"The Painful Truth: All the World Terrorists are Muslims!"

Hah. Strange then that the Muslim world didn't really care for the Palestinians until it became a way to focus internal dissention on an outside issue, lol.

Interesting then that you make all these qualifiers about Muslim brotherhood and how everything is interconnected to Islam. You seem to be making SJC's point for him, which is that Muslims see all these conflicts as interrelated, and part of an overall struggle against the West. While the West just sees suicide bombers and wholesale attacks on schoolchildren and pizza parlors as crazy.

 

First off, there is no reason to even bring up what Israel does in a discussion about terrorists being Muslims UNLESS you are trying to justify the terrorism. Otherwise what purpose does it serve? Otherwise it is not relevant at all. In fact, you are even calling them 'legitimate gripes.'

Again, this is irrelevant. We condemn the terrorists taking over a school and shooting children in masse, yes? Do we need to condemn Israel for that to be true? No. Do we need to justify Palestinians committing mass murder in pizza parlors for that to be true? No. You connect the two when it is not only unnecessary, but when it creates the perception, if not the factual assumption, that you are justifying one and the same. You are calling them the same. And they are not.

Nice. So what. Start a thread about Israel. Israel being wrong, if they are, does not disprove any of the original articles thesis, nor does it justify Islamic based terrorism.

Because one is cut and dry and one is not.

What? That's like going to one of Andy Moon's threads and saying 'farm corporations use too much pesticides!' Yes, that may be true but every thread is not the forum for every discussion.

Well there was not much support outside of Serbia for Serbian actions. Not true with Islam and terrorism. Look at Sane say 'we're all brothers, you in the west don't understand that.' You didn't see the Pope or the Southern Baptists Convention saying how those Muslims in Bosnia were just 'getting what's coming to them for invading and oppressing christians in the balkans for 1000 years.' The two situations are completely different. From all corners of the globe there is support within the Islamic community for terrorism. Not true in the Serbian example re: christians.

Then what is the point bringing in Israel to this discussion? You are giving qualifiers and justifications whether you realize it or not.

But it is in fact used to rationalize terrorism. Look at Al Queda adopting the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and the Chechnian conflict, and the Phillipine conflict. None of those were in their original 'charter' but they use these same conclusions to spread the perception of justification.

I didn't say you couldn't post about what Israel is doing. I said connecting THAT discussion with THIS one is what Al Queda does. Making those connections blurs the lines between actions we clearly should denounce (like blowing up the WTC or this school attack) and those that are MUCH more open to interpretation.

 

I understand completely about the differences between Arabs and OIC members.

<a HREF="http://www.sesrtcic.org/members/default.shtml">List of OIC Member Countries</a>

Afghanistan | Albania | Algeria | Azerbaijan | Bahrain | Bangladesh | Benin | Brunei | Burkina Faso | Cameroon | Chad | Comoros | Côte d'Ivoire | Djibouti | Egypt | Gabon | Gambia | Guinea | Guinea-Bissau | Guyana | Indonesia | Iran | Iraq | Jordan | Kazakhstan | Kuwait | Kyrgyzstan | Lebanon | Libya | Malaysia | Maldives | Mali | Mauritania | Morocco | Mozambique | Niger | Nigeria | Oman | Pakistan | Palestine | Qatar | Saudi Arabia | Senegal | Sierra Leone | Somalia | Sudan | Suriname | Syria | Tajikistan | Togo | Tunisia | Turkey | Turkmenistan | Uganda | United Arab Emirates | Uzbekistan | Yemen |

<a HREF="http://www.medea.be/index.html?page=&lang=&doc=124&PHPSESSID=06b9085d8673ac6847325fcf72dc30d5">League of Arab States </a>

Algeria (OIC Member)
Bahrain (OIC Member)
Comoros (OIC Member)
Djibouti (OIC Member)
Egypt (OIC Member)
Iraq (OIC Member)
Jordan (OIC Member)
Kuwait (OIC Member)
Lebanon (OIC Member)
Libya (OIC Member)
Mauritania (OIC Member)
Morocco (OIC Member)
Oman (OIC Member)
Palestine (OIC Member)
Qatar (OIC Member)
Saudi Arabia (OIC Member)
Somalia (OIC Member)
Sudan (OIC Member)
Syria (OIC Member)
Tunisia (OIC Member)
United Arab Emirates (OIC Member)
Yemen (OIC Member)

Based on the information above, it seems that the Arab League and the OIC have some countries in common.

The Arab League has Observer Status at the OIC.
<a HREF="http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Organization-of-the-Islamic-Conference">OIC</a>

Would it be fair to think of the Arab League countries as a subset of the OIC?
<hr color=green>

Since you want to examine the responses of the Islamic World (rather than the Arab League) in regards to Sudan...........

The OIC sent a delegation to Sudan this summer to view the situation in the Darfur area.
<a HREF="http://www.oic-oci.org/press/english/august%202004/rep-darfur-en.htm">
REPORT OF THE OIC MISSION TO ASSESS THE SITUATION IN THE DARFUR REGION OF THE SUDAN</a>


<i>.........Upon a request made by the UN Secretary General H.E. Mr. Kofi Annan, the OIC Secretary General H.E. Dr. Abdelouahed Belkeziz, decided to dispatch an OIC mission to the Darfur region in the Republic of the Sudan. At the invitation of the Government of the Sudan, a three-member OIC Mission led by H.E. Ambassador Ezzat Kamel Mufti, Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs, and comprising Mr. Kamal Momini and Dr. Irfan Yusuf Shami, Directors in the Political Affairs department, visited Khartoum and Darfur from 05-08 June 2004..............

Mission’s assessment of the current situation:
<b>
Contrary to the reports of international organizations and the international media, the mission found the Government of Sudan to be exerting all possible and sustained efforts, within their own scarce resources, to peacefully resolve the Darfur crisis and to achieve a comprehensive and lasting peace in the region.

The mission did not find any evidence of there being the “worst humanitarian situation in the world” or any comparison whatsoever with the well-documented and substantiated genocide and ethnic cleansing which occurred in Rwanda in 1994...........

Conclusion and recommendations:

The situation in the Darfur region is being erroneously and negatively depicted by some international organizations and the international media. The situation has been blown out of proportions and being projected on the basis of unfounded and baseless allegations and reports. The sincere as well as sustained efforts of the Government of the Sudan have either been neglected or have not been positively depicted.

As an important member of the OIC, it is extremely important that the OIC Member States should express their solidarity with the Government of the Sudan and strongly support its efforts, both politically as well as in the substantial material terms. </b>

In view of the impending rainy season in late June and its concomitant agricultural harvest season, it is imperative that the international community, particularly OIC Member States, urgently provide to the Government of the Sudan the immediate shortfall of food-stuff along with tents, plastic covers and essential medicines. In view of the urgency involved, the Government of Sudan has requested that these relief supplies be directly airlifted to the worst affected areas of Darfur through the Al-Fasher and Nyala airports.</i>
<hr color=green>

When Sudan was on the UN agenda, two OIC members (Pakistan & Algeria) were reluctant to discuss the matter:

<a HREF="http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/06/11/sudan.un/">Security Council endorses resolution on Sudan</a>
<i>..........Pakistan, China and Algeria -- the Arab member on the Security Council -- are the countries with ties to Sudan "who did not want Darfur discussed at all," a Security Council source told CNN.

"The government in Khartoum has lobbied hard for these countries not to support this resolution," the source said. "The Sudanese do not want conflict in their country to be a U.N. issue -- they associate the U.N. with the U.S. and are they are deeply suspicious of the U.S."

Abdallah Baali, the Algerian ambassador to the United Nations, conceded there was "disagreement about whether or not we should address the situation concerning Darfur, but we got a letter from the secretary-general last week saying we cannot ignore the western part, and so we reached an agreement to include it."....</i>

<hr color=green>
There was a June 2004 meeting of the OIC Foreign Ministers, but they failed to mention Sudan in their Declaration.
<a HREF="http://www.oic-oci.org/english/fm/31/31%20icfm-DECLARATION-eng.htm">ISTANBUL DECLARATION ADOPTED BY THE THIRTY-FIRST SESSION OF THE ISLAMIC CONFERENCE OF FOREIGN MINISTERS</a>

<i>We, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation participating in the Thirty-First Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, the Session of “Progress and Global Harmony”, solemnly declare the following:

1. We reaffirm our commitment to the purposes, objectives and principles of our Organization, as enshrined in its Charter.

2. We derive strength and confidence from Islam, a religion of peace, harmony and tolerance. It inspires us in achieving freedom, peace and prosperity.

3. We have taken full stock of the developments that characterize the current international scene and agreed to assert our collective will more effectively with the sole objective of achieving justice, peace and harmony.

4. We are resolved to pursue the peaceful settlement of all international issues and spend efforts to persuade all parties concerned to act accordingly.

5. We decide to offer our immediate support to enhance the steadfastness of the Palestinian people and for their right to freedom and to the establishment of the independent and sovereign Palestinian State.

We urge the Quartet to work to stop the Israeli aggression in all its forms, secure international protection for the Palestinian people and guarantee free movement for the people and their leadership, and seek a lasting solution through the implementation of the road-map which is based on the UN Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1397, as well as the UN General Assembly resolution 194, principles of the Madrid Conference and the Arab Peace Initiative, which will aim to bring comprehensive peace to the region, including the Syrian and Lebanese tracks.

We have thus decided to support and closely monitor efforts towards comprehensive peace and to declare that the successful outcome of these efforts will be fully embraced by the OIC.

6. We support the steps towards ending the occupation in Iraq. We equally support the process in which the Iraqis will assume their sovereignty. We state that this assumption of authority must be full. Also the political transition towards the formation of an elected government must be totally inclusive and transparent.

We welcome in this respect the unanimous adoption of resolution 1546 by the United Nations Security Council which sets the framework for this transition.

We have decided to actively assist Iraq in its transition and in meeting its needs.

7. We will continue to support Afghanistan’s re-building process.

We reiterate our principled position on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. All rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir including their right of self-determination as provided for by the UN Security Council resolutions should be fully respected and their will honoured. We also welcome the dialogue process started by Pakistan and India and express the hope that it will culminate in the resolution of the Kashmir dispute.

We likewise support the resolution of the Azeri-Armenian conflict within the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.

We equally support efforts towards resolving all other issues preoccupying the OIC.

8. We decide to give particular attention to the longstanding problems of regional conflict, economic development, health and famine in Africa. We will support the peaceful resolution of these conflicts and the sustainable development and social progress in Africa. We shall fully play our share in these efforts.

9. We strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms, including state terrorism, and express deep sympathy and support for those countries which have become victims of such attacks. We agree to redouble our efforts in fighting this international scourge.

10. We commend the Turkish Cypriot people for overwhelmingly endorsing the UN Settlement Plan, on the unification of the Island, based on a new bi-zonal partnership of the two politically equal constituent States. We welcome and support the report of the UN Secretary-General, of 28 May 2004, as well as the conclusions and recommendations contained therein. We also support the good offices mission of the UN Secretary-General.

In view of the fundamentally changed circumstances in Cyprus following the 24 April 2004 referenda, we decide to take steps in putting an end to the unjust isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. In the same vein, we look forward to similar action by the international community and bodies.

11. We are determined to carry on with our political, economic, social and cultural progress as sovereign nations, and assist each other in our homegrown efforts.

In expression of our confidence in our strength and values, and with a view to deepening interaction within the OIC as well as to strengthening understanding and cooperation at global level, we set out the following framework and course of action:

We are sovereign nations who work for political, economic, social and cultural progress. We value our freedom and the equality of our citizens. We all aim to strengthen the representative character and the democratic practices of our governments. We are all determined to provide contemporary education to our new generation. We will pursue vigorously the economic and social development of our societies, and will deploy efforts to eradicate poverty.

We, as the OIC members, will assist each other in our progress and reform, which should come from within. The OIC, as an institution, will also develop ways and means for supporting progress in a collective framework.

We endorse the concept of Enlightened Moderation and call for the early establishment of the Commission of Eminent Persons to enable the Ummah to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

The OIC will likewise establish institutional relations with other regional and international organizations for the purpose of fostering intra and inter-regional cooperation for drawing support for the OIC projects.

12. We look forward to the Second Meeting of the OIC-EU Joint Forum that will convene in Istanbul between 4 and 5 October 2004, which will be an important opportunity for strengthening international cooperation and understanding.

13. Finally, we reiterate our will to stay closer to each other and strengthen our solidarity while navigating through these difficult times.</i>

<hr color=green>
Here is a nice opinion piece from a Pakistani newspaper.
<a HREF="http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/20040724.htm">Losing the high ground</a>

 

I couldn't disagree more. TErrorist organizations draw recruits from many angry Muslims who see the injustices committed by Israel against Palestinians, and instead of acting in a helpful, constructive way to deal with the problem they engage in terrorism. This is only one of a series of complex causes and it's been simplified. But if the U.S. was seen to be more nuetral or to stand against all of the wrongs in the region, that anger would subside somewhat. When that anger subsides there are fewer terrorist recruits, and less terrorism. This should not be the only way to combat terrorism but it is certainly one of the steps we should take.

Now to relate it more directly to the situation at hand... If a father has two sons, and both sons misbehave, break rules, are disrespectul, even break the law, but the father consistently only punishes one of the sons, and never the other I don't think it excuses the behavior of the one son, but it certainly makes sense to talk about both sons in the same conversation. It could lead to one son feeling picked on, not taken seriously, not wanting to be constructive etc.

I didn't say that the crimes and atrocities committed by these terrorists are less true because we don't critize Israel also. I'm just saying they are both wrong, and it's never a mistake to call an injustice an injustice.

I agree it doesn't justify terrorism. Nothing justifies terrorism. I've said that all along. Terrorism where school children are targeted is esecially offensive.

No, people in the U.S. in general never talk about Israel. Yet they talk about other wrongs, and ills in a certain part of the world. Again the analogy of a father who only punishes one bad son, and never the other applies. It would be different if both recieved criticism sometimes, but that's not the case.

It's almost two seperate issues. I think in these circumstances it's more a critism of the person making the original criticism than trying to actually denounce Israeli oppression or anything. It's a call for fairness and consistency. That's all it is.

I agree that terrorist groups do use it to try and justify their actions, and it's horrible, and actually hurts the cause they claim to support. Afterall nobody wants to think they are on the same side of an issue as Al-Qaeda.

But what I was trying to say in the first response, what if Al-Qaeda didn't even have that claim to make. They would find some other cause to champion, I'm sure, but it would be one that's so volatile, and we might not be invlolved in whatever the other cause would be.

 

Your post is proof that you don't know the diffrence between Muslims and Arabs, only that you can seperate them in a list.

 

I'm not trying to be rude HayesStreet, but I'm not responding to your posts anymore. I find myself trying to repeat the same things to you over and over again in the same or different threads while you are clearly not well informed about the Israel-Palestine issue.

Aside from that, I was the one saying that these conflicts are interrelated and the West doesn't see that, not SJC (unless I missed it).

 

Sane,

Why aren't Palastinians welcomed in other Arab countries?

What happened when Jordan tried to open up it's borders to Palastinians?

Oh, that's right, they promptly tried to over throw the King of Jordan and he killed aound 10,000 of them and tossed them back out of his country.

In most Arab countries Palastinians are not even allowed citizenship.

If they are SOOOOOOOOOOOOO concerned about Israel and the Palastinians why don't they let them relocate in their countries?

Answer: They aren't really concerned, they are just using it as a means to b**** about Israel.

The Ironic thing is that if the jews in Israel had not gone through the holocaust they would have probably nuked a few Arab nations by now.

Syria should count itself lucky that Israel holds back.

DD

 

Sane,

Go suck an egg. You're hardly in a position to declare who is or is not informed about a subject.......Any subject.

 

Why doesn't America open its doors to Israelis. Let em all in, give em Utah. Most Arab countries dont give citizenship to people not born in the country, Thats jst the way they are. Are you sure there are no palestinians in other countries. I know about 15 palestinians in Saudi Arabia Alone. (those were kids in my school)...

 

You are making ridiculous counterfactual predictions. If the US denounced Israel there is not indication terrorism would not exist, or that it would be less, or that AQ would not exist or have the support it does. You are living in a fantasy land, and at the same time you are connecting the dots the same way AQ does, and providing a justification for their actions.

Terrible analogy. The ways in which your analogy breaks down are to numerous to mention, but we can start with: we are not Chechnya or Israel's father, it would be more accurate to say one son (Israel) got bludgeoned almost to death and then attacked the person that assailed him, and one son (AQ) attacked and killed your next door neighbors child and killed them because they didn't like your next door neighbor.

Again why is this discussion the forum for condemnation of Israelis? Its not. But you CONNECT THE TWO and you make justifications for the terrorists in one, hence the other.

Nope. You're smoking crack if you think US condemnation of Israel would stop Osama and AQ, or even the Palestinians. And people in the US are not AS critical of Israel because Israel blows up Hamas leaders and Palestinians blow up pizza parlors. There is a difference.

I'm sure you don't.

Right, like...uh, Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan, or gee let me go out on a limb and say we might still have a conflict over the nature of civilization.

 

There was actually talk of letting the Jew immigrate to Alaska during the 30s. The media crushed that idea though with the same race hating Muslims use now.

The point is twofold. First, this alleged 'muslim brotherhood' doesn't and never has extended to permanent status is fellow Islamic lands, although to hear some of you tell it they should be welcomed with open arms. Second, these Palestinian 'muslim brothers' tried to overthrow the one Muslim regime that DID allow them status (Jordan), resulting in their exile to Lebanon, where they again brought turmoil and destruction.

 

I don't say just denounce. I say use diplomacy to oppose Arafat, and Sharon as well as Israel's policies on settlements, laws that discriminate based on nationality that aren't related to security. Then if that doesn't work impose sanctions since Israel, and the is basically guilty in much the same way Apartheid was guilty. Also impose sanctions against the PLA until Arafat is replaced.

There isn't a proven link that terrorism would subside, because it hasn't been done. But it would be an action on the side of justice, and it would be one that everyone in the middle east would see. If you don't think the U.S. taking a stand for justice, and equality in the middle east wouldn't improve our image, then I'd be interested to hear why not.

But even if it didn't improve our image in the middle east, it's still the right thing to do.

We aren't their father, but we do provide support, punishment, praise, condemnation and are more powerful, much like a father. The analogy was meant to show the inconsistencies of the father not the crimes of the son which are well known.

Israel is in the same geographic neighoborhood, has policies that aren't centered around their own security but still discriminate based on nationality, and are occupying and oppressing a group of people. Again I say that a more balanced policy based on looking to justice for all would make us less of a target. That is why I connect the two. For the millionth time I'm not justifying anything terrorists do. I say we still hunt down terrorists, and destroy them every chance we get. I don't justify nor do I advocate going easy on the terrorists. I simply support a balanced policy.

I didn't say it would stop Osama, I said it would weaken him, and make the U.S. less of a target. I don't think Osama really cares about the causes he proclaims. I believe he just wants power, is delusional and would be a terrorist no matter what.

My beef with Israel is not that they blow up Hamas leaders. My beef with Israel is they have policies which charge a different amount for water to Palestinians than they do to Settlers. Settlers are given in drinking water alone the same yearly allowance that Palestinians are given from bathing, cooking, irrigation, and drinking. Palestinians are forbidden by law from drilling their wells deeper or drilling new wells. In addition Israel has slant drilled and undercut Palestinian wells. Palestinians are not allowed to own business that are economically competitive with businesses owned by Israel. Those policies do not have a positive effect on securing Israel. Those are the kinds of policies that are wrong. I never equated blowing up Hamas leaders with blowing up pizza parlors. I agree that there is a difference.

But there isn't a difference when the IDF takes 16 year old Palestinian civilian youths who not militants and forces them at gunpoint to proceed the military into militant strongholds that might be mined or full of hostile militants. That is Israeli targeting of Palestinian civilians and is definitely equal to targeting Israeli civilians. Luckily the Israeli courts recently outlawed that practice, but until about a year ago it was carried out by the IDF.

I agree, that we would still have conflict, but a more balanced and just policy would weaken the enemies position.

 

They are free to apply here, but we don't need to give them citizenship as they have their own country.

DD

 

Are you trying to be fair and balanced? (j/k)

It might be the right thing to do, but what does it have to do with this discussion? When you have both governments AND religious leaders in Islamic countries spreading anti-americanism, it is doubtful you would see ANY decrease in terrorism from such actions. Remember most Palestinian based groups like Hamas DON'T advocate a larger war on the west, or the US specifically. Its outside groups using the situation for propaganda. If this situation resolved itself tomorrow there would be no noticable decrease in terrorism against the West, which is what this thread is about. So again, condemnation of Israel does nothing but distract from what this thread is about, the connection between Islam and terrorism.

With Israel, maybe. With Chechnya? Or Bali? This makes my point exactly. You draw a connection between the great mass of Islamic terrorism and Israel and that warps the real connections that should be examined, and are not. Namely the connections between Islam and terrorism.

Israel is not in the same geographic neighborhood as Chechnya. Look at a map. Nor as Bali or the Philippines nor most of Africa or China or France or Spain. That is weak, FB.

Yes, but as I pointed out before, there weren't 18 Palestinians on the 9/11 planes. You are blurring the distinctions between the conflicts, and that cannot HELP understand the situation. It can only hinder it, which in the end aids AQ.

Sigh. And what does this have to do with this thread? If I granted that this is a nationalist conflict then there is still no connection to the greater fight against radical Islam, or the moderate Islamics who support the radicals.

And you are driving this thread exactly where I said you would. Let's talk about how bad Israel is. Does that examine the connections between Islam and terrorism? No. It only provides justifications for terrorism (look how bad these Palestinian muslims are treated by the West backed Jews) and obsfucates the question at hand. Congratulations.

And none of this addresses the questions in the thread. Its just another chance for you to bash the Israelis when they aren't even the topic. Do you claim there is a dearth of examination of Israeli policy? Can you say Glynch? On the other hand do you think the interconnections between Islam and terrorism have been examined by Muslims? Or do they mostly, like you, justify the actions and/or claim the prominence of such figures is exaggerated?

 

Hayes,

I wasn't referring to the terrorists in Indonesia, or Chechnya. I was talking specifically about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

I'm aware that the Palestinians groups don't want to broaden their activities to go against all the west. But muslim extremists around the world do claim their cause. That is where the connection comes in. It's not what I'm saying but is connected. I think any time the world's leader and major superpower can be seen to be selective where it enforces justice those that would have a beef against the superpower have ammunition to use.

By being more balanced we remove some of the ammunition they use no matter what part of the world they are in.

I don't think I'm distracting from the topic at hand. I first said that I liked what the author said about denouncing Islamic terrorism. If I also denounce Islamic terrorism, and say that we should not back down from it, and continue to wipe out as many Islamic terrorists as we possibly can no matter where they are, I'm sticking to the topic.

If I believe that a more balanced foreign policy with Israel would only help in our battle against Islamic terrorism then I believe I'm sticking to the topic.

Sincerely,

Rupert Murdoch

 

Before any of you (on "both" sides) discuss Israel, letting in Palestinians, letting in Israelis in other countries, history, the future, etc., for goodness sakes please educate yourselves and read this:

http://philip.greenspun.com/politics/israel/

This has been the most coherent, logical thing I've ever read regarding the past and present situation.

 

they have their own country becuase america didnt want them all coming into The USA(as is evident by the rejection of many ships full of persecuted jews), so they helped establish the country for them and now dont have have to worry about them or their problems anymore...

 

I wouldn't say we don't have to worry about them or their problems, lol. And it was the UN that gave Israelis the right to go to Israel, not the US. We'd have been much better off letting them into the country ourselves, but anti-semitism won the day unfortunately. Arabs are making the same mistake by not welcoming them into the neighborhood and pursuing their extermination instead.

 

Right. That's why the last 20 posts in this thread are about Israel. Not distracting from examining the connection between Islam and terrorism AT ALL.

 

Dont tell me that the US doesnt support that UN resolution. Even what 50 years later when the UN has asked for Israel to stop occupying palestinian areas USA still supports Israel with money, military, and moral support.

And why would the Arabs welcome the Jews. The reason that the jews were kicked out of the Middle east was because they were backstabbers. The prophet had many times supported letting jews live with muslims in unity, but the jews used to sell secrets about the muslims to the meccans. Plus im sure the whole zionist thing added to the reason that Arabs didnt want any more Jews in the country.