Near London Bombings

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Sorry to burst your bubble lixy but the historical record does not support the notion that the Muslims and Arabs were threatened by the Nazi’s.

Well, one wonders why they considered them untermenschen then.

Sifu wrote:
…

Hitler was manipulated by that cunning Mufti? Your rhetoric is surreal.[/quote]

I don’t think he manipulated Hitler, I think he made a cold, calculated quid pro quo arrangement. In exchange for Hitler slaughtering the Jews the Mufti would supply the manpower and then some.

How is it surreal to bring up a war criminal for whom there is documentation of his involvement in the showa at the Nuremburg trials, the UN security council and the Eichmann trial? A man who was good freinds with Hitler, Himmler and Eichmann.

Or is it surreal because his involvement in Europe undermines the whole why didn’t the jews stay somewhere in europe arguement?

102

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Or is it surreal because his involvement in Europe undermines the whole why didn’t the jews stay somewhere in europe arguement?[/quote]

Sifu, don’t you know, you can’t say anything negative about Muslims on these threads. If you listen to some people, the Muslims have never done anything wrong. Next they’ll be saying that the US backed The Mufti.

103

[quote]lixy wrote:
Well, one wonders why they considered them untermenschen then.

[/quote]

Lixy, I read your article. Didn’t say much about Arabs, but what it did say backed up Sifu’s article.

Did you even read his? How could you deny all of that? I guess the Wikipedia is only true when the article bashes the US.

104

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
saw an interview about it on a tv talk show. [/quote]

Forgive me for having higher standards.

I’ll need evidence that he was “indicted on criminal charges for trying to overthrow the government of a sovereign nation and ended up resigning” as was claimed.

105

[quote]kroby wrote:
lixy wrote:
Count me in the lot then. Saddam was dangerous to his own people. Beyond that, he was a harmless and even Israel could have taken out in a matter of days.

Ah, another sympathy for good ole’ Saddam. We know you’d invite him over for tea, but it never ceases to amaze me each time you say it.[/quote]

Sympathy? How can you say that? All I said is that he was no threat to the US. Shit, he couldn’t even defeat the Iranians right after their whole military’s been dismantled. Then, he endured “desert storm” followed by more than a decade of harsh sanctions. How can anyone think that the guy was a threat to the US is beyond me.

Saddam was an evil man. But c’mon, he wasn’t much of a threat and you know it. Stop claiming that I sympathize with him or his likes.

106

Good post regarding the Mufti, Sifu. Another thing that is forgotten, jewish refugees from Arab lands.

107

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I don’t think he manipulated Hitler, I think he made a cold, calculated quid pro quo arrangement. [/quote]

Let’s review what you said, shall we?

“The whole idea of sytematically exterminating the jews originated with Yasser Arafat’s uncle and PLO founder Muhammed Amin al-Husseini a.k.a. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.”

Then you say that:

[i]"At a meeting in Berlin with Hitler himself on Nov. 21, 1941, al-Husseini persuaded the Führer that such a plan would result in a powerful independent Jewish state, and that a far better solution would be a Final one: Kill all Jews, in the millions, at extermination centers set up in Europe.

Two months after this meeting, the Holocaust had begun. Al-Husseini was granted his wish. It was a Moslem Arab who originated the idea of the Holocaust."[/i]

I wasn’t there but a quick read of Hitler’s writings and speeches coupled with such concepts as the lebensraum or Aryan race (concepts alien to Islam) certainly discredit your theory. To say that the Al-Husseini supported Hitler is one thing. To claim that “they [the Palestinians] (and a lot of other Muslims) did play a significant role in it [the Holocaust]” is unfair.

No. It’s surreal because you tried to further the point that (not so subtly) the Palestinians got what they deserved. It’s as if you’re taking the blame off the Germans and putting it on the Palestinians. And that is surreal!

108

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Lixy, I read your article. Didn’t say much about Arabs, but what it did say backed up Sifu’s article.

Did you even read his? How could you deny all of that? I guess the Wikipedia is only true when the article bashes the US.[/quote]

Read again.

“In Nazi-occupied countries throughout Europe, the Nazis encountered small Chinese, east Indian, Arab/Algerian and Latin American communities mostly made of hired workers and diplomats were classified as Untermenschen (“inferior peoples”), along with most Slavic and Hungarian peoples.”

109

I wouldn’t say the Palestinians got what they deserved. I would say that the actions of the Mufti and his followers is a cause of the present predicament of the Palestinians.

He did everything he could to destroy viable communities of Jews in Europe and left large numbers of them stateless. The allies solution of putting the jews back into the concentration camps and leaving them there was not a solution. They weren’t welcome to go back into a lot of areas they had been removed from by the nazis.

There was a slaughter of several hundred Jews in Poland who had gone back to their hometown. The Baltic states had a large prewar community of jews that was wiped out. Plus they were all inside the Iron curtain.

In Germany the werewolves would have been another problem the Jews had to deal with. That is why they had to get out.

Just because the Mufti didn’t get tried as a war criminal doesn’t mean they didn’t want to. If he hadn’t escaped from a French jail and gone to Egypt in 1946 he probably would have.

The Mufti was implicated in the 1941 plot to poison the Tel Aviv water supply with enough toxin to kill 250,000 people. That is why he fled to Iraq and stayed with Saddam Husseins uncle.

There were a lot of Nazi’s who escaped prosecution after the war.

In 1947 the UN security council discussed the Mufti’s direct role in killing over 400,000 Hungarian jews. 1 in 15 of all the jews killed. You can read up on it here.

http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/bakera.htm

110

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Lixy, I read your article. Didn’t say much about Arabs, but what it did say backed up Sifu’s article.

Did you even read his? How could you deny all of that? I guess the Wikipedia is only true when the article bashes the US.

Read again.

“In Nazi-occupied countries throughout Europe, the Nazis encountered small Chinese, east Indian, Arab/Algerian and Latin American communities mostly made of hired workers and diplomats were classified as Untermenschen (“inferior peoples”), along with most Slavic and Hungarian peoples.”[/quote]

And the Japanese were classified as honorary Aryans. The Germans even tried to find some way of saying the two races were related.

Karaite Jews were allowed to serve in the SS because they were considered to be racially ambiguous.

Even the nazis were willing to bend their racial policies when it suited them.

The history of the Muslim SS divisions is well documented. It was certainly wasn’t forgotten around Kosovo.

111

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I wouldn’t say the Palestinians got what they deserved. I would say that the actions of the Mufti and his followers is a cause of the present predicament of the Palestinians.[/quote]

Hmmm…here’s what you said.

“I don’t think Palestinians should pay for the holocaust, though they (and a lot of other Muslims) did play a significant role in it.”

It’s clearly an attempt to put the blame on the “Palestinians” and not just on the Mufti. But I appreciate the backpedaling nonetheless.

Let’s not get lost in conjectures. There were Nazi collaborators in almost every country. Yet, at the end of the day it was always the Germans who baked the Jews.

If we assume that the “actions of the Mufti and his followers is a cause of the present predicament of the Palestinians”, it follows that they wouldn’t have been a state of Israel had it not been for the Holocaust. The existence of the Balfour Declaration easily revokes that hypothesis.

But even if we assume that you are indeed right, and the actions of the Mufti caused the Jews to need a state, shouldn’t they have been given land in Germany? What’s the sin of the Palestinian farmer? Did he vote for Hitler?

I’ll be eagerly awaiting your take on this.

112

[quote]lixy wrote:
Stop claiming that I sympathize with him or his likes.[/quote]

How is your statement that Iraq would have been better off with Saddam still in power vs. the current war in Iraq not sympathy for him and his regime?

113

[Read again.

“In Nazi-occupied countries throughout Europe, the Nazis encountered small Chinese, east Indian, Arab/Algerian and Latin American communities mostly made of hired workers and diplomats were classified as Untermenschen (“inferior peoples”), along with most Slavic and Hungarian peoples.”[/quote]

You read again.

What? Did you stop after the part which supported your propaganda, or is the Wikipedia only true when it agrees with the radical muslim agenda?

“In Spring of 1943, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, was recruited by the Nazis to assist in the organization and recruitment of Bosniaks into several divisions of the SS Waffen and other units in Yugoslavia. He was successful in convincing the Bosniaks to go against the declarations of the Sarajevo, Mostar, and Banja Luka Clerics, who had since 1941, forbidden Bosnian Muslims to collaborate with Croat-Nazis (Ustashe).”

114

[quote]kroby wrote:
lixy wrote:
Stop claiming that I sympathize with him or his likes.

How is your statement that Iraq would have been better off with Saddam still in power vs. the current war in Iraq not sympathy for him and his regime?[/quote]

What Lixy is not taking into consideration, is that the US plan would have worked, had the Iranian, al-qaeda, and baathist elements not killed all of the people who could have successfully lead the Iraqi democracy.

When they told the population not to vote or they would become targets, the terrorists did what they said and began killing anyone and everyone who would support the Coalition.

115

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
saw an interview about it on a tv talk show.

Forgive me for having higher standards.

[/quote]

Sorry you don’t believe what the man said with his own mouth. I guess it has to be in the Wikipedia to be true.

Why don’t you read his book on it?

116

[quote]kroby wrote:
How is your statement that Iraq would have been better off with Saddam still in power vs. the current war in Iraq not sympathy for him and his regime?[/quote]

And I guess Hans Blix sympathized with Saddam too.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1025-01.htm

And so did the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32693

And the Israeli deputy defense minister Ephraim Sneh.

http://www.forward.com/articles/israeli-experts-say-middle-east-was-safer-with-sad/

How about 90% of Iraqis…

How about the Christians? The gays? The intellectuals?

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp03312006.html

To say that Iraq was better off under Saddam is by no mean sympathy for the ruthless dictator. It’s simply stating the truth. People had lives! Now, they can’t go to the market without the fear of being blown up.

But then again, you’re probably among those who bought the “if you’re not with us, you’re with the enemy” line…

117

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
What? Did you stop after the part which supported your propaganda, or is the Wikipedia only true when it agrees with the radical muslim agenda? [/quote]

Accusing me of furthering a radical Muslim agenda is way over the line. If I didn’t know better, I’ll be telling you to go fuck yourself! Ah…maybe I just did.

I linked to the “racial policy of the 3rd Reich” in the following context:

Sifu wrote:
I don’t think Palestinians should pay for the holocaust, though they (and a lot of other Muslims) did play a significant role in it.

To which I replied

[i]Significant role in the Holocaust? Do you even know what significant mean?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...00601417_2.html

Arabs were next on the list in case you didn’t know.[/i]

Now, where did I refute the Al-Husseini’s involvement with the Nazis? All I did was challenge Sifu’s assertion that the Palestinians played a significant role in the Holocaust. Where on Earth did he see a grassroots pro-Holocaust Palestinian movement?

Keep up.

118

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Sorry you don’t believe what the man said with his own mouth. I guess it has to be in the Wikipedia to be true.

Why don’t you read his book on it?[/quote]

I am well aware of the guy’s story. What I challenged, was your claim that he was “indicted on criminal charges for trying to overthrow the government of a sovereign nation”. One would think that such an astonishing revelation is widely reported.

Yet, to the best of my knowledge, there’s absolutely nothing that supports your claim. An indictment surely leaves paper trail of some sort you could use to substantiate that. Shouldn’t be too hard to present such evidence, now should it?

119

[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
How is your statement that Iraq would have been better off with Saddam still in power vs. the current war in Iraq not sympathy for him and his regime?
And I guess Hans Blix sympathized with Saddam too.[/quote] to say Hans Blix, who was against going in from the beginning… the guy that wanted more time to conduct searches of a regime that denied him access for years?!? isn’t predisposed to an unfavorable assessment, who doesn’t have the skills to determine what’s better for the Iraqis… hardly a reliable source.

“puppet government” is all I needed to read to understand the stance of this “journalist.” Biased

He said Saddam got what he deserved, and it’s more likely that a threat would come out of Iraq. Nothing about the people of Iraq. Buzz. Sorry, lixy, but this example is shite.

Now you’re giving me polls? Inherently biased, depending on where you poll, dependent on what happened in their back yards that day? Polls? Get outta here with polls. Beyond biased.

Any moron accepting polls as legitimate without factoring in biased questions is wasting my time. How about asking the current Iraqi government? Ask them if they’d like to return to the Rule of Saddam.

Wow. A website replete with conspiracy theories. Counterpunch? Gary Leupp, of the Dissident Voice, a History professor? The one that wrote “Drive out the Bush Regime?” Oh, joy. What an unbiased author!

[quote]To say that Iraq was better off under Saddam is by no mean sympathy for the ruthless dictator. It’s simply stating the truth. People had lives! Now, they can’t go to the market without the fear of being blown up.

But then again, you’re probably among those who bought the “if you’re not with us, you’re with the enemy” line…[/quote]

Your concern for the Iraqis is hollow. That they were better off before today is your opinion, not the truth.

Shaking off the yoke of a tyrant, even if it cost 10 million lives is fair price to pay for freedom. Unless you are a coward. Because you’re paving the future for your offspring. Or have you forgotten those, that would have been oppressed right now by Saddam and for who knows how long into the future by his sons, who were going to inherit his regime and continue his work of terrorizing the citizens of Iraq?

That’s what the Iraqis were looking at, long term. Long term, lixy. Stop looking at yesterday and start looking for tomorrow.

A vote for Saddam yesterday is a vote for him and his sons for tomorrow. How do you not see this?

This is a revolution going on in Iraq. And you’d rather they stayed with the status quo in fear of the price for freedom from a tyrant? What kind of life is this?

Would you have told the French or Americans, “oh, don’t fight for independence from an oppressive government, the cost of lives is too high!” Same with India, sure. They’d live, and then so would their progeny. Oppressed. That is pure, unadulterated cowardice.

120

Face it Lixy talk is cheap. It is real easy to say there were other ways to get rid of Saddam. But none of the people who say that give concrete suggestions. Merely getting rid of Saddam would not have been enough anyway. There was a whole power structure underneath him that had to be swept away and there was no nice way of doing it.

There were plenty of useless half measures that Bush could have done (like inspectors and sanctions) that at the end of the day would have accomplished nothing but waste time.

People are hating on Bush because he actually did something instead of wasting time with bullshit then just passing the problem onto his successor at the end of his term, like Clinton did.

Look at how Clinton handled the embassy bombings is Africa. There were hundreds of people dead. But all Clinton was willing to do is throw a handfull of cruise missiles at a few useless targets in a one time deal then that was it, over and done with back to business as usual.

Now Clinton has the audacity to claim that he tried everything he could to kill Osama. Clinton did the bare minimum he needed to do to protect his approval rating without doing anything substantive that might affect his approval rating.

Clinton was a pure politician, he was not a leader. Leadership is making the hard choices even if they hurt your popularity.