Sanding our assholes with 150 grit. Slowly. Lovingly.

POLL: Is being anti-Zionism worse than being anti-Wahabi?

Is there an inherent acceptance by us in the West to, a priori, be pro-Jewish than being pro-Moslem? If so, is it a morally "good" thing to be so?

Barely on a tangent, hypothetically, *IF* the other Arabs implement some sort of settlement for the displaced Palestinians, and leave Israel more or less in its current state, will the U.S. completely withdraw its blank cheque to Israel? _Should_ the U.S. withdraw such support?
Permalink Send private email (100+85)/2 
July 5th, 2007 10:40am
Quote: no Jewish grandmother ever blew up an airplane.

(I.e., Jewish extremism is not a threat to the Western world, Arab extremism is.)

Yes, if Israel no longer had to keep up its massive defense effort, there would be no reason for the US aid.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
July 5th, 2007 10:48am
Actually, there were a fair few Zionist terrorists during the early days of the establishment of the Israeli state. Including Netanyahu I think...

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

The reason there aren't many now is that terrorism is mostly a tool of last resort used by the weak against the strong.

Not that Jewish grandmothers are strong, but they've often got lots of Jewish grandchildren in the IDF, which has the odd American weapon or two.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 5th, 2007 10:56am
And where do the Wahabi fit in?
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 5th, 2007 10:57am
I'm aware of a call center stocked with the most moral of individuals where there are Israeli flags on all the support beams.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
July 5th, 2007 10:59am
Between the fish and the rice, at least in my house.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
July 5th, 2007 11:00am
Err, I was replying to Colm and the wahabi.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
July 5th, 2007 11:00am
(I.e., Jewish extremism is not a threat to the Western world, Arab extremism is.)

, because the west support Israel. If the west doesn't support Israel of course Arab extremism won't be a threat to the western world.
Permalink Patrick 
July 5th, 2007 11:06am
I heard something on conservative radio that claimed a terrorist said something to the effect of... [Me and my buddies all laugh and take joy every time someone says American policy in the middle east is to blame for radical Islamic acts of terror. It covers up the true nature of radical Islam which is to destroy western civilization, regardless of policy.]

Which just sounded to me like right-wing flag-waver propaganda...
Permalink Send private email JoC 
July 5th, 2007 11:14am
Yes, but it's a bad question.

The problem is that the Wahabi Islamists are teaching lies and hatred to their students.  Any philosophy, or heaven help us "religious teaching" that teaches lies and hatred is to be opposed.

And the lies and hatred the Wahabi's are teaching to their students are not inherent in Islam at all.  Instead it's a small group of people twisting the words of the Islamic faith and 'religious schools' to build themselves a cult.  And the purpose of these cults is to obtain power for the head of the cult -- the so-called "religious cleric".

And they exercise this power by sending their brain-washed adherents out to blow themselves up in terrorist incidents.

So yes, being Anti-Wahabi serves the goals of pursuing truth and reducing the hatred in the world.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 5th, 2007 11:14am
When you look at the coat of arms of Saudi Arabia, there are 2 crossed swords: the House of Saud and the house of Wahab.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Saudi_Arabia
Permalink Peter 
July 5th, 2007 11:23am
True, but I thought the "house of Wasab" was thrown out of Saudi Arabia for trying to assassinate the House Of Saud one time too many.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 5th, 2007 11:24am
The House of Wasabi was chopped up and served with sushi.
Permalink Peter 
July 5th, 2007 11:30am
Wahabi, right.  That 's' in "Saud" confused me.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 5th, 2007 11:31am
Zionism is  belief that the Jews have the right to a homeland on Palestinian territory.

Wahabism is a branch of the Hanabi school of Islamic theology, that holds to a literal intepretation of the Koran and Hadith (somewhat like many Southern Baptists in the US).

Hardly comparable.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
July 5th, 2007 11:31am
"Barely on a tangent, hypothetically, *IF* the other Arabs implement some sort of settlement for the displaced Palestinians, and leave Israel more or less in its current state, will the U.S. completely withdraw its blank cheque to Israel? _Should_ the U.S. withdraw such support?"

There's always this blank check thing because Israel only asks for cash instead of soldiers. How many trillions has the US spent defending Korea, Europe etc. with mucho $ _plus_ the bodies of American soldiers?

Israel does get a lot of cash from the US, I really wish at this point that it didn't.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 11:52am
Muslims themselves prefer the term Salafi/Salafism to describe that "philosophy" rather than Wahabi/Wahabism as the word is taken from the name of the founder of the movement. Likewise, most evangelicals prefer to call themselves evangelicals than "darbyists" even though Darby was the sole creator of the myth of the rapture that they, and the left behind series, tout.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

>{snip} Hardly comparable.
No. The devil's bargain that the House of Saud made with the House of Wahab was that the Sauds would rule the secular part of the kingdom while the Wahabs would rule the spiritual part of the kingdom.

A similar comparison would be if the Southern Baptists were the state religion of the US, with all other (protestant) denominations relegated to second-class citizenship and heretics (papists, jews, athiest, bahai) outlawed. Before the founding of the US, the colonies of Massachusetts and Virginia were two colonies with established/state religions. And in those two colonies, people who weren't members of the official religion were sometimes executed for prosletyzing. That is the reason that the US has the "anti-establishment" or "separation of church and state" clause is due to this past history. KSA is the opposite, they have a state religion, and Salafism is their term for the particular brand of Sunni Islam that they practise.
Permalink Peter 
July 5th, 2007 12:08pm
> I.e., Jewish extremism is not a threat to the Western world, Arab extremism is

Actually Zionists carried out bombings and assassinations in the UK in the 1940s.  Not too mention the King David hotel bombing in what was then the Palestine Mandate.

The only reason jewish extremism is not a threat to the Western world, **any more**, is because they got what they wanted:  A large Jewish state in Palestine.

In fact, if you compare the Israel of today (before you even count the parts of the occupied territories still controlled by Israel),  to that the demanded by the extreme zionists in the 1940s, you would see the modern Israel is their wet dream and then some.

The equivalent settlement with UBL would be to give him all Saudi Arabia, and bits of various surrounding countries.  And then send him a ton of money and guns and nuclear technology.
Permalink s 
July 5th, 2007 12:31pm
I chose 'Zionism' and 'Wahabi' for a reason and then some. Both are 'extreme' (I leave 'extremist' for you to choose. Or not). Both are powerful socially. Both have direct political influence. Both do not remove violence as an option. Both are geographically bound in their roots/causes and in their ends/outcome. Both are pitched against each other, albeit almost always through a proxy, including "Western interests" - the House of Saud has used "threats to Western interests" as a ransom note to fund their regime, and the Israeli contingent uses "Western style democracy" as a justification to cordoning the Palestinians; the "We-are-the-only-democracy-here-so-we-are-right-no-matter-what" stance.

I notice that there is this tacit understanding that Israelis, and I dare say, Jews, are on "our side" and the Arabs and Muslims are on the other. We admonish the Israelis (though never the Jews, but we really take offence against a few Muslims), but only as a friend and perhaps even as family. Of course, we do give credit and feel the pain of the  "moderate Arabs/Muslims", but that is only as a foreigner, perhaps even as a well-wisher, but never as "he's one of us".
Permalink Send private email (100+85)/2 
July 5th, 2007 12:32pm
----"Both are 'extreme'"----

Not true in any meaningful sense.

Zionism is the belief that Jews should return to live in the land of Israel. That in itself is not extreme, or even objectionable. The way in which this is acheived may be extreme but Zionism in itself is not.

Wahabists may be considered extreme literalists, or extreme Puritans, but then would Unitarians be considered more extreme? Jehobvah's witnesses are certainly a PTA. There may be plenty of extreme and deranged wahabis, but there are also a fair number of pleasant and peaceful ones. I've come across both.


----"the House of Saud has used "threats to Western interests" as a ransom note to fund their regime,"-----

This is hilarious. The House of Saud is funded, and well funded by the oil industry. What you are referring to is a statement by the then British ambassador that continued investigation of the tortuous financing of the Yamaha contract, started by Thatcher more than twenty years before, might affect the ongoing co-operation to derail Al-Qaeeda in the country.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
July 5th, 2007 1:12pm
"Actually Zionists carried out bombings and assassinations in the UK in the 1940s."

I didn't know that. Could you be specific?

As far as the House of Saud, they are OBL's main source of cash.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 1:25pm
>I didn't know that.

*fakes surprise*
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 5th, 2007 1:39pm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)

look up Lehi

They performed mail bombings in Britain, assassinated British officials and personnel in Egypt as well as Palestine, massacred Arabs in Palestine, killed Jewish civilians, assassinated UN mediators, robbed banks, bombed trains, and tried to form an alliance against Britain with Nazi Germany during the 1940s.  They also nearly got into a civil war with other zionist groups in 1948.
Permalink s 
July 5th, 2007 1:52pm
And BTW let's not also forget that suicide bombings, and kidnapping enemy hostages and executing them,  were tactics that were first introduced to the middle east by Irgun and Lehi.
Permalink s 
July 5th, 2007 1:57pm
And bus bombings too...
Permalink s 
July 5th, 2007 1:58pm
"They performed mail bombings in Britain, assassinated British officials and personnel in Egypt as well as Palestine, massacred Arabs in Palestine, killed Jewish civilians, assassinated UN mediators, robbed banks, bombed trains, and tried to form an alliance against Britain with Nazi Germany during the 1940s.  They also nearly got into a civil war with other zionist groups in 1948."

The Haganah took care of them in 1948. Don't know the details, but I don't defend everything done in the Zionist enterprise. B"N, I'll look it up.

It was a real question, btw.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 2:23pm
> The Haganah took care of them in 1948.

Yes they did take care of them.

This is how they took care of them: they pardoned them of all crimes, integrated them into the IDF, and gave them a medal ribbon in 1980.
Permalink s 
July 5th, 2007 2:35pm
-----"As far as the House of Saud, they are OBL's main source of cash."-----

You're absolutely and totally round the twist (admitedly Michael Moore agrees with you, but he's 'somewhat lose with his sources' as well.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
July 5th, 2007 3:26pm
Is that sort of what Munich was about, also? IE: Zionists killing Palestinians in Europe?
Permalink Send private email JoC 
July 5th, 2007 3:31pm
The Haganah shot and killed a lot of them in 1948. Jews know how to forgive, I don't think that that's a bad thing.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 4:00pm
I was in Damascus when Munich happened. We were sleeping on the roof of the hotel and it was early afternoon when when we saw these planes come over.

"They're Israeli's coming to bomb us", my mate said.
"Don't be daft" I said. "The war ended five years ago."
Then we saw these little black things dropping down from the planes.
Another couple of mates had gone off on a taxi to Bagdad (couldn't get in because Saddam closed the borders so he could carry out a bit of repression in peace). They said what really scared them were not the Israeli planes but the swerves the taxi driver made as he tried to drive in zig-zag so as to be less of a target.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
July 5th, 2007 4:23pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics