball fans in how much they like to argue. let “others” have their ‘field day’ . I’ll stand with the Africans as the original rulers of the world pre- 3500-4000b.c.e.

      • diasp0ra on December 11, 2015, 9:13 am

        @DaBakr

        Let’s just say I disagree.

        And your history is not correct for the most part. I don’t want to go into details, it’s too exhausting, seriously you don’t have any idea how many times all of this has been argued and debunked, you’re not bringing anything new DB.

        What exactly are you saying, that Arabs had an empire a thousand years ago and mistreated people so it’s okay now for Israel to do the same?

        Don’t worry, I’m not afraid of searching for anything. As I constantly say, one needs more education and awareness to go against the dominant narrative than to support it.

  12. DaBakr on December 10, 2015, 9:52 pm

    also-

    does nobody know about the Arab and/or Muslim wars against Germany? Balkans? or Africans? Or the way the Arabs swept through the levant converting nearly everybody through either persuasion(70%) coercion, threat of death(20%) and the rest killed as examples?. They were not there to barter. They came to conquer.
    Then the entire slave trade built on Arab/Muslim conquest of Africans using stronger/willing African tribes to capture weaker less war-like tribes for sale/ slavery? Why is that rarely taught or “excused”? Is African animosity/terror towards the mostly Muslim north “understandable” ? And if so-why has it not happened?

    That Africans most surely dominated and subjugated the emerging caucasion or mixed afro-caucosoid lighter brown /lighter eyed humans and gradually pushed them north out of Africa when African kingdoms ruled the earth for nearly 10,000 years of mostly lost pre-history?
    -don’t take my word for this. take the words of african scholars who seem to understand that ancient pre-historic lighter-skinned folks were most likely oppressed for a far longer time then northern euro- whites have oppressed blacks later on in their strengthened tribes. not that at this point in time-anyone oppressing anyone should be “understandable” behavior. But according to the above ‘voice’ slavery would have been “understandably” a response to former ancient caucasian [meaning arab/indian/europeans all] domination by the more southern dominant african imperial rulers.

    everything is either “understandable” or inexcusable. but not both. humans have never proven themselves to be moral enough to have it both ways-though many think they have

    how can MW commenters not think about this? is everything filtered thru the lens of hatred for Israel/Zionism and how the Palestinians -who really did not have a distinct identity from Arabs in nearby Jordan until Israel stole/conquered their land and the partition into Jordan made a ‘western Jordanian’ identity unfeasible since Jordanians no longer had any legal claim to land within the Israeli/Arab partition. Its not an insult or denial of the Arab culture that was there for over 1000 yrs but strictly a necessity in order for the Palestinians who refuse to give up their claims to land to not identify as Jordanians. But I’ll probably be modded for some type of ‘denial’ .

    Just as well-I think this whole site is premised on retroactive denial. Just not of Palestinians.

    • RoHa on December 10, 2015, 10:10 pm

      “the Palestinians -who really did not have a distinct identity from Arabs in nearby Jordan until Israel stole/conquered their land”

      How does it make a difference whether or not they had a “distinct identity”? They were still driven out of their land.

      • DaBakr on December 10, 2015, 11:05 pm

        @rh

        the difference is a matter of international legal standing. i hope you don’t believe the fairy tale that jordan did not have every intention of winning ALL of Israel for the nation of Jordan and that the Arabs living there would matter-of-factly be absorbed into the huge population of Palestinian already living in Jordan?

        If you do-you can explain why there was never a cry for a seperate Palestinian nationality and state in west bank/gaza when it was occupied by Jordan/egypt. You can explain when the PLO was founded-or more like-what were the pan-arab goal for this ‘Arab land’ before the suez war and then more relevantly up until ’67. And then how things changed. do you really think everybody forgot about this? and that revisionary historians can make up stories about how Jordan always intended for it to be a separate nation from the hashemite kingdom and that he didn’t reign over Palestinians in the territories-including banning Christian and Jewish Jordanians rights to pray and destroyed over 50 ancient synagogs as well as many churches-thereby making it so very easy to deny an extensive Jewish history in east Jerusalem. If its disappeared without any press allowed-it never existed, right? Too bad that 1000s of aerial photos of jerusalem and other towns were found recently dating from 1900s to 1940s. The synagogs and churches can all be counted. Well-this is just my ‘hasbara distortions’ anyway.
        But I have never denied that arab people (who are now identified forever as Palestinian were forced, coaxed and fled from their land and most of that number have never been able to either A) return or B) be treated as anything but garbage and denied any rights of nationality or legal status other then refugee by many of their Arab ‘host’ nations. This is something Israel has never done to Arabs living within armistice Israel.

        I still say you oversensitive bunch of lefties who hate Zionism/Israel SO much are so completely blind to simple truths (like the above-that are not in the least offensive) that normal-non propaganda engaged (thats a different story. propaganda/hasbara Pals/Jws are fighting a war of words) but average Palestinians, Jordanians-Israeli Arabs and other Arabs can talk about without jumping out of their skin with animosity. It doesn’t mean they love Zionism or the Israeli state-even though millions would prefer to live as Israeli citizens now-as well as in the future.

        In a way-your are correct though in how it does not make a difference. The Arabs decided early on that complete rejection of Zionism and any form of Jewish sovereignty over Muslims in the land of israel was the only way they would play. Sadat gambled-got the land-then was killed. little king hashemite threw hands up and said after ’73- “its not mine anymore. you take the hot potato but i’ll keep the mosque on your mount just in case”
        So-it makes no difference that the Arabs-wether they identify distinctly as Palestinians now, always, or since Arafats formation of the PLO and Palestinian national identity

      • RoHa on December 12, 2015, 12:49 am

        “the difference is a matter of international legal standing.”

        Could you explain that for me, please? As far as I know, legal rights are not dependent on how or whether people “identify”. The rights of refugees, for example, do not depend on their “identity”, but on having been driven from their homes.

      • talknic on December 12, 2015, 7:22 am

        @ DaBakr “the difference is a matter of international legal standing.”

        Cite? I’ll wait!

        ” i hope you don’t believe the fairy tale that jordan did not have every intention of winning ALL of Israel for the nation of Jordan and that the Arabs living there would matter-of-factly be absorbed into the huge population of Palestinian already living in Jordan?”

        Another putrid wad of Ziodrivel. According to the Israeli Government statement to the UNSC on May 22nd 1948, Israeli military already occupied territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” as was outlined in Plan Dalet

        As a consequence, there are no UNSC resolutions against any Arab state for their 1948-49 attempt to drive Jewish/Israeli forces from non-Israeli territories. It was in fact well within their legal rights as Regional Powers under the UN Charter Chapt VII to invade “Palestine”

        In regards to Palestinians/Jordan, you keep repeating a tired olde wholly holey Hasbara mantra written for morons. Only the citizens of the territory that became Jordan had an automatic right to Jordanian citizenship, they’re ALL Jordanian.

        Refugees in Jordan meanwhile are dispossessed non-Jewish Israeli citizens and Palestinians. They have RoR both within Israel’s Internationally recognized borders and to what remained of Palestine after Israel proclaimed its borders as being ” within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″

        “.. there was never a cry for a seperate Palestinian nationality and state in west bank/gaza when it was occupied by Jordan/egypt”

        A) There was already a Palestinian State and Palestinian Nationality BEFORE the partition plan was accepted as binding on the Jewish people by the Jewish Agency and BEFORE Israel’s borders were proclaimed and recognized.

        Read the LoN Mandate for Palestine Article 7 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7 – Palestinian Nationality Law was passed in 1925

        B) It was, and still is, impossible to be independent while Israel occupied territories Israel claimed on the 22nd May 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

        C) The West Bank was sovereign to Jordan fro 1950 til 1988. The West Bank as it is now known, was legally annexed at the request of the Palestinians Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950).

        “But I have never denied that arab people (who are now identified forever as Palestinian were forced, coaxed and fled from their land and most of that number have never been able to either A) return or B) be treated as anything but garbage and denied any rights of nationality or legal status other then refugee by many of their Arab ‘host’ nations.”

        Much to your disappointment some folk would rather return to their rightful homeland. No point in offering citizenship in foreign Arab states when Palestinian and non-Jewish Israeli refugees would rather return.

        BTW why do you want non-Jewish Israeli citizens to live in Arab states?

        ” This is something Israel has never done to Arabs living within armistice Israel”

        A) There’s no such thing as “armistice Israel” There is Israel as recognized per the 1948 Israeli Govt plea for recognition and then there are territories occupied by Israel, so; B) You’re spouting bullsh*t!

        “I still say you oversensitive bunch of lefties who hate Zionism/Israel SO much are so completely blind to simple truths (like the above-that are not in the least offensive) “

        Not offensive to a ghastly Zionazi maybe. Seems tho by your comment no one on the right believes in upholding the law. Interesting

        “… even though millions would prefer to live as Israeli citizens now-as well as in the future.”

        It’s no surprise. They’d be non-Jewish Israelis who remained in and who’d prefer to live in their homeland.

    • oldgeezer on December 10, 2015, 10:11 pm

      Understanding is not excusing. Apart from that your rant was worth every penny we paid for it.

      • DaBakr on December 10, 2015, 11:18 pm

        @og

        oh yes. but who pays you old woman? or old man? plenty of old-timers work.

    • gamal on December 10, 2015, 10:47 pm

      “That Africans most surely dominated and subjugated the emerging caucasion or mixed afro-caucosoid lighter brown /lighter eyed humans and gradually pushed them north out of Africa when African kingdoms ruled the earth for nearly 10,000 years of mostly lost pre-history?”

      “mixed afro-caucosoid lighter brown….” is this from the afro-caucasoid bible, ” most surely dominated and subugated” sick,

      “the Africans” but they were all Africans or were the afro-caucasoids dual passport holders, yeah they bailed, figures, call of the caucasos no doubt.

      weapons grade stupidity.

      • DaBakr on December 10, 2015, 11:46 pm

        @gm

        righto gml. i’m so stupid I only referenced one of the greatest african american- harvard and oxford educated historians of the 20th century. And no-i don’t mean Gates. There are so many more now in the 21st-you can source your own. My recollections are from years ago anyway. But I kind of doubt history turned the clock forward again.

        I have to ask you since you feel I am so dumb and you so smart. What do you think was happening in middle Africa while the egyptians were still running around naked eating raw gazelles? And before the northern African/egyptians stole/borrowed/learned ( and also burnt and destroyed most -but not all-evidence of) the Kush upper nile empires? They actually had books, you know? Like they read. It wasn’t all Egypt and Sumeria. Interestingly-it might have (did-obviously) occurred due to immense climate -landscape changes in the Sahara/Savannah border regions- making empire building more efficient-sucessful in northern coastal -africa-something for republican climate deniers to think about.

        I sense a hidden supremacist in the disguise-in you- of a humanist Palestinian and/or sympathizer/zionist-hater who believes in abroad view of humanity but has some limitations. I hope you give me your non-stupidity grade history of Africa before the egyptian,(let alone the relatively youngJews – only a mere 5576 give or take) sumerian, or especially before any arabian civilizations crawled out of their desert caves. (not that caves were so bad in the desert) and who ruled the sudanese kush, the nubians, before they overpowered their enemies? i’d be curious. Unless you think there was a Jardin du Eden

        *if you want some help you can look up the Paris museum: Institut du mode arabe. I saw an amazing presentation-show-history way back in the 90s about how the egyptians and their subsequent biographers insidiously biased all accounts of early egyptian culture while relegating ancient nubian, kush, sudanese and even more upper nile peoples massive accomplishments to 2nd and 3rd teir status. Nubians were superior archers with superior weapons that egypt appropriated as their own, In fact-that is pretty much the story of egypt pre-history to mid-ages. wipe out any record of opponents/enemies conquests and say it was all egyptian. Very few mentions in egyptian papyrus of Egyptian losses though they now can be crossed off against other empires accounts of numerous defeats. However-nobody until the past 50yrs or so paid any attention to pre-egyptian africa. go. learn. then you can shout “stupid”

        Ok. My crystal meth is wearing off. time to go find some old valiums to ‘help that crash’ . I so love MW- its so entertaining (in a serious way, of course) to get ones dander all up in hackles.

      • Mooser on December 11, 2015, 12:21 pm

        “Ok. My crystal meth is wearing off. time to go find some old valiums to ‘help that crash’ .”

        “Dabakr”, I think the sheer volume of drivel and bullshit you typed in the past 24 hours validates, heck, stands as a testimony to that statement. The supporting material puts it beyond any cavils.
        Finally, you’ve said something nobody will have any trouble believing.

      • DaBakr on December 11, 2015, 10:56 pm

        @ms

        yes funny man. i was specifically thinking about how you would enjoy that admission from me. i’ll leave it to your brilliant wit to decide wether it was earnest or something else. But I warn you-just like bibi-i really liked Breaking Bad.

      • Mooser on December 12, 2015, 11:31 am

        “But I warn you…”

        You “warn” me? Kish mir en toches

        Anybody can look at your archive and tell you were telling the truth. One long tweak.

      • gamal on December 13, 2015, 10:05 am

        By the power of Mooser “Kish mir en toches” i have become fluent in Yiddish, pog mo thoin in Gaelic.

      • Mooser on December 13, 2015, 12:12 pm

        “By the power of Mooser “Kish mir en toches” i have become fluent in Yiddish, pog mo thoin in Gaelic.”

        That’s great! I see the glot Jewste has already stood you in good stead on this thread.

    • eljay on December 11, 2015, 7:33 am

      || DaBakr: … the Palestinians -who really did not have a distinct identity from Arabs in nearby Jordan until Israel stole/conquered their land … ||

      So, just to clarify: Jewish people living in one part of a neighbourhood do not have a distinct identity from Jewish people living in another part of the neighbourhood, so it’s perfectly acceptable for non-Jewish people from that neighbourhood and throughout the city – non-Jews who are exercising their right to self-determination and believe that the entire neighbourhood is their “Historic Neighbourhood” – to steal/conquer part of the neighbourhood, partition it, expel its Jewish inhabitants and set up a supremacist “Non-Jewish Neighbourhood”. And then to steal, occupy and colonize other parts of the neighbourhood. And to oppress, torture and kill Jewish people – terrorists, really – in the parts of the (Greater) “Non-Jewish Neighbourhood” in “self-defence”.

      Is that about right?

      • annie on December 11, 2015, 8:13 am

        wtf is a “distinct” identity anyway. sheesh.

      • DaBakr on December 11, 2015, 11:38 am

        @an

        your very good at playing obtuse. have you ever heard a Palestinian say, “we and Jordan are one and the same”? There is no difference between Jordan and Palestine except-if Palestinians maintained that they were ‘Jordanians’ or part of Jordan/Palestine they would have no legal standing in the UN or any other international body to make claims against Israel for the land they believe was taken from them and which they intend to get back. Again-MW making a big deal out of a mundane issue.

        And as for “wtf is a distinct identity?”. It can be anything at all that people want it to be. The lady in the US who wanted to self-identify as ‘black’ wants a distinct identity from her biological family. The Arabs-be they Iraqi, Saudi, Jordanian or whatever have distinct identities on the one hand but many still believe there is one pan-Arab identity that joins them.

        Americans have a distinct identity from europeans. Californians have a distinct identity from New Yorkers. Bensonhurst local have a distinct identity from Stuyvesant locals. Bernal Heights folks probably do not have a distinct identity from Knob Hill or even Sausalito locals. Californians roll that way.

        i am sure you could argue the above into a gordian knot as you accel in debating but i think you get my drift-even if you don’t like it.

      • annie on December 11, 2015, 12:01 pm

        have you ever heard a Palestinian say, “we and Jordan are one and the same”?

        you mean like a texan saying “we and arizona are one in the same”. i can understand your point i suppose. given that some texans just look and talk like cowboys from arizona.

        There is no difference between Jordan and Palestine

        you mean geographically, spiritually or what? because actually there is a difference.

        if Palestinians maintained that they were ‘Jordanians’ or part of Jordan/Palestine they would have no legal standing in the UN or any other international body to make claims against Israel

        big “if” considering they don’t do it. but it makes perfect sense why you would make the claim There is no difference between Jordan and Palestine, yeah i totally ‘get your drift’.

        having an argument with you is so illuminating/not. maybe this is what mooser means by logorrhea …. http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/terrorism-understandable-response/comment-page-1#comment-814665

        let me explain something to you. palestinians came from palestine. when they were pushed out of their country lots of them landed in jordan. so of course they are going to seem palestinian because a huge percentage of jordanians come from palestine. now, if palestinians in palestine, israel and jordan all say wow, we’re so alike and non distinct from all the other palestinians we should just drop the indigenous claims on our homeland and be settled with jordan because it gives israelis wet dreams everything would be ever so loverly. not that much different than guys from brooklyn who live in the settlements saying ‘hey, i’m no different than other people from brooklyn who didn’t become illegal settlers, i’ll just go back to brooklyn where i belong. and then everyone would get along swimmingly and all your problems would be over,’ palestinians would love that, right? big fantasy solution! we’re all clear on that huh? and you’re here trying to convince us There is no difference between Jordan and Palestine. but there is. you know it, i know it, the UN knows it, everyone knows it.

        you accel in debating

        i can’t take all the credit. you should take a bow since you make it so easy.

      • Kris on December 11, 2015, 12:29 pm

        @DB: “There is no difference between Jordan and Palestine except-if Palestinians maintained that they were ‘Jordanians’ or part of Jordan/Palestine they would have no legal standing in the UN or any other international body to make claims against Israel for the land they believe was taken from them and which they intend to get back.”

        “…the land they BELIEVE was taken from them…” ?

        It’s the land they KNOW was taken from them. In fact, the whole world accepts that as fact. Like the Holocaust. Are you now engaging in NAKBA DENIAL?

      • talknic on December 11, 2015, 1:04 pm

        @ DaBakr “There is no difference between Jordan and Palestin except-if Palestinians … blah blah …”

        Palestinians do not have the right to automatic Jordanian citizenship of they were not from the territory that became Jordan. The West Bank is no longer under Jordanian sovereignty. It was handed over to the PLO by Jordan

      • MHughes976 on December 11, 2015, 1:31 pm

        There is certainly quite a lot of Nakba justification, which seems to me rather worse than denial, going on around these parts.
        However, as to Palestine, Jordan and identity – if one province of one territory is conquered and its inhabitants scattered to the four winds or enslaved a great wrong has been done. It takes effrontery to say ‘Think well of us because we did not conquer it all – the old group of inhabitants still has its identity and culture in another province of the old kingdom’. This is really admission of a serious crime, not a genuine claim to any good quality: an illustration of the point revealed to a wise Jewish writer that the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. In any event, the culture of a group of people partly suffering and partly surviving conquest must be shatteringly changed.

      • Mooser on December 11, 2015, 4:12 pm

        “…ziocaine barrages. i like that. Ziocaine. Catchy.”

        Please, if you like “Ziocaine”, go ahead and use it. I’m pretty sure it was invented in Israel, anyway.

      • DaBakr on December 11, 2015, 11:05 pm

        i suppose none of you have ever heard the leaders of the Palestinians-like Abbas, erect, Arafat and many others say ALL the EXACT things you think are my denial of the Nakba. I can’t even tell you how many times Palestinianleaders as well a s citizens have said-out loud. to the press. to any body who can hear. “we and the Jordanians are one and the same.” Is it possible you are all so totally and completely ignorant? WTF? Its not like I am supporting a Palestinian position but I am not insulting anyone either. I no longer believe most of you commenters no a single real-life palestinian unless they are completely immersed in the PR war with Zionists and can’t afford to be caught on record speaking the way the vast majority of palestinians speak. And btw-just because they feel like part of the HUGE Palestinian population in Jordan does not diminish their animosity towards the Zionist entity. You people are too much. Maybe one really does need to snort crystal meth to understand the cult-like thinking here. You say Zionists are like a cult? Hah! Zionists never agree on anything. You people are in lock-step with even the most infinitesimal perceived ‘slight’ against your beloved cause. Take a lesson from palestinians. Learn to accept certain things even while fighting for others. We know this too. You MW’s apparently do not.

        In fact-other then NOT denying the Nakba-you are the absolute kings and queens of mass denial of EVERYTHING an Israeli mentions.

      • eljay on December 12, 2015, 1:17 pm

        || @Dk: … have you ever heard a Palestinian say, “we and Jordan are one and the same”? … ||

        We are frequently told that all Jews are one and the same – they are all part of the same tribe, culture, ethnicity, people, nation, civilization and (sometimes even) religion. And we are frequently told that the “Jewish State” is their one true “ancient” and “historic” homeland.

        So, just to be clear: In the same way that you expect the Palestinians to f*ck off to Jordan and give up any claim to their actual homes and lands, you are OK with all Jews – who are one and the same with all other Jews – being told to f*ck off to “Jewish State” and give up any claim to their actual homes and lands.

        Is that about right?

    • talknic on December 11, 2015, 8:57 am

      @ DaBakr “does nobody know about the Arab and/or Muslim wars against Germany? Balkans? or Africans? “

      Relevance? The ‘West’ and Israel are STILL f*cking around in other folk’s territories!

      “Or the way the Arabs swept through the levant converting nearly everybody through either persuasion(70%) coercion, threat of death(20%) and the rest killed as examples? They were not there to barter. They came to conquer

      A) Statistics from?
      B) Prior to International Law and the UN Charter
      C) Bombing and slaughter in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and colonizing Palestine is barter? What an amazing theory? Surely of interest to the PNAC and the Zionist Federation/Israel were they not bent on conquering and slaughtering for their own benefit

      ” Then the entire slave trade built on Arab/Muslim conquest of Africans using stronger/willing African tribes to capture weaker less war-like tribes for sale/ slavery?”

      “using” being the operative word. No customers ‘using’. No business. BTW what relevance has it today? Meanwhile, the ‘West’ and Israel are STILL f*cking around in other folk’s territories!

      “Why is that rarely taught or “excused”?”

      A) Uh?
      B) There are now laws against such activities. Having laws against something does not excuse it. In fact the opposite

      ” Is African animosity/terror towards the mostly Muslim north “understandable” ? And if so-why has it not happened?”

      A) They did in actual fact fight back. However, means of transport were limited so resistance was in their respective locality and as the slave traders, ‘used’ by their customers, had access to the better weapons of and obtained from the customers ‘using’ them, rather futile
      B) That mass slave trade ceased long ago.
      D) Israel and the West are STILL f*cking around in other folks territories.

      “That Africans most surely dominated and subjugated the emerging caucasion or mixed afro-caucosoid lighter brown /lighter eyed humans and gradually pushed them north out of Africa when African kingdoms ruled the earth for nearly 10,000 years of mostly lost pre-history?”

      A) As evidenced by your unsubstantiated theory I guess. BTW even if you could substantiate that theory, it was;
      B) Prior to the International Laws and UN Charter
      C) The West and Israel are STILL f*cking around in non-Western countries

      “-don’t take my word for this”

      To be sure

      ” take the words of african scholars …”

      OK ! Say …. ….. You forgot to give any

      ” But according to the above ‘voice’ slavery would have been “understandably” a response to former ancient caucasian [meaning arab/indian/europeans all] domination by the more southern dominant african imperial rulers”

      Back to your entirely unsubstantiated theory. Cute stuff. ZioLogic is so usefool

      ” … humans have never proven themselves to be moral enough to have it both ways-though many think they have”

      By that theory Zionist Colonizers either aren’t human or they’re immoral. Thanks for clearing that up.

      “how can MW commenters not think about this? is everything filtered thru the lens of hatred for Israel/Zionism “

      What’s not to hate? The Zionist Federation DID plan and Israel is STILL implementing the detestable Zionist plan to colonize Palestine. The Palestinians didn’t ask to be colonized by a bunch of foreigners but they are STILL being colonized, occupied and slaughtered daily.

      “the Palestinians -who really did not have a distinct identity from Arabs in nearby Jordan”

      There’s one huge distinction you conveniently overlook. Only the people who actually lived in the region that became Jordan had an automatic right to be Jordanian citizens. People who DIDN’T live in the region that became Jordan, did not.

      ” … since Jordanians no longer had any legal claim to land within the Israeli/Arab partition”

      Strange. Israel and Jordan BOTH signed the 1949 Armistice AGREEMENT leaving Jordan as the Occupying Power over Judea and Samaria.

      The West Bank as it is now known, was legally annexed at the request of the majority of the population . Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950). By 1967 the West Bank was a part of a UN Member state, a High Contracting Power.

      “… the Palestinians who refuse to give up their claims to land to not identify as Jordanians”

      ZioBabble 101. Only the people who lived in the region that became Jordan had an automatic right to Jordanian citizenship. Those who did not live in what became Jordan did not. Since the West Bank was handed back to the PLO, it is no longer under Jordanian sovereignty. THEY DON’T HAVE ANY RIGHT to Jordanian citizenship!

      “But I’ll probably be modded for some type of ‘denial’ “

      Your ignorance and/or stupidity far surpasses being ‘modded’

      • DaBakr on December 11, 2015, 11:53 am

        @t

        you sure put a lot of stock in the UN and these ‘international laws and charters’ that more then half of the world ignore completely while the other half give it lip service and do whatever they want anyway. How long dome think these UN/International laws will hold up with the US in decline and other formerly exploited nations emerging ? There have been countless ‘world orders’ both agreed upon and imposed from the time of Greeks, up and through this basically [U]seless [N]othing .

        and btw-your legal (international law) based explanation of what the hashemite king intended for his prize ‘jerusalem’ and surrounding Judea and Samaria was brilliant. It is so nice that you saw him has the gentle custodian -kindly holding the land in trust for his beloved Palestinian people (whom he murdered in numbers far exceeding anything you could cook up about Israel). And he SO respected these Palestinian rights by banning the ancient Christians from their churches and destroying over 50 of east Jerusalems ancient synagogs making it far easier to repeat the lie that eastern Jerusalem was ever “arab-east” Jerusalem.

        But oh yes. No worries. Jerusalem will all be internationalized and the UN will, like, totally protect all its peoples safety and rights to practice religion.

        I can see you think everything is filtered through the lens of Jew/Zionist think tanks. Even the basic history of humanity long before there ever existed a Zionist and its parasite: the obsessive neurotic mediocre-minded Zionist-hater. I may be “beyond” moderation. But you are beyond reason. You are an internationalist cult member in due standing.

        your correct about one thing-I’m posting way too much here. i ignore the pro-Israel blogs. i’m starting to hate Zionists myself just because I’m sick of the same ol same ol. new project starts mon. give you poor Zionist haters a break from -what is it you say…ziocaine barrages. i like that. Ziocaine. Catchy.

      • talknic on December 11, 2015, 12:44 pm

        @ DaBakr “you sure put a lot of stock in the UN and these ‘international laws and charters’ that more then half of the world ignore completely while the other half give it lip service and do whatever they want anyway. “

        That’s the same UN of which Israel is a Member? Taking advantage of the benefits it offers thru its various institutions such as the IAEA and the essential UNSC veto vote protecting Israel from the full weight of the law

        “and btw-your legal (international law) based explanation of what the hashemite king intended for his prize ‘jerusalem’ and surrounding Judea and Samaria was brilliant”

        What ‘prize’ are you babbling about ? There were no UNSC resolutions against Jordan for the LEGAL annexation of the West Bank, it was asked for by the MAJORITY in keeping with the conventions on self determination. The other Arab States demanded it was only as a temporary trustee. I gave the Jewish sources for this information. You just flap your toothless gums

        “It is so nice that you saw him has the gentle custodian -kindly holding the land in trust for his beloved Palestinian people (whom he murdered in numbers far exceeding anything you could cook up about Israel).”

        Fact is, states are obliged to protect the majority of their citizens against armed uprisings by minorities even if they are militant refugees

        “And he SO respected these Palestinian rights by banning the ancient Christians from their churches”

        Sources please. No Jordanian or Palestinians were banned while the West Bank was under Jordanian sovereignty and Israeli Christians were actually given special dispensation by AGREEMENT with Israel

        As for Israelis, Israel itself passed the 1948 emergency law (still in force) forbidding the entry of Israeli citizens and residents from entering the territory of an enemy state. Jordan was an enemy state. Quite NORMAL for Jordan to have responded in a similar manner, because that’s what nations ate war do. The US, UK Australia interned or deported possible allies of Germany and Japan during WW2. It’s also normal to reinstate them after hostilities unless of course they have taken citizenship in a country other than that of return, whereby they no longer have refugee status

        “and destroying over 50 of east Jerusalems ancient synagogs making it far easier to repeat the lie that eastern Jerusalem was ever “arab-east” Jerusalem”

        Buildings get destroyed during wars. BTW UNSC res 476 [ 1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; ]

        “But oh yes. No worries. Jerusalem will all be internationalized and the UN will, like, totally protect all its peoples safety and rights to practice religion”

        Until Israel withdraws to its actual borders, there’s little chance of that or peace. Read the Israel/Egypt Peace Treaty. Israeli withdrawal began before peaceful relations were assumed

        “I can see you think … etc etc etc … You are an internationalist cult member in due standing”

        Your inane drivel is hilarious

      • Mooser on December 11, 2015, 2:53 pm

        “Your inane drivel is hilarious”

        “Talknic”, you can’t argue with a tweaker:

        “Ok. My crystal meth is wearing off. time to go find some old valiums to ‘help that crash’ . I so love MW- its so entertaining (in a serious way, of course) to get ones dander all up in hackles.” – “Dabakr” See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/terrorism-understandable-response#comment-158230

        The Ziocaine Syndrome and amphetamines. That must be a Zionist speedball.

      • Mooser on December 11, 2015, 6:54 pm

        “I may be “beyond” moderation.”

        Well, yes, “Dabakr”, announcing that the reams of nonsense you typed was simply one long amphetamine tweak-rant will sort of do that to you.

    • Donald on December 11, 2015, 11:31 am

      It’s funny that you think people don’t know that killing and oppressing the “other” has been part of human history going back thousands of years. You could no doubt find some silly lefties who imagine that oppression was the invention of Europeans, and somehow you think this means that Western oppression is no big deal. Doesn’t work that way.

    • annie on December 11, 2015, 12:22 pm

      Or the way the Arabs swept through the levant converting nearly everybody through either persuasion(70%) coercion, threat of death(20%) and the rest killed as examples?

      where’s your source link? and what’s your definition of persuasion?

      • Sibiriak on December 11, 2015, 12:49 pm

        Cf. Ira M.. Lapidus, “A History of Islamic Societies
        —————————

        “Earlier generations of scholars believed that conversions to Islam were made at the point of the sword, and that conquered peoples were given the choice of conversion or death. It is now apparent that conversion by force, while not unknown in Muslim countries, was, in fact, rare. Muslim conquerors ordinarily wished to dominate rather than convert, and most conversions to Islam were voluntary.”

        * * * * *
        “Conversion was a very gradual process. Although earlier Muslim and Western writers assumed that the region was forcibly, quickly, and massively converted to Islam, nowhere in the sources is there mention of the conversion of large numbers of people, or of whole villages, towns, and regions. The only known exception may be on the Byzantine frontier.

        The available evidence points, rather, to a slow and uneven process of social and religious transformations. Moreover , the modern notion of conversion does not correspond to the historical process by which individuals came to identify themselves as Muslim for a variety of political, economic, and social reasons. Conversion did not necessarily imply a profound inner spiritual change.

        There are a number of reasons for the slow pace of conversions. The Arab-Muslim elite assumed that they would form a dual society in which the conquerors would constitute an aristocracy and the conquered peoples a subject population: the former Muslim, the latter not . Arab elites were resistant to the conversion of masses of people partly to defend their exclusive privileges and partly to preserve the full revenue base of the regime.

        The early Muslim regime was also religiously tolerant of the non-Muslim populations . In the highly fluid social world of the seventh century, peoples of all ethnicities and religions blended into public life. Muslims and non-Muslims were not segregated in public spaces such as markets, baths, and festivals. In Syria, they even shared churches before the conquerors were ready to build mosques for themselves. The Muslims recognized or accepted these churches as holy places and may not have fully distinguished Islam from Christianity.

        Furthermore, in the seventh century, the Arab-Muslim regime helped reorganize the Christian churches. The Nestorian Church in Iraq resumed its roles in the educational, judicial, and even political administration of the Christian population. In Egypt, the Muslim authorities cooperated with Coptic lay and clerical notables. Christian scribes served in the administration of Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. In Iraq, Azarbayjan, Khuzistan, and Sistan, relations with local notables were generally cooperative and allowed for the survival of the fire temples.

        For the sake of political inclusiveness and effective administration, the empire collaborated with non-Muslim elites, permitted them partial access to power, and protected them against disruptive social and economic changes.”

      • annie on December 11, 2015, 8:21 pm

        thanks sibiriak

      • DaBakr on December 11, 2015, 11:09 pm

        @an

        and naturally-absolutely no credit to me for writing the SAME thing about conversions earlier except it was assumed I was in some way insulting Muslims. Nuts. And yes-I made the %’s up but they are surely much closer to reality then much of the west believes. Did young read where i said “the vast majority” of conversions were from admiration or simple non-coercive acquiescence.? Thanks siberk for explaining my explanation to gml.

      • annie on December 12, 2015, 1:35 am

        dabkr — i don’t read all the posts here not sure i read yours.. but if you said the same thing i’ll give you credit for sure. can’t look for it now tho, clearing comments.

      • talknic on December 12, 2015, 7:33 am

        DaBakr “Did young read where i said “the vast majority” of conversions were from admiration or simple non-coercive acquiescence.? “

        Quote yourself. Thx

        Word search – “the vast majority” – 2 results. One in the article and one where you falsely claimed to have said it

      • diasp0ra on December 12, 2015, 8:56 am

        @DaBakr

        ” And yes-I made the %’s up but they are surely much closer to reality then much of the west believes”

        Based on WHAT? You literally just said you made it up. How are they closer to reality if you just made it up without any numbers or sources or statistics?

        Second of all, I don’t understand what all of this history is about. What are you aiming at, to say that the Arabs and Muslims messed up with the slave trade? That Arabs and Muslims played a role in ancient and medieval imperialism? Yeah, they did. But what does this have to do TODAY, with what we’re talking about, what does this have to do with Israel breaking international law right now?

      • Kris on December 13, 2015, 12:39 pm

        @Diasp0ra:

        Second of all, I don’t understand what all of this history is about. What are you aiming at, to say that the Arabs and Muslims messed up with the slave trade? That Arabs and Muslims played a role in ancient and medieval imperialism? Yeah, they did. But what does this have to do TODAY, with what we’re talking about, what does this have to do with Israel breaking international law right now?

        DaBakr is explaining that because bad things have occurred in history, we shouldn’t object to bad things that are taking place today.

        For example, the Holocaust against the Jews happened in history, so the Israelis are justified in carrying out their own holocaust against the Palestinians today. In fact, a new holocaust against Jews or anyone else would be justified as well.

  13. Marnie on December 11, 2015, 1:13 am

    Terrorism is the only option left when the west fail to deliver on empty promises of fairness and equity. Terrorists are poor folks army, because its always poor folks who are getting screwed and played on by the wealthy. Just how long are the people supposed to be patient and wait while the “west” (responsible for almost all of the ongoing misery worldwide) dick around playing the diplomacy game they’ve been playing since becoming masters of the universe and lords of all the lands do? As far as ISIS, its too wealthy to be given the label of terrorist group, it should just be referred to as the Saudi’s army. Maybe if the US and UK and apparently now Israel weren’t so comfortable on their knees with their asses in the air in front of the Saudis, ISIS would never have happened.

  14. zaid on December 11, 2015, 2:28 am

    “does nobody know about the Arab and/or Muslim wars against Germany? Balkans? or Africans? ”

    Wars always existed throughout history and every nation had their share of them.
    For an example check what these savage subhuman animals did to the indigenous population of Palestine 2500 yrs ago:

    “In the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them — the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites — as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy)

    “attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”(Deuteronomy)

    “Or the way the Arabs swept through the levant converting nearly everybody through either persuasion(70%) coercion, threat of death(20%) and the rest killed as examples?. They were not there to barter. They came to conquer.”

    …..Convert…persuade…I thought that modern Palestinians are just Arabs !!

    Great …so you admit that the Palestinians are the Indigenous population.

    By the way …from where did you bring the Percentages!

    “Then the entire slave trade built on Arab/Muslim conquest of Africans using stronger/willing African tribes to capture weaker less war-like tribes for sale/ slavery? Why is that rarely taught or “excused”? Is African animosity/terror towards the mostly Muslim north “understandable” ? And if so-why has it not happened?”

    It didnot happen because this “entire slave trade built on Arab/Muslim” is a myth.

    Most of the slavery in Africa was by whites and thats why blacks are 15% of the US but less than 1% of the Arab/Othoman world.

    Actually the big heads in the Atlantic slave trade where from among your folk.

    “That Africans most surely dominated and subjugated the emerging caucasion or mixed afro-caucosoid lighter brown /lighter eyed humans and gradually pushed them north out of Africa when African kingdoms ruled the earth for nearly 10,000 years of mostly lost pre-history?”
    -don’t take my word for this. take the words of african scholars who seem to understand that ancient pre-historic lighter-skinned folks were most likely oppressed for a far longer time then northern euro- whites have oppressed blacks later on in their strengthened tribes. not that at this point in time-anyone oppressing anyone should be “understandable” behavior. But according to the above ‘voice’ slavery would have been “understandably” a response to former ancient caucasian [meaning arab/indian/europeans all] domination by the more southern dominant african imperial rulers.”

    There were several slave revolts and violence (St.John rebellion/Haiti/Berbice) throughout history and it is understandable.

    Saying it is understandable is different from saying it is right or legitimate.
    A woman killing her abusive husband is understandable but not right.
    We are basically stating the motive or the reason.

    ” until Israel stole/conquered their land ”

    The only right thing you said in your lengthy brain vomit.

    • DaBakr on December 11, 2015, 10:53 am

      @zd

      A) i was giving you some credit-even through your ‘biblical’ accounts (which though controversial, i tend to believe in a general sense until some type of corroborating proof is discovered. so-yeah-the Israelites wiped out enemy tribes-supposedly- and the biblical authors used g-d as an excuse for the motivation. nothing exceptional . same as the great empires -just on a much smaller scale-though ironically it could be said to have ‘biblical’ proportions. lol)

      B)-then you claim the whole concept of an Arab/Muslim Slave trade a “myth”. Have you ever tried to argue with a bible whacker who believes that nothing on this earth is older then 10,000yrs? That dinosaurs bones were “seeded” for future historians to ponder? Its hard to argue with such out and out ignorance. Or is it willful denial? I’m sure in most African nations below the Sahara even primary school children are taught their basic history without the politically correct governor of a US or a deeply Islamic infused Arab educational system. I actually have no idea what Arab school children are taught-if anything at all-about the history of the African slave trade.

      C)Anyway=thats when you lost any ballast gained. While I am sure you are filled with information on the 2 or 3 Dutch merchant ship owners-who happened to be Jews- that transported slaves thru the .middle passage’ (probably what you infer by the-again, absurd quip, “among your folk”.

      D) You are jumping into the last third (the Atlantic 3rd) of the slave trades almost 1000yr dominant reign. You assume that the only fortunes that were made were by the euro-white distributers? Try and imagine the vast fortunes amassed. How many formal relationships were established between Arab emirs and African Kings and African kings and European royalty. 100s of formal letters are preserved and exist documenting this “myth” you claim I vomited. And this -as I said-is just the last 3rd of the trade-referred to as the Atlantic slave trade. Arabs dominated the supply/procurement sector for centuries.

      d.1) so really…stating that the well documented Arab Slave Trade spanning at least the 8th – 19th centuries is a myth is just…. . well let me just say: nakba denial. are the Africans entitled to their own equivalent ‘nakbah’? …. forget it. If it makes you feel better-your right on the “my folks’ account. There were at least 2-3 arab jews i can think of who dabbled in the slave trade. The one I remember was a spanish jew-who supposedly also spied for certain royalty and led a very passionate life which he wrote about (and probably embellished) -an all around sephardic James ibn Jacubond type. -Ibrahim ibn Yaqub or ibn al Tarturshi if you care to check on the mythic spew.

      @”saying its understandable is different then…..”

      who do your kidding when stating “understandable” is not the same as “right” or “acceptable” or :legitimate.? I i were to state that what baruch goldstein did was ‘understandable’ , just not legitimate-would you not feel the bile rise in your throat? (understandably.) Is what the euro christian colonialists did to conquer the north and south American continents (in the name of manifest destiny, or g-d or monarchy) ‘understandable’? And so on….

      E) Obviously your not an ignoramus Z. . But this author here-and the byline that PW ascribes to it as “understandable” and “realist” is exactly the kind of sht that drives conservative historians insane with the concept of moral relativity. Not unlike the problematic existentialism also of the 20thC. ( I understand how ‘hated; he is here and elsewhere but Henry Kissinger is a great example of how history can be used to inform and shape policy. Too bad his work with Dick Nixon earned him the negative status he has now. he was a truly brilliant historian before he hooked up with Dick. )

      F) So if everything that ever happened in the world can be “understandable” to some extent. Its like saying……nothing. Just more insipid and meaningless guilty, had-wringing moral relativism from the ‘privileged white American’ PW who hasn’t found a cause of his own so he embraced a victim he probably unconsciously sees as his lesser. It eases the left’s guilt for being so well educated and all smart and stuff.

      G)You’ll have to ask yourself how you missed out on the almost 10 centuries of Arab slave trading that you only ended up at the tail end when the expanding European whites got heavily involved in the trade. This may be the only time when euro’s made as much as the Arab and African sectors. Also-u seem to be under the impression that it was ‘white’ euros and the “heads” of it were from “:among…folk” of mine[?] I’ll assume you mean Jew-which is exactly the type of ignorance being shoved down the throats of youths throughout the Muslim and Arabic world. If there were more then a few Dutch Jewish merchant ship owners who slave traded-it would be a lot. So the Dutch didn’t persecute Jews (much) in the 17th-18th cent. So there were a small % of jews among the 100s of Dutch merchant ships who engaged in the Atlantic slave trade. We all understand how Jews were stereotypically relegated to merchants so its ‘understandable’ (!) how a few merchants in Holland would have been Jewish.

      H) those Percentages? I have to admit I completely made them up. However- I based them on what I believe is a correction to a false concept the ‘west’ has about the Arab conquest of the levant. That too many think masses were converted by point of sword and threat of death. In fact- the majority converted willingly by admiration or ambivilence . Smaller % of established christians that balked at the protection/tax payment and were told-pay, convert or die. And of course there were Jews as well- many of them also had choice to pay protection , convert or die. There were battles, naturally. it was a conquest. But I would stand by my ‘made up’ % against any that pointed to something completely different. The point being-the conquest itself may have been violent as almost ALL land aquisitions usually do involve battles. But the introduction of Islam as the predominate religion was much less violent then many non-Islamic westerners are taught or believe. On this point-we should agree.

      • eljay on December 11, 2015, 11:11 am

        Zio-supremacists routinely use the argument “Murderers exist, so it’s OK to rape” to defend their and/or their “Jewish State’s” past and on-going (war) criminal acts of injustice and immorality.

        Today, we are presented with a verbose new twist to the argument: “Murderers have existed in the past, so it’s OK to rape”.

        No doubt the usual Zio-supremacist disclaimer applies: “Jews are entitled to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them.”

      • talknic on December 11, 2015, 11:36 am

        @ DaBakr ” so-yeah-the Israelites wiped out enemy tribes-supposedly- and the biblical authors used g-d as an excuse for the motivation. nothing exceptional .”

        Uh huh. Jews wiping out other folk is nothing exceptional, but ” the way the Arabs swept through the levant converting nearly everybody through either persuasion(70%) coercion, threat of death(20%) and the rest killed as examples? They were not there to barter. They came to conquer” is important enough for your mention

        Like all idiots for Israel, you’ll say anything even if it shows you to be a ghastly completely one eyed bigot prone to unsubstantiated bullsh*t. ( “.. those Percentages? I have to admit I completely made them up” )

        You’ve provided NOTHING but your flapping wailgob for the majority of your long winded drivel.

        “then you claim the whole concept of an Arab/Muslim Slave trade a “myth””

        That was not the claim. What was actually said is still there for all to see.

        “who do your kidding when stating “understandable” is not the same as “right” or “acceptable” or :legitimate.? I i were to state that what baruch goldstein did was ‘understandable’ , just not legitimate-would you not feel the bile rise in your throat? “

        Was the murderer Baruch Goldstein from Brooklyn, invaded? Occupied for his whole life? Dispossessed?

      • oldgeezer on December 11, 2015, 11:57 am

        @DaBakr

        ” I i were to state that what baruch goldstein did was ‘understandable’ , just not legitimate-would you not feel the bile rise in your throat? – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/recent-comments#sthash.kYM5oRRS.dpuf

        I would certainly ask you to explain why you thought it was understandable which you may well be able to make a case for.

        I can fully understand that drug addicts with a 1,000/day heroin habit feel the need to resort to crime in order to feed the demon. If one understands what opiates do to the body and brain it’s self evident that they are driven.

        That said the use of heroin, unless medically prescribed, and the commission of crimes to obtain it are both wrong.

        I also understand why some Jewish people feel the need for a Jewish majority state/homeland. I don’t condone the way it was done or the way it is being enforced and enlarged.

        Understanding has no linkage with legitimizing or condoning an action. Attempts to link the two are merely away of trying to deflect the discussion away from the issues which is exactly what zionists need to do in I/P issue.

      • DaBakr on December 11, 2015, 11:59 am

        @ej

        but what you just said is exactly what this author and PW has written and approved. EVERYTHING is “understandable”, no?

      • zaid on December 11, 2015, 12:01 pm

        I touched a nerve…..

        You write too much to prove too little, and you provide no evidence to the bile you spew here.

        1-I dont deny Arabs/Muslims sold slaves, but i forcefully deny that Arabs/Muslims had the major role.

        The claim that Arabs/Muslims had a major slave trade for centuries contradicts the fact that Unlike in the US,Caribbean,Brazil…etc very few people in the Othoman/Arab world tend to be black.

        2-Regarding your examples of understandable violence (ex Goldestein) :

        No his violence was not understandable since he wasnot the one living under occupation but rather his victims , he was the privileged one.

        3-Regarding your folk role in the slave trade, and your desperate attempt to minimize it, sorry but you are not fooling anyone.

        I will let Rabbi Marc Lee Raphael respond to you:

        “Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial slave trade; indeed, the bylaws of the Recife and Mauricia congregations (1648) included an imposta (Jewish tax) of five soldos for each Negro slave a Brazilian Jew purchased from the West Indies Company. Slave auctions were postponed if they fell on a Jewish holiday. In Curacao in the seventeenth century, as well as in the British colonies of Barbados and Jamaica in the eighteenth century, Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated.

        “This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the ‘triangular trade’ that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa. Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in the 1750’s, David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760’s, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late 1760’s and early 1770’s dominated Jewish slave trading on the American continent.”

        Jews and Judaism in the United States, A Documentary History

        Example of slave ships and their owners:

        The’Nassau’ – Moses Levy
        The ‘Polly’ – James De Woolf
        The ‘Hester’ – Mordecai and David Gomez
        The ‘Anne’ & The ‘Eliza’ – Justus Bosch and John Abrams
        The ‘White Horse’ – Jan de Sweevts
        The ‘Antigua’ – Nathan Marston and Abram Lyell
        The ‘Betsy’ – Wm. De Woolf
        The ‘White Horse’ – Jan de Sweevts

        These are not Arabic names you know (all are Jews).

        At the end “Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.”Jeremiah 13:23

        I want to assure everyone reading my comment that my intent is not to smear Jews as salve traders but rather to respond to the idiot who claimed that Muslims lead the slave trade and to remind him to look at the mirror before dumping his lies on this site.

      • eljay on December 11, 2015, 12:15 pm

        || @Dk: @ej but what you just said is exactly what this author and PW has written and approved. EVERYTHING is “understandable”, no? ||

        Sorry, I’m not seeing where the article states that people who…
        – share what is, fundamentally, a religious identity; and
        – live in various countries around the world; and
        – feel they are entitled to an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and religion-supremacist state in some other part of the world,
        …are entitled to undertake (war) criminal acts of injustice and immorality to realize, maintain and expand such a state.

        Each thing in the world might be understandable to at least one person in the world, but that doesn’t make every thing in the world either just or moral.

      • Mooser on December 11, 2015, 2:58 pm

        “I want to assure everyone reading my comment that my intent is not to smear Jews as salve traders “

        We understand, but please, don’t rub it in, okay?

      • DaBakr on December 11, 2015, 11:16 pm

        @zd

        its easy to think yourself correct when you jump into history 700yrs after it was established by Arab and African tribal Kings. The Arabs certainly did control the bulk of the slave trade and only in the last 200 years did all of those ships you named have any significant role in the trade. It had something to do with the rise of europe and the decline of the Arabic empires. How thick can you be? I explained this over three times. I do not deny the european involvement. It was only at the tail end and the Arabs and Africans had a 700yr head start. [..] No Ivy league for you my man.

      • zaid on December 12, 2015, 1:59 pm

        you are too confident for someone with no evidence.

      • tree on December 13, 2015, 7:59 pm

        Jumping into the fray, I’ve got to say that both Dabkr and zaid are incorrect on points here. There was an earlier slave trade than the Trans-Atlantic one, in which the Arab world, then in ascendance, was a major participant. But it was not primarily Africans that were being traded in this earlier trade, as Dabkr claims. This slave trade lasted from the 8th to 15th centuries The slaves were mostly white Eastern European (hence the similarity between the word slave and Slav) pagans. The European elites were the sellers, the traders were for the most part Jews , and the buyers were Arab. By today’s morality standard none of these come off clean, but slavery was a standard custom throughout much of the world then so it seems not only silly, but morally reprehensible, to try to blame people living today for the actions of their possible ethnic ancestors hundreds of years ago. It’s certainly not a game any Jew, Christian or Muslim should want to play the way Dabkr is playing.

        Interesting take on the white slave trade here:

        http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2013/09/from-slavs-to-slaves.html

        http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2013/09/from-slavs-to-slaves-part-ii.html

      • Keith on December 14, 2015, 5:15 pm

        TREE- “…the traders were for the most part Jews….”

        Well, that certainly doesn’t fit in with Hophmi’s and Tokyobk’s narrative, does it? Slave libel, perhaps?

    • on December 13, 2015, 10:04 am

      Zaid – It didnot happen because this “entire slave trade built on Arab/Muslim” is a myth.

      Most of the slavery in Africa was by whites and thats why blacks are 15% of the US but less than 1% of the Arab/Othoman world.

      – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/terrorism-understandable-response#comment-814601

      Exactly Zaid, whenever someone tries to point to slavery as practiced by the Arabs and Africans when discussing the chattel slavery practiced by white people, it immediately raises a red flag with me.

      The slavery as practiced by the Arabs and African never took away the humanity of the slaves, nor make inflict suffering upon them for generations. Slaves were treated like part of the family, and the institution of slavery was simply part of a highly complex and intricate social structure not based upon racism, religious bigotry or pseudoscience. Moreover, many slaves were able to obtain freedom even before entering old age, and build families of their own that were given equal rights in their society. Many from the patronage and support of their masters, were able to get an education and rise to the very top of society as ministers, businessmen, warriors etc. Even for those unlucky ones who ended up being life-long slaves, it was still not as bad as being on your own in those times, where there were no systems like social security and modern public housing of sorts.

      In contrast, the slavery practiced by white people is arguably the worst societal practice in the history of humanity, bar none. To take away the humanity of a person, and make him lower than an insect, and to do the same with his wife and children is far, far beyond even the most evil of transgressions by the Arab and African slave owners towards their slaves.

      • Mooser on December 13, 2015, 12:05 pm

        “The slavery as practiced by the Arabs and African never took away the humanity of the slaves, nor make inflict suffering upon them for generations. Slaves were treated like part of the family”

        Yep, a slave is just part of the family. They just have to do a few more chores than the rest of the young’uns.

        So if a slave is just part of the family, does that mean they slave owners can rape their own sisters? Or do you know of something which keeps people from having sex with slaves?

        You better come up with some good answers, “a4tech”. My family was in the salve trade for generations, and if you are wrong, I’ll really rub it in!

      • on December 13, 2015, 2:06 pm

        Ah Mooser, with every passing day you are revealing more and more of the depths of your ignorance and internalization of every non-white bigotry and prejudices, be that towards the black people, Jews, Arabs, Muslims and I’m sure many others yet to be triggered out of your subconscious.

        Even though your insinuation of the prevalence of rape and by extension, misogyny in the Arab world is idiotic and frankly racist, I will nevertheless try to enlighten you of the fact. Rape i.e. the initiation of sexual contact with any unwilling person, has been most unlawful in all of Arab societies post-Islam. In a household with female slave of age, in Islamic law she is entitled to a similar role as the legal wife of the master if she desires. She can provide, with her consent, sex to him lawfully and vice versa. In return, he has the same obligations to the slave as his wife, which include inheritence rights for her children, her physical and financial security and fulfilling her psychological needs. If the guy fails to meet any of these obligation, the slave has legal rights for demand appropriate compensation in the court of law. Usually the most common compensation will be freeing of the slave (like a divorce) in addition to financial payout.

      • Mooser on December 13, 2015, 2:49 pm

        “To take away the humanity of a person, and make him lower than an insect, and to do the same with his wife and children is far, far beyond even the most evil of transgressions by the Arab and African slave owners towards their slaves.”

        Gosh, I never realized Arab and African slavery was so different from (and so much better regulated) than the barbaric slavery the white folks practice.
        I don’t know where I got the idea that slavery is, well, slavery. Or do people (hey, good legal regulation, lifetime employment, security, it’s hard to beat) volunteer to be the slaves of Arab or African owners? In that case, I withdraw all objections, and may even hire myself out as a slave. Not to white person, of course, now that I know the score.

        Oh, BTW, are all “Arab and African slave owners” bounded by Muslim law on treatment and benefits for slaves? Or only Muslims? I don’t wanna end up in a bad spot.

      • Mooser on December 13, 2015, 2:58 pm

        “Ah Mooser, with every passing day you are revealing more and more of the depths of your ignorance and internalization of every non-white bigotry and prejudices, be that towards the black people, Jews, Arabs, Muslims and I’m sure many others yet to be triggered out of your subconscious.”

        You don’t say? I must learn to have more empathy for “the black people, Jews, Arabs, Muslims and I’m sure many others”.
        I must try harder.
        Guess I’ve been especially tough on the Jews, too, out of all of those people. How could I have become so bigoted?

        “In a household with female slave of age, in Islamic law she is entitled to a similar role as the legal wife of the master if she desires. She can provide, with her consent, sex to him lawfully and vice versa.

        Ah, of course! Why didn’t you say so sooner? That explains it all. I don’t know how I got so misinformed. Thanks for setting me straight “a4tech”! And, of course “straight” is the only way slave-owners play it!

        Oh, BTW, you talk as if all this good-slavery rules are operating in the present. Are you trying to say there is a large (if well regulated and kindly) slavery, now?

      • gamal on December 13, 2015, 7:06 pm

        “Oh, BTW, are all “Arab and African slave owners” bounded by Muslim law on treatment and benefits for slaves?”

        but Mooser our laws are Rigid, unlike the flaccid Christian kind.

        by the way the Zanj would tend to your side man, its only wiki,

        “Several historians, such as al-Tabari and al-Mas’udi, consider this revolt one of the “most vicious and brutal uprisings” of the many disturbances that plagued the Abbasid central government.[2] Modern historians have characterized the revolt as being “one of the bloodiest and most destructive rebellions which the history of Western Asia records,”[3] while at the same time praising its coverage as being among the “most fully and extensively described campaign[s] in the whole of early Islamic historical writing.”[4]”…….

        there were laws regulating slavery, in theory, there a cases recorded of slaves enforcing manumission etc, they aught to be allowed to work for themselves for stipulated periods etc but as you imply we did not always live up to our obligations.

        “The Zanj were black slaves who had been imported from Africa and who were primarily utilized for agricultural labor as part of the plantation economy of southern Iraq. The demand for servile labor during this period was fueled by wealthy residents of the port city of Basra, who had acquired extensive marshlands in the surrounding region. These lands had been abandoned as a result of peasant migration and repeated flooding over time, but they could be converted back into cultivatable status through intensive labor. Local magnates were able to gain ownership of this land on the condition that they would make it arable; as a result, they acquired large numbers of Zanj and other slaves, who were placed into work camps and tasked with clearing away the nitrous topsoil as part of the reclamation process. Other Zanj were used to work in the salt flats of Mesopotamia, especially in the area around Basra.[5]
        Both the working and living conditions of the Zanj were considered to be extremely miserable; the menial labor they were engaged in was difficult and the slaves appear to have been poorly treated by their masters.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj_Rebellion

        we appear to have developed a forensic disfunction, despite our rigidity.

      • Mooser on December 13, 2015, 8:47 pm

        “we appear to have developed a forensic disfunction, despite our rigidity.”

        Welcome to the club, “gamal”.

      • tree on December 13, 2015, 9:33 pm

        Even though your insinuation of the prevalence of rape and by extension, misogyny in the Arab world is idiotic and frankly racist, I will nevertheless try to enlighten you of the fact. Rape i.e. the initiation of sexual contact with any unwilling person, has been most unlawful in all of Arab societies post-Islam. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/terrorism-understandable-response#comment-815071

        Rape is unlawful in all Western countries. I guess that means you think it doesn’t exist in any of these countries either.

        And misogyny has been a universal human failing. I don’t see why you should think that Arabs, or Muslims, as a group, are any more perfect human beings than anyone else, even those horrible “white people”, Mr. Google Muslim (hat tip to gamal).

      • zaid on December 13, 2015, 10:52 pm

        a4tech

        I agree with a lot of what you said, but lets not forget that it is the white west that ended (abolished) slavery and for me this was HUGE step for mankind.

      • on December 14, 2015, 12:52 am

        Mooser – Gosh, I never realized Arab and African slavery was so different from (and so much better regulated) than the barbaric slavery the white folks practice.
        I don’t know where I got the idea that slavery is, well, slavery. Or do people (hey, good legal regulation, lifetime employment, security, it’s hard to beat) volunteer to be the slaves of Arab or African owners? In that case, I withdraw all objections, and may even hire myself out as a slave. Not to white person, of course, now that I know the score.

        Oh, BTW, are all “Arab and African slave owners” bounded by Muslim law on treatment and benefits for slaves? Or only Muslims? I don’t wanna end up in a bad spot.

        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/terrorism-understandable-response#comments

        As if these are the only things you are vastly ignorant on. Like I said before, there is nothing, as of yet, that comes close to the brutality and wretchedness of the chattel slavery practiced by the west in the ten thousand years or so of history of human civilisation. To compare it with the indigenous slavery practiced in Arab and African societies is no more ludicrous than to compare it with the modern ‘wage slavery’ under capitalism.

        If you are honestly interested in learning about the indigenous slavery as practiced by the Arabs and Africans, I can provide you with some decent literature on the subject. Or you can act on your own prerogative and start googling. Let me know if you still find all forms of slavery to be equally bad after your research.

      • on December 14, 2015, 1:11 am

        Tree – “Rape is unlawful in all Western countries. I guess that means you think it doesn’t exist in any of these countries either.

        And misogyny has been a universal human failing. I don’t see why you should think that Arabs, or Muslims, as a group, are any more perfect human beings than anyone else, even those horrible “white people”, Mr. Google Muslim (hat tip to gamal).

        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/terrorism-understandable-response/comment-page-1#comment-815102

        Let’s keep things in context. We are talking about the legality of rape and abuse of slaves within societies when these institutions were still prevalent. In Islamic societies, slavery comes with its own strict regulations and laws, that prevented slaves and slave-owners ending up in situations that were analogous in the chattel slavery of the west.

        There were NO comparable set of laws in the slave institutions of the west, where the slaves were legally defined as non-humans who can be owned by the whites due to supposed biological differences. A non-human that not only can be raped with full protection of the law, but killed, tortured, and bred and sold for profit.

      • on December 14, 2015, 2:54 am

        Zaid – I agree with a lot of what you said, but lets not forget that it is the white west that ended (abolished) slavery and for me this was HUGE step for mankind. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/terrorism-understandable-response#comments

        That is a highly problematic statement for anyone to make, Zaid, let alone a non-black person with no historical and ancestral ties to being enslaved because of their race.

        The ramification of those experiences are still affecting the black people today, and I’m sure they are not as pleased as you are for the white people who saved the day by ending the cruelty they started.

      • Mooser on December 14, 2015, 12:28 pm

        “If you are honestly interested in learning about the indigenous slavery as practiced by the Arabs and Africans, I can provide you with some decent literature on the subject.”

        Oh, please, if you had one goddam piece of evidence or fact, you would link it. You got, not to put to fine a point on it bupkis.

        Good old “indigenous slavery” the good kind of slavery.

        “a4tech” you are full of crap, sorry. Phony as a three dollar bill.

      • gamal on December 14, 2015, 12:33 pm

        hi a4,

        “That is a highly problematic statement for anyone to make, Zaid, let alone a non-black person with no historical and ancestral ties to being enslaved because of their race.”

        now while the ending of slavery by the British is somewhat less creditable when one considers that they went on to “indenture” 1.5 milllion Indians (east) in system very similar to Islamically regulated slavery, which was not really that pleasant for the Indentured.

        ” a non-black person with no historical and ancestral ties to being enslaved because of their race.”

        while i do not subscribe to the colour code identity, i am apparently not white, so I am told anyway.

        “no historical and ancestral ties to being enslaved ” have you seen Nasser 56, it includes a famous vignette where an old lady remembers i quote from a comment of mine from some years ago

        ” Nasser 56 with the famous scene that mentions al-sokhra, the slavery, in connection to the Suez canal, my family come from near the canal zone some of our people were also taken never to be heard of again and no remittances hence kidnap and slavery”

        this was done with collusion of the occupied state and the Vicomte “to prove that we are male” de Lesseps ( building the Suez he said was inter alia to prove some tremulous French guys masculinity)

        some of my crew go to Port Said (Fouad) to curse that statue of the Vicomte ushering shipping to the east, my “Aunt” Seti who died 5 years ago at 107 entertained a life long hatred of the French, British and Cairenes as her family lost a few men to this.

        when I was an child I met Maitama Sule, born a slave then a minister, ’60’s or 70’s, the word slave covers a wide field of meanings.

        ” I thank God, I was said to belong to a family of slaves. It was my father’s master that sent me to school. He loved my father so much because he and my grandfather were together as the favourites of their immediate master. You see, this question of slavery in the North is something that you don’t understand – slaves were almost as important as the rulers, because they were the power behind the scene.

        I was sent to school by this my father’s master with his own children and grandchildren. He is the local ruler, the Madaki, the chief kingmaker in Kano. When I was a young man in the elementary school, now primary school, there was one thing I used to do; I took it upon myself to sweep the whole of my quarters. I would take my broom and sweep the whole quarters. I would go into the local mosque in our quarters and sweep the inside as well as the outside. I used to do that on my own–nobody told me to do it.”

        http://sunnewsonline.com/new/yusuf-maitama-sule-as-a-minister-in-charge-of-oil-i-had-no-money-to-build-a-house/

        he was tiny 4ft and some inches, but had the deepest voice of any man i have ever met, I have also met “slaves” in rural northern Nigeria, Sule had a complex view of it all, there was a degree of strife between “slaves”, an inherited status, and Masters, if you owned no land slavery was preferable to starvation, I never heard anyone complain of being a Master.

        The status of workers in the West is incrementally approaching a condition of if not slavery then certainly indenture for many working people,

        my ancestral village in English means village of the Slave traders, its probably best to accept that people have the right to say what they want and criticize the content, intent or whatever, after all you talk about Islam of which you know little, I dont agree with Zaids view at all but

        “let alone a non-black person with no historical and ancestral ties to being enslaved because of their race.”

        that is ridiculous, what is non-black, Zaid is I believe a Palestinian, he may well be able to explain to you what it is like to be regarded as less than human from his own personal on-going experience.

      • tree on December 14, 2015, 3:53 pm

        Let’s keep things in context. We are talking about the legality of rape and abuse of slaves within societies when these institutions were still prevalent. In Islamic societies, slavery comes with its own strict regulations and laws, that prevented slaves and slave-owners ending up in situations that were analogous in the chattel slavery of the west. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/recent-comments#sthash.xTZ9iiHx.dpuf

        a4tech,

        No, you are moving the goalposts. You claimed that because there were laws on the books, that therefore slavery in Arab and African empires were not as bad as chattel slavery in the New World. You even attempted to make it sound idyllic, which is the height of bigotry on your part. I suggest you look up the Zanj rebellion, which you appear not to have heard of, and even ignored when gamal brought it up. Agricultural slaves had it worse than household slaves. That’s a given whether in the Old South or Abassid era Basra. Whether the later slavery was worse than the earlier one is hard to say and no doubt varied with the particular slaveholder. We have much more info on the later one than the earlier one. In any case they were both slavery and whitewashing either one is a bigoted act on your part.

        During the White Slave Trade of the 8th to 15th centuries, young Eastern European women and boys were kidnapped and sold as concubines and eunuchs for Arab elites. If you want to pretend that this was some kind of consensual act on the part of these young women and boys then you are guilty of the same whitewashing you are accusing others of. The laws may have existed, but that doesn’t mean they were always followed, as I pointed out. A young woman sold as a concubine may have theoretically been able to refuse to perform the acts for which she was sold but the alternative of being cast out in a foreign land made the “consent” far from freely given, if she even knew she had such a right. And I won’t even start on the “consensual” eunuchs.

        It’s the same “noble savage” crap that you tried to pull with Native Americans, who, contrary to your assertion, did not all live in peaceful acceptance of one another, which you would know if you had any knowledge at all (yeah, the “Squaw Nation”, you know a lot about them).

        Every human is capable of doing horrible things, regardless of their ethnicity, race, or religion. And likewise every human can be subject to horrendous mistreatment, again regardless of their ethnicity, race or religion. This “your group is so much worse than my group” crap is just racist crap, and you indulge in it to excess. Why not address the problem instead of making up reasons to hate people based on their ethnicity, which just makes the problem worse. Your attitude is part of the problem. It isn’t any nobler to hate on whites than it is to hate on blacks.

        And by the way, 10% of the Englishmen counted in the Domesday Book were slaves (and they were white). If you acknowledge them, and the other kidnapped and captured “whites” then there is no race that has not been subject to slavery, and your comment to Zaid is just another ill-informed bigoted comment on your part.

      • Mooser on December 14, 2015, 6:24 pm

        “During the White Slave Trade of the 8th to 15th centuries, young Eastern European women and boys were kidnapped and sold as concubines and eunuchs for Arab elites. If you want to pretend that this was some kind of consensual act on the part of these young women and boys”

        No, this situation, as “a4tech” tells us, is well taken care of:

        “In a household with female slave of age, in Islamic law she is entitled to a similar role as the legal wife of the master if she desires. She can provide, with her consent, sex to him lawfully and vice versa.”

        Why are you assuming that these laws are gender-specific, “tree”?
        Don’t project your Western misogyny and male-chauvinism onto other cultures! I’m sure they applied equally.

        And thanks, “tree”. I hope your clarity makes an impression.

      • on December 15, 2015, 3:52 am

        Mooser – “Oh, please, if you had one goddam piece of evidence or fact, you would link it. You got, not to put to fine a point on it bupkis. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/terrorism-understandable-response#comment-158230

        Actually, the history of slavery and racism is not a topic that is guarded and shielded from academia and public research, it is the opposite. People are free to research on ALL forms of slavery, and come up with the own conclusion. The current consensus by academics is, after taking into account the practices by various groups and nations of the world through our short 10000 year old history as a civilisations, the chattel slavery by the white westerners is considered to be undoubtedly the worst form of it.

        Here are a few out of possibly thousands of links that can be shared, to prove my point to you. It’s up to you to judge their content.

        http://www.al-islam.org/slavery-from-islamic-and-christian-perspective-sayyid-akhtar-rizvi/islam-attacks-slavery

        http://www.twf.org/Library/Slavery.html

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml

        http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2014/11/05/isis-says-islam-justifies-slavery-what-does-islamic-law-say/

        And this is a video on the subject, by a renowned Muslim scholar

      • eljay on December 15, 2015, 10:13 am

        I’m enjoying this “my slavery is better than your slavery” conversation string. I particularly like a4tech’s insistence that Islam strived for a “kinder, gentler” slavery rather than no slavery at all.

        From his al-Islam link:

        Firstly, Islam placed restrictions on acquisition of slaves. … Islam, in unambiguous terms, forbade its followers to enslave people on any pretext. The only exception was an idolatrous enemy captured in a war which was fought either in self-defence or with the permission of the Prophet or his rightful successors. …

        And I must record to the lasting disgrace of a large number of Muslims that, in later times … participated with the European Christians in the abominable slave-trade of East Africa. …

        From his BBC link:

        … •Islam greatly limited those who could be enslaved and under what circumstances (although these restrictions were often evaded)
        . . .
        But the essential nature of slavery remained the same under Islam, as elsewhere. It involved serious breaches of human rights and however well they were treated, the slaves still had restricted freedom; and, when the law was not obeyed, their lives could be very unpleasant. …

      • gamal on December 15, 2015, 10:55 am

        thanks for the Yasir Qadhi video, I learned something, and am now watching his massacre of Kerbala lecture. when he said yani, i couldn’t help but laugh, atchaa is the Indian yani, I thought.

        he speaks so fast, young and vital.

      • Mooser on December 15, 2015, 12:01 pm

        Well, we will just have to disagree, “a4tech”. I’m against slavery.

      • Mooser on December 15, 2015, 12:42 pm

        ” … Islam, in unambiguous terms, forbade its followers to enslave people on any pretext.”

        Yup, I used to think that, too. Where did I get such anti-Islam ideas? Well, I’m glad “a4tech” educated me. Perhaps I can, with enough education, completely lose my bigoted attitude toward slavery and involuntary servitude.
        You know, I really should get over prejudice. I’ll go out this afternoon and buy a whip and some manacles…

      • gamal on December 15, 2015, 2:12 pm

        “You know, I really should get over prejudice. I’ll go out this afternoon and buy a whip and some manacles…”

        you might not get any slaves, come on you cant run fast enough, but i bet you’ll meet a fair cross section of upper class Englishmen, they will run to you, no chasing necessary.

      • Mooser on December 15, 2015, 2:21 pm

        “I’ll go out this afternoon and buy a whip and some manacles…”

        My wife nixed that idea. She says I’m obedient enough, just slow on the uptake, and she doesn’t see how that will help. “Besides” my dear helpmeet pointed out, “You cringe enough already”

      • annie on December 15, 2015, 6:33 pm

        too much information

      • on December 15, 2015, 2:24 pm

        Great, you are against slavery, so noble and brave of you to admit holding such a controversial view /s.

        Who said Islam is for-slavery? If I did, please provide direct quotes attributing me to such statements. Islam took slavery that was already taking place and gave it institutional checks and balances to ensure the human rights of the slaves were legally protected at all times. It also laid the foundation for society to break hold of the practice permanently, in a systematic and progressive manner while minimizing the shock to the system from changing a social order built over thousands of years.

        It is a far cry of the chattel slavery in the west, where there were no such systems of rights and justice for the slaves who were not even human in the eye of the law.

        Also, many of the slaves in America were Muslims themselves whose children were forcibly converted into Christianity by their slave masters as part of ideological conditioning to their slave status.

      • gamal on December 15, 2015, 5:43 pm

        I worry that i am always off topic, but i have watched several of Yasirs lectures this evening, this is what i learned, i am amazed i remember him making some pretty reprehensible sectarian statements 20 years ago or so, anti-Shi’i, wow he has really grown, i suppose i should call him Sheikh Qadhi he gave an interesting lecture in Norway I wont post a link because today i am shy, my heart sank when i saw a4’s link i was pleasantly surprised, if you are interested search youtube with “qadhi the modern jihadists” and a briefer khutbah he gave covering some of the same stuff under “opposing extremist groups in Islam”

        i still find a lot to disagree with but it was not what i expected from him, still the only thing worse than a scholar is a Muslim, as we used to joke, i’d pray behind him, if i wasn’t ejected first.

      • annie on December 15, 2015, 6:16 pm

        I wont post a link because today i am shy

        sweet

      • Mooser on December 15, 2015, 6:50 pm

        “Great, you are against slavery, so noble and brave of you to admit holding such a controversial view /s.”

        I’m sorry. I probably just abhor slavery because I think its the ‘thing to do’. I actually hold the anti-slavery view out of craven fear of being beaten up by Abolitionists.

        Of course, any time you would like to be a slave, “a4tech” and show me how wrong I am, go right ahead. I bet you would be lousy at it. Goodness knows what ah, correction’ it might take to get you in line.

  15. yourstruly on December 11, 2015, 4:51 am

    If our nation had boots on the ground our government wouldn’t get away with its perpetual wars, since when it comes to souring the public on U.S. military adventures there’s nothing so effective as the sight of loved ones coming home in body bags. But how do we turn the public against wars in which there are no (or very few) body bags? Seems to me that the most direct way is for us peacemakers to make the connection between Islamic terrorist paybacks, such as what took place recently in Paris, Beirut & S.B., and the terrorist actions of the U.S. war-making apparatus. Yes, warmongers will say that such comparisons justify Islamic terrorism, but their accusations can be countered by our pointing out that, assuming our goal is to put an end to terrorism (rather than merely seeking retaliation and vengeance), this can be accomplished only by an understanding of what drives Islamic terrorists to violence. But it’s not as if they haven’t gone public with their explanations – The U.S.-led West’s interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen & Libya, along with the Zionist occupation of Palestine. So if our government is serious about ending Islamic terrorism, it’ll (1) call off what the Arab/Islamic world perceives to be terrorism, Western style; namely, the above military interventions, and (2) end its unconditional support of the Zionist occupiers. Right now mass mobilization and action is the only possible way to force our government even to consider such a striking turnabout in its ME policies. Surely a monumental task, but one that we must undertake, if life on earth is to survive.

  16. Kay24 on December 11, 2015, 7:55 am

    You cannot keep dropping bombs over Muslim nations, for years, killing thousands of innocent civilians while pretending you are out to get their leaders, or topple their governments, and not expect some kind of backlash. After a while, it gives extremists the opportunity to form radical groups, promote terrorism, and retaliate in ways you will not expect. You keep prodding a hornets nest, and you get stung. It is unbelievable that American leaders do not ever mention that perhaps our pre-emptive strikes that decimate their cities, may be the cause of anti American sentiment, not to mention our shameless support for a brutal occupier, that keeps killing civilians, including children. What do we expect them to do, applaud us and take our bombs with a smile? We are being unrealistic.

  17. Boomer on December 11, 2015, 9:01 am

    I recall how, years ago during one of the Republican debates, Rep. Ron Paul alluded to our actions and policies and to Israel’s as motivators for the attacks of 9/11. Rudy Giuliani–appearing surprised–said something like, “I never heard that.” That was the extent of the discussion of that topic. His comment could be taken as proof that he was too ignorant for the job of President, or more likely, that he was being politically correct in ignoring some facts. Both our politicians and our mainstream media simply ignore inconvenient truths, while our government and Israel carry on with the dispossession and oppression.

  18. JWalters on December 11, 2015, 5:56 pm

    It’s great to see more voices, and significant voices, pushing back against the obvious full-court press for more war.

    Here’s another excellent, recent article, Israel’s Moral Erosion, directly addressing Israel’s role in the creation of Islamic militants.
    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/12/10/israels-moral-erosion/

    Here’s an excellent article on Huffpost yesterday on the big hidden money fanning all that anti-Muslim bigotry, Meet The Mega-Donors Funding Donald Trump’s Islamophobic Allies. All those spokesmodels out there ranting about Islam are being well paid.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-islamophobia_5668a9d7e4b080eddf56e951

    Here’s an excellent article, A Day When Journalism Died, commemorating a reporter whose fate illustrates why so many in the media are truly afraid to report the truth, also a result of the big hidden money that has corrupted our society so deeply.
    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/12/09/a-day-when-journalism-died/

    It seems to me the intense push for more war has two motives. One is the routine, obscene profits of war. The second is fear that their scam is being dragged into the public light, and serious criminal proceedings could occur. The chaos of more war would help derail that.

  19. rosross on December 11, 2015, 7:42 pm

    It becomes increasingly difficult to believe anything other than that there is an agenda to foment some sort of war between Islam and the West, to serve, no doubt, various agendas. I don’t actually think it will happen but I do believe it will create a lot of fear and prejudice on both sides and that serves no good end.

    Religious persecution always corrupts and debases a society and when aligned with deep fear, speeds the process.

    Perhaps the greatest danger is for the US which is such a heavily armed civilian society and one prone to fear, if not paranoia, on many counts.

    Then again, that may well be another agenda.

  20. Boomer on December 12, 2015, 12:14 pm
  21. irishmoses on December 13, 2015, 4:14 pm

    Is the email notification of comments function turned off? It doesn’t seem to be working for me on this thread even though I checked the “notify me” box.

    • annie on December 13, 2015, 5:00 pm

      irishmoses, we’ve been having comment posting issues the last few days. i would suggest writing adam about that function as he’s the top techie on staff. hopefully everything will work better later. sorry!

  22. Kris on December 13, 2015, 5:35 pm

    Please share your links to zaid’s comment and Talknic’s comment, or copy and paste their comments. Otherwise, no one knows what you’re talking about.

Leave a Reply