British Lawyers Try to Have Israel’s Minister of Defense Arrested as a War Criminal
Really, guys, you can’t be serious.
I am afraid they are maliciously, purposively serious. The noose continues to tighten around the collective Jewish neck, just as I feared it would.
The United Nations just listened to Qaddafi speak — Amadinejad too: they honored these terrorists, monsters, menaces to decent people everywhere, beginning with their own people. The monsters came, they left, and neither assassin nor legal eagle sent them on a one-way trip to Hell or to the Hague.
But British lawyers, acting on behalf of 16 Palestinians, just tried to have Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak arrested for his alleged “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” in Gaza — partly based on their interpretation of the infamous Goldstone Report. How Goldstone could have lent his good name to this treacherous, ignoble document is slightly above my pay grade; only God can judge him now.
Earlier today, Anne Bayefsky referred to the Goldstone Report as a blood libel, quite equivalent to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I totally agree with her.
Tayab Ali, who is representing the Palestinian groups, filed legal papers with London’s City of Westminster Magistrates Court. Ali accuses Minister Barak of “violating the Geneva conventions” as well. Let me emphasize: This lawsuit was brought by an individual, and not by the British government.
In fact, according to Ynet, a Defense Ministry source said the petition was denied following a recommendation by the British Foreign Office. Justice Daphne Wickham rejected the claim altogether, saying that while the papers filed with the court seemed “serious,” under “international law Barak has diplomatic immunity and therefore cannot be prosecuted.”
Dear Phyllis
What you describe is so frightening I wish I could wake up and call it nothing but a nightmare. But it is all too real. From every side, the anti-Semites hardly disguised as anti-Zionists any longer, are on the march. The Iranians send up their long-range missiles on Yom Kippur to warn us of their evil intentions. The editorial in this morning’s New Zealand Herald counsels the world to negotiate with Teheran because otherwise we will be back in the dark days of GW Bush. The Honduran ambassador at the UN General Assembly holds up her cell-phone so the members can cheer on the delusional fantasy of Israel storm-troopers shooting their poison rays at the ex-president. I fear we are weeks, perhaps months at best, from the onset of a major war… And the West will wake up when it is too late.
Norman
Norman
Phyllis, one question: Why are you playing into the hands of Nasrallah, and the rest of the Sons of Allah, in referring to those who were called South Syrian Arabs, as Palestinians?
What is wrong with the old definition? Is it because old habits, especially bad old habits, are tough to break?
Now, as for that lawyer, he must think he has quite the case because, isn’t it true in British courts that a person after found not guilty can launch a lawsuit against his or her
opponents?
As long as South Syrian Arabs continue to be known for double standards peddled as grievances, they will not be ready to govern themselves. For they would rather embrace the metaphysical darkness of Nasrallah, and his crowd, rather than the light of Sheikh Salam al-Hoziel. Which just goes to prove the
Abba Eban premise that they do not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
[The rough beast is back, slouching, slavering for Jewish blood. Technology allows us all to see it all.]
There is a different though, the Jewish people did not have a state in recent times, so they were disorganized and easy prey of bigots and later the Nazis. But now there is the state of Israel.
The Gipper put Qaddafi on ice for over 20 years with the help of a few guided bombs.
Hitler rejected what he termed “Jewish science” as misguided, the product of the untermensch (he was clearly referring to physicists). This prompted an exodus of scientists from Germany and Europe. The result was that when he was losing the war, and needed them the most, he could only count, and only with threats, with a aging Werner Heisenberg.
The Manhattan project, Alamogordo, was basically a Jewish affair. With the exception of Enrico Fermi, all other scientists of value were Jews: Bohr, Rabi, Oppenheimer, Feynman, and of course, the brain behind the bomb and the first one to postulate the chain reaction, Nobel price winner, Hungarian Jew Leo Szilard.
Will Israel allow itself to be destroyed by the likes of Amadinejad? I doubt it.
May be it is time to put Iran on ice, but using lots, lots of ice.
“The United Nations just listened to Qaddafi speak—Amadinejad too: they honored these terrorists, ”
And they listened to Øbama when he parrotted the PLO line again* and “condemned all settlements and “occupation” and put Jerusalem back on the table.
imho, any Jew who claims they support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state AND voted for this mumzer and NOW doesn’t it regret it needs a brain transfer.
*(as he did in Cairo when followed the muslim script and said Israeli’s history began with the shoah).
They don’t call it Londonistan for nothing.
Phyllis – this has been coming for years…and has accelerated exponentially since 2002 or ’03. The articles I’ve read and the lack of response by the “intellengencia” has been nothing short of outrage; their silence is deafening.
I’ve said for years we’re re-living the ’30s. I don’t see any other analogy and Santayana is spinning in his grave. Britain is doomed I’m sad to say.
Where are the sane voices? I am so dismayed.
When I send articles like this to my friends and family, I often get responses such as “don’t send these; we don’t want to be bothered by politics.” As Bogart said while waiting for Bergman that night, “…I bet they’re asleep all over the world.” How true that was then; how true that is now.
Keep up the good work.
the arabs who are dumb as sh*t due to missing a large part of their frontal cortez are also diabolical, so they will use the courts in any twisted way to inconvenience and annoy israelis. actually, they’ve been doing this a long time to the brits, whom they have now overtaken. dancing around with this arab scum doesn’t do any good, a hit in the face witha garbage can cover would do a lot more to stabilize the region.
if only we had a President.
It is the duty of every good citizen to contact the British Mission in the U.S. and inform them that they will not visit the U.K. or any of its terror-tories, purchase any British products, nor support any British endeavor of any kind.
Furthermore, we should petition the ICJ to arrest any and all British officials traveling outside of their home country for waging an illegal war in Iraq and Afghanistan which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents on the charges of “crimes against humanity.”
I have no doubt that there are plenty of countries out there who are secretly routing for the Israelis to not only wipe out Iran, but Hamas, al Qaeda and the rest of the world’s vile and evil cancer. The West will have to engage in another round of Crusades in order to cleanse Islam from it’s midst, once and for all.
IDF commanders who took part in war crimes and possible crimes against humanity are no more “prey” than any other war criminal running around the world, they are simply criminals who have not yet been apprehended.
It is apparent to me that no one here has actually read the Goldstone Report, it’s long and exhausting and took me nine hours to wade through its depressing pages.
Richard Goldstone probed all of the relevant issues. Serious crimes were found to have been committed by Palestinian militant groups and the IDF including possible crimes against humanity.
Ignoring the Goldstone Report is simply not possible. The United States today called on Israel to implement the recommendations made by the Goldstone Mission to fully and transparently investigate the allegations in the report that the US is taking as “serious.”
Knee-jerk emotional handwringing and useless exercises in pretending that Palestinians do not exist are time and effort wasters.
Those that actually care about Israel should be worrying about how Israel should cope with having committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity (one of the ongoing right now).
MiamaMan,
A minor point, but Enrico Fermi was married to a Jewish woman, which made him a Jew under the Nuremberg Laws. He too had to flee. Hitler was totally selfless. Did he want to succeed in getting Germany to be the first country to have atomic weapons, or did he want to do what he considered virtuous–getting rid of all the Jews in the world? Hitler chose to give priority to his conception of virtue.
I agree completely. Jew hatred is imprinted in Arab DNA, as a cursory reading of the Koran makes clear. Thank God they are missing so much cortextual material. Christian lust for Jewish blood is in purely temporary remission. Even the so-called Christian Zionists are only waiting for their chance to declare a Rhapsody and throw us over the side.
The South Asian races are nothing but Arabs in disguise. As for the East Asians, all they care about is what they can get for themselves – which is also true of the so-called Oceanics. Try living as a decent Tonganese Jew. I have and it’s impossible. Finally, we all know what South America has become and as always, forget Africa.
No, not a single Jew is safe while these declared anti-semites are free to prowl the globe. Therefore, the only hope for Jewish survival is their extinction — regrettable as that may seem to some of our left wing “reform” Jews.
Once this phase is accomplished, we can finally breath free and repopulate. Here, our often scorned Hassidic brethren will play a key role due to their demonstrated fertility; surely, this is no time to make a fetish of personal hygiene.
Plainly, the Israeli leadership understands the situation and has begun to take steps toward the necessary, if difficult, world cleansing. Together, we’ll show these bastards some real protocols!
The Goldstone Report IS the new “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. I’ve already met some comments from the internet versions of certain British newspapers (also the pseudo-conservative “Times” of London), the normal Brits, with “euro”-sounding names (not the palis or so) that has bought the ORGAN-THEFT lible from Sweden as true. There will always be some people who will belive literally anything about Jews in order to justify their hatered, but it’s always sad, when it’s one of … Yeah, anyway, Karl Marx hated rich AND RELIGIOUS Jews too. So, not a big surprise.
The British?! Wasn’t it the British who allowed Scotland to free a mass murderer for a lucrative oil deal?
With five wars, and 3000 rockets under their evil Muslim belt, I am surprised the Israels did not send the Arabs back where they are from. Jordan, and Egypt.
There is no such thing as a Palestinian.
The so called Palestinians like Arafat,(from Egypt), had a chance for a State of their own. However, they continue to buy weapons, and C-4 instead of making roads, schools, hospitials, etc… Then, they teach their children to blow themselves up to allah the moon god because they hate the Joooo.
BTW BBC, start reporting the news, not your sick Lefturd agenda. You use to be the voice of freedom in WWII, now you make me want to puke.
Whoa! Hold on to your horses! Let’s not grasp at extremes, please!
It would be incredibly crass and anti-semitic to say something like, “Jews are scum,” or that hate is “embedded in their DNA,” or that we should lead a crusade to “cleanse” the world of Judaism. So please don’t label all followers of other ethnic/religious groups this way, as that would be just as prejudiced.
Understand that in no way would I equate Judaism with Islam. But if Jews (and Christians) are to demonstrate themselves as more evolved, mature children of God, we have to prove better at dealing with Muslims than Muslims have shown in dealing with us.
Islam, in its strictest interpretation, is not a religion of peace. It calls for forced, even violent submission. It mistreats women, minorities, and all of us “infidels.” Yet many Muslims do not adhere to this interpretation. Some, like the Kosovars and Kurds, sympathise with Israel. Others, like the Turks, are at least nominally neutral. So though there are some Muslims who are evil fanatics (like the Iranian, Hamas, or Hezbollah leaderships) and which must be fought against, it’s morally wrong to state all Muslims/Arabs are “scum,” or “dumb as sh*t,” or worthy of crusades to “cleanse” the world of them. It’s one thing to destroy Iran’s leadership. It’s quite another to nuke Tehran, and anhiliate 8 million people, many which have been bravely fighting against their repressive leadership.
And no, despite our dark history, there is no longer a Christian lust for “Jewish blood.” Catholics in particular have matured in their relations with Jews, to the point where John Paul II called Jews “our elder brothers.” Though clearly we have our differences, we consider Judaism a sister religion.
We hate the terrorists/fanatics for their heinous acts. Be careful what you say or fantasize about, lest you become that which you hate.
Has anyone ever seriously tried to have Ahmadinajad arrested for Holocaust denial and/or incitement to genocide?
BBSNews,
Goldstone and his committee ignored all the evidence of Hamas’ attacks on Israelis, including testimony by people injured by rocket attacks. Goldstone himself fell asleep while one such person testified. Virtually none of their testimony reached the 500-page report. The fix was in from the moment the committee members were selected. So you can take that report, fold it into a tight, spindle shape, and put it where the sun does not shine, with a hard shove.
Virtually everything Israel’s enemies do in their war to destroy Israel and exterminate its Jewish inhabitants violates the Geneva Conventions. Where are the criminal indictments for Arab attackers against Jewish civilians, a violation of the Geneva Conventions? Where are the indictments for Arab rocket attacks against protected structures in Israel, such as hospitals and schools? Hamas puts its military facilities in schools, mosques, and hospitals, and did so during Operation Cast Lead, but Israel does not. Such military use eliminates the protection from those structures, according to the Geneva Conventions, but since Israel does not so use them Israel’s structures are still supposed to be protected. Israel’s enemies pay no attention, but deliberately target them. Where were the indictments of Arafat for directing such a criminal war, or of the Hamas bigshots today for their direction of a war effort almost exclusively characterized by war crimes?
When is the world going to arrest Ahmedinejad for boasting that he will destroy Israel? The UN Charter makes it a crime to advocate the destruction of a UN member state.
But all these criminals have the run of the world, while Israelis are going to be forced to stay in their tiny country because their enemies issue indictments against them based on pure lies, and stupid, malevolent, or simple-minded fools accept those lies at face value. . So BBSNews, until “international law” starts to affect the actual criminals here, Israel’s enemies, it has no standing to be used against Israelis.
Remember this: this war is not about this or that little bit of land. When Israel’s enemies say “Peace in the Middle East” they mean the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its Jewish inhabitants. When they whine for “American evenhandedness” they mean we should help them do this. Anyone who sides with Israel’s enemies has become an advocate of genocide, which I do believe is also a crime under international law. Turn yourself in.
If anyone should be arrested it should be them for supporting terrorism. Garbage muslim fanatics.
17. Chileno:
Others, like the Turks, are at least nominally neutral.
~~~~
My husbands grandfather was Armenian. Do you understand the PERCENTAGE of Armenians who were *slaughtered* by the Turks was far greater than the percentage of Jews murdered by Nazi’s? The turks are paying lipservice becasue it’s advantageous (they want to be part of the EU) – not because they believe it. If they *truely* believed in getting along with us infidels, they’d admit the Armenian Holocast (see NYT 1892 when the term was first used.). They don’t, and they get extremely tetchy if anyone mentions it.
Ehud Barak should be arrested by Israeli authorities for the crime of agreeing to release from prison 20 terrorists in exchange for a Hamas videotape of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.
Dr. Chesler,
yashár kóaH! Brava è bravissima! Excellent article! My only criticism was gotten to by David Lincoln in comment #2. Resident Arabs in the Land of Israel are just that. They originally viewed themselves as South Syrians and that is what they should be called. If you are really uncomfortable with that, you should use the term used at Arutz Sheva, “PA Arabs”.
There is no such thing as a “Palestinian” and there hasn’t been since the end of the Mandate. Moshe Dayan was a Palestinian before he was an Israeli. The trash peddled by liars like Arafat (a child of the murderous el-Husseini clan) trying to create such a spiurios nationality is just a pack of garbage, and any fool who buys into it deserves the sand the Arabs will kick into his face before they murder him off.
Having said that, not all Arabs are evil, and not all Arabs have murder on their minds. While sitting in a Jerusalem post office waiting my turn to conduct some business there, an old Arab grandmother saw this retarded girl sitting in a stroller near her Israeli mom. She did what my wife did – reached out her hand and smiled at the toddler, talking to her. At one point, she pulled the stroller so it was close to her and she kissed the child on the head. Tragically, her leaders would kill us just as willingly as they would kiss us, even more willingly.
I foresee a bloodbath in this country because of the bloodlust of the Arab leaders who would murder us off.
Arabs in Israel are just as ill served by their leaders as we are in Israel are by ours. Netanyahu makes good speeches. Hey, I can make good speeches, too. So can you, I’m sure. But Netanyahu allows the IDF to destroy Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria, participating in and continuing the treason Meir Shamgar started in 1968 when he declared Gaza, Judea and Samaria “occupied territory”. It is ours, given to us by the Resolutions on Palestine (San Remo, Italy, 1920) passed by the countries who created the Palestine Mandate, and the only party in interest to the land west of the Jordan River is the State of Israel, which is the sovereign representative of the Jewish People, the successor in interest of the Jewish Agency that represented the Jewish People in the Mandate. Note this review, to come out soon in a forthcoming book, Cracking the Qur’an Code, by my friend and colleague, Lowell Gallin:
“In The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, the author, attorney Howard Grief, acquaints the reader with the Resolutions on Palestine, adopted on 24-25 April 1920, in San Remo, Italy. The essential issue he brings up is the nature of the Mandate given at the time. The Mandate gives the Jewish People sovereignty over the Land of Israel, all of it, and makes the British Empire the trustee of that sovereignty until a Jewish National Home (i.e. a Jewish State or Commonwealth) can be developed, charging the British with responsibility for developing that National Home.”
What passes for international law, the various resolutions of the UN concerning the Mandate and the State of Israel subsequently, are all illegal:
1) they strip the Jewish People of sovereignty over their land, and more importantly,
2) they were rejected by the Arabs.
Therefore, they are null and void.
Thus it is that any Israeli government leader who countenances the presence of the UN on Israeli soil is committing treason, and his doing so is prima facie evidence of that treason. The punishment for this crime is death by hanging. Consider that and draw your own conclusions, Dr. Chesler.
Mine are these. Security Minister Barak, who “escaped” arrest from an Arab inspired attempt to secure an arrest warrant in London, should, when his plane touches ground here, be arrested and tried for treason – and hung.
#13 J Martin — Moby much?
Look up “moby” on Urban Dictionary. I’d post a link, but the blog software would scrub it.
17. Chileno:
A question, you wrote:
[It’s one thing to destroy Iran’s leadership. It’s quite another to nuke Tehran, and annihilate 8 million people, many which have been bravely fighting against their repressive leadership.]
And how do you destroy Iran leadership? As if they were available for destruction.
Was Truman guilty in using nuclear weapons against Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? Historian calculated, given the fight in Okinawa, that it could have taken half a million casualties to conquer the mainland.
Yes, many “innocent” people died in those 2 cities. Life is not perfect, but it is a fact that when you belong to a country, whether born in it, or emigrated into, you take both the good and the bad. The number of “innocent” people that died in the awful bombing of Dresden was very close to the civilian casualties in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Or should Israel wait for the next Holocaust? I say no way.
Phyllis, it is a strange and sad world in which we live. Good is called evil and evil is called good. I hope and pray that we all remember this on election day.
How the heck did Isreael drop the PR ball over the last several decades?
4. MiamaMan: “The Gipper put Qaddafi on ice for over 20 years with the help of a few guided bombs.”
Not to tarnish The Myth of The Gipper, but two years after The Gipper attacked – he missed Qaddafi, but managed to kill his adopted daughter – Qaddafi’s men blew up an airplane over Lockerbie. I guess the “ice” melted.
12. George Jochnowitz: “MiamaMan, A minor point, but Enrico Fermi was married to a Jewish woman, which made him a Jew under the Nuremberg Laws. He too had to flee.”
No, he was not a Jew under the law. And he didn’t have to flee. He could’ve ditched his wife. He fled because he was a man of integrity, not because he wanted to save his behind.
5. jpeditor: “…any Jew who claims they support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state AND voted for this mumzer and NOW doesn’t it regret it needs a brain transfer.”
Yeah, like we’re really gonna join the birthers, death-panelers, Beckers, O’Reillyers, Paliners … Feh! Treif!
23. David P: “Ehud Barak should be arrested by Israeli authorities for the crime of agreeing to release from prison 20 terrorists in exchange for a Hamas videotape of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.”
Hey, Davy, do you think this was done without Netanyahu’s connivance and consent? I love it when the right tries to shift the blame!
28. Skip: “How the heck did Isreael drop the PR ball over the last several decades?”
Now THAT’S a good question. My take is that Israel has had nothing to offer all these years but the truth, the same old boring truthful message year after year. Not very creative.
Your story sounds about right in the world we live in today and yesterday for that matter. The terrorists are free to rampage, the victims to be imprisoned for defending themselves. How dare they insist on the right to exist.
Yep, sounds about right, that wrongs become right, upside down inside out.
24. Ruvy: ‘Security Minister Barak, who “escaped” arrest from an Arab inspired attempt to secure an arrest warrant in London, should, when his plane touches ground here, be arrested and tried for treason – and hung.’
I certainly hope the Israelis have a good Secret Service to protect its leaders from shmegeggies like Ruvy. What we don’t need is another Rabin tragedy.
biblio, I understand the need for proof of life, the probability of a fabricated videotape is extremely high. I care about security, Right, Left, not my cause. A better statement would be to include Bibi on the arrest warrant, poor decision making is politically agnostic.
Biblio, you need to learn to read. I did not submit that Israel’s leaders be assassinated – I said “arrested and tried”. Try paying attention next time you attempt to answer a post.
21 ked5:
The Turks committed an unspeakable crime against the Armenians, one which they still refuse to admit to.
I was referring to the Turks vis-a-vis the Israelis, with whom they have nominally cordial relations (compared to the Arab nations vs. Israel).
Besides, the Turkish military has kept a fiercely secular vision in place for the nation. Only recently have pro-Islamic parties been on the rise. Let’s hope they don’t get too far.
26: MiamaMan said:
“And how do you destroy Iran leadership? As if they were available for destruction. Was Truman guilty in using nuclear weapons against Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? ”
We were in open warfare with Japan in WWII. If we didn’t drop the bomb, we’d be forced to invade, those were the only two options. Are we in open warfare with Iran now?
Your example is outdated. We invaded Iraq and did not nuke Baghdad. We invaded Afghanistan and did not nuke Kabul. We dismantled the ruthless leaderships in both nations, without resorting to mass killings. We still have ongoing warfare in both countries, but nobody is advocating the anhiliation of all Iraquis or Afghans.
I understand civilians can be caught in the crossfire of any military intervention. Yet people here are advocating to purposely anhiliate an entire nation. I thought that was the definition of genocide.
Chileno 17
You are using the same kind of relativistic moralizing that has been destroying Western society for decades and will drag the world into Hell if it is allowed to continue. Islam cannot rightly be compared to any other religion because the bent of its scripture is uniquely immoral and violent. It must be utterly destroyed. I am not suggesting bloodshed, except when necessary, I am only stating a fact. You said it yourself; “Islam… calls for forced, even violent submission.” (By which I assume you meant “subjection.”) This is what the Koran teaches, as well as Sharia law. It doesn’t matter that there are Muslims who do not hold to this: they are holding to a religion that does. Ultimately they must face this fact and either reject it, and thus their religion, or accept it, even if passively. But where are all these legions of peaceful Muslims that people like you always refer to? I don’t hear them publicly denouncing the Koranic and Sharia passages in question. Apart from this how can you claim to know what is in someone’s mind? I submit that because of the doctrine of taqiyya no Muslim can be trusted to be peaceful regardless of what they say. Islam must go, period. It is murderous, dishonest, deceitful, and utterly unsalvageable.
34. Ruvy: “Biblio, you need to learn to read. I did not submit that Israel’s leaders be assassinated – I said “arrested and tried”. Try paying attention next time you attempt to answer a post.”
Actually, you said, “arrested and tried for treason – and hung.” (Oy, am I really arguing with this person?)
Very good! You can read! It’s called due process of law, biblio. I have little doubt that if Barak were arrested and tried for treason, He would be found guilty. The evidence is all over the place – his actions in 2000 in NOT dealing with Arab terror or violations of the Olso Accords after Rosh haShana of that year. It’s all over the public record. A guilty verdict means hanging. That is Israeli civil law.
I’m not going to compile the evidence for you right now. That is not my job. I hope you understand….
36. Chileno:
Thanks for the reply:
1) [Your example is outdated. We invaded Iraq and did not nuke Baghdad.]
Apparently you did read carefully what I wrote. The example, now that you called it that, I was using referring to Israel, not the US (Iraq, Afghanistan), and the constant, imminent, threats of destruction and obliteration coming from Amadinejad. You may concur with me that Israel can’t invade Iran, for many obvious reason. But they can surely DO SOMETHING ELSE before the threat of obliteration.
2) “Innocence people” is a relative term.
3) [I understand civilians can be caught in the crossfire of any military intervention. Yet people here are advocating to purposely anhiliate an entire nation. I thought that was the definition of genocide.]
Your logic is wrong, please use a mirror. THE ONLY ONE ADVOCATING ANNIHILATION IS AMADINEJAD AND THE AYATOLLAHS. Israel has never said they want to destroy Iran, they rather not, but surely will defend itself.
**********************************************
29. biblio44:
You are correct in the chronology, but I still believe he changed his ways fearing more of the same. Surely they did not expect to be found guilty.
[No, he was not a Jew under the law. And he didn’t have to flee. He could’ve ditched his wife. He fled because he was a man of integrity, not because he wanted to save his behind.]
Here you are right, not even in Nazi Germany a German was considered Jew if married to Jewess. The Nurenberg laws did not provide for this; besides, they did not apply in Italy, at least not until the German occupation, by that time Fermi was out.
Dear logos1j1:
“Islam cannot rightly be compared to any other religion because the bent of its scripture is uniquely immoral and violent. It must be utterly destroyed.”
Ok, so everything boils down to two stark alternatives. Either adopt a nihilistic relativistic moralism, or call for the complete destruction of Islam.
No other options, eh?
I’m sorry, but I’m a strong supporter of Israel, and I’m a passionate critic of oppressive, Islamic regimes. Having said that, I feel your wild clarion call for the “utter destruction of Islam” sounds like the rantings of a madman.
There is indeed much evil to be found in Islamic countries, evil related to Islam, and evil that must be acknowledged and confronted. Yet cnfronting evil is different from calling for the utter destruction of one of the major world religions. That sounds too wild and fantastic of an idea to even take seriously.
We’re facing some major challenges here, and you just simplistically boil it all down to a stark
37 logos 1j1:
“You are using the same kind of relativistic moralizing that has been destroying Western society for decades…”
As I stated above, I’m not drawing a moral equivalent between Islam or any other religion. I am appealing to a very Western notion that all humans have individual rights. We can condemn the terrorist acts perpetrated by some, even the “collective” which they claim to represent, but we cannot fail to see the humanity of other individuals within the collective. Though some, even many, may commit heinous acts, you cannot condemn them all. If that were the case, we should have killed every last German after WWII.
“…where are all these legions of peaceful Muslims that people like you always refer to?”
You assume all Muslim nations have free societies, where their leaders’ acts can be publicly debated. For years the Afghans were ruled by the repressive Taliban regime and their terrorist cronies. Did Afghans rise en masse to protest? Of course not, because doing so could’ve meant death. Did their silence mean they agreed with their rulers’ heinous crimes? Would you say all Russians/Germans supported, sympathized, and applauded their Communist/Fascist leaders, as nobody questioned their government’s policies, and instead showed up in droves to government rallies? Should they all deserve to be annihilated?
There are about 2 million Muslims living in England (9% of London is Muslim). How many are inciting violence? There are about 4 million Muslims in France, including a quarter of Marseille’s population. How many have been jailed for terrorist acts? There will always be bands of agitators. But if you look beyond the rabid fanatics, you will see many who would simply rather live in peace.
“[Islam] must be utterly destroyed. I am not suggesting bloodshed, except when necessary…” You are naive in suggesting we can erase a religion without bloodshed. Religions don’t die unless their followers do. This is not to say a religion cannot evolve, which is my hope with Islam.
“It doesn’t matter that there are Muslims who do not hold to this: they are holding to a religion that does. Ultimately they must face this fact and either reject it, and thus their religion, or accept it, even if passively…”
You assume a monolithic set of religious beliefs, which is never the case. There are several movements within Islam, from the generally peaceful Barelwi, to the puritanical militant Wahhabis. The Quran holds many passages inciting violence. Yet there are others which do not. A religion can evolve, depending which passages are emphasized. For much of its 2,000 year history, the Catholic Church persecuted Jews or other non-Catholics. It promoted wars and even sold indulgences. Yet the Church matured, through deeper understanding of God’s Word, and with serious internal debate, it evolved to a more peaceful, tolerant religion. I don’t know if Islam can evolve in this fashion. My point simply is that we cannot condemn an entire religious/ethnic group. We have been raised to believe in individuals’ rights. Let’s not deny them to others, even if they are living among criminals.
40 MiamaMan
“I was using referring to Israel, not the US (Iraq, Afghanistan), and the constant, imminent, threats of destruction and obliteration coming from Amadinejad.”
Hmmm… You jump to Truman and the bomb, and expect me to understand it was Israel you were talking about? I’m a firm believer in Israel’s right to defend itself, which may include a commando strike to kill the Iranian leadership, or bombing Iran’s military/nuclear facilities. I do NOT believe it includes the random nukeing of large metropolitan areas, like Tehran.
“Innocent people” is a relative term.”
Are you implying some civilians are not so “innocent,” and thus could be killed? If you define a “civilian” as including terrorist masterminds/bombers, I’d agree, but declare they really shouldn’t qualify as “civilians,” rather as rebels or paramilitaries. But if you’re alluding to, say, civilians in a peaceful anti-Israel rally as worthy of being bombed, I’d say you’re wrong. Unarmed, non-combatant civilians are protected by the Geneva Convention. It’s a tragedy when civilians are accidentally killed during armed conflict. It’s terrorism when armed conflict is specifically designed to eliminate civilians/civilian targets with no military value. (Of course, civilian targets WITH military equipment in them would become valid targets…)
“THE ONLY ONE ADVOCATING ANNIHILATION IS AMADINEJAD AND THE AYATOLLAHS. Israel has never said they want to destroy Iran”
I NEVER SAID ISRAEL WANTED TO ANNIHILATE IRAN. Read my post carefully, I said, “people here are advocating to purposely annihilate an entire nation.” As in HERE, on this THREAD, people have made comments alluding to the destruction of the Islamic nation (as in people).. Read:
#10 “The West will have to engage in another round of Crusades in order to cleanse Islam from it’s midst, once and for all.”
#13 After declaring that “Jew hatred is imprinted in Arab DNA” and ranting a racist harangue of all the world’s regional ethnic groups, declares “not a single Jew is safe while these declared anti-semites are free to prowl the globe. Therefore, the only hope for Jewish survival is their extinction…. Israeli leadership understands the situation and has begun to take steps toward the necessary, if difficult, world cleansing.”
#37 “[Islam] must be utterly destroyed. I am not suggesting bloodshed, except when necessary…”
I used Iran as an example of what I thought was justified (a decapitation strike) versus what I thought was not (nuking Tehran as a step towards “cleansing” the world of Muslims).
OK Chileno, thanks for the correction.
“Innocent” is a relative term, as Hitler would have never come to power saved for all the “innocent” Germans, many of whom declared a curious state of amnesia after the end of the war (nobody knew anything). Of course, the ideal situation is going back to when civilians were respected, but when facing an Intifada that rains rockets on your towns without the least care for civilians (including children), when Iran (yes, Iran not only Amadineyad or the crazy Ayatollahs, as they can’t do nothing without IRAN). threatens Israel verily with a 2nd holocaust, when innocent people like Danie Pearl are beheaded for being a Jew and an American, alas, when they fly airplanes with civilians into building occupied by civilians, then comes the time when enough is enough, and yes, Israel may have to use a nuclear bomb in Iran. I definitely do not advocate obliterating Iran, but often the remedy is often worst than the illness.
Take Pinochet, was he good or bad for Chile? Certainly hundreds of civilians were killed and some went missing or floated along the Mapocho river; however, the alternative at that time, was a Chile with Castro influence, a nightmare. Now, I assure you that Castro’s regime have shot many, many more people than Pinochet; in the first 2 months of his revolution, he shot and killed more people than the whole history of the Cuban republic from 1902 to 1959. So, overall, was Pinochet good or bad for Chile?
Of course, it would be great that Islam be destroyed, as it is up to no good. Whether civilians will always be safe that is another story.
Based on testimony from Israeli soldiers who took part in the recent war in Gaza, Israel is being confronted directly with the serious charge that permissive rules of engagement allowed for the killing of Palestinian civilians and widespread destruction of Palestinian property.
http://www.refusingtokill.net/Israel/IsraeliSoldiersExposeGazaAtrocities.htm
A record number of soldiers have been refusing to serve in the occupied terrorities,even going to jail
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1886856,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1886856,00.html
Israel’s use of white phosphorus as an obscurant in densely populated areas of Gaza violates the obligation to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to the civilian population during military operations
Israel’s own human rights groups address’s war crimes by their army.
http://www.btselem.org/English/About_BTselem/Index.asp
And yes Hammas were carrying out war crimes as well and that is condemned.
Rick, 41
The stark alternatives are a nihilistic moral relativism, or to accept that there is a real morality that operates outside our own shifting ideas and emotions. The call for the complete destruction of Islam is a correlative of the latter not the “rantings of a madman.” And this is not a wild and fantastic idea. Many religions have been annihilated: ancient Roman Paganism, Scandinavian Paganism, all of the indigenous religions of the Americas, such as the religions of the Incas and the Aztecs which were heinous – and Nazism and Japanese militarism – yes those were religions too. All of these had to be destroyed because of their moral bankruptcy and endemic evil, and they were. In 1936 the world certainly faced a simple choice “boiled down” to three alternatives: destroy Nazism and Japanese militarism, or be destroyed by them, or become a part of them. And the result was hardly guaranteed. That is the choice we face now and we had all better start taking it seriously. Confronting evil, in this case, is no different than destroying the religion because the religion IS the evil.
Chileno, 42
I was not speaking of Muslims in Muslim countries who, as you admit, are not free to do or say (or believe) anything except what their religious authorities say: I was speaking of Muslims in America and other Western nations where they DO have this freedom. I am sick and tired of the constant refrain, “There are millions of peaceful Muslims blah blah blah…” Where? Who? Sorry, it just isn’t true. Every once in a while you’ll get someone to say something against Islamic terrorism, but it isn’t backed up by actions, by organized resistance within the Muslim community: no marches, no rallies – nothing but deafening silence. And silence gives consent.
It doesn’t take many bad actors to do enormous damage, as we have all seen. But what we must realize is that those bad actors require an entire community behind them – money, recruits, safe houses, supplies, etc. etc. 15 people didn’t bomb us on 9/11 all by themselves: they had a huge infrastructure behind them. Of the 2 million Muslims in Britain (and etc.) don’t ask how many are inciting violence – ask how many are supporting it with money, homes, quiet encouragement… and silent consent. The answer to THAT question is, as far as I can tell, nearly all of them.
I am not naive. It took bloodshed to destroy Nazism and Japanese militarism. It will (and has) take bloodshed to destroy Islam. But it MUST be destroyed – that’s what we have got to get through our heads. Islam cannot be lived with, it cannot be tolerated. But conversion can also occur through persuasion – Reason – and when it can be it should be. That was my point.
It doesn’t matter how many different “movements” there are in Islam – and sorry to repeat myself but WHERE ARE THEY?!!! What matters is that they are in contradiction to the Koran and Sharia law! They must ultimately face this fact: why claim allegiance to the Koran, Mohammed and Sharia when you do not agree with them? Is Mohammed God’s prophet or isn’t he? If he was then he must be obeyed (and his commands are quite clear, “peaceful” passages notwithstanding. If not he must be rejected as a madman.
I knew that you (or someone) would get around to the point of the Catholic persecution of Jews and other non-Catholics. I’m rather impressed that it took so long. But the argument fails and instead supports my point. What the Catholics were doing was in direct contradiction to what Christ and the New Testament prophets taught. Eventually they had to come to terms with this – and admit they were wrong. THEY were wrong – not Christianity. Christianity didn’t “mature” its adherents did; and precisely as you said, “…through deeper understanding of God’s Word.” Yes! That’s the point! Now answer your own question: will a “deeper understanding of the Koran, and the Sharia and the Prophet’s life” lead to the same type of maturation? Read for yourself and see.
Islam is not an ethnic group. (In point of fact, most Mulsims are not Arabs.) And yes, entire religions can be condemned. If they’re evil they should be. Your right to wave your fist stops at my nose. Individual rights to not extend so far as to harm another.
I’m a firm believer in Israel’s right to defend itself, which may include a commando strike to kill the Iranian leadership, or bombing Iran’s military/nuclear facilities. I do NOT believe it includes the random nukeing of large metropolitan areas, like Tehran.
Chileno, this is not a something you get to decide. We Jews get to decide how best to defend OUR land. Since your country and the Brits both made mass murder legitimate weapons of war, we get to use those legitimate weapons of war when we need to, as we see fit.
That is what sovereignty is all about. If nuking Tehran and Qom is what it takes to defend our land, we get to make that decision. We have to live with the consequences of doing so or not doing so, not you.
logos1j1:
So it sounds to me like you’re calling for a Crusade. A war against Islam, which is, in effect, a war against the entire Islamic world. So then: the tragic necessity of having to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki will have to be (most likely) repeated, but on a much grander scale, since we’re talking about more then one or even two or even 10 countries. Maybe we can nuke 4 or 5 and scare the rest into submission….
Look, we agree that there IS evil and it must be confronted. I just think we need a more sophisticated, PRACTICAL approach here…one that might indeed include military force with specific targets and agendas, but not a modern day Crusade.
For this is more than a localized religion to be eradicated. Like Christianity, Islam will have to evolve. You might see this as impossible, and base your belief on a rather scriptural determinism to the effect that Islam is just inherently wicked, and it doesn’t have the innate capacity to evolve the way Christianity has. I don’t see this line of reasoning as a practical one, or even a sensible one at that. But I accept that others disagree here.
Alas, perhaps you think that eliminating Islam will make wickedness go away. That’s a rather grandiose assumption…..
I think it’s important to acknowledge evil and to confront the menace of evil, and I think we can do that without losing our heads in the process.
The question comes up again and again, why Muslim leaders in many parts of the world, but especially in the West rarely, or never, voice outrage for the tactics of the Jihadists. Where at Fatwas against the 9-11 perpetrator? No, the Fatwas are against Rushdie and Geert Wilders.
Well, how could they? For in doing so they would go against the grain of the Quoran, a book that Winston Churchill compared to Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
As for:
49. rick:
Rick, about your statement:
[Alas, perhaps you think that eliminating Islam will make wickedness go away. That’s a rather grandiose assumption…..]
No, it won’t go away, but Islam “is the evil of the moment”. It is today, the greatest source of evil that threatens human civilization and wants to bring darkness, chaos, cruelty, strife, check out Sharia Law.
Thus in World War II, the allies concentrated on the evil Axis Powers, but there was evil in other parts of the world, of course. Today, Islam is what is called imminent and present danger. Yes, you have Chavez, other minor dictators, but Islam, like the Soviet Union previously, is the threat, THIS WE MUST CONFRONT NOW, with any weapons at our disposal, and before they get these weapons and use them on us.
rick, 49
I never said anything about using nukes, others have brought that up. But I will admit that depending on the nature of a military confrontation nothing can be taken off the table per se. But that isn’t really relevant yet. Let me say as an aside, though, that if it were to become necessary we wouldn’t have to and shouldn’t bomb ten nations, or Qom or Tehran, etc. – we would (and should) nuke Mecca and Medina. That would be appropriate and would be enough: when we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki the war ended and hundreds of thousands of lives were saved because the Japanese finally understood one incontrovertible fact: Shintoism and Japanese militarism were WRONG: they were not descended from gods and therefore undefeatable, they were not destined to take over the world – THEY GOT THEIR ASSES KICKED, PERIOD. The ancient religion of Shintoism died almost overnight. If it came to it and we did that, Muslims the world over would come to the same conclusion and the whole facade of insane lies could – COULD (I don’t know if it would, mind you)- collapse in an instant in virtually the same way.
The point is that this evil must be confronted and the first part of that is to call it what it is and quit tap dancing around about it. All of these legions of “peaceful Muslims” (if indeed they exist (I’m not convinced)) must be brought to realize that if they really are peaceful THEY’RE IN THE WRONG RELIGION.
As far as “sophisticated, practical” approaches: those are fine – if they work. Unfortunately they DON’T work when you’re dealing with nuts. Some people simply do not respond to reason. They are wholly given over to evil, whether of a religious nature or some other kind. Sometimes the cop just has to crack some idiot over the head with a billy club and throw him in a cage. Sorry that there’s nothing sophisticated about that but you’ll be well pleased that its very practical.
In sum, MiamaMan hit the nail on the head just above. It really can’t be said any better than that. You should listen to those like him who have a personal knowledge of just how evil, intransigent and unreasonable (and unsophisticated) Islam really is.
45 MiamaMan:
“Hitler would have never come to power saved for all the “innocent” Germans.”
So you think we should’ve killed them all? That seems to be the logic going around here regarding Muslims, specifically Iranians. Yet for all the evil the Third Reich perpetrated, the Allies did not carry out the mass murders you seem to be justifying. I return to my original premise: ALL humans have individual rights. We live under a legal system that presumes innocence until proven otherwise. Yet you imply this rule should not apply to Muslims, when our forefathers, faced with an even clearer and present danger in the Nazi regime, didn’t go so far.
“Iran (yes, Iran not only Amadineyad or the crazy Ayatollahs, as they can’t do nothing without IRAN)”
Actually, they’ve proven time and again they can. They stole the past election. They oppress ethnic minorities like the Azeris or the Kurds, despite the fact that these minorities together now compose over half the Iranian population. They maintain strict religious rules, despite the fact that young people disagree with them (and two-thirds of Iran’s population is under the age of 30). Do not confuse lack of protest with support. In many cases lack of protest is a survival instinct, as it was in the Soviet Union, and among many in Nazi Germany. Think of Zimbabwe, a nation so ravaged by it’s inept leader’s policies that a quarter of its population has left in search of jobs, as it currently runs with 80% unemployment. Yet nobody has been able to topple Mugabe. In many cases, he who has the guns makes the rules, and dissent is not dealt with kindly.
“then comes the time when enough is enough, and yes, Israel may have to use a nuclear bomb in Iran.”
So if others threaten you with genocide, it’s O.K. for you to commit it first? Oh, yes, because they’re all evil, and we’re all good. How good will you feel after accepting the mass execution of 7 million Tehran residents? It’s sad how you reduce all Muslims to a one-dimensional terrorist caricature. I know it’s necessary to dehumanize them, in order to stomach justifying their mass extermination. It’s one thing to claim self defense, which most would agree to being valid. It’s quite another to, in the name of “security,” accept mass killings. Operation Cast Lead was arguably necessary to defend Sderot and the rest of southern Israel. But would ou have accepted the IDF carptet bombing all of Gaza? Launching nerve gas attacks on Gaza City??
Truman may have been justified in detonating atomic bombs over Japan, as his only other option would have cost far more lives. Israel currently NOT engaged in open warfare with Iran, and there are other, far less devastating options which could be considered.
And exactly how would nukeing Iranian cities make Israel safer? Do you think Israel could rub out all 66 million Iranians? What do you think the survivors/the rest of the world’s Muslims would consider doing to tiny Israel and its mere 7 million citizens?
” was Pinochet good or bad for Chile?”
He was good AND bad. Pinochet stepped in at a time of crisis, and saved Chile from becoming a Communist satellite, much like the Honduran constitutional government has done in removing Zelaya. But the Honduran government has not gone on to torture and kill over 2,000 people, as Pinochet’s regime did. Pinochet reorganized the economy and propelled Chile into the 21st century, but he did have the blood of 2,000 civilians on his hands. Why couldn’t he simply have jailed them? Sent them off on a train to Argentina, or to solitary confinement in Patagonia? When discussing Pinochet, you must see both sides of the coin, and realize that one side does not justify the other. Was Fujimori good or bad for Peru? He rid the country of the heinous “Shining Path” guerrillas, and helped reorganize Peru’s economy as well. But he was also a corrupt President, under whose direction many were also tortured or killed. And for that he is currently going to jail.
And though I do not condone the killings/tortures committed under Pinochet, I do agree that Castro’s government is far worse, in terms of repression, killings, and the overall destruction of Cuba. At least Pinochet had the cojones to subject himself to a popular vote in ’88, and, when faced with defeat, peacefully step down from office (something Castro would never dare do). This is what irritates me to no end about lefties, who scream bloody murder regarding Pinochet’s record, but ignore or minimize the mass killings Fidel has perpetrated.
I do beleive we must fight to preserve Israel/the West, hunting down terrorists and killing them if necessary. But I also believe in individual rights. You cannot simply be called guilty by asociation. Also, certain acts of war are morally reprehensible, and nearly always unjustifiable. I don’t buy your Machiavellian argument that the end (preservation of Israel/the West) justifies nukeing large metropolitan areas, especially as you seem to imply, as a first strike.
47 Logos 1j1:
“I was speaking of Muslims in America and other Western nations… I am sick and tired of the constant refrain, “There are millions of peaceful Muslims blah blah blah…” Where? Who? Sorry, it just isn’t true…. no marches, no rallies – nothing but deafening silence. And silence gives consent”
You assume terrorism is uniquely a “Muslim” problem, so Muslims in Western nations are obligated to “prove” they’re against terrorism. That’s as ludicrous as saying drug trafficking is a “Latin” problem, so all Hispanics must “prove” they’re against drugs. Silence gives consent? By that logic, the vast majority of American Jews who voted for Obama and are currently NOT protesting his rather anti-Israel line of thought must actually be anti-Israel themselves.
I say you speak of Muslims in Western Nations, but I think you’re still thinking of the ME Muslims throngs we always see on the MSM. Many Western Muslims did in fact condemn 9/11 and do condemn terrorism. Check out the links below.
http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/commentary/READER%20REBUTTALS/article_599221.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-eteraz/the-myth-of-muslim-condem_b_67904.html
http://www.mediamonitors.net/riadabdelkarim3.html
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/friedman-wrong-about-muslims-again-and.html
From the second source: “On September 12, 2001, one of the most learned Islamic scholars in the UK said the terrorists are “not Muslim.” A month later he called terrorism a “heresy” against Islam in a pre-eminent British paper. A Pakistani Islamic scholar whose followers are active in 81 countries called Bin Laden a “false prophet” and “coward” barely a week after 9/11. Another major Islamic scholar issued a pamphlet (in many languages) attacking the Islamic legal arguments that the terrorists used so that future recruits might not be so easily led astray. One of the eldest traditionalist scholar in Sunni Islam issued a fatwa against the extremist group Al Muhajiroun. Muslims in Spain issued a fatwa against Bin Laden. … In 2005 there was a massive consensus reached at the international level that forbade Muslims from engaging in something called takfir – which attacks the jihadist ability to recruit. Muslim scholars have gone so far as to engage in “Koranic duels” with jihadists. … Nevermind the fact that before 9/11 it was a Muslim who warned our State department about monitoring certain mosques, or that it was a Muslim who tipped off the British authorities and helped prevent the 20 airliner hijacking in 2006.”
There are currently 10-15,000 Muslims serving in the US military, including in Iraq. How many have committed crimes against the US?
“how many are supporting it with money, homes, quiet encouragement… and silent consent. …as far as I can tell, nearly all of them.”
That’s a hefty accusation. Any proof to back it up? Some charities have been found to give money to Al Qaeda, but for the most part this was done secretly, likely WITHOUT the consent of the original community donors. Most of the money came from the Gulf states, not from the West. From Globalsecurity:
“funding for al Qaeda….from a complex fundraising network fueled by financial facilitators and diverted Islamic charity donations…. financial facilitators raised money from Gulf country donors, particularly Saudi Arabia. They primarily relied on imams at mosques who diverted compulsory charitable donations known as zakat to al Qaeda. They also received money from individuals in corrupted charities. Al Qaeda operatives infiltrated large charitable organizations with loose external oversight or controlled smaller ones. They used these employment positions to gain access to the organization’s bank accounts….
Since September 11 and the fall of the Taliban, al Qaeda funding has drastically decreased. Countless financial facilitators have either been arrested or killed… Many corrupt charities have gone completely out of business.”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida-funding.htm
“What the Catholics were doing was in direct contradiction to what Christ and the New Testament prophets taught….”
Some New Testament passages portray Jews in a positive way, attributing to them salvation (John 4:22) or divine love (Romans 11:28). Yet others do the opposite, as when Jews cry out for Christ’s crucifixion, stating , ‘Let his blood be on us and on our children!’” (Mat 27:25) as well as John 8:44 where Jesus calls Jews children of the Devil.
Unfortunately, the Church fathers thought they were doing the right thing in emphasizing the negative passages. And yes, through deeper understanding of God’s Word, change came about. A parallel can be made with Islam, in terms of violent vs. peaceful passages.
“will a “deeper understanding of the Koran, and the Sharia and the Prophet’s life” lead to the same type of maturation?”
You assume a change like this cannot happen in Islam because for you it is evil to the core. Yet they claim the same God as Father and the same Abrahamic roots that we do. I’m not so sure they can make the change, but I don’t discount this possibility outright as you do.
“Individual rights to not extend so far as to harm another”
Yet you advocate destroying Islam, which you yourself agree would very likely require bloodshed.
In any case, your argument is moot, given that we are now living with about one billion Muslims on this planet. As I said before, usually religions don’t die unless their followers do. Good luck trying to eradicate the global Muslim population. I do support conversion (I donate to several Christian missionary groups in Africa precisely for that reason) but that will never eliminate Islam in its entirety.
48 Ruvy:
“Chileno, this is not a something you get to decide. We Jews get to decide how best to defend OUR land.”
I said “I do not believe” precisely because it is my opinion, not my command. So yes indeed, you do get to decide how to defend you land. But why stop at nukes? Why not use nerve gas or hydrogen cyanide?? Why don’t you carpet bomb Gaza and be rid of Hamas once and for all? Better yet, why don’t you systematically herd all Gazans onto boats and sink them in the Mediterranean? Yes, you have the right to decide how to defend yourself. You also carry the responsibility of your acts. There comes a point where you must realize that some acts are so morally revolting that they betray your very essence as a religious person and a member of the human race. If you’re willing to cross that line in the name of “security,” so be it.
Your acts also have repercussions. If you legitimize nukeing others’ metropolitan areas, don’t be surprised if they nuke yours. And though you could very well decimate Iran’s population this way, some would likely survive. Israel, however, would likely not survive a nuclear attack, which could easily render the entire country radioactive. To the fanatic terrorists, the loss of a few million Iranians and Arab Israelis would be a small price to pay to rid the Middle East of the Jews. Perhaps Ahmadinejad’s evil plan has been to provoke an Israeli nuclear attack all along, to set this chain of events in motion. I can almost hear him echoing Winston Churchill’s remark upon learning of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, “My God, we’ve won.”
50 MiamMan
“why Muslim leaders in many parts of the world, but especially in the West rarely, or never, voice outrage for the tactics of the Jihadists. Where at Fatwas against the 9-11 perpetrator? ”
See my post #53
51 Logos 1j1:
“The ancient religion of Shintoism died almost overnight.”
Watch your facts, Logos! Ancient Shinto is not dead. Only the 19th century/early 20th century nationalistic/political attachments disappeared after WWII. The religion itself is doing very well to this day. From Wikipedia:
“Shinto currently has about 119 million known adherents in Japan… It is generally accepted that the vast majority of Japanese people take part in Shinto rituals, while most would also practice Buddhist ancestor worship.
“Following the war, Shinto has, for the most part, persisted with less importance placed on mythology or the divine mandate of the Imperial family.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto
I don’t think nukeing Mecca would deflate their religion much at all. Would nukeing Rome and assassinating the Pope make Catholicism collapse? Hardly. Islam is more than just Mecca, as Catholicism is more than just Rome/the Pope. That would, however, certainly rile them up a little more than their Prophet’s drawings did a few years back. I’d fully expect them to launch a global jihad against whomever nuked Mecca, and would certainly expect them to do some nukeing of their own (thanks to Pakistan/North Korea) say, NY, Washington, Rome, etc.
Thank God I live in a backwater part of the US, where no extremist would bother come by…
Chileno, 52
No one is talking about killing every last Muslim the way Hitler tried to exterminate Jews and other “undesirables”. Quit bringing up straw man arguments. Islam has to go, not everyone who currently is Muslim. As we’ve seen in the past, and as I’ve tried to show, once you show them that there religion is absolutely false they will either go nuts and die anyway or (much more likely) turn away from it. The Germans and Japanese both did the latter en mass. The Pagans did the same long before. Sometimes Reason can do it alone. Sometimes it takes brute force. And sometimes some people will not change even then. They will have to be captured and imprisoned, likely for life – or, yes, killed. I don’t know why you can’t see that “sophistication” doesn’t always work. The point is we have to show that Islam is a false religion, a pack of invidious lies… TO THE MUSLIMS. In order to do this we have to stop yapping about Islam’s sexism problems, and their oppression of women and burkhas and hijabs and blah blah blah – and relentlessly drive home the point that ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM!!! Moral relativism is crap. Feminism is crap. There is only one morality. Deep down every reasonable person knows what it is, and this is what we need to advocate if Good is to triumph over Evil. As Christ said, “… a house divided against itself will fall.” (Mk. 3:25).
52. Chileno:
No, you should not kill anyone, unless it is strictly necessary. Thou shall not kill!
What about the bombing of Dresden? The Allies used 1,300 heavy bombers, and over 3,900 tons of heavy explosive, the fire storm that ensued would literally suck people in the fire as it created a huge vacuum, fatalities over 25,000. At the time Hitler was totally defeated, but guess what? You cannot awake Wotan the Berserker and expect no results. So, Iran is playing with fire with the heavy rhetoric.
No first strike recommended. But if Israel attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, as it seems will happen soon, Iran will try to strike the Dimona power plant, at that time it should be clear to them what they will get if they do it.
Conclusion: Pinochet was good for Chile. Some people suffered in the process, more would have suffered if he would have won.
Muslims have condemned terrorism.Some by infiltrating groups as informers.
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
The collective punishment of a race,a ideology or religion does not sit well in the civilized world.
Some seem to want muslim’s wiped off the map.
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has strongly condemned the suicide terrorist attacks in New York and Washington
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfxRuDHw-zs
The iranian people sent their condolences
http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/vigil/
http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm#Expressions of grief and sympathy in the Arab and Muslim world:
The US is said to have 10,000 targets in Iran. Primary among these are all nuclear facilities, including the nuclear power plant at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf coast near Kuwait, and the nuclear enrichment facilities in Natanz near Esfahan.
Bushehr is an industrial city, with nearly 1 million residents. As many as 70,000 foreign engineers work in the region, which includes a large gas field.
Natanz is Iran’s primary enrichment site, north of Esfahan, which also has nuclear research facilities. Esfahan is a world heritage city with a population of 2 million.
According to the Center for Disease Control, the uranium 235 used in nuclear reactors has a half life of 700 million years.
As nuclear reactor fuel is used, it turns into uranium 238, which has a half life of 4.5 billion years.
These radioactive isotopes are dangerous to health because they emit alpha particles and because they are chemically toxic. When inhaled, they damage lung tissue. When ingested, they damage kidneys and cause cancer in bones and in liver tissues. According to a recent review of medical research, uranium exposure causes babies to be deformed or born dead.
Never in history has it happened that nuclear power plants and nuclear enrichment facilities have been deliberately bombed. Such facilities, everywhere in the world, operate under severe safety conditions because the release of radioactive materials is deadly, immediately and also long after exposure.
If the USA or Israel deliberately bomb a fully fueled nuclear power plant or nuclear fuel enrichment facilities, containment will be breached; radioactive elements will be released into the environment. There will be horrific deaths for families in the surrounding vicinity. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated 3 million deaths would result in 3 weeks from bombing the nuclear enrichment facilities near Esfahan, and the contamination would cover Afghanistan, Pakistan, all the way to India.
Reactors and enrichment facilities are built of extra strong concrete, often with multiple layers of containment domes, often built underground. Bombing such facilities will require powerful explosives, earth penetrator war heads, maybe nuclear warheads. The explosions will blow the contamination high into the atmosphere. Where will it go is a question that is difficult to predict.
This is Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFfHjNximGg&feature=related
59. mags:
Mags, nice info. but what’s your point?
[The US is said to have 10,000 targets in Iran]
Who says that? “is said” is too general a term.
If Iran is so vulnerable, surely its sense of adventurism is tremendous, for:
1) The proxies Hezbollah and Hamas are both 100% controlled by Iran, both terrorists organizations exist only to destroy Israel. Actually, they engage Israel one at a time, while the other one is rearming.
2) Iran has been and still is engaged in Iraq, training and providing explosives, actively engaged in killing American troops. This we have known for years.
2) Iran and its leaders engage in apocalyptic rhetoric, annihilation, destruction, wipe off the map, etc, not the other way around.
May be is time for the foreign workers to start leaving Iran.
57 Logos 1j1
“No one is talking about killing every last Muslim”
Oh, no, you’re not advocating the extermination of all Muslims… except you are, if they don’t renounce Islam… You said so yourself, that if “Reason” will not make them “turn away,” they “will have to be captured and imprisoned, likely for life – or, yes, killed.” So you wouldn’t consider killing every last Muslim, only those who will not convert… You sound terribly medieval. Who will be assigned the post of Grand Inquisitor? You?
Your argument fallaciously assumes Westerners have great powers of persuasion over traditional Muslims. How will you get them to listen? Bombing their sacred sites? Would bombing Christendom’s holy sites subdue Christians? Look at it from a more basic level: Imagine you were taught all your life to lead a God, Koran-centered life to reach salvation. One day a stranger comes along and told you that was all wrong, and you must renounce your core beliefs at once. You’d have two choices: A) Accept that your entire life’s construct, inculcated into you by your loving parents since birth, has been a lie, and that you have been a fool all along, or B) Believe you are right, and that this foreigner is an emissary of the Devil trying to trick you. Which would you choose? We can try to persuade as many as we can to “turn away,” but most will not.
So then, what if, out of the one billion Muslims, we only manage to convert 100 million? What would you do with the other 900 million? Your argument would call for mass incarcerations or killings. Is this really that far from “killing every last Muslim”? Mass extermination of Muslims is not a straw man, it’s the logical conclusion to your argument.
You insist Islam can be defeated, like the Japanese or the Nazi “religions.” But it’s naive to compare Islam with these short-lived state-sponsored faiths. Being state-centered, it was easy to disprove their tenets once you defeated the state. Islam is God/Muhammad- centered, and you cannot “defeat” these two as they are not around to visibly defeat. Muslims hold Islam as the logical evolution from Judaism/Christianity, which themselves have persevered despite many attempts to destroy them.
Again, this is not to say that, through self-reflection, even external examples, the Muslim community could not evolve. Many continue to promote violence, but many do not, as can be seen in the links in post #53. The US Founding Fathers, who stated that “all men were created equal” were themselves slave-owners. It was only after years of debate and conflict that the passage came to its full realization.
“There is only one morality.” Do you claim to have attained the Absolute Truth? Funny, that’s what Muslim extremists say.
Finally, you say you “don’t know why you can’t see that “sophistication” doesn’t always work.” I say I don’t understand how you can expect one sixth of the planet to come around and see things your way (because obviously it is THE way)…. or else.
58 MiamaMan
“No, you should not kill anyone, unless it is strictly necessary….No first strike recommended.” Glad to hear we agree in this, then MiamaMan!
Self defense is clearly valid. Excessive use of force in order to attain greater security guarantees, is not.
“What about the bombing of Dresden?”
This was a singularly reprehensible, cruel act. Hitler was already in retreat, and the city was largely civilian target with little military value. Yes, if Wotan was here, he may have behaved similarly. But we are not, and should never be, mere Wotans. I think it was a crass error in judgment to approve these bombings, which seemed to have more to do with animalistic revenge than winning the war.
Some may argue that when conducting “total war,” demanding not just a negotiated settlement, but unconditional surrender, all targets become “valid.” Nonsense. We all must take responsibility for our acts. And as I said before, some acts are so morally repugnant, that they can betray our core beliefs. Did this attack stop a greater evil? Was there an imminent threat emanating from Dresden? I don’t think so. Why did it have to be firebombed? Clearly the intent was to burn the city down, not destroy military/economic targets.
“Conclusion: Pinochet was good for Chile.”
He had positive effects, but his government was not justified in killing those whom were killed. They will forever be a black stain on his legacy. It’s kind of like saying Roman Polansky is a brilliant movie director, and, though he did rape a 13 year old girl 30 years ago, overall he is good because he contributed so much to the world….
Chileno
I’ll try one more time to get through to you. You are not paying attention to what I’m saying. You’re superimposing your own ideas on mine. I did not say we need to kill all Muslims. Stop saying that I did or that my logic leads there: from this point on I will have to consider it slander. Here is what I’m saying (are you still with me?): The Koran, in certain very clear passages, orders all Muslims to convert all infidels or kill them if they will not convert, or to support those jihadis who do. Muslims are to obey the Koran. Therefore: SOME Muslims will always come to the (astounding!) conclusion that they are to convert or kill all infidels, or support those who do. Because of this fact alone (not to mention a plethora of other disturbing passages, and facts about the “prophet’s” life) Islam is a frankly evil and intolerant religion that is completely incompatible with a safe, peaceful, free and just society. Therefore, if we are ever to have a safe, peaceful, free and just society Islam must go.
Are we okay so far?
At some point all Muslims are going to have to come to terms with these facts. At that point they will either have to reject the religion or accept it as it is – and obey it.
Okay. Here we go. Don’t lose me.
Those who decide to kill all infidels who will not convert, or to support those jihadis who do ….. are going to have to be captured and imprisoned or killed – so they don’t kill us or support those who do.
This is simply to say ….. perhaps if we dropped “Islam” for a moment it would be easier: we have to capture and imprison or kill murderers and their abettors so that they don’t keep killing us. It’s self-defense. Otherwise we cannot have a safe, peaceful, free and just society.
I really don’t think this is complicated. I will continue.
Christianity is not comparable to Islam. There are no passages in the New Testament commanding any Christian to kill anyone for ANY reason. (Self-defense is allowed but not commanded.) Jesus never called “the Jews” children of the Devil. Jesus WAS a Jew. So were ALL of his apostles and disciples. He called those leaders who were opposing him for their own selfish reasons, corrupting Judaism and the Temple worship, and oppressing the poor children of the Devil. He said this because what they were DOING was EVIL, not because of their ancestry. That would have been absurd since he, and Paul, and John and ALL the rest HAD THE SAME ANCESTRY!!!!!
Let me “boil it down” once more: The Koran and Sharia law command people to commit evil. Mohammed was an evil man by any measure. He was essentially a highwayman by trade. He was a pedophile, a transvestite, a liar, an adulterer, a polygamist, a psychopath, he was insane and delusional – and all of this is IN THE MUSLIM SOURCES! (Of course they consider his delusions “revelations”; but for the rest it is all quite frankly admitted.) Therefore Islam is evil to the core, and yes: it must go. You are right to be overwhelmed by the size of the challenge. I don’t know if it can be done. I only know – and I have proved logically and factually – that it must be done if ever we are to have a safe, peaceful, free and just society.
I didn’t say I had attained Absolute Truth (whatever that’s supposed to mean.) I said there is only one Morality. You must either accept that this is true or accept that there is no morality at all and anything goes. It doesn’t sound like you accept the latter, so you must agree with me on this. This being true we have both the right and the responsibility to defend it with words, with reason, and when necessary with force. And if there is any morality at all Islam is on the wrong side of it.
Oh, yes. And don’t quote Wikipedia to me. Please! I have read genuine historical sources. I also have a close friend who lived in Japan for six years and has a Japanese wife: trust me, Shintoism is dead as a doornail and isn’t coming back. I’ll take my sources and their testimony of WikiBSia any day.
rick, 49
The Crusades were a defensive reaction to the Islamic preemptive attack against Christian (Byzantine) lands. The Byzantines lost. Islam began the war against Christendom and Islam continues it. So saying that I’m calling for “another Crusade” is a bit contradictory. As long as Islam attacks US we must react in our own self-defense: and this is exactly what has been going on all along. Given what the Koran and Sharia clearly says (see my passage above if you haven’t) I don’t see how this can ever change until one side or the other is defeated. I don’t like this: that’s just the way it is. If someone attacks you and will not relent there is no choice but to fight back or surrender. (Hm. Is “surrender” used in Islamic parlance? Yeees. Yes… I think it is!) God forbid (literally) that they win. For my part – I’ll die before I “surrender.” You can take that to the bank.
Hi Chileno. I’ll make these answers to your comments brief – I want to get away from here and check my e-mail.
In synagogue today, we read (and heard chanted) Chapter 14 from the book of Zecharia. It talks about events that may well transpire in the near future here, events that seem to be being led to.
Implied in this chapter is a nuclear explosion (probably at least one) over Israel. The “plague” of having one’s skin and eyes melt away is one that occurs at the edge of a nuclear blast zone. Implied in this chapter is also an earthquake, a massive earthquake – how else does a mountain split in half, with one part moving to the north, and the other moving to the south, creating a ravine, and a fountain exploding from the ground, with waters going east and west?
So I do expect to see a nuclear bomb dropped on this country. Why? I believe it to be in Prophecy, and I believe in the words of the Prophets of the Tana”kh
You can read more of this point of view at ,a href=”http://www.jewishindy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=10658″>Jewish Indy where I commented on pieces Roger Simon and Moshe Dann wrote here. Also you can go to my own blog site, Ruvy’s Roost and reqd my full essay on why I think Persia should be nuked, and in addition, you can go, at that same site, and read why I believe it necessary for Jews, at any rate, to be Viewing History Through the Lens of the Rabbinic Calendar.
See you later!
Chileno:
[You insist Islam can be defeated, like the Japanese or the Nazi “religions.” But it’s naive to compare Islam with these short-lived state-sponsored faiths.]
Islam can be defeated, alas, it must be defeated if we are going to avoid the horror of a Pax Islamica where the Taliban in Afghanistan is the norm, and not the exception.
Many people will die. The whole debacle started with the Partition of India. This was a masterful stroke of the Evil One (The Lord of the Nations), when he mostly erased the gains of World War II and the gains of the forces of light behind Winston Churchill. As a result the giant (India), started anew missing half her right leg (Pakistan), and her left foot (Bangladesh).
At the core of this great mistake of Partition was Mahatma Gandhi. If anyone must have died a broken man, the Mahatma was a candidate, for not a single one of his tenets were being implemented in Nehru’s India when he died. He, the epitome of non-violence, caused more violence (1-2 millions murdered during the partition affair) than if India would have followed the injunctions of Sri Aurobindo, and fought the Muslims from the start, preventing Partition.
This failed, and temporary, state named Pakistan, which Osama Bin Laden called the pillar of Islam, the only one so far with nuclear weapons, must disappear, at whatever cost, and returned to India (Paki come home).
The alliance of India and Israel must, and will, flourish.
@ 63 Logos 1j1:
“Islam must go…At some point all Muslims are going to have to come to terms with these facts. At that point they will either have to reject the religion or accept it as it is… Those who decide to kill all infidels… or to support those jihadis who do ….. are going to have to be captured and imprisoned or killed – so they don’t kill us or support those who do….This is simply to say …we have to capture and imprison or kill murderers and their abettors so that they don’t keep killing us. ”
O.K., let me get this straight.
A) Islam is “evil” to the core, and must be destroyed.
B) We will reason with Muslims so they will realize this.
C) Eventually all Muslims will either die/renounce their religion, or become murderers/abettors of murderers.
D) We will only imprison/kill those who murder/abet murderers.
First, “A” is your interpretation. As I stated above, I’ll agree that, if strictly interpreted, Islam is not a peaceful religion. The difference is that I’d call for an evolution of Islam, whereas you believe it is incapable of evolving, and must be done away with completely. Go to Kosovo, or the Kurdish regions, Istanbul, even Beirut and London, and you will see Islam in evolution. Some argue the reason we have the current militant streak of Islam is that Muslim conservatives see their archaic world order crumbling around them, and are reacting with violence. Historically, suicide attacks are a measure of last resort, as it was for the Japanese Kamikaze. So I believe my vision, after much struggle, is feasible. Doing away with Islam is impossible, at least not without massive use of force, which now you allege you would not use.
Why can’t Islam evolve? There are many passages in the Quran and the Hadith that can be used as a basis for peace.
Examples:
- Prophet Muhammad said: “Do not kill women or children or non-combatants and do not kill old people or religious people (he also mentioned priests, nuns and rabbis). Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees and do not poison the wells of your enemies.”
- He also said: “Whoever unjustly harms a Christian or a Jew will not even smell the scent of paradise.”
- And: “there are people who kill in the name of Islam and go to hell.’ When he was asked why, he said: ‘..Because they weren’t fighting for the sake of God.’”
In the Quran:
‘Anyone who has killed another person it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind and anyone who saves one life, it is as if he has saved the whole of mankind.‘(Chapter 5, verse 32)
“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah” (Surah 8, Verse 61).
“And if ye do punish them, punish them no worse than they punished you: but if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient.” (Surah 16, Verse 126).
“If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure.” (Surah 9, Verse 6).
“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.” (Surah 2, Verse 256).
Yes, there are many passages that incite violence, which are used by extremists to justify their heinous acts. But are there not passages in the Bible that could also be used to promote violence? Perhaps not in the New Testament, but you know the Old Testament mentions how adulterers, homosexuals, fornicators, blasphemers must be killed, as well as those who strike/curse their parents. (See Leviticus 20,21,24) It can also be interpreted as ordering the killing of those who worship other gods, or who are false prophets (in Exodus, Numbers, particularly in Deuteronomy 13 , 17, 18).
Do you not follow these dictums? If you don’t, why don’t you reject the Old Testament? You don’t follow them because you understand they’ve been taken out of historical or theological context. Could this not also happen with passages from the Quran? Have you read the Quran/Hadith in their entirety? Is there no other possible interpretation than violence/forced conversions? True, Muhammad was not the nicest person (I wouldn’t want to meet him). Yet in our own tradition, King David was no angel either, yet we still hold him as one of Israel’s greatest Kings, ancestor of Jesus himself.
Jesus, in John 8:44 says to those claiming to be sons of Abraham and God, “If God were your Father, you would love me… You belong to your father, the devil.” I, like you, can interpret this as being directed at the Pharisees. Yet for centuries it was interpreted as ANY children of Abraham who did not “love” Jesus (i.e. all contemporary Jews). My point here is that passages like these have been misinterpreted in the Bible, and so could some passages in the Quran. The Quran is not necessarily evil (as you claim), it may be purposefully misinterpreted by those who wish to commit evil.
As for “B” and “C”, I’m all for reasoning and conversion, as I stated previously. But I realize this is at best only going to slow Islam’s growth vis-à-vis Christianity, not drive Islam out of existence. Islam has been around for 1300 years. Countless generations have come and gone WITHOUT reaching the point you seem to believe all Muslims must reach of either renouncing their religion or committing to global jihad. Ah, but you will show them that these are the only two options. As I stated above, how exactly do you plan to reason with them, if they are unlikely to listen to foreigners?
Finally, “D,” the destruction of those who want to hurt us, including groups that aid/abet the terrorists, is what we’re ALREADY (rightly) doing. I’m guessing you’d have our leaders come out and say Islam is the evil we’re going after, not just an extremist segment. Our War on Terror would become a War on Islam. (But not to worry, because we will reason with them, and only prosecute the violent ones and their minions…. ) At this point, any who were inclined to change or help us will react violently against us, as it will become a war of cultures. (And I’d agree that what we are experiencing IS a war of cultures, except that I see us fighting the culture of the extremists, not of Islam as a whole.) Instead of thousands of jihadists, you’d see millions. What would you do then? Imprison/kill millions of jihadists?
Ultimately it’s incompatible to say Islam is pure evil, and allow some to continue practicing. Would you ban Islam in the West? Close down all mosques? What would you do with the millions of Muslims in the US/Europe if they fail to renounce Islam, yet do not resort to violence? Make them wear scarlet letters? What if they started secretly meeting in peoples homes, would you break in and arrest them for practicing an unlawful religion? If they lobbied for freedom of religion/assembly, would you deny them these rights? Many would still continue their practices, despite reasoning or threats of imprisonment/death if they went berserk. So then what would you do? Would you resort to force, even with the non-violents? If the non-violents refused to stop practicing, you’d eventually have to use force, leading escalating forms of punishment or persecution. In the end, either you will have to kill them all off, including the nonviolent ones, or relent, and allow some of them to practice. But how could you do that, if Islam is an intrinsic evil? Your position is inherently untenable without major use of force/violence.
In all this you forget the geopolitical ramifications of declaring War on Islam. What if Muslim nations, not taking kindly at seeing their brethren persecuted in the West, enacted a crippling oil embargo? What if they implemented a policy of killing all non-Muslims in their midst? Would the West rise up and invade these nations? Talk about unleashing WW III….
Finally, if you’re going to argue against my Wikipedia source, you’ll have to do better than say, “I read some books and talked to my friend and wife, trust me… ” I quoted Wikipedia because the point seemed so obvious that I didn’t need bother to look further. I’ll grant you that Shinto is probably not as prevalent as some claim it to be, but it’s certainly not “dead as a doornail.” Here are some more online sources and quotes. Care to share yours (that don’t relate to personal anecdotes)?
“Estimates of the number of adherents are hopelessly unreliable. Some sources give numbers in the range of 2.8 to 3.2 million. One states that 40% of Japanese adults follow Shinto; that would account for about 50 million adherents. Others state that about 86% of Japanese adults follow a combination of Shinto and Buddhism; that would put the number of followers of Shinto at 107 million. ” http://www.religioustolerance.org/shinto.htm
With the end of World War II and the American occupation of Japan, the shrine Shinto system was dismantled and Shinto as a whole was disassociated from the state. Following that period, however, the shrines were revitalized and today remain one of the sacred focuses of Japanese religious sentiment. http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txo/shintois.htm
The Number of Shintoists, varies with different sources:
Encyclopedia Britannica: 1974: 63 million
Ministry of Education: 1974: 90 million; 1978: 99 million in Japan, with 88 million Buddhists, and 1 million Christians. http://www.religion-cults.com/Eastern/Shintoism/shinto.htm
This is the most complete source I saw, and though the numbers are much smaller than the Wikipedia numbers, it still lists Shinto as the world’s 14th top religion, by adherents. So much for “dead.”:
Shinto adherent counts are problematic and often misunderstood. In a nutshell, Shinto is simply the indigenous ethnic practice of Japan and its importance is almost entirely historical and cultural, not contemporary. The number of adherents of Shinto are often reported as being around 100 million, or around 75 to 90% of the Japanese population. These figures come from the Shukyo Nenkan (Religions Yearbook), put out by the Ministry of Education & Bureau of Statistics, and they obtain their figures by asking religious bodies for statistics. The Shinto religious bodies have on record most Japanese citizens because of laws established in the 17th Century which required registration with the Shinto shrines. Essentially everybody within local “shrine districts” were counted as adherents. …. In Japan, the majority of adherents of Shinto, as claimed by the Shinto organizations, don’t even consider themselves adherents, even nominally. In polls, only about 3.3% of the Japanese people give Shinto as their religion. A high world-wide figure for people who consider themselves primarily practitioners of Shinto would be about 4 million. Certainly most Japanese people participate in holidays which have Shinto roots…
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Shinto
64 Ruvy
I read your post on why Israel should nuke Teharan and other major Iranian cities, and must disagree. I understand yours is the most precarious position, given if Iran would ever to develop nuclear weapons, you’d be the first one hit (and that’s why, though I know difficult, I would support an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities).
I think you’re missing the notion of excessive use of force. If your neighbor (who hates you) is building a large cannon in his back yard (pointing at you), and the cops don’t give a damn about it, what would be the logical response? Shooting your neighbor? Blowing up the cannon? Or would it be blowing up his house, with all his family inside -just to be safe?
You claim that the Americans and the Brits legitimised mass murder, but forget they did it in the context of total war. The US undertook it in order to prevent even greater loss of life in a full scale Japanese invasion, and the Brits firebombing German cities did it under very slim argumets that have since been widely criticized. Is Israel currently in total war against Iran? Perhaps you believe it should be, but it’s currently not.
You also assume there is no other way to stop the evil plans of the Iranian government. Perhaps a successful strike on their nuclear facilities could buy enough time to allow internal revolution to change the government. Or even strategic hits within Tehran, to the different Ministry offices and Presidential Palace. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I remember Israel’s targeted assasination policy on wanted Hamas/Fatah militant leaders proved a successful strategy in getting them to stop attacking Israel.
Finally, you also assume the Persians have the government they elected, which, as is now plain to see, is not the case. I would not hold the people of North Korea or Zimbabwe accountable for the acts of their governments, and I certainly would not hold the entire Iranian nation, most of which are NOT Persians, accountable for the acts of their vile leaders.
In the end, I do want to see Israel preserved, I just don’t want to see millions of Iranians, many whom we now see bravely protesting their evil government, killed. At least not yet, not while the threat is not imminent, and there are other avenues of intervention to be explored. An attack like that could prove not only the destruction of Iran, but the internal and external destruction of Israel, as other nations tear at it, and it tears at itself in protest for such a heinous act.
Chileno,
I think your strategy concerning Islam is both disingenuous and doomed to failure. Islam has shown over its entire 1400 year history exactly what it means and what it intends, right up to the present day: so there’s no “historical context” to take it out of or put it into. But if some people do want to live peaceful lives while calling themselves Muslims, let them. I just think it is more honest to tell them frankly that they are wrong and to prove why. I think that eventually this has some hope of victory. You do not. I guess that is ultimately where we disagree. But then you have this annoying habit of saying that I am suggesting doing things, or my logic inevitably leads to doing things that I’m not suggesting and aren’t logical outcomes of my statements. I don’t see why you feel the need to do that, but so be it. I just think we should call a spade a spade and let the chips fall where they may. Not doing so is more dangerous and dishonest. All of this garbage about Islam being peaceful and essentially equal to other peaceful religions is just political-correctness; it isn’t based on a historical and scriptural study of Islam, the Koran and Sharia. For more along these lines you should look at Raymond Ibrahim’s site (just google it).
Just because someone can say something doesn’t mean it is now a serious position to be considered equal to all others on the same subject. So some people thought the New Testament condemned Jews: THOSE PEOPLE WERE WRONG. You don’t seem to realize that words and documents have real meanings that can be clearly understood by honest people. There is a real meaning behind the words of the NT. For those who can’t or won’t read them for themselves that meaning is easily deduced by the history of the religion itself. The same is true of Islam. You don’t seem to allow for the fact that people can be dishonest both with themselves and with others. (In this vein see what Ibrahim says about the Muslim DOCTRINE of taqiyya.) As I said before: Christianity didn’t evolve. What happened was that some were distorting it for their own political and financial gain. They were able to do this because NO ONE KNEW WHAT THE NEW TESTAMENT ACTUALLY SAID. Most people were unable to read at all. For those who were it was illegal to translate the Bible into the vernacular languages. There were always those like John Hus and Martin Luther who spoke out against these forces but they were able to do very little until Tyndale and others began translating the Bible for the people – at the cost of their lives – and the printing press made it widely available. Then the whole facade collapsed. In a way this perversion of Christianity represents yet another religion that collapsed totally and very quickly once the Truth became known. As Christ said, “…the Truth shall set you free.” (John 8:32).
Christians don’t follow the dictates of the Old Testament because we’re not Jews. We don’t “reject the Old Testament” because it’s part of God’s Word. The Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled in Christ. With Him those rituals and laws became unnecessary (you don’t put new wine into old wineskins (Matthew 2:22). Then a NEW covenant was established. This is why Christians don’t eat kosher, rest on the sabbath, etc. etc. It has nothing to do with placing anything in a “historical context” per se. We simply are not bound by the old covenant, which has been fulfilled. It is akin to a modern lease agreement: if I sign a three year lease and the three years pass I am no longer liable to pay the rent – the lease has been fulfilled: not negated, not abandoned or violated, just fulfilled. It’s over. This is not true of any part of the Koran for Muslims, therefore no part of the Koran can simply be discounted as “that old stuff.” It isn’t. It applies here and now.
Comparing David to Mohammed is as false as comparing Christianity to Islam. David was a good man who made mistakes – yes, serious ones, but mistakes nonetheless. His sorrow and repentance once these were brought to light shows the character of the man. Show me the passage where Mohammed mourns his slaughtering of the Jews of Medina after he made a peace treaty with them. Oh, can’t find it? Okay, show me ANY passage where he expresses regret for his plethora of evil deeds and turns away from them. There’s just no comparison between the two men. This is just more PC crap that you seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker. Very sad.
I find it hilarious that the “sources” you use to discount my claims about Shintoism actually prove my point more than yours! I’ve had this happen on a few occasions and it always cracks me up. What are you thinking! One source estimates the religious adherents numbers being between 3 million and 107 million?! That doesn’t send up a red flag?! One is from 1974?! Sorry, I didn’t specify: my personal sources pertained to the present day (2009. They celebrate holidays with “Shinto roots?” That’s like saying Celtic Paganism is alive and well – after all we use “Christmas trees” in our celebration of Christ’s birth! Is it really credible to quote Shinto shrines when they say essentially that all Japanese are Shinto whether they know it or not?! Come on! Be serious! You can’t really think any of this would persuade me.
No, I’m not going to quote my sources. I’ll admit this is a bit inappropriate but I will say two things in my own defense: 1) I’m not digging through all my boxes of books to get the sources and page numbers when your own sources are so flawed that they support my own case quite nicely, thank you; and 2) even though you don’t know my friend and his wife, first hand testimony is generally considered credible evidence in a court of law (and the juries don’t know the witnesses) and I submit such evidence as valid here. The Japanese certainly carry on traditional rituals that have roots in there ancient past as do we. But this doesn’t mean that Shintoism has survived any more than it means I’m a Celtic Pagan. These are relics. The Japanese people no longer believe that a) the emperor is a god or b) their race is descended from the gods (and these were the major tenets of Shintoism) because the Truth DESCENDED on them in the form of a gigantic American boot in the ass. Some of the older generation hung onto the traditions that they grew up with, and I suppose a few passed these on to their children. But essentially the religion per se died after WWII and is dying out with the WWII generation. I stand by my position. You should do some real (and up to date) research with PUBLISHED sources (as in a REAL library) if your really interested; otherwise, try just reading the sources you already have (excepting WikiBS) with open eyes.
Logos 1j1
I think we’re starting to go around in circles, but here we go, one last time (I’ll try to keep it short):
Are you contradicting yourself??
You originally said, Islam “MUST be utterly destroyed.” And, “Islam is a frankly evil and intolerant religion that is completely incompatible with a safe, peaceful, free and just society. Therefore, if we are ever to have a safe, peaceful, free and just society Islam MUST go” (my emphasis). “Must” implies no other solution can be accepted. As you said, “Islam CANNOT be lived with, it CANNOT be tolerated” (my emphasis).
Now you say, “But if some people do want to live peaceful lives while calling themselves Muslims, let them.” Yo, Logos! A Muslim by definition is one who practices Islam! But didn’t you say Islam MUST go? Now some of those practicing Islam, which is “incompatible with a safe, peaceful, free and just society” can STAY? This is inconsistent with your argument! You can’t say Islam MUST be “utterly destroyed,” then turn around and say, some Muslims can be allowed to continue practicing Islam. You wouldn’t say we MUST stop illegal aliens, and then turn around and say, well, if some of them are peaceful, sure, let them in.
Then you say, ” I just think it is more honest to tell them frankly that they are wrong and to prove why…. I just think we should call a spade a spade and let the chips fall where they may.” Indeed! We can reason with them, show them why we think their religion is not the best. And if some convert, great! But your original argument (Islam MUST go) doesn’t imply chips falling where they may, it implies chips must fall AWAY from Islam.
If you’d said “I believe Islam is evil. We should do all within our power to talk as many as we can out of it, and hopefully the religion will fade away as more and more realize how terrible it is,” it would’ve been difficult for me to extrapolate (in fact, I’d probably go along with you). But in asserting the absolute NEED for Islam to disappear, all I have stated regarding persecuting believers, even non-violent ones, logically follows. It’s not an “annoying habit,” it’s what would NEED to happen to implement you statement that Islam must be “utterly destroyed.” But now you seem to have backtracked, stating some Islamists would be allowed to continue practicing this religion that could not be “lived with.”
“All of this garbage about Islam being peaceful and essentially equal to other peaceful religions is just political-correctness; it isn’t based on a historical and scriptural study of Islam, the Koran and Sharia.”
Read carefully what I wrote, please! I didn’t say Islam IS a peaceful religion, I said it could EVOLVE to become peaceful. I asked a question: “Is there no other possible interpretation than violence/forced conversions?” I said, “The Quran is not NECESSARILY evil (as you claim), it MAY be purposefully misinterpreted by those who wish to commit evil.” (emphasis added) I also said that “I believe my vision, AFTER MUCH STRUGGLE, is feasible. Doing away with Islam is impossible.” Even YOU now seem to imply doing away with Islam is impossible, and would allow some to continue practicing.
Bottom line: I’m not sure if it CAN become a wholly peaceful religion, but I think there’s a chance (you don’t). I’m fully aware of Islam’s history, but the past does not equal the future.
You imply the Quran is an evil book. I say there is much in it that can be interpreted as promoting violence, but there MAY be a chance that it is not wholly so. Hell, if Episcopalians and “reinterpret” the Bible as NOT condemning homosexual love, I think there’s room for Muslims to reinterpret their book as well. Here’s an interesting quote on the subject:
“Today, those who assert that the Qur’an advocates war against non-Muslims are also notoriously selective. Take for example the use of 4:74, which states that those who fight in the cause of God will be rewarded. And the quote often conveniently stops there. But the following verse (4:75) explains that Muslims are only allowed to fight those oppressors who directly attack them, especially those who oppressing the most vulnerable among them; old men, women, and children. ”
“For the last 1400 years, Muslims and their religious scholars have dealt — and are still dealing — with the important question of how much of the Qur’an is binding on Muslims at all times and how much of its teachings apply only to the age of the Prophet Muhammad and the particular circumstances in which he and his followers lived.”
http://www.mediamonitors.net/elmasry31.html
“You don’t seem to realize that words and documents have real meanings that can be clearly understood by honest people.” If it were so easy, tell me why we have over 1500 Christian denominations in the US, and an estimated 38,000 worldwide?
You say the Bible was always right, and historically, those interpreting it were wrong – and now that we are educated, and can all read, we know why they were wrong. And exactly how educated is the “Muslim street”? I’m sure some educated, intelligent Muslims have been indoctrinated into hating us “infidels,” but I’m also sure many of those chanting in the street are rather uneducated, and follow what their respective Imam says, much like Catholics of yore.
You can say the Word of God is perfect, that it is men who are imperfect (and so will no doubt misinterpret some of it), but that is as true today as it was 500 years ago. How can you be sure that all our current interpretations (e.g. regarding women, homosexuality, etc.) are right? Perhaps we are more “enlightened” in our interpretation, but that is not to say we understand it completely, and that interpretations -at least on some issues- will not continue to change. I stand by my comment that this same process COULD be occurring with the Quran, that it is not necessarily evil, and that interpretations can continue to change -perhaps for the better.
You argue we are no longer bound by the Old Testament because we’re not Jews. O.K. fair enough, let’s say you’re right. But what about the Jews, then? Would they not still be bound by the Laws of Moses to kill adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals, or those who strike their parents? Is this not written in the Torah? Yet they don’t do this any more…. So why claim allegiance to Torah and the Laws of Moses if they do not agree with them? Obviously, they have not fallen into your “accept/reject” dichotomy. They have either understood these passages were only relevant in their historic context, or understand that other passages supersede these. The same COULD happen in Islam.
You may consider my position -wishing for Islam’s evolution- to be disingenuous, but I think it’s practically inevitable. Most societies, as they modernize, become less conservative, and more open. Consider the Gulf States, or Turkey. Interpretations tend to shift with the times (hence Episcopalians blessing homosexual marriages). This will no doubt occur amongst Moslem nations.
And yes, I do consider your original position, that Islam MUST be destroyed, to be untenable. I’m surprised how easily you now slip in the caveat that “some” will be allowed to practice. Sorry Logos, you can’t have it both ways. Either Islam is “utterly destroyed,” or it’s not. Take your pick. Given your caveat, I assume even you’ve come to the conclusion that erasing Islam from the world is impossible without severe violence, which has been my point all along.
Ah, the pesky Shinto micro-debate:
“the “sources” you use to discount my claims about Shintoism… my personal sources pertained to the present day (2009).”
Let’s review your “claims”:
A) Shinto is “dead as a doornail.”
B) after WWII, “The ancient religion of Shintoism died almost overnight.”
THIS is what I was out to disprove. And as I stated “I’ll grant you that Shinto is probably not as prevalent as some claim it to be, but it’s certainly not ‘dead as a doornail.’”
I used several sources, to show there are differences in opinion as to how followers are counted. (And though you may have found it amusing, I included the last source to demonstrate an honest picture of what I found.) The common denominator of all these sources is that: at the very LEAST, there are 3-4 million people PRACTICING Shinto. Helooo! That’s not DEAD. And though old, the data from the 70s was taken 30 YEARS after WWII.
So A) Shintoism, though diminished, is NOT dead. And B) Diminishment did NOT occur “almost overnight.” Using 2009 data wouldn’t support this anyway, unless you consider 60 years to be “overnight.”
If you want to claim Shinto has substantially diminished over time, fine. But that’s not what you wrote. And diminishing over time, in any case, does not support your thesis that the US victory destroyed Shinto. The US victory destroyed the worship of the emperor, but not Shinto. That took time, and probably had as much to do with Japan’s modernization than the US victory. There are few who actually practice Christianity in France, yet that had nothing to do with US or German invasions.
Hmm… So much for keeping this short….
It is true that, given the reality on the ground, one MUST wish for a current of moderation in Islam to take place, to lead the future, as it happened to the other 2 Abrahamic religions.
The Burqa was not common in India until recently. During the Kargil war in 1999 in Kashmir, Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim Indians fought shoulder to shoulder together against the Pakistani aggressor. That must be considered a good development, a future workable template.
China has been very successful with her government-enforced population control. India, however, a country with the best voluntary population control program in the region, if not the world, has been thwarted by their growing Muslim population, which fertility greatly outpaces the Hindu population. Given the history of Islam in India, this brings great concern and worries to non-Muslims in the subcontinent.
This high fertility rate is the same for Muslim all over the world, with the more Islamic the country, the greater its populations growth, such as Iran, Jordan, and Libya. Pakistan has the greatest fertility rate in the region, doubling its population every 24 years.
Of course, this is of great concern for Israel where, Hasidic Jews notwithstanding, Israeli Arabs outpace Israeli Jews in fertility 5 to 3.
One may wish that Islam, like communism recently, implodes. This would be a lucky development. It looked that that was starting to happen a few years ago, before the recrudesce of Islamism towards the end of the 20th century. Still, it is possible that in India conversion out of Islam be promoted since there are several spiritual options available. In Europe, similarly, it is hoped that secularism and modernism takes the best of the new Muslim generations.
Chileno,
When I said that those who wish to call themselves Muslims may do so I did not contradict anything I said before. First of all I said those who “call” themselves Muslims. People can call themselves something without being so. They can do this naively or dishonestly. But if people truly live in peace – meaning they also do not support those who wage jihad – then of course they should be left alone. But that does not change the fact that they are at odds with the religion to which they profess; and as I said before at some point they are going to have to face that fact and make a decision. So ultimately, yes, Islam MUST go. It doesn’t logically follow that we must “persecute” anyone – unless you consider proselytizing and self-defense persecution! If Islam’s own sacred writings and history do not convince you that this is true then I guess you cannot be convinced.
This issue is not comparable to minor disagreements among Christians about various issues related to worship, etc. This is about the fundamentals of a religion without which the religion becomes something else entirely (more on this below.) This isn’t even comparable to Christian sects condoning homosexuality – which is clearly heresy and clearly at odds with NT teaching. (“Interpretation” has nothing to do with it: Rom. 1:26-27 condemns homosexuality, period.) It’s more basic even than that. This would be akin to someone calling himself a Christian and then saying Christ is not God in the flesh, did not die for our sins, did not rise from the dead. Well, call yourself a fish if you want, you still can’t breathe under water! That’s what I’m talking about. Islam has ALWAYS been a martial religion because THAT IS WHAT THEIR SCRIPTURES COMMAND! And for the same reason it ALWAYS WILL BE. THERE IS NOTHING FOR IT TO EVOLVE TO. THAT’S WHAT IT IS! FUNDAMENTALLY Islam is evil and martial and murderous and dishonest (taqiyya) and MUST GO.
Okay. That really is all that can be said on that subject. To quote The Hudsucker Proxy, “I’m getting off this merry-go-round!”
So far as Shintoism is concerned I will clarify my thoughts, what I was trying to say and my original POINT and then get off that merry-go-round too. Shintoism, fundamentally, was ABOUT emperor worship and the belief that the Japanese people were THE sacred race descended from the gods. Thus in Japanese militarism the conclusion was that they were destined to conquer the world. It is THAT that was destroyed overnight by two atomic bombs. Certainly some people were not able to give up the traditions and rituals they had grown up with. But I stand by my assertion that the religion died overnight because a) its FUNDAMENTAL beliefs were overthrown instantly and b) they were unable to pass on even the rituals to the next generation. From virtually the entire population being Shinto in 1941 to now only three percent (almost entirely the remaining WWII generation) calling themselves Shinto: that is in my opinion the overnight death of a religion. If you wish to disagree, God bless. What is left – the traditions, the relics (like Christmas trees) of the past – yes those will endure for decades, perhaps even centuries to come, who knows. But the Shintoism of 1941 IS DEAD: it died at Nagasaki, and it isn’t coming back. And my POINT was that evil CAN be conquered, even something as enduring as religion can cease to exist, the Truth CAN overcome, and therefore we have some hope of destroying Islam just as we have destroyed other evil religions and systems in the past. Again, I don’t know if we WILL. Only God knows that. But we must try. There is no other way. I’m sorry. You cannot make something other than what it is. Call yourself a fish – you won’t grow gills.
Logos 1j1,
So we reach the crux of our differences: You believe Islam is fundamentally evil. I believe there is evil in Islam, but it’s not fundamentally evil.
Based on your assertion, you believe Islam cannot evolve, and so must be destroyed. Based on my assertion, I believe Islam can evolve, and so there’s no need for its destruction -only its maturation.
There’s no point to arguing this any further, as it’s plain to see we won’t be moved. I guess only time will tell who is right and who is wrong. But given that the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life just came out with an extensive report which stated that 23% of the global population (1.57 billion) calls itself Muslim, you better hope you’re wrong!
I do wonder, if Islam is so intrinsically evil, why is it that, besides a few evangelical preachers, no major Christian theologian has come out and said this?
A final note, I don’t buy your notion of “non-Islamist” Muslims. I guess to you, any Muslim living in peace is, in fact, not practicing Islam. Your focus on Islam’s militancy ignores all other aspects of Islamic life. Forget the notion of belief in a single God, of reading holy texts, of living a virtuous life, of repentance of sins, or being charitable… To me that’s like saying a Christian who isn’t actively proselytizing is actually not practicing Christianity.
Similarly, I’m unmoved by your explanations regarding the non-dead “dead” Shinto religion. Dead is dead, not diminishing, dying, etc. Perhaps you should take more care in phrasing your arguments, so as to avoid ambiguity. You know, written text has a long history of being misinterpreted….
So we’ll have to leave it at that, and agree to disagree. It’s been interesting, Logos, but interest fades with repetition. I’ll see ya.
Chileno
This has been one of the better chats I’ve had. I’ll give you props for making some good points. At this point we are indeed at an impasse. Some final comments on your final comments without being repetitive:
I have no hope of being wrong. I’ve read the Koran, I’ve read Islamic history. I’m not wrong. I do have hope that we will win. But only time will tell. I do think that if and when the Islamic tyrannies fall and are replaced by democracies that we will find that those 100% Muslim population numbers fall through the floor. As proselytizing of other religions is legalized and people no longer face death for converting away from Islam or even expressing any other opinion we will find that there are far fewer Muslims than we now see. You may want to look into Ibn Warraq’s writings for more on that and an inside look at Islam.
Evangelical preachers are about the only Christians left with the guts to speak the truth about Islam. “Major Christian theologians” are all firmly ensconced in PC politics, relativism related to religion, if not morality, and are too deceived and entranced by higher criticism to really believe the Bible’s claims – i.e. they’re no longer Christian. As I explained above: they don’t actually believe in Christ, so in what sense can they be called “Christian?” How exactly all of this came about is beyond me. Maybe they just spent too much time trying to define and describe God and neglected worshiping Him until they lost their faith. The desire to keep a job and advance a career, get a book deal, etc. also has much to do with it, I’m sure. Very sad. The Truth suffers.
We’ll also have to agree to disagree about Shintoism. I stand by what I said and how I said it.
Until next time, God bless.
Thankfully a blog that works!!!!
In September of 2007 I David Dundale was arrested in the City of London as a suspected terrorist by police officer PC Brockwell of Snow Hill Police Station.I wish to state the following clearly….I do not support ANY form of terrorism against AMERICA,Britain or anywhere else.I am not a muslim and support Israel in its right to self defence against terrorism.The police officer concerned stopped my person and decided to arrest my person however it took 15 minutes for him to decide to arrest my person simply because I had letters and cds taped up in my bag……you do not take 15 minutes to arrest a suspect terrorist,you react emmideately!!!the police were investigated his own record slips stated in his own handwriting,shoplifting,drugs…terrorism…
The police officer the following day ran into a building were i was working and grabbed a phone out of my hand!!!again no action was taken against my person…..I contacted more than 20 solicitors companies including wait for it KHANS solicitors even though I had a case against the police and Judicial Review pays for the costs every solicitor stated the same nonsence,sorry we cant help you.My message to the UN the American Government and of course the Israel Government is simple .Britain is becoming a safe haven for terrorism ,the Government collapsed under Tony Blair one reason why I left that country further I would advise persons from other countries of the following the Police themselves aswell as the courts and Government are slowly turning against Jews and people who like my self who support Israel basically I would not take any chances with the British police or the Government if I was Barak.