Blair calls for end of academic union's boycott of Israel

Anyone know how much money the academic union has gotten from Arab contributors? Think large monetary contributions from the Saudis, et al, might have something to do with their viewpoint?

"The boycott was also blasted by Labour MP Andrew Dismore, who said that "the University and College Union's boycott of Israeli universities is misguided, undermines academic freedoms and contributes absolutely nothing to trying to bring peace to the Middle East."

...sounds like a fair assessment to me....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6728773.stm

"A Saudi prince who negotiated a £40bn arms deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia received secret payments for over a decade, a BBC probe has found."

does this answer your question?

Well, definitely what "universities" in the UK need to do -- and, I would say, "immediately"!!-- is form a tighter partnership with Arab universities worldwide, particularly essential is to align with those wondrously prestigious Arab "universities", such as al-Azhar in Cairo. Definitely, exchange profs, exchange students, exchange "research". Ultimately, when British "research" consists of Quackery Unlimited, or insisting upon Burak Belief prior to publication, then British "universities" will have "evolved" to a "higher state"...which they so richly deserve. (Personally, I don't trust UK "research" -- much of it is far too politicized...as in pro-Saudi, pro-Arab trash, pro-Islamic trash/pseudo-science.)

6.06.2007 | AL-HAQ

AL-HAQ PRESS RELEASE
Maybe if any of you had at least two brain cells or a little bit of decency, you would have figured out by yourself that this here is precisely the reason for the boycott. Shame on all of you,especially those people here pretending to be Christians.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
REF.: 15.2007E
6 June 2007

As a human rights organisation dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), Al-Haq is gravely concerned by the actions of Israeli soldiers during an arrest raid in Hebron early this morning, which left one person dead and several others seriously injured. Based on first hand testimony gathered by staff members in the aftermath of the event, Al-Haq has documented the incident, the facts of which are summarised below.

At approximately 12:20 am on Wednesday, 6 June 2007, a large Israeli military force, comprising at least 50 soldiers, came to the house of Yehia al-Jabari. Yehia, who was 72-years-old, lived with his family in a two-storey house in the B’er Haram area of Hebron city. Upon opening the front door of the house to the soldiers, Rajih al-Jabari, the 26-year-old son of Yehia, was dragged outside. Without any warning or justification, the Israeli soldiers began to beat Rajih, violently hitting his head against the wall of the house. At this point, Yehia, who had only moments earlier returned home from visiting a relative, came outside with his wife Fatima to see what was happening. Seeing the soldiers attacking his son, Yehia, who was unarmed, attempted to intervene and protect his son. While doing so, he was shot once in the forehead by an Israeli soldier; the bullet exiting the rear of his head. He then fell to the ground, where he lay motionless, presumably having been killed instantly. Immediately afterward, his wife, who was also unarmed, began screaming and attempted to reach Yehia’s body. An Israeli soldier, however, opened fire on her, hitting her six times. Fatima, who was hit in numerous parts of her body, including the head and chest, fell to the ground.

At this time, two of Yehia’s sons, 24-year-old Kamil and 36-year-old Radi, exited the front door of the house. There, they found their parents lying in pools of blood on the ground, surrounded by a large number of Israeli soldiers. In attempting to move their father’s corpse from the front steps, where it was lying, the two brothers were screamed at by an Israeli soldier who ordered them to stop. Radi ignored the soldier, pushing him away. In response, however, the soldier opened fire on the brothers, hitting Kamil in the foot. After Kamil had fallen to the ground, Radi knelt beside his father’s body and began to cry. The soldiers, however, began to beat him in an attempt to move him away.

By this stage, a number of other family members and neighbours had gathered nearby. They were prevented from reaching the injured persons by the Israeli soldiers who forced them back violently, in some instances, beating the men and women with the butts of their guns.

Soon after the aforementioned events had taken place, the injured were transferred to ambulances that had arrived at the scene. Despite the serious condition of several of the wounded, the Israeli soldiers refused to allow the ambulances to leave the area for a full 15 minutes after they were ready to do so.

Once the injured persons were eventually transferred to hospital, the soldiers gathered the remaining family members, as well as a number of other individuals who were present, inside the house. There, the women were kept in a single room, while the men were kept under guard in the corridor outside. They remained there for 45 minutes while the Israeli soldiers carried out an extensive search of the house, in the course of which they found no weapons, nor did they arrest any individuals. Only after the soldiers had completed the search did they inform the Palestinians present that they were looking for Salih al-Jabari, the 17-year-old son of Yehia. At approximately 2:30 am, the soldiers finally agreed to leave the area after receiving assurances that Salih would present himself to the Israeli authorities the following day.

Regarding those Palestinians taken to hospital for treatment, a number of individuals were released after been treated for shock and/or for the injuries they sustained being beaten by the Israeli soldiers. More worryingly, 57-year-old Fatima al-Jabari is presently in a critical condition, while her son, Rajih al-Jabari, remains in an extremely serious condition.

- Ends -

UK "universities" should immediately begin research into the medicinal benefits of the prophet's piss; the cosmic ray emissions from the Kabba stone; examine the DNA of the whiskers of the prophet's beard at the Dome of the Rock; examine the rock said to have attempted to follow the prophet heavens-ward -- yeah, British researchers should definitely look into that rock for errant gravitational anomalies. I mean -- the list of possible research topics are simply endless and of such world-shattering implications.

Blairs stance on this ridiculous boycott is a pleasent change.

But to get right back on track with the establishment of the British Caliphate, Londons 'Time Out' magazine publishes the following article on how much better London would be if it was Islamic, the writers name?

Michael Hodges.

Read it if you have the stomach.

http://www.timeout.com/london/features/2993.html

AL-HAQ PRESS RELEASE
Maybe if any of you had at least two brain cells or a little bit of decency, you would have figured out by yourself that this here is precisely the reason for the boycott. Shame on all of you,especially those people here pretending to be Christians.

Posted by: askingman at June 7, 2007 10:05 AM

War is hell askingman, perhaps if the Muslims stopped waging it for one minute then this kind of thing wouldnt happen.

But until you take the Jihad out of Islam that isnt going to happen.

The fault for the entire episode you just described, lies solely on the shoulders of Muslims.

War is hell, alright. The most important question
you should ask yourself right now, what kind of a human being am I, or what have I become? Because your answer would make a Nazi blush.

No askingman the most important question I should be asking right now is how do I stop the expansion of Islam.

And throwing Nazi insults is no substitute for rational argument.

km,

I read parts of the "Let's Make London the center of the caliphate" article. I guess at some point, you have to say that Britians get what they deserve. If they really want to become an Islamic state, then let them. Fine. Have them establish Sharia law as the law of the land, have public beheadings and stonings, etc. That does appear to be what a growing number of Brits really, really want. I really don't think it's possible to impose something that's not wanted on a majority, if that majority is a democracy and the people have the power -- if Britons did not wish to become Islamified, then they would not be. Unfortunately, I don't see much by way of a "will" to resist Islam in Britain. They are suffering a moral collapse, and we can only stand-by and watch.

Well, I am not giving the example of a Nazi to insult you, but because no normal human being would
justify the brutal killing of unarmed people by saying its their fault, except a Nazi. There is no
rationality to that. Its sick.

Askingman the actions of your co-religionists do a more than adequate job of showing who the real Nazis are.

http://xrl.us/MuslimNazis

Unfortunately, I don't see much by way of a "will" to resist Islam in Britain. They are suffering a moral collapse, and we can only stand-by and watch.

Posted by: J.S. at June 7, 2007 11:01 AM

I agree, sadly its not just Britain that finds its self in such a precarious position.

You no km, I forgot how simple you people are. So you are offended by gestures, which in their meaning have no relationship with Nazism, but except the killing of innocent people as justified.Your morals or lack of them make you a Nazi. And how do you know I am a Muslim? Is your rascism getting the better of you?

You no km, I forgot how simple you people are. So you are offended by gestures, which in their meaning have no relationship with Nazism, but accep the killing of innocent people as justified.Your morals or lack of them make you a Nazi. And how do you know I am a Muslim? Is your rascism getting the better of you?

Previewing your Comment:

So you are offended by gestures, which in their meaning have no relationship with Nazism

Lets see now Islamic holy texts call for the extermination of the Jews.

Sahih Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176: Narrated by 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'" Sahih Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177: Narrated by Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

With pictures of soldiers at full salute and Mein Kampf a best seller to Muslims in the Middle East,

http://xrl.us/MuslimMeinKampf

Well if it looks like a turd and smells like a turd..... you get the rest.

Be honest now tell us are you a Muslim or not, I think you are, you have the same whining arguments about social & human justice and how it just isn't fair that Muslims cant just subjugate everyone according to the will of their Allah.

Come on askingman, are you a Muslim or not?

Where did these so superior Morals of yours originate.

The latest report at "thereligionofpeace.com" website lists (they have a running total each month) of the number of Muslim attacks, dead bodies and critically injured. For the month of May, 2007 the totals are:
Jihad Attacks: 276
Dead Bodies: 2084
Critically Injured: 2156

And, let's not forget that it was that Islamic "holy" man -- Khomeini who brought into the world the notion that suicide bombing (that includes the murder of innocent civilians) is a "holy" act leading the perpetrator to Muslim paradise and the designation as a "holy" "martyr". Thanks to Khomeini's fatwa issued during the Iran/Iraq war, we now have "holy" warriors perpetrating their filthy, monstrous deeds world-wide -- often inflicting catastrophic injuries and/or death on hapless innocents. Islam is a curse upon humanity.

Where did these so superior Morals of yours originate?

Its simple, I am a better human being then you are, regardless of my religon.

Mein Kampf a best seller to Muslims in the Middle East

There is something you people have to learn, dont believe every shit you read just because it suits your fancy. There are enough Anti-semitic books in the Middle East, without Mein Kampf having to be a bestseller.

Well, it seems that km's question has been answered. What a breath-taking, astounding level of hubris! Indeed, it is that very quality of moral superiority mixed with supremacist attitudes that produces the mind-set of a murderous jihadist...self-assured of their own "martyrdom", and moral "purity" as they commit heinous crimes in the name of a so-called "religion"..the "religion" of Pagan Barbarism, aka Islam.

Thanks to Khomeini's fatwa issued during the Iran/Iraq war, we now have "holy" warriors perpetrating their filthy, monstrous deeds world-wide

See, this is a typical type of brainless thrown out comment, without a single thought or a little education. In Sunni Islam there is no such thing
as holy men, second few Sunnis would accept a Fatwa from a Shiite Mujtahid and most Suicide Bombers, if not all, are Sunnis. The place where suicide bombing first started was in the Palestinian territory, in 1989 during the first Palestinian Intifada. The grand mufti of Azahar(sunni) gave out a Fatwa that condemned suicide bombings.

Indeed, it is that very quality of moral superiority mixed with supremacist attitudes that produces the mind-set of a murderous jihadist

Not only brutal, but also stupid and proudly ignorant.I am not better then you because I am
a Muslim, but because I believe in the good old saying: the only good that counts, is the good you do.

"The only solution ultimately is to re-launch the framework for a negotiated peace with a two-state solution at the heart of it..."
--- from Blair's statement in the article above

He's well-spoked and incoherent, withal. He can't figure out Islam, and doesn't want to. It's too disturbing. Too many problems are posed, if he were to begin to understand it. He knows there's a problem with Islam - outside Great Britain, and deep inside Great Britain. But he allows himself to believe that it is "manageable." He allows himself to be believe there is a permanent "solution." And when it comes to Israel, he assumes that the "solution" is based on Israel withdrawing still further, from land to which it has legal (the clear intent, and the specific provisions, of the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine, which mandate, like thoe others of the League, was to have its precise terms respected in toto by the successor organization, the United Nations), historic, and moral title. Blair, like so many others, ignores comletely these legal, historic, and moral claims. Child of the century, or rather child of the last few decades, he chooses to believe that the sudden appearance of the phrase "Palestinian people" after the Six-Day War, and the careful and relentless promotion of this soi-disant "Palestinian people," and the rewriting of history that took place to accompany it, and the absence of any context (including the context of what is wrongly-called the "Arab world" but which has many, and once had even more, non-Arab and non-Muslim minorities, and if the Jews managed on their own to return, to buy land (not a single dunam of land was taken from Arabs before they made war in 1948, and very little after that -- after all, neary 90% of Israel, as the successor state to Mandatory Palestine, was state or waste land, and passed from the Ottoman government, to the British Mandatory Authority, to Israel -- a fact that so many ignore, or never bothered to find out).

Blair would have us believe that the texts of Islam do not mean what they say. Or perhaps he does not know what they say. What they say is this: no Infidel state can be permitted, whatever its size, on any land that was once a part of Dar al-Islam. Once conquered by Islam, territory belongs forever to Muslims. In a sense, you might well ask, what does it matter? Doesn't, in the Islamic view, the whole world belong ultimately to Islam? Isn't Islam everywhere to dominate, aren't Muslims everywhere, ultimately, to rule? And you would be right. But there is a matte of priorities. Traditionally, in the days before the unprecedented occurred -- before, that is, millions and now tens of millions of Muslims have been allowed to settle deep within Infidel lands, behind what Muslims themselves are taught to regard as, essentially, enemy lines. Naturally, still weak because far less numerous behind those enemy lines, Muslims in the Infidel lands must prevent those Infidels from examining too closely the texts and tenets of Islam, and figuring out what they mean. They must prevent those Infidles from looking, too closely, at the history of Islamic Jihad-conquest, and especially at the history of the subsequent subjugation of non-Muslims from Spain to East Asia, over 1350 years. They must prevent Infidels from finding out about Muslim attitudes toward many kinds of artistic expression (sculpture, paintings of living creatures, music) and toward the free and skeptical inquiry that makes science possible, and is everywhere encouraged in the advanced West, and discouraged in Islam). They must keep up a patter of phony sweetness-and-light, misrepresent Islam as "respecting" Christianity and Judaism --- and Infidels, not knowing more than that major figures from both those religions have been appropriated by Islam (and turned into Muslims -- for we are all Muslims, right back to Abraham, in the Islamic view), without bothering to examine what the Islamic "Jesus" and the Islamic "Moses" are, in Islam. Muslim-Christian and Muslim-Jewish "dialogues" become occasions for special pleading and careful taqiyya-and-tu-quoque by Muslim spokesmen, to self-selected groups of Infidels, in equal measures ignorant, naive, and self-preening: "We are willing to meet and listen and dialogue with our Muslim brothers -- unlike all those others, the benighted and the bigotted. We are morally superior, and we will demonstrate that moral superiority by taking every occasion to defend 'our Muslim brothers' from those who would divide us."

The beachhead is gained, and the Muslim troops fan out across the new land, ready to spread Islam, in the prisons, among those looking for justification for their alienation from The System, Amerika, Kapitalism, and finding Islam as the perfect vehicle to justify their own past, and possibly future, criminal behavior and in many cases, ti dignify it, draping naked aggression in the cloak of a new faith. And since so many of the undisciplined long not merely for discipline, but for Total Discipline, Islma provides a ready-made Community of Believes, who will enforce, in every way, rules that cover every detail of life. Bush likes to prate about how everyone "wants freedom." It's nonsense. The spirit of wanting to march in serried ranks, of Belonging to the Group (Nuremberg! Hitlerjugend! Jawohl!), and of knowing what one is to do, for every occasion, at every step, is a strong one, and there are as many who cannot stand, or do not know how to use "freedom" (which Bush hardly understands), and long for Authority. And that is what Islam provides: Authority, the Authority of Allah, and the Example of Muhammad, whose life, whose words and deeds, serve as a gloss on the will expressed by Allah in the Qur'an.

Blair, as a leading spokesman of the nattering classes (World Leader Division), goes on about a "manageable" problem to which there is a "solution." He wishes tiny, permanently beleaguered, Israel, the physical refuge and embodiment of the most persecuted tribe in human history, to pay the price for his inability, and that of others, to dare to come to grips with the menace of Islam, and to prolong, for a while longer, the illusion that the problem arises from something we, the Infidels -- in this case those stubborn Israelis, who keep insisting on staying alive, who keep insisting on being able to have a minimum level of defensible borders, who keep insisting -- though not nearly as effectively as they should and could -- that yes, they have legal, historic, and moral rights to this land, that they are the victims of an Arab siege -- the Israelis still do not call it, as they should, a Jihad, albeit a Local or Lesser Jihad -- and that the monstrous rewriting of history that has gone on, virtually unopposed, since the Six-Day War needs itself to be rewritten, and the truth, or much of it, brought back to the consciousness of those in the West who have not -- as Blair, as Rice, as other "two-state" solutionists so clearly have.

Darura. "Darura" in Arabic means "necessity." The Arabs and Muslims understand this idea."Necessity" can justify even violating explicit prohibitions. You may, if starving, eat pork, say some. You may, if you need to protect the faith, lie to Infidels -- lie about Islam itself, lie about your own belief in Islam., There is no further surrender of territory by Israel that will bring about "peace" with the Arab Muslims. The Arabs, and the shock troops of Arab Islam in the Lesser Jihad against Israel, are divided. But they are not divided the way that Blair and Rice and others seem to think: they are not divided, that is, between those ready to permanently accept Israel's existence (and what's more, its right to permanent existence), and those who do not.

No. They are divided, rather, between those who are the Slow Jihadists and those who are the Fast Jihadists. The Slow Jihadists are what the media like to repeatedly assure us are the "moderates." How many times have you seen a reporter blandly begin by referring in his dispatch to "the moderate Mahmoud Abbas" or "the moderates of Fatah"? The Homeric epithets here are not singer-of-tales mnemonic devices, but rather part of mental bullying, a deliberate attempt to tell us what to make of facts, not to think for ourselves. Thinking for yourself is discouraged. You must repeat: Abbas “the moderate,” Fatah “the moderates.” You must further be told that what is called the “Two-State Solution” is indeed a “Solution” – else why would such impressive people as Condoleeza Rice, or Tony Blair, or the “Quartet” (the Four Horsemen of Israel’s Apocalypse is more like it), call it a “Two-State Solution”?

Let’s get this straight. There is no difference in the ultimate goal of Fatah or of Hamas. Both want Israel as a Jewish state to disappear. They both know it is wrong, unjust, contra naturam, for Infidels, and especially the Jews, so despised in the Islamic world for being weak as well as the special focus of hatred (see Bostom’s forthcoming collection of documents and essays that will undo Bernard Lewis’ attribution of Muslim antisemitism to the influence of European antisemitism, when Muslim antisemitism has independent and different sources, to be found in Qur’an, Hadith, and sira), to possess land that was once ruled by Muslims. To them, to Arab Muslms (the most fanatical of all because for Arabs, Islam as a vehicle of Arab supremacism reinforces the appeal of Islam, whereas for non-Arab Muslims it can work against, or even diminish that appeal).

The difference is in tactics. Fatah, and Mahmoud Abbas, loyal collaborator for decades with Yassir Arafat, behind the mild-mannered generally-accepted-accounting-principles suit-and-tie demeanor, a firm supporter of terrorism in the past and in the present too, if the targets are the right ones, believes that it will take patience, a longer effort to soften Israel up, by continuing to weaken Israel economically and diplomatically, and militarily by pushing it back to the 1949 Armistice Lines which – for god’s sake, just look at a map, and just imagine you are in the IDF and trying to plan to defend the population of Israel in this 1949 armistice lines, lines which the Arabs themselves always refused to make permanent.

Hamas, on the other hand, doesn’t want to wait. It wants not to chip away at Israel, not to slowly reduce it to conquerable proportions, but to subject it to military attack right now. It might consider a very temporary hudna or truce, but only so long as everyone is clear, including the Israelis, that it is temporary. And it is amusing to see how indignant Hamas becomes when Israel seems ill-disposed toward such an idea. Mahmoud Abbas himself can’t understand why, given how little is demanded of him by the outside world, given how eager every Infidel government seems to be to ignore his real nature, and the real goals of Fatah and of all the”Paletinians,” Hanas remains so stubbornly, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot pur et dur. But there it is.

In other words, the differences are only differences in means, not ends: in timing and in tactics. Why this should not be understood in the West, why assorted blairs and rices cannot or will not understood, is testimony to something. Fear of realizing the truth, for what it might mean. Embarrassment on the part of those who have spent their entire professional lives participating in, and pontificating about, “negotiations” and a “peace process” which they solemnly parse every few weeks – all those dennis-rosses, and martin-indyks, and richard-hasses, and aaron-millers, who if they had actually noticed the gorilla of Islam in the room, and grasped its significance, they would have realized how foolish and time-wasting and false-hope-raising, and doomed-to-fail, were not merely this or that portentous airplaining back and forth, but the whole dismal thing. Do you think Bill Clinton, who entertained Yassir Arafat more than he did any other foreign “leader,” will ever grasp Islam, and therefore grasp what a waste it all was, how pointless, how stupid?

When I write “pointless” and “stupid” I mean, of course, “pointless” and “stupid” for those who wish Israel well, wish Israel to survive. I do not mean….the others. And those others, who harbor hostility toward Israel that is often connected not merely to ignorance, or laziness, but to a deeper much more unpleasant mental pathology (the business of antisemitism and vicious anti-Israel activities gives rise, nowadays, to a version of the chicken-and-egg problem. Just as we used to say as children “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” a new version might be “which came first, antisemitism or anti-Israel sentiment based on ignorance” for those two mutually reinforce, and prompt, one another).

If the goal is “peace” between Arabs and Israel, there is only one way to ensure that peace. It is not to give the Slow Jihadists what they want. It is not to call a “solution” that which will only further imperil Israel, and whet, not sate, Arab and Muslim appetites. It is to ensure that Israel is not only relieved of the constant pressuring by uncomprehending and cruel outsiders, who do not face the peril that Israel has and will always face, but is is regarded by those who would destroy it as so obviously superior in military might that they will give up hope of destroying it, and simply learn to live with their resentment, as they did, more or less, between 1948 and 1967. Only this time Israel will have something like defensible borders, the borders which it was meant all along to include, and didn’t include in 1948 simply because Ben Gurion called a halt to the war. After all,the land that Israel currently possesses or controls is far less than the amount of land originally set aside for the Mandate for Palestine, a mandate whose express provisions show that it was created for the exclusive purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home. Israel, at the moment, save for Gaza, possesses Western Palestine, for the British decided that the provisions of the Mandate about the mandatory’s duty to “facilitate Jewish immigration” and “close Jewish settlement on the land” would not apply to the land esast of the Jordan, which became, for real-politik purposes, the Emirate of Transjordan. But that should be it. Israel gave, and gave, and gave. The giving has to stop.

And the largest and only sure keeper of the peace between Arabs and Israel is the IDF. Not the UN, not Javier Solana’s would-be EU ‘peacekeepers.” Only the IDF. And that part of the civlised world – that is, the civilized themselves – must support not “negotiations” and “peace processes” between Israel (or any Infidel state) and Muslim states or groups, which will only lead to tangible concessions on the part of the Infidels, and no concessions, only temporary and false “truces,” on the part of those who, as Majid Khadduri and many others have pointed out, make “treaties” with Infidels only on the model of Al-Hudaibiyya. Treaties, that is, in the Muslim view are not subject to the Western idea, so natural that we assume it always existed, of Pacta sunt servanda. No, in Islam treaties are not to be obyed. That is the rule: treaties, by the Muslim side, are not to be obeyed, but rather, breached at the first opportunity.

Darura.

Memorize that word. Understand its significance. And if you are a would-be diplomat, going off to the Middle East, don’t you dare leave home without it.

I am not better then you because I am
a Muslim, but because I believe in the good old saying: the only good that counts, is the good you do.

Posted by: askingman [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 12:14 PM

So by good you mean supporting a supremacist, mysogynistic, 7th century death cult, who would subjugate me and my people to clerical fascism.

I dont think so asking man! All you have done is come on this site, spread Islamist propaganda and insult the people on this forum.

You have not supported any of your arguments with logical reasoning or facts, you just think that your self appointed moral superiority is so evolved as a Muslim that you can come here and try and detract attention from the atrocities your co-religionists are conducting everyday.

As a muslim do you think your daughter should be allowed to marry a non muslim?

Do you recognize the historical claims of the Jews to the Holy land ?

Do you want to live under full sharia law?

Greetings:

Hugh's explication of the Fast vs Slow Jihadists reminded me of a dicussion I once had with my favorite infantry sergeant. I asked about picking targets in a firefight, and he replied without hesitation, "Shoot the close ones first."

Speaking of shooting, the other day I happened to watch a program on cable (OLN -- that's a Canadian cable tv channel - Outdoor Life Network), and it featured a British survivalist (sorry, I've forgotten his name). I have seen some of his other programs -- he goes into a wilderness environment and demonstrates survival skills (how to light a fire without matches, and so on). On this program he re-enacted a scouting expedition by a British fellow -- Major Robert Rogers (1731-1795) -- prior to the War of Independence.

The modern-day survivalist re-enacted Robert Rogers scouting party (during the Indian wars -- how they raided an Indian village, but in Rogers' journal entries, Rogers reminded his men that there was to be no killing of women or children.) The original company barely survived the trek back (they faced starvation and they were, on their return to a fort, followed by hostile Indians).

Anyway, Robert Rogers is still honoured today -- "Rogers Rangers Rules 1765", 28 of them are still considered valid. See:
http://militaryhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/rogers_rangers_rules_1765

I also recall a time when school children read the diary of Robert Scott's expedition. Another British hero.

There is only one thing to say to a person like Hugh, who hides behind long elaborately constructed sentences and exageratedly complex questions. He is a complete fake and a manipulating liar, who gives opinions that are old and covered by dust,rebuked even by Israeli historians.Palestine was a wasteland, there is no Palestine people, there was massive immigration, the Palestinians were by Arabs to leave,bla,bla,bla.He knows that he is lying and people here believe him because uneducated and naive.He is a racist who on purpose blends the difference between Arab nationalism, the feeling of sharing a culture and language, and Arab ethnicity. Ironically, is him who practices the taqiya he hates oh so much. He is nothing but a dinosaur, a sad remnat of colonial mentality and behind the exagerated show of education,a laughing stock.

"He knows that he is lying" -- Oh, really, and just how do YOU know that, eh? You're implying that you are a mind reader. And suggesting that you're a mind reader indicates your staunch adherence to "the truth", hmmm?

And, undoubtedly, this (including all the vicious name calling directed against Hugh) is yet more evidence of your own self-proclaimed "moral" superiority? (btw, has it ever occurred to you that your godling -- Allah -- could be of a differing opinion from your own? or do you also claim the ability to read the mind of Allah?)

Why on earth do you keep on invoking Allah or a hadith, or anything associated with Islam when I am talking?Its like the typical Anti-Semite, who cant help but see the Jew, instead of the person to whom is talking. Let me tell you that, there is something wrong with you.Believe me, there is worse to call Hugh. I read the modern literature, especially on the Israel Palestine conflict and I am familiar with the concensus. Trust me, I regularly visit this page.This person called Hugh is a liar and a fraud.

Hugh claimed for example that the Palestinian refugee problem was caused by the Arab Armies telling them to leave.This was standad Israeli history until the 60s, when Historians Erskin childers and Rashid Khalidi examined these radio broadcasts and found nothing of the sort. Not a single historian today would claim the story of these broadcasts. See for example the book of now extremly rightwing Benny Morris, Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem. He said himself that his only regrett was thatin 1948 the job wasnt finished,meaning not all Palestinians were expelled. No radio broadcasts here.

I also clearly remember Hugh actually claiming that
during the recent Lebanon war Israel didnt delibaretly target the Beirut Airport, even though
the Israelies said many times they did in fact, to supposedly stop the Israeli soldiers captured from being shipped out of the country.Talk about taqiya.

I also clearly remember Hugh actually claiming that
during the recent Lebanon war Israel didnt delibaretly target the Beirut Airport, even though
the Israelies said many times they did in fact, to supposedly stop the Israeli soldiers captured from being shipped out of the country.Talk about taqiya.

That is the rule: treaties, by the Muslim side, are not to be obeyed, but rather, breached at the first opportunity.

Please tell me this person isnt a rascist swine he pretends to be. Shame on you Mr.Spencer for having such a disgusting person moderate your blog. Anyone claiming anything similarly stupid and arrogant about Jews, blacks,Asians or Buddhists would be ridiculed and exposed.

That is the rule: treaties, by the Muslim side, are not to be obeyed, but rather, breached at the first opportunity.

Please tell me this person isnt the rascist swine he pretends to be. Shame on you Mr.Spencer for having such a disgusting person moderate your blog. Anyone claiming anything similarly stupid and arrogant about Jews, blacks,Asians or Buddhists would be ridiculed and exposed.

vicious name calling directed against Hugh

So you are offended by me calling him the names he deserves,but not by his stance that Muslims should be starved by cutting off all aid, or his support for an illegal occupation and oppression, for land grab and murder, for characterizing over one billion people as liars and frauds who should not be trusted, for lying about known facts, for always inserting the word Arab as a negative connotation, that evokes non-humanity and calling their culture primitive? You have no problem with that I see.

Do you understand what telling a lie means? It is not just uttering a false statement. Many times a statement can be made, and then, later on, more evidence comes to light, and the original statement is discovered to be "false" -- this does NOT indicate that the original speaker "lied." Do you understand this? There are two aspects which need to be demonstrated in order to make a claim that "Speaker X lied." The first is that a false statement has been made (many times, that's not difficult to demonstrate). The second requirement, however, is to demonstrate that the speaker deliberately intended to deceive the audience (this is far more difficult to demonstrate) -- BUT if you fail to demonstrate that the speaker deliberately intended to deceive, you cannot then claim "The Speaker lied." Do you understand this? Furthermore, you have to demonstrate that the Speaker (whom you're accusing of having lied) knew "the truth" all along, but chooses instead to make the false claim. From what I've read of your posts -- you've made a number of claims, yet you've failed to demonstrate or to provide the evidence which would convince anyone of anything. If you wish to state (or claim) that Hugh has made a false statement, you need to quote Hugh. Ok? Not provide some mumblings about what you think Hugh might have written (and/or some bizzaro interpretation of what you think you recall Hugh has written some time in the past.) Ok? That's your fist step. Then, you need to demonstrate that the "false" statement contradicts what's been written before (or at least indicates that somehow it's in variance), then you need to illustrate how this was done "intentionally" to deceive (and not through some accident or some misunderstanding on your part).
Now, go back and do that.

No its much more simple, first he repeats these claims over and over again. Second, as I said, these are facts known since the 60s and Hugh is obviously quite the educated fellow. If the story of the Arab broadcasts are not mentioned by modern historians, where did he get them from and why does he cite them? I dont need that method of yours to prove someone is a liar. If he makes false statements more then once it becomes obvious. If you are so keen on me applying these methods to Hugh, why dont you apply them to Muslims, before ending up calling them all Liard and frauds, as Hugh obviously want you to.

I dont think he is so stupid as to unintentionally
makes huge historical errors. He knows what he is doing. I clearly remember also Mr.Spencer trying to prove on this blog that the pictures of the Qana massacre in Lebanon were faked, even though more then 400 children had already been killed by Israeli airstrikes. What he was concerened about were pictures, the rest didnt bother him and he didnt dispute it.Now tell me, a grown mature man, he must have know that anywhere else he would have made a fool of himself. Why did he do it? I know the difference being someoe making a mistake and someone delibaretly trying to manipulate.

O please. What a cop out. Surely you must realize that calling someone a liar is an easy business -- *proving* that this is the case is a far harder task, isn't it? But it is this harder task (yes, the one which requires discipline) that mere name callers wish to shirk. If you are a mere name caller, then do not expect to be trusted or believed. Here in the West, you have to demonstrate your claims. (It's generally easier to simply state (again, use quotes -- use accurate quotes, not made up ones), what you consider are the false statements -- and forget about adding that tempting little extra bit about "He's lying!!")

Look, in the West we are sceptics of people making claims...including claims such as: "I know the difference being someoe making a mistake and someone delibaretly trying to manipulate." I'll say, "Oh, yeah? Sooo, you THINK you know the difference between someone making a mistake and someone deliberately intending to deceive. Well, if that's the case, as you claim, then tell me, explain to me precisely HOW you make that distinction."

Ok,first I have two suggestions. Number one, if you dont believe me ask him.

Number two, compare Hughs definition of Arabs with the simple Mainstream definiton. Hugh says Muslim Arab are ethnic Arabs, history and the mainstream defintion tell us being an Arab in most Middle Eastern countries is a political and cultural definition. Tell me, how he can be so wrong and so many times?Because it suits him. Just check his current article, once again telling us that the Palestinians dont exist and are just Arabs.Please check the simple Wikipedia definition of an Arab.

Look, in the West we are sceptics of people making claims

Yeah, especially of your President telling you are about to be nuked by a country that doesnt even have weapons of mass destruction. Dont make me laugh.

I tell you how I make that distinction. I read the accepted mainstream history, what Non govermental organizations like Amnesty, Btslem, Human Rights watch say about the conflict and when I see a person
like Hugh making false statements again and again and again, I know somewhere along the way he must be making something up.Happy?

I have no intentions of speaking for Hugh -- and, for the nth time if you do not provide me with the quotes (such as quote from Hugh's article as per what you believe his definition of an Arab is -- then we are stumbling about in the dark.)

Here is what I think you're trying to get at. There is (in the history of "Palestine") a debate as to when so-called "Palestinians" "discovered" themselves to be "a people" (distinct from their Muslim Arab brethren). Originally the term Palestinian referred to Jews. Thus prior to 1948, if one spoke of "Palestinians," it meant Jews. Eventually Arabs adopted the term...but as to the degree to which Arab/Muslim "Palestinians" actually think of themselves as a "people" (separate and distinct from the Ummah) is a moot point...that is, it is debatable. Even now I think it's contentious...(that is, it's expedient to do so...just as Arafat could claim to be a "Palestinian", when, in fact, he was an Egyptian.)

Arafat wasnt Egyptian, he was born in Egypt. Let me ask you, what gives you the right to call yourself an American? Are you ethnically distinct from Europeans, do you have a distinct language or culture? No? I thought so. You think there is any logic to nationalism? You think people must be ethnically unique to claim peoplehood? Palestinian
nationalims arose with the Israeli conflict as American identity arose with the british colonial conflict. The reason it is nonsesnse to put the word Palestinians in brackets,is because Palestinians are arabized semites, meaning they are in the majority a
preislamic people, converts to Islam from Judasim and Christianity.

hild of the century, or rather child of the last few decades, he chooses to believe that the sudden appearance of the phrase "Palestinian people" after the Six-Day War, and the careful and relentless promotion of this soi-disant "Palestinian people," and the rewriting of history that took place to accompany it

This is hughs quote, typical manipulation, seeing that the people living in the West Bank didnt just
appear and that Palestinian nationalism goes to the early twentieth century. Could he be so polite to tell us how exactly history was rewritten? No?

Arafat was born and raised in Egypt. He was also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. When he discovered the notion that calling himself a "Palestinian", along with the false claim that he was born in Jerusalem, could please the Europeans and the UN (along with his avowed intention of destroying the state of Israel), Arafat did so. And, he reaped millions upon millions of dollars by doing so. And you claim to be able to recognize deceivers and to discern the difference? -- as I laugh.

Arafat was born to Palestinian parents in Cairo, no one disputes that. So where is your problem? He has no right to fight for the indepence of his country of origin and his people because he was born in Cairo, or because he was once a member of the Muslim brotherhood? How did he invent himself as a Palestinian, when Palestinian nationalism wasnt invented by him? Second, you claimed that prior to 67 Muslims didnt refer to themselves as Palestinians, now you contradict yourself. Take a look at this website, even though it is pro-palestinian and just look at the British survery describing agriculture in 1947, them compare with Hughs ridiculously discredited statement that Palestine was a statement. This is how you discover people are lying.

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story665.html

Arafat was born to Palestinian parents in Cairo, no one disputes that. So where is your problem? He has no right to fight for the indepence of his country of origin and his people because he was born in Cairo, or because he was once a member of the Muslim brotherhood? How did he invent himself as a Palestinian, when Palestinian nationalism wasnt invented by him? Second, you claimed that prior to 67 Muslims didnt refer to themselves as Palestinians, now you contradict yourself. Take a look at this website, even though it is pro-palestinian and just look at the British survery describing agriculture in 1947, them compare with Hughs ridiculously discredited statement that Palestine was a wasteland. This is how you discover people are lying.

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story665.html

Please take a look at this also

http://lw.palestineremembered.com/Maps/New/Map5_OwnerShip.gif

Sorry, I don't go to Palestinian propaganda websites. If "Palestinians" were so interested in forming a country, I believe they would have had one by now. But, the reality is this -- they are NOT fighting "for a country" -- they are far more interested in destroying the State of Israel -- this is their goal -- they are NOT interested in forming a country. They have elected Hamas as their governing entity. What does that tell you? They are bloody murderers and vicious antisemites. Ditto for most Europeans, who no doubt figured that Arafat would simply finish the job that Hitler started. And if you fail to realize the heinous nature of Arafat, Hamas, Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhood and all the other Arab murderous terrorists -- then, I consider you no better than them. Understand?

BTW, might also add, and this I will consider to be the end of our "discussion" -- your laughable, risable claim that your manufactured "Palis" are both converts to Islam, yet pre-Islamic? Yeah, another strange Islamist notion -- that time's arrow runs in both directions, no doubt. Well, here in the west, time's arrow runs in ONE direction. And, no, you can't reverse cause and effect, no matter how much you might hope. So your f---g "prophet" pedophile NEVER set foot in Jerusalem. Now go choke on that.

I take it that you are either to stupid, or to aggressive to say one straight sentence.Thank you for once and for all exposing yourself as the culturless moron that you really are. Back to the beginning. The Palis are invented, Mo was a pedophile bla bla bla. What a sad waste of air you are. Good night.

just a thought

who told you i like Arafat?

The well-known remark of Zuheir or Zuhair Mohsen (Arabic: زهير محسن, a Palestinian leader of the Syria-sponsored as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979, perhaps should be re-posted here. The remark was made to James Dorsey in an interview, published in March 1977 in the Dutch newspaper "Trouw":

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

There are so many statements like this, including Arafat's remark earlier that "Palestine itself does not interest us. Palestine is simply a drop in vast Arab ocean from the Atlantic to the Gulf." And there is not a single recorded statement, by any Arab leader, military man, diplomat, prior to the Six-Day War, in which the phrase "Palestiian people" is used, and applied to the local Arabs, the shock troops of the Lesser Jihad.

At long last we can undo the propaganda of the past forty years, and realize what was clearer then: the war against Israel is not a war that can end with further concessions by the Israelis. That is exactly the wrong thing. Borders are of no importance to Muslims wishing to wipe out the intolerable fact of an Infidel state on land that was once controlled by Muslims. The only way to prevent war -- if that is indeed what one wishes to do -- is to ensure that Israel does not make further concessions, indeed to demand that it not do so when its leaders, some of them clearly fools, are inclined to do so. Buck up those in Israel who see things aright, and do nothing to encourage the line of appeasement, the line that is of the current government and of some previous administrations as well.

The whole nonsense about a "peace process" was a lot of fun for a lot of people, ranging from teh outright antisemite Carter to the Save-the-World peacemaking-in-our-time Arafat-host Clinton. And so many Washington careers -- the dennis-rosses, the aaron-miollers, the richard-hasses, the martin-indyks, were devoted to this business. Ross and Indyk have landed on their feet, as directors of "centers" bankrolled by maecenases who may think they are helping Israel -- not with the likes of ross and indyk around they aren't. But they don't know that.

Darura. It is the only way for peace to be maintained between Israel, which will never be totally secure and should not expect to be, but should be able to handle itself, if major weaopnry is kept from the Arabs and Muslims, and the nuclear "equalizer" kept, and meanwhile, the acts of Muslims every day make that much clearer, to a Western world now shaking its puissant locks and coming to its senses, s-l-o-w-l-y, what Islam is all about, and what, therefore, for the purposes of civilizational and physical self-defense, must be done.

And quite independently of all this, the need to reduce not merely dependence on, but the actual use of, fossil fuels, will enroll all kinds of people, some with no particuar interest in or knowledge of Islam and the Jihad, to work toward a goal which, inevitably, will reduce the one major weapon the Arabs and Muslims have: the Money Weapon that funds mosques, madrasas, propaganda, arms purchases, campaigns of Da'wa, and Western hirelings of Arab interests, all over the world.

In other words, the need to diminish the man-made effects on the climate will do much to diminish as well the power of the Jihad, and those who must, as a duty, support it.

And as Islam is divided and demoralized (it will happen, it is happening, and will be given a great boost by an end to the idiotic squandering caused by the useless American presence in Iraq), that too will help.

askingman --

You may want to check-out this website concerning the history of "Israel and Palestine". It's a great resource, because it has both a map of the Middle East and a time-line of events that date from 1517-1982:

http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

And this second website discusses Jerusalem in more detail:

http://focusonjerusalem.com/maproom.html

(btw, has it ever occurred to you that your godling -- Allah -- could be of a differing opinion from your own? or do you also claim the ability to read the mind of Allah?)
Posted by: J.S.

Allah does what muslims tell him to do.

Am I the only one who thinks the Al-Haq report sounds dubious at best?

Call me cynical, but it wouldn't be the first time.

I frankly don't know why anyone has the interest in responding to askingman...he obviously appears to have asked too little over the years.

And before you go into denigrating me for that opinion (versus fact - see the distinction?), askingman, just a footnate: I am basing it solely on the arguments YOU have posted here.

And I got an eyeful with regards to what appears as an inability to view anything critically, unless it's those with whom you disagree.

My recommendation as a former teacher? You need to consider SERIOUSLY going back to school to learn Critical Thinking...it's a required tool for discussions here.

Plus, I'd have failed you based on your arguments...sorry, I mean lack thereof.