Hate pamphlets distributed in US Mosques?

Remove all ads!

NEW REPORT ON SAUDI GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS IN U.S.

This is an article that goes into some detail on publications that are allegedly sponsored by the Saudi gov't.

Some quotes from the article:

I heard about this on the radio, and couldn't believe it was true. I found this story on the web, and still have a hard time with it. But given the circumstances of the murder of Hossam Armanious and his family, I am beginning to wonder.

I know that not all Muslims believe in this, perhaps not even a majority, but this stuff is Gov't sponsored!

Maybe you all are right about the ties between Bush and the Saudi Royal family. Why are we supposedly allied with this crew?

[ February 03, 2005, 22:22: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

bash Bush
bash Saudi king

O I L is the thick black thread which binds US to 'them'

 

and I get ****ing bashed on this forum by every last person for my negative feelings about Muslims.

 

...wow. I do wonder what the US is going to do. Well, Freedom of Speech says it's okay, but I think there might be trouble from, err, everyone who doesn't want to be killed by maniacal terrorists.

 

Well in Finland doing such a thing would be illegal. I do not know how it's said in English but if you are arrousing someone to kill/hurt someone else you are committing a crime. I don't know how it is in the US though but personally I feel that this kind of activity definently should be illegal.

The US ties to the Saudis is an interesting one. I wonder what would happen if a large scale revolution would brake out against the Saudi royals to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia. On the one hand the US has said that it will spread democracy in middle east so supporting the rebels would be doing exactly that but on the other hand the Saudi royals and the current government of Saudi Arabia have very close ties to the US and braking those would not be in the intrests of US.

 

I have to agree with Morgoroth, and kick the guy I have defended and indirectly voted for. We will not do anything to pressure the Saudis to hold elections. That does make Bush a hypocrite in this issue.

Prediction, if they aren't really already an enemy (just pretending to be our friends), they will be in the next couple of decades.

You can hold me to that one.

Sevorak, I never bashed you. Well at least not for anthing you have said about Muslims.

 

It's a lunatic fringe, to be sure, but you've got every right to be concerned and angry about this kind of thing. Anyone who indoctrinates people to see others as enemies not to be trusted on the basis of non-membership is a real problem and should be dealt with. Taking action is only a problem because it's not as simple as that, for a variety of economic and political reasons.

We lefties don't like to admit it, but we're aware and concerned about it as well (which explains some of what you cop, Sarevok). We just enjoy taking the moral high ground too much, which means having to be "more civilised" than that - which means "not stooping to their level" and trying to convince them otherwise. Fanaticism and evil often go hand-in-hand, regardless of motives, and we'd be fools to think ourselves different, but those inciting violence against everyone who's not "one of you" must be fought against, by whatever means are necessary (social, political, military or otherwise).

And sadly, all it takes for evil like this to triumph is for those of us who want a better future to do nothing. Apologies for the mangled quote... I think "good" and "evil" are a little too relative for this post.

 

I like the new term "islamists" as applied to lunatic fringe Muslims. It properly identifies those who espouse hatred and violence over the majority of Muslims who wish to live in peace. I'm not making any claims as to what the core values of the Quran are in terms of violence toward infidels...but heck...there are 200,000 denominations of Christianity with one Bible.

To so carelessly use the word "Muslim" to identify lunatic hatred held by a few only threatens to stir a mutual hatred in the oposite direction. Know your enemy. The enemy in this case is the islamist...even the enemy of non-crazy muslims.

"islamist" is the best new word since "byte". I think Fox News made it up.

 

Nah, that's just because you are a racist.

Hey, don't look at me, he said it himself in an earlier thread.

[ Leave it be, or use PM if you have to. ] - Beren

[ February 03, 2005, 17:29: Message edited by: Beren ]

 

Well islamists are no more lunatics than Christian Conservatives. Even the Turkish regime is currently controlled by islamists and they sure are not spreading violence or hate towards christianity in there. Islamists in general just promote islamic values just like Bush very much promotes christian values. The more fanatic islamists may be preaching for violence and terror but generalizing islamists as fanatics is wrong. Unless you consider the christian right as fanatics of course.

 

Not unless they start promoting murder and terrorism.

The difference here is that you don't see the western world out celebrating in the streets whenever a bunch of Muslims die. I realize that a lot of this has nothing to do with religion, and that it is a more a function of a group that has been bullied and feels downtrodden seeing those that they feel are oppressing them hurt. Such behavior natural. However it cannot go undressed. The Gov'ts that endorse this type of behavior have to be either convinced to change their policies, or removed. The President said something very astute last night.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/sotu2005/sotu_text2_2005.html

I wish he had expanded upon this with some type of plan to bring economic development to this region of the world. This is a difficult challenge as the Middle East really only has one natural resource, and is not really in a good geographical position for sea trade. We need to find an industry that the Middle East can develop much as Pac Rim has taken advantage of its abilities to provide industrial and manufactured goods.

IMO the fastest way to end this terrorism is to provide a taste of progress and capitalism to the people of this region.

Hopefully Iraq can be this example. Of course we (the US) will have to make sure we don’t mess this one up the way we did the Shaw and Iran a few decades ago.

 

Well technically I am not really racist at all, Muslims are not a "race". I'll go along with the tag anyway, I couldn't give a left hand wank about what you think man. You know screw all

 

Woo, a fight.

 

Nah...no fight...

Like Beren already said, they can take it to pm...not the point of this thread, nor in adherence to AODA/AOLS rules.

 

Indeed, but all islamists do not promote terrorists or murder.

True, but you don't see this in all Muslim countries either. I'm not sure if I've seen pictures from Turkey with people burning American flags on the streets and celebrating the WTC terrorist attacks. Claiming that islamists in general do this kind of thing is just a plain crude and false generalization.

[ February 03, 2005, 21:39: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

OK, help me out here, define Islamist for me, and then give me a term I can use that is defined as those of the Islamic faith who follow and extreme doctrine of faith that directs them to kill and intimidate those to do not follow their beliefs. Because if I have to call them those of the Islamic faith who follow and extreme doctrine of faith that directs them to kill and intimidate those to do not follow their beliefs, every time I wish to speak of those of the Islamic faith who follow and extreme doctrine of faith that directs them to kill and intimidate those to do not follow their beliefs in order to keep from offending you by generalizing, no one is going to want to read my comments about those of the Islamic faith who follow and extreme doctrine of faith that directs them to kill and intimidate those to do not follow their beliefs because the are so long and filled with descriptions of a group that we should be able to name without having to generalize all Islamics as those of the Islamic faith who follow and extreme doctrine of faith that directs them to kill and intimidate those to do not follow their beliefs.

I am out of breath!

[ February 03, 2005, 22:20: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Wikipedia has a nice article of islamism which I think is fairly good description of islamism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamists

As for what you should call muslims who promote terrorism I do not know. Perhaps just fanatical islamists or fanatical muslims?

 

I definitely learned a little there. I would say a lot, but somehow I think that this issue is too complex to be addressed in a single article.

Morgoroth, please do not take this as an affront to you. You found an excellent article, but I feel like I just barely scratched the surface with it. I wish I had time to follow all the links in the article, I feel I could learn a lot more. Perhaps as time allows I will be able to go through more of them.

Thank you.

 

Funny thing is that an "Islamist(a)" in Polish is an accredited researcher into the history of Islam, Islamic countries, religion, culture, and generally civilisation. Words take different meanings, so...


And it's not just the case with Islamic extremists/fanatics. I find it is the case with fanatism in every and any religion all over the world, including Christianity, Buddhism (as a religion, not a philosophical system), Hinduism, neo-Paganism (in any form, including Satanism), or Atheism. I find that each and every fanatical incarnation of any religion is simply evil.

 

I can understand that. Wikipeadia is not allways a very realiable source allthough there are plenty of good articles there. I fully understand if you wish to read about the subject in various sources before making judgement, that's usually what I do too. Glad to be of service though.