Customer Discussions > History forum

Eye on Muslim Threat III

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 3226-3250 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 5:21:13 AM PDT
Cember says:
This one isn't a classic Muslim honor killing. If Iskandar had been a real Muslim, he would have protected the family's honor by killing his wife, Nita. In a truly Islamic context, Mr. Saemin was clearly enticed by a licentious adulteress.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 5:29:40 AM PDT
Cember says:
You asked my opinion. Neither you nor I have any way of knowing the actual Israeli response. A good logical case could be made supporting either conclusion.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 5:54:49 AM PDT
bob397103 says:
>>You asked my opinion.<<

Don't fool yourself. I didn't go to you for your opinion. I asked you hard questions to see if you could think. Your opinion on this was totally flaky.

>>Neither you nor I have any way of knowing the actual Israeli response.<<

But you knew it was okay with Israel, because no one wanted to embarrass Egypt. So obviously you knew that Egypt would have been embarrassed if a terrorist wasn't allowed in the White House. So you certainly aren't above giving uninformed opinions. That's what passes for thinking with you. Flaky.

It looks to me like you're ready to appease the terrorists. You're afraid they'll be embarrassed. You don't see a problem for Israel. How could it possibly be a problem for Israel? Israel loves the way Obama treats them. Life is just a bowl of cherries for everyone.

Common sense would tell any observer how the Israeli's took the news. But you say we have no way of knowing. That's just more wishful thinking on your part. You don't know that. The truth about that could appear in the media at anytime. Or Israel may feel it's better to bite their tongue and never say anything. You don't know. You're just trying to save face.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 6:18:39 AM PDT
. says:
Wasn't your original argument to point out how every "Christian" was on the side of the Axis throughout all Europe? You had some long list.

1) The Serbian Patriarch of the Orthodox Church was in a death camp.

2) The Serbian bishops of the Orthodox Church were either in death camps or had been tortured to death.

3) It was Croat Nazis who put them in those situations.

4) More Serbs were killed by Croats than Jews, by far.

4) Hardly likely that anyone involved in the Orthodox Church is going to side with Croatian Nazis, so if there were random Serbs who chose fascism, they did so against all their countrymen and church.

In contrast, Muslim religious/political figures, because there is no separation of spheres of influence in Islam, were exhorting Muslims to take up the Nazi cause, like the Mufti of Jerusalem, al Husseini.

And you're still ignoring the Pan-Arabic movement of the period.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 6:24:10 AM PDT
. says:
Well that is certainly interesting, I'd have to look into it further, though I haven't had any great interest in Bulgaria, ever, except as a sidenote to larger contexts. I have one friend from church who is Bulgarian, and she just rolls her eyes about the Bulgarian Orthodox church and says, "what a mess they are".

But you're original point was that "Christians" were doing this. Your citation here refers to the government, and also states that Bulgaria is a secular state. It doesn't discuss what the Bulgarian Catholics or Orthodox or any other church did, just the government.

So you've just rebutted your own argument.

Look up what church in Hungary rounded up Jews for deportation and see if that gives you an idea of the tough politics of the time. (Hint: You'll find it wasn't a church).

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 6:45:34 AM PDT
Granny ;-D says:
Yeah maybe... Christians sin too. That is the way with everyone.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 6:49:39 AM PDT
Granny ;-D says:
Well the entrance test results required is petty low or non-existant.

they sort of pass the course just by showing up and having an odd imagination outside of knowledge and intelligent logic.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 6:58:10 AM PDT
John M. Lane says:
You seem to be trying to avoid the fact that your Grand Mufti was an ally of Hitler's and helped raise four divisions of Muslim volunteers for Himmler's SS, Sutekh.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 7:00:08 AM PDT
Granny ;-D says:
I think they need to watch Barron and friends for terrorism.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 7:11:28 AM PDT
Granny ;-D says:
Thank you for that answer, Cember. Dennis Prager (one of my favorite talk guys even though I haven't heard him talk in years) used to be on main-stream TV. (I don't have sat. or cable but I have an antenna on top of the house) He also knew there was a difference between True Christians and nominal Christians. True Christians are pretty much hated too but not quite as much as Jews. Prager was a joy to listen to on the USA and World issues.

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 12:48:27 PM PDT
J. Schwarz says:
My professor was complaining today that the Vatican is sitting on lots of documents about Pius XII's activities during WW2. Evidently the Vatican is hiding quite a bit of info.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 12:57:44 PM PDT
TN says:
Not a surprise that the Vatican got in bed with the Nazi. Church leaders have always gotten in bed with politicians. The "harlot" of Babylon the Great in the book of Revelation is said to represent false religions because she always gets in bed with politicians and businessmen - See Rev 18.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 1:23:59 PM PDT
Cember says:
Do some reading on the Reichskonkordat, or the Concordat, signed by the Vatican and Germany in July, 1933. BTW, the Concordat is still in force.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 1:26:31 PM PDT
Cember says:
Of that 'million plus Muslims', the overwhelming majority were levees from British India.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 1:43:07 PM PDT
William B says:
Of course, they were non-Arab volunteers, but I believe that the British abandoned conscription in India for fear of adding fuel to the freedom movement. Of course there were also Indian volunteers on the Axis side. All of this, however, is a smokescreen to absolve the Mufti.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:18:30 PM PDT
Sutekh says:
William B says:

" I know that all of the sources that you so dramatically attempt to discredit are inconvenient"

Joan Peters is discredited by most historians, including conservative ones like Daniel Pipes, but that hasn't stopped you and others like Ben Uziel from continuing to use her as a source. And some of the other sources you listed aren't discredited so much as irrelevant for example what Nazi propaganda was directed as Muslims during the war says nothing about how many Muslims bought into it anymore then Nazi propaganda directed as the UK tells anything about how many Brits actually bought into it.

"Here, cleanse your Mufti of this:"

Are you purposely trying to be obtuse? The questions wasn't over what al Husseini thought or what the Axis tried to use him for, but how many Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims in general actually supported him.

"Next, if all you can offer is the misleading numbers gambit of British Colonial soldiers vs "the few thousand that were on the side of the Axis" then you are little better than a crass propagandist."

Crass propaganda would be trying to hype up two "Muslim" divisions on the side of the Axis during WWII but ignoring the million+ Muslims who fought on the side of the Allies during WWII.

"
And, as usual your narrative about the al-Huseinni appointment is selectively flawed:"

The British appointed the electors, not the people of TransJordan, the council still chose someone else even after the British forced one candidate to withdraw, so the British appointed Amin Al Husseini as Mufti over the protests of the al-Nashashibis and others. The following year Al Husseini demanded and got the title Grand tacked onto his title by the British.

"Nine months later the Mufti consolidated his power still further by assuming the presidency of the newly established Supreme Muslim Council (SMC),"

Again the Supreme Muslim Council was created by the British and it's membership chosen by the British who had a policy of "balance" on the council between the Al Husseini clan, the al-Nashashibi clan. It wasn't elected by the people of Transjordan.

"In subsequent years Hajj Amin used his joint appointments to become the foremost Palestinian Arab political figure, placing numerous members of his family in key posts, silencing the proponents of coexistence, and putting his constituents"

Yes, appoints gained via the British, not via popular support among the Arab population in TransJordan. It's like trying to say Assad has popular support in modern Syria..

"I would contend that anonymous historical "experts"

People with "real" names here are equally anonymous.

"they are compelled to invent bogus "legal" and "scientific" categories of argumentation merit categorization "

Talk about about being pedantic..

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:23:07 PM PDT
Cember says:
As you have avoided the fact that Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran was strongly pro-Nazi, and that Britain and the USSR invaded/conquered Iran during the summer of 1941 to stop the flow of Iranian oil to the Axis war machine, and to force the abdication of the Shah.

The German attack on Stalingrad was, in part, an attempt to relieve the pressure on Iran.

You also comfortably avoid the 1941 pro-Nazi Rashid Ali coup d'etat (Old buddy, Amin al-Husseini, fleeing a Government of Palestine arrest warrant, was in on the action, as well.) that brought about the 1941 Anglo-Iraqi War, and the escape of Rashid Ali first to Iran, and then (see above) to Germany, together with al Husseini.

You've avoided the fact that there Tito's Serbian Resistance forces absorbed Jewish resistors, and offered Jews protection in areas they controlled.

Bulgaria was neutral, then a member of the Axis and then joined the Allies. During the spring of 1943, while a member of the Axis, the Bulgarian government, responding to protests led by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and Bulgarian parliamentarian Dimitar Peshev, kept Bulgarian Jews from being sent to Nazi concentration camps. On the other hand, the Bulgarian Axis troops occupying Macedonia rounded up the Jews and sent them to Auschwitz.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:43:53 PM PDT
Sutekh says:
Irene says:
Wasn't your original argument to point out how every "Christian" was on the side of the Axis throughout all Europe?
---------------------
No, my point was that the actions of individuals don't translate into guilt of everyone who happened to share the same religion or ethnicity of those particular individuals. One can hardly blame all Muslims for the actions of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during WWII then one can blame all Catholics, Lutherans, or Eastern Orthodox Christians for the actions of individuals who professed to follow that religion.

"In contrast, Muslim religious/political figures, because there is no separation of spheres of influence in Islam, "

Some Serbians chose to side with the Axis during WWII, some didn't. Some Muslims chose to side with the Axis during WWII some didn't. There isn't much of a contrast.

"And you're still ignoring the Pan-Arabic movement of the period. "

Pan-Arabism wanted all Arabic lands independent and united into one nation, this put many Pan Arabists into direct conflict with the Axis powers as Fascist Italy wanted to keep Libya as a colony and expand it to the rest of North Africa and Hitler was content to allow Vichy France to keep Syria-Lebanon. The Libyans under Idris al-Mahdi as-Senussi actively resisted the Italians before and during WWII.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:54:40 PM PDT
Sutekh says:
Cember says:
Of that 'million plus Muslims', the overwhelming majority were levees from British India.
---------------------
There were 200,000 Muslims in the Free French Forces as well. The first division that broke through the Gustav line in the Italian campaign were Moroccan Tabors of the Free French forces. And the All-India Muslim League of India discussed what to do when WWII broke out including whether or not to support mutiny amongst Muslims in the British India Army. (Hindus in India discussed the same thing). In the end Indian Muslims didn't. And the only Indian leader of note to join the Axis was Chandra Bose, a Hindu who is still respected by many Hindu Indians for his fight against British Imperialism.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 3:15:06 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 3:26:41 PM PDT
Sutekh says:
Cember says:
As you have avoided the fact that Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran was strongly pro-Nazi, and that Britain and the USSR invaded/conquered Iran during the summer of 1941 to stop the flow of Iranian oil to the Axis war machine, and to force the abdication of the Shah.
---------------------------------
The invasion of Iran had more to do with the fact that Reza had previously canceled the contract of Anglo-Persian Oil Company (which the British government owned) because of disputes over the percentage that the Iranian government got of the profits, 16% and Reza wanted 21%, which was too much in British minds. And the British were afraid Reza would do it again. Reza had also refused to allow British military units (or Soviet ones) to move across his territory for fear of being turned into a colony, a fair concern considering Soviet actions in the 1920s, who had crushed the independence of various Caucus republics who formed when the Czar fell and the long history of British Imperialism.

"You also comfortably avoid the 1941 pro-Nazi Rashid Ali coup d'etat (Old buddy, Amin al-Husseini, fleeing a Government of Palestine arrest warrant, was in on the action, as well.) that brought about the 1941 Anglo-Iraqi War"

Again, the British were primarily concerned with securing oil, which Rashid threatened and the British forces that ultimately suppressed it included local Muslim volunteers, the Arab Legion, and of course the Muslims in the Indian Army elements of Iraqforce.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 9:03:31 PM PDT
. says:
Sut says: "No, my point was that the actions of individuals don't translate into guilt of everyone who happened to share the same religion or ethnicity of those particular individuals. One can hardly blame all Muslims for the actions of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during WWII then one can blame all Catholics, Lutherans, or Eastern Orthodox Christians for the actions of individuals who professed to follow that religion. Nobody is arguing that every individual person's actions leads to blanket condemnation of any perceived group they belong to."

I haven't argued that the actions of each individual make an entire ethnicity or religion guilty. And I haven't see anyone argue that the Mufti of Jerusalem makes every Muslim guilty.

What is being evaluated is ideology of Islam that leads to a pattern of repeated atrocities being committed against everyone else outside their group even to this day, and even now being escalated worldwide.

So you are using straw-man fallacy.

This is a relativist tactic, by confusing everything with reduction to the smallest possible unit where no pattern can be observed, then also demanding statistical evidence that is far beyond what anyone of the historical period would have been able to gather. For an example that you have yourself recently provided, when an exact number of the composition of the population of Palestine in the 30s and 40s cannot be unequivocally stated with material evidence, then the relativist logic maintains that therefore, no sense can be made of any social or ideological movement. The entire group of people has to perfectly align with no one individual breaking ranks for the analysis to bear scrutiny and be valid, otherwise, no conclusions can be drawn.

Until, that is, a group that the relativist doesn't like is being examined, then suddenly they can perceive, for a common example, how every Christian group can be reduced to what secular governments and nationalistic fervor produced.

And when that doesn't work, obfuscate as much as possible with minutiae.

For an example of that, see your comment regarding pan-Islamic ideology:

Sut says: "Pan-Arabism wanted all Arabic lands independent and united into one nation, this put many Pan Arabists into direct conflict with the Axis powers as Fascist Italy wanted to keep Libya as a colony and expand it to the rest of North Africa and Hitler was content to allow Vichy France to keep Syria-Lebanon. The Libyans under Idris al-Mahdi as-Senussi actively resisted the Italians before and during WWII."

Thank you for finally admitting that. I made the exact point to you much earlier. Of course Muslims are not going to be loyal to German Nazis as much as they are to their own pet causes, one of which is to establish Islam everywhere, totally. Which means everyone has to submit to Islam. Pan-Islamic ideology is not peaceful or tolerant.

So now you admit that Muslims dream and fight for the Islamic Caliphate. I talked to an American Muslim convert from the Midwest who flatly informed me that Americans should give up and pay jizya. Now where do you think an American would come up with that idea? You honestly don't see a connection? We are not talking about secular people here, that IS A RELIGIOUS TRUTH IN ISLAM, not just some random individual. This has been carried out from the beginning of Islam. This is what even a mosque in mid west America teaches.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 10:15:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 10:15:55 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 10:23:53 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 10:29:05 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 10:58:09 PM PDT
TN says:
Over 200 Muslims have been killed in Iraq in June, by other Muslims, who else, per PBS Newshour. The preceding poster would be proud, wouldn't he?
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  59
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  May 14, 2012
Latest post:  Sep 21, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions