RE: [iwar] [fc:Who.says.it's.not.a.war.on.Islam?]read a book and learn

From: e.r. (fastflyer28@yahoo.com)
Date: 2001-10-10 07:37:58
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Bin.Laden.Aide.Calls.for.Holy.War]"
Previous message: yangyun@metacrawler.com: "[iwar] Please help us build a Web Archive of the Sept 11 Attack"
In reply to: Leo, Ross: "RE: [iwar] [fc:Who.says.it's.not.a.war.on.Islam?]read a book and learn"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-ID: <20011010143758.51308.qmail@web14503.mail.yahoo.com>
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <72222DC86846D411ABD300A0C9EB08A1079C2FA7@csoc-mail-box.csoconline.com>
From: "e.r." <fastflyer28@yahoo.com>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 07:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [iwar] [fc:Who.says.it's.not.a.war.on.Islam?]read a book and  learn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

right-thanks. The most rational analysis that gets done in what is
otherwise a frightening time, the more we understand. That applies
especially in cases where most Americans do not understand the the
culture, religion, etc.  The most significant fear is that of the
unknown, or simply that which we don't understand. If we can reduce
that fear by understanding "how the other half lives" it will cease to
be as frighten as it once was. Trite, but true.


 "Leo, Ross" <Ross.Leo@csoconline.com> wrote:
> As I stated in my previous remarks, I concur with e.r. suggestion to
> read
> the Koran.  It is not the book of my religion, but I respect it and
> the
> people who follow its true teachings, which e.r. sums up correctly. 
> "Holy
> War" is an oxymoron.
> 
> R. A. Leo
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: e.r. [mailto:fastflyer28@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 15:24
> To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [iwar] [fc:Who.says.it's.not.a.war.on.Islam?]read a book
> and learn
> 
> 
> To all parties herein: Read the Koran and you would realize that
> Islam
> abhors the taking of innocent life. This is not about religion,
> albeit
> the parties who damaged the Pentagon and Trade Center, killing
> thousands would like us to think it is a jihad. No dice. While
> reading
> such text will not tell you much about motivation, it will let you
> know
> what was not proper motivation. Read a book and learn.
> --- "Leo, Ross" <Ross.Leo@csoconline.com> wrote:
> > With all due respect for Islam, the esteemed author of this article
> > is
> > completely incorrect in his interpretation of there being "a war on
> > Islam".
> > It is a war against those who would kill for their own misguided
> > political
> > agendas or other personal reasons and vendettas, and then falsely
> > claim the
> > tenets of Islam as the guidance and mandate for doing so.
> > 
> > From the theological perspective, there has never been a need for
> > Mankind to
> > defend a religion truly of God from anyone.  God does not need our
> > help in
> > this, and nothing truly from Him requires our help, support, or
> > defense.
> > These are things He can handle quite well on His own steam (thank
> you
> > very
> > much); this despite our claiming otherwise, and always out of our
> own
> > ignorance and ego.  We reside here as His creation of Love, and I
> > hardly
> > think He would direct anyone to kill or harm anyone else who was
> also
> > His
> > creation of Love.  This is a Christian teaching, but Islam teaches
> > likewise.
> > 
> > Osama bin Laden is like many other fanatics (I do not compare him
> to
> > Hitler
> > or Stalin - they were truly in a class of their own).  All fanatics
> > are
> > cursed with a single vision of everything, and with very few
> > exceptions,
> > History has always shown such a single vision to be destructive and
> > in fact
> > directly opposed to the very thing the fanatic claimed to want to
> > achieve.
> > Mr. bin Laden and those of his stripe are no different then their
> > philosophical predecessors in this vein, and History will treat him
> > and his
> > no differently than those who went before them.
> > 
> > From the political perspective, I cannot claim to know what OBL's
> > ambitions
> > are.  The thing that is notable is his actions, when mixed with his
> > words,
> > communicate a clean message that he deeply resents what he believes
> > the
> > "West" has done to the Middle East.  The West is guilty of sins in
> > that
> > region - ALL major western countries share this guilt, too, not
> just
> > America.  However, OBL would do well to note two particular points:
> 
> > 1) the
> > regimes that did such things are NOT the regimes currently in
> power,
> > and the
> > current ones do not share the ambitions of the previous; and 2) 
> the
> > western
> > powers often came at the invitation of those in power in that
> region.
> > 
> > In some way I think OBL is angry at Saudi Arabia for his outcast
> > state - a
> > result stemming from his outspoken feelings on how the US was
> > supporting a
> > despotic regime.  When you speaks against the King, it is his
> > sovereign
> > right to kill you or exile you.  That is just the risk you take for
> > speaking
> > your mind.  Seems to me he is paying the price for being outspoken
> > against
> > the ruling powers' chosen methods.  His reaction thus far is that
> of
> > a truly
> > sore loser.  It is also truly antithetical to his cause.
> > 
> > I truly believe at this point that if OBL can be isolated (not
> killed
> > or
> > martyred) politically, he will isolate himself theologically.  He
> is
> > successfully doing that now, and left to his own path (as long as
> he
> > is kept
> > from harming others), he will complete the job that he himself
> began
> > -
> > starting as a cry in the wilderness, and ending with a whisper
> > swallowed by
> > the winds.
> > 
> > You reap what you sow.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fred Cohen [mailto:fc@all.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 11:29
> > To: iwar@onelist.com
> > Subject: [iwar] [fc:Who.says.it's.not.a.war.on.Islam?]
> > 
> > 
> > [Note: This was taken off an Islamist chat board.]
> > 
> > Who says it's not a war on Islam? 10/8/2001, 7:42 pm
> > 
> > Who says it's not a war on Islam? by Abid Ullah Jan
> > (<a
> >
>
href="mailto:abidjan2@psh.paknet.com.pk?Subject=Re:%20(ai)%20[Fwd:%20"Who%20
> >
>
says%20it's%20not%20a%20war%20on%20Islam?"]%2526In-Reply-To=%2526lt;3BC31289
> > .EC548FC1@speconsult.com">abidjan2@psh.paknet.com.pk</a>)
> > 
> > It is painful to watch old news-reels of Adolf Hitler and Benito
> > Mussolini making speeches and crowds cheering.  Mussolini's
> posturing
> > seems so transparent that one wonders how adults could have taken
> him
> > seriously.  With Hitler, what comes across is crude, passionate
> > intensity and the rapture of his audiences, sharing his feelings,
> > with
> > minds turned off.  What is chilling is knowing how many tens of
> > millions
> > of human beings lost their lives because of these almost
> > musical-comedy
> > performances.  The seemingly shallow stuff can have deep roots as
> > well
> > as deep consequences.  Few things today are more shallow than the
> > reasons most people have for supporting Bush and Blair war on
> > "terrorism" and accepting their claims that it is not a war on
> Islam.
> > 
> > To understand if it is a war on Islam, we need to honestly and
> > impartially scan the horizon since 1990. 
> > 
> > Apart from the massive air strikes, commando raids and a prolonged
> > "dirty war" against Islamic movements, the police repression,
> > deportation, torture, censorship and death squads that we are
> > certainly
> > going to face are certainly not planned after the September 11
> > attacks. 
> > The US "war on terror" is no more than translation to the physical
> > level, of the systematic approach that started with (1)
> introduction
> > of
> > the rancid notion of "Islamic fundamentalism," (2) classification
> of
> > Islam; (3) equating "fundamentalism" with extremism and then
> > terrorism;
> > (4) removal of governments, like Mr.  Erbakan in Turkey, for having
> > affiliations with Islam (5) support of governments' cracking down
> on
> > "Islamic extremists" such as Egyptian and Algerian regimes; (6)
> > development of agendas for government's like Musharraf; (6)
> initially
> > supporting the Taliban and then demonising them to show the world
> the
> > failure of Islam.  The coming physical horror is simply execution
> of
> > the
> > judgments passed by the western intellectuals upon Islam in the
> past
> > decade or so. 
> > 
> > Just have a look at how the ground has been prepared for the coming
> > "dirty war." Musharraf came to "moderate" religious schools and
> take
> > Jihad related Quranic verses from school curricula in 2001. 
> However,
> > the Economist sensed "The Islamic Threat" way back in its March 13,
> > 1993
> > edition whereby it declared: "It is the mightiest power in the
> > Levant...Governments tremble before it.  Arabs everywhere turn to
> it
> > for
> > salvation from their various miseries.  This power is not Egypt,
> > Iraq,
> > or indeed any nation, but the humble mosque." Mosques would
> probably
> > be
> > the next targets after dealing with madrassa.  Similarly, since the
> > establishment of Israel, no one had talked about "fundamentalism,"
> > yet
> > Yitzhak Rabin suddenly started calling the world in December 1992,
> > "to
> > devote its attention to the greater danger inherent in Islamic
> > fundamentalism.  [W]e stand on the line of fire against the danger
> of
> > fundamentalist Islam."
> > 
> > Mr.  Bush with a slip of tongue tells his mind in 2001 by
> describing
> > the
> > US recent missions in the lands of Islam as "crusade." Peter
> Rodman,
> > senior editor of the National Review, however, saw in 1992 that the
> > West
> > being challenged from the outside by a "militant, atavistic force
> > driven
> > by a hatred of all Western political thought, harking back to
> age-old
> > grievances against Christendom....the rage against us is too
> > great..."
> > (May 11, 1992).  Charles Krauthammer summed up the expected
> > resistance
> > by the Islamic civilisation to the hegemonic designs of the US in
> one
> > word: "Global Intifada," (Washington Post January 1, 1993).  He
> tried
> > to
> > suggest that the world is now "facing a mood and a movement...a
> > perhaps
> > irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against
> > our
> > Judaeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide
> > expansion of both." The New York Times went one step ahead and
> > confirmed
> > on January 21st, 1996: "The Red Menace Is Gone.  But Here's Islam."
> > The
> > open war against it, however, had to be delayed until a perfect
> > excuse
> > like the September 11 attacks. 
> > 
> > Intellectuals like Samuel P.  Huntington played a key role in
> making
> > Islam an enemy of choice.  He declared: "Islam is the only
> > civilisation
> > which has put the survival of the West in doubt." Web page of the
> > Montclair State University in New Jersey reads: "The West today is
> > losing irretrievably its former global hegemony and is increasingly
> > challenged economically and culturally by East Asian and Islamic
> > civilisations." Irving Kristol, Council on Foreign Relations, wrote
> > in
> > the Wall Street Journal, editorial August 2, 1996: "With the end of
> > the
> > Cold War, what we really need is an obvious ideological and
> > threatening
> > enemy, one worthy of our mettle, one that can unite us in
> > opposition."
> > 
> > Bernard Lewis In his influential essay, "The Roots of Muslim Rage,"
> > writes: "Islamic fundamentalism has given an aim and a form to the
> > otherwise aimless and formless resentment and anger of the Muslim
> > masses" (Atlantic, September 99).  Islamic "fundamentalism,"
> > according
> > to Amos Perlmutter (Insight in the News, February 15, 1993), is "a
> > plague" which has infected the entire Islamic world and whose goal
> is
> > to
> > topple secularist military regimes in Egypt, Syria and Algeria and
> > replace them with [unacceptable] Islamic states."
> > 
> > Daily Express, ran an article "Islam Is a Creed of Cruelty" on
> > January
> > 16, 1995, which concluded that the spectre of Islamic
> fundamentalism
> > was
> > haunting Europe and the world power should enter into a holy
> alliance
> > to
> > exorcise this spectre.  The underlying assumption has always been
> > that
> > Islam is primitive, underdeveloped, retrograde, at best stuck in
> the
> > memory hole of a medieval splendour out of which it could not
> > disentangle itself without a radical transformation; and this could
> > only
> > be based on Western, "rational", "progressive" values.  The long
> > proposed "holy alliance" is now in making. 
> > 
> > A above mentioned examples show that during the past 11-12 years
> > systematic efforts have been directed to relegated Islam from its
> > holistic perspective, encompassing all facets of human conduct and
> > behaviour to a mere set or rituals, something what the west has
> done
> > to
> > Christianity itself.  According to Lt-Col Trinka of US Army,
> > "[Muslims]
> > must work to fashion the shariah into a modern blue print for
> > change."
> > In a similar vein, one of the CIA experts counselled that those
> > Muslims
> > who do not believe that world of God is law, should be found and
> > supported.  "The Arab rulers," he thinks, "have to create a new
> > identity
> > of [Muslim] seductively fusing Islam and the West."
> > 
> > This so-called expert added: "Though the Saudi rulers may be guilty
> > of
> > ugly authoritarian behaviour and consistent stupidity in foreign
> > affairs, they are at least fervent hypocrites, and that [in] Middle
> > East
> > Affairs, a fervent hypocrite is always safer than a fervent
> puritan."
> > He
> > had the audacity to make such humiliating remark because there was
> > truth
> > in it.  These are in fact general policy guidelines that we see in
> > operation during lifting of democracy related sanctions against
> > Pakistan
> > and visit of the British Prime Minister who could not bear an
> > undemocratic government in Pakistan at any cost. 
> > 
> > Over the last decade the western propaganda successfully divided
> > Muslim
> > into "Moderates," "Liberals" and "Fundamentalists" for whom there
> is
> > no
> > basis or justification in Islam.  There has been no definition
> > offered
> > even in the Western propaganda.  Salman Rushdie, however, lists in
> > his
> > October 2, article in Washington Post what he believes
> > fundamentalists
> > are against: "homosexuals, pluralism, secularism, short skirts,
> > dancing,
> > evolution theory, sex." He believes such "fundamentalists are
> > tyrants,
> > not Muslims...yes, even the short skirts and dancing -- are worth
> > dying
> > for." He further argues, "kissing in public places, bacon
> sandwiches,
> > cutting-edge fashion, movies, music, freedom of thought, beauty,
> > love,"
> > should matter and "these will be our weapons." The moderates among
> us
> > should decide for themselves as to what kind of Islam allows
> kissing
> > in
> > public places, bacon sandwiches, homosexuality, etc. 
> > 
> > Besides mass propaganda, efforts were underway to support Hosnie
> > Mubarak
> > like regimes for their crackdown on Islamic opposition and remove
> > Erbakan like elected governments for exactly the same reasons for
> > which
> > the US wants to support religious groups in China.  With false
> > propaganda, the Taliban have been demonised to the extent that even
> > majority of the Muslims who have never set a foot on the Afghan
> soil
> > to
> > verify the grand lies, speak in the anti-Taliban, CNNised language.
> 
> > The
> > US has established that a country can never be ruled with Islamic
> > principles.  Now the war is only left to be carried out by
> individual
> > Muslim countries by collecting information on its citizens as to
> who
> > is
> > involved with the banned religious parties, who is the extremist,
> how
> > to
> > arrest and try the fundamentalism and if necessary remove them from
> > the
> > scene. 
> > 
> > Apart from the above-mentioned factors, the US, UK recent moves are
> > part
> > of an undeclared war on Islam because:
> > 
> > 1.  Jonathan Steele, Ewen MacAskill, Richard Norton-Taylor and Ed
> > Harriman reported on September 22, 2001 in the Guardian that
> attacks
> > on
> > Afghanistan were planned before September 11.  The US planned the
> > attacks as soon as it considered it's demonising the Taliban
> project
> > as
> > complete. 
> > 
> > 2.  Islam is the only challenge to American hegemony with its
> claims
> > to
> > be a complete code of life with panacea for ills in economic,
> > political,
> > moral and spiritual systems, and thus only Islam can pose a threat
> to
> > the civilisation considered superior by the West. 
> > 
> > 3.  The West reasons that the source of terrorism is not its
> > terrorism
> > but Islamic teachings and history.  Naturally, the real campaign is
> > against the teachings of Islam from the original sources at
> Madrassa.
> > 
> > Mustafa Kamal destroyed Islamic teachings 85 years ago in Turkey
> and
> > dried up the swamp.  We however are expected to follow the suit
> > sooner
> > than later. 
> > 
> > 4.  The US is planning to impose its brand of democracy or
> autocracy
> > -
> > whichever may be suitable -- on Muslim countries by force.  The US
> > put
> > forward many symbolic personalities over the years to undermine the
> > roots of Islam.  These advocates preach unconditional assimilation
> > into,
> > support of, sympathy toward, and whole-hearted participation in the
> > social and political system espoused by the US. 
> > 
> > 5.  Transmissions of BBC and CNN testify to the fact that it is a
> war
> > on
> > Islam.  On their part they put forward unqualified individuals or
> > groups
> > as representatives of Islam who may be unethical, deviants, or
> > outright
> > heretics from the religion with no subjective measures being used
> to
> > ascertain the qualifications of such people.  Rushdie's recent
> > article
> > in the Washington Post is an excellent example.  They present
> Islamic
> > Shariah as antiquated, irrelevant, authoritarian, unsophisticated,
> > and
> > limited. 
> > 
> > 6.  By making public statements like: Taliban are not the real
> > Muslims,
> > the American leaders, like Karl Inderfurth, have long been creating
> a
> > nationalistic or ethnic view and approach to Islam, or more
> > accurately,
> > creating a new religion that cannot truly be called Islam but
> rather
> > has
> > some outward aspects of it.  It will certainly be one that would
> not
> > pose a challenge to the US domination or offer anything that will
> > make
> > Islam seen as a viable alternative to the US uni-polar world. 
> > 
> > 7.  The evidence suggests that it is the US government that has
> been
> > playing a leading role in the media crusade against Islam.  As
> early
> > as
> > fall 1994, PBS aired a documentary by journalist Steve Emerson
> Titled
> > "Jihad in America." Evidence within the programme suggests that
> > Emerson
> > has access to official government intelligence.  Some clips appear
> to
> > be
> > from home videos confiscated from Muslims in FBI sweeps.  A decade
> of
> > this kind of programming has set the climate for a war on Islam. 
> > 
> > The facts do not change with the denials of Bush and Balir.  The
> > strength of Islam lies in the fact that despite having far less
> > military
> > and economic power, the western war-makers do not have the courage
> to
> > declare it an open war on Islam.  They would certainly fail as long
> > as
> > they want to cover their ulterior motives and undermine Islam under
> > the
> > guise of looking for "infinite Justice." Ending terrorism through
> > eradicating its root causes may not take more than a few months. 
> > However, defeating Islam may cost them many generations before
> > finally
> > realising that it was a wrong war. 
> > 
> > Concluded. 
> > 
> > 
> > ------------------
> > http://all.net/ 
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> http://personals.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> ------------------
> http://all.net/ 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Bin.Laden.Aide.Calls.for.Holy.War]"
Previous message: yangyun@metacrawler.com: "[iwar] Please help us build a Web Archive of the Sept 11 Attack"
In reply to: Leo, Ross: "RE: [iwar] [fc:Who.says.it's.not.a.war.on.Islam?]read a book and learn"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:54 PST