Reality: Muslim parents are clamping down on any political activity

Yesterday the Home Secretary could be accused of grandstanding when he used the Sun newspaper to tell Muslims to watch their children.

Today he stepped into a mosque. He was given a fairly heated reception during the Q&A, though Muslims really must learn about the art of questioning. Heckling came from the Anjum Chowdhury/Abu Izzadine axis. I do wonder who invited them. Visits like this are not publicised in advance. Who told them? George Galloway puts it thus:

The man who harangued you - Abu Izzadine - is a well-known and violent extremist from an organisation your own government has proscribed. Yet he was allowed within punching distance of the British Home Secretary. How ? Why ?

... There are only two conceivable explanations as to how this man, at this sensitive time, was allowed to hijack your Potemkin Village performance today.

Either our police and security services are so fantastically incompetent that Bin Laden himself might have slipped in to beard you at your podium. Or someone somewhere wanted to engineer precisely this confrontation to show you in a certain light and to portray the Muslims of Britain in the most aggressive violent and extreme way possible, as a justification for the utterly counter-productive policies you are following.

Reid did take it all in his stride. He's a smooth public performer, and I doubt anyone else in the government would have been able to pull that off. Totally unflappable. What the headlines tomorrow will all be about though is the insinuation that Muslim youth are planning terror outrages, and their parents aren't doing anything about it. As such this is libellous.

Every few weeks now, the government pop up with some new way to spin the call for the Muslim community to do more. They were caught on the hop by the letter from Muslim leaders in August calling for our foreign policy to be sorted out, and they're not going to let that happen again. The narrative has to be about what Muslims must do, not what the government must do.

The reality on the ground though is that Muslim parents are not allowing their kids to get involved in any political activity. This is repressive enough, but is also dangerous. Muslim youth care about war and occupation in Muslim lands. There are two outlets for this anger: engage politically or go down the extremist path. The former obviously needs to be promoted and bolstered.

Indeed we saw in the build up to the Iraq war, just that happening. However, as police harassment has increased in the last few years, Muslim parents are reluctant to let their kids take part in demos, or partake in anything vaguely political for fear of them ending up being questioned or landing themselves on a CIA watchlist. Let me repeat, the outlet of political expression and dissent needs to be there for Muslim youth. The home secretary and his police forces are clamping down on this.

See also Bloggerheads, Obsolete

Comments

[ainelivia]

Joe, there are no clear yes or no answers. There never have been. We have to look at these situations and make our own judgments.

What I think you mean is that you are puzzled why I don't come down clearly on one side or the other. And that is simple. Because I see both "sides" trying to demonise the other, attempting to say "there's is the greater evil". When they actually understand that neither has the moral high ground. Once anyone begins to tell me that the other "side" is totally evil and unjust, then I begin to see the limits to their ideas.

Whatever the politics or politicians, whatever the ideology, I see only that a great many people have suffered at the expense of politics and ideologies.

I don't use "authority" for my views. Because authority is the knowledge of hindsight, (though I do understand that there are certain arenas where it is necessary to do so, and it may often be useful, as in a court of law, I am not saying it is wrong). However it is not constructive. It comes across as just scoring brownie points.

I try to use my own gut feeling about what is unjust. And much injustice has been wrought by people with ideologies. Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussien, Pol Pot, Mao-Tse Tung, Eamonn de Valera, and I'd even add to that the Catholic Church. In some cases, (definitely not the second or third) the core ideas were about equality of condition; however the manner in which they were applied became unjust and oppressive. And the manner in which they operated was about fear.

My lack of knowledge, and bad grammar, and defending the British Government. Well, I can certainly live with the first two. However, if you read what I've written so far, and not view it through the "with me or against me" political filter; you might see it that is no defense of anyone. I simply question the notion that anyone has a monopoly on truth. Because that to me is a dangerous idea.

Now if I go back to "heckling" which I see as being often used to sabotage, and is in no way constructive. You see it as a democratic right. Walter Wolfgang heckled constructively. What I see is that both Reid and his hecklers are about one thing, sound-bytes and air-time.

The way I see this, some call the government extremists, and they(the government) level the same accusation at whatever group it happens to be at the time. So while politicians are busy calling each other names; what are the rest of us supposed to do? Sit back and allow this argument over who is the most extreme to take over from the real issues?

Are there really any representative voices of the people out there now? Ones who want to get on with the job and less of the infighting. Well there was Clare Short. And Salma Yacoub seems to me to be able to get her point across. Oh and don't get me wrong, I'm not lobbying for more women, they are just two people who's approach I admire.

[Osama]

I was on Yvonne Ridley's Agenda programme on Monday and was disturbed by the number of people emailing and texting in to congratulate Abu Izzadeen, and indeed calling for him to come onto the Islam Channel.

To these people, I would use Abu Izzadeen's own oft repeated call to "Wake up and smell the coffee". He is not just some folk hero who heckled the Home Secretary.

He is not on the front pages of the Daily Mail and The Sun because he is beneficial to Islam and Muslims in this country. He has posited himself and been lapped up to fill the vacuum left by the departures of OBM and Abu Hamzah.

Here's an inventory of his views.

-------
He was interviewed by Richard Watson on Newsnight Aug 2005:
RW: "Are you willing to denounce, right now, the London bombings which killed so many people?"
AI:"No".
RW: "Why not?"
AI: "I would never denounce Muslims".
RW: "This was murder"
AI: "No. Mujahadin activity."
RW: "It's murder. Innocent people have died."
AI: "I'm sorry- when you bomb Muslims in Afghanistan, and I saw houses....I saw women and children murdered, on a huge scale. Not fifty, there was carpet bombing in Afghanistan. Nobody called for the denounciation (sic) for the murder of Muslims."
RW: "People like you, with the views you hold, you're vulnerable to becoming suicide bombers. What do you say about that?"
AI: "Vulnerability, I believe it's a weakness as long as understanding. What would I say about those who do suicide operations - or martyrdom operations - 'cause suicide is a term coined by the media - they're completely praiseworthy. Martyrdom operations are commonplace - fifteen every day in Iraq ag-"
RW: "Not in Britain."
AI: "Against the British and Americans every day in Afghanistan, all around the world, in Palestine. So it's not something that's unusual. What's shocking, for many, is that it took place on their own doorsteps. But hopefully, that will make many, wake up, and smell the coffee...

---------

Here he is on Jan 2001:
"Because I believe America is one of the places where we should be bombing those...er, the Government. There are some Muslims that go to America, because obviously, you know, like firearms is available inside America, to be trained legally. So why not take that opportunity to use, the heart of the enemy that's attacking us."

--------
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1724541,00.html
The 30-year-old, who claims to have had military training in Pakistan, said he did not want to go to Allah while sleeping in his bed “like an old woman”. Instead: “I want to be blown into pieces with my hands in one place and my feet in another.”

[Ramzi]

I saw a little bit of probably that same show, and was disturbed by the praise Yvonne Ridley herself was giving to this chap. And she always shares cuddly anecdotes about Abu Hamza at her lectures. She seriously needs to get more clued up about the implications of this attitude.

[joe90]

Ask for straight answers you get a load of waffling gibberish - so for what its worth, I'll just make a few observations on experience, standards and authority and the contradictions in my interlocutors rambling collection of unproven assertions trapped in the prison of their own mind and their own situation.

Joe, there are no clear yes or no answers. There never have been. We have to look at these situations and make our own judgments.There never have been. We have to look at these situations and make our own judgments.

If you are only interested in being subjective and ego-driven then fine, I won't have to bother taking you seriously -
- so why you can say I'm wrong on this and that is merely a matter of your own opinion and has no relevance to ordinary standards of reality. You say our own judgements are the supreme arbiter of ethics and reality, but no proof is provided that this is so, or that this childishly naive statement should even be taken seriously. In order to prove it true you're going to need something other than evidence of your own personal senses as they expeirence the world of surface appearance around them. How you are even going to provide the information in a format I can understand has me wondering, if everything is just arbitrary and new and unique all the time, at all times.

You asked me about what I did about British crimes against the Irish?

However, using your own standards, I have to ask what crimes are you talking about against the Irish, and how do you know they were crimes?
According to you there is no such thing as law, which is just authority and mere hindsight anyway, so no crimes were ever committed against the Irish as a matter of pure subjective thought.
Although what is wrong with law or hindsight I can't imagine. Experience is important for human beings and their communities. Without it we wouldn't learn anything and would be no more than animals.

You are either talking gibberish or using double standards - which is it?

You say people have a right to free speech, but again according to your own standards that is a law, a rule, and again mere hindsight which shouldn't be taken seriously.

So which is it - free speech is a right and a good thing or it shouldn't be taken seriously, as it is the law, authority and mere hindsight and to be dismissed?

To demonstrate that colonial oppression against the Irish is a bad thing you are going to have to use experience as your authority. You, however, have ruled out authority as a guide (by your own authority no less - why should I take this seriously as it is clearly a contradiction?) when it comes to internationally agreed standards of behaviour, and the treatment of other victims of the British government. So why are the Irish to be treated differently you haven't said, could you let me know?

I hope this makes sense - I can't be bothered having to re-invent the wheel of commonly agreed standards of facts, evidence arguments and proof every time I have something to say.

[ainelivia]

Well let's put it like this Joe. You have your whole life in front of you, to discover through experience your own answers to those questions. Just as I have done and am still doing. It is confusing, of that there is no doubt. There are no sure and certain routes, and no politics, or beliefs offer one; although they claim to.

To me it appears that there is confusion because you are literally tied up by "commonly agreed standards of facts, evidence arguments and proof". When it is what does your heart tell you is right or wrong.

"To demonstrate that colonial oppression against the Irish is a bad thing you are going to have to use experience as your authority."

Why? In another comment section on this blog it has been said that colonialism, renders people puppets of the colonisier, without the ability to think or make decisions for themselves.

Subjective and ego are not the same thing. Neither is subjective good and objective bad, each has a place.

Joe why don't you go away now. Find someone else to harass.

Oh and can I have an apology for the destruction of the Buddhist Statutes of Bamiyan. Or was that objective actions too.

[ainelivia]

You say in your comment here that I'd need to prove that colonial oppression against the Irish was a bad thing. Yet in the following quotation, by you, on the post "Background to Pope Benedict and Islam", you yourself say, and I quote:

"The Grand Mufti was another western made puppet who decided to ally himself with his own people, the Palestinians, rather than follow the orders of the racist British empire. The Mufti was anti-British imperialist, as were just about every other people in the world, under the heel of the then racist British Empire.

The British Imperialists had decided to give away Palestine to a bunch of European foreigners in their notorious 'Balfour Declaration'. Trying to defend your own homeland and people from racist illegal European zionist colonisers is, apparantly, to be pro-Nazi!" And so by your rationale, it is ok to be involved in genocide, in order to achieve the above."

Now that's a very good argument. Excuse the GM his war crime activities, because he is merely the puppet of the imperialistic colonisier. Of course it is the imperialistic colonisier who is totally at fault and we cannot hold the GM responsible for his actions.

And so it follows, if in this instance, you apply that logic and reasoning to the Grand Mufti's situation, then why can you not apply the same reasoning to the actions of Loyalist Paramilitaries and the IRA.

[joe90]

It is confusing, of that there is no doubt.

- which is why God gave us brains to think with and to use, they tend to cut down on

Subjective and ego are not the same thing. Neither is subjective good and objective bad, each has a place.

- cod philosophical-psychological gibberish!

To demonstrate that colonial oppression against the Irish is a bad thing you are going to have to use experience as your authority."

Why? In another comment section on this blog it has been said that colonialism, renders people puppets of the colonisier, without the ability to think or make decisions for themselves.

- ainilivia is claiming inability to think because they are being colonised - or at least that seems to be what they are trying to say -
- if anyone can work out this gibberish please let me know what it's supposed to mean -
- there is no point asking this ainilivia, they are clearly out to waste people's time

First,
you brought up something about some miners strike, now there is the buddhas from somewhere or other - what are you talking about now, and why should I apologise?

You tell me to go away and harass somebody else, but in the next sentence you demand an apology - which is it you want me to do?
- as usual these two injunctions are contradictory, so no change there then from you -

I thought you said there was no such thing as war crimes? - if there is, you are going to have to accept the authority of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal which you have already rejected -
- so which is it, the Grand Mufti (a title and position given to him by the Mandate occupying British imperialists) is a war criminal or he isn't?

And what were the Grand Mufti's War Crimes, care to enlighten me?

Where, when, how was the Grand Mufti involved in genocide ?
- this is a novel charge I haven't heard before - care to give me some actual evidence and sources, in contrast to merely making assertions.

As far as I am aware the Grand Mufti wasn't involved in deciding Nazi racist policy - neither was the US or Britian who also refused to take in or rescue German Jews from the cluthches of the Nazi.

Britian was at war with Nazi Germany, it was also at war with Vichy France which held Syria - care to expound on why it is so wrong for people under a racist imperialist occupation to side with the enemies of its occupier?

The occupied Syrians wanted rid of their European racist occupiers, likewise Iraq and Iran.

I thought this would be the most natural thing in the world for oppressed people to do. It has nothing to do with the ideology of the regime they are using to help throw off the colonial yoke. The Grand Mufti tried to get help from Nazi Germany because it was at war with Britian, hence anti-British, just like himself and not because he wanted to take part in nazi genocide.

Instead of leaving everything to a spur of the moment personal subjective decision, knowing something about the development and history of international humanitarian law would be of use to you. I always find these things useful myself, such as knowing what constitutes a war crime. Association with Mr Hitler, unfortunately, isn't a war crime.

You refuse to acknowledge the British involvement in the destruction of the Grand Mufti's homeland and People, which continues to this day, or acknowldeg the existence of one of the most notorious documents of the 20th century, 'The Balfour Decleration'.

[ainelivia]

Well Joe, you refuse to acknowledge that the British Government has been directly involved in the destruction of a great many people's homelands, why should one be more important than the next?

You refuse to acknowledge that what the Grand Mufti did, is exactly what you are accusing other politicians of, currently, (for he was after all first and foremost a politician) he (GM) acted in self-interest. And it served his purposes, to intervene with the German Reich, and ensure that thousands of people, Jewish people, from Eastern Europe, instead of being deported from Europe to freedom, were sent to concentration camps ensuring certain death, among them 4,000 children.

There is a very good reason why the Grand Mufti was not tried in Nuremburg with the rest of Hitler's henchmen; it was not because he was innocent, it was because of European and American self-interest. It is there in the history books.

Reallly, why if someone wanted help, would they concern themselves with Hitler's plans for genocide?

Oh and stop throwing this term racist around like it can only be attached to Europeans. The whole world is capable of racism. That's a reality.

[joe90]

I refuse to acknowledge the culpability of British government' involvemnent i criminal activities have I - well ok, let's find out if your assertion is true -
- please quote me on this?

The Grand Mufti played no part whatsoever whith the formation of Nazi racist policy or its the formulation of its 'Final Solution' in 1942 -
- please give me evidence that the Grand Mufti played any role whatsoever in the formation of Nazi eugenics-racist policy

According to your 'guilty-by-association' standard of ethics, it isn't just the Mufti who is guilty of Nazi atrocties -
- one would have to include every western government there is, who all had friendly relations with the Nazi regime up until they were attacked -
- it seems that someone is guilty of Nazi atrocities only if British were at war with Nazis, otherwise, they're not guilty.

Your assertion about the Haj Amin al-Husseini not being arraigned at Nuremberg because of British and US self-interest is utter bilge, and I notice you provide no evidence or sources to substantiate your assertion (which is nothing new - this is your modus oprandi)

Haj Amin al-Husseini lived out his retirement just over the border in Lebanon, which isn't too far away from the racially sterilised utopia of Israel. The Israelis could go to all the trouble to go to South America, kidnap Eichmann, bring him back to Israel to stand trial - but they couldn't be arsed hopping across the Lebanese-Israeli border to pick up the ex-Mufti to stand trial for his war crimes - the Israelis had all the time in the world to pick him up as well!

I don't throw around any terms. I use them quite specifically to attach them as properties to object of which they seem to be part of the character of.

I call people, and institutions racist, if they display racist characteristics. If you think I am wrong please show me the individual instances where I have used this term incorrectly and tell me why it is incorrect (instead of just making an unsubstatiated assertion or allegation that I am wrong - your normal modus operandi)

[joe90]

"Astonishingly, in 1938, as news of of the Nazi camps began to leak out, [David] Ben-Gurion had observed,
'If I knew that it was possible to save all the Jewish children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transporting them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel'"
- David Ben-Gurion (head of the Jewish Agency in Mandate Palestine and Israel's first Prime Minister):
Shabtai Teveth, 'Ben-Gurion: The Burning Ground, 1886-1948',(Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1987, pp855-6.

An extract from http://www.amazon.co.uk/Palestine-Personal-History-Karl-Sabbagh/dp/1843543451/sr=1-1/qid=1159536819/ref=sr_1_1/026-2457436-0249214?ie=UTF8&s=books>Palestine: A Personal History
by Karl Sabbagh (2006) pp242-3 -

- a brilliant little book about pre-Nakba Palestine which I can't recommend enough!

[ainelivia]

I notice that you have been on the Saudi post with more diatribes, and another poor unfortunate has been informed that his comment is invalid because he has not provided "poof, provenance and authority":
oh sorry, that's "proof" not a place to sit.

Dogmatic, dictatorial, and downright off your head.

Watch "Saddam and the Third Reich".

Shabbat Shalom

[joe90]

As with the rest of your pro-Israeli anti-Islamic propaganda,
you've nothing really to say when asked for proof, just a collection of valueless gibberish statements -

So,
according to you the Grand Mufti is as guilty of genocide as the Nazis because the Grand Mufti didn't want European Jews emmigrating to Palestine -

The Grand Mufti wasn't in charge of Mandate Palestine immigration policy, the British were -

The Grand Mufti wasn't in charge of Nazi Germany immigration policy either, so he had no control over what the Nazi did with German Jews, and Jewsish folk of other nationalities, under their control -

The Grand Mufti was always anti-Imperialist andti-British - his policies never changed - only those of the German Nazis and the Britsh changed when they fell out

[George Carty]

If the Grand Mufti wasn't pro-Nazi, why did he organize the creation of a Bosnian Muslim SS division?

Anyway, the Zionists didn't arrest or kill him for the same reason why the IRA didn't kill Ian Paisley - he was too useful as a hate figure to galvanize their supporters.

[ainelivia]

Joe, oh dearieme,

"As with the rest of your pro-Israeli anti Islamic propaganda,you've nothing really to say when asked for proof, just a collection of valueless gibberish statements -"

What makes you think that I am "anti" anyone or "pro" anyone? You keep making assumptions about me and just that, assumptions based on nothing.

Oh, was it my use of the Hebrew Sabbath greeting "Shabbat Shalom"? So what would you make of "Dia is Muire Duit"?

Proof. Proof of what?? A person's opinions; now we need proof?? And I thought the present government were the ones getting a teensy little bit inflexible.

Are ye the one I see arguing with each lampost as he wends his way home each night?

[joe90]

George McCarty,
maybe for the Haj Amin was pro-Nazi for the same reasons there were lots of other nationalities with their own Nazi military outfits - the Balkans were a particular thorn in the side of the Wermacht hence the formation of Muslim units - Chechens also went over to the Wermacht but a lot didn't -
- it doesn't tell a great deal about anyone's morality when there is a war on and your own homeland is being destroyed by one particular side

I seem to remember the British government was very much pro-Nazi at one point until, of course, the Nazis started to attack their interests -
The Nazis and the Stalinists of Soviet Russia got on like a house on fire at obe point, until Nazi-Germany attacked them as well.

So,
the Grand Mufti can only be called pro-Nazi depending on the exact position of the British government at any particular point in time, is this what you are saying ?

If, up until September 1939, the British government was pro-Nazi then it was certainly ok for the Grand Mufti to be pro-Nazi - after that date, if the Grand Mufti didn't toe the British Party line then he could be criticised for being 'pro-Nazi' -

You forget he was anti-British - his attitude didn't change - it was the British government who changed their spots -

The Grand Mufti - damned if he didn't and damned if he didn't!

You seem to forget, George, Haj Amin's beloved Palestine homeland was being taken over and destroyed by a bunch of European foreigners, under the complete control and guidance of the British, or doesn't that count for anything at all?

And what about Vichy collaborators of the Syrian regime - any views on their attitudes at all ?

Well, for whatever reason, Haj Amin was left well alone, which shows how serious the zios were about his supposed involvment in war crimes etc etc, which is what I am saying -
- unless of course, George, you know different - you seem to leave your verdict quite open

ps
I can't be bothered with the rubbish spouted by the tedious, self-proclaimed imagination-leaper, sufficed to say my assumptions about you are based on what you write -
ie the blindingly obvious
- not too much of a leap of the imagination to figure that one out

[ainelivia]

"I can't be bothered with the rubbish spouted by the tedious, self-proclaimed imagination-leaper, sufficed to say my assumptions about you are based on what you write -ie the blindingly obvious
- not too much of a leap of the imagination to figure that one out".

Are you this angry in real life? And what is it you are so angry about? And you seem to spend your time on this blog, venting on everyone. Whatever your issues are, they are your problem and no-one else's. And there seems to be some inability to accept that in this world it is never a case of one side good other side bad. By the very nature of politics, politicians and those who engage in politics will have "gotten their hands dirty at some time". You appear to believe that one side of this argument is "holier than thou", while the other is the "spawn of Satan"! That of course being the base for all well balanced thinking.

[ainelivia]

"The Grand Mufti wasn't in charge of Mandate Palestine immigration policy, the British were".

Incorrect, you have misunderstood.

The Grand Mufti intervened with the German Government, (whilst he lived in Berlin) who had agreed that some East European Jews would be deported to Palestine; he ensured that they were instead shipped off to concentration camps. This had nothing to do with the British.

Sorry if you don't like the facts, the facts are there.

If you insist on dragging red herrings across the "facts" in order to back up your belief that the Grand Mufti was in possession of more integrity than the British or the Germans.

Why don't you just re-write history. Correspond with David Irving, I'm sure he is very experienced at this sort of thing.

Your version of events, and any event is clearly not impartial. Whatever is said you can find reasons why everyone else is to blame. Are you sure you don't have some kind of racist thing against the British? Or anyone who is relatively Anglo-Saxon? Are they rose coloured glasses you wear or one way mirrored?

Slainte

[joe90]

Isn't it strange that you can be coherent when you really want to be, especially when you want to attack Arabs and Muslims, your favourite victims - even if it is only for a sentence or two

So it's down to pure reason now - association with Nazis automatically qualifies you as a Jew-hating war criminal, only if the British aren't at war with the Nazis at the time of course, goes without saying.

As night follows day let's see what happens -
Haj Amin's community was being attacked and destroyed by the Imperialist British and their anti-Palestinian immigration policies. The Brits were carrying out these anti-Palestinian immigration policies before they fell out with the German Nazis in September 1939, and carried on with them after that date.

The Brits didn't allow European Jewish refugees to come and settle in Britian, or allowed such pathetic numbers to settle in Britian as made no difference - the same with every other country in the world. According to your criteria that should make that should make the Brits as guilty as Haj Amin.

After the German Nazi invasion of Eastern Europe in 1941 the Nazis had even more Jewish people on their hands - nobody wanted them, and in 1942 the Brits closed the doors of Mandate Palestine to them a well. Accordng to your criteria that should make the not just the Brits, but the rest of the world, as guilty as Haj Amin.

So by pure reason alone and using your own duff simplistic Muslim-hating criteria,
the rest of the world were nothing but a bunch of Jew-hating Nazis as well.

So why are you so keen to pick on poor Haj Amin for something everybody else is guilty of, but which you fail to point out -
- after all, its not as if the US or the UK, or the rest of the world was under threat of being destroyed by waves of European foreign immigrants as Palestine was, so what was their excuse for not accepting Jewish refugees I wonder?

After all, the Grand Mufti was only doing what everybody else was doing, except of course, he wasn't a Jew-hater. He was doing what he was doing to try to stop his country from being taken over - which actually happened by the way, so he was entirely correct in his assumptions and judgement. Something that sticks in your racist craw to admit!

Haj Amin had every reason to prevent immigration to Palestine, which had already accepted 100s of 1000s of Jewish immigrants, unlike every other country in the world -
- don't you think Palestine had already done its bit, and more than enough, to save European Jewish refugees?

Why should've Palestinians, like Haj Amin el-Husseini, accept anymore European Jewish immigrants, especially when the likes of the US and the UK grudged taking in just a few measly thousand, or so ?

Even the UK, in 1942, prevented any further immigration into Palestine itself of more European Jerwish refugees. Odd you make no comment about the convergence between the Grand Mufti's anti-immigrationa policies and those of the British Administration of Mandate Palestine in 1942.

Why are you holding Palestinians, like the Grand Mufti, to standards you refuse point-blank to hold the British Adminstration itself to, especially from 1942 and onwards?

And why stop there -
The Zionist were pro-Nazi by your reckoning (which they were in real life as well actually - a stange coincidence there for once, between you and actual reality)

Zionists successfully lobbied to get Jewish immigration quotas into the US lowered, so that Jewish folk would have no option but emigrate to Mandate Palestine, despite the fact it's well known, many Jewish folk had absolutely no interest in settling in Palestine.

Zionists terrorists had direct contacts and direct links with Nazis, and as my David Ben-Gurion quotation above (which seems to have slipped ypour small attention span) reveals many Jewish-Zionists didn't mind Nazis and their methods at all.

I don't see any version of events by you - I see one or two emprical facts joined together by mindless assumptions and flawed reasoning due to your own ignorance of the facts of the case. How would you know if historians were fabricating history or not ? You have to be acquainted with the historical record to notice these false reconstruction and fabricated narratives. Ascribing such an acquaintance on your part, to actual historical works as there is, would be another mindless assumption and a complete fabrication, the likes of which, I'm sure, would make even the most dodgy historian blush.

[ainelivia]

Joe "After all, the Grand Mufti was only doing what everybody else was doing, except of course, he wasn't a Jew-hater."

And that simply, was the point I was trying to make, from the beginning of this discussion.

[joe90]

No it wasn't - you don't know what point you're trying to make at any given point in time, except to trash Muslims - nobody knows what your talking about -

You clearly picked out and stated Haj Amin was a war criminal and responisble for Nazi crimes against innocent defenceless Jewish people -

- you said absolutley nothing about anyone else's culpability - you had a shallow criteria of 'association' which Haj Amin cleraly met and therefore he was guilty

I reduced your own racist dogma to its absurd conclusion by bringing in lots of actual real historic facts and evidence relevent to the situation - clearly you were out your depth when it came to actual reality on the ground -

And you are still out of touch when you claim you are agreeing with me, or me with you -

Excuse the GM his war crime activities, because he is merely the puppet of the imperialistic colonisier. Of course it is the imperialistic colonisier who is totally at fault and we cannot hold the GM responsible for his actions.

- just to quote something that is actually coherent and out of the ordinary, from your extended and extensive ad hominum arguments - this contradicts what you have just saad - so no change there then

[ainelivia]

Joe, speaking of trashing people, your attacks on me are pretty much an attempt to trash.

As I have said before and will repeat. I am not on anyone's side; however, your utterances have been so biased that I feel the need to speak up for impartiality. That which you say is not available either in government policy and media attention.

I am not agreeing with you. I am pointing out that you in this statement:

"After all, the Grand Mufti was only doing what everybody else was doing, except of course, he wasn't a Jew-hater."

finally came to utter the idea that I had expounded in the first place, that no one was without responsibility in this, not even the little known figure of the GM.

Actually I think you are a racist. The stuff you shout, shouting down everyone who dares to question you is extremely aggressive and bullying. You have little personal self-awareness.

The name calling that you indulge in is just the usual school-boy bullying tactics and you will as is the wont of such people continue to do it until you have silenced others. Only your views are worthy, because you have "proof".

The people you claim to be defending, don't really need your kind of defence; which is all about you, getting attention on yourself and behaving like a despicable little bully.

Most of the time here you spend attacking others for their views, and propounding your own garbage. You constantly go on about facist governments and then you behave like one.

Joe90 wasn't that one of the Anderson Puppets, who's pulling your strings??

[ainelivia]

"Excuse the GM his war crime activities, because he is merely the puppet of the imperialistic colonisier.

"Of course it is the imperialistic colonisier who is totally at fault and we cannot hold the GM responsible for his actions."

You really don't get sarcasm do you?

What this says in context is: According to your reasoning -that the imperialistic coloniser is always responsible- , therefore we cannot on that basis of reasoning, hold the poor powerless little victim of the coloniser, GM, responsible for his actions".

As I have said before, and it bears repeating, either you are deliberately seeking to misunderstand what I say, or you don't understand certain nuances of the english language.

Either or both being possible.

And there was no agreement between you and I, nor would I even wish to conjure it up. As evidenced by your mutterings and splutterings, you appear to be an extremely predjudiced person. There is little balance to your views, it's either one or the other, and when people don't agree with you, you resort to name calling.

Reminds me of that well-known English Facist, Edward Mosely.

[CubicAO]

Yeah, I find myself sympathising with this criticism of those Muslim parents. I don't want to be shallow and superficial and categorise all Muslims as possessing the kind of terrorist mentality that leads to September 11 2001 World Trade Centre attacks. However, criticism is certainly justified against the Islamic religion, as well as against any other religion.

How could I approve of the slander of Muslim youth? Extremism or politics, they have their religion, and it is at odds with the western religion. Religion vs. religion, they clash and combat in a battle of the ideologies.